I***


E-text prepared by Richard J. Shiffer and the Project Gutenberg Online
Distributed Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net)



Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this
      file which includes the original illustrations.
      See 28020-h.htm or 28020-h.zip:
      (http://www.gutenberg.net/dirs/2/8/0/2/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm)
      or
      (http://www.gutenberg.net/dirs/2/8/0/2/28020/28020-h.zip)


Transcriber's note:

      Every effort has been made to replicate this text as faithfully
      as possible, including obsolete and variant spellings and other
      inconsistencies.

      Many occurrences of mismatched single and double quotes remain
      as they were in the original.

      Text that has been changed to correct an obvious error is noted
      at the end of this ebook.





HISTORY OF WOMAN SUFFRAGE.

Edited by

ELIZABETH CADY STANTON, SUSAN B. ANTHONY, AND MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE.

Illustrated with Steel Engravings.

In Three Volumes.

VOL. I.

1848-1861.


"GOVERNMENTS DERIVE THEIR JUST POWERS FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED."


[Illustration: FRANCES WRIGHT (with autograph).]







Second Edition.

Susan B. Anthony.
Rochester, N. Y.: Charles Mann.
London: 25 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden.
Paris. G. Fischbacher, 33 Rue De Seine.
1889.

Copyright, 1881, by
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and
Matilda Joslyn Gage.

Copyright, 1887, by Susan B. Anthony.



                          THESE VOLUMES

                               ARE

                     AFFECTIONATELY INSCRIBED

                             TO THE

                            Memory of

                       MARY WOLLSTONECRAFT,
  FRANCES WRIGHT, LUCRETIA MOTT, HARRIET MARTINEAU, LYDIA MARIA CHILD,
   MARGARET FULLER, SARAH AND ANGELINA GRIMKE, JOSEPHINE S. GRIFFING,
      MARTHA C. WRIGHT, HARRIOT K. HUNT, M.D., MARIANA W. JOHNSON,
         ALICE AND PHEBE CAREY, ANN PRESTON, M.D., LYDIA MOTT,
              ELIZA W. FARNHAM, LYDIA F. FOWLER, M.D.,
                        PAULINA WRIGHT DAVIS,

        Whose Earnest Lives and Fearless Words, in Demanding
               Political Rights for Women, have been,
                 in the Preparation of these Pages,
                       a Constant Inspiration

                                TO

                           The Editors.




PREFACE.

In preparing this work, our object has been to put into permanent
shape the few scattered reports of the Woman Suffrage Movement still
to be found, and to make it an arsenal of facts for those who are
beginning to inquire into the demands and arguments of the leaders of
this reform. Although the continued discussion of the political rights
of woman during the last thirty years, forms a most important link in
the chain of influences tending to her emancipation, no attempt at its
history has been made. In giving the inception and progress of this
agitation, we who have undertaken the task have been moved by the
consideration that many of oar co-workers have already fallen asleep,
and that in a few years all who could tell the story will have passed
away.

In collecting material for these volumes, most of those of whom we
solicited facts have expressed themselves deeply interested in our
undertaking, and have gladly contributed all they could, feeling that
those identified with this reform were better qualified to prepare a
faithful history with greater patience and pleasure, than those of
another generation possibly could.

A few have replied, "It is too early to write the history of this
movement; wait until our object is attained; the actors themselves can
not write an impartial history; they have had their discords,
divisions, personal hostilities, that unfit them for the work."
Viewing the enfranchisement of woman as the most important demand of
the century, we have felt no temptation to linger over individual
differences. These occur in all associations, and may be regarded in
this case as an evidence of the growing self-assertion and
individualism in woman.

Woven with the threads of this history, we have given some personal
reminiscences and brief biographical sketches. To the few who, through
ill-timed humility, have refused to contribute any of their early
experiences we would suggest, that as each brick in a magnificent
structure might have had no special value alone on the road-side, yet,
in combination with many others, its size, position, quality, becomes
of vital consequence; so with the actors in any great reform, though
they may be of little value in themselves; as a part of a great
movement they may be worthy of mention--even important to the
completion of an historical record.

To be historians of a reform in which we have been among the chief
actors, has its points of embarrassment as well as advantage. Those
who fight the battle can best give what all readers like to know--the
impelling motives to action; the struggle in the face of opposition;
the vexation under ridicule; and the despair in success too long
deferred. Moreover, there is an interest in history written from a
subjective point of view, that may compensate the reader in this case
for any seeming egotism or partiality he may discover. As an
autobiography is more interesting than a sketch by another, so is a
history written by its actors, as in both cases we get nearer the soul
of the subject.

We have finished our task, and we hope the contribution we have made
may enable some other hand in the future to write a more complete
history of "the most momentous reform that has yet been launched on
the world--the first organized protest against the injustice which has
brooded over the character and destiny of one-half the human race."




CONTENTS.

                                                                    PAGE

  CHAPTER I.

  PRECEDING CAUSES.


  CHAPTER II.

  WOMAN IN NEWSPAPERS.


  CHAPTER III.

  THE WORLD'S ANTI-SLAVERY CONVENTION, LONDON, JUNE 13, 1840.

  Individualism rather than Authority--Personal appearance of
  Abolitionists--Attempt to silence Woman--Doable battle against the
  tyranny of sex and color--Bigoted Abolitionists--James G. Birney likes
  freedom on a Southern plantation, but not at his own fireside--John
  Bull never dreamt that Woman would answer his call--The venerable
  Thomas Clarkson received by the Convention standing--Lengthy debate on
  "Female" delegates--The "Females" rejected--William Lloyd Garrison
  refusing to sit in the Convention                                   50


  CHAPTER IV.

  NEW YORK.

  The First Woman's Rights Convention, Seneca Falls, July 19-80,
  1848--Property Bights of Women secured--Judge Fine, George Geddes,
  and Mr. Hadley pushing the Bill through--Danger of meddling with
  well-settled conditions of domestic happiness--Mrs. Barbara Hertell's
  will--Richard Hunt's tea-table--The eventful day--James Mott
  President--Declaration of sentiments--Convention in Rochester--
  Opposition with Bible arguments                                     63


  CHAPTER V.

  MRS. COLLINS' REMINISCENCES.

  The first Suffrage Society--Methodist class-leader whips his
  wife--Theology enchains the soul--The status of women and slaves the
  same--The first medical college opened to women--Petitions to the
  Legislature laughed at, and laid on the table--Dependence woman's best
  protection; her weakness her sweetest charm--Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell's
  letter--Sketch of Ernestine L. Rose                                 88


  CHAPTER VI.

  OHIO.

  The promised land of fugitives--"Uncle Tom's Cabin"--Salem Convention,
  1850--Akron, 1851--Massilon, 1853--The address to the women of
  Ohio--The Mohammedan law forbidding pigs, dogs, women, and other
  impure animals to enter a Mosque--The _New York Tribune_--Cleveland
  Convention, 1853--Hon. Joshua K. Giddings--Letter from Horace
  Greeley--A glowing eulogy to Mary Wollstonecraft--William Henry
  Channing's Declaration--The pulpit and public sentiment--President Asa
  Mahan debates--The Rev. Dr. Nevin pulls Mr. Garrison's nose--
  Antoinette L. Brown describes her exit from the World's Temperance
  Convention--Cincinnati Convention, 1855--Jane Elizabeth Jones'
  Report, 1861                                                       101


  CHAPTER VII.

  REMINISCENCES BY CLARINA I. HOWARD NICHOLS.

  VERMONT: Editor _Windham County Democrat_--Property Laws, 1847 and
  1849--Address to the Legislature on school suffrage, 1852.

  WISCONSIN: Woman's State Temperance Society--Lydia F. Fowler in
  company--Opposition of Clergy--"Woman's Rights" wouldn't
  do--Advertised "Men's Rights."

  KANSAS: Free State Emigration, 1854--Gov. Robinson and
  Senator Pomeroy--Woman's Rights speeches on Steamboat, and at
  Lawrence--Constitutional Convention, 1859--State Woman Suffrage
  Association--John O. Wattles, President--Aid from the Francis Jackson
  Fund--Canvassing the State--School Suffrage gained.

  MISSOURI: Lecturing at St. Joseph, 1858, on Col. Scott's
  Invitation--Westport and the John Brown raid, 1859--St. Louis,
  1854--Frances D. Gage, Rev. Wm. G. Eliot, and Rev. Mr. Weaver      171


  CHAPTER VIII.

  MASSACHUSETTS.

  Women in the Revolution--Anti-Tea Leagues--Phillis Wheatley--Mistress
  Anne Hutchinson--Heroines in the Slavery Conflict--Women Voting under
  the Colonial Charter--Mary Upton Ferrin Petitions the Legislature in
  1848--Woman's Rights Convention in 1850, '51--Letter of Harriet
  Martineau from England--Letter of Jeannie Deroine from a Prison Cell
  in Paris--Editorial from _The Christian Enquirer_--_The Una_, edited
  by Paulina Wright Davis--Constitutional Convention in 1858--Before the
  Legislature in 1857--Harriot K. Hunt's Protest against Taxation--Lucy
  Stone's Protest against the Marriage Laws--Boston Conventions--
  Theodore Parker on Woman's Position                                201


  CHAPTER IX.

  INDIANA AND WISCONSIN.

  Indiana Missionary Station--Gen. Arthur St. Clair--Indian
  surprises--The terrible war-whoop--One hundred women join the army,
  and are killed fighting bravely--Prairie schooners--Manufactures in
  the hands of women--Admitted to the Union in 1816--Robert Dale
  Owen--Woman Suffrage Conventions--Wisconsin--C. L. Sholes' report  290


  CHAPTER X.

  PENNSYLVANIA.

  William Penn--Independence Hall--British troops--Heroism of
  women--Lydia Darrah--Who designed the Flag--Anti-slavery movements in
  Philadelphia--Pennsylvania Hall destroyed by a mob--David Paul
  Brown--Fugitives--Millard Fillmore--John Brown--Angelina Grimke--Abby
  Kelly--Mary Grew--Temperance in 1848--Hannah Darlington and Ann
  Preston before the Legislature--Medical College for Women in
  1850--Westchester Woman's Rights Convention, 1852--Philadelphia
  Convention, 1854--Lucretia Mott answers Richard H. Dana--Jane Grey
  Swisshelm--Sarah Josepha Hale--Anna McDowell--Rachel Foster searching
  the records--Sketch of Angelina Grimke                             320


  CHAPTER XI.

  LUCRETIA MOTT.

  Eulogy at the Memorial Services held at Washington by the National
  Woman Suffrage Association, January 19, 1881. By Elizabeth Cady
  Stanton                                                            407


  CHAPTER XII.

  NEW JERSEY.

  Tory feeling in New Jersey--Hannah Arnett rebuked the traitor
  spirit--Mrs. Dissosway rejects all proposals to disloyalty--Triumphal
  arch erected by the ladies of Trenton in honor of Washington--His
  letter to the ladies--The origin of Woman Suffrage in New Jersey--A
  paper read by William A. Whitehead before the Historical
  Society--Defects in the Constitution of New Jersey--A singular
  pamphlet called "Eumenes"--Opinion of Hon. Charles James Fox--Mr.
  Whitehead reviewed                                                 441


  CHAPTER XIII.

  MRS. STANTON'S REMINISCENCES.

  Mrs. Stanton's and Miss Anthony's first meeting--An objective view of
  these ladies from a friend's standpoint--A glimpse at their private
  life--The pronunciamentos they issued from the fireside--Mrs. Wright,
  Mrs. Seward, Mrs. Worden, Mrs. Mott, in council--How Mrs. Worden
  voted--Ladies at Newport dancing with low necks and short sleeves, and
  objecting to the publicity of the platform--Senator Seward discussing
  Woman's Rights at a dinner-party--Mrs. Seward declares herself a
  friend to the reform--A magnetic circle in Central New York--Matilda
  Joslyn Gage: her early education and ancestors--A series of
  Anti-Slavery Conventions from Buffalo to Albany--Mobbed at every
  point--Mayor Thatcher maintains order in the Convention at the
  Capital--Great excitement over a fugitive wife from the insane
  asylum--The Bloomer costume--Gerrit Smith's home                   456


  CHAPTER XIV.

  NEW YORK.

  First Steps in New York--Woman's Temperance Convention, Albany,
  January, 1852--New York Woman's State Temperance Society, Rochester,
  April, 1852--Women before the Legislature pleading for a Maine
  Law--Women rejected as Delegates to Men's State Conventions at Albany
  and Syracuse, 1852; at the Brick Church Meeting and World's
  Temperance Convention In New York, 1853--Horace Greeley defends the
  Rights of Women In _The New York Tribune_--The Teachers' State
  Conventions--The Syracuse National Woman's Rights Convention,
  1852--Mob in the Broadway Tabernacle Woman's Rights Convention through
  two days, 1853--State Woman's Rights Convention at Rochester,
  December, 1853--Albany Convention, February, 1854, and Hearing before
  the Legislature demanding the Right of Suffrage--A State Committee
  appointed--Susan B. Anthony General Agent--Conventions at Saratoga
  Springs, 1854, '55, '59--Annual State Conventions with Legislative
  Hearings and Reports of Committees, until the War--Married Women's
  Property Law, 1860--Bill before the Legislature Granting Divorce for
  Drunkenness--Horace Greeley and Thurlow Weed oppose it--Ernestine L.
  Rose, Lucretia Mott, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton Address the
  Legislature in favor of the Bill--Robert Dale Owen defends the Measure
  in _The New York Tribune_--National Woman's Rights Conventions in New
  York City, 1856, '58, '59, '60--Status of the Woman's Rights Movement
  at the Opening of the War, 1861                                    472


  CHAPTER XV.

  WOMAN, CHURCH, AND STATE.

  Woman under old religions--Woman took part in offices of early
  Christian Church Councils--Original sin--Celibacy of the clergy--Their
  degrading sensuality--Feudalism--Marriage--Debasing externals and
  daring ideas--Witchcraft--Three striking points for consideration--
  Burning of Witches--Witchcraft in New England--Marriage with
  devils--Rights of property not recognized in woman--Wife
  ownership--Women legislated for as slaves--Marriage under the Greek
  Church--The Salic and Cromwellian eras--The Reformation--Woman under
  monastic rules in the home--The Mormon doctrine regarding woman; its
  logical result--Milton responsible for many existing views in regard
  to woman--Woman's subordination taught to-day--The See trial--Right
  Rev. Coxe--Rev. Knox-Little--Pan-Presbyterians--Quakers not as liberal
  as they have been considered--Restrictive action of the Methodist
  Church--Offensive debate upon ordaining Miss Oliver--The Episcopal
  Church and its restrictions--Sunday-school teachings--Week-day school
  teachings--Sermon upon woman's subordination by the President of a
  Baptist Theological Seminary--Professor Christlieb of Germany--"Dear,
  will you bring me my shawl?"--Female sex looked upon as a
  degradation--A sacrilegious child--Secretary Evarts, in the
  Beecher-Tilton trial, upon woman's subordination--Women degraded in
  science and education--Large-hearted men upon woman's degradation--
  Wives still sold in the market-place as "mares," by ahalter around
  their necks--Degrading servile labor performed by woman in Christian
  countries--A lower degradation--"Queen's women"--"Government
  women"--Interpolations in the Bible--Letter from Howard Crosby,
  D.D., LL.D.                                                        752


  APPENDIX                                                           801




LIST OF ENGRAVINGS.

                                   VOL. I.

  FRANCES WRIGHT                                            Frontispiece
  ERNESTINE L. WRIGHT                                           page  97
  FRANCES D. GAGE                                                    129
  CLARINA HOWARD NICHOLS                                             193
  PAULINA WRIGHT DAVIS                                               273
  LUCRETIA MOTT                                                      369
  ANTOINETTE L. BROWN                                                449
  AMELIA BLOOMER                                                     497
  SUSAN B. ANTHONY                                                   577
  MARTHA C. WRIGHT                                                   641
  ELIZABETH CADY STANTON                                             721
  MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE                                                753




INTRODUCTION.


The prolonged slavery of woman is the darkest page in human history. A
survey of the condition of the race through those barbarous periods,
when physical force governed the world, when the motto, "might makes
right," was the law, enables one to account, for the origin of woman's
subjection to man without referring the fact to the general
inferiority of the sex, or Nature's law.

Writers on this question differ as to the cause of the universal
degradation of woman in all periods and nations.

One of the greatest minds of the century has thrown a ray of light on
this gloomy picture by tracing the origin of woman's slavery to the
same principle of selfishness and love of power in man that has thus
far dominated all weaker nations and classes. This brings hope of
final emancipation, for as all nations and classes are gradually, one
after another, asserting and maintaining their independence, the path
is clear for woman to follow. The slavish instinct of an oppressed
class has led her to toil patiently through the ages, giving all and
asking little, cheerfully sharing with man all perils and privations
by land and sea, that husband and sons might attain honor and success.
Justice and freedom for herself is her latest and highest demand.

Another writer asserts that the tyranny of man over woman has its
roots, after all, in his nobler feelings; his love, his chivalry, and
his desire to protect woman in the barbarous periods of pillage, lust,
and war. But wherever the roots may be traced, the results at this
hour are equally disastrous to woman. Her best interests and happiness
do not seem to have been consulted in the arrangements made for her
protection. She has been bought and sold, caressed and crucified at
the will and pleasure of her master. But if a chivalrous desire to
protect woman has always been the mainspring of man's dominion over
her, it should have prompted him to place in her hands the same
weapons of defense he has found to be most effective against wrong and
oppression.

It is often asserted that as woman has always been man's
slave--subject--inferior--dependent, under all forms of government and
religion, slavery must be her normal condition. This might have some
weight had not the vast majority of men also been enslaved for
centuries to kings and popes, and orders of nobility, who, in the
progress of civilization, have reached complete equality. And did we
not also see the great changes in woman's condition, the marvelous
transformation in her character, from a toy in the Turkish harem, or a
drudge in the German fields, to a leader of thought in the literary
circles of France, England, and America!

In an age when the wrongs of society are adjusted in the courts and at
the ballot-box, material force yields to reason and majorities.

Woman's steady march onward, and her growing desire for a broader
outlook, prove that she has not reached her normal condition, and that
society has not yet conceded all that is necessary for its attainment.

Moreover, woman's discontent increases in exact proportion to her
development. Instead of a feeling of gratitude for rights accorded,
the wisest are indignant at the assumption of any legal disability
based on sex, and their feelings in this matter are a surer test of
what her nature demands, than the feelings and prejudices of the sex
claiming to be superior. American men may quiet their consciences with
the delusion that no such injustice exists in this country as in
Eastern nations, though with the general improvement in our
institutions, woman's condition must inevitably have improved also,
yet the same principle that degrades her in Turkey, insults her in
this republic. Custom forbids a woman there to enter a mosque, or call
the hour for prayers; here it forbids her a voice in Church Councils
or State Legislatures. The same taint of her primitive state of
slavery affects both latitudes.

The condition of married women, under the laws of all countries, has
been essentially that of slaves, until modified, in some respects,
within the last quarter of a century in the United States. The change
from the old Common Law of England, in regard to the civil rights of
women, from 1848 to the advance legislation in most of the Northern
States in 1880, marks an era both in the status of woman as a citizen
and in our American system of jurisprudence. When the State of New
York gave married women certain rights of property, the individual
existence of the wife was recognized, and the old idea that "husband
and wife are one, and that one the husband," received its death-blow.
From that hour the statutes of the several States have been steadily
diverging from the old English codes. Most of the Western States
copied the advance legislation of New York, and some are now even more
liberal.

The broader demand for political rights has not commanded the thought
its merits and dignity should have secured. While complaining of many
wrongs and oppressions, women themselves did not see that the
political disability of sex was the cause of all their special
grievances, and that to secure equality anywhere, it must be
recognized everywhere. Like all disfranchised classes, they begun by
asking to have certain wrongs redressed, and not by asserting their
own right to make laws for themselves.

Overburdened with cares in the isolated home, women had not the time,
education, opportunity, and pecuniary independence to put their
thoughts clearly and concisely into propositions, nor the courage to
compare their opinions with one another, nor to publish them, to any
great extent, to the world.

It requires philosophy and heroism to rise above the opinion of the
wise men of all nations and races, that to be unknown, is the highest
testimonial woman can have to her virtue, delicacy and refinement.

A certain odium has ever rested on those who have risen above the
conventional level and sought new spheres for thought and action, and
especially on the few who demand complete equality in political
rights. The leaders in this movement have been women of superior
mental and physical organization, of good social standing and
education, remarkable alike for their domestic virtues, knowledge of
public affairs, and rare executive ability; good speakers and writers,
inspiring and conducting the genuine reforms of the day; everywhere
exerting themselves to promote the best interests of society; yet they
have been uniformly ridiculed, misrepresented, and denounced in public
and private by all classes of society.

Woman's political equality with man is the legitimate outgrowth of the
fundamental principles of our Government, clearly set forth in the
Declaration of Independence in 1776, in the United States Constitution
adopted in 1784, in the prolonged debates on the origin of human
rights in the anti-slavery conflict in 1840, and in the more recent
discussions of the party in power since 1865, on the 13th, 14th, and
15th Amendments to the National Constitution; and the majority of our
leading statesmen have taken the ground that suffrage is a natural
right that may be regulated, but can not be abolished by State law.

Under the influence of these liberal principles of republicanism that
pervades all classes of American minds, however vaguely, if suddenly
called out, they might be stated, woman readily perceives the
anomalous position she occupies in a republic, where the government
and religion alike are based on individual conscience and
judgment--where the natural rights of all citizens have been
exhaustively discussed, and repeatedly declared equal.

From the inauguration of the government, representative women have
expostulated against the inconsistencies between our principles and
practices as a nation. Beginning with special grievances, woman's
protests soon took a larger scope. Having petitioned State
legislatures to change the statutes that robbed her of children,
wages, and property, she demanded that the Constitutions--State and
National--be so amended as to give her a voice in the laws, a choice
in the rulers, and protection in the exercise of her rights as a
citizen of the United States.

While the laws affecting woman's civil rights have been greatly
improved during the past thirty years, the political demand has made
but a questionable progress, though it must be counted as the chief
influence in modifying the laws. The selfishness of man was readily
enlisted in securing woman's civil rights, while the same element in
his character antagonized her demand for political equality.

Fathers who had estates to bequeath to their daughters could see the
advantage of securing to woman certain property rights that might
limit the legal power of profligate husbands.

Husbands in extensive business operations could see the advantage of
allowing the wife the right to hold separate property, settled on her
in time of prosperity, that might not be seized for his debts. Hence
in the several States able men championed these early measures. But
political rights, involving in their last results equality everywhere,
roused all the antagonism of a dominant power, against the
self-assertion of a class hitherto subservient. Men saw that with
political equality for woman, they could no longer keep her in social
subordination, and "the majority of the male sex," says John Stuart
Mill, "can not yet tolerate the idea of living with an equal." The
fear of a social revolution thus complicated the discussion. The
Church, too, took alarm, knowing that with the freedom and education
acquired in becoming a component part of the Government, woman would
not only outgrow the power of the priesthood, and religious
superstitions, but would also invade the pulpit, interpret the Bible
anew from her own stand-point, and claim an equal voice in all
ecclesiastical councils. With fierce warnings and denunciations from
the pulpit, and false interpretations of Scripture, women have been
intimidated and misled, and their religious feelings have been played
upon for their more complete subjugation. While the general principles
of the Bible are in favor of the most enlarged freedom and equality of
the race, isolated texts have been used to block the wheels of
progress in all periods; thus bigots have defended capital punishment,
intemperance, slavery, polygamy, and the subjection of woman. The
creeds of all nations make obedience to man the corner-stone of her
religious character. Fortunately, however, more liberal minds are now
giving us higher and purer expositions of the Scriptures.

As the social and religious objections appeared against the demand for
political rights, the discussion became many-sided, contradictory, and
as varied as the idiosyncrasies of individual character. Some said,
"Man is woman's natural protector, and she can safely trust him to
make laws for her." She might with fairness reply, as he uniformly
robbed her of all property rights to 1848, he can not safely be
trusted with her personal rights in 1880, though the fact that he did
make some restitution at last, might modify her distrust in the
future. However, the calendars of our courts still show that fathers
deal unjustly with daughters, husbands with wives, brothers with
sisters, and sons with their own mothers. Though woman needs the
protection of one man against his whole sex, in pioneer life, in
threading her way through a lonely forest, on the highway, or in the
streets of the metropolis on a dark night, she sometimes needs, too,
the protection of all men against this one. But even if she could be
sure, as she is not, of the ever-present, all-protecting power of one
strong arm, that would be weak indeed compared with the subtle,
all-pervading influence of just and equal laws for all women. Hence
woman's need of the ballot, that she may hold in her own right hand
the weapon of self-protection and self-defense.

Again it is said: "The women who make the demand are few in number,
and their feelings and opinions are abnormal, and therefore of no
weight in considering the aggregate judgment on the question." The
number is larger than appears on the surface, for the fear of public
ridicule, and the loss of private favors from those who shelter, feed,
and clothe them, withhold many from declaring their opinions and
demanding their rights. The ignorance and indifference of the majority
of women, as to their status as citizens of a republic, is not
remarkable, for history shows that the masses of all oppressed
classes, in the most degraded conditions, have been stolid and
apathetic until partial success had crowned the faith and enthusiasm
of the few.

The insurrections on Southern plantations were always defeated by the
doubt and duplicity of the slaves themselves. That little band of
heroes who precipitated the American Revolution in 1776 were so
ostracised that they walked the streets with bowed heads, from a sense
of loneliness and apprehension. Woman's apathy to the wrongs of her
sex, instead of being a plea for her remaining in her present
condition, is the strongest argument against it. How completely
demoralized by her subjection must she be, who does not feel her
personal dignity assailed when all women are ranked in every State
Constitution with idiots, lunatics, criminals, and minors; when in the
name of Justice, man holds one scale for woman, another for himself;
when by the spirit and letter of the laws she is made responsible for
crimes committed against her, while the male criminal goes free; when
from altars where she worships no woman may preach; when in the
courts, where girls of tender age may be arraigned for the crime of
infanticide, she may not plead for the most miserable of her sex; when
colleges she is taxed to build and endow, deny her the right to share
in their advantages; when she finds that which should be her
glory--her possible motherhood--treated everywhere by man as a
disability and a crime! A woman insensible to such indignities needs
some transformation into nobler thought, some purer atmosphere to
breathe, some higher stand-point from which to study human rights.

It is said, "the difference between the sexes indicates different
spheres." It would be nearer the truth to say the difference indicates
different duties in the same sphere, seeing that man and woman were
evidently made for each other, and have shown equal capacity in the
ordinary range of human duties. In governing nations, leading armies,
piloting ships across the sea, rowing life-boats in terrific gales; in
art, science, invention, literature, woman has proved herself the
complement of man in the world of thought and action. This difference
does not compel us to spread our tables with different food for man
and woman, nor to provide in our common schools a different course of
study for boys and girls. Sex pervades all nature, yet the male and
female tree and vine and shrub rejoice in the same sunshine and shade.
The earth and air are free to all the fruits and flowers, yet each
absorbs what best ensures its growth. But whatever it is, it requires
no special watchfulness on our part to see that it is maintained. This
plea, when closely analyzed, is generally found to mean woman's
inferiority.

The superiority of man, however, does not enter into the demand for
suffrage, for in this country all men vote; and as the lower orders of
men are not superior, either by nature or grace, to the higher orders
of women, they must hold and exercise the right of self-government on
some other ground than superiority to women.

Again it is said, "Woman when independent and self-asserting will lose
her influence over man." In the happiest conditions in life, men and
women will ever be mutually dependent on each other. The complete
development of all woman's powers will not make her less capable of
steadfast love and friendship, but give her new strength to meet the
emergencies of life, to aid those who look to her for counsel and
support. Men are uniformly more attentive to women of rank, family,
and fortune, who least need their care, than to any other class. We do
not see their protecting love generally extending to the helpless and
unfortunate ones of earth. Wherever the skilled hands and cultured
brain of woman have made the battle of life easier for man, he has
readily pardoned her sound judgment and proper self-assertion. But the
prejudices and preferences of man should be a secondary consideration,
in presence of the individual happiness and freedom of woman. The
formation of her character and its influence on the human race, is a
larger question than man's personal liking. There is no fear, however,
that when a superior order of women shall grace the earth, there will
not be an order of men to match them, and influence over such minds
will atone for the loss of it elsewhere.

An honest fear is sometimes expressed "that woman would degrade
politics, and politics would degrade woman." As the influence of woman
has been uniformly elevating in new civilizations, in missionary work
in heathen nations, in schools, colleges, literature, and in general
society, it is fair to suppose that politics would prove no exception.
On the other hand, as the art of government is the most exalted of all
sciences, and statesmanship requires the highest order of mind, the
ennobling and refining influence of such pursuits must elevate rather
than degrade woman. When politics degenerate into bitter persecutions
and vulgar court-gossip, they are degrading to man, and his honor,
virtue, dignity, and refinement are as valuable to woman as her
virtues, are to him.

Again, it is said, "Those who make laws must execute them; government
needs force behind it,--a woman could not be sheriff or a policeman."
She might not fill these offices in the way men do, but she might far
more effectively guard the morals of society, and the sanitary
conditions of our cities. It might with equal force be said that a
woman of culture and artistic taste can not keep house, because she
can not wash and iron with her own hands, and clean the range and
furnace. At the head of the police, a woman could direct her forces
and keep order without ever using a baton or a pistol in her own
hands. "The elements of sovereignty," says Blackstone, "are three:
wisdom, goodness, and power." Conceding to woman wisdom and goodness,
as they are not strictly masculine virtues, and substituting moral
power for physical force, we have the necessary elements of government
for most of life's emergencies. Women manage families, mixed schools,
charitable institutions, large boarding-houses and hotels, farms and
steam-engines, drunken and disorderly men and women, and stop street
fights, as well as men do. The queens in history compare favorably
with the kings.

But, "in the settlement of national difficulties," it is said, "the
last resort is war; shall we summon our wives and mothers to the
battle-field?" Women have led armies in all ages, have held positions
in the army and navy for years in disguise. Some fought, bled, and
died on the battle-field in our late war. They performed severe labors
in the hospitals and sanitary department. Wisdom would dictate a
division of labor in war as well as in peace, assigning each their
appropriate department.

Numerous classes of men who enjoy their political rights are exempt
from military duty. All men over forty-five, all who suffer mental or
physical disability, such as the loss of an eye or a forefinger;
clergymen, physicians, Quakers, school-teachers, professors, and
presidents of colleges, judges, legislators, congressmen, State prison
officials, and all county, State and National officers; fathers,
brothers, or sons having certain relatives dependent on them for
support,--all of these summed up in every State in the Union make
millions of voters thus exempted.

In view of this fact there is no force in the plea, that "if women
vote they must fight." Moreover, war is not the normal state of the
human family in its higher development, but merely a feature of
barbarism lasting on through the transition of the race, from the
savage to the scholar. When England and America settled the Alabama
Claims by the Geneva Arbitration, they pointed the way for the future
adjustment of all national difficulties.

Some fear, "If women assume all the duties political equality implies,
that the time and attention necessary to the duties of home life will
be absorbed in the affairs of State." The act of voting occupies but
little time in itself, and the vast majority of women will attend to
their family and social affairs to the neglect of the State, just as
men do to their individual interests. The virtue of patriotism is
subordinate in most souls to individual and family aggrandizement. As
to offices, it is not to be supposed that the class of men now
elected will resign to women their chances, and if they should to any
extent, the necessary number of women to fill the offices would make
no apparent change in our social circles. If, for example, the Senate
of the United States should be entirely composed of women, but two in
each State would be withdrawn from the pursuit of domestic happiness.
For many reasons, under all circumstances, a comparatively smaller
proportion of women than men would actively engage in politics.

As the power to extend or limit the suffrage rests now wholly in the
hands of man, he can commence the experiment with as small a number as
he sees fit, by requiring any lawful qualification. Men were admitted
on property and educational qualifications in most of the States, at
one time, and still are in some--so hard has it been for man to
understand the theory of self-government. Three-fourths of the women
would be thus disqualified, and the remaining fourth would be too
small a minority to precipitate a social revolution or defeat
masculine measures in the halls of legislation, even if women were a
unit on all questions and invariably voted together, which they would
not. In this view, the path of duty is plain for the prompt action of
those gentlemen who fear universal suffrage for women, but are willing
to grant it on property and educational qualifications. While those
who are governed by the law of expediency should give the measure of
justice they deem safe, let those who trust the absolute right
proclaim the higher principle in government, "equal rights to all."

Many seeming obstacles in the way of woman's enfranchisement will be
surmounted by reforms in many directions. Co-operative labor and
co-operative homes will remove many difficulties in the way of woman's
success as artisan and housekeeper, when admitted to the governing
power. The varied forms of progress, like parallel lines, move forward
simultaneously in the same direction. Each reform, at its inception,
seems out of joint with all its surroundings; but the discussion
changes the conditions, and brings them in line with the new idea.

The isolated household is responsible for a large share of woman's
ignorance and degradation. A mind always in contact with children and
servants, whose aspirations and ambitions rise no higher than the roof
that shelters it, is necessarily dwarfed in its proportions. The
advantages to the few whose fortunes enable them to make the isolated
household a more successful experiment, can not outweigh the
difficulties of the many who are wholly sacrificed to its
maintenance.

Quite as many false ideas prevail as to woman's true position in the
home as to her status elsewhere. Womanhood is the great fact in her
life; wifehood and motherhood are but incidental relations.
Governments legislate for men; we do not have one code for bachelors,
another for husbands and fathers; neither have the social relations of
women any significance in their demands for civil and political
rights. Custom and philosophy, in regard to woman's happiness, are
alike based on the idea that her strongest social sentiment is love of
children; that in this relation her soul finds complete satisfaction.
But the love of offspring, common to all orders of women and all forms
of animal life, tender and beautiful as it is, can not as a sentiment
rank with conjugal love. The one calls out only the negative virtues
that belong to apathetic classes, such as patience, endurance,
self-sacrifice, exhausting the brain-forces, ever giving, asking
nothing in return; the other, the outgrowth of the two supreme powers
in nature, the positive and negative magnetism, the centrifugal and
centripetal forces, the masculine and feminine elements, possessing
the divine power of creation, in the universe of thought and action.
Two pure souls fused into one by an impassioned love--friends,
counselors--a mutual support and inspiration to each other amid life's
struggles, must know the highest human happiness;--this is marriage;
and this is the only corner-stone of an enduring home. Neither does
ordinary motherhood, assumed without any high purpose or preparation,
compare in sentiment with the lofty ambition and conscientious
devotion of the artist whose pure children of the brain in poetry,
painting, music, and science are ever beckoning her upward into an
ideal world of beauty. They who give the world a true philosophy, a
grand poem, a beautiful painting or statue, or can tell the story of
every wandering star; a George Eliot, a Rosa Bonheur, an Elizabeth
Barrett Browning, a Maria Mitchell--whose blood has flowed to the
higher arches of the brain,--have lived to a holier purpose than they
whose children are of the flesh alone, into whose minds they have
breathed no clear perceptions of great principles, no moral
aspiration, no spiritual life.

Her rights are as completely ignored in what is adjudged to be woman's
sphere as out of it; the woman is uniformly sacrificed to the wife and
mother. Neither law, gospel, public sentiment, nor domestic affection
shield her from excessive and enforced maternity, depleting alike to
mother and child;--all opportunity for mental improvement, health,
happiness--yea, life itself, being ruthlessly sacrificed. The weazen,
weary, withered, narrow-minded wife-mother of half a dozen
children--her interests all centering at her fireside, forms a painful
contrast in many a household to the liberal, genial, brilliant,
cultured husband in the zenith of his power, who has never given one
thought to the higher life, liberty, and happiness of the woman by his
side; believing her self-abnegation to be Nature's law.

It is often asked, "if political equality would not rouse antagonisms
between the sexes?" If it could be proved that men and women had been
harmonious in all ages and countries, and that women were happy and
satisfied in their slavery, one might hesitate in proposing any change
whatever. But the apathy, the helpless, hopeless resignation of a
subjected class can not be called happiness. The more complete the
despotism, the more smoothly all things move on the surface. "Order
reigns in Warsaw." In right conditions, the interests of man and woman
are essentially one; but in false conditions, they must ever be
opposed. The principle of equality of rights underlies all human
sentiments, and its assertion by any individual or class must rouse
antagonism, unless conceded. This has been the battle of the ages, and
will be until all forms of slavery are banished from the earth.
Philosophers, historians, poets, novelists, alike paint woman the
victim ever of man's power and selfishness. And now all writers on
Eastern civilization tell us, the one insurmountable obstacle to the
improvement of society in those countries, is the ignorance and
superstition of the women. Stronger than the trammels of custom and
law, is her religion, which teaches that her condition is
Heaven-ordained. As the most ignorant minds cling with the greatest
tenacity to the dogmas and traditions of their faith, a reform that
involves an attack on that stronghold can only be carried by the
education of another generation. Hence the self-assertion, the
antagonism, the rebellion of woman, so much deplored in England and
the United States, is the hope of our higher civilization. A woman
growing up under American ideas of liberty in government and religion,
having never blushed behind a Turkish mask, nor pressed her feet in
Chinese shoes, can not brook any disabilities based on sex alone,
without a deep feeling of antagonism with the power that creates it.
The change needed to restore good feeling can not be reached by
remanding woman to the spinning-wheel, and the contentment of her
grandmother, but by conceding to her every right which the spirit of
the age demands. Modern inventions have banished the spinning-wheel,
and the same law of progress makes the woman of to-day a different
woman from her grandmother.

With these brief replies to the oft-repeated objections made by the
opposition, we hope to rouse new thoughts in minds prepared to receive
them. That equal rights for woman have not long ago been secured, is
due to causes beyond the control of the actors in this reform. "The
success of a movement," says Lecky, "depends much less upon the force
of its arguments, or upon the ability of its advocates, than the
predisposition of society to receive it."




CHAPTER I.

PRECEDING CAUSES.


As civilization advances there is a continual change in the standard
of human rights. In barbarous ages the right of the strongest was the
only one recognized; but as mankind progressed in the arts and
sciences intellect began to triumph over brute force. Change is a law
of life, and the development of society a natural growth. Although to
this law we owe the discoveries of unknown worlds, the inventions of
machinery, swifter modes of travel, and clearer ideas as to the value
of human life and thought, yet each successive change has met with the
most determined opposition. Fortunately, progress is not the result of
pre-arranged plans of individuals, but is born of a fortuitous
combination of circumstances that compel certain results, overcoming
the natural inertia of mankind. There is a certain enjoyment in
habitual sluggishness; in rising each morning with the same ideas as
the night before; in retiring each night with the thoughts of the
morning. This inertia of mind and body has ever held the multitude in
chains. Thousands have thus surrendered their most sacred rights of
conscience. In all periods of human development, thinking has been
punished as a crime, which is reason sufficient to account for the
general passive resignation of the masses to their conditions and
environments.

Again, "subjection to the powers that be" has been the lesson of both
Church and State, throttling science, checking invention, crushing
free thought, persecuting and torturing those who have dared to speak
or act outside of established authority. Anathemas and the stake have
upheld the Church, banishment and the scaffold the throne, and the
freedom of mankind has ever been sacrificed to the idea of protection.
So entirely has the human will been enslaved in all classes of society
in the past, that monarchs have humbled themselves to popes, nations
have knelt at the feet of monarchs, and individuals have sold
themselves to others under the subtle promise of "protection"--a word
that simply means release from all responsibility, all use of one's
own faculties--a word that has ever blinded people to its true
significance. Under authority and this false promise of "protection,"
self-reliance, the first incentive to freedom, has not only been lost,
but the aversion of mankind for responsibility has been fostered by
the few, whose greater bodily strength, superior intellect, or the
inherent law of self-development has impelled to active exertion.
Obedience and self-sacrifice--the virtues prescribed for subordinate
classes, and which naturally grow out of their condition--are alike
opposed to the theory of individual rights and self-government. But as
even the inertia of mankind is not proof against the internal law of
progress, certain beliefs have been inculcated, certain crimes
invented, in order to intimidate the masses. Hence, the Church made
free thought the worst of sins, and the spirit of inquiry the worst of
blasphemies; while the State proclaimed her temporal power of divine
origin, and all rebellion high treason alike to God and the king, to
be speedily and severely punished. In this union of Church and State
mankind touched the lowest depth of degradation. As late as the time
of Bunyan the chief doctrine inculcated from the pulpit was obedience
to the temporal power.

All these influences fell with crushing weight on woman; more
sensitive, helpless, and imaginative, she suffered a thousand fears
and wrongs where man did one. Lecky, in his "History of Rationalism in
Europe," shows that the vast majority of the victims of fanaticism and
witchcraft, burned, drowned, and tortured, were women. Guizot, in his
"History of Civilization," while decrying the influence of caste in
India, and deploring it as the result of barbarism, thanks God there
is no system of caste in Europe; ignoring the fact that in all its
dire and baneful effects, the caste of sex everywhere exists, creating
diverse codes of morals for men and women, diverse penalties for
crime, diverse industries, diverse religions and educational rights,
and diverse relations to the Government. Men are the Brahmins, women
the Pariahs, under our existing civilization. Herbert Spencer's
"Descriptive Sociology of England," an epitome of English history,
says: "Our laws are based on the all-sufficiency of man's rights, and
society exists to-day for woman only in so far as she is in the
keeping of some man." Thus society, including our systems of
jurisprudence, civil and political theories, trade, commerce,
education, religion, friendships, and family life, have all been
framed on the sole idea of man's rights. Hence, he takes upon himself
the responsibility of directing and controlling the powers of woman,
under that all-sufficient excuse of tyranny, "divine right." This same
cry of divine authority created the castes of India; has for ages
separated its people into bodies, with different industrial,
educational, civil, religious, and political rights; has maintained
this separation for the benefit of the superior class, and sedulously
taught the doctrine that any change in existing conditions would be a
sin of most direful magnitude.

The opposition of theologians, though first to be exhibited when any
change is proposed, for reason that change not only takes power from
them, but lessens the reverence of mankind for them, is not in its
final result so much to be feared as the opposition of those holding
political power. The Church, knowing this, has in all ages aimed to
connect itself with the State. Political freedom guarantees religious
liberty, freedom to worship God according to the dictates of one's own
conscience, fosters a spirit of inquiry, creates self-reliance,
induces a feeling of responsibility.

The people who demand authority for every thought and action, who look
to others for wisdom and protection, are those who perpetuate tyranny.
The thinkers and actors who find their authority within, are those who
inaugurate freedom. Obedience to outside authority to which woman has
everywhere been trained, has not only dwarfed her capacity, but made
her a retarding force in civilization, recognized at last by statesmen
as a dangerous element to free institutions. A recent writer, speaking
of Turkey, says: "All attempts for the improvement of that nation must
prove futile, owing to the degradation of its women; and their
elevation is hopeless so long as they are taught by their religion
that their condition is ordained of heaven." Gladstone, in one of his
pamphlets on the revival of Catholicism in England, says: "The spread
of this religion is due, as might be expected, to woman;" thus
conceding in both cases her power to block the wheels of progress.
Hence, in the scientific education of woman, in the training of her
faculties to independent thought and logical reasoning, lies the hope
of the future.

The two great sources of progress are intellect and wealth. Both
represent power, and are the elements of success in life. Education
frees the mind from the bondage of authority and makes the individual
self-asserting. Remunerative industry is the means of securing to its
possessor wealth and education, transforming the laborer to the
capitalist. Work in itself is not power; it is but the means to an
end. The slave is not benefited by his industry; he does not receive
the results of his toil; his labor enriches another--adds to the power
of his master to bind his chains still closer. Although woman has
performed much of the labor of the world, her industry and economy
have been the very means of increasing her degradation. Not being
free, the results of her labor have gone to build up and sustain the
very class that has perpetuated this injustice. Even in the family,
where we should naturally look for the truest conditions, woman has
always been robbed of the fruits of her own toil. The influence the
Catholic Church has had on religious free thought, that monarchies
have had on political free thought, that serfdom has had upon free
labor, have all been cumulative in the family upon woman. Taught that
father and husband stood to her in the place of God, she has been
denied liberty of conscience, and held in obedience to masculine will.
Taught that the fruits of her industry belonged to others, she has
seen man enter into every avocation most suitable to her, while she,
the uncomplaining drudge of the household, condemned to the severest
labor, has been systematically robbed of her earnings, which have gone
to build up her master's power, and she has found herself in the
condition of the slave, deprived of the results of her own labor.
Taught that education for her was indelicate and irreligious, she has
been kept in such gross ignorance as to fall a prey to superstition,
and to glory in her own degradation. Taught that a low voice is an
excellent thing in woman, she has been trained to a subjugation of the
vocal organs, and thus lost the benefit of loud tones and their
well-known invigoration of the system. Forbidden to run, climb, or
jump, her muscles have been weakened, and her strength deteriorated.
Confined most of the time to the house, she has neither as strong
lungs nor as vigorous a digestion as her brother. Forbidden to enter
the pulpit, she has been trained to an unquestioning reverence for
theological authority and false belief upon the most vital interests
of religion. Forbidden the medical profession, she has at the most
sacred times of her life been left to the ignorant supervision of male
physicians, and seen her young children die by thousands. Forbidden to
enter the courts, she has seen her sex unjustly tried and condemned
for crimes men were incapable of judging.

Woman has been the great unpaid laborer of the world, and although
within the last two decades a vast number of new employments have been
opened to her, statistics prove that in the great majority of these,
she is not paid according to the value of the work done, but according
to sex. The opening of all industries to woman, and the wage question
as connected with her, are most subtle and profound questions of
political economy, closely interwoven with the rights of
self-government.

The revival of learning had its influence upon woman, and we find in
the early part of the fourteenth century a decided tendency toward a
recognition of her equality. Christine of Pisa, the most eminent woman
of this period, supported a family of six persons by her pen, taking
high ground on the conservation of morals in opposition to the general
licentious spirit of the age. Margaret of Angouleme, the brilliant
Queen of Navarre, was a voluminous writer, her Heptameron rising to
the dignity of a French classic. A paper in the _Revue des Deux
Mondes_, a few years since, by M. Henri Baudrillart, upon the
"Emancipation of Woman," recalls the fact that for nearly four hundred
years, men, too, have been ardent believers in equal rights for woman.

In 1509, Cornelius Agrippa, a great literary authority of his time,
published a work of this character. Agrippa was not content with
claiming woman's equality, but in a work of thirty chapters devoted
himself to proving "the superiority of woman." In less than fifty
years (1552) Ruscelli brought out a similar work based on the Platonic
Philosophy. In 1599, Anthony Gibson wrote a book which in the prolix
phraseology of the times was called, "A Woman's Worth defended against
all the Men in the World, proving to be more Perfect, Excellent, and
Absolute, in all Virtuous Actions, than any man of What Quality
Soever." While these sturdy male defenders of the rights of woman met
with many opponents, some going so far as to assert that women were
beings not endowed with reason, they were sustained by many vigorous
writers among women. Italy, then the foremost literary country of
Europe, possessed many women of learning, one of whom, Lucrezia
Morinella, a Venetian lady, wrote a work entitled, "The Nobleness and
Excellence of Women, together with the Faults and Imperfections of
Men."

The seventeenth century gave birth to many essays and books of a like
character, not confined to the laity, as several friars wrote upon the
same subject. In 1696, Daniel De Foe wished to have an institute
founded for the better education of young women. He said: "We reproach
the sex every day for folly and impertinence, while I am confident had
they the advantages of education equal to us, they would be guilty of
less than ourselves." Alexander's History of Women, John Paul Ribera's
work upon Women, the two huge quartos of De Costa upon the same
subject, Count Segur's "Women: Their Condition and Influence," and
many other works showed the drift of the new age.

The Reformation, that great revolution in religious thought, loosened
the grasp of the Church upon woman, and is to be looked upon as one of
the most important steps in this reform. In the reign of Elizabeth,
England was called the Paradise of Women. When Elizabeth ascended the
throne, it was not only as queen, but she succeeded her father as the
head of the newly-formed rebellious Church, and she held firm grasp on
both Church and State during the long years of her reign, bending
alike priest and prelate to her fiery will. The reign of Queen Anne,
called the Golden Age of English Literature, is especially noticeable
on account of Mary Astell and Elizabeth Elstob. The latter, speaking
nine languages, was most famous for her skill in the Saxon tongue. She
also replied to current objections made to woman's learning. Mary
Astell elaborated a plan for a Woman's College, which was favorably
received by Queen Anne, and would have been carried out, but for the
opposition of Bishop Burnett.

During the latter part of the eighteenth century, there were public
discussions by women in England, under the general head of Female
Parliament. These discussions took wide range, touching upon the
entrance of men into those industries usually assigned to women, and
demanding for themselves higher educational advantages, and the right
to vote at elections, and to be returned members of Parliament.

The American Revolution, that great political rebellion of the ages,
was based upon the inherent rights of the individual. Perhaps in none
but English Colonies, by descendants of English parents, could such a
revolution have been consummated. England had never felt the bonds of
feudalism to the extent of many countries; its people had defied its
monarchs and wrested from them many civil rights, rights which
protected women as well as men, and although its common law, warped by
ecclesiasticism, expended its chief rigors upon women, yet at an early
day they enjoyed certain ecclesiastical and political powers unknown
to women elsewhere. Before the Conquest, abbesses sat in councils of
the Church and signed its decrees; while kings were even dependent
upon their consent in granting certain charters. The synod of Whitby,
in the ninth century, was held in the convent of the Abbess Hilda, she
herself presiding over its deliberations. The famous prophetess of
Kent at one period communicated the orders of Heaven to the Pope
himself. Ladies of birth and quality sat in council with the Saxon
Witas--_i.e._, wise men--taking part in the Witenagemot, the great
National Council of our Saxon ancestors in England. In the seventh
century this National Council met at Baghamstead to enact a new code
of laws, the queen, abbesses, and many ladies of quality taking part
and signing the decrees. Passing by other similar instances, we find
in the reign of Henry III, that four women took seats in Parliament,
and in the reign of Edward I. ten ladies were called to Parliament,
while in the thirteenth century, Queen Elinor became keeper of the
Great Seal, sitting as Lord Chancellor in the _Aula Regia_, the
highest court of the Kingdom. Running back two or three centuries
before the Christian era, we find Martia, her seat of power in London,
holding the reins of government so wisely as to receive the surname of
Proba, the Just. She especially devoted herself to the enactment of
just laws for her subjects, the first principles of the common law
tracing back to her; the celebrated laws of Alfred, and of Edward the
Confessor, being in great degree restorations and compilations from
the laws of Martia, which were known as the "Martian Statutes."

When the American colonies began their resistance to English tyranny,
the women--all this inherited tendency to freedom surging in their
veins--were as active, earnest, determined, and self-sacrificing as
the men, and although, as Mrs. Ellet in her "Women of the Revolution"
remarks, "political history says but little, and that vaguely and
incidentally, of the women who bore their part in the revolution," yet
that little shows woman to have been endowed with as lofty a
patriotism as man, and to have as fully understood the principles upon
which the struggle was based. Among the women who manifested deep
political insight, were Mercy Otis Warren, Abigail Smith Adams, and
Hannah Lee Corbin; all closely related to the foremost men of the
Revolution. Mrs. Warren was a sister of James Otis, whose fiery words
did so much to arouse and intensify the feelings of the colonists
against British aggression. This brother and sister were united to the
end of their lives in a friendship rendered firm and enduring by the
similarity of their intellects and political views. The home of Mrs.
Warren was the resort of patriotic spirits and the headquarters of the
rebellion. She herself wrote, "By the Plymouth fireside were many
political plans organized, discussed, and digested." Her
correspondence with eminent men of the Revolution was extensive and
belongs to the history of the country. She was the first one who based
the struggle upon "inherent rights," a phrase afterward made the
corner-stone of political authority. Mrs. Warren asserted that
"'inherent rights' belonged to all mankind, and had been conferred on
all by the God of nations." She numbered Jefferson among her
correspondents, and the Declaration of Independence shows the
influence of her mind. Among others who sought her counsel upon
political matters were Samuel and John Adams, Dickinson, that pure
patriot of Pennsylvania, Jefferson, Gerry, and Knox. She was the first
person who counseled separation and pressed those views upon John
Adams, when he sought her advice before the opening of the first
Congress. At that time even Washington had no thought of the final
independence of the colonies, emphatically denying such intention or
desire on their part, and John Adams was shunned in the streets of
Philadelphia for having dared to hint such a possibility. Mrs. Warren
sustained his sinking courage and urged him to bolder steps. Her
advice was not only sought in every emergency, but political parties
found their arguments in her conversation. Mrs. Warren looked not to
the freedom of man alone, but to that of her own sex also.

England itself had at least one woman who watched the struggle of
America with lively interest, and whose writings aided in the
dissemination of republican ideas. This was the celebrated Catharine
Sawbridge Macaulay, one of the greatest minds England has ever
produced--a woman so noted for her republican ideas that after her
death a statue was erected to her as the "Patroness of Liberty."
During the whole of the Revolutionary period, Washington was in
correspondence with Mrs. Macaulay, who did much to sustain him during
those days of trial. She and Mrs. Warren were also correspondents at
that time. She wrote several works of a republican character, for home
influence; among these, in 1775. "An Address to the people of England,
Scotland, and Ireland, on the present Important Crisis of Affairs,"
designed to show the justice of the American cause. The gratitude
American's feel toward Edmund Burke for his aid, might well be
extended to Mrs. Macaulay.

Abigail Smith Adams, the wife of John Adams, was an American woman
whose political insight was worthy of remark. She early protested
against the formation of a new government in which woman should be
unrecognized, demanding for her a voice and representation. She was
the first American woman who threatened rebellion unless the rights of
her sex were secured. In March, 1776, she wrote to her husband, then
in the Continental Congress, "I long to hear you have declared an
independency, and, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose
it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the
ladies, and be more generous and favorable to them than your
ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of husbands.
Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care
and attention are not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment
a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound to obey any laws in
which we have no voice or representation." Again and again did Mrs.
Adams urge the establishment of an independency and the limitation of
man's power over woman, declaring all arbitrary power dangerous and
tending to revolution. Nor was she less mindful of equal advantages
of education. "If you complain of education in sons, what shall I say
in regard to daughters, who every day experience the want of it?" She
expressed a strong wish that the new Constitution might be
distinguished for its encouragement of learning and virtue. Nothing
more fully shows the dependent condition of a class than the methods
used to secure their wishes. Mrs. Adams felt herself obliged to appeal
to masculine selfishness in showing the reflex action woman's
education would have upon man. "If," said she, "we mean to have
heroes, statesmen, and philosophers, we should have learned women."
Thus did the Revolutionary Mothers urge the recognition of equal
rights when the Government was in the process of formation. Although
the first plot of ground in the United States for a public school had
been given by a woman (Bridget Graffort), in 1700, her sex were denied
admission. Mrs. Adams, as well as her friend Mrs. Warren, had in their
own persons felt the deprivations of early educational advantages. The
boasted public school system of Massachusetts, created for boys only,
opened at last its doors to girls, merely to secure its share of
public money. The women of the South, too, early demanded political
equality. The counties of Mecklenberg and Rowan, North Carolina, were
famous for the patriotism of their women. Mecklenberg claims to have
issued the first declaration of independence, and, at the centennial
celebration of this event in May, 1875, proudly accepted for itself
the derisive name given this region by Tarleton's officers, "The
Hornet's Nest of America." This name--first bestowed by British
officers upon Mrs. Brevard's mansion, then Tarleton's headquarters,
where that lady's fiery patriotism and stinging wit discomfited this
General in many a sally--was at last held to include the whole county.
In 1778, only two years after the Declaration of Independence was
adopted, and while the flames of war were still spreading over the
country, Hannah Lee Corbin, of Virginia, the sister of General Richard
Henry Lee, wrote him, protesting against the taxation of women unless
they were allowed to vote. He replied that "women were already
possessed of that right," thus recognizing the fact of woman's
enfranchisement as one of the results of the new government, and it is
on record that women in Virginia did at an early day exercise the
right of voting. New Jersey also specifically secured this right to
women on the 2d of July, 1776--a right exercised by them for more than
a third of a century. Thus our country started into governmental life
freighted with the protests of the Revolutionary Mothers against being
ruled without their consent. From that hour to the present, women have
been continually raising their voices against political tyranny, and
demanding for themselves equality of opportunity in every department
of life.

In 1790, Mary Wollstonecraft's "Vindication of the Rights of Women,"
published in London, attracted much attention from liberal minds. She
examined the position of woman in the light of existing civilizations,
and demanded for her the widest opportunities of education, industry,
political knowledge, and the right of representation. Although her
work is filled with maxims of the highest morality and purest wisdom,
it called forth such violent abuse, that her husband appealed for her
from the judgment of her contemporaries to that of mankind. So exalted
were her ideas of woman, so comprehensive her view of life, that
Margaret Fuller, in referring to her, said: "Mary Wollstonecraft--a
woman whose existence proved the need of some new interpretation of
woman's rights, belonging to that class who by birth find themselves
in places so narrow that, by breaking bonds, they become outlaws."
Following her, came Jane Marcet, Eliza Lynn, and Harriet
Martineau--each of whom in the early part of the nineteenth century,
exerted a decided influence upon the political thought of England.
Mrs. Marcet was one of the most scientific and highly cultivated
persons of the age. Her "Conversations on Chemistry," familiarized
that science both in England and America, and from it various male
writers filched their ideas. It was a text-book in this country for
many years. Over one hundred and sixty thousand copies were sold,
though the fact that this work emanated from the brain of a woman was
carefully withheld. Mrs. Marcet also wrote upon political economy, and
was the first person who made the subject comprehensive to the popular
mind. Her manner of treating it was so clear and vivid, that the
public, to whom it had been a hidden science, were able to grasp the
subject. Her writings were the inspiration of Harriet Martineau, who
followed her in the same department of thought at a later period. Miss
Martineau was a remarkable woman. Besides her numerous books on
political economy, she was a regular contributor to the London _Daily
News_, the second paper in circulation in England, for many years
writing five long articles weekly, also to Dickens' _Household Words_,
and the _Westminster Review_. She saw clearly the spirit and purpose
of the Anti-Slavery Movement in this country, and was a regular
contributor to the _National Anti-Slavery Standard_, published in New
York. Eliza Lynn, an Irish lady, was at this time writing leading
editorials for political papers. In Russia, Catharine II., the
absolute and irresponsible ruler of that vast nation, gave utterance
to views, of which, says La Harpe, the revolutionists of France and
America fondly thought themselves the originators. She caused her
grandchildren to be educated into the most liberal ideas, and Russia
was at one time the only country in Europe where political refugees
could find safety. To Catharine, Russia is indebted for the first
proposition to enfranchise the serfs, but meeting strong opposition
she was obliged to relinquish this idea, which was carried to fruition
by her great-grandson, Alexander.

This period of the eighteenth century was famous for the executions of
women on account of their radical political opinions, Madame Roland,
the leader of the liberal party in France, going to the guillotine
with the now famous words upon her lips, "Oh, Liberty, what crimes are
committed in thy name!" The beautiful Charlotte Corday sealed with her
life her belief in liberty, while Sophia Lapierre barely escaped the
same fate; though two men, Sieyes and Condorcet, in the midst of the
French Revolution, proposed the recognition of woman's political
rights.

Frances Wright, a person of extraordinary powers of mind, born in
Dundee, Scotland, in 1797, was the first woman who gave lectures on
political subjects in America. When sixteen years of age she heard of
the existence of a country in which freedom for the people had been
proclaimed; she was filled with joy and a determination to visit the
American Republic where the foundations of justice, liberty, and
equality had been so securely laid. In 1820 she came here, traveling
extensively North and South. She was at that time but twenty-two years
of age. Her letters gave Europeans the first true knowledge of
America, and secured for her the friendship of LaFayette. Upon her
second visit she made this country her home for several years. Her
radical ideas on theology, slavery, and the social degradation of
woman, now generally accepted by the best minds of the age, were then
denounced by both press and pulpit, and maintained by her at the risk
of her life. Although the Government of the United States was framed
on the basis of entire separation of Church and State, yet from an
early day the theological spirit had striven to unite the two, in
order to strengthen the Church by its union with the civil power. As
early as 1828, the standard of "The Christian Party in Politics" was
openly unfurled. Frances Wright had long been aware of its insidious
efforts, and its reliance upon women for its support. Ignorant,
superstitious, devout, woman's general lack of education made her a
fitting instrument for the work of thus undermining the republic.
Having deprived her of her just rights, the country was new to find in
woman its most dangerous foe. Frances Wright lectured that winter in
the large cities of the West and Middle States, striving to rouse the
nation to the new danger which threatened it. The clergy at once
became her most bitter opponents. The cry of "infidel" was started on
every side, though her work was of vital importance to the country and
undertaken from the purest philanthropy. In speaking of her
persecutions she said: "The injury and inconvenience of every kind and
every hour to which, in these days, a really consistent reformer
stands exposed, none can conceive but those who experience them. Such
become, as it were, excommunicated after the fashion of the old
Catholic Mother Church, removed even from the protection of law, such
as it is, and from the sympathy of society, for whose sake they
consent to be crucified."

Among those who were advocating the higher education of women, Mrs.
Emma Willard became noted at this period. Born with a strong desire
for learning, she keenly felt the educational disadvantages of her
sex. She began teaching at an early day, introducing new studies and
new methods in her school, striving to secure public interest in
promoting woman's education. Governor Clinton, of New York, impressed
with the wisdom of her plans, invited her to move her school from
Connecticut to New York. She accepted, and in 1819 established a
school in Watervleit, which soon moved to Troy, and in time built up a
great reputation. Through the influence of Governor Clinton, the
Legislature granted a portion of the educational fund to endow this
institution, which was the first instance in the United States of
Government aid for the education of women. Amos B. Eaton, Professor of
the Natural Sciences in the Rensselaer Institute, Troy, at this time,
was Mrs. Willard's faithful friend and teacher. In the early days it
was her custom, in introducing a new branch of learning into her
seminary, to study it herself, reciting to Professor Eaton every
evening the lesson of the next day. Thus she went through botany,
chemistry, mineralogy, astronomy, and the higher mathematics. As she
could not afford teachers for these branches, with faithful study she
fitted herself. Mrs. Willard's was the first girls' school in which
the higher mathematics formed part of the course, but such was the
prejudice against a liberal education for woman, that the first public
examination of a girl in geometry (1829) created as bitter a storm of
ridicule as has since assailed women who have entered the law, the
pulpit, or the medical profession. The derision attendant upon the
experiment of advancing woman's education, led Governor Clinton to say
in his message to the Legislature: "I trust you will not be deterred
by commonplace ridicule from extending your munificence to this
meritorious institution." At a school convention in Syracuse, 1845,
Mrs. Willard suggested the employment of woman as superintendents of
public schools, a measure since adopted in many States. She also
projected the system of normal schools for the higher education of
teachers. A scientific explorer as well as student, she wrote a work
on the "Motive Power in the Circulation of the Blood," in
contradiction to Harvey's theory, which at once attracted the
attention of medical men. This work was one of the then accumulating
evidences of woman's adaptation to medical study.

In Ancient Egypt the medical profession was in the hands of women, to
which we may attribute that country's almost entire exemption from
infantile diseases, a fact which recent discoveries fully
authenticate. The enormous death-rate of young children in modern
civilized countries may be traced to woman's general enforced
ignorance of the laws of life, and to the fact that the profession of
medicine has been too exclusively in the hands of men. Though through
the dim past we find women still making discoveries, and in the feudal
ages possessing knowledge of both medicine and surgery, it is but
recently that they have been welcomed as practitioners into the
medical profession. Looking back scarcely a hundred years, we find
science much indebted to woman for some of its most brilliant
discoveries. In 1736, the first medical botany was given to the world
by Elizabeth Blackwell, a woman physician, whom the persecutions of
her male compeers had cast into jail for debt. As Bunyan prepared his
"Pilgrim's Progress" between prison walls, so did Elizabeth Blackwell,
no-wise disheartened, prepare her valuable aid to medical science
under the same conditions. Lady Montague's discovery of a check to the
small-pox, Madam Boivin's discovery of the hidden cause of certain
hemorrhages, Madam de Condray's invention of the manikin, are among
the notable steps which opened the way to the modern Elizabeth
Blackwell, Harriot K. Hunt, Clemence S. Lozier, Ann Preston, Hannah
Longshore, Marie Jackson, Laura Ross Wolcott, Marie Zakrzewska, and
Mary Putnam Jacobi, who are some of the earlier distinguished American
examples of woman's skill in the healing art.

Mary Gove Nichols gave public lectures upon anatomy in the United
States in 1838. Paulina Wright (Davis) followed her upon physiology in
1844, using a manikin in her illustrations.[1] Mariana Johnson
followed Mrs. Davis, but it was 1848 before Elizabeth Blackwell--the
first woman to pass through the regular course of medical
study--received her diploma at Geneva.[2] In 1845-6, preceding Miss
Blackwell's course of study, Dr. Samuel Gregory and his brother George
issued pamphlets advocating the education and employment of
women-physicians, and, in 1847, Dr. Gregory delivered a series of
lectures in Boston upon that subject, followed in 1848 by a school
numbering twelve ladies, and an association entitled the "American
Female Medical Education Society." In 1832, Lydia Maria Child
published her "History of Woman," which was the first American
storehouse of information upon the whole question, and undoubtedly
increased the agitation. In 1836, Ernestine L. Rose, a Polish
lady--banished from her native country by the Austrian tyrant, Francis
Joseph, for her love of liberty--came to America, lecturing in the
large cities North and South upon the "Science of Government." She
advocated the enfranchisement of woman. Her beauty, wit, and eloquence
drew crowded houses. About this period Judge Hurlbut, of New York, a
leading member of the Bar, wrote a vigorous work on "Human Rights,"[3]
in which he advocated political equality for women. This work
attracted the attention of many legal minds throughout that State. In
the winter of 1836, a bill was introduced into the New York
Legislature by Judge Hertell, to secure to married women their rights
of property. This bill was drawn up under the direction of Hon. John
Savage, Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court, and Hon. John C. Spencer,
one of the revisers of the statutes of New York. It was in furtherance
of this bill that Ernestine L. Rose and Paulina Wright at that early
day circulated petitions. The very few names they secured show the
hopeless apathy and ignorance of the women as to their own rights. As
similar bills[4] were pending in New York until finally passed in
1848, a great educational work was accomplished in the constant
discussion of the topics involved. During the winters of 1844-5-6,
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, living in Albany, made the acquaintance of
Judge Hurlbut and a large circle of lawyers and legislators, and,
while exerting herself to strengthen their convictions in favor of the
pending bill, she resolved at no distant day to call a convention for
a full and free discussion of woman's rights and wrongs.

In 1828, Sarah and Angelina Grimke, daughters of a wealthy planter of
Charleston, South Carolina, emancipated their slaves and came North to
lecture on the evils of slavery, leaving their home and native place
forever because of their hatred of this wrong. Angelina was a natural
orator. Fresh from the land of bondage, there was a fervor in her
speech that electrified her hearers and drew crowds wherever she went.
Sarah published a book reviewing the Bible arguments the clergy were
then making in their pulpits to prove that the degradation of the
slave and woman were alike in harmony with the expressed will of God.
Thus women from the beginning took an active part in the Anti-Slavery
struggle. They circulated petitions, raised large sums of money by
fairs, held prayer-meetings and conventions. In 1835, Angelina wrote
an able letter to William Lloyd Garrison, immediately after the Boston
mob. These letters and appeals were considered very effective
abolition documents.

In May, 1837, a National Woman's Anti-Slavery Convention was held in
New York, in which eight States were represented by seventy-one
delegates. The meetings were ably sustained through two days. The
different sessions were opened by prayer and reading of the Scriptures
by the women themselves. A devout, earnest spirit prevailed. The
debates, resolutions, speeches, and appeals were fully equal to those
in any Convention held by men of that period. Angelina Grimke was
appointed by this Convention to prepare an appeal for the slaves to
the people of the free States, and a letter to John Quincy Adams
thanking him for his services in defending the right of petition for
women and slaves, qualified with the regret that by expressing himself
"adverse to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia," he
did not sustain the cause of freedom and of God. She wrote a stirring
appeal to the Christian women of the South, urging them to use their
influence against slavery. Sarah also wrote an appeal to the clergy of
the South, conjuring them to use their power for freedom.

Among those who took part in these conventions we find the names of
Lydia Maria Child, Mary Grove, Henrietta Sargent, Sarah Pugh, Abby
Kelley, Mary S. Parker, of Boston, who was president of the
Convention; Anne Webster, Deborah Shaw, Martha Storrs, Mrs. A. L.
Cox, Rebecca B. Spring, and Abigail Hopper Gibbons, a daughter of that
noble Quaker philanthropist, Isaac T. Hopper.

Abby Kelley was the most untiring and the most persecuted of all the
women who labored throughout the Anti-Slavery struggle. She traveled
up and down, alike in winter's cold and summer's heat, with scorn,
ridicule, violence, and mobs accompanying her, suffering all kinds of
persecutions, still speaking whenever and wherever she gained an
audience; in the open air, in school-house, barn, depot, church, or
public hall; on week-day or Sunday, as she found opportunity. For
listening to her, on Sunday, many men and women were expelled from
their churches. Thus through continued persecution was woman's
self-assertion and self-respect sufficiently developed to prompt her
at last to demand justice, liberty, and equality for herself.

In 1840, Margaret Fuller published an essay in the _Dial_, entitled
"The Great Lawsuit, or Man _vs._ Woman: Woman _vs._ Man." In this
essay she demanded perfect equality for woman, in education, industry,
and politics. It attracted great attention and was afterward expanded
into a work entitled "Woman in the Nineteenth Century." This, with her
parlor conversations, on art, science, religion, politics, philosophy,
and social life, gave a new impulse to woman's education as a
thinker.[5]

"Woman and her Era," by Eliza Woodson Farnham, was another work that
called out a general discussion on the status of the sexes, Mrs.
Farnham taking the ground of woman's superiority. The great social and
educational work done by her in California, when society there was
chiefly male, and rapidly tending to savagism, and her humane
experiment in the Sing Sing (N. Y.), State Prison, assisted by
Georgiana Bruce Kirby and Mariana Johnson, are worthy of mention.

In the State of New York, in 1845, Rev. Samuel J. May preached a
sermon at Syracuse, upon "The Eights and Conditions of Women," in
which he sustained their right to take part in political life, saying
women need not expect "to have their wrongs fully redressed, until
they themselves have a voice and a hand in the enactment and
administration of the laws."

In 1847, Clarina Howard Nichols, in her husband's paper, addressed to
the voters of the State of Vermont a series of editorials, setting
forth the injustice of the property disabilities of married women.

In 1849, Lucretia Mott published a discourse on woman, delivered in
the Assembly Building, Philadelphia, in answer to a Lyceum lecture
which Richard H. Dana, of Boston, was giving in many of the chief
cities, ridiculing the idea of political equality for woman. Elizabeth
Wilson, of Ohio, published a scriptural view of woman's rights and
duties far in advance of the generally received opinions. At even an
earlier day, Martha Bradstreet, of Utica, plead her own case in the
courts of New York, continuing her contest for many years. The
temperance reform and the deep interest taken in it by women; the
effective appeals they made, setting forth their wrongs as mother,
wife, sister, and daughter of the drunkard, with a power beyond that
of man, early gave them a local place on this platform as a favor,
though denied as a right. Delegates from woman's societies to State
and National conventions invariably found themselves rejected. It was
her early labors in the temperance cause that first roused Susan B.
Anthony to a realizing sense of woman's social, civil, and political
degradation, and thus secured her life-long labors for the
enfranchisement of woman. In 1847 she made her first speech at a
public meeting of the Daughters of Temperance in Canajoharie, N. Y.
The same year Antoinette L. Brown, then a student at Oberlin College,
Ohio, the first institution that made the experiment of co-education,
delivered her first speech on temperance in several places in Ohio,
and on Woman's Rights, in the Baptist church at Henrietta, N. Y. Lucy
Stone, a graduate of Oberlin, made her first speech on Woman's Rights
the same year in her brother's church at Brookfield, Mass.

Nor were the women of Europe inactive during these years. In 1824
Elizabeth Heyrick, a Quaker woman, cut the gordian knot of difficulty
in the anti-slavery struggle in England, by an able essay in favor of
immediate, unconditional emancipation. At Leipsic, in 1844, Helene
Marie Weber--her father a Prussian officer, and her mother an English
woman--wrote a series of ten tracts on "Woman's Rights and Wrongs,"
covering the whole question and making a volume of over twelve hundred
pages. The first of these treated of the intellectual faculties; the
second, woman's rights of property; the third, wedlock--deprecating
the custom of woman merging her civil existence in that of her
husband; the fourth claimed woman's right to all political emoluments;
the fifth, on ecclesiasticism, demanded for woman an entrance to the
pulpit; the sixth, upon suffrage, declared it to be woman's right and
duty to vote. These essays were strong, vigorous, and convincing. Miss
Weber also lectured in Vienna, Berlin, and several of the large German
cities. In England, Lady Morgan's "Woman and her Master" appeared;--a
work filled with philosophical reflections, and of the same general
bearing as Miss Weber's. Also an "Appeal of Women," the joint work of
Mrs. Wheeler and William Thomson--a strong and vigorous essay, in
which woman's limitations under the law were tersely and pungently set
forth and her political rights demanded. The active part women took in
the Polish and German revolutions and in favor of the abolition of
slavery in the British West Indies, all taught their lessons of
woman's rights. Madam Mathilde Anneke, on the staff of her husband,
with Hon. Carl Schurz, carried messages to and fro in the midst of
danger on the battle-fields of Germany.

Thus over the civilized world we find the same impelling forces, and
general development of society, without any individual concert of
action, tending to the same general result; alike rousing the minds of
men and women to the aggregated wrongs of centuries and inciting to an
effort for their overthrow.

The works of George Sand, Frederika Bremer, Charlotte Bronte, George
Eliot, Catharine Sedgwick, and Harriet Beecher Stowe, in literature;
Mrs. Hemans, Mrs. Sigourney, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, in poetry;
Angelica Kauffman, Rosa Bonheur, Harriet Hosmer, in art; Mary
Somerville, Caroline Herschell, Maria Mitchell, in science; Elizabeth
Fry, Dorothea Dix, Mary Carpenter, in prison reform; Florence
Nightingale and Clara Barton in the camp--are all parts of the great
uprising of women out of the lethargy of the past, and are among the
forces of the complete revolution a thousand pens and voices herald at
this hour.


FOOTNOTES:

[1] As showing woman's ignorance and prejudice, Mrs. Davis used to
relate that when she uncovered her manikin some ladies would drop
their veils because of its indelicacy, and others would run from the
room; sometimes ladies even fainted.

[2] The writer's father, a physician, as early as 1843-4, canvassed
the subject of giving his daughter (Matilda Joslyn Gage) a medical
education, looking to Geneva--then presided over by his old
instructor--to open its doors to her. But this bold idea was dropped,
and Miss Blackwell was the first and only lady who was graduated from
that Institution until its incorporation with the Syracuse University
and the removal of the college to that city.

[3] Judge Hurlbut, with a lawyer's prejudice, first prepared a paper
against the rights of woman. Looking it over, he saw himself able to
answer every argument, which he proceeded to do--the result being his
"Human Rights."

[4] In the New York chapter a fuller account of the discussion and
action upon these bills will be given.

[5] See Appendix.




CHAPTER II.

WOMAN IN NEWSPAPERS.


In newspaper literature woman made her entrance at an early period and
in an important manner. The first _daily_ newspaper in the world was
established and edited by a woman, Elizabeth Mallet, in London, March,
1702. It was called _The Daily Courant_. In her salutatory, Mrs.
Mallet declared she had established her paper to "spare the public at
least half the impertinences which the ordinary papers contain." Thus
the first daily paper was made reformatory in its character by its
wise woman-founder.

The first newspaper printed in Rhode Island was by Anna Franklin in
1732. She was printer to the colony, supplied blanks to the public
officers, published pamphlets, etc., and in 1745 she printed for the
colonial government an edition of the laws comprising three hundred
and forty pages. She was aided by her two daughters, who were correct
and quick compositors. The woman servant of the house usually worked
the press. The third paper established in America was _The Mercury_,
in Philadelphia. After the death of its founder, in 1742, it was
suspended for a week, when his widow, Mrs. Cornelia Bradford, revived
it and carried it on for many years, making it both a literary and a
pecuniary success. The second newspaper started in the city of New
York, entitled the _New York Weekly Journal_, was conducted by Mrs.
Zeuger for years after the death of her husband. She discontinued its
publication in 1748. The _Maryland Gazette_, the first paper in that
colony, and among the oldest in America, was established by Anna K.
Greene in 1767. She did the colony printing and continued the business
till her death, in 1775. Mrs. Hassebatch also established a paper in
Baltimore in 1773. Mrs. Mary K. Goddard published the _Maryland
Journal_ for eight years. Her editorials were of so spirited and
pronounced a character that only her sex saved her from sound
floggings. She took in job work. She was the first postmaster after
the Revolution, holding the office for eight years. Two papers were
early published in Virginia by women. Each was established in
Williamsburg, and each was called _The Virginia Gazette_. The first,
started by Clementina Reid, in 1772, favored the Colonial cause,
giving great offense to many royalists. To counteract its influence,
Mrs. H. Boyle, of the same place, started another paper in 1774, in
the interests of the Crown, and desirous that it should seem to
represent the true principles of the colony, she borrowed the name of
the colonial paper. It lived but a short time. The Colonial _Virginia
Gazette_ was the first paper in which was printed the Declaration of
Independence. A synopsis was given July 19th, and the whole document
the 26th. Mrs. Elizabeth Timothee published a paper in Charleston,
South Carolina, from 1773 to 1775, called _The Gazette_. Anna Timothee
revived it after the Revolution, and was appointed printer to the
State, holding the office till 1792. Mary Crouch also published a
paper in Charleston, S. C., until 1780. It was founded in special
opposition to the Stamp Act. She afterward removed to Salem, Mass.,
and continued its publication for several years. Penelope Russell
printed _The Censor_ in Boston, Mass., in 1771. She set her own type,
and was such a ready compositor as to set up her editorials without
written copy, while working at her case. The most tragical and
interesting events were thus recorded by her. The first paper
published in America, living to a second issue, was the _Massachusetts
Gazette and North Boston News Letter_. It was continued by Mrs.
Margaret Draper, two years after the death of her husband, and was the
only paper of spirit in the colony, all but hers suspending
publication when Boston was besieged by the British. Mrs. Sarah
Goddard printed a paper at Newport, R. I., in 1776. She was a
well-educated woman, and versed in general literature. For two years
she conducted her journal with great ability, afterward associating
John Carter with her, under the name of Sarah Goddard & Co., retaining
the partnership precedence so justly belonging to her. _The Courant_
at Hartford, Ct., was edited for two years by Mrs. Watson, after the
death of her husband, in 1777. In 1784 Mrs. Mary Holt edited and
published the _New York Journal_, continuing the business several
years. She was appointed State printer. In 1798, _The Journal and
Argus_ fell into the hands of Mrs. Greenleaf, who for some time
published both a daily and semi-weekly edition. In Philadelphia, after
the death of her father in 1802, Mrs. Jane Aitkins continued his
business of printing. Her press-work bore high reputation. She was
specially noted for her correctness in proof-reading. The _Free
Enquirer_, edited in New York by Frances Wright in 1828, "was the
first periodical established in the United States for the purpose of
fearless and unbiased inquiry on all subjects." It had already been
published two years under the name of _The New Harmony Gazette_, in
Indiana, by Robert Dale Owen, for which Mrs. Wright had written many
leading editorials, and in which she published serially "A Few Days in
Athens."

Sarah Josepha Hale established a ladies' magazine in Boston in 1827,
which she afterward removed to Philadelphia, there associating with
herself Louis Godey, and assuming the editorship of _Godey's Lady's
Book_. This magazine was followed by many others, of which Mrs.
Kirkland, Mrs. Osgood, Mrs. Ellet, Mrs. Sigourney, and women of like
character were editors or contributors. These early magazines
published many steel and  engravings, not only of fashions, but
reproductions of works of art, giving the first important impulse to
the art of engraving in this country.

Many other periodicals and papers by women now appeared over the
country. Mrs. Anne Royal edited for a quarter of a century a paper
called _The Huntress_. In 1827 Lydia Maria Child published a paper for
children called _The Juvenile Miscellany_, and in 1841 assumed the
editorship of _The Anti-Slavery Standard_, in New York, which she ably
conducted for eight years. _The Dial_, in Boston, a transcendental
quarterly, edited by Margaret Fuller, made its appearance in 1840; its
contributors, among whom were Ralph Waldo Emerson, Bronson Alcott,
Theodore Parker, Wm. H. Channing, and the nature-loving Thoreau, were
some of the most profound thinkers of the time. Charlotte Fowler
Wells, the efficient coadjutor of her brothers and husband for the
last forty-two years in the management of _The Phrenological Journal_
and Publishing House of Fowler & Wells in New York city, and since her
husband's death in 1875 the sole proprietor and general manager, has
also conducted an extensive correspondence and written occasional
articles for the _Journal. The Lowell Offering_, edited by the "mill
girls" of that manufacturing town, was established in 1840, and
exercised a wide influence. It lived till 1849. Its articles were
entirely written by the girl operatives, among whom may be mentioned
Lucy Larcom, Margaret Foley, the sculptor, who recently died in Rome;
Lydia S. Hall, who at one time filled an important clerkship in the
United States Treasury, and Harriet J. Hansan, afterward the wife of
W. S. Robinson (Warrington), and herself one of the present workers in
Woman Suffrage. Harriet F. Curtis, author of two popular novels, and
Harriet Farley, both "mill girls," had entire editorial charge during
the latter part of its existence. In Vermont, Clarina Howard Nichols
edited the _Windham County Democrat_ from 1843 to 1853. It was a
political paper of a pronounced character; her husband was the
publisher. Jane G. Swisshelm edited _The Saturday Visitor_, at
Pittsburg, Pa., in 1848. Also the same year _The True Kindred_
appeared, by Rebecca Sanford, at Akron, Ohio. _The Lily_, a temperance
monthly, was started in Seneca Falls, N. Y., in 1849, by Amelia
Bloomer, as editor and publisher. It also advocated Woman's Rights,
and attained a circulation in nearly every State and Territory of the
Union. _The Sybil_ soon followed, Dr. Lydia Sayre Hasbrook, editor;
also _The Pledge of Honor_, edited by N. M. Baker and E. Maria
Sheldon, Adrian, Michigan.

In 1849, _Die Frauen Zeitung_, edited by Mathilde Franceska Anneke,
was published in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. In 1850, Lydia Jane Pierson
edited a column of the _Lancaster_ (Pa.) _Gazette_; Mrs. Prewett
edited the _Yazoo_ (Miss.) _Whig_, in Mississippi; and Mrs. Sheldon
the _Dollar Weekly_. In 1851, Julia Ward Howe edited, with her
husband, _The Commonwealth_, a newspaper dedicated to free thought,
and zealous for the liberty of the slave. In 1851, Mrs. C. C. Bentley
was editor of the _Concord Free Press_, in Vermont, and Elizabeth
Aldrich of the _Genius of Liberty_, in Ohio. In 1852, Anna W. Spencer
started the _Pioneer and Woman's Advocate_, in Providence, R. I. Its
motto was, "Liberty, Truth, Temperance, Equality." It was published
semi-monthly, and advocated a better education for woman, a higher
price for her labor, the opening of new industries. It was the
earliest paper established in the United States for the advocacy of
Woman's Rights. In 1853, _The Una_, a paper devoted to the
enfranchisement of woman, owned and edited by Paulina Wright Davis,
was first published in Providence, but afterward removed to Boston,
where Caroline H. Dall became associate editor. In 1855, Anna McDowell
founded _The Woman's Advocate_ in Philadelphia, a paper in which, like
that of Mrs. Anna Franklin, the owner, editor, and compositors were
all women. About this period many well-known literary women filled
editorial chairs. Grace Greenwood started a child's paper called _The
Little Pilgrim_; Mrs. Bailey conducted the _Era_, an anti-slavery
paper, in Washington, D. C., after her husband's death.

In 1868, _The Revolution_, a pronounced Woman's Rights paper, was
started in New York city; Susan B. Anthony, publisher and proprietor,
Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Parker Pillsbury, editors. Its motto,
"Principles, not policy; justice, not favor; men, their rights and
nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less." In 1870 it passed
into the hands of Laura Curtis Bullard, who edited it two years with
the assistance of Phebe Carey and Augusta Larned, and in 1872 it found
consecrated burial in _The Liberal Christian_, the leading Unitarian
paper in New York. From the advent of _The Revolution_ can be dated a
new era in the woman suffrage movement. Its brilliant, aggressive
columns attracted the comments of the press, and drew the attention of
the country to the reform so ably advocated. Many other papers devoted
to the discussion of woman's enfranchisement soon arose. In 1869, _The
Pioneer_, in San Francisco, Cal., Emily Pitts Stevens, editor and
proprietor. _The Woman's Advocate_, at Dayton, O., A. J. Boyer and
Miriam M. Cole, editors, started the same year. _The Sorosis_ and _The
Agitator_, in Chicago, Ill., the latter owned and edited by Mary A.
Livermore, and _The Woman's Advocate_, in New York, were all alike
short-lived. _L'Amerique_, a semi-weekly French paper published in
Chicago, Ill., by Madam Jennie d'Hericourt, and _Die Neue Zeit_, a
German paper, in New York, by Mathilde F. Wendt, this same year, show
the interest of our foreign women citizens in the cause of their sex.
In 1870, _The Woman's Journal_ was founded in Boston, Lucy Stone,
Julia Ward Howe, and Henry B. Blackwell, editors. _Woodhull and
Claflin's Weekly_, an erratic paper, advocating many new ideas, was
established in New York by Victoria Woodhull and Tennie C. Claflin,
editors and proprietors. _The New Northwest_, in Portland, Oregon, in
1871, Abigail Scott Duniway, editor and proprietor. _The Golden Dawn_,
at San Francisco, Cal., in 1876, Mrs. Boyer, editor.

_The Ballot-Box_ was started in 1876, at Toledo, O., Sarah Langdon
Williams, editor, under the auspices of the city Woman's Suffrage
Association. It was moved to Syracuse in 1878, and is now edited by
Matilda Joslyn Gage, under the name of _The National Citizen and
Ballot-Box_, as an exponent of the views of the National Woman
Suffrage Association. Its motto, "Self-government is a natural right,
and the ballot is the method of exercising that right." Laura de Force
Gordon for some years edited a daily democratic paper in California.
In opposition to this large array of papers demanding equality for
woman, a solitary little monthly was started a few years since, in
Baltimore, Md., under the auspices of Mrs. General Sherman and Mrs.
Admiral Dahlgren. It was called _The True Woman_, but soon died of
inanition and inherent weakness of constitution.

In the Exposition of 1876, in Philadelphia, the _New Century_, edited
and published under the auspices of the Woman's Centennial Committee,
was made-up and printed by women on a press of their own, in the
Woman's Pavilion. In 1877 Mrs. Theresa Lewis started _Woman's Words_
in Philadelphia. For some time, Penfield, N. Y., boasted its
thirteen-year-old girl editor, in Miss Nellie Williams. Her paper, the
_Penfield Enterprise_, was for three years written, set up, and
published by herself. It attained a circulation of three thousand.

Many foreign papers devoted to woman's interests have been established
within the last few years. The _Women's Suffrage Journal_, in England,
Lydia E. Becker, of Manchester, editor and proprietor; the
_Englishwoman's Journal_, in London, edited by Caroline Ashurst Biggs;
_Woman and Work_ and the _Victoria Magazine_, by Emily Faithful, are
among the number. Miss Faithful's magazine having attained a
circulation of fifty thousand. _Des Droits des Femmes_, long the organ
of the Swiss woman suffragists, Madame Marie Goegg, the head, was
followed by the _Solidarite_. _L'Avenir des Femmes_, edited by M. Leon
Richer, has Mlle. Maria Dairesmes, the author of a spirited reply to
the work of M. Dumas, _fils_, on Woman, as its special contributor.
_L'Esperance_, of Geneva, an Englishwoman its editor, was an early
advocate of woman's cause. _La Donna_, at Venice, edited by Signora
Gualberti Alaide Beccari (a well-known Italian philanthropic name);
_La Cornelia_, at Florence, Signora Amelia Cunino Foliero de Luna,
editor, prove Italian advancement. Germany, Spain, and the Netherlands
must not be omitted from the list of those countries which have
published Woman's Rights papers. In Lima, Peru, we find a paper edited
and controlled entirely by women; its name, _Alborada_, _i.e._, the
Dawn, a South American prophecy and herald of that dawn of justice and
equality now breaking upon the world. The Orient, likewise, shows
progress. At Bukarest, in Romaine, a paper, the _Dekebalos_, upholding
the elevation of woman, was started in 1874. The _Euridike_, at
Constantinople, edited by Emile Leonzras, is of a similar character.
The _Bengalee Magazine_, devoted to the interests of Indian ladies,
its editorials all from woman's pen, shows Asiatic advance.

In the United States the list of women's fashion papers, with their
women editors and correspondents, is numerous and important. For
fourteen years _Harper's Bazaar_ has been ably edited by Mary L.
Booth; other papers of similar character are both owned and edited by
women. _Madame Demorest's Monthly_, a paper that originated the vast
pattern business which has extended its ramifications into every part
of the country and given employment to thousands of women. As
illustrative of woman's continuity of purpose in newspaper work, we
may mention the fact that for fifteen years Fanny Fern did not fail to
have an article in readiness each week for the _Ledger_, and for
twenty years Jennie June (Mrs. Croly) has edited _Demorest's Monthly_
and contributed to many other papers throughout the United States.
Mary Mapes Dodge has edited the _St. Nicholas_ the past eight years.
So important a place do women writers hold, _Harper's Monthly_
asserts, that the exceptionally large prices are paid to women
contributors. The spiciest critics, reporters, and correspondents
to-day, are women--Grace Greenwood, Louise Chandler Moulton, Mary
Clemmer. Laura C. Holloway is upon the editorial staff of the Brooklyn
_Eagle_. The New York _Times_ boasts a woman (Midi Morgan) cattle
reporter, one of the best judges of stock in the country. In some
papers, over their own names, women edit columns on special subjects,
and fill important positions on journals owned and edited by men.
Elizabeth Boynton Harbert edits "The Woman's Kingdom" in the
_Inter-Ocean_, one of the leading dailies of Chicago. Mary Forney
Weigley edits a social department in her father's--John W.
Forney--paper, the _Progress_, in Philadelphia. The political columns
of many papers are prepared by women, men often receiving the credit.
Among the best editorials in the New York _Tribune_, from Margaret
Fuller to Lucia Gilbert Calhoun, have been from the pens of women.

If the proverb that "the pen is mightier than the sword" be true,
woman's skill and force in using this mightier weapon must soon change
the destinies of the world.




CHAPTER III.

THE WORLD'S ANTI-SLAVERY CONVENTION, LONDON, JUNE 12, 1840.


     Individualism rather than Authority--Personal appearance of
     Abolitionists--Clerical attempt to silence Woman--Double battle
     against the tyranny of sex and color--Bigoted Abolitionists--James
     G. Birney likes freedom on a Southern plantation, but not at his
     own fireside--John Bull never dreamt that Woman would answer his
     call--The venerable Thomas Clarkson received by the Convention
     standing--Lengthy debate on "Female" delegates--The "Females"
     rejected--William Lloyd Garrison refused to sit in the Convention.

In gathering up the threads of history in the last century, and
weaving its facts and philosophy together, one can trace the liberal
social ideas, growing out of the political and religious revolutions
in France, Germany, Italy, and America; and their tendency to
substitute for the divine right of kings, priests, and orders of
nobility, the higher and broader one of individual conscience and
judgment in all matters pertaining to this life and that which is to
come. It is not surprising that in so marked a transition period from
the old to the new, as seen in the eighteenth century, that women,
trained to think and write and speak, should have discovered that
they, too, had some share in the new-born liberties suddenly announced
to the world. That the radical political theories, propagated in
different countries, made their legitimate impress on the minds of
women of the highest culture, is clearly proved by their writings and
conversation. While in their ignorance, women are usually more
superstitious, more devoutly religious than men; those trained to
thought, have generally manifested more interest in political
questions, and have more frequently spoken and written on such themes,
than on those merely religious. This may be attributed, in a measure,
to the fact that the tendency of woman's mind, at this stage of her
development, is toward practical, rather than toward speculative
science.

Questions of political economy lie within the realm of positive
knowledge; those of theology belong to the world of mysteries and
abstractions, which those minds, only, that imagine they have
compassed the known, are ambitious to enter and explore. And yet, the
quickening power of the Protestant Reformation roused woman, as well
as man, to new and higher thought. The bold declarations of Luther,
placing individual judgment above church authority, the faith of the
Quaker that the inner light was a better guide than arbitrary law, the
religious idealism of the Transcendentalists, and their teachings that
souls had no sex, had each a marked influence in developing woman's
self-assertion. Such ideas making all divine revelations as veritable
and momentous to one soul, as another, tended directly to equalize the
members of the human family, and place men and women on the same plane
of moral responsibility.

The revelations of science, too, analyzing and portraying the wonders
and beauties of this material world, crowned with new dignity, man and
woman,--Nature's last and proudest work. Combe and Spurzheim, proving
by their Phrenological discoveries that the feelings, sentiments, and
affections of the soul mould and shape the skull, gave new importance
to woman's thought as mother of the race. Thus each new idea in
religion, politics, science, and philosophy, tending to individualism,
rather than authority, came into the world freighted with new hopes of
liberty for woman.

And when in the progress of civilization the time had fully come for
the recognition of the feminine element in humanity, women, in every
civilized country unknown to each other, began simultaneously to
demand a broader sphere of action. Thus the first public demand for
political equality by a body of women in convention assembled, was a
link in the chain of woman's development, binding the future with the
past, as complete and necessary in itself, as the events of any other
period of her history. The ridicule of facts does not change their
character. Many who study the past with interest, and see the
importance of seeming trifles in helping forward great events, often
fail to understand some of the best pages of history made under their
own eyes. Hence the woman suffrage movement has not yet been accepted
as the legitimate outgrowth of American ideas--a component part of the
history of our republic--but is falsely considered the willful
outburst of a few unbalanced minds, whose ideas can never be realized
under any form of government.

Among the immediate causes that led to the demand for the equal
political rights of women, in this country, we may note three:

1. The discussion in several of the State Legislatures on the property
rights of married women, which, heralded by the press with comments
grave and gay, became the topic of general interest around many
fashionable dinner-tables, and at many humble firesides. In this way
all phases of the question were touched upon, involving the
relations of the sexes, and gradually widening to all human
interests--political, religious, civil, and social. The press and
pulpit became suddenly vigilant in marking out woman's sphere, while
woman herself seemed equally vigilant in her efforts to step outside
the prescribed limits.

2. A great educational work was accomplished by the able lectures of
Frances Wright, on political, religious, and social questions.
Ernestine L. Rose, following in her wake, equally liberal in her
religious opinions, and equally well informed on the science of
government, helped to deepen and perpetuate the impression Frances
Wright had made on the minds of unprejudiced hearers.

3. And above all other causes of the "Woman Suffrage Movement," was
the Anti-Slavery struggle in this country. The ranks of the
Abolitionists were composed of the most eloquent orators, the ablest
logicians, men and women of the purest moral character and best minds
in the nation. They were usually spoken of in the early days as "an
illiterate, ill-mannered, poverty-stricken, crazy set of long-haired
Abolitionists." While the fact is, some of the most splendid specimens
of manhood and womanhood, in physical appearance, in culture,
refinement, and knowledge of polite life, were found among the early
Abolitionists. James G. Birney, John Pierpont, Gerrit Smith, Wendell
Phillips, Charles Sumner, Maria Weston Chapman, Helen Garrison, Ann
Green Phillips, Abby Kelly, Paulina Wright Davis, Lucretia Mott, were
all remarkably fine-looking.

In the early Anti-Slavery conventions, the broad principles of human
rights were so exhaustively discussed, justice, liberty, and equality,
so clearly taught, that the women who crowded to listen, readily
learned the lesson of freedom for themselves, and early began to take
part in the debates and business affairs of all associations. Woman
not only felt every pulsation of man's heart for freedom, and by her
enthusiasm inspired the glowing eloquence that maintained him through
the struggle, but earnestly advocated with her own lips human freedom
and equality. When Angelina and Sarah Grimke began to lecture in New
England, their audiences were at first composed entirely of women, but
gentlemen, hearing of their eloquence and power, soon began timidly to
slip into the back seats, one by one. And before the public were
aroused to the dangerous innovation, these women were speaking in
crowded, promiscuous assemblies. The clergy opposed to the abolition
movement first took alarm, and issued a pastoral letter, warning their
congregations against the influence of such women. The clergy
identified with anti-slavery associations took alarm also, and the
initiative steps to silence the women, and to deprive them of the
right to vote in the business meetings, were soon taken. This action
culminated in a division in the Anti-Slavery Association. In the
annual meeting in May, 1840, a formal vote was taken on the
appointment of Abby Kelly on a business committee and was sustained by
over one hundred majority in favor of woman's right to take part in
the proceedings of the Society. Pending the discussion, clergymen in
the opposition went through the audience, _urging every woman who
agreed with them, to vote against_ the motion, thus asking them to do
then and there, what with fervid eloquence, on that very occasion,
they had declared a sin against God and Scripture for them to do
anywhere. As soon as the vote was announced, and Abby Kelly's right on
the business committee decided, the men, two of whom were clergymen,
asked to be excused from serving on the committee.

Thus Sarah and Angelina Grimke and Abby Kelly, in advocating liberty
for the black race, were early compelled to defend the right of free
speech for themselves. They had the double battle to fight against the
tyranny of sex and color at the same time, in which, however, they
were well sustained by the able pens of Lydia Maria Child and Maria
Weston Chapman. Their opponents were found not only in the ranks of
the New England clergy, but among the most bigoted Abolitionists in
Great Britain and the United States. Many a man who advocated equality
most eloquently for a Southern plantation, could not tolerate it at
his own fireside.

The question of woman's right to speak, vote, and serve on committees,
not only precipitated the division in the ranks of the American
Anti-Slavery Society, in 1840, but it disturbed the peace of the
World's Anti-Slavery Convention, held that same year in London. The
call for that Convention invited delegates from all Anti-Slavery
organizations. Accordingly several American societies saw fit to send
women, as delegates, to represent them in that august assembly. But
after going three thousand miles to attend a World's Convention, it
was discovered that women formed no part of the constituent elements
of the moral world. In summoning the friends of the slave from all
parts of the two hemispheres to meet in London, John Bull never
dreamed that woman, too, would answer to his call. Imagine then the
commotion in the conservative anti-slavery circles in England, when it
was known that half a dozen of those terrible women who had spoken to
promiscuous assemblies, voted on men and measures, prayed and
petitioned against slavery, women who had been mobbed, ridiculed by
the press, and denounced by the pulpit, who had been the cause of
setting all American Abolitionists by the ears, and split their ranks
asunder, were on their way to England. Their fears of these formidable
and belligerent women must have been somewhat appeased when Lucretia
Mott, Sarah Pugh, Abby Kimber, Elizabeth Neal, Mary Grew, of
Philadelphia, in modest Quaker costume, Ann Green Phillips, Emily
Winslow, and Abby Southwick, of Boston, all women of refinement and
education, and several, still in their twenties, landed at last on the
soil of Great Britain. Many who had awaited their coming with much
trepidation, gave a sigh of relief, on being introduced to Lucretia
Mott, learning that she represented the most dangerous elements in the
delegation. The American clergymen who had landed a few days before,
had been busily engaged in fanning the English prejudices into active
hostility against the admission of these women to the Convention. In
every circle of Abolitionists this was the theme, and the discussion
grew more bitter, personal, and exasperating every hour.

The 12th of June dawned bright and beautiful on these discordant
elements, and at an early hour anti-slavery delegates from different
countries wended their way through the crooked streets of London to
Freemasons' Hall. Entering the vestibule, little groups might be seen
gathered here and there, earnestly discussing the best disposition to
make of those women delegates from America. The excitement and
vehemence of protest and denunciation could not have been greater, if
the news had come that the French were about to invade England. In
vain those obdurate women had been conjured to withhold their
credentials, and not thrust a question that must produce such discord
on the Convention. Lucretia Mott, in her calm, firm manner, insisted
that the delegates had no discretionary power in the proposed action,
and the responsibility of accepting or rejecting them must rest on the
Convention.

At eleven o'clock, the spacious Hall being filled, the Convention was
called to order. The venerable Thomas Clarkson, who was to be
President, on entering, was received by the large audience standing;
owing to his feeble health, the chairman requested that there should
be no other demonstrations. As soon as Thomas Clarkson withdrew,
Wendell Phillips made the following motion:

     "That a Committee of five be appointed to prepare a correct list
     of the members of this Convention, with instructions to include
     in such list, all persons bearing credentials from any
     Anti-Slavery body."

This motion at once opened the debate on the admission of women
delegates.

     Mr. Phillips: When the call reached America we found that it was
     an invitation to the friends of the slave of every nation and of
     every clime. Massachusetts has for several years acted on the
     principle of admitting women to an equal seat with men, in the
     deliberative bodies of anti-slavery societies. When the
     Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society received that paper, it
     interpreted it, as it was its duty, in its broadest and most
     liberal sense. If there be any other paper, emanating from the
     Committee, limiting to one sex the qualification of membership,
     there is no proof; and, as an individual, I have no knowledge
     that such a paper ever reached Massachusetts. We stand here in
     consequence of your invitation, and knowing our custom, as it
     must be presumed you did, we had a right to interpret "friends of
     the slave," to include women as well as men. In such
     circumstances, we do not think it just or equitable to that
     State, nor to America in general, that, after the trouble, the
     sacrifice, the self-devotion of a part of those who leave their
     families and kindred and occupations in their own land, to come
     three thousand miles to attend this World's Convention, they
     should be refused a place in its deliberations.

     One of the Committee who issued the call, said: As soon as we
     heard the liberal interpretation Americans had given to our first
     invitation, we issued another as early as Feb. 15, in which the
     description of those who are to form the Convention is set forth
     as consisting of "gentlemen."

     Dr. Bowring: I think the custom of excluding females is more
     honored in its breach than in its observance. In this country
     sovereign rule is placed in the hands of a female, and one who
     has been exercising her great and benignant influence in opposing
     slavery by sanctioning, no doubt, the presence of her illustrious
     consort at an anti-slavery meeting. We are associated with a body
     of Christians (Quakers) who have given to their women a great,
     honorable, and religious prominence. I look upon this delegation
     from America as one of the most interesting, the most
     encouraging, and the most delightful symptoms of the times. I can
     not believe that we shall refuse to welcome gratefully the
     co-operation which is offered us.

The Rev. J. Burnet, an Englishman, made a most touching appeal to the
American ladies, to conform to English prejudices and custom, so far
as to withdraw their credentials, as it never did occur to the British
and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society that they were inviting ladies. It is
better, said he, that this Convention should be dissolved at this
moment than this motion should be adopted.

     The Rev. Henry Grew, of Philadelphia: The reception of women as a
     part of this Convention would, in the view of many, be not only a
     violation of the customs of England, but of the ordinance of
     Almighty God, who has a right to appoint our services to His
     sovereign will.

     Rev. Eben Galusha, New York: In support of the other side of this
     question, reference has been made to your Sovereign. I most
     cordially approve of her policy and sound wisdom, and commend to
     the consideration of our American female friends who are so
     deeply interested in the subject, the example of your noble
     Queen, who by sanctioning her consort, His Royal Highness Prince
     Albert, in taking the chair on an occasion not dissimilar to
     this, showed her sense of propriety by putting her Head foremost
     in an assembly of gentlemen. I have no objection to woman's being
     the neck to turn the head aright, but do not wish to see her
     assume the place of the head.

     George Bradburn, of Mass.: We are told that it would be outraging
     the customs of England to allow women to sit in this Convention.
     I have a great respect for the customs of old England. But I ask,
     gentlemen, if it be right to set up the customs and habits, not
     to say prejudices of Englishmen, as a standard for the government
     on this occasion of Americans, and of persons belonging to
     several other independent nations. I can see neither reason nor
     policy in so doing. Besides, I deprecate the principle of the
     objection. In America it would exclude from our conventions all
     persons of color, for there customs, habits, tastes, prejudices,
     would be outraged by _their_ admission. And I do not wish to be
     deprived of the aid of those who have done so much for this
     cause, for the purpose of gratifying any mere custom or
     prejudice. Women have furnished most essential aid in
     accomplishing what has been done in the State of Massachusetts.
     If, in the Legislature of that State, I have been able to do
     anything in furtherance of that cause, by keeping on my legs
     eight or ten hours day after day, it was mainly owing to the
     valuable assistance I derived from the women. And shall such
     women be denied seats in this Convention? My friend George
     Thompson, yonder, can testify to the faithful services rendered
     to this cause by those same women. He can tell you that when
     "gentlemen of property and standing" in "broad day" and
     "broadcloth," undertook to drive him from Boston, putting his
     life in peril, it was our women who made their own persons a
     bulwark of protection around him. And shall such women be refused
     seats here in a Convention seeking the emancipation of slaves
     throughout the world? What a misnomer to call this a World's
     Convention of Abolitionists, when some of the oldest and most
     thorough-going Abolitionists in the world are denied the right to
     be represented in it by delegates of their own choice.

And thus for the space of half an hour did Mr. Bradburn, six feet high
and well-proportioned, with vehement gesticulations and voice of
thunder, bombard the prejudices of England and the hypocrisies of
America.

     George Thompson: I have listened to the arguments advanced on
     this side and on that side of this vexed question. I listened
     with profound attention to the arguments of Mr. Burnet, expecting
     that from him, as I was justified in expecting, I should hear the
     strongest arguments that could be adduced on this, or any other
     subject upon which he might be pleased to employ his talents, or
     which he might adorn with his eloquence. What are his arguments?
     Let it be premised, as I speak in the presence of American
     friends, that that gentleman is one of the best controversialists
     in the country, and one of the best authorities upon questions of
     business, points of order, and matters of principle. What are
     the strongest arguments, which one of the greatest champions on
     any question which he chooses to espouse, has brought forward?
     They are these:

          1st. That English phraseology should be construed according
          to English usage.

          2d. That it was never contemplated by the anti-slavery
          committee that ladies should occupy a seat in this
          Convention.

          3d. That the ladies of England are not here as delegates.

          4th. That he has no desire to offer an affront to the ladies
          now present.

     Here I presume are the strongest arguments the gentleman has to
     adduce, for he never fails to use to the best advantage the
     resources within his reach. I look at these arguments, and I
     place on the other side of the question, the fact that there are
     in this assembly ladies who present themselves as delegates from
     the oldest societies in America. I expected that Mr. Burnet
     would, as he was bound to do, if he intended to offer a
     successful opposition to their introduction into this Convention,
     grapple with the constitutionality of their credentials. I
     thought he would come to the question of title. I thought he
     would dispute the right of a convention assembled in
     Philadelphia, for the abolition of slavery, consisting of
     delegates from different States in the Union, and comprised of
     individuals of both sexes, to send one or all of the ladies now
     in our presence. I thought he would grapple with the fact, that
     those ladies came to us who have no slavery from a country in
     which they have slaves, as the representatives of two millions
     and a half of captives. Let gentlemen, when they come to vote on
     this question, remember, that in receiving or rejecting these
     ladies, they acknowledge or despise [loud cries of No, no]. I ask
     gentlemen, who shout "no," if they know the application I am
     about to make. I did not mean to say you would despise the
     ladies, but that you would, by your vote, acknowledge or despise
     the parties whose cause they espouse. It appears we are prepared
     to sanction ladies in the employment of all means, so long as
     they are confessedly unequal with ourselves. It seems that the
     grand objection to their appearance amongst us is this, that it
     would be placing them on a footing of equality, and that would be
     contrary to principle and custom. For years the women of America
     have carried their banner in the van, while the men have humbly
     followed in the rear. It is well known that the National Society
     solicited Angelina Grimke to undertake a mission through New
     England, to rouse the attention of the women to the wrongs of
     slavery, and that that distinguished woman displayed her talents
     not only in the drawing-room, but before the Senate of
     Massachusetts. Let us contrast our conduct with that of the
     Senators and Representatives of Massachusetts who did not disdain
     to hear her. It was in consequence of her exertions, which
     received the warmest approval of the National Society, that that
     interest sprung up which has awakened such an intense feeling
     throughout America. Then with reference to efficient management,
     the most vigorous anti-slavery societies are those which are
     managed by ladies.

     If now, after the expression of opinion on various sides, the
     motion should be withdrawn with the consent of all parties, I
     should be glad. But when I look at the arguments against the
     title of these women to sit amongst us, I can not but consider
     them frivolous and groundless. The simple question before us is,
     whether these ladies, taking into account their credentials, the
     talent they have displayed, the sufferings they have endured, the
     journey they have undertaken, should be acknowledged by us, in
     virtue of these high titles, or should be shut out for the
     reasons stated.

     Mr. Phillips, being urged on all sides to withdraw his motion,
     said: It has been hinted very respectfully by two or three
     speakers that the delegates from the State of Massachusetts
     should withdraw their credentials, or the motion before the
     meeting. The one appears to me to be equivalent to the other. If
     this motion be withdrawn we must have another. I would merely ask
     whether any man can suppose that the delegates from Massachusetts
     or Pennsylvania can take upon their shoulders the responsibility
     of withdrawing that list of delegates from your table, which
     their constituents told them to place there, and whom they
     sanctioned as their fit representatives, because this Convention
     tells us that it is not ready to meet the ridicule of the morning
     papers, and to stand up against the customs of England. In
     America we listen to no such arguments. If we had done so we had
     never been here as Abolitionists. It is the custom there not to
     admit <DW52> men into respectable society, and we have been told
     again and again that we are outraging the decencies of humanity
     when we permit <DW52> men to sit by our side. When we have
     submitted to brick-bats, and the tar tub and feathers in America,
     rather than yield to the custom prevalent there of not admitting
      brethren into our friendship, shall we yield to parallel
     custom or prejudice against women in Old England? We can not
     yield this question if we would; for it is a matter of
     conscience. But we would not yield it on the ground of
     expediency. In doing so we should feel that we were striking off
     the right arm of our enterprise. We could not go back to America
     to ask for any aid from the women of Massachusetts if we had
     deserted them, when they chose to send out their own sisters as
     their representatives here. We could not go back to Massachusetts
     and assert the unchangeableness of spirit on the question. We
     have argued it over and over again, and decided it time after
     time, in every society in the land, in favor of the women. We
     have not changed by crossing the water. We stand here the
     advocates of the same principle that we contend for in America.
     We think it right for women to sit by our side there, and we
     think it right for them to do the same here. We ask the
     Convention to admit them; if they do not choose to grant it, the
     responsibility rests on their shoulders. Massachusetts can not
     turn aside, or succumb to any prejudices or customs even in the
     land she looks upon with so much reverence as the land of
     Wilberforce, of Clarkson, and of O'Connell. It is a matter of
     conscience, and British virtue ought not to ask us to yield.

     Mr. Ashurst: You are convened to influence society upon a subject
     connected with the kindliest feelings of our nature; and being
     the first assembly met to shake hands with other nations, and
     employ your combined efforts to annihilate slavery throughout the
     world, are you to commence by saying, you will take away the
     rights of one-half of creation! This is the principle which you
     are putting forward.

     The Rev. A. Harvey, of Glasgow: It was stated by a brother from
     America, that with him it is a matter of conscience, and it is a
     question of conscience with me too. I have certain views in
     relation to the teaching of the Word of God, and of the
     particular sphere in which woman is to act. I must say, whether I
     am right in my interpretations of the Word of God or not, that my
     own decided convictions are, if I were to give a vote in favor of
     females, sitting and deliberating in such an assembly as this,
     that I should be acting in opposition to the plain teaching of
     the Word of God. I may be wrong, but I have a conscience on the
     subject, and I am sure there are a number present of the same
     mind.

     Captain Wanchope, R. N., delegate from Carlisle: I entreat the
     ladies not to push this question too far. I wish to know whether
     our friends from America are to cast off England altogether. Have
     we not given L20,000,000 of our money for the purpose of doing
     away with the abominations of slavery? Is not that proof that we
     are in earnest about it?

     James C. Fuller: One friend said that this question should have
     been settled on the other side of the Atlantic. Why, it was there
     decided in favor of woman a year ago.

     James Gillespie Birney: It has been stated that the right of
     women to sit and act in all respects as men in our anti-slavery
     associations, was decided in the affirmative at the annual
     meeting of the American Anti-Slavery Society in May, 1839. It is
     true the claim was so decided on that occasion, but not by a
     large majority; whilst it is also true that the majority was
     swelled by the votes of the women themselves. I have just
     received a letter from a gentleman in New York (Louis Tappan),
     communicating the fact, that the persistence of the friends of
     promiscuous female representation in pressing that practice on
     the American Anti-Slavery Society, at its annual meeting on the
     twelfth of last month, had caused such disagreement among the
     members present, that he and others who viewed the subject as he
     did, were then deliberating on measures for seceding from the old
     organization.

     Rev. C. Stout: My vote is that we confirm the list of delegates,
     that we take votes on that as an amendment, and that we
     henceforth entertain this question no more. Are we not met here
     pledged to sacrifice all but everything, in order that we may do
     something against slavery, and shall we be divided on this
     _paltry question_ and suffer the whole tide of benevolence to be
     stopped by a _straw_? No! You talk of being men, then be men!
     Consider what is worthy of your attention.

     Rev. Dr. Morrison: I feel, I believe, as our brethren from
     America and many English friends do at this moment, that we are
     treading on the brink of a precipice; and that precipice is the
     awaking in our bosoms by this discussion, feelings that will not
     only be averse to the great object for which we have assembled,
     but inconsistent, perhaps, in some degree, with the Christian
     spirit which, I trust, will pervade all meetings connected with
     the Anti-Slavery cause. We have been unanimous against the common
     foe, but we are this day in danger of creating division among
     heartfelt friends. Will our American brethren put us in this
     position? Will they keep up a discussion in which the delicacy,
     the honor, the respectability of those excellent females who have
     come from the Western world are concerned? I tremble at the
     thought of discussing the question in the presence of these
     ladies--for whom I entertain the most profound respect--and I am
     bold to say, that but for the introduction of the question of
     woman's rights, it would be impossible for the shrinking nature
     of woman to subject itself to the infliction of such a discussion
     as this.

As the hour was late, and as the paltry arguments of the opposition
were unworthy much consideration--as the reader will see from the
specimens given--Mr. Phillips' reply was brief, consisting of the
correction of a few mistakes made by different speakers. The vote was
taken, and the women excluded as delegates of the Convention, by an
overwhelming majority.

     George Thompson: I hope, as the question is now decided, that Mr.
     Phillips will give us the assurance that we shall proceed with
     one heart and one mind.

     Mr. Phillips replied: I have no doubt of it. There is no
     unpleasant feeling in our minds. I have no doubt the women will
     sit with as much interest behind the bar[6] as though the
     original proposition had been carried in the affirmative. All we
     asked was an expression of opinion, and, having obtained it, we
     shall now act with the utmost cordiality.

Would there have been no unpleasant feelings in Wendell Phillips'
mind, had Frederick Douglass and Robert Purvis been refused their
seats in a convention of reformers under similar circumstances? and,
had _they_ listened one entire day to debates on their peculiar
fitness for plantation life, and unfitness for the forum and public
assemblies, and been rejected as delegates on the ground of color,
could Wendell Phillips have so far mistaken their real feelings, and
been so insensible to the insults offered them, as to have told a
Convention of men who had just trampled on their most sacred rights,
that "they would no doubt sit with as much interest behind the bar, as
in the Convention"? To stand in that august assembly and maintain the
unpopular heresy of woman's equality was a severe ordeal for a young
man to pass through, and Wendell Phillips, who accepted the odium of
presenting this question to the Convention, and thus earned the
sincere gratitude of all womankind, might be considered as above
criticism, though he may have failed at one point to understand the
feelings of woman. The fact is important to mention, however, to show
that it is almost impossible for the most liberal of men to
understand what liberty means for woman. This sacrifice of human
rights, by men who had assembled from all quarters of the globe to
proclaim universal emancipation, was offered up in the presence of
such women as Lady Byron, Anna Jameson, Amelia Opie, Mary Howitt,
Elizabeth Fry, and our own Lucretia Mott. The clergy with few
exceptions were bitter in their opposition. Although, as
Abolitionists, they had been compelled to fight both Church and Bible
to prove the black man's right to liberty, conscience forbade them to
stretch those sacred limits far enough to give equal liberty to woman.

The leading men who championed the cause of the measure in the
Convention and voted in the affirmative, were Wendell Phillips, George
Thompson, George Bradburn, Mr. Ashurst, Dr. Bowring, and Henry B.
Stanton. Though Daniel O'Connell was not present during the
discussion, having passed out with the President, yet in his first
speech, he referred to the rejected delegates, paying a beautiful
tribute to woman's influence, and saying he should have been happy to
have added the right word in the right place and to have recorded his
vote in favor of human equality..

William Lloyd Garrison, having been delayed at sea, arrived too late
to take part in the debates. Learning on his arrival that the women
had been rejected as delegates, he declined to take his seat in the
Convention; and, through all those interesting discussions on a
subject so near his heart, lasting ten days, he remained a silent
spectator in the gallery. What a sacrifice for a principle so dimly
seen by the few, and so ignorantly ridiculed by the many! Brave, noble
Garrison! May this one act keep his memory fresh forever in the hearts
of his countrywomen!

The one Abolitionist who sustained Mr. Garrison's position, and sat
with him in the gallery, was Nathaniel P. Rogers, editor of the
_Herald of Freedom_, in Concord, New Hampshire, who died in the midst
of the Anti-Slavery struggle. However, the debates in the Convention
had the effect of rousing English minds to thought on the tyranny of
sex, and American minds to the importance of some definite action
toward woman's emancipation.

As Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton wended their way arm in
arm down Great Queen Street that night, reviewing the exciting scenes
of the day, they agreed to hold a woman's rights convention on their
return to America, as the men to whom they had just listened had
manifested their great need of some education on that question. Thus a
missionary work for the emancipation of woman in "the land of the
free and the home of the brave" was then and there inaugurated. As the
ladies were not allowed to speak in the Convention, they kept up a
brisk fire morning, noon, and night at their hotel on the unfortunate
gentlemen who were domiciled at the same house. Mr. Birney, with his
luggage, promptly withdrew after the first encounter, to some more
congenial haven of rest, while the Rev. Nathaniel Colver, from Boston,
who always fortified himself with six eggs well beaten in a large bowl
at breakfast, to the horror of his host and a circle of aesthetic
friends, stood his ground to the last--his physical proportions being
his shield and buckler, and his Bible (with Colver's commentaries) his
weapon of defence.[7]

The movement for woman's suffrage, both in England and America, may be
dated from this World's Anti-Slavery Convention.


FOOTNOTES:

[6] The ladies of the Convention were fenced off behind a bar and
curtain, similar to those used in churches to screen the choir from
the public gaze.

[7] Some of the English clergy, dancing around with Bible in hand,
shaking it in the faces of the opposition, grew so vehement, that one
would really have thought that they held a commission from high heaven
as the possessors of all truth, and that all progress in human affairs
was to be squared by their interpretation of Scripture. At last George
Bradburn, exasperated with their narrowness and bigotry, sprang to the
floor, and stretching himself to his full height, said: "Prove to me,
gentlemen, that your Bible sanctions the slavery of woman--the
complete subjugation of one-half the race to the other--and I should
feel that the best work I could do for humanity would be to make a
grand bonfire of every Bible in the Universe."




CHAPTER IV.

NEW YORK.


     The First Woman's Rights Convention, Seneca Falls, July 19-20,
     1848--Property Rights of Women secured--Judge Fine, George
     Geddes, and Mr. Hadley pushed the Bill through--Danger of
     meddling with well-settled conditions of domestic happiness--Mrs.
     Barbara Hertell's will--Richard Hunt's tea-table--The eventful
     day--James Mott President--Declaration of sentiments--Convention
     in Rochester--Clergy again in opposition with Bible arguments.

New York with its metropolis, fine harbors, great lakes and rivers;
its canals and railroads uniting the extremest limits, and controlling
the commerce of the world; with its wise statesmen and wily
politicians, long holding the same relation to the nation at large
that Paris is said to hold to France, has been proudly called by her
sons and daughters the Empire State.

But the most interesting fact in her history, to woman, is that she
was the first State to emancipate wives from the slavery of the old
common law of England, and to secure to them equal property rights.
This occurred in 1848. Various bills and petitions, with reference to
the civil rights of woman, had been under discussion twelve years, and
the final passage of the property bill was due in no small measure to
two facts. 1st. The constitutional convention in 1847, which compelled
the thinking people of the State, and especially the members of the
convention, to the serious consideration of the fundamental principles
of government. As in the revision of a Constitution the State is for
the time being resolved into its original elements in recognizing the
equality of all the people, one would naturally think that a chance
ray of justice might have fallen aslant the wrongs of woman and
brought to the surface some champion in that convention, especially as
some aggravated cases of cruelty in families of wealth and position
had just at that time aroused the attention of influential men to the
whole question. 2d. Among the Dutch aristocracy of the State there was
a vast amount of dissipation; and as married women could hold neither
property nor children under the common law, solid, thrifty Dutch
fathers were daily confronted with the fact that the inheritance of
their daughters, carefully accumulated, would at marriage pass into
the hands of dissipated, impecunious husbands, reducing them and their
children to poverty and dependence. Hence this influential class of
citizens heartily seconded the efforts of reformers, then demanding
equal property rights in the marriage relation. Thus a wise
selfishness on one side, and principle on the other, pushed the
conservatives and radicals into the same channel, and both alike found
anchor in the statute law of 1848. This was the death-blow to the old
Blackstone code for married women in this country, and ever since
legislation has been slowly, but steadily, advancing toward their
complete equality.

Desiring to know who prompted the legislative action on the Property
Bill in 1848, and the names of our champions who carried it
successfully through after twelve years of discussion and petitioning,
a letter of inquiry was addressed to the Hon. George Geddes of the
twenty-second district--at that time Senator--and received the
following reply:

                                     FAIRMOUNT, ONONDAGA CO., N. Y.,}
                                                _November 25, 1880_.}

     MRS. MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE:

     _Dear Madam_:--I was much gratified at the receipt of your letter
     of the 22d inst., making inquiries into the history of the law of
     1848 in regard to married women holding property independently of
     their husbands. That the "truth of history" may be made plain, I
     have looked over the journals of the Senate and Assembly, and
     taken full notes, which I request you to publish, if you put any
     part of this letter in print.

     I have very distinct recollections of the whole history of this
     very radical measure. Judge Fine, of St. Lawrence, was its
     originator, and he gave me his reasons for introducing the bill.
     He said that he married a lady who had some property of her own,
     which he had, all his life, tried to keep distinct from his, that
     she might have the benefit of her own, in the event of any
     disaster happening to him in pecuniary matters. He had found much
     difficulty, growing out of the old laws, in this effort to
     protect his wife's interests.

     Judge Fine was a stately man, and of general conservative
     tendencies, just the one to hold on to the past, but he was a
     just man, and did not allow his practice as a lawyer, or his
     experience on the bench, to obscure his sense of right. I
     followed him, glad of such a leader.

     I, too, had special reasons for desiring this change in the law.
     I had a young daughter, who, in the then condition of my health,
     was quite likely to be left in tender years without a father, and
     I very much desired to protect her in the little property I might
     be able to leave. I had an elaborate will drawn by my old law
     preceptor, Vice-Chancellor Lewis H. Sandford, creating a trust
     with all the care and learning he could bring to my aid. But when
     the elaborate paper was finished, neither he or I felt satisfied
     with it. When the law of 1848 was passed, all I had to do was to
     burn this will.

     In this connection I wish to say that the Speaker of the
     Assembly, Mr. Hadley, gave aid in the passage of this law that
     was essential. Very near the end of the session of the
     Legislature he assured me that if the bill passed the Senate, he
     would see that it passed the House. By examining my notes of the
     Assembly's action, you will see that the bill never went to a
     committee of the whole in that body, but was sent directly to a
     select committee to report complete. It was the power of the
     Speaker that in this summary manner overrode the usual
     legislative forms. The only reason Mr. Hadley gave me for his
     zeal in this matter, was that it was a good bill and ought to
     pass.

     I believe this law originated with Judge Fine, without any
     outside prompting. On the third day of the session he gave notice
     of his intention to introduce it, and only one petition was
     presented in favor of the bill, and that came from Syracuse, and
     was due to the action of my personal friends--I presented it
     nearly two months after the bill had been introduced to the
     Senate.

     The reception of the bill by the Senate showed unlooked-for
     support as well as opposition. The measure was so radical, so
     extreme, that even its friends had doubts; but the moment any
     important amendment was offered, up rose the whole question of
     woman's proper place in society, in the family, and everywhere.
     We all felt that the laws regulating married women's, as well as
     married men's rights, demanded careful revision and adaptation to
     our times and to our civilization. But no such revision could be
     perfected then, nor has it been since. We meant to strike a hard
     blow, and if possible shake the old system of laws to their
     foundations, and leave it to other times and wiser councils to
     perfect a new system.

     We had in the Senate a man of matured years, who had never had a
     wife. He was a lawyer well-read in the old books, and versed in
     the adjudications which had determined that husband and wife were
     but one person, and the husband that person; and he expressed
     great fears in regard to meddling with this well-settled
     condition of domestic happiness. This champion of the past made
     long and very able arguments to show the ruin this law must work,
     but he voted for the bill in the final decision.

     The bill hung along in Committee of the Whole until March 21st,
     when its great opponent being absent, I moved its reference to a
     select Committee, with power to report it complete; that is,
     matured ready for its passage. So the bill was out of the arena
     of debate, and on my motion was ordered to its third reading.

     In reply to your inquiries in regard to debates that preceded the
     action of 1848, I must say I know of none, and I am quite sure
     that in our long discussions no allusion was made to anything of
     the kind. Great measures often occupy the thoughts of men and
     women, long before they take substantial form and become things
     of life, and I shall not dispute any one who says that this
     reform had been thought of before 1848. But I do insist the
     record shows that Judge Fine is the author of the law which
     opened the way to clothe woman with full rights, in regard to
     holding, using, and enjoying in every way her own property,
     independently of any husband.

     I add the following extracts taken from the journals of the
     Senate and Assembly of 1848, viz:

     Senate journal for 1848, p. 35. January 7th. "Mr. Fine gave
     notice that he would, at an early day, ask leave to introduce a
     bill for the more effectual protection of the property of married
     women."

     Jan. 8th, p. 47. "Mr. Fine introduced 'the bill,' and it was
     referred to the Judiciary Committee," which consisted of Mr.
     Wilkin, Mr. Fine, and Mr. Cole.

     Feb. 7th, p. 157. Mr. Wilkin reported the bill favorably, and it
     was sent to the Committee of the Whole.

     Feb. 23d. Mr. Geddes presented the petition of three hundred
     citizens of Syracuse praying for the passage of a law to protect
     the rights of married women.

     March 1st, p. 242. "The Senate spent some time in Committee of
     the Whole" on the bill, and reported progress, and had leave to
     sit again.

     March 3d, p. 250. The Senate again in Committee of the Whole on
     this bill.

     March 15th, p. 314. The Senate again in Committee of the Whole on
     this bill.

     March 21st, p. 352. Mr. Lawrence, from Committee of the Whole,
     reported the bill with some amendments. "Thereupon ordered that
     said bill be referred to a Select Committee consisting of Mr.
     Fine, Mr. Geddes, and Mr. Hawley to report complete."

     March 21st, p. 354. "Mr. Geddes, from the Select Committee,
     reported complete, with amendments, the bill entitled 'An Act for
     the more effectual protection of the property of married women,'
     which report was laid on the table."

     March 28th, p. 420. "On motion of Mr. Geddes, the Senate then
     proceeded to the consideration of the report of the Select
     Committee on the bill entitled '(as above)', which report was
     agreed to, and the bill ordered to a third reading."

     March 29th, p. 443. The bill entitled "(as above)" was read the
     third time, and passed--ayes, 23; nays, 1, as follows:

     _Ayes_--Messrs. Betts, Bond, Brownson, Burch, Coffin, Cole, Cook,
     Cornwell, Fine, Floyd, Fox, Fuller, Geddes, S. H. P. Hall,
     Hawley, Johnson, Lawrence, Little, Martin, Smith, Wallon, Wilkin,
     Williams, 23.

     _Nays_--Clark, 1.

     April 7th, p. 541. The bill was returned from the Assembly with
     its concurrence.

     Its history in the Assembly (_see its Journal_):

     March 29th, p. 966. A message from the Senate, requesting the
     concurrence of the Assembly to "An Act for the more effectual
     protection of the property of married women." On motion of Mr.
     Campbell, the bill was sent to a Committee consisting of Messrs.
     Campbell, Brigham, Myers, Coe, and Crocker, to report complete
     (_see page_ 967).

     April 1st, page 1025. Mr. Campbell reported in favor of its
     passage, p. 1026. Report agreed to by the House.

     April 6, p. 1129. Mr. Collins moved to recommit to a Select
     Committee for amendment. His motion failed, and the bill passed
     (p. 1130). Ayes, 93. Nays, 9.

     The Governor put his name to the bill and thus it became a law.

     Please reply to me and let me know whether I have made this
     matter clear to you.

                         Very respectfully,
                                                  GEO. GEDDES.

When the first bill was introduced by Judge Hertell in 1836, he made a
very elaborate argument in its favor, covering all objections, and
showing the incontestable justice of the measure. Being too voluminous
for a newspaper report it was published in pamphlet form. His wife,
Barbara Amelia Hertell, dying a few years since, by her will left a
sum for the republication of this exhaustive argument, thus keeping
the memory of her husband green in the hearts of his countrywomen, and
expressing her own high appreciation of its value.

Step by step the Middle and New England States began to modify their
laws, but the Western States, in their Constitutions, were liberal in
starting. Thus the discussions in the constitutional convention and
the Legislature, heralded by the press to every school district,
culminated at last in a woman's rights convention.

The _Seneca County Courier_, a semi-weekly journal, of July 14, 1848,
contained the following startling announcement:

                        SENECA FALLS CONVENTION.

     WOMAN'S RIGHTS CONVENTION.--A Convention to discuss the social,
     civil, and religious condition and rights of woman, will be held
     in the Wesleyan Chapel, at Seneca Falls, N. Y., on Wednesday and
     Thursday, the 19th and 20th of July, current; commencing at 10
     o'clock A.M. During the first day the meeting will be exclusively
     for women, who are earnestly invited to attend. The public
     generally are invited to be present on the second day, when
     Lucretia Mott, of Philadelphia, and other ladies and gentlemen,
     will address the convention.

This call, without signature, was issued by Lucretia Mott, Martha C.
Wright, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Mary Ann McClintock. At this time
Mrs. Mott was visiting her sister Mrs. Wright, at Auburn, and
attending the Yearly Meeting of Friends in Western New York. Mrs.
Stanton, having recently removed from Boston to Seneca Falls, finding
the most congenial associations in Quaker families, met Mrs. Mott
incidentally for the first time since her residence there. They at
once returned to the topic they had so often discussed, walking arm
in arm in the streets of London, and Boston, "the propriety of holding
a woman's convention." These four ladies, sitting round the tea-table
of Richard Hunt, a prominent Friend near Waterloo, decided to put
their long-talked-of resolution into action, and before the twilight
deepened into night, the call was written, and sent to the Seneca
County Courier. On Sunday morning they met in Mrs. McClintock's parlor
to write their declaration, resolutions, and to consider subjects for
speeches.[8] As the convention was to assemble in three days, the time
was short for such productions; but having no experience in the _modus
operandi_ of getting up conventions, nor in that kind of literature,
they were quite innocent of the herculean labors they proposed. On the
first attempt to frame a resolution; to crowd a complete thought,
clearly and concisely, into three lines; they felt as helpless and
hopeless as if they had been suddenly asked to construct a steam
engine. And the humiliating fact may as well now be recorded that
before taking the initiative step, those ladies resigned themselves to
a faithful perusal of various masculine productions. The reports of
Peace, Temperance, and Anti-Slavery conventions were examined, but all
alike seemed too tame and pacific for the inauguration of a rebellion
such as the world had never before seen. They knew women had wrongs,
but how to state them was the difficulty, and this was increased from
the fact that they themselves were fortunately organized and
conditioned; they were neither "sour old maids," "childless women,"
nor "divorced wives," as the newspapers declared them to be. While
they had felt the insults incident to sex, in many ways, as every
proud, thinking woman must, in the laws, religion, and literature of
the world, and in the invidious and degrading sentiments and customs
of all nations, yet they had not in their own experience endured the
coarser forms of tyranny resulting from unjust laws, or association
with immoral and unscrupulous men, but they had souls large enough to
feel the wrongs of others, without being scarified in their own flesh.

After much delay, one of the circle took up the Declaration of 1776,
and read it aloud with much spirit and emphasis, and it was at once
decided to adopt the historic document, with some slight changes such
as substituting "all men" for "King George." Knowing that women must
have more to complain of than men under any circumstances possibly
could, and seeing the Fathers had eighteen grievances, a protracted
search was made through statute books, church usages, and the customs
of society to find that exact number. Several well-disposed men
assisted in collecting the grievances, until, with the announcement of
the eighteenth, the women felt they had enough to go before the world
with a good case. One youthful lord remarked, "Your grievances must be
grievous indeed, when you are obliged to go to books in order to find
them out."

The eventful day dawned at last, and crowds in carriages and on foot,
wended their way to the Wesleyan church. When those having charge of
the Declaration, the resolutions, and several volumes of the Statutes
of New York arrived on the scene, lo! the door was locked. However, an
embryo Professor of Yale College was lifted through an open window to
unbar the door; that done, the church was quickly filled. It had been
decided to have no men present, but as they were already on the spot,
and as the women who must take the responsibility of organizing the
meeting, and leading the discussions, shrank from doing either, it was
decided, in a hasty council round the altar, that this was an occasion
when men might make themselves pre-eminently useful. It was agreed
they should remain, and take the laboring oar through the Convention.

James Mott, tall and dignified, in Quaker costume, was called to the
chair; Mary McClintock appointed Secretary, Frederick Douglass, Samuel
Tillman, Ansel Bascom, E. W. Capron, and Thomas McClintock took part
throughout in the discussions. Lucretia Mott, accustomed to public
speaking in the Society of Friends, stated the objects of the
Convention, and in taking a survey of the degraded condition of woman
the world over, showed the importance of inaugurating some movement
for her education and elevation. Elizabeth and Mary McClintock, and
Mrs. Stanton, each read a well-written speech; Martha Wright read some
satirical articles she had published in the daily papers answering the
diatribes on woman's sphere. Ansel Bascom, who had been a member of
the Constitutional Convention recently held in Albany, spoke at length
on the property bill for married women, just passed the Legislature,
and the discussion on woman's rights in that Convention. Samuel
Tillman, a young student of law, read a series of the most
exasperating statutes for women, from English and American jurists,
all reflecting the _tender mercies_ of men toward their wives, in
taking care of their property and protecting them in their civil
rights.

The Declaration having been freely discussed by many present, was
re-read by Mrs. Stanton, and with some slight amendment adopted.

                       DECLARATION OF SENTIMENTS.

     When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one
     portion of the family of man to assume among the people of the
     earth a position different from that which they have hitherto
     occupied, but one to which the laws of nature and of nature's God
     entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind
     requires that they should declare the causes that impel them to
     such a course.

     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; that among these are life, liberty,
     and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights
     governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the
     consent of the governed. Whenever any form of government becomes
     destructive of these ends, it is the right of those who suffer
     from it to refuse allegiance to it, and to insist upon the
     institution of a new government, laying its foundation on such
     principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them
     shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
     Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established
     should not be changed for light and transient causes; and
     accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more
     disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right
     themselves by abolishing the forms to which they were accustomed.
     But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing
     invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under
     absolute despotism, it is their duty to throw off such
     government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
     Such has been the patient sufferance of the women under this
     government, and such is now the necessity which constrains them
     to demand the equal station to which they are entitled.

     The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and
     usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct
     object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. To
     prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

     He has never permitted her to exercise her inalienable right to
     the elective franchise.

     He has compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation of which
     she had no voice.

     He has withheld from her rights which are given to the most
     ignorant and degraded men--both natives and foreigners.

     Having deprived her of this first right of a citizen, the
     elective franchise, thereby leaving her without representation in
     the halls of legislation, he has oppressed her on all sides.

     He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead.

     He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages
     she earns.

     He has made her, morally, an irresponsible being, as she can
     commit many crimes with impunity, provided they be done in the
     presence of her husband. In the covenant of marriage, she is
     compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to
     all intents and purposes, her master--the law giving him power to
     deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement.

     He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the
     proper causes, and in case of separation, to whom the
     guardianship of the children shall be given, as to be wholly
     regardless of the happiness of women--the law, in all cases,
     going upon a false supposition of the supremacy of man, and
     giving all power into his hands.

     After depriving her of all rights as a married woman, if single,
     and the owner of property, he has taxed her to support a
     government which recognizes her only when her property can be
     made profitable to it.

     He has monopolized nearly all the profitable employments, and
     from those she is permitted to follow, she receives but a scanty
     remuneration. He closes against her all the avenues to wealth and
     distinction which he considers most honorable to himself. As a
     teacher of theology, medicine, or law, she is not known.

     He has denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough
     education, all colleges being closed against her.

     He allows her in Church, as well as State, but a subordinate
     position, claiming Apostolic authority for her exclusion from the
     ministry, and, with some exceptions, from any public
     participation in the affairs of the Church.

     He has created a false public sentiment by giving to the world a
     different code of morals for men and women, by which moral
     delinquencies which exclude women from society, are not only
     tolerated, but deemed of little account in man.

     He has usurped the prerogative of Jehovah himself, claiming it as
     his right to assign for her a sphere of action, when that belongs
     to her conscience and to her God.

     He has endeavored, in every way that he could, to destroy her
     confidence in her own powers, to lessen her self-respect, and to
     make her willing to lead a dependent and abject life.

     Now, in view of this entire disfranchisement of one-half the
     people of this country, their social and religious
     degradation--in view of the unjust laws above mentioned, and
     because women do feel themselves aggrieved, oppressed, and
     fraudulently deprived of their most sacred rights, we insist that
     they have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges
     which belong to them as citizens of the United States.

     In entering upon the great work before us, we anticipate no small
     amount of misconception, misrepresentation, and ridicule; but we
     shall use every instrumentality within our power to effect our
     object. We shall employ agents, circulate tracts, petition the
     State and National legislatures, and endeavor to enlist the
     pulpit and the press in our behalf. We hope this Convention will
     be followed by a series of Conventions embracing every part of
     the country.

The following resolutions were discussed by Lucretia Mott, Thomas and
Mary Ann McClintock, Amy Post, Catharine A. F. Stebbins, and others,
and were adopted:

     WHEREAS, The great precept of nature is conceded to be, that "man
     shall pursue his own true and substantial happiness." Blackstone
     in his Commentaries remarks, that this law of Nature being
     coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is of course
     superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the
     globe, in all countries and at all times; no human laws are of
     any validity if contrary to this, and such of them as are valid,
     derive all their force, and all their validity, and all their
     authority, mediately and immediately, from this original;
     therefore.

     _Resolved_, That such laws as conflict, in any way, with the true
     and substantial happiness of woman, are contrary to the great
     precept of nature and of no validity, for this is "superior in
     obligation to any other."

     _Resolved_, That all laws which prevent woman from occupying such
     a station in society as her conscience shall dictate, or which
     place her in a position inferior to that of man, are contrary to
     the great precept of nature, and therefore of no force or
     authority.

     _Resolved_, That woman is man's equal--was intended to be so by
     the Creator, and the highest good of the race demands that she
     should be recognized as such.

     _Resolved_, That the women of this country ought to be
     enlightened in regard to the laws under which they live, that
     they may no longer publish their degradation by declaring
     themselves satisfied with their present position, nor their
     ignorance, by asserting that they have all the rights they want.

     _Resolved_, That inasmuch as man, while claiming for himself
     intellectual superiority, does accord to woman moral superiority,
     it is pre-eminently his duty to encourage her to speak and teach,
     as she has an opportunity, in all religious assemblies.

     _Resolved_, That the same amount of virtue, delicacy, and
     refinement of behavior that is required of woman in the social
     state, should also be required of man, and the same
     transgressions should be visited with equal severity on both man
     and woman.

     _Resolved_, That the objection of indelicacy and impropriety,
     which is so often brought against woman when she addresses a
     public audience, comes with a very ill-grace from those who
     encourage, by their attendance, her appearance on the stage, in
     the concert, or in feats of the circus.

     _Resolved_, That woman has too long rested satisfied in the
     circumscribed limits which corrupt customs and a perverted
     application of the Scriptures have marked out for her, and that
     it is time she should move in the enlarged sphere which her great
     Creator has assigned her.

     _Resolved_, That it is the duty of the women of this country to
     secure to themselves their sacred right to the elective
     franchise.

     _Resolved_, That the equality of human rights results necessarily
     from the fact of the identity of the race in capabilities and
     responsibilities.

     _Resolved, therefore_, That, being invested by the Creator with
     the same capabilities, and the same consciousness of
     responsibility for their exercise, it is demonstrably the right
     and duty of woman, equally with man, to promote every righteous
     cause by every righteous means; and especially in regard to the
     great subjects of morals and religion, it is self-evidently her
     right to participate with her brother in teaching them, both in
     private and in public, by writing and by speaking, by any
     instrumentalities proper to be used, and in any assemblies proper
     to be held; and this being a self-evident truth growing out of
     the divinely implanted principles of human nature, any custom or
     authority adverse to it, whether modern or wearing the hoary
     sanction of antiquity, is to be regarded as a self-evident
     falsehood, and at war with mankind.

At the last session Lucretia Mott offered and spoke to the following
resolution:

     _Resolved_, That the speedy success of our cause depends upon the
     zealous and untiring efforts of both men and women, for the
     overthrow of the monopoly of the pulpit, and for the securing to
     woman an equal participation with men in the various trades,
     professions, and commerce.

The only resolution that was not unanimously adopted was the ninth,
urging the women of the country to secure to themselves the elective
franchise. Those who took part in the debate feared a demand for the
right to vote would defeat others they deemed more rational, and make
the whole movement ridiculous.

But Mrs. Stanton and Frederick Douglass seeing that the power to
choose rulers and make laws, was the right by which all others could
be secured, persistently advocated the resolution, and at last carried
it by a small majority.

Thus it will be seen that the Declaration and resolutions in the very
first Convention, demanded all the most radical friends of the
movement have since claimed--such as equal rights in the universities,
in the trades and professions; the right to vote; to share in all
political offices, honors, and emoluments; to complete equality in
marriage, to personal freedom, property, wages, children; to make
contracts; to sue, and be sued; and to testify in courts of justice.
At this time the condition of married women under the Common Law, was
nearly as degraded as that of the slave on the Southern plantation.
The Convention continued through two entire days, and late into the
evenings. The deepest interest was manifested to its close.

The proceedings were extensively published, unsparingly ridiculed by
the press, and denounced by the pulpit, much to the surprise and
chagrin of the leaders. Being deeply in earnest, and believing their
demands pre-eminently wise and just, they were wholly unprepared to
find themselves the target for the jibes and jeers of the nation. The
Declaration was signed by one hundred men, and women, many of whom
withdrew their names as soon as the storm of ridicule began to break.
The comments of the press were carefully preserved,[9] and it is
curious to see that the same old arguments, and objections rife at the
start, are reproduced by the press of to-day. But the brave protests
sent out from this Convention touched a responsive chord in the hearts
of women all over the country.

Conventions were held soon after in Ohio, Massachusetts, Indiana,
Pennsylvania, and at different points in New York.

Mr. Douglass, in his paper, _The North Star_, of July 28, 1848, had
the following editorial leader:

     THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN.--One of the most interesting events of the
     past week, was the holding of what is technically styled a
     Woman's Rights Convention at Seneca Falls. The speaking,
     addresses, and resolutions of this extraordinary meeting were
     almost wholly conducted by women; and although they evidently
     felt themselves in a novel position, it is but simple justice to
     say that their whole proceedings were characterized by marked
     ability and dignity. No one present, we think, however much he
     might be disposed to differ from the views advanced by the
     leading speakers on that occasion, will fail to give them credit
     for brilliant talents and excellent dispositions. In this
     meeting, as in other deliberative assemblies, there were frequent
     differences of opinion and animated discussion; but in no case
     was there the slightest absence of good feeling and decorum.
     Several interesting documents setting forth the rights as well as
     grievances of women were read. Among these was a Declaration of
     Sentiments, to be regarded as the basis of a grand movement for
     attaining the civil, social, political, and religious rights of
     women. We should not do justice to our own convictions, or to the
     excellent persons connected with this infant movement, if we did
     not in this connection offer a few remarks on the general subject
     which the Convention met to consider and the objects they seek to
     attain. In doing so, we are not insensible that the bare mention
     of this truly important subject in any other than terms of
     contemptuous ridicule and scornful disfavor, is likely to excite
     against us the fury of bigotry and the folly of prejudice. A
     discussion of the rights of animals would be regarded with far
     more complacency by many of what are called the _wise_ and the
     _good_ of our land, than would be a discussion of the rights of
     women. It is, in their estimation, to be guilty of evil thoughts,
     to think that woman is entitled to equal rights with man. Many
     who have at last made the discovery that the <DW64>s have some
     rights as well as other members of the human family, have yet to
     be convinced that women are entitled to any. Eight years ago a
     number of persons of this description actually abandoned the
     anti-slavery cause, lest by giving their influence in that
     direction they might possibly be giving countenance to the
     dangerous heresy that woman, in respect to rights, stands on an
     equal footing with man. In the judgment of such persons the
     American slave system, with all its concomitant horrors, is less
     to be deplored than this _wicked_ idea. It is perhaps needless to
     say, that we cherish little sympathy for such sentiments or
     respect for such prejudices. Standing as we do upon the
     watch-tower of human freedom, we can not be deterred from an
     expression of our approbation of any movement, however humble,
     to improve and elevate the character of any members of the human
     family. While it is impossible for us to go into this subject at
     length, and dispose of the various objections which are often
     urged against such a doctrine as that of female equality, we are
     free to say that in respect to political rights, we hold woman to
     be justly entitled to all we claim for man. We go farther, and
     express our conviction that all political rights which it is
     expedient for man to exercise, it is equally so for woman. All
     that distinguishes man as an intelligent and accountable being,
     is equally true of woman; and if that government only is just
     which governs by the free consent of the governed, there can be
     no reason in the world for denying to woman the exercise of the
     elective franchise, or a hand in making and administering the
     laws of the land. Our doctrine is that "right is of no sex." We
     therefore bid the women engaged in this movement our humble
     Godspeed.


THE ROCHESTER CONVENTION, AUGUST 2, 1848.

Those who took part in the Convention at Seneca Falls, finding at the
end of the two days, there were still so many new points for
discussion, and that the gift of tongues had been vouchsafed to them,
adjourned, to meet in Rochester in two weeks. Amy Post, Sarah D. Fish,
Sarah C. Owen, and Mary H. Hallowell, were the Committee of
Arrangements. This Convention was called for August 2d, and so well
advertised in the daily papers, that at the appointed hour, the
Unitarian Church was filled to overflowing.

Amy Post called the meeting to order, and stated that at a gathering
the previous evening in Protection Hall, Rhoda De Garmo, Sarah Fish,
and herself, were appointed a committee to nominate officers for the
Convention, and they now proposed Abigail Bush, for President; Laura
Murray, for Vice-President; Elizabeth McClintock, Sarah Hallowell, and
Catherine A. F. Stebbins, for Secretaries. Mrs. Mott, Mrs. Stanton,
and Mrs. McClintock, thought it a most hazardous experiment to have a
woman President, and stoutly opposed it.

To write a Declaration and Resolutions, to make a speech, and debate,
had taxed their powers to the uttermost; and now, with such feeble
voices and timid manners, without the slightest knowledge of Cushing's
Manual, or the least experience in public meetings, how could a woman
preside? They were on the verge of leaving the Convention in disgust,
but Amy Post and Rhoda De Garmo assured them that by the same power by
which they had resolved, declared, discussed, debated, they could also
preside at a public meeting, if they would but make the experiment.
And as the vote of the majority settled the question on the side of
woman, Abigail Bush took the chair, and the calm way she assumed the
duties of the office, and the admirable manner in which she discharged
them, soon reconciled the opposition to the seemingly ridiculous
experiment.

The proceedings were opened with prayer, by the Rev. Mr. Wicher, of
the Free-will Baptist Church. Even at that early day, there were many
of the liberal clergymen in favor of equal rights for women. During
the reading of the minutes of the preliminary meeting by the
Secretary, much uneasiness was manifested concerning the low voices of
women, and cries of "Louder, louder!" drowned every other sound, when
the President, on rising, said:

     Friends, we present ourselves here before you, as an oppressed
     class, with trembling frames and faltering tongues, and we do not
     expect to be able to speak so as to be heard by all at first, but
     we trust we shall have the sympathy of the audience, and that you
     will bear with our weakness now in the infancy of the movement.
     Our trust in the omnipotency of right is our only faith that we
     shall succeed.

As the appointed Secretaries could not be heard, Sarah Anthony Burtis,
an experienced Quaker school-teacher, whose voice had been well
trained in her profession, volunteered to fill the duties of that
office, and she read the reports and documents of the Convention with
a clear voice and confident manner, to the great satisfaction of her
more timid coadjutors.

Several gentlemen took part in the debates of this Convention. Some in
favor, some opposed, and others willing to make partial concessions to
the demands as set forth in the Declaration and Resolutions. Frederick
Douglass, William C. Nell, and William C. Bloss advocated the
emancipation of women from all the artificial disabilities, imposed by
false customs, creeds, and codes. Milo Codding, Mr. Sulley, Mr.
Pickard, and a Mr. Colton, of Connecticut, thought "woman's sphere was
home," and that she should remain in it; he would seriously deprecate
her occupying the pulpit.

Lucretia Mott replied, that the gentleman from New Haven had objected
to woman occupying the pulpit, and indeed she could scarcely see how
any one educated in New Haven, Ct., could think otherwise than he did.
She said, we had all got our notions too much from the clergy, instead
of the Bible. The Bible, she contended, had none of the prohibitions
in regard to women; and spoke of the "honorable women not a few,"
etc., and desired Mr. Colton to read his Bible over again, and see if
there was anything there to prohibit woman from being a religious
teacher. She then complimented the members of that church for opening
their doors to a Woman's Eights Convention, and said that a few years
ago, the Female Moral Reform Society of Philadelphia applied for the
use of a church in that city, in which to hold one of their meetings;
they were only allowed the use of the basement, and on condition that
none of the women should speak at the meeting. Accordingly, a D.D. was
called upon to preside, and another to read the ladies' report of the
Society.

Near the close of the morning session, a young bride in traveling
dress,[10] accompanied by her husband, slowly walked up the aisle, and
asked the privilege of saying a few words, which was readily granted.
Being introduced to the audience, she said, on her way westward,
hearing of the Convention, she had waited over a train, to add her
mite in favor of the demand now made, by the true women of this
generation:

     It is with diffidence that I speak upon this question before us,
     not a diffidence resulting from any doubt of the worthiness of
     the cause, but from the fear that its depth and power can be but
     meagerly portrayed by me.... Woman's rights--her civil
     rights--equal with man's--not an equality of moral and religious
     influence, for who dares to deny her that?--but an equality in
     the exercise of her own powers, and a right to use all the
     sources of erudition within the reach of man, to build unto
     herself a name for her talents, energy, and integrity. We do not
     positively say that our intellect is as capable as man's to
     assume, and at once to hold, these rights, or that our hearts are
     as willing to enter into his actions; for if we did not believe
     it, we would not contend for them, and if men did not believe it,
     they would not withhold them with a smothered silence.... In
     closing, she said: There will be one effect, perhaps unlooked
     for, if we are raised to equal administration with man. It will
     classify intellect. The heterogeneous triflings which now, I am
     very sorry to say, occupy so much of our time, will be neglected;
     fashion's votaries will silently fall off; dishonest exertions
     for rank in society will be scorned; extravagance in toilet will
     be detested; that meager and worthless pride of station will be
     forgotten; the honest earnings of dependents will be paid;
     popular demagogues crushed; impostors unpatronized; true genius
     sincerely encouraged; and, above all, pawned integrity redeemed!
     And why? Because enfranchised woman then will feel the burdens of
     her responsibilities, and can strive for elevation, and will
     reach all knowledge within her grasp.... If all this is
     accomplished, man need not fear pomposity, fickleness, or an
     unhealthy enthusiasm at his dear fireside; we can be as dutiful,
     submissive, endearing as daughters, wives, and mothers, even if
     we hang the wreath of domestic harmony upon the eagle's talons.

Thus for twenty minutes the young and beautiful stranger held her
audience spell-bound with her eloquence, in a voice whose pathos
thrilled every heart. Her husband, hat and cane in hand, remained
standing, leaning against a pillar near the altar, and seemed a most
delighted, nay, reverential listener. It was a scene never to be
forgotten, and one of the most pleasing incidents of the Convention.

Sarah Owen read an address on woman's place and pay in the world of
work. In closing, she said:

     An experienced cashier of this city remarked to me that women
     might be as good book-keepers as men; but men have monopolized
     every lucrative situation, from the dry-goods merchant down to
     whitewashing. Who does not feel, as she sees a stout, athletic
     man standing behind the counter measuring lace, ribbons, and
     tape, that he is monopolizing a woman's place, while thousands of
     rich acres in our western world await his coming? This year, a
     woman, for the first time, has taken her place in one of our
     regular medical colleges. We rejoice to hear that by her dignity
     of manner, application to study, and devotion to the several
     branches of the profession she has chosen, she has secured the
     respect of her professors and class, and reflected lasting honor
     upon her whole sex. Thus we hail, in Elizabeth Blackwell, a
     pioneer for woman in this profession.

     It is by this inverted order of society that woman is obliged to
     ply the needle by day and by night, to procure even a scanty
     pittance for her dependent family. Let men become producers, as
     nature has designed them, and women be educated to fill all those
     stations which require less physical strength, and we should soon
     modify many of our social evils. I am informed by the
     seamstresses of this city, that they get but thirty cents for
     making a satin vest, and from twelve to thirty for making pants,
     and coats in the same proportion. Man has such a contemptible
     idea of woman, that he thinks she can not even sew as well as he
     can; and he often goes to a tailor, and pays him double and even
     treble for making a suit, when it merely passes through his
     hands, after a woman has made every stitch of it so neatly that
     he discovers no difference. Who does not see gross injustice in
     this inequality of wages and violation of rights? To prove that
     woman is capable of prosecuting the mercantile business, we have
     a noble example in this city in Mrs. Gifford, who has sustained
     herself with credit. She has bravely triumphed over all obloquy
     and discouragement attendant on such a novel experiment, and made
     for herself an independent living.

     In the fields of benevolence, woman has done great and noble
     works for the safety and stability of the nation. When man shall
     see the wisdom of recognizing a co-worker in her, then may be
     looked for the dawning of a perfect day, when woman shall stand
     where God designed she should, on an even platform with man
     himself.

Mrs. Roberts, who had been requested to investigate the wrongs of the
laboring classes, and to invite that oppressed portion of the
community to attend the Convention, and take part in its
deliberations, made some appropriate remarks relative to the
intolerable servitude and small remuneration paid to the working-class
of women. She reported the average price of labor for seamstresses to
be from 31 to 38 cents a day, and board from $1.25 to $1.50 per week
to be deducted therefrom, and they were generally obliged to take half
or more in due bills, which were payable in goods at certain stores,
thereby obliging them many times to pay extortionate prices.

Mrs. Galloy corroborated the statement, having herself experienced
some of the oppressions of this portion of our citizens, and expressed
her gratitude that the subject was claiming the attention of this
benevolent and intelligent class of community. It did not require much
argument, to reconcile all who took part in the debates, to woman's
right to equal wages for equal work, but the gentlemen seemed more
disturbed as to the effect of equality in the family. With the old
idea of a divinely ordained head, and that, in all cases, the man,
whether wise or foolish, educated or ignorant, sober or drunk, such a
relation to them did not seem feasible. Mr. Sully asked, when the two
heads disagree, who must decide? There is no Lord Chancellor to whom
to apply, and does not St. Paul strictly enjoin obedience to husbands,
and that man shall be head of the woman?

Lucretia Mott replied that in the Society of Friends she had never
known any difficulty to arise on account of the wife's not having
promised _obedience_ in the marriage contract. She had never known any
mode of decision except an appeal to reason; and, although in some of
the meetings of this Society, women are placid on an equality, none of
the results so much dreaded had occurred. She said that many of the
opposers of Woman's Rights, who bid us to obey the bachelor St. Paul,
themselves reject his counsel. He advised them not to marry. In
general answer she would quote, "One is your master, even Christ."
Although Paul enjoins silence on women in the Church, yet he gives
directions how they should appear when publicly speaking, and we have
scriptural accounts of honorable women not a few who were religious
teachers, viz: Phebe, Priscilla, Tryphena, Triphosa, and the four
daughters of Philip, and various others.

Mrs. Stanton thought the gentleman might be easily answered; saying
that the strongest will or the superior intellect now governs the
household, as it will in the new order. She knew many a woman, who, to
all intents and purposes, is at the head of her family.

Mr. Pickard asked who, after marriage, should hold the property, and
whose name should be retained. He thought an umpire necessary. He did
not see but all business must cease until the consent of both parties
be obtained. He saw an impossibility of introducing such rules into
society. The Gospel had established the unity and oneness of the
married pair.

Mrs. Stanton said she thought the Gospel, rightly understood, pointed
to a oneness of equality, not subordination, and that property should
be jointly held. She could see no reason why marriage by false creeds
should be made a degradation to woman; and, as to the name, the custom
of taking the husband's name is not universal. When a man has a bad
name in any sense, he might be the gainer by burying himself under the
good name of his wife. This last winter a Mr. Cruikshanks applied to
our Legislature to have his name changed. Now, if he had taken his
wife's name in the beginning, he might have saved the Legislature the
trouble of considering the propriety of releasing the man from such a
burden to be entailed on the third and fourth generation. When a slave
escapes from a Southern plantation, he at once takes a name as the
first step in liberty--the first assertion of individual identity. A
woman's dignity is equally involved in a life-long name, to mark her
individuality. We can not overestimate the demoralizing effect on
woman herself, to say nothing of society at large, for her to consent
thus to merge her existence so wholly in that of another.

A well-written speech was read by William C. Nell, which Mrs. Mott
thought too flattering. She said woman is now sufficiently developed
to prefer justice to compliment.

A letter was read from Gerrit Smith, approving cordially of the object
of the Convention.

Mrs. Stanton read the Declaration that was adopted at Seneca Falls,
and urged those present who did not agree with its sentiments, to make
their objections then and there. She hoped if there were any clergymen
present, they would not keep silent during the Convention and then on
Sunday do as their brethren did in Seneca Falls--use their pulpits
throughout the city to denounce them, where they could not, of course,
be allowed to reply.

The resolutions[11] were freely discussed by Amy Post, Rhoda De Garmo,
Ann Edgeworth, Sarah D. Fish, and others. While Mrs. Mott and Mrs.
Stanton spoke in their favor, they thought they were too tame, and
wished for some more stirring declarations. Elizabeth McClintock read,
in an admirable manner, a spirited poetical reply, from the pen of
Maria Weston Chapman, to "A Clerical Appeal" published in 1840. Mrs.
Chapman was one of the grand women in Boston, who, during the early
days of Anti-Slavery, gave her unceasing efforts to that struggle. Her
pen was a power in the journals and magazines, and her presence an
inspiration in their fairs and conventions. When Abby Kelly, Angelina
Grimke, and Lucretia Mott first began to speak to promiscuous
assemblies in Anti-Slavery Conventions, "a clerical appeal" was issued
and sent to all the clergymen in New England, calling on them to
denounce in their pulpits this unmannerly and unchristian proceeding.
Sermons were preached, portraying in the darkest colors the fearful
results to the Church, the State, and the home, in thus encouraging
women to enter public life.


"PASTORAL LETTER."

Extract from a Pastoral Letter of "the General Association of
Massachusetts (Orthodox) to the Churches under their care"--1837:

     III. We invite your attention to the dangers which at present
     seem to threaten the female character with wide-spread and
     permanent injury.

     The appropriate duties and influence of woman are clearly stated
     in the New Testament. Those duties and that influence are
     unobtrusive and private, but the source of mighty power. When the
     mild, dependent, softening influence of woman upon the sternness
     of man's opinions is fully exercised, society feels the effects
     of it in a thousand forms. The power of woman is her dependence,
     flowing from the consciousness of that weakness which God has
     given her for her protection, (!) and which keeps her in those
     departments of life that form the character of individuals, and
     of the nation. There are social influences which females use in
     promoting piety and the great objects of Christian benevolence
     which we can not too highly commend.

     We appreciate the unostentatious prayers and efforts of woman in
     advancing the cause of religion at home and abroad; in
     Sabbath-schools; in leading religious inquirers to the pastors
     (!) for instruction; and in all such associated effort as becomes
     the modesty of her sex; and earnestly hope that she may abound
     more and more in these labors of piety and love. But when she
     assumes the place and tone of man as a public reformer, our care
     and protection of her seem unnecessary; we put ourselves in
     self-defence (!) against her; she yields the power which God has
     given her for her protection, and her character becomes
     unnatural. If the vine, whose strength and beauty is to lean upon
     the trellis-work, and half conceal its clusters, thinks to assume
     the independence and the overshadowing nature of the elm, it will
     not only cease to bear fruit, but fall in shame and dishonor into
     the dust. We can not, therefore, but regret the mistaken conduct
     of those who encourage females to bear an obtrusive and
     ostentatious part in measures of reform, and countenance any of
     that sex who so far forget themselves as to itinerate in the
     character of public lecturers and teachers. We especially deplore
     the intimate acquaintance and promiscuous conversation of females
     with regard to things which ought not to be named; by which that
     modesty and delicacy which is the charm of domestic life, and
     which constitutes the true influence of woman in society, is
     consumed, and the way opened, as we apprehend, for degeneracy and
     ruin.

     We say these things not to discourage proper influences against
     sin, but to secure such reformation (!) as we believe is
     Scriptural, and will be permanent.

William Lloyd Garrison, in a cordial letter, accompanying the above
extract, which he had copied for us with his own hand from the files
of _The Liberator_, said: "This 'Clerical Bull' was fulminated with
special reference to those two noble South Carolina women, Sarah M.
and Angelina E. Grimke, who were at that time publicly pleading for
those in bonds as bound with them, while on a visit to Massachusetts.
It was written by the Rev. Dr. Nehemiah Adams, of Boston, author of 'A
South-side View of Slavery.'"

Maria Weston Chapman's amusing answer in rhyme, shows that the days
for ecclesiastical bulls were fast passing away, when women, even,
could thus make light of them.

                   MRS. CHAPMAN'S POEM.

             "THE TIMES THAT TRY MEN'S SOULS."

    Confusion has seized us, and all things go wrong,
      The women have leaped from "their spheres,"
    And, instead of fixed stars, shoot as comets along,
      And are setting the world by the ears!
    In courses erratic they're wheeling through space,
    In brainless confusion and meaningless chase.

    In vain do our knowing ones try to compute
      Their return to the orbit designed;
    They're glanced at a moment, then onward they shoot,
      And are neither "to hold nor to bind;"
    So freely they move in their chosen ellipse,
    The "Lords of Creation" do fear an eclipse.

    They've taken a notion to speak for themselves,
      And are wielding the tongue and the pen;
    They've mounted the rostrum; the termagant elves,
      And--oh horrid!--are talking to men!
    With faces unblanched in our presence they come
    To harangue us, they say, in behalf of the dumb.

    They insist on their right to petition and pray,
      That St. Paul, in Corinthians, has given them rules
    For appearing in public; despite what those say
      Whom we've trained to instruct them in schools;
    But vain such instructions, if women may scan
    And quote texts of Scripture to favor their plan.

    Our grandmothers' learning consisted of yore
      In spreading their generous boards;
    In twisting the distaff, or mopping the floor,
      And _obeying the will of their lords_.
    Now, misses may reason, and think, and debate,
    Till unquestioned submission is quite out of date.

    Our clergy have preached on the sin and the shame
      Of woman, when out of "her sphere,"
    And labored _divinely_ to ruin her fame,
      And shorten this horrid career;
    But for spiritual guidance no longer they look
    To Fulsom, or Winslow, or learned Parson Cook.

    Our wise men have tried to exorcise in vain
      The turbulent spirits abroad;
    As well might we deal with the fetterless main,
      Or conquer ethereal essence with sword;
    Like the devils of Milton, they rise from each blow,
    With spirit unbroken, insulting the foe.

    Our patriot fathers, of eloquent fame,
      Waged war against tangible forms;
    Aye, _their_ foes were men--and if ours were the same,
      _We_ might speedily quiet their storms;
    But, ah! their descendants enjoy not such bliss--
    The assumptions of Britain were nothing to this.

    Could we but array all our force in the field,
      We'd teach these usurpers of power
    That their bodily safety demands they should yield,
      And in the presence of manhood should cower;
    But, alas! for our tethered and impotent state,
    Chained by notions of knighthood--we can but debate.

    Oh! shade of the prophet Mahomet, arise!
      Place woman again in "her sphere,"
    And teach that her soul was not born for the skies,
      But to flutter a brief moment here.
    This doctrine of Jesus, as preached up by Paul,
    If embraced in its spirit, will ruin us all.

                                        --_Lords of Creation_.

On reading the "Pastoral Letter," our Quaker poet, John Greenleaf
Whittier, poured out his indignation on the New England clergy in
thrilling denunciations. Mr. Whittier early saw that woman's only
protection against religious and social tyranny, could be found in
political equality. In the midst of the fierce conflicts in the
Anti-Slavery Conventions of 1839 and '40, on the woman question _per
se_, Mr. Whittier remarked to Lucretia Mott, "_Give woman the right to
vote_, and you end all these persecutions by reform and church
organizations."

              THE PASTORAL LETTER.

    So, this is all--the utmost reach
      Of priestly power the mind to fetter!
    When laymen think--when women preach--
      A war of words--a "Pastoral Letter!"
    Now, shame upon ye, parish Popes!
      Was it thus with those, your predecessors,
    Who sealed with racks, and fire, and ropes
      Their loving-kindness to transgressors?

    A "Pastoral Letter," grave and dull--
      Alas! in hoof and horns and features,
    How different is your Brookfield bull,
      From him who bellows from St. Peter's!
    Your pastoral rights and powers from harm,
      Think ye, can words alone preserve them?
    Your wiser fathers taught the arm
      And sword of temporal power to serve them.

    Oh, glorious days--when Church and State
      Were wedded by your spiritual fathers!
    And on submissive shoulders sat
      Yours Wilsons and your Cotton Mathers.
    No vile "itinerant" then could mar
      The beauty of your tranquil Zion,
    But at his peril of the scar
      Of hangman's whip and branding-iron.

    Then, wholesome laws relieved the Church
      Of heretic and mischief-maker.
    And priest and bailiff joined in search,
      By turns, of <DW7>, witch, and Quaker!
    The stocks were at each church's door,
      The gallows stood on Boston Common,
    A <DW7>'s ears the pillory bore--
      The gallows-rope, a Quaker woman!

    Your fathers dealt not as ye deal
      With "non-professing" frantic teachers;
    They bored the tongue with red-hot steel,
      And flayed the backs of "female preachers."
    Old Newbury, had her fields a tongue,
      And Salem's streets could tell their story,
    Of fainting woman dragged along,
      Gashed by the whip, accursed and gory!

    And will ye ask me, why this taunt
      Of memories sacred from the scorner?
    And why with reckless hand I plant
      A nettle on the graves ye honor?
    Not to reproach New England's dead
      This record from the past I summon,
    Of manhood to the scaffold led,
      And suffering and heroic woman.

    No--for yourselves alone, I turn
      The pages of intolerance over,
    That, in their spirit, dark and stern,
      Ye haply may your own discover!
    For, if ye claim the "pastoral right,"
      To silence freedom's voice of warning,
    And from your precincts shut the light
      Of Freedom's day around ye dawning;

    If when an earthquake voice of power,
      And signs in earth and heaven, are showing
    That forth, in the appointed hour,
      The Spirit of the Lord is going!
    And, with that Spirit, Freedom's light
      On kindred, tongue, and people breaking,
    Whose slumbering millions, at the sight,
      In glory and in strength are waking!

    When for the sighing of the poor,
      And for the needy, God hath risen,
    And chains are breaking, and a door
      Is opening for the souls in prison!
    If then ye would, with puny hands,
      Arrest the very work of Heaven,
    And bind anew the evil bands
      Which God's right arm of power hath riven,--

    What marvel that, in many a mind,
      Those darker deeds of bigot madness
    Are closely with your own combined,
      Yet "less in anger than in sadness"?
    What marvel, if the people learn
      To claim the right of free opinion?
    What marvel, if at times they spurn
      The ancient yoke of your dominion?

    A glorious remnant linger yet,
      Whose lips are wet at Freedom's fountains,
    The coming of whose welcome feet
      Is beautiful upon our mountains!
    Men, who the gospel tidings bring
      Of Liberty and Love forever,
    Whose joy is an abiding spring,
      Whose peace is as a gentle river!

    But ye, who scorn the thrilling tale
      Of Carolina's high-souled daughters,
    Which echoes here the mournful wail
      Of sorrow from Edisto's waters,
    Close while ye may the public ear--
      With malice vex, with slander wound them--
    The pure and good shall throng to hear,
      And tried and manly hearts surround them.

    Oh, ever may the power which led
      Their way to such a fiery trial,
    And strengthened womanhood to tread
      The wine-press of such self-denial,
    Be round them in an evil land,
      With wisdom and with strength from Heaven,
    With Miriam's voice, and Judith's hand,
      And Deborah's song, for triumph given!

    And what are ye who strive with God
      Against the ark of His salvation,
    Moved by the breath of prayer abroad,
      With blessings for a dying nation?
    What, but the stubble and the hay
      To perish, even as flax consuming,
    With all that bars His glorious way,
      Before the brightness of His coming?

    And thou, sad Angel, who so long
      Hast waited for the glorious token,
    That Earth from all her bonds of wrong
      To liberty and light has broken--
    Angel of Freedom! soon to thee
      The sounding trumpet shall be given,
    And over Earth's full jubilee
      Shall deeper joy be felt in Heaven!

In answer to the many objections made, by gentlemen present, to
granting to woman the right of suffrage, Frederick Douglass replied in
a long, argumentative, and eloquent appeal, for the complete equality
of woman in all the rights that belong to any human soul. He thought
the true basis of rights was the capacity of individuals; and as for
himself, he should not dare claim a right that he would not concede to
woman.

This Convention continued through three sessions, and was crowded with
an attentive audience to the hour of adjournment. The daily papers
made fair reports, and varied editorial comments, which, being widely
copied, called out spicy controversies in different parts of the
country. The resolutions and discussions regarding woman's right to
enter the professions, encouraged many to prepare themselves for
medicine and the ministry. Though few women responded to the demand
for political rights, many at once saw the importance of equality in
the world of work.

The Seneca Falls Declaration was adopted, and signed by large numbers
of influential men and women of Rochester and vicinity, and at a late
hour the Convention adjourned, in the language of its President, "with
hearts overflowing with gratitude."


FOOTNOTES:

[8] The antique mahogany center-table on which this historic document
was written now stands in the parlor of the McClintock family in
Philadelphia.

[9] See Appendix.

[10] Rebecca Sanford, now Postmaster at Mt. Morris, N. Y.

[11] See Appendix.




CHAPTER V.

REMINISCENCES.

EMILY COLLINS.


     The first Suffrage Society--Methodist class-leader whips his
     wife--Theology enchains the soul--The status of women and slaves
     the same--The first medical college opened to women, Geneva, N.
     Y.--Petitions to the Legislature laughed at, and laid on the
     table--Dependence woman's best protection; her weakness her
     sweetest charm--Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell's letter.

I was born and lived almost forty years in South Bristol, Ontario
County--one of the most secluded spots in Western New York; but from
the earliest dawn of reason I pined for that freedom of thought and
action that was then denied to all womankind. I revolted in spirit
against the customs of society and the laws of the State that crushed
my aspirations and debarred me from the pursuit of almost every object
worthy of an intelligent, rational mind. But not until that meeting at
Seneca Falls in 1848, of the pioneers in the cause, gave this feeling
of unrest form and voice, did I take action. Then I summoned a few
women in our neighborhood together and formed an Equal Suffrage
Society, and sent petitions to our Legislature; but our efforts were
little known beyond our circle, as we were in communication with no
person or newspaper. Yet there was enough of wrong in our narrow
horizon to rouse some thought in the minds of all.

In those early days a husband's supremacy was often enforced in the
rural districts by corporeal chastisement, and it was considered by
most people as quite right and proper--as much so as the correction of
refractory children in like manner. I remember in my own neighborhood
a man who was a Methodist class-leader and exhorter, and one who was
esteemed a worthy citizen, who, every few weeks, gave his wife a
beating with his horsewhip. He said it was necessary, in order to keep
her in subjection, and because she scolded so much. Now this wife,
surrounded by six or seven little children, whom she must wash, dress,
feed, and attend to day and night, was obliged to spin and weave cloth
for all the garments of the family. She had to milk the cows, make
butter and cheese, do all the cooking, washing, making, and mending
for the family, and, with the pains of maternity forced upon her every
eighteen months, was whipped by her pious husband, "because she
scolded." And pray, why should he not have chastised her? The laws
made it his privilege--and the Bible, as interpreted, made it his
duty. It is true, women repined at their hard lot; but it was thought
to be fixed by a divine decree, for "The man shall rule over thee,"
and "Wives, be subject to your husbands," and "Wives, submit
yourselves unto your husbands as unto the Lord," caused them to
consider their fate inevitable, and to feel that it would be
contravening God's law to resist it. It is ever thus; where Theology
enchains the soul, the Tyrant enslaves the body. But can any one, who
has any knowledge of the laws that govern our being--of heredity and
pre-natal influences--be astonished that our jails and prisons are
filled with criminals, and our hospitals with sickly specimens of
humanity? As long as the mothers of the race are subject to such
unhappy conditions, it can never be materially improved. Men exhibit
some common sense in breeding all animals except those of their own
species.

All through the Anti-Slavery struggle, every word of denunciation of
the wrongs of the Southern slave, was, I felt, equally applicable to
the wrongs of my own sex. Every argument for the emancipation of the
<DW52> man, was equally one for that of woman; and I was surprised
that all Abolitionists did not see the similarity in the condition of
the two classes. I read, with intense interest, everything that
indicated an awakening of public or private thought to the idea that
woman did not occupy her rightful position in the organization of
society; and, when I read the lectures of Ernestine L. Rose and the
writings of Margaret Fuller, and found that other women entertained
the same thoughts that had been seething in my own brain, and realized
that I stood not alone, how my heart bounded with joy! The arguments
of that distinguished jurist, Judge Hurlburt, encouraged me to hope
that men would ultimately see the justice of our cause, and concede to
women their natural rights.

I hailed with gladness any aspiration of women toward an enlargement
of their sphere of action; and when, in the early part of 1848, I
learned that Miss Elizabeth Blackwell had been admitted as a student
to the medical college at Geneva, N. Y., being the first lady in the
United States that had attained that privilege, and knowing the tide
of public sentiment she had to stem, I could not refrain from writing
her a letter of approval and encouragement. In return I received the
following:

                                   PHILADELPHIA, _August 12, 1848_.

     DEAR MADAM:--Your letter, I can assure you, met with a hearty
     welcome from me. And I can not refrain from writing to you a warm
     acknowledgment of your cordial sympathy, and expressing the
     pleasure with which I have read your brave words. It is true, I
     look neither for praise nor blame in pursuing the path which I
     have chosen. With firm religious enthusiasm, no opinion of the
     world will move me, but when I receive from a woman an approval
     so true-hearted and glowing, a recognition so clear of the
     motives which urge me on, then my very soul bounds at the
     thrilling words, and I go on with renewed energy, with hope, and
     holy joy in my inmost being.

     My whole life is devoted unreservedly to the service of my sex.
     The study and practice of medicine is in my thought but one means
     to a great end, for which my very soul yearns with in tensest
     passionate emotion, of which I have dreamed day and night, from
     my earliest childhood, for which I would offer up my life with
     triumphant thanksgiving, if martyrdom could secure that glorious
     end:--the true ennoblement of woman, the full harmonious
     development of her unknown nature, and the consequent redemption
     of the whole human race. "Earth waits for her queen." Every noble
     movement of the age, every prophecy of future glory, every throb
     of that great heart which is laboring throughout Christendom,
     call on woman with a voice of thunder, with the authority of a
     God, to listen to the mighty summons to awake from her guilty
     sleep, and rouse to glorious action to play her part in the great
     drama of the ages, and finish the work that man has begun.

     Most fully do I respond to all the noble aspirations that fill
     your letter. Women are feeble, narrow, frivolous at present:
     ignorant of their own capacities, and undeveloped in thought and
     feeling; and while they remain so, the great work of human
     regeneration must remain incomplete; humanity will continue to
     suffer, and cry in vain for deliverance, for woman has her work
     to do, and no one can accomplish it for her. She is bound to
     rise, to try her strength, to break her bonds;--not with noisy
     outcry, not with fighting or complaint; but with quiet strength,
     with gentle dignity, firmly, irresistibly, with a cool
     determination that never wavers, with a clear insight into her
     own capacities, let her do her duty, pursue her highest
     conviction of right, and firmly grasp whatever she is able to
     carry.

     Much is said of the oppression woman suffers; man is reproached
     with being unjust, tyrannical, jealous. I do not so read human
     life. The exclusion and constraint woman suffers, is not the
     result of purposed injury or premeditated insult. It has arisen
     naturally, without violence, simply because woman has desired
     nothing more, has not felt the soul too large for the body. But
     when woman, with matured strength, with steady purpose, presents
     her lofty claim, all barriers will give way, and man will
     welcome, with a thrill of joy, the new birth of his sister
     spirit, the advent of his partner, his co-worker, in the great
     universe of being.

     If the present arrangements of society will not admit of woman's
     free development, then society must be remodeled, and adapted to
     the great wants of all humanity. Our race is one, the interests
     of all are inseparably united, and harmonic freedom for the
     perfect growth of every human soul is the great want of our time.
     It has given me heartfelt satisfaction, dear madam, that you
     sympathize in my effort to advance the great interests of
     humanity. I feel the responsibility of my position, and I shall
     endeavor, by wisdom of action, purity of motive, and unwavering
     steadiness of purpose, to justify the noble hope I have excited.
     To me the future is full of glorious promise, humanity is
     arousing to accomplish its grand destiny, and in the fellowship
     of this great hope, I would greet you, and recognize in your
     noble spirit a fellow-laborer for the true and the good.

                                             ELIZABETH BLACKWELL.
     MRS. EMILY COLLINS.

But, it was the proceedings of the Convention, in 1848, at Seneca
Falls, that first gave a direction to the efforts of the many women,
who began to feel the degradation of their subject condition, and its
baneful effects upon the human race. They then saw the necessity for
associated action, in order to obtain the elective franchise, the only
key that would unlock the doors of their prison. I wrote to Miss Sarah
C. Owen, Secretary of the Women's Protective Union, at Rochester, as
to the line of procedure that had been proposed there. In reply, under
date of October 1, 1848, she says:

     Your letter has just reached me, and with much pleasure I reply
     to the echo of inquiry, beyond the bounds of those personally
     associated with us in this enterprise. It is indeed encouraging
     to hear a voice from South Bristol in such perfect unison with
     our own.

Possibly, extracts from my next letter to Miss Owen, dated Oct. 23,
1848, will give you the best idea of the movement:

     I should have acknowledged the receipt of yours of the 1st inst.
     earlier, but wished to report somewhat of progress whenever I
     should write. Our prospects here are brightening. Every lady of
     any worth or intelligence adopts unhesitatingly our view, and
     concurs in our measures. On the 19th inst. we met and organized a
     Woman's Equal Rights Union. Living in the country, where the
     population is sparse, we are consequently few; but hope to make
     up in zeal and energy for our lack of numbers. We breathe a
     freer, if not a purer atmosphere here among the mountains, than
     do the dwellers in cities,--have more independence,--are less
     subject to the despotism of fashion, and are less absorbed with
     dress and amusements.... A press entirely devoted to our cause
     seems indispensable. If there is none such, can you tell me of
     any paper that advocates our claims more warmly than the _North
     Star_?[12] A lecturer in the field would be most desirable; but
     how to raise funds to sustain one is the question. I never really
     wished for Aladdin's lamp till now. Would to Heaven that women
     could be persuaded to use the funds they acquire by their
     sewing-circles and fairs, in trying to raise their own condition
     above that of "infants, idiots, and lunatics," with whom our
     statutes class them, instead of spending the money in decorating
     their churches, or sustaining a clergy, the most of whom are
     striving to rivet the chains still closer that bind, not only our
     own sex, but the oppressed of every class and color.

     The elective franchise is now the one object for which we must
     labor; that once attained, all the rest will be easily acquired.
     Moral Reform and Temperance Societies may be multiplied _ad
     infinitum_, but they have about the same effect upon the evils
     they seek to cure, as clipping the top of a hedge would have
     toward extirpating it. Please forward me a copy of the petition
     for suffrage. We will engage to do all we can, not only in our
     own town, but in the adjoining ones of Richmond, East Bloomfield,
     Canandaigua, and Naples. I have promises of aid from people of
     influence in obtaining signatures. In the meantime we wish to
     disseminate some able work upon the enfranchisement of women. We
     wish to present our Assemblyman elect, whoever he may be, with
     some work of this kind, and solicit his candid attention to the
     subject. People are more willing to be convinced by the calm
     perusal of an argument, than in a personal discussion....

Our Society was composed of some fifteen or twenty ladies, and we met
once in two weeks, in each other's parlors, alternately, for
discussion and interchange of ideas. I was chosen President; Mrs.
Sophia Allen, Vice-President; Mrs. Horace Pennell, Treasurer; and one
of several young ladies who were members was Secretary. Horace
Pennell, Esq., and his wife were two of our most earnest helpers. We
drafted a petition to the Legislature to grant women the right of
suffrage, and obtained the names of sixty-two of the most intelligent
people, male and female, in our own and adjoining towns, and sent it
to our Representative in Albany. It was received by the Legislature as
something absurdly ridiculous, and laid upon the table. We introduced
the question into the Debating Clubs, that were in those days such
popular institutions in the rural districts, and in every way sought
to agitate the subject. I found a great many men, especially those of
the better class, disposed to accord equal rights to our sex. And,
now, as the highest tribute that I can pay to the memory of a husband,
I may say that during our companionship of thirty-five years, I was
most cordially sustained by mine, in my advocacy of equal rights to
women. Amongst my own sex, I found too many on whom ages of repression
had wrought their natural effect, and whose ideas and aspirations were
narrowed down to the confines of "woman's sphere," beyond whose limits
it was not only impious, but infamous to tread. "Woman's sphere"
_then_, was to discharge the duties of a housekeeper, ply the needle,
and teach a primary or ladies' school. From press, and pulpit, and
platform, she was taught that "to be unknown was her highest praise,"
that "dependence was her best protection," and "her weakness her
sweetest charm." She needed only sufficient intelligence to comprehend
her husband's superiority, and to obey him in all things. It is not
surprising, then, that I as often heard the terms "strong-minded" and
"masculine" as opprobrious epithets used against progressive women, by
their own sex as by the other; another example only of the stultifying
effect of subjection, upon the mind, exactly paralleled by the
Southern slaves, amongst many of whom the strongest term of contempt
that could be used was "_Free Nigger_." Our Equal Rights Association
continued to hold its meetings for somewhat over a year, and they were
at last suspended on account of bad weather and the difficulty of
coming together in the country districts. We, however, continued to
send petitions to the Legislature for the removal of woman's
disabilities.

From 1858 to 1869 my home was in Rochester, N. Y. There, by brief
newspaper articles and in other ways, I sought to influence public
sentiment in favor of this fundamental reform. In 1868 a Society was
organized there for the reformation of abandoned women. At one of its
meetings I endeavored to show how futile all their efforts would be,
while women, by the laws of the land, were made a subject class; that
only by enfranchising woman and permitting her a more free and
lucrative range of employments, could they hope to suppress the
"social evil." My remarks produced some agitation in the meeting and
some newspaper criticisms. In Rochester, I found many pioneers in the
cause of Woman Suffrage, and from year to year we petitioned our
Legislature for it.

Since 1869 I have been a citizen of Louisiana. Here, till recently,
political troubles engrossed the minds of men to the exclusion of
every other consideration. They glowed with fiery indignation at
being, themselves, deprived of the right of suffrage, or at having
their votes annulled, and regarded it as an intolerable outrage; yet,
at the same time, they denied it to all women, many of whom valued the
elective franchise as highly, and felt as intensely, as did men, the
injustice that withheld it from them. In 1879, when the Convention met
to frame a new Constitution for the State, we strongly petitioned it
for an enlargement of our civil rights and for the ballot. Mrs.
Elizabeth L. Saxon was indefatigable in her efforts, and went before
the Convention in person and plead our cause. But the majority of the
members thought there were cogent reasons for not granting our
petitions; but they made women eligible to all school offices--an
indication that Louisiana will not be the last State in the Union to
deny women their inalienable rights.

                                             EMILY COLLINS.


The newspaper comments on Elizabeth Blackwell as a physician, both in
the French and American papers, seem very ridiculous to us at this
distance of time. _The American_, Rochester, N. Y., July, 1848:

     A NOVEL CIRCUMSTANCE.--Our readers will perhaps remember that
     some time ago a lady, Miss Elizabeth Blackwell, applied for
     admission as a student in one of the medical colleges of
     Philadelphia, her purpose being to go through an entire course of
     the study of medicine. The application was denied, and the lady
     subsequently entered the Geneva Medical College, where, at the
     Annual Commencement on the 23d instant, she graduated with high
     honors and received the degree of M.D., the subject of her thesis
     being "ship fever." On receiving her diploma she thus addressed
     the President: "With the help of the Most High, it shall be the
     effort of my life to shed honor on this diploma." Professor Lee,
     who delivered the customary oration, complimented the lady by
     saying that she had won the distinction of her class by attending
     faithfully to every duty required of candidates striving for the
     honor. Eighteen young gentlemen received the degree of M.D. at
     the same time.

After graduating with high honors in this country, Dr. Elizabeth
Blackwell went to France to secure still higher advantages of
education than could be found here. What was thought of her there will
be seen by the following letter of a Paris correspondent in the New
York _Journal of Commerce_:

     AN AMERICAN DOCTRESS.--The medical community of Paris is all agog
     by the arrival of the celebrated American doctor, Miss Blackwell.
     She has quite bewildered the learned faculty by her diploma, all
     in due form, authorizing her to dose and bleed and amputate with
     the best of them. Some of them think Miss Blackwell must be a
     socialist of the most rabid class, and that her undertaking is
     the entering wedge to a systematic attack on society by the whole
     sex. Others, who have seen her, say that there is nothing very
     alarming in her manner; that, on the contrary, she is modest and
     unassuming, and talks reasonably on other subjects. The ladies
     attack her in turn. One said to me a few days since, "Oh, it is
     too horrid! I'm sure I never could touch her hand! Only to think
     that those long fingers of hers had been cutting up dead people."
     I have seen the doctor in question, and must say in fairness,
     that her appearance is quite prepossessing. She is young, and
     rather good-looking; her manner indicates great energy of
     character, and she seems to have entered on her singular career
     from motives of duty, and encouraged by respectable ladies of
     Cincinnati. After about ten days' hesitation, on the part of the
     directors of the Hospital of Maternity, she has at last received
     permission to enter the institution as a pupil.

       *       *       *       *       *


ERNESTINE L. ROSE.

BY L. E. BARNARD.

Ernestine L. Rose--maiden name Siismund Potoski--was born January 13,
1810, at Pyeterkow, in Poland. Her father, a very pious and learned
rabbi, was so conscientious that he would take no pay for discharging
the functions of his office, saying he would not convert his duty into
a means of gain. As a child she was of a reflective habit, and though
very active and cheerful, she scarcely ever engaged with her young
companions in their sports, but took great delight in the company of
her father, for whom she entertained a remarkable affection.

At a very early age she commenced reading the Hebrew Scriptures, but
soon became involved in serious difficulties respecting the formation
of the world, the origin of evil, and other obscure points suggested
by the sacred history and cosmogony of her people. The reproofs which
met her at every step of her biblical investigations, and being
constantly told that "little girls must not ask questions," made her
at that early day an advocate of religious freedom and woman's rights;
as she could not see, on the one hand, why subjects of vital interest
should be held too sacred for investigation, nor, on the other, why a
"little girl" should not have the same right to ask questions as a
little boy. Despite her early investigation of the Bible, she was
noted for her strict observance of all the rites and ceremonies of the
Jewish faith, though some of them, on account of her tender age, were
not demanded of her. She was, however, often painfully disturbed by
her "carnal reason" questioning the utility of these multifarious
observances. As an illustration, she one day asked her father, with
much anxiety, why he fasted[13] so much more than others, a habit
which was seriously impairing his health and spirits; and being told
that it was to please God, who required this sacrifice at his hands,
she, in a serious and most emphatic tone, replied, "If God is pleased
in making you sick and unhappy, I hate God." This idea of the cruelty
of God toward her father had a remarkable influence upon her; and at
the age of fourteen she renounced her belief in the Bible and the
religion of her father, which brought down upon her great trouble and
persecution alike from her own Jewish friends and from Christians.

At the age of sixteen she had the misfortune to lose her mother. A
year afterward her father married again, and through misdirected
kindness involved her in a lawsuit, in which she plead her own case
and won it; but she left the property with her father, declaring that
she cared nothing for it, but only for justice, and that her
inheritance might not fall into mercenary hands. She subsequently
traveled in Poland, Russia, the Germanic States, Holland, Belgium,
France, and England; during which time she witnessed and took part in
some interesting and important affairs. While in Berlin she had an
interview with the King of Prussia concerning the right of Polish Jews
to remain in that city. The Jews of Russian Poland were not permitted
to continue in Prussia, unless they could bring forward as security
Prussian citizens who were holders of real estate. But even then they
could get a permit to tarry only on a visit, and not to transact any
business for themselves. Mlle. Potoski, being from Poland and a
Jewess, was subject to this disability. Though she could have obtained
the requisite security by applying for it, she preferred to stand upon
her natural rights as a human being. She remonstrated against the
gross injustice of the law, and obtained the right to remain as long
as she wished, and to do what she pleased.

In Hague, she became acquainted with a very distressing case of a poor
sailor, the father of four children, whose wife had been imprisoned
for an alleged crime of which he insisted she was innocent. Inquiring
into the case, Mlle. Potoski drew up a petition which she personally
presented to the King of Holland, and had the satisfaction of seeing
the poor woman restored to her family. She was in Paris during the
Revolution of July, 1830, and witnessed most of its exciting scenes.
On seeing Louis Phillipe presented by Lafayette to the people of Paris
from the balcony of the Tuilleries, she remarked to a friend, "That
man, as well as Charles X., will one day have good reason to wish
himself safely off the throne of France."

In England she became acquainted with Lord Grosvenor and family, with
Frances Farrar, sister of Oliver Farrar, M.P., the Miss Leeds, and
others of the nobility; also with many prominent members of the
Society of Friends, among them Joseph Gurney and his sister Elizabeth
Fry, the eminent philanthropist, in whose company she visited Newgate
Prison. In 1832 she made the acquaintance of Robert Owen, and warmly
espoused his principles. In 1834 she presided at the formation of a
society called "The Association of all Classes of all Nations,
without distinction of sect, sex, party condition, or color." While in
England she married William E. Rose, and in the spring of 1836, came
to the United States, and resided in the city of New York. Soon after
her arrival she commenced lecturing on the evils of the existing
social system, the formation of human character, slavery, the rights
of woman, and other reform questions.

[Illustration: ERNESTINE L. ROSE (with autograph).]

At a great public meeting in the Broadway Tabernacle to consider the
necessity of an improved system of Free Schools, J. S. Buckingham,
M.P., of England, and Rev. Robert Breckenridge, of Kentucky, were
among the speakers. Mrs. Rose, sitting in the gallery, called the
reverend gentleman to order for violating the sense of the audience,
in entirely overlooking the important object which had called the
people together, and indulging in a violent clerical harangue against
a class whom he stigmatized as infidels. This bold innovation of a
woman upon the hitherto unquestioned prerogatives of the clergy, at
once caused a tremendous excitement. Loud cries of "Throw her down!"
"Drag her out!" "She's an infidel!" resounded in all parts of the
building. She, however, held her ground, calm and collected while the
tumult lasted, and after quiet was restored, continued her remarks in
a most dignified manner, making a deep impression upon all present.
Certain religious papers declared it a forewarning of some terrible
calamity, that a woman should call a minister to account, and that,
too, in a church.

Mrs. Rose has lectured in not less than twenty-three different States
of the Union. Some of them she has visited often, and on several
occasions she has addressed legislative bodies with marked effect,
advocating the necessity of legal redress for the wrongs and
disabilities to which her sex are subject. As an advocate of woman's
rights, anti-slavery and religious liberty, she has earned a
world-wide celebrity. For fifty years a public speaker, during which
period she has associated with the influential classes in Europe and
America, and borne an active part in the great progressive movements
which mark the present as the most glorious of historical epochs,
Ernestine L. Rose has accomplished for the elevation of her sex and
the amelioration of social conditions, a work which can be ascribed to
few women of our time.

In the spring of 1854, Mrs. Rose and Miss Anthony took a trip together
to Washington, Alexandria, Baltimore, Philadelphia, speaking two or
three times in each place. This was after the introduction of the
Kansas-Nebraska Bill in Congress, and the excitement of the country
upon the slavery question was intense. Mrs. Rose's third lecture in
Washington was on the "Nebraska Question." This lecture was scarcely
noticed, the only paper giving it the least report, being _The
Washington Globe_, which, though it spoke most highly of her as a
lecturer, misrepresented her by ascribing to her the arguments of the
South. _The National Era_, the only anti-slavery paper in Washington,
was entirely silent, taking no notice of the fact that Mrs. Rose had
spoken in that city against the further spread of slavery. Whether
this was due to editorial prejudice against sex, or against freedom of
religious belief, is unknown.

In the winter of 1855, Mrs. Rose spoke in thirteen of the fifty-four
County Conventions upon woman suffrage held in the State of New York,
and each winter took part in the Albany Conventions and hearings
before the Legislature, which in 1860 resulted in the passage of the
bill securing to women the right to their wages and the equal
guardianship of their children.

Mrs. Rose was sustained in her work by the earnest sympathy of her
husband, who gladly furnished her the means of making her extensive
tours, so that through his sense of justice she was enabled to preach
the Gospel of Woman's Rights, Anti-Slavery, and Free Religion without
money and without price.

_The Boston Investigator_ of January 15, 1881, speaking of a letter
just received from her, says: "Thirty years ago Mrs. Rose was in her
prime--an excellent lecturer, liberal, eloquent, witty, and we must
add, decidedly handsome--'the Rose that all were praising.' Her
portrait, life-size and very natural, hangs in Investigator Hall, and
her intelligent-looking and expressive countenance, and black glossy
curls, denote intellect and beauty. As an anti-slavery lecturer, a
pioneer in the cause of woman's rights, and an advocate of Liberalism,
she did good service, and is worthy to be classed with such devoted
friends of humanity and freedom as Frances Wright, Harriet Martineau,
Lucretia Mott, and Lydia Maria Child, who will long be pleasantly
remembered for their 'works' sake.'"

                                   LONDON, _January 9, 1877_.

     MY DEAR MISS ANTHONY:--Sincerely do I thank you for your kind
     letter. Believe me it would give me great pleasure to comply with
     your request, to tell you all about myself and my past labors;
     but I suffer so much from neuralgia in my head and general
     debility, that I could not undertake the task, especially as I
     have nothing to refer to. I have never spoken from notes; and as
     I did not intend to publish anything about myself, for I had no
     other ambition except to work for the cause of humanity,
     irrespective of sex, sect, country, or color, and did not expect
     that a Susan B. Anthony would wish to do it for me, I made no
     memorandum of places, dates, or names; and thirty or forty years
     ago the press was not sufficiently educated in the rights of
     woman, even to notice, much less to report speeches as it does
     now; and therefore I have not anything to assist me or you.

     All that I can tell you is, that I used my humble powers to the
     uttermost, and raised my voice in behalf of Human Rights in
     general, and the elevation and Rights of Woman in particular,
     nearly all my life. And so little have I spared myself, or
     studied my comfort in summer or winter, rain or shine, day or
     night, when I had an opportunity to work for the cause to which I
     had devoted myself, that I can hardly wonder at my present state
     of health.

     Yet in spite of hardships, for it was not as easy to travel at
     that time as now, and the expense, as I never made a charge or
     took up a collection, I look back to that time, when a stranger
     and alone, I went from place to place, in high-ways and by-ways,
     did the work and paid my bills with great pleasure and
     satisfaction; for the cause gained ground, and in spite of my
     heresies I had always good audiences, attentive listeners, and
     was well received wherever I went.

     But I can mention from memory the principal places where I have
     spoken. In the winter of 1836 and '37, I spoke in New York, and
     for some years after I lectured in almost every city in the
     State; Hudson, Poughkeepsie, Albany, Schenectady; Saratoga,
     Utica, Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo, Elmira, and other places; in
     New Jersey, in Newark and Burlington; in 1837, in Philadelphia,
     Bristol, Chester, Pittsburg, and other places in Pennsylvania,
     and at Wilmington in Delaware; in 1842, in Boston, Charlestown,
     Beverly, Florence, Springfield, and other points in
     Massachusetts, and in Hartford, Connecticut; in 1844, in
     Cincinnati, Dayton, Zanesville, Springfield, Cleveland, Toledo,
     and several settlements in the backwoods of Ohio, and also in
     Richmond, Indiana; in 1845 and '46, I lectured three times in the
     Legislative Hall in Detroit, and at Ann Arbor and other places in
     Michigan; and in 1847 and '48, I spoke in Charleston and
     Columbia, in South Carolina.

     In 1850, I attended the first National Woman's Rights Convention
     in Worcester, and nearly all the National and State Conventions
     since, until I went to Europe in 1869. Returning to New York in
     1874, I was present at the Convention in Irving Hall, the only
     one held during my visit to America.

     I sent the first petition to the New York Legislature to give a
     married woman the right to hold real estate in her own name, in
     the winter of 1836 and '37, to which after a good deal of trouble
     I obtained five signatures. Some of the ladies said the gentlemen
     would laugh at them; others, that they had rights enough; and the
     men said the women had too many rights already. Woman at that
     time had not learned to know that she had any rights except those
     that man in his generosity allowed her; both have learned
     something since that time which they will never forget. I
     continued sending petitions with increased numbers of signatures
     until 1848 and '49, when the Legislature enacted the law which
     granted to woman the right to keep what was her own. But no
     sooner did it become legal than all the women said, "Oh! that is
     right! We ought always to have had that."

     During the eleven years from 1837 to 1848, I addressed the New
     York Legislature five times, and since 1848 I can not say
     positively, but a good many times; you know all that better than
     any one else.

                         Your affectionate friend,
                                           ERNESTINE L. ROSE.

In collecting the reminiscences of those who took the initiative steps
in this movement, Mrs. Rose was urged to send us some of her
experiences, but in writing that it was impossible for her to do so,
and yet giving us the above summary of all she has accomplished,
_multum in parvo_, she has in a good measure complied with our
request.

All through these eventful years Mrs. Rose has fought a double battle;
not only for the political rights of her sex as women, but for their
religious rights as individual souls; to do their own thinking and
believing. How much of the freedom they now enjoy, the women of
America owe to this noble Polish woman, can not be estimated, for
moral influences are too subtle for measurement.

Those who sat with her on the platform in bygone days, well remember
her matchless powers as a speaker; and how safe we all felt while she
had the floor, that neither in manner, sentiment, argument, nor
repartee, would she in any way compromise the dignity of the occasion.

She had a rich musical voice, with just enough of foreign accent and
idiom to add to the charm of her oratory. As a speaker she was
pointed, logical, and impassioned. She not only dealt in abstract
principles clearly, but in their application touched the deepest
emotions of the human soul.


FOOTNOTES:

[12] Published by Frederick Douglass, the first <DW52> man that
edited a paper in this country. His press was presented to him by the
women of England, who sympathized with the anti-slavery movement.

[13] Fasting with Jews meant abstaining from food and drink from
before sunset one evening, until after the stars were out the next
evening.




CHAPTER VI.

OHIO.


     The promised land of fugitives--"Uncle Tom's Cabin"--Salem
     Convention, 1850--Akron, 1851--Massilon, 1852--The address to the
     women of Ohio--The Mohammedan law forbids pigs, dogs, women, and
     other impure animals to enter a Mosque--The _New York Tribune_--
     Cleveland Convention, 1853--Hon. Joshua R. Giddings--Letter from
     Horace Greeley--A glowing eulogy to Mary Wollstonecroft--William
     Henry Channing's Declaration--The pulpit responsible for public
     sentiment--President Asa Mahan debates--The Rev. Dr. Nevin pulls
     Mr. Garrison's nose--Antoinette L. Brown describes her exit from
     the World's Temperance Convention--Cincinnati Convention, 1855--
     Jane Elizabeth Jones' Report, 1861.

There were several reasons for the early, and more general agitation
of Woman's Rights in Ohio at this period, than in other States. Being
separated from the slave border by her river only, Ohio had long been
the promised land of fugitives, and the battle-ground for many
recaptured victims, involving much litigation.

Most stringent laws had been passed, called "the black laws of Ohio,"
to prevent these escapes through her territory. Hence, this State was
the ground for some of the most heated anti-slavery discussions, not
only in the Legislature, but in frequent conventions. Garrison and his
followers, year after year, had overrun the "Western Reserve,"
covering the north-eastern part of the State, carrying the gospel of
freedom to every hamlet.

A radical paper, called _The Anti-Slavery Bugle_, edited by Oliver
Johnson, was published in Salem. It took strong ground in favor of
equal rights for woman, and the editor did all in his power to sustain
the conventions, and encourage the new movement.

Again, Abby Kelly's eloquent voice had been heard all through this
State, denouncing "the black laws of Ohio," appealing to the ready
sympathies of woman for the suffering of the black mothers, wives, and
daughters of the South. This grand woman, equally familiar with the
tricks of priests and politicians, the action of Synods, General
Assemblies, State Legislatures, and Congresses, who could maintain an
argument with any man on the slavery question, had immense influence,
not only in the anti-slavery conflict, but by her words and example
she inspired woman with new self-respect.

These anti-slavery conventions, in which the most logical reasoners,
and the most eloquent, impassioned orators the world ever produced,
kept their audiences wrought up to the highest pitch of enthusiasm
hour after hour, were the school in which woman's rights found its
ready-made disciples. With such women as Frances D. Gage, Hannah Tracy
Cutler, Josephine S. Griffing, J. Elizabeth Jones, Mariana Johnson,
Emily Robinson, Maria Giddings, Betsey Cowles, Caroline M. Severance,
Martha J. Tilden, Rebecca A. S. Janney, to listen to the exhaustive
arguments on human rights, verily the seed fell on good ground, and
the same justice, that in glowing periods was claimed for the black
man, they now claimed for themselves, and compelled the law-makers of
this State to give some consideration to the wrongs of woman.

Again, in 1850, Ohio held a Constitutional Convention, and these
women, thoroughly awake to their rights, naturally thought, that if
the fundamental laws of the State were to be revised and amended, it
was a fitting time for them to ask to be recognized.

In 1851, Harriet Beecher Stowe commenced the publication of "Uncle
Tom's Cabin" in the _National Era_, in Washington, D. C., which made
Ohio, with its great river, classic soil, and quickened the pulsations
of every woman's heart in the nation.

Reports of the New York Conventions, widely copied and ridiculed in
leading journals, from Maine to Texas, struck the key-note for similar
gatherings in several of the Northern States. Without the least
knowledge of one another, without the least concert of action, women
in Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, sprang up as if by
magic, and issued calls for similar conventions. The striking
uniformity in their appeals, petitions, resolutions, and speeches;
making the same complaints and asking the same redress for grievances,
shows that all were moved by like influences. Those who made the
demand for political freedom in 1848, in Europe as well as America,
were about the same age. Significant facts to show that new liberty
for woman was one of the marked ideas of the century, and that as the
chief factor in civilization, the time had come for her to take her
appropriate place.

The actors in this new movement were not, as the London and New York
journals said, "sour old maids," but happy wives and faithful mothers,
who, in a higher development, demanded the rights and privileges
befitting the new position. And if they may be judged by the vigor and
eloquence of their addresses, and the knowledge of parliamentary
tactics they manifested in their conventions, the world must accord
them rare common-sense, good judgment, great dignity of character, and
a clear comprehension of the principles of government. In order to
show how well those who inaugurated this movement, understood the
nature of our republican institutions, and how justly they estimated
their true position in a republic, we shall give rather more of these
early speeches and letters than in any succeeding chapters.

In 1849, Mrs. Elizabeth Wilson, of Cadiz, Ohio, aroused some attention
to the general question, by the publication of "A Scriptural View of
Woman's Rights and Duties," clearly demonstrating the equality of man
and woman in the creation, as well as the independent, self-reliant
characteristics sanctioned in woman, by the examples of the sex given
in the Bible. As woman has ever been degraded by the perversion of the
religious element of her nature, the scriptural arguments were among
the earliest presentations of the question. When opponents were
logically cornered on every other side, they uniformly fell back on
the decrees of Heaven. The ignorance of women in general as to what
their Bibles really do teach, has been the chief cause of their
bondage. They have accepted the opinions of men for the commands of
their Creator. The fulminations of the clergy against the
enfranchisement of woman, were as bitter and arrogant as against the
emancipation of the African, and they defended their position in both
cases by the Bible. This led Abolitionists and women to a very careful
study of the Scriptures, and enabled them to meet their opponents most
successfully. No clergyman ever quoted Scripture with more readiness
and force than did Lucretia Mott and William Lloyd Garrison, who alike
made the Bible a power on the side of freedom.


SALEM CONVENTION.

In 1850 the first convention in Ohio was held at Salem, April 19th and
20th, in the Second Baptist Church.[14] The meeting convened at 10
o'clock, and was called to order by Emily Robinson, who proposed
Mariana W. Johnson as President _pro tem._, Sarah Coates, Secretary
_pro tem._ On taking the chair, Mrs. Johnson read the following call:

     We, the undersigned, earnestly call on the women of Ohio to meet
     in Convention, on Friday, the 19th of April, 1850, at 10 o'clock
     A.M., in the town of Salem, to concert measures to secure to all
     persons the recognition of equal rights, and the extension of the
     privileges of government without distinction of sex, or color; to
     inquire into the origin and design of the rights of humanity,
     whether they are coeval with the human race, of universal
     inheritage and inalienable, or merely conventional, held by
     sufferance, dependent for a basis on location, position, color,
     and sex, and like government scrip, or deeds of parchment,
     transferable, to be granted or withheld, made immutable or
     changeable, as caprice, popular favor, or the pride of power and
     place may dictate, changing ever, as the weak and the strong, the
     oppressed and the oppressor, come in conflict or change places.
     Feeling that the subjects proposed for discussion are vitally
     important to the interests of humanity, we unite in most
     earnestly inviting every one who sincerely desires the progress
     of true reform to be present at the Convention.

     The meeting of a convention of men to amend the Constitution of
     our (?) State, presents a most favorable opportunity for the
     agitation of this subject. Women of Ohio! we call upon you to
     come up to this work in womanly strength and with womanly energy.
     Don't be discouraged at the prospect of difficulties. Remember
     that contest with difficulty gives strength. Come and inquire if
     the position you now occupy is one appointed by wisdom, and
     designed to secure the best interests of the human race. Come,
     and let us ascertain what bearing the circumscribed sphere of
     woman has on the great political and social evils that curse and
     desolate the land. Come, for this cause claims your most
     invincible perseverance; come in single-heartedness, and with a
     personal self-devotion that will yield everything to Right,
     Truth, and Reason, but not an iota to dogmas or theoretical
     opinions, no matter how time-honored, or by what precedent
     established.

     Randolph--Elizabeth Steadman, Cynthia M. Price, Sophronia
     Smalley, Cordelia L. Smalley, Ann Eliza Lee, Rebecca Everit. New
     Garden--Esther Ann Lukens. Ravenna--Lucinda King, Mary Skinner,
     Frances Luccock.

The officers of the Convention were: Betsey M. Cowles, President;
Lydia B. Irish, Harriet P. Weaver, and Rana Dota, Vice-Presidents.
Caroline Stanton, Ann Eliza Lee, and Sallie B. Gove, Secretaries.
Emily Robinson, J. Elizabeth Jones, Josephine S. Griffing, Mariana
Johnson, Esther Lukens, Mary H. Stanton, Business Committee.

Mrs. Jones read a very able speech, which was printed in full in their
published report, also a discourse of Lucretia Mott's, "On Woman,"
delivered Dec. 17, 1849, in the Assembly Building in Philadelphia.
Interesting letters were read from Mrs. Mott, Lucy Stone, Sarah Pugh,
Lydia Jane Pierson, editor of the Lancaster _Literary Gazette_,
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Harriet N. Torrey.[15] Twenty-two
resolutions, covering the whole range of woman's political, religious,
civil, and social rights, were discussed and adopted. The following
memorial to the Constitutional Convention, was presented by Mariana
Johnson:

                                 MEMORIAL.

     We believe the whole theory of the Common Law in relation to
     woman is unjust and degrading, tending to reduce her to a level
     with the slave, depriving her of political existence, and forming
     a positive exception to the great doctrine of equality as set
     forth in the Declaration of Independence. In the language of
     Prof. Walker, in his "Introduction to American Law": "Women have
     no part or lot in the foundation or administration of the
     government. They can not vote or hold office. They are required
     to contribute their share, by way of taxes, to the support of the
     Government, but are allowed no voice in its direction. They are
     amenable to the laws, but are allowed no share in making them.
     This language, when applied to males, would be the exact
     definition of political slavery." Is it just or wise that woman,
     in the largest and professedly the freest and most enlightened
     republic on the globe, in the middle of the nineteenth century,
     should be thus degraded?

     We would especially direct the attention of the Convention to the
     legal condition of married women. Not being represented in those
     bodies from which emanate the laws, to which they are obliged to
     submit, they are protected neither in person nor property. "The
     merging of woman's name in that of her husband is emblematical of
     the fate of all her legal rights." At the marriage-altar, the law
     divests her of all distinct individuality. Blackstone says: "The
     very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during
     marriage, or at least incorporated or consolidated into that of
     her husband." Legally, she ceases to exist, and becomes
     emphatically a new creature, and is ever after denied the dignity
     of a rational and accountable being. The husband is allowed to
     take possession of her estates, as the law has proclaimed her
     legally dead. All that she has, becomes legally his, and he can
     collect and dispose of the profits of her labor without her
     consent, as he thinks fit, and she can own nothing, have nothing,
     which is not regarded by the law as belonging to her husband.
     Over her person he has a more limited power. Still, if he render
     life intolerable, so that she is forced to leave him, he has the
     power to retain her children, and "seize her and bring her back,
     for he has a right to her society which he may enforce, either
     against herself or any other person who detains her" (Walker,
     page 226). Woman by being thus subject to the control, and
     dependent on the will of man, loses her self-dependence; and no
     human being can be deprived of this without a sense of
     degradation. The law should sustain and protect all who come
     under its sway, and not create a state of dependence and
     depression in any human being. The laws should not make woman a
     mere pensioner on the bounty of her husband, thus enslaving her
     will and degrading her to a condition of absolute dependence.

     Believing that woman does not suffer alone when subject to
     oppressive and unequal laws, but that whatever affects
     injuriously her interests, is subversive of the highest good of
     the race, we earnestly request that in the New Constitution you
     are about to form for the State of Ohio, women shall be secured,
     not only the right of suffrage, but all the political and legal
     rights that are guaranteed to men.

After some discussion the memorial was adopted. With the hope of
creating a feeling of moral responsibility on this vital question, an
earnest address[16] to the women of the State was also presented,
discussed, and adopted.

                      ADDRESS TO THE WOMEN OF OHIO.

     How shall the people be made wiser, better, and happier, is one
     of the grand inquiries of the present age. The various benevolent
     associations hold up to our view special forms of evil, and
     appeal to all the better feelings of our nature for sympathy, and
     claim our active efforts and co-operation to eradicate them.
     Governments, at times, manifest an interest in human suffering;
     but their cold sympathy and tardy efforts seldom avail the
     sufferer until it is too late. Philanthropists, philosophers, and
     statesmen study and devise ways and means to ameliorate the
     condition of the people. Why have they so little practical
     effect? It is because the means employed are not adequate to the
     end sought for. To ameliorate the effects of evil seems to have
     been the climax of philanthropic effort. We respectfully suggest
     that lopping the branches of the tree but causes the roots to
     strike deeper and cling more closely to the soil that sustains
     it. Let the amelioration process go on, until evil is
     exterminated root and branch; and for this end the people must be
     instructed in the Rights of Humanity;--not in the rights of men
     and the rights of women; the rights of the master and those of
     the slave;--but in the perfect equality of the Rights of Man. The
     rights of man! Whence came they? What are they? What is their
     design? How do we know them? They are of God! Those that most
     intimately affect us as human beings are life, liberty, and the
     pursuit of happiness. Their design is happiness. The human
     organization is the charter deed by which we hold them. Hence we
     learn that rights are coeval with the human race, of universal
     heritage, and inalienable; that every human being, no matter of
     what color, sex, condition, or clime, possesses those rights upon
     perfect equality with all others. The monarch on the throne, and
     the beggar at his feet, have the same. Man has no more, woman no
     less.

     Rights may not be usurped on one hand, nor surrendered on the
     other, because they involve a responsibility that can be
     discharged only by those to whom they belong, those for whom they
     were created; and because, without those certain inalienable
     rights, human beings can not attain the end for which God the
     Father gave them existence. Where and how can the wisdom and
     ingenuity of the world find a truer, stronger, broader basis of
     human rights. To secure these rights, says the Declaration of
     Independence, "Governments were instituted among men, deriving
     their just powers from the consent of the governed;" and
     "whenever any form of government becomes destructive of those
     ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and
     to substitute a new government, laying its foundation on such
     principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them
     shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
     The Government of this country, in common with all others, has
     never recognized or attempted to protect women as persons
     possessing the rights of humanity. They have been recognized and
     protected as appendages to men, without independent rights or
     political existence, unknown to the law except as victims of its
     caprice and tyranny. This government, having therefore exercised
     powers underived from the consent of the governed, and having
     signally failed to secure the end for which all just government
     is instituted, should be immediately altered, or abolished.

     We can not better describe the political condition of woman, than
     by quoting from a distinguished lawyer of our own State.
     Professor Walker, in his "Introduction to American Law," says

                              OF HUSBAND AND WIFE,

          "We have a few statutory provisions on the subject, but for
          the most part the law of husband and wife is _Common Law_,
          and you will find that it savors of its origin in all its
          leading features. The whole theory is a slavish one,
          compared even with the civil law. I do not hesitate to say,
          by way of arousing your attention to the subject, that the
          law of husband and wife, as you gather it from the books, is
          a disgrace to any civilized nation. I do not mean to say
          that females are degraded in point of fact. I only say, that
          the theory of the law degrades them almost to the level of
          slaves." We thank Prof. Walker for his candor. He might have
          added that the practice of the law does degrade woman to the
          level of the slave. He also says: "With regard to political
          rights, females form a positive exception to the general
          doctrine of equality. They have no part nor lot in the
          formation or administration of government. They can not vote
          or hold office. We require them to contribute their share in
          the way of taxes for the support of government, but allow
          them no voice in its direction. We hold them amenable to the
          laws when made, but allow them no share in making them. This
          language applied to males, would be the exact definition of
          political slavery; applied to females, custom does not teach
          us so to regard it."

     Of married women he says: "The legal theory is, marriage makes
     the husband and wife one person, and that person is the husband.
     He the substantive, she the adjective. In a word, there is
     scarcely a legal act of any description that she is competent to
     perform. If she leaves him without cause, (legal) he may seize
     and bring her back, for he has a right to her society, which he
     may enforce, either against herself, or any other person. All her
     personality in regard to property becomes the husband's by
     marriage, unless the property has been specially secured to her.
     If the property be not in his possession, he may take measures to
     reduce it to possession. He can thus dispose of it in spite of
     her. If debts were due to her, he may collect them. If he was
     himself the debtor, the marriage cancels the debt. If she has
     earned money during marriage, he may collect it. In regard to
     realty (real estate) he controls the income, and without her
     consent he can not encumber, or dispose of the property beyond
     his own life." Women, married or single, have no political rights
     whatever. While single, their legal rights are the same as those
     of men; when married, their legal rights are chiefly suspended.
     "The condition of the wife may be inferred from what has already
     been said. She is almost at the mercy of her husband; she can
     exercise no control over his property or her own. As a general
     rule, she can make no contracts binding herself or him. Her
     contracts are not merely voidable, but absolutely void. Nor can
     she make herself liable for his contracts, torts, or crimes. Her
     only separate liability is for her own crimes. Her only joint
     liability, is for her own torts committed without his
     participation, and for contracts for which the law authorizes her
     to unite with him. She has no power over his person, and her only
     claim upon his property is for a bare support. In no instance can
     she sue or be sued alone in a civil action; and there are but few
     cases in which she can be joined in a suit with him. In Ohio, but
     hardly anywhere else, is she allowed to make a will, if haply she
     has anything to dispose of."

     Women of Ohio! Whose cheek does not blush, whose blood does not
     tingle at this cool, lawyer-like recital of the gross indignities
     and wrongs which Government has heaped upon our sex? With these
     marks of inferiority branded upon our persons, and interwoven
     with the most sacred relations of human existence, how can we
     rise to the true dignity of human nature, and discharge
     faithfully the important duties assigned us as responsible,
     intelligent, self-controlling members of society? No wonder that
     so many of our politicians are dough-faced serviles, without
     independence or manhood; no wonder our priests are time-serving
     and sycophantic: no wonder that so many men are moral cowards and
     cringing poltroons. What more could be expected of a progeny of
     slaves? Slaves are we, politically and legally. How can we, who,
     it is said, are the educators of our children, present to this
     nation anything else but a generation of serviles, while we,
     ourselves, are in a servile condition, and padlocks are on our
     lips? No! if men would be men worthy of the name, they must cease
     to disfranchise and rob their wives and mothers; they must
     forbear to consign to political and legal slavery their sisters
     and their daughters. And, would we be women worthy the
     companionship of true and noble men, we must cease longer to
     submit to tyranny. Let us rise in the might of self-respect, and
     assert our rights, and by the aid of truth, the instincts of
     humanity, and a just application of the principles of equality,
     we shall be able to maintain them.

     You ask, would you have woman, by engaging in political party
     bickerings and noisy strife, sacrifice her integrity and purity?
     No, neither would we have men do it.... We hold that whatever is
     essentially wrong for woman to do, can not be right for man. If
     deception and intrigue, the elements of political craft, be
     degrading to woman, can they be ennobling to man? If patience and
     forbearance adorn a woman, are they not equally essential to a
     manly character? If anger and turbulence disgrace woman, what can
     they add to the dignity of man? Nothing; because nothing can be
     morally right for man, that is morally wrong for woman. Woman, by
     becoming the executioner of man's vengeance on his fellow-man,
     could inflict no greater wrong on society than the same done by
     man; but it would create an intenser feeling of shuddering
     horror, and would, we conceive, rouse to more healthful activity
     man's torpid feelings of justice, mercy, and clemency. And so,
     also, if woman had free scope for the full exercise of the
     heavenly graces that men so gallantly award her, truth, love, and
     mercy would be invested with a more sacred charm. But while they
     continue to enforce obedience to arbitrary commands, to encourage
     love of admiration and a desire for frivolous amusements; while
     they crush the powers of the mind, by opposing authority and
     precedent to reason and progress; while they arrogate to
     themselves the right to point us to the path of duty, while they
     close the avenues of knowledge through public institutions, and
     monopolize the profits of labor, mediocrity and inferiority must
     be our portion. Shall we accept it, or shall we strive against
     it?

     Men are not destitute of justice or humanity; and let it be
     remembered that there are hosts of noble and truthful ones among
     them who deprecate the tyranny that enslaves us; and none among
     ourselves can be more ready than they to remove the mountain of
     injustice which the savagism of ages has heaped upon our sex. If,
     therefore, we remain enslaved and degraded, the cause may justly
     be traced to our own apathy and timidity. We have at our disposal
     the means of moral agitation and influence, that can arouse our
     country to a saving sense of the wickedness and folly of
     disfranchising half the people. Let us no longer delay to use
     them.

     Let it be remembered too, that tyrannical and illiberal as our
     Government is, low as it places us in the scale of existence,
     degrading as is its denial of our capacity for self-government,
     still it concedes to us more than any other Government on earth.
     Woman, over half the globe, is now and always has been but a
     chattel. Wives are bargained for, bought and sold, as other
     merchandise, and as a consequence of the annihilation of natural
     rights, they have no political existence. In Hindustan, the
     evidence of woman is not received in a court of justice. The
     Hindu wife, when her husband dies, must yield implicit obedience
     to the oldest son. In Burmah, they are not allowed to ascend the
     steps of a court of justice, but are obliged to give their
     testimony outside of the building. In Siberia, women are not
     allowed to step across the footprints of men or reindeer. The
     Mohammedan law forbids pigs, dogs, women, and other impure
     animals to enter the Mosque. The Moors, for the slightest
     offense, beat their wives most cruelly. The Tartars believe that
     women were sent into the world for no other purpose than to be
     useful, convenient slaves. To these heathen precedents our
     Christian brethren sometimes refer to prove the inferiority of
     woman, and to excuse the inconsistency of the only Government on
     earth that has proclaimed the equality of man. An argument worthy
     its source.

     In answer to the popular query, "Why should woman desire to
     meddle with public affairs?" we suggest the following questions:

     1st. Is the principle of taxation without representation less
     oppressive and tyrannical, than when our fathers expended their
     blood and treasure, rather than submit to its injustice?

     2d. Is it just, politic, and wise, that universities and colleges
     endowed by Government should be open only to men?

     3d. Is it easier for Government to reform lazy, vicious,
     ignorant, and hardened felons, than for enlightened
     humanity--loving parents, to "train up a child in the way it
     should go"?

     4th. How can a mother, who does not understand, and therefore can
     not appreciate the rights of humanity, train up her child in the
     way it should go?

     5th. Whence originates the necessity of a penal code?

     6th. It is computed that over ten millions of dollars are
     annually expended in the United States for the suppression of
     crime. How much of this waste of treasure is traceable to
     defective family government?

     7th. Can antiquity make wrong right?

     In conclusion, we appeal to our sisters of Ohio to arise from the
     lethargy of ages; to assert their rights as independent human
     beings; to demand their true position as equally responsible
     co-workers with their brethren in this world of action. We urge
     you by your self-respect, by every consideration for the human
     race, to arise and take possession of your birthright to freedom
     and equality. Take it not as the gracious boon tendered by the
     chivalry of superiors, but as your _right_, on every principle of
     justice and equality.

     The present is a most favorable time for the women of Ohio to
     demand a recognition of their rights. The organic law of the
     State is about to undergo a revision. Let it not be our fault if
     the rights of humanity, and not alone those of "free white male
     citizens," are recognized and protected. Let us agitate the
     subject in the family circle, in public assemblies, and through
     the press. Let us flood the Constitutional Convention with
     memorials and addresses, trusting to truth and a righteous cause
     for the success of our efforts.

This Convention had one peculiar characteristic. It was officered
entirely by women; not a man was allowed to sit on the platform, to
speak, or vote. _Never did men so suffer._ They implored just to say a
word; but no; the President was inflexible--no man should be heard. If
one meekly arose to make a suggestion he was at once ruled out of
order. For the first time in the world's history, men learned how it
felt to sit in silence when questions in which they were interested
were under discussion. It would have been an admirable way of closing
the Convention, had a rich banquet been provided, to which the men
should have had the privilege of purchasing tickets to the gallery,
there to enjoy the savory odors, and listen to the after-dinner
speeches. However, the gentlemen in the Convention passed through this
severe trial with calm resignation; at the close, organized an
association of their own, and generously endorsed all the ladies had
said and done.

Though the women in this Convention were unaccustomed to public
speaking and parliamentary tactics, the interest was well sustained
for two days, and the deliberations were conducted with dignity and
order. It was here Josephine S. Griffing uttered her first brave
words for woman's emancipation, though her voice had long been heard
in pathetic pleading for the black man's rights. This Convention,
which was called and conducted by Mrs. Emily Robinson, with such aid
as she could enlist, was largely attended and entirely successful.

A favorable and lengthy report found its way into the _New York
Tribune_ and other leading journals, both East and West, and the
proceedings of the Convention were circulated widely in pamphlet form.
All this made a very strong impression upon the public mind. From the
old world, too, the officers of the Convention received warm
congratulations and earnest words of sympathy, for the new gospel of
woman's equality was spreading in England as well as America.


AKRON CONVENTION.

The advocates for the enfranchisement of woman had tripled in that one
short year. The very complimentary comments of the press, and the
attention awakened throughout the State, by the presentation of "the
memorial" to the Constitutional Convention, had accomplished a great
educational work. Soon after this, another convention was called in
Akron. The published proceedings of the first convention, were like
clarion notes to the women of Ohio, rousing them to action, and when
the call to the second was issued, there was a generous response. In
1851, May 28th and 29th, many able men and women rallied at the stone
church, and hastened to give their support to the new demand, and most
eloquently did they plead for justice to woman.

Frances D. Gage, Hannah Tracy Cutler, Jane G. Swisshelm, Caroline M.
Severance, Emma R. Coe, Maria L. Giddings, Celia C. Burr (afterward
Burleigh), Martha J. Tilden, and many other noble women who were
accustomed to speaking in temperance and anti-slavery meetings, helped
to make this Convention most successful. Frances D. Gage was chosen
President of the Convention. On taking the chair she said:

     I am at a loss, kind friends, to know whether to return you
     thanks, or not, for the honor conferred upon me. And when I tell
     you that I have never in my life attended a regular business
     meeting, and am entirely inexperienced in the forms and
     ceremonies of a deliberative body, you will not be surprised that
     I do not feel remarkably grateful for the position. For though
     you have conferred an honor upon me, I very much fear I shall not
     be able to reflect it back. I will try.

     When our forefathers left the old and beaten paths of New
     England, and struck out for themselves in a new and unexplored
     country, they went forth with a slow and cautious step, but with
     firm and resolute hearts. The land of their fathers had become
     too small for their children. Its soil answered not their wants.
     The parents shook their heads and said, with doubtful and
     foreboding faces: "Stand still, stay at home. This has sufficed
     for us; we have lived and enjoyed ourselves here. True, our
     mountains are high and our soil is rugged and cold; but you won't
     find a better; change, and trial, and toil, will meet you at
     every step. Stay, tarry with us, and go not forth to the
     wilderness."

     But the children answered: "Let us go; this land has sufficed for
     you, but the one beyond the mountains is better. We know there is
     trial, toil, and danger; but for the sake of our children, and
     our children's children, we are willing to meet all." They went
     forth, and pitched their tents in the wilderness. An herculean
     task was before them; the rich and fertile soil was shadowed by a
     mighty forest, and giant trees were to be felled. The Indians
     roamed the wild, wide hunting-grounds, and claimed them as their
     own. They must be met and subdued. The savage beasts howled
     defiance from every hill-top, and in every glen. They must be
     destroyed. Did the hearts of our fathers fail? No; they entered
     upon their new life, their new world, with a strong faith and a
     mighty will. For they saw in the prospection a great and
     incalculable good. It was not the work of an hour, nor of a day;
     not of weeks or months, but of long struggling, toiling, painful
     years. If they failed at one point, they took hold at another. If
     their paths through the wilderness were at first crooked, rough,
     and dangerous, by little and little they improved them. The
     forest faded away, the savage disappeared, the wild beasts were
     destroyed, and the hopes and prophetic visions of their
     far-seeing powers in the new and untried country, were more than
     realized.

     Permit me to draw a comparison between the situation of our
     forefathers in the wilderness, without even so much as a
     bridle-path through its dark depths, and our present position.
     The old land of moral, social, and political privilege, seems too
     narrow for our wants; its soil answers not to our growing, and we
     feel that we see clearly a better country that we might inhabit.
     But there are mountains of established law and custom to
     overcome; a wilderness of prejudice to be subdued; a powerful foe
     of selfishness and self-interest to overthrow; wild beasts of
     pride, envy, malice, and hate to destroy. But for the sake of our
     children and our children's children, we have entered upon the
     work, hoping and praying that we may be guided by wisdom,
     sustained by love, and led and cheered by the earnest hope of
     doing good.

     I shall enter into no labored argument to prove that woman does
     not occupy the position in society to which her capacity justly
     entitles her. The rights of mankind emanate from their natural
     wants and emotions. Are not the natural wants and emotions of
     humanity common to, and shared equally by, both sexes? Does man
     hunger and thirst, suffer cold and heat more than woman? Does he
     love and hate, hope and fear, joy and sorrow more than woman?
     Does his heart thrill with a deeper pleasure in doing good? Can
     his soul writhe in more bitter agony under the consciousness of
     evil or wrong? Is the sunshine more glorious, the air more quiet,
     the sounds of harmony more soothing, the perfume of flowers more
     exquisite, or forms of beauty more soul-satisfying to his senses,
     than to hers? To all these interrogatories every one will answer,
     No!

     Where then did man get the authority that he now claims over
     one-half of humanity? From what power the vested right to place
     woman--his partner, his companion, his helpmeet in life--in an
     inferior position? Came it from nature? Nature made woman his
     superior when she made her his mother; his equal when she fitted
     her to hold the sacred position of wife. Does he draw his
     authority from God, from the language of holy writ? No! For it
     says that "Male and female created he _them_, and gave _them_
     dominion." Does he claim it under law of the land? Did woman meet
     with him in council and voluntarily give up all her claim to be
     her own law-maker? Or did the majesty of might place this power
     in his hands?--The power of the strong over the weak makes man
     the master! Yes, there, and there only, does he gain his
     authority.

     In the dark ages of the past, when ignorance, superstition, and
     bigotry held rule in the world, might made the law. But the
     undertone, the still small voice of Justice, Love, and Mercy,
     have ever been heard, pleading the cause of humanity, pleading
     for truth and right; and their low, soft tones of harmony have
     softened the lion heart of might, and little by little, he has
     yielded as the centuries rolled on; and man, as well as woman,
     has been the gainer by every concession. We will ask him to yield
     still; to allow the voice of woman to be heard; to let her take
     the position which her wants and emotions seem to require; to let
     her enjoy her natural rights. Do not answer that woman's position
     is now all her natural wants and emotions require. Our meeting
     here together this day proves the contrary; proves that we have
     aspirations that are not met. Will it be answered that we are
     factious, discontented spirits, striving to disturb the public
     order, and tear up the old fastnesses of society? So it was said
     of Jesus Christ and His followers, when they taught peace on
     earth and good-will to men. So it was said of our forefathers in
     the great struggle for freedom. So it has been said of every
     reformer that has ever started out the car of progress on a new
     and untried track.

     We fear, not man as an enemy. He is our friend, our brother. Let
     woman speak for herself, and she will be heard. Let her claim
     with a calm and determined, yet loving spirit, her place, and it
     will be given her. I pour out no harsh invectives against the
     present order of things--against our fathers, husbands, and
     brothers; they do as they have been taught; they feel as society
     bids them; they act as the law requires. Woman must act for
     herself.

     Oh, if all women could be impressed with the importance of their
     own action, and with one united voice, speak out in their own
     behalf, in behalf of humanity, they could create a revolution
     without armies, without bloodshed, that would do more to
     ameliorate the condition of mankind, to purify, elevate, ennoble
     humanity, than all that has been done by reformers in the last
     century.

When we consider that Mrs. Gage had led the usual arduous domestic
life, of wife, mother, and housekeeper, in a new country, overburdened
with the care and anxiety incident to a large family reading and
gathering general information at short intervals, taken from the hours
of rest and excessive toil, it is remarkable, that she should have
presided over the Convention, in the easy manner she is said to have
done, and should have given so graceful and appropriate an
extemporaneous speech, on taking the chair. Maria L. Giddings,
daughter of Joshua R. Giddings, who represented Ohio many years in
Congress, presented a very able digest on the common law. Betsey M.
Cowles gave a report equally good on "Labor," and Emily Robinson on
"Education."

In all the early Conventions the resolutions were interminable. It was
not thought that full justice was done to the subject, if every point
of interest or dissatisfaction in this prolific theme was not
condensed into a resolution. Accordingly the Akron Convention
presented, discussed, and adopted fifteen resolutions. At Salem, the
previous year, the number reached twenty-two.

Letters were read from Amelia Bloomer, Elizabeth Wilson, Lydia F.
Fowler, Susan Ormsby, Elsie M. Young, Gerrit Smith, Henry C. Wright,
Paulina Wright Davis, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Clarina Howard Nichols,
and others. The Hutchinson family enlivened this Convention with such
inspiring songs as "The Good Time Coming." Ever at the post of duty,
they have sung each reform in turn to partial success. Jesse expressed
his sympathy in the cause in a few earnest remarks.

This Convention was remarkable for the large number of men who took an
active part in the proceedings. And as we have now an opportunity to
express our gratitude by handing their names down to posterity, and
thus make them immortal, we here record Joseph Barker, Marius
Robinson, Rev. D. L. Webster, Jacob Heaton, Dr. K. G. Thomas, L. A.
Hine, Dr. A. Brooke, Rev. Mr. Howels, Rev. Geo. Schlosser, Mr. Pease,
and Samuel Brooke. The reports of this Convention are so meagre that
we can not tell who were in the opposition; but from Sojourner Truth's
speech, we fear that the clergy, as usual, were averse to enlarging
the boundaries of freedom.

In those early days the sons of Adam crowded our platform, and often
made it the scene of varied pugilistic efforts, but of late years we
invite those whose presence we desire. Finding it equally difficult to
secure the services of those we deem worthy to advocate our cause, and
to repress those whose best service would be silence, we ofttimes find
ourselves quite deserted by the "stronger sex" when most needed.

Sojourner Truth, Mrs. Stowe's "Lybian Sibyl," was present at this
Convention. Some of our younger readers may not know that Sojourner
Truth was once a slave in the State of New York, and carries to-day as
many marks of the diabolism of slavery, as ever scarred the back of a
victim in Mississippi. Though she can neither read nor write, she is a
woman of rare intelligence and common-sense on all subjects. She is
still living, at Battle Creek, Michigan, though now 110 years old.
Although the exalted character and personal appearance of this noble
woman have been often portrayed, and her brave deeds and words many
times rehearsed, yet we give the following graphic picture of
Sojourner's appearance in one of the most stormy sessions of the
Convention, from

                     REMINISCENCES BY FRANCES D. GAGE.

                            SOJOURNER TRUTH.

     The leaders of the movement trembled on seeing a tall, gaunt
     black woman in a gray dress and white turban, surmounted with an
     uncouth sun-bonnet, march deliberately into the church, walk with
     the air of a queen up the aisle, and take her seat upon the
     pulpit steps. A buzz of disapprobation was heard all over the
     house, and there fell on the listening ear, "An abolition
     affair!" "Woman's rights and <DW65>s!" "I told you so!" "Go it,
     darkey!"

     I chanced on that occasion to wear my first laurels in public
     life as president of the meeting. At my request order was
     restored, and the business of the Convention went on. Morning,
     afternoon, and evening exercises came and went. Through all these
     sessions old Sojourner, quiet and reticent as the "Lybian
     Statue," sat crouched against the wall on the corner of the
     pulpit stairs, her sun-bonnet shading her eyes, her elbows on her
     knees, her chin resting upon her broad, hard palms. At
     intermission she was busy selling the "Life of Sojourner Truth,"
     a narrative of her own strange and adventurous life. Again and
     again, timorous and trembling ones came to me and said, with
     earnestness, "Don't let her speak, Mrs. Gage, it will ruin us.
     Every newspaper in the land will have our cause mixed up with
     abolition and <DW65>s, and we shall be utterly denounced." My
     only answer was, "We shall see when the time comes."

     The second day the work waxed warm. Methodist, Baptist,
     Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Universalist ministers came in to
     hear and discuss the resolutions presented. One claimed superior
     rights and privileges for man, on the ground of "superior
     intellect"; another, because of the "manhood of Christ; if God
     had desired the equality of woman, He would have given some token
     of His will through the birth, life, and death of the Saviour."
     Another gave us a theological view of the "sin of our first
     mother."

     There were very few women in those days who dared to "speak in
     meeting"; and the august teachers of the people were seemingly
     getting the better of us, while the boys in the galleries, and
     the sneerers among the pews, were hugely enjoying the
     discomfiture, as they supposed, of the "strong-minded." Some of
     the tender-skinned friends were on the point of losing dignity,
     and the atmosphere betokened a storm. When, slowly from her seat
     in the corner rose Sojourner Truth, who, till now, had scarcely
     lifted her head. "Don't let her speak!" gasped half a dozen in my
     ear. She moved slowly and solemnly to the front, laid her old
     bonnet at her feet, and turned her great speaking eyes to me.
     There was a hissing sound of disapprobation above and below. I
     rose and announced "Sojourner Truth," and begged the audience to
     keep silence for a few moments.

     The tumult subsided at once, and every eye was fixed on this
     almost Amazon form, which stood nearly six feet high, head erect,
     and eyes piercing the upper air like one in a dream. At her first
     word there was a profound hush. She spoke in deep tones, which,
     though not loud, reached every ear in the house, and away through
     the throng at the doors and windows.

     "Wall, chilern, whar dar is so much racket dar must be somethin'
     out o' kilter. I tink dat 'twixt de <DW65>s of de Souf and de
     womin at de Norf, all talkin' 'bout rights, de white men will be
     in a fix pretty soon. But what's all dis here talkin' 'bout?

     "Dat man ober dar say dat womin needs to be helped into
     carriages, and lifted ober ditches, and to hab de best place
     everywhar. Nobody eber helps me into carriages, or ober
     mud-puddles, or gibs me any best place!" And raising herself to
     her full height, and her voice to a pitch like rolling thunder,
     she asked. "And a'n't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! (and
     she bared her right arm to the shoulder, showing her tremendous
     muscular power). I have ploughed, and planted, and gathered into
     barns, and no man could head me! And a'n't I a woman? I could
     work as much and eat as much as a man--when I could get it--and
     bear de lash as well! And a'n't, I a woman? I have borne thirteen
     chilern, and seen 'em mos' all sold off to slavery, and when I
     cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And
     a'n't I a woman?

     "Den dey talks 'bout dis ting in de head; what dis dey call it?"
     ("Intellect," whispered some one near.) "Dat's it, honey. What's
     dat got to do wid womin's rights or <DW65>'s rights? If my cup
     won't hold but a pint, and yourn holds a quart, wouldn't ye be
     mean not to let me have my little half-measure full?" And she
     pointed her significant finger, and sent a keen glance at the
     minister who had made the argument. The cheering was long and
     loud.

     "Den dat little man in black dar, he say women can't have as much
     rights as men, 'cause Christ wan't a woman! Whar did your Christ
     come from?" Rolling thunder couldn't have stilled that crowd, as
     did those deep, wonderful tones, as she stood there with
     outstretched arms and eyes of fire. Raising her voice still
     louder, she repeated, "Whar did your Christ come from? From God
     and a woman! Man had nothin' to do wid Him." Oh, what a rebuke
     that was to that little man.

     Turning again to another objector, she took up the defense of
     Mother Eve. I can not follow her through it all. It was pointed,
     and witty, and solemn; eliciting at almost every sentence
     deafening applause; and she ended by asserting: "If de fust woman
     God ever made was strong enough to turn de world upside down all
     alone, dese women togedder (and she glanced her eye over the
     platform) ought to be able to turn it back, and get it right side
     up again! And now dey is asking to do it, de men better let 'em."
     Long-continued cheering greeted this. "'Bleeged to ye for hearin'
     on me, and now ole Sojourner han't got nothin' more to say."

     Amid roars of applause, she returned to her corner, leaving more
     than one of us with streaming eyes, and hearts beating with
     gratitude. She had taken us up in her strong arms and carried us
     safely over the slough of difficulty turning the whole tide in
     our favor. I have never in my life seen anything like the magical
     influence that subdued the mobbish spirit of the day, and turned
     the sneers and jeers of an excited crowd into notes of respect
     and admiration. Hundreds rushed up to shake hands with her, and
     congratulate the glorious old mother, and bid her God-speed on
     her mission of "testifyin' agin concerning the wickedness of this
     'ere people."


            WOMAN'S RIGHTS MEETING IN A BARN--"JOHN'S CONVENTION."

     MRS. M. E. J. GAGE:

     DEAR MADAM:--Your postal and note requesting items of history of
     the almost forgotten doings of thirty years ago, is at hand.

     In 1850 Ohio decided by the votes of her male population to
     "alter and amend her Constitution." The elected delegates
     assembled in Cincinnati in the spring of that year.

     In view of affecting this legislation the "Woman's Rights
     Convention" at Salem, Columbiana Co., was called in April, 1850,
     and memorialized the Delegate Convention, praying that Equal
     Rights to all citizens of the State be guaranteed by the new
     Constitution. In May a county meeting was called in
     McConnelsville, Morgan Co., Ohio. Mrs. H. M. Little, Mrs. M. T.
     Corner, Mrs. H. Brewster, and myself, were all the women that I
     knew in that region, even favorable to a movement for the help of
     women. Two of these only asked for more just laws for married
     women. One hesitated about the right of suffrage. I alone in the
     beginning asked for the ballot,[17] and equality before the law
     for all adult citizens of sound minds, without regard to sex or
     color. The Freemasons gave their hall for our meeting, but no men
     were admitted. I drew up a memorial for signatures, praying that
     the words "white" and "male" be omitted in the new Constitution.
     I also drew up a paper copying the unequal laws on our statute
     books with regard to women. We met, Mrs. Harriet Brewster
     presiding. Some seventy ladies of our place fell in through the
     day. I read my paper, and Mrs. M. T. Corner gave a historical
     account of noted women of the past. It was a new thing. At the
     close, forty names were placed on the memorial For years I had
     been talking and writing, and people were used to my "craziness."
     But who expected Mrs. Corner and others to take such a stand! Of
     course, we were heartily abused.

     This led to the calling of a county meeting at Chesterfield,
     Morgan County. It was advertised to be held in the M. E. Church.
     There were only present some eight ladies, including the four
     above mentioned We four "scoffers" hired a hack and rode sixteen
     miles over the hill, before 10 A.M., to be denied admittance to
     church or school-house Rev. Philo Matthews had found us shelter
     on the threshing-floor of a fine barn, and we found about three
     or four hundred of the farmers, and their wives, sons, and
     daughters, assembled. They were nearly all "Quakers" and
     Abolitionists, but then not much inclined to "woman's rights." I
     had enlarged my argument, and there the "ox-sled" speech was
     made, the last part of May, 1850, date of day not remembered.

     A genuine "Quaker Preacher" said to me at the close, "Frances,
     thee had great Freedom. The ox-cart inspired thee." The farmers'
     wives brought huge boxes and pans of provisions. Men and women
     made speeches, and many names were added to our memorial. On the
     whole, we had a delightful day. It was no uncommon thing in those
     days for Abolitionist, or Methodist, or other meetings, to be
     held under the trees, or in large barns, when school-houses would
     not hold the people. But to shut up doors against women was a new
     thing.

     In December of 1851 I was invited to attend a Woman's Rights
     Convention at the town of Mount Gilead, Morrow Co., Ohio. A
     newspaper call promised that celebrities would be on hand, etc. I
     wrote I would be there. It was two days' journey, by steamboat
     and rail. The call was signed "John Andrews," and John Andrews
     promised to meet me at the cars. I went. It was fearfully cold,
     and John met me. He was a beardless boy of nineteen, looking much
     younger. We drove at once to the "Christian Church." On the way
     he cheered me by saying "he was afraid nobody would come, for all
     the people said nobody would come for his asking." When we got to
     the house, there was not one human soul on hand, no fire in the
     old rusty stove, and the rude, unpainted board benches, all
     topsy-turvy. I called some boys playing near, asked their names,
     put them on paper, five of them, and said to them, "Go to every
     house in this town and tell everybody that 'Aunt Fanny' will
     speak here at 11 A.M., and if you get me fifty to come and hear,
     I will give you each ten cents." They scattered off upon the run.
     I ordered John to right the benches, picked up chips and
     kindlings, borrowed a brand of fire at the next door, had a good
     hot stove, and the floor swept, and was ready for my audience at
     the appointed time. John had done his work well, and fifty at
     least were on hand, and a minister to make a prayer and quote St.
     Paul before I said a word. I said my say, and before 1 P.M., we
     adjourned, appointing another session at 3, and one for 7 P.M.,
     and three for the following day. Mrs. C. M. Severance came at 6
     P.M., and we had a good meeting throughout.

     John's Convention was voted a success after all. He died young,
     worn out by his own enthusiasm and conflicts.

                                             FRANCES D. GAGE.

In September, 1851, a Woman's Temperance Convention was held in
Cincinnati, Ohio, in Foster Hall, corner of Fifth and Walnut Streets.
Mrs. Mary B. Slough, President; Mrs. George Parcells, Vice-President:
Mrs. William Pinkham, Secretary. Resolutions were discussed, and a
Declaration of Independence adopted. Mrs. Slough was the "Grand
Presiding Sister of Ohio." This meeting was held to raise funds for a
banner, they had promised the firemen, Co. No. 1, if they would vote
the Temperance ticket.

Of the temperance excitement in the State, Mrs. Gage says:

     In the winter of 1852-53, there was great excitement on the
     Temperance question in this country, originating in Maine and
     spreading West. Some prominent women in Ohio, who were at
     Columbus, the State capital, with their husbands--who were there
     from all parts of the State, as Senators, Representatives,
     jurists, and lobbyists--feeling a great interest, as many of them
     had need to, in the question, were moved to call a public meeting
     on the subject. This resulted in the formation of a "Woman's
     State Temperance Society," which sent out papers giving their
     by-laws and resolutions, and calling for auxiliary societies in
     different parts of the State. This call in many places met with
     hearty responses.

     In the following autumn, 1853, officers of the State Society,
     Mrs. Professor Coles, of Oberlin, President, called a convention
     of their members and friends of the cause, at the city of Dayton,
     Ohio.

     The famous "Whole World's Convention" had just been held in New
     York City, followed by the "World's Convention," at which the
     Rev. Antoinette L. Brown was expelled from the platform, simply
     because she was a woman. The Hon. Samuel Carey presented a
     resolution, which I quote from memory, something as follows:

     "_Resolved_, That we recognize women as efficient aids and
     helpers in the home, but not on the platform."

     This was not perhaps the exact wording, but it was the purport of
     the resolution, and was presented while Neal Dow, the President
     of the Convention, was absent from the chair, and after much
     angry and abusive discussion, it was passed by that body of great
     men.

     The Committee of Arrangements, appointed at Dayton, could find no
     church, school-house, or hall in which to hold their convention,
     till the Sons of Temperance consented to yield their lodge-room,
     provided there were no men admitted to their meetings. Alas! the
     Committee consented. I traveled two hundred miles, and, on
     reaching Dayton at a late hour, I repaired at once to the hall.
     Our meeting was organized. But hardly were we ready to proceed
     when an interruption occurred. I had been advertised for the
     first speech, and took my place on the platform, when a column of
     well-dressed ladies, very fashionable and precise, marched in,
     two and two, and spread themselves in a half circle in front of
     the platform, and requested leave to be heard.

     Our President asked me to suspend my reading, to which I
     assented, and she--a beautiful, graceful lady--bowed them her
     assent. Forthwith they proceeded to inform us, that they were
     delegated by a meeting of Dayton ladies to come hither and read
     to us a remonstrance against "the unseemly and unchristian
     position" we had assumed in calling conventions, and taking our
     places upon the platform, and seeking notoriety by making
     ourselves conspicuous before men. They proceeded to shake the
     dust from their own skirts of the whole thing. They discussed
     wisely the disgraceful conduct of Antoinette L. Brown at the
     World's Temperance Convention, as reported to them by Hon. Samuel
     Carey, with more of the same sort, which I beg to be excused from
     trying to recall to mind, or to repeat. When their mission was
     ended, in due form they filed out of the low dark door, descended
     the stair-way, and disappeared from our sight.

     When we had recovered our equilibrium after such a knock-down
     surprise, Mrs. Bateman requested me to proceed. I rose, and
     asked leave to change my written speech for one not from my pen,
     but from my heart.

     The protest of the Dayton "Mrs. Grundys" had been well larded
     with Scripture, so I added: "Out of the abundance of the heart
     the mouth speaketh," and never before, possibly never since, have
     I had greater liberty in relieving my mind, as the Quakers would
     say. I had been at New York and had boarded with Antoinette L.
     Brown, so I knew whereof I was bearing testimony, when I assured
     my hearers that Samuel Carey had certainly been lying--under a
     mistake. I gave my testimony, not cringingly, but as one who
     knew, and drew a comparison between Antoinette L. Brown, modestly
     but firmly standing her ground as a delegate from her society,
     with politicians and clergymen crying, "Shame on the woman," and
     stamping and clamoring till the dust on the carpet of the
     platform enveloped them in a cloud. Meanwhile, her best friends,
     William H. Channing, William Lloyd Garrison, Oliver Johnson,
     Wendell Phillips and others stood by her, bidding her stand firm.
     The conduct of these ladies in marching through the streets of
     Dayton, in the most crowded thoroughfares, in the midst of a
     State fair, to tell some other women that they were making
     themselves "conspicuous." What I said, or how it was said,
     mattereth not.

     That evening, the Sons of Temperance Hall, which our committee
     had promised to "keep clear of men," was well filled with women.
     But all around the walls, and between the benches, on the
     platform--and in the aisles, there were men from every part of
     the State. These ladies had given us a grand advertisement.

The following is the report of said meeting clipped from the _Evening
Post_ twenty-seven years ago, by Mrs. Gage:

                       THE OHIO WOMEN'S CONVENTION.

                                        DAYTON, _Sept. 24, 1853_.

     To-day the Ohio State Women's Temperance Society held a meeting
     at this place. The attendance was not large, but was respectable,
     both in number and talents. Mrs. Bateman, of Columbus, presided,
     and a good officer she made. Parliamentary rules prevailed in
     governing the assembly, and were enforced with much promptness
     and dignity. She understood enough of these to put both sides of
     the question--an attainment which, I have noticed, many Mr.
     Presidents have often not reached.

     The enactment of the Maine law in Ohio is the principal object at
     which they appeared to aim. Its constitutionality and effect were
     both discussed, decisions of courts criticised, and all with much
     acuteness and particularly happy illustrations. In reference to
     the practicability of enforcing it, when once passed, one woman
     declared, that "if the men could not do it, the women would give
     them effectual aid."

     In the course of the meeting, two original poems were read, one
     by Mrs. Gage, formerly of this State, and now of St. Louis, and
     one by Mrs. Hodge, of Oberlin. There were also delivered three
     formal addresses, one by Mrs. Dryer, of Delaware County, Ohio,
     one by Mrs. Griffing, of Salem, Ohio, and the other by Mrs. Gage,
     either of which would not have dishonored any of our public
     orators if we consider the matter, style, or manner of delivery.
     Men can deal in statistics and logical deductions, but women only
     can describe the horrors of intemperance--can draw aside the
     curtain and show us the wreck it makes of domestic love and home
     enjoyment--can paint the anguish of the drunkard's wife and the
     miseries of his children. Wisdom would seem to dictate that those
     who feel the most severely the effects of any evil, should best
     know how to remove it. If this be so, it would be difficult to
     give a reason why women should not act, indeed lead off in this
     great temperance movement.

     A most exciting and interesting debate arose on some resolutions
     introduced by the Secretary, Mrs. Griffing, condemnatory of the
     action of the World's Temperance Convention in undelegating Miss
     Brown, and excluding her from the platform.

     These resolutions are so pithy, that I can not refrain from
     furnishing them in full. They are as follows:

     "_Resolved_, That we regard the tyrannical and cowardly
     conformation to the 'usages of society,' in thrusting woman from
     the platform in the late so-called, but mis-called World's
     Temperance Convention, as a most daring and insulting outrage
     upon all of womankind; and it is with the deepest shame and
     mortification that we learn that our own State of Ohio furnished
     the delegate to officiate in writing and presenting the
     resolutions, and presiding at the session when the desperate act
     was accomplished.

     "_Resolved_, That our thanks are due to the Hon. Neal Dow, of
     Maine, the President of the Convention, for so manfully and
     persistently deciding and insisting upon and in favor of the
     right of all the friends of temperance, duly delegated, 10 seats
     and participation in all the proceedings."

     The friends of General Carey rallied, and with real parliamentary
     tact moved to lay the resolutions on the table. There was much
     excitement and some nervousness. The remarks made _pro_ and _con_
     were pithy and to the point. The motion to lay on the table was
     lost by a large majority. Mrs. Griffing supported her resolutions
     with much coolness and conscious strength. The General had few
     defenders, and most of those soon abandoned him to his fate, and
     fell back upon the position of deprecating the introduction of
     what they called the question of Woman's Rights into the
     Convention. All, however, was of no avail; the resolutions passed
     by a large majority, and amid much applause.

     After recess an attempt was made to reconsider this vote. The
     President urged some one who voted in the affirmative to move a
     reconsideration, that a substitute might be offered, condemning
     the action of the World's Convention in reference to Miss Brown,
     "as uncourteous, unchristian, and unparliamentary." The motion
     was made evidently from mere courtesy; but, when put to vote, was
     lost by a very large majority. The delegates from Oberlin, and
     some others, joined in the following protest:

     "We beg leave to request that it be recorded in the minutes of
     the meeting, that the delegation from Oberlin, and some others,
     although we regard as uncourteous, unchristian, and
     unparliamentary, the far-famed proceedings at New York, yet we
     can not endorse the language of censure as administered by our
     most loved and valued sisters."

     Thus fell General Carey, probably mortally wounded. His vitality,
     indeed, must be very great, if he can outlive the thrusts given
     him on this occasion. What rendered his conduct in New York more
     aggravating is the fact that heretofore, he has encouraged the
     women of Ohio in their advocacy of temperance, and promised to
     defend them.

     It is not, however, for Ohio men to interfere in this matter.
     Ohio women have shown themselves abundantly able to take care of
     themselves and the General too.


LETTERS FROM FRIENDS IN OHIO.

Mrs. R. A. S. Janney, in reply to our request for a chapter of her
recollections, said:

     The agitation of "Woman's Rights" began in Ohio in 1843 and '44,
     after Abby Kelly lectured through the State on Anti-slavery.

     The status of the public mind at that time is best illustrated by
     the fact that Catharine Beecher, in 1846, gave an address in
     Columbus on education, by sitting on the platform and getting her
     brother Edward to read it for her.

     In 1849, Lucy Stone and Antoinette L. Brown, then students at
     Oberlin College, lectured at different places in the State on
     "Woman's Rights."

     In 1850 a Convention was held at Salem; Mariana Johnson presented
     a memorial, which was numerously signed and sent to the
     Constitutional Convention. The same week Mrs. F. D. Gage called a
     meeting in Masonic Hall, McConnellsville, and drew up a memorial,
     which was also largely signed, and presented to the
     Constitutional Convention. Memorials were sent from other parts
     of the State, and other county conventions held.

     The signatures to the petition for "Equal Rights," numbered
     7,901, and for the Right of Suffrage, 2,106.

     The discussions in the Constitutional Convention were voted to be
     dropped from the records, because they were so low and obscene.
     Dr. Townsend, of Lorain, and William Hawkins, of McConnellsville,
     were our friends in the Convention.


                           MRS. CORNER'S LETTER.

                                   CLEVELAND, O., _Nov. 14, 1876_.

     DEAR MRS. BLOOMER:--Your postal recalls to mind an event which
     occurred before the women of Ohio had in any sense broken the
     cords which bound them. A wife was not then entitled to her own
     earnings, and if a husband were a drunkard, or a gambler, no
     portion of his wages could she take, without his consent, for the
     maintenance of herself and family.

     Some small gain has been attained in the letter of the law, and
     much in public opinion. Less stigma rests upon one who chooses an
     avocation suited to her own taste and ability. We have struggled
     for little; but it is well for us to remember that the world was
     not made in a day.

     The meeting to which you allude was held in Chesterfield, Morgan
     County, Ohio. I went in company with Mrs. Gage, and remember well
     what a spirited meeting it was. When it was found that the church
     could not be had, the ladies of the place secured a barn, made it
     nice and clean, had a platform built at one end of the large
     floor for the speakers and invited guests, and seats arranged in
     every available place.

     The audience was large and respectful, as well as respectable.
     The leading subjects were: The injustice of the laws, as to
     property and children, in their results to married women; the
     ability of woman to occupy positions of trust now withheld from
     her; her limited means for acquiring an education; etc.

     Mrs. Gage spoke with great enthusiasm and warmth. I think it must
     have been almost her first effort, to be followed by years of
     persistent work by voice and pen, to secure a wider field of
     labor for her sex, and to spur dull woman to do for herself; to
     make use of the means within her grasp; to become fit to bear the
     higher responsibilities which the coming years might impose.

     Her dear voice is almost silent now, still she lingers as if to
     catch some faint glimpse of hoped-for results, ere she drops this
     mortal coil.

                                   Very truly yours,
                                                  MARY T. CORNER.


MASSILON CONVENTION.

On May 27, 1852, another State Convention was held in Massilon. We
give the following brief notice from the _New York Tribune_:

     The third Woman's Rights Convention of Ohio has just closed its
     session. It was held in the Baptist church, in this place, and
     was numerously attended, there being a fair representation of
     men, as well as women; for though the object of these, and
     similar meetings, is to secure woman her rights, as an equal
     member of the human family, neither speaking nor membership was
     here confined to the one sex, but _all_ who had sentiments to
     utter in reference to the object of the Convention--whether for
     or against it--were invited to speak with freedom, and those who
     wished to aid the movement to sit as members, without distinction
     of sex. All honorable classes were represented, from the
     so-called highest to the so-called lowest--the seamstress who
     works for twenty-five cents a day; the daughters of the farmer,
     fresh from the dairy and the kitchen; the wives of the laborer,
     the physician, the lawyer, and the banker, the legislator, and
     the minister, were all there--all interested in one common cause,
     and desirous that every right God gave to woman should be fully
     recognized by the laws and usages of society, that every faculty
     he has bestowed upon her should have ample room for its proper
     development. Is this asking too much? And yet this is the sum and
     substance of the Woman's Rights Reform--a movement which fools
     ridicule, and find easier to sneer at than meet with argument.

Before they separated they organized "The Ohio Woman's Rights
Association," and chose Hannah Tracy Cutler for President.

The first annual meeting of this Association was held at Ravenna, May
25th and 26th, 1853. In the absence of the President, Mrs. Caroline M.
Severance presided. The speakers were Rev. Antoinette L. Brown, Mrs.
Lawrence, Emma R. Coe, Josephine S. Griffing, Martha J. Tilden, and
many others. Emily Robinson presented an able and encouraging report
on the progress of the work. Mrs. Severance was appointed to prepare a
memorial to the Legislature, which was presented March 23, 1854, laid
on the table and ordered to be printed. This document is found in the
June number of _The Una_, 1854, and is a very carefully written paper
on the legal status of woman.


CLEVELAND NATIONAL CONVENTION.

In 1853, October 6th, 7th, and 8th, the Fourth National Convention was
held in Cleveland. There were delegates present from New York,
Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and
Missouri. The _Plain Dealer_ said all the ladies prominent in this
movement were present, some in full Bloomer costume. At the appointed
time Lucretia Mott arose and said:

     As President of the last National Convention at Syracuse, it
     devolves on me to call this meeting to order. It was decided in a
     preliminary gathering last evening, that Frances D. Gage, of St.
     Louis, was the suitable person to fill the office of President on
     this occasion.

     Mrs. Gage, being duly elected, on taking the chair, said: Before
     proceeding farther, it is proper that prayer should be offered.
     The Rev. Antoinette L. Brown will address the throne of grace.

She came forward and made a brief, but eloquent prayer. It was
considered rather presumptuous in those days for a woman to pray in
public, but as Miss Brown was a graduate of Oberlin College, had gone
through the theological department, was a regularly ordained preacher,
and installed as a pastor, she felt quite at home in all the forms and
ceremonies of the Church.

     The Cleveland _Journal_, in speaking of her, said: She has one
     distinction, she is the handsomest woman in the Convention. Her
     voice is silvery, and her manner pleasing. It is generally known
     that she is the pastor of a Congregational church in South
     Butler, N. Y.

     In her opening remarks, Mrs. Gage said: It is with fear and
     trembling that I take up the duties of presiding over your
     deliberations: not fear and trembling for the cause, but lest I
     should not have the capacity and strength to do all the position
     requires of me. She then gave a review of what had been
     accomplished since the first Convention was held in Seneca Falls,
     N. Y., July 19, 1848, and closed by saying: I hope our
     discussions will be a little more extensive than the call would
     seem to warrant, which indicates simply our right to the
     political franchise.

     To which, Mrs. Mott replied: I would state that the limitation of
     the discussions was not anticipated at the last Convention. The
     issuing of the call was left to the Central Committee, but it was
     not supposed that they would specify any particular part of the
     labor of the Convention, but that the broad ground of the
     presentation of the wrongs of woman, the assertion of her rights,
     and the encouragement to perseverance in individual and combined
     action, and the restoration of those rights, should be taken.

     After which, Mrs. Gage added: I would remark once for all, to the
     Convention, that there is perfect liberty given here to speak
     upon the subject under discussion, both for and against; and that
     we urge all to do so. If there are any who have objections, we
     wish to hear them. If arguments are presented which convince us
     that we are doing wrong, we wish to act upon them. I extremely
     regret that while we have held convention after convention, where
     the same liberty has been given, no one has had a word to say
     against us at the time, but that some have reserved their hard
     words of opposition to our movement, only to go away and vent
     them through the newspapers, amounting, frequently, to gross
     misrepresentation. I hope every one here will remember, with deep
     seriousness, that the same Almighty finger which traced upon the
     tablets of stone the commands, "Thou shalt not kill," "Thou shalt
     not steal," traced also these words, "Thou shalt not bear false
     witness against thy neighbor."

The other officers of the Convention were then elected, as follows:

     _Vice-Presidents_--Antoinette L. Brown, New York; Lucretia Mott,
     Pennsylvania; Caroline M. Severance, Ohio; Joseph Barker, Ohio;
     Emily Robinson, Ohio; Mary B. Birdsall, Indiana; Sibyl Lawrence,
     Michigan; Charles P. Wood, New York; Amy Post, New York.

     _Secretaries_--Martha C. Wright, New York; Caroline Stanton,
     Ohio; H. B. Blackwell, Ohio.

     _Treasurer_--T. C. Severance, Ohio.

     _Business Committee_--Ernestine L. Rose, New York; James Mott,
     Pennsylvania; Lucy Stone, Massachusetts; Wm. Lloyd Garrison,
     Mass.; Abby Kelly Foster, Mass.; Mary T. Corner, Ohio; C. C.
     Burleigh, Connecticut; Martha J. Tilden, Ohio; John O. Wattles,
     Indiana.

     _Finance Committee_--Susan B. Anthony, Rochester; Phebe H.
     Merritt, Michigan; H. M. Addison, Ohio; Hettie Little, Ohio; E.
     P. Heaton, Ohio.

Letters were read from distinguished people. Notably the following
from Horace Greeley:

                                       NEW YORK, _Oct. 2, 1853_.

     DEAR MADAM:--I have received yours of the 26th, this moment. I do
     not see that my presence in Cleveland could be of any service.
     The question to be considered concerns principally woman, and
     women should mostly consider it. I recognize most thoroughly the
     right of woman to choose her own sphere of activity and
     usefulness, and to evoke its proper limitations. If she sees fit
     to navigate vessels, print newspapers, frame laws, select
     rulers--any or all of these--I know no principle that justifies
     man in interposing any impediment to her doing so. The only
     argument entitled to any weight against the fullest concession of
     the rights you demand, rests in the assumption that woman does
     not claim any such rights, but chooses to be ruled, guided,
     impelled, and have her sphere prescribed for her by man.

     I think the present state of our laws respecting property and
     inheritance, as respects married women, show very clearly that
     woman ought not to be satisfied with her present position; yet it
     may be that she is so. If all those who have never given this
     matter a serious thought are to be considered on the side of
     conservatism, of course that side must preponderate. Be this as
     it may, woman alone can, in the present state of the controversy,
     speak effectively for woman, since none others can speak with
     authority, or from the depths of a personal experience.

     Hoping that your Convention may result in the opening of many
     eyes, and the elevation of many minds from light to graver
     themes,

                              I remain yours,
                                        HORACE GREELEY.
     MRS. C. M. SEVERANCE,
                  Cleveland, Ohio.

And here let us pay our tribute of gratitude to Horace Greeley. In
those early days when he, as editor of the _New York Tribune_, was one
of the most popular men in the nation, his word almost law to the
people, his journal was ever true to woman. No ridicule of our cause,
no sneers at its advocates, found a place in _The Tribune_; but more
than once, he gave columns to the proceedings of our conventions.

To this letter, Henry B. Blackwell, brother of Dr. Elizabeth
Blackwell, and the future husband of Lucy Stone, pertinently replied,
saying:

     It is suggested that woman's cause should be advocated by women
     only. The writer of that letter is a true friend of this reform,
     and yet I feel that I owe you no apology for standing on this
     platform. But if I do, this is sufficient, that I am the son of a
     woman, and the brother of a woman. I know that this is their
     cause, but I feel that it is mine also. Their happiness is my
     happiness, their misery my misery.

     The interests of the sexes are inseparably connected, and in the
     elevation of one lies the salvation of the other. Therefore I
     claim a part in the last and grandest movement of the ages; for
     whatever concerns woman concerns the race. In every human
     enterprise the sexes should go hand in hand. Experience sanctions
     the statement. I know of but few movements in history, which have
     gone on successfully without the aid of woman. One of these is
     war--the work of human slaughter. Another has been the digging of
     gold in California. I have yet to learn what advantages the world
     has derived from either. Whenever the sexes have been severed in
     politics, in business, in religion, the result has been
     demoralization.

Mr. Blackwell spoke with great eloquence for nearly an hour,
advocating the political, civil, and moral equality of woman. He
showed the power of the ballot in combating unjust laws, opening
college doors, securing equal pay for equal work, dignifying the
marriage relation, by making woman an equal partner, not a subject. He
paid a glowing eulogy to Mary Wollstonecroft. He said:

     We need higher ideas of marriage. There is scarcely a young man
     here who does not hope to be a husband and a father; nor a young
     woman who does not expect to be a wife and a mother. But who
     does not revolt at the idea of perpetuating a race inferior to
     ourselves? For myself I could not desire a degenerate family. I
     would not wish for a race which would not be head and shoulders
     above what I had been. Let me say to men, select women worthy to
     be wives. The world is overstocked with these mis-begotten
     children of undeveloped mothers. No man who has ever seen the
     symmetrical character of a true woman, can be happy in a union
     with such. Ladies! the day is coming when men who have seen more
     well-developed women, will scorn the present standard of female
     character. Will you not teach them to do so? You may have to
     sacrifice much, but you will be repaid. This history of the world
     is rich with glorious examples. Mary Wollstonecroft, the writer
     of that brave book, "The Rights of Woman," published two
     generations ago, dared to be true to her convictions of duty in
     spite of the prejudices of the world. What was the result? She
     attained a noble character. She found in Godwin a nature worthy
     of her own, and left a child who became the wife and worthy
     biographer of the great poet Shelley. Let us imitate that child
     of glorious parents--parents who dared to make all their
     relations compatible with absolute right, to give all their
     powers the highest development.

     People say a married woman can not have ulterior objects; that
     her position is incompatible with a high intellectual culture;
     that her thoughts and sympathies must be restricted to the four
     walls of her dwelling. Why, if I were a woman (I speak only as a
     man) and believed this popular doctrine, that she who is a wife
     and a mother, being that, must be nothing more, but must cramp
     her thoughts into the narrow circle of her own home, and indulge
     no grander aspirations for universal interests--believing that, I
     would forswear marriage. I would withdraw myself from human
     society, and go out into the forest and the prairie to live out
     my own true life in the communion and sympathy of my God. So far
     as I was concerned, the race might become worthily extinct--it
     should never be unworthily perpetuated. I could do no otherwise.
     For we are not made merely to eat and drink, and give children to
     the world. We are placed here upon the threshold of an immortal
     life. We are but the chrysalis of the future. If immortality
     means anything, it means unceasing progress for individuals and
     for the race.

     Mr. Blackwell complimented those women who were just inaugurating
     a movement for a new costume, promising greater freedom and
     health. He thought the sneers and ridicule so unsparingly
     showered on the "Bloomers," might with more common sense be
     turned on the "tight waists, paper shoes, and trailing skirts of
     the fashionable classes."

The facts of history may as well be stated here in regard to the
"Bloomer" costume. Mrs. Bloomer was among the first to wear the dress,
and stoutly advocated its adoption in her paper, _The Lily_, published
at Seneca Falls, N. Y. But it was introduced by Elizabeth Smith
Miller, the daughter of the great philanthropist, Gerrit Smith, in
1850. She wore it for many years, even in the most fashionable circles
of Washington during her father's term in Congress. Lucy Stone, Miss
Anthony, and Mrs. Stanton, also wore it a few years. But it invoked so
much ridicule, that they feared the odium attached to the dress might
injure the suffrage movement, of which they were prominent
representatives. Hence a stronger love for woman's political freedom,
than for their own personal comfort, compelled them to lay it aside.
The experiment, however, was not without its good results. The dress
was adopted for skating and gymnastic exercises, in seminaries and
sanitariums. At Dr. James C. Jackson's, in Dansville, N. Y., it is
still worn. Many farmers' wives, too, are enjoying its freedom in
their rural homes.

Mrs. Bloomer, editor of _The Lily_, at Seneca Falls, New York, was
introduced at the close of Mr. Blackwell's remarks, and read a
well-prepared digest of the laws for married women.

Reporting one of the sessions, the _Plain Dealer_ said:

     Mrs. Gage, ever prompt in her place, called the Convention to
     order at the usual hour. The Melodean at this time contained
     1,500 people. We think the women may congratulate themselves on
     having most emphatically "made a hit" in the forest city.

Of the _personnel_ of the Convention, it says:

     Mrs. Mott is matronly-looking, wearing the Quaker dress, and
     apparently a good-natured woman. Her face does not indicate her
     character as a fiery and enthusiastic advocate of reform. Mrs.
     Gage is not a handsome woman, but her appearance altogether is
     prepossessing. You can see genius in her eye. She presided with
     grace at all the sessions of the Convention. The house was
     thronged with intelligent audiences. The President frequently
     contrasted the order, decorum, and kindness of the Cleveland
     audiences, with the noisy and tumultuous demonstrations which
     recently disgraced the city of New York, at the Convention held
     there.

Hon. JOSHUA R. GIDDINGS, on being called to the stand, remarked:

     That he was present to express, and happy of the opportunity to
     express, his sincere interest in the cause, and regard for the
     actors in this movement; but that on almost any other occasion he
     could speak with less embarrassment than here, with such
     advocates before him; and as he had not come prepared to address
     the Convention, declined occupying its time longer.

In reading over the debates of these early Conventions, we find the
speakers dwelling much more on the wrongs in the Church and the Home,
than in the State. But few of the women saw clearly, and felt deeply
that the one cause of their social and religious degradation was their
disfranchisement, hence the discussions often turned on the
surface-wrongs of society.

[Illustration: FRANCES D. GAGE (with autograph).]

Many of the friends present thought the Convention should issue an
original Declaration of Rights, as nothing had been adopted as yet,
except the parody on the Fathers' of' 76. Although that, and the one
William Henry Channing prepared, were both before the Convention, it
adjourned without taking action on either.

As so many of these noble leaders in the anti-slavery ranks have
passed away, we give in this chapter large space to their brave words.
Also to the treatment of Miss Brown, in the World's Temperance
Convention, for its exceptional injustice and rudeness.

Miss Brown read a letter from William H. Channing, in which he
embodied his ideas of a Declaration. Lucy Stone also read a very able
letter from Thomas Wentworth Higginson. Both of these letters contain
valuable suggestions for the adoption of practical measures for
bringing the wrongs of woman to the notice of the world.


                         MR. CHANNING'S LETTER.

                                   ROCHESTER, N. Y., _Oct. 3, 1853_.

     _To the President and Members of the Woman's Rights Convention:_

     As I am prevented, to my deep regret, from being present at the
     Convention, let me suggest in writing what I should prefer to
     speak. First, however, I would once again avow that I am with you
     heart, mind, soul, and strength for the Equal Rights of Women.
     This great reform will prove to be, I am well assured, the
     salvation and glory of this Republic, and of all Christian and
     civilized States:

          "And if at once we may not
          Declare the greatness of the work we plan,
          Be sure at least that ever in our eyes
          It stands complete before us as a dome
          Of light beyond this gloom--a house of stars
          Encompassing these dusky tents--a thing
          Near as our hearts, and perfect as the heavens.
          Be this our aim and model, and our hands
          Shall not wax faint, until the work is done."

     The Woman's Rights Conventions, which, since 1848, have been so
     frequently held in New York, Ohio, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania,
     etc., have aroused respectful attention, and secured earnest
     sympathy, throughout the United States. It becomes the advocates
     of the Equal Rights of Women, then, to take advantage of this
     wide-spread interest and to press the Reform, at once, onward to
     practical results.

     Among other timely measures, these have occurred to me as
     promising to be effective:

     I. There should be prepared, printed, and widely circulated, A
     DECLARATION OF WOMAN'S RIGHTS.

     This Declaration should distinctly announce the inalienable
     rights of women:

     1st. As human beings,--irrespective of the distinction of
     sex--actively to co-operate in all movements for the elevation of
     mankind.

     2d. As rational, moral, and responsible agents, freely to think,
     speak, and do, what truth and duty dictate, and to be the
     ultimate judges of their own sphere of action.

     3d. As women, to exert in private and in public, throughout the
     whole range of Social Relations, that special influence which God
     assigns as their appropriate function, in endowing them with
     feminine attributes.

     4th. As members of the body politic, needing the protection,
     liable to the penalties, and subject to the operation of the
     laws, to take their fair part in legislation and administration,
     and in appointing the makers and administrators of the laws.

     5th. As constituting one-half of the people of these free and
     United States, and as nominally, free women, to possess and use
     the power of voting, now monopolized by that other half of the
     people, the free men.

     6th. As property holders, numbered and registered in every
     census, and liable to the imposition of town, county, state, and
     national taxes, either to be represented if taxed, or to be left
     untaxed if unrepresented, according to the established precedent
     of No taxation without representation.

     7th. As producers of wealth to be freed from all restrictions on
     their industry; to be remunerated according to the work done, and
     not the sex of the workers, and whether married or single, to be
     secured in the ownership of their gains, and the use and
     distribution of their property.

     8th. As intelligent persons, to have ready access to the best
     means of culture, afforded by schools, colleges, professional
     institutions, museums of science, galleries of art, libraries,
     and reading-rooms.

     9th. As members of Christian churches and congregations, heirs of
     Heaven and children of God, to preach the truth, to administer
     the rites of baptism, communion, and marriage, to dispense
     charities, and in every way to quicken and refine the religious
     life of individuals and of society.

     The mere announcement of these rights, is the strongest argument
     and appeal that can be made, in behalf of granting them. The
     claim to their free enjoyment is undeniably just. Plainly such
     rights are inalienable, and plainly too, woman is entitled to
     their possession equally with man. Our whole plan of government
     is a hypocritical farce, if one-half the people can be governed
     by the other half without their consent being asked or granted.
     Conscience and common sense alike demand the equal rights of
     women. To the conscience and common sense of their
     fellow-citizens, let women appeal untiringly, until their just
     claims are acknowledged throughout the whole system of
     legislation, and in all the usages of society.

     And this introduces the next suggestion I have to offer.

     II. Forms of petition should be drawn up and distributed for
     signatures, to be offered to the State Legislatures at their next
     sessions. These petitions should be directed to the following
     points:

     1st. That the right of suffrage be granted to the people,
     universally, without distinction of sex; and that the age for
     attaining legal and political majority, be made the same for
     women as for men.

     2d. That all laws relative to the inheritance and ownership of
     property, to the division and administration of estates, and to
     the execution of Wills, be made equally applicable to women and
     men.

     3d. That mothers be entitled, equally with fathers, to become
     guardians of their children.

     4th. That confirmed and habitual drunkenness, of either husband
     or wife, be held as sufficient ground for divorce; and that the
     temperate partner be appointed legal guardian of the children.

     5th. That women be exempted from taxation until their right of
     suffrage is practically acknowledged.

     6th. That women equally with men be entitled to claim trial
     before a jury of their peers.

     These petitions should be firm and uncompromising in tone; and a
     hearing should be demanded before Committees specially empowered
     to consider and report them. In my judgment, the time is not
     distant, when such petitions will be granted, and when justice,
     the simple justice they ask, will be cordially, joyfully
     rendered.

     I call then for the publication of a Declaration of Woman's
     Rights, accompanied by Forms of Petitions, by the National
     Woman's Rights Convention at their present session. In good hope,

                                   Your friend and brother,
                                         WILLIAM HENRY CHANNING.

Miss Brown remarked:

     There is one of these demands, the fourth, which for myself, I
     should prefer to have amended thus--instead of the word
     "divorce," I would insert "legally separated." The letter
     otherwise meets my cordial and hearty approbation.


                         MR. HIGGINSON'S LETTER.

                                   WORCESTER, _Sept. 15, 1853_.

     DEAR FRIEND:--In writing to the New York Woman's Rights
     Convention, I mentioned some few points of argument which no
     opponents of this movement have ever attempted to meet. Suffer
     me, in addressing the Cleveland Convention, to pursue a different
     course, and mention some things which the friends of the cause
     have not yet attempted to do.

     I am of a practical habit of mind, and have noticed with some
     regret that most of the friends of the cause have rested their
     hopes, thus far, chiefly upon abstract reasoning. This is
     doubtless of great importance, and these reasonings have already
     made many converts; because the argument is so entirely on one
     side that every one who really listens to it begins instantly to
     be convinced. The difficulty is, that the majority have not yet
     begun to listen to it, and this, in great measure, because their
     attention has not been called to the facts upon which it is
     founded.

     Suppose, now, that an effort were made to develop the facts of
     woman's wrongs. For instance:

     1st. We say that the laws of every State of this Union do great
     wrong to woman, married and single, as to her person and
     property, in her private and public relations. Why not procure a
     digest of the laws on these subjects, then; prepared carefully,
     arranged systematically, corrected up to the latest improvements,
     and accompanied by brief and judicious commentaries? No such work
     exists, except that by Mansfield, which is now obsolete, and in
     many respects defective.

     2d. We complain of the great educational inequalities between the
     sexes. Why not have a report, elaborate, statistical, and
     accurate, on the provision for female education, public and
     private, throughout the free States of this Union, at least? No
     such work now exists.

     3d. We complain of the industrial disadvantages of women, and
     indicate at the same time, their capacities for a greater variety
     of pursuits. Why not obtain a statement, on as large a scale as
     possible, first, of what women are doing now, commercially and
     mechanically, throughout the Union (thus indicating their
     powers); and secondly, of the embarrassments with which they
     meet, the inequality of their wages, and all the other
     peculiarities of their position, in these respects? An essay, in
     short, on the Business Employments and Interests of Women; such
     an essay as Mr. Hunt has expressed to me his willingness to
     publish in his Merchants' Magazine. No such essay now exists.

     Each of these three documents would be an arsenal of arms for the
     Woman's Rights advocate. A hundred dollars, appropriated to each
     of these, would more than repay itself in the increased
     subscriptions it would soon bring into the treasury of the cause.
     That sum would, however, be hardly sufficient to repay even the
     expenses of correspondence and traveling necessary for the last
     two essays, or the legal knowledge necessary for the first.

     If there is, however, known to the Convention at Cleveland any
     person qualified and ready to undertake either of the above
     duties for the above sum (no person should undertake more than
     one of the three investigations), I would urge you to make the
     appointment. It will require, however, an accurate, clear-headed,
     and industrious person, with plenty of time to bestow. Better not
     have it done at all, than not have it done thoroughly, carefully,
     and dispassionately. Let me say distinctly, that I can not be a
     candidate for either duty, in my own person, for want of time to
     do it in; though I think I could render some assistance,
     especially in preparing materials for the third essay. I would
     also gladly subscribe toward a fund for getting the work done.

     Permit me, finally, to congratulate you on the valuable results
     of every Convention yet held to consider this question. I find
     the fact everywhere remarked, that so large a number of women of
     talent and character have suddenly come forward into a public
     sphere. This phenomenon distinguishes this reform from all others
     that have appeared in America, and illustrates with new meaning
     the Greek myth of Minerva, born full-grown from the head of Jove.
     And if (as some late facts indicate) this step forward only
     promotes the Woman's Rights movement from the sphere of contempt
     into the sphere of hostility and persecution--it is a step
     forward, none the less. And I would respectfully suggest to the
     noble women who are thus attacked, that they will only be the
     gainers by such opposition, unless it lead to dissensions or
     jealousies among themselves.

                                        Yours cordially,
                                             THOMAS WENTWORTH HIGGINSON.
     MISS LUCY STONE.

     LUCY STONE remarked: This letter, you see, proposes that we shall
     find some way, if possible, by which our complaints may be spread
     before the people. We find men and women in our conventions,
     earnest and thoughtful, who are not drawn by mere curiosity, but
     from a conscious want of just such a movement as this. They go
     away and carry to their villages and hamlets the ideas they have
     gathered here; and it is a cause for thankfulness to God that so
     many go away to repeat what they have heard. But we have wanted
     the documents to scatter among the people, as the Tract Society
     scatters its sheets. And now Mr. Higginson proposes that we have
     these essays.

The President of Oberlin College, Rev. Asa Mahan, was present during
all the sessions of the Convention, and took part in the debates. On
the subject of the Seneca Falls Declaration, he said:

     I can only judge of the effect of anything upon the public mind,
     by its effect upon my own. It has been suggested that that
     Declaration is a parody. Now you can not present a parody,
     without getting up a laugh; and wherever it goes, it will never
     be seriously considered. If a declaration is to be made, it
     should be one that will be seriously considered by the public. I
     would suggest that the Declaration of this Convention be entirely
     independent of the other.

     I have a remark to make upon a sentiment advanced by Mrs. Rose. I
     have this objection to the Declaration upon which she commented.
     It is asserted there, that man has created a certain public
     sentiment, and it is brought as a charge against the male sex.
     Now I assert, that man never created that sentiment. I say it is
     a wrong state of society totally, when, if woman shall be
     degraded, a man committing the same offense shall not be degraded
     also. There is perfect agreement between us there. But, that
     Declaration charges that sentiment upon man. Now I assert that it
     is chargeable upon woman herself; and that as she was first in
     man's original transgression, she is first here.

     Mrs. ROSE: I heartily agree that we are both in fault; and yet we
     are none in fault. I also said, that woman, on account of the
     position in which she has been placed, by being dependent upon
     man, by being made to look up to man, is the first to cast out
     her sister. I know it and deplore it; hence I wish to give her
     her rights, to secure her dependence upon herself. In regard to
     that sentiment in the Declaration, our friend said that woman
     created it. Is woman really the creator of the sentiment? The
     laws of a country create sentiments. Who make the laws? Does
     woman? Our law-makers give the popular ideas of morality.

     Mr. BARKER: And the pulpit.

     Mrs. ROSE: I ought to have thought of it: not only do the
     law-makers give woman her ideas of morality, but our pulpit
     preachers. I beg pardon--no, I do not either--for Antoinette L.
     Brown is not a priest. Our priests have given us public sentiment
     called morals, and they have always made or recognized in daily
     life, distinctions between man and woman. Man, from the time of
     Adam to the present, has had utmost license, while woman must not
     commit the slightest degree of "impropriety," as it is termed.
     Why, even to cut her skirts shorter than the fashion, is
     considered a moral delinquency, and stigmatized as such by more
     than one pulpit, directly or indirectly.

     You ask me who made this sentiment; and my friend yonder, says
     woman. She is but the echo of man. Man utters the sentiment, and
     woman echoes it. As I said before--for I have seen and felt it
     deeply--she even appears to be quite flattered with her cruel
     tyrant, for such he has been made to be--she is quite flattered
     with the destroyer of woman's character--aye, worse than that,
     the destroyer of woman's self-respect and peace of mind--and when
     she meets him, she is flattered with his attentions. Why should
     she not be? He is admitted into Legislative halls, and to all
     places where men "most do congregate;" why, then, should she not
     admit him to her parlor? The woman is admitted into no such
     places; the Church casts her out; and a stigma is cast upon her,
     for what is called the slightest "impropriety." Prescribed by no
     true moral law, but by superstition and prejudice, she is cast
     out not only from public places, but from private homes. And if
     any woman would take her sister to her heart, and warm her there
     again by sympathy and kindness, if she would endeavor once more
     to infuse into her the spark of life and virtue, of morality and
     peace, she often dare not so far encounter public prejudice as to
     do it. It requires a courage beyond what woman can now possess,
     to take the part of the woman against the villain. There are few
     such among us, and though few, they have stood forward nobly and
     gloriously. I will not mention names, though it is often a
     practice to do so; I must, however, mention our sister, Lucretia
     Mott, who has stood up and taken her fallen sister by the hand,
     and warmed her at her own heart. But we can not expect every
     woman to possess that degree of courage.

     ABBY KELLY FOSTER: I want to say here that I believe the law is
     but the writing out of public sentiment, and back of that public
     sentiment, I contend lies the responsibility. Where shall we find
     it? "'Tis education forms the common mind." It is allowed that we
     are what we are educated to be. Now if we can ascertain who has
     had the education of us, we can ascertain who is responsible for
     the law, and for public sentiment. Who takes the infant from its
     cradle and baptizes it "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy
     Ghost;" and when that infant comes to childhood, who takes it
     into Sabbath-schools; who on every Sabbath day, while its mind is
     "like clay in the hands of the potter," moulds and fashions it as
     he will; and when that child comes to be a youth, where is he
     found, one-seventh part of the time; and when he comes to maturer
     age, does he not leave his plow in the furrow, and his tools in
     the shop, and one-seventh part of the time go to the place where
     prayer is wont to be made? On that day no sound is heard but the
     roll of the carriage wheels to church; all are gathered there,
     everything worldly is laid aside, all thoughts are given entirely
     to the Creator; for we are taught that we must not think our own
     thoughts, but must lay our own wills aside, and come to be
     moulded and fashioned by the priest. It is "holy time," and we
     are to give ourselves to be wholly and entirely fashioned and
     formed by another. That place is a holy place, and when we enter,
     our eye rests on the "holy of holies;" he within it is a
     "divine." The "divines" of the thirteenth century, the "divines"
     of the fifteenth century, and the "divines" of the nineteenth
     century, are no less "divines." What I say to-day is taken for
     what it is worth, or perhaps for less than it is worth, because
     of the prejudice against me; but when he who educates the people
     speaks, "he speaks as one having authority," and is not to be
     questioned. He claims, and has his claim allowed, to be specially
     ordained and specially anointed from God. He stands mid-way
     between Deity and man, and therefore his word has power.

     Aye, not only in middle age does the man come, leaving everything
     behind him; but, in old age, "leaning on the top of his staff,"
     he finds himself gathered in the place of worship, and though his
     ear may be dull and heavy, he leans far forward to catch the last
     words of duty--of duty to God and duty to man. Duty is the
     professed object of the pulpit, and if it does not teach that,
     what in Heaven's name does it teach? This anointed man of God
     speaks of moral duty to God and man. He teaches man from the
     cradle to the coffin; and when that aged form is gathered within
     its winding-sheet, it is the pulpit that says, "Dust to dust and
     ashes to ashes."

     It is the pulpit, then, which has the entire ear of the
     community, one-seventh part of the time. If you say there are
     exceptions, very well, that proves the rule. If there is one
     family who do not go to church, it is no matter, its teachings
     are engendered by those who do go; hence I would say, not only
     does the pulpit have the ear of the community one-seventh part of
     the time of childhood, but it has it under circumstances for
     forming and moulding and fashioning the young mind, as no other
     educating influence can have it. The pulpit has it, not only
     under these circumstances; it has it on occasions of marriage,
     when two hearts are welded into one; on occasions of sickness and
     death, when all the world beside is shut out, when the mind is
     most susceptible of impressions from the pulpit, or any other
     source.

     I say, then, that woman is not the author of this sentiment
     against her fallen sister, and I roll back the assertion on its
     source. Having the public ear one-seventh part of the time, if
     the men of the pulpit do not educate the public mind, who does
     educate it? Millions of dollars are paid for this education, and
     if they do not educate the public mind in its morals, what, I
     ask, are we paying our money for? If woman is cast out of
     society, and man is placed in a position where he is respected,
     then I charge upon the pulpit that it has been recreant to its
     duty. If the pulpit should speak out fully and everywhere, upon
     this subject, would not woman obey it? Are not women under the
     special leading and direction of their clergymen? You may tell
     me, that it is woman who forms the mind of the child; but I
     charge it back again, that it is the minister who forms the mind
     of the woman. It is he who makes the mother what she is;
     therefore her teaching of the child is only conveying the
     instructions of the pulpit at second hand. If public sentiment is
     wrong on this (and I have the testimony of those who have spoken
     this morning, that it is), the pulpit is responsible for it, and
     has the power of changing it. The clergy claim the credit of
     establishing public schools. Granted. Listen to the pulpit in any
     matter of humanity, and they will claim the originating of it,
     because they are the teachers of the people. Now, if we give
     credit to the pulpit for establishing public schools, then I
     charge them with having a bad influence over those schools; and
     if the charge can be rolled off, I want it to be rolled off; but
     until it can be done, I hope it will remain there.

     Mr. MAHAN: No class of persons had better be drawn into our
     discussions to be denounced, unless there is serious occasion for
     it. I name the pulpit with solemn awe, and unless there is
     necessity for it, charges had better not be made against it. Now,
     I say that no practice and no usage in the Church can be found,
     by which a criminal man, in reference to the crimes referred to,
     may be kept in the Church and a criminal woman cast out. There is
     no such custom in any of the churches of God. After twenty years'
     acquaintance with the Church, I affirm that the practice does not
     exist. Now, in regard to the origin of public sentiment, can a
     pulpit be found, will the lady who has just sat down, name a
     pulpit in the wide world, where the principle is advocated, that
     a criminal woman should be excluded, and the man upheld? Whatever
     faults may be in it, that fault is not there.

     Mrs. ROSE: Not in theory, but in practice.

     Mr. MAHAN: Neither in theory nor in practice. Where a wrong state
     of society exists, the pulpit may be in fault for not reprobating
     it.

     ABBY K. FOSTER: I do not wish to mention names, or I could do so.
     I could give many cases where ministers have been charged with
     such crimes, and where the evidence of guilt was almost
     insurmountable, and yet they were not disciplined. They were
     afraid it would injure the Church, I remember one minister who
     was brought up for trial, and meantime they suspended him from
     office, and paid him only half his salary, but retained him as a
     church member; when, if it had been the case of a woman, and had
     the slightest shade of suspicion been cast upon her, they would
     not have waited even for trial and judgment. They would have cast
     her out of the church at once.

     WILLIAM LLOYD GARRISON said: I have but a few words to submit to
     the meeting at the present time. In regard to the position of the
     Church and clergy, on the subject of purity, I think it is
     sufficient to remind the people here, that whatever may be the
     external form observed by the Church toward its members,
     pertaining to licentiousness, one thing is noticeable, and that
     is, that the marriage relation is abolished among three and a
     half millions of people; and the abolition of marriage on that
     frightful scale, is in the main sanctioned and sustained by the
     American Church and clergy. And if this does not involve them in
     all that is impure, and licentious, and demoralizing, I know not
     what can do so.

     As it respects the objection to our adopting the Declaration of
     Independence as put forth at Seneca Falls, on the ground that it
     is a parody, and that, being a parody, it will only excite the
     mirthfulness of those who hear or read it in that form; I would
     simply remark, that I very much doubt, whether, among candid and
     serious men, there would be any such mirthfulness excited. At the
     time that document was published, I read it, but I had forgotten
     it till this morning, and on listening to it, my mind was deeply
     impressed with its pertinacity and its power. It seemed to me,
     the _argumentium ad hominum_, to this nation. It was measuring
     the people of this country by their own standard. It was taking
     their own words and applying their own principles to women, as
     they have been applied to men. At the same time, I liked the
     suggestion that we had better present an original paper to the
     country; and on conferring with the Committee after the
     adjournment, they agreed that it would be better to have such a
     paper; and that paper will undoubtedly be prepared, although we
     are not now ready to lay it before the Convention.

     It was this morning objected to the Declaration of sentiments,
     that it implied that man was the only transgressor, that he had
     been guilty of injustice and usurpation, and the suggestion was
     also made, that woman should not be criminated, in this only, but
     regarded rather as one who had erred through ignorance; and our
     eloquent friend, Mrs. Rose, who stood on this platform and
     pleaded with such marked ability, as she always does plead in any
     cause she undertakes to speak upon, told us her creed. She told
     us she did not blame anybody, really, and did not hold any man to
     be criminal, or any individual to be responsible for public
     sentiment, as regards the difference of criminality of man and
     woman.

     For my own part, I am not prepared to respect that philosophy. I
     believe in sin, therefore in a sinner; in theft, therefore in a
     thief; in slavery, therefore in a slaveholder; in wrong,
     therefore in a wrong-doer; and unless the men of this nation are
     made by woman to see that they have been guilty of usurpation,
     and cruel usurpation, I believe very little progress will be
     made. To say all this has been done without thinking, without
     calculation, without design, by mere accident, by a want of
     light; can anybody believe this who is familiar with all the
     facts in the case? Certainly, for one, I hope ever to lean to the
     charitable side, and will try to do so. I, too, believe things
     are done through misconception and misapprehension, which are
     injurious, yes, which are immoral and unchristian; but only to a
     limited extent. There is such a thing as intelligent wickedness,
     a design on the part of those who have the light to quench it,
     and to do the wrong to gratify their own propensities, and to
     further their own interests. So, then, I believe, that as man has
     monopolized for generations all the rights which belong to woman,
     it has not been accidental, not through ignorance on his part;
     but I believe that man has done this through calculation,
     actuated by a spirit of pride, a desire for domination which has
     made him degrade woman in her own eyes, and thereby tend to make
     her a mere vassal.

     It seems to me, therefore, that we are to deal with the
     consciences of men. It is idle to say that the guilt is common,
     that the women are as deeply involved in this matter as the men.
     Never can it be said that the victims are as much to be blamed as
     the victimizer; that the slaves are to be as much blamed as the
     slaveholders and slave-drivers; that the women who have no
     rights, are to be as much blamed as the men who have played the
     part of robbers and tyrants. We must deal with conscience. The
     men of this nation, and the men of all nations, have no just
     respect for woman. They have tyrannized over her deliberately,
     they have not sinned through ignorance, but theirs is not the
     knowledge that saves. Who can say truly, that in all things he
     acts up to the light he enjoys, that he does not do something
     which he knows is not the very thing, or the best thing he ought
     to do? How few there are among mankind who are able to say this
     with regard to themselves. Is not the light all around us? Does
     not this nation know how great its guilt is in enslaving
     one-sixth of its people? Do not the men of this nation know ever
     since the landing of the pilgrims, that they are wrong in making
     subject one-half of the people? Rely upon it, it has not been a
     mistake on their part. It has been sin. It has been guilt; and
     they manifest their guilt to a demonstration, in the manner in
     which they receive this movement. Those who do wrong ignorantly,
     do not willingly continue in it, when they find they are in the
     wrong. Ignorance is not an evidence of guilt certainly. It is
     only an evidence of a want of light. They who are only ignorant,
     will never rage, and rave, and threaten, and foam, when the light
     comes; but being interested and walking in the light, will always
     present a manly front, and be willing to be taught, and be
     willing to be told they are in the wrong.

     Take the case of slavery: How has the anti-slavery cause been
     received? Not argumentatively, not by reason, not by entering the
     free arena of fair discussion and comparing notes; the arguments
     have been rotten eggs, and brickbats and calumny, and in the
     southern portion of the country, a spirit of murder, and threats
     to cut out the tongues of those who spoke against them. What has
     this indicated on the part of the nation? What but conscious
     guilt? Not ignorance, not that they had not the light. They had
     the light and rejected it.

     How has this Woman's Rights movement been treated in this
     country, on the right hand and on the left? This nation ridicules
     and derides this movement, and spits upon it, as fit only to be
     cast out and trampled underfoot. This is not ignorance. They know
     all about the truth. It is the natural outbreak of tyranny. It is
     because the tyrants and usurpers are alarmed. They have been and
     are called to judgment, and they dread the examination and
     exposure of their position and character.

     Women of America! you have something to blame yourselves for in
     this matter, something to account for to God and the world.
     Granted. But then you are the victims in this land, as the women
     of all lands are, to the tyrannical power and godless ambition of
     man; and we must show who are responsible in this matter. We must
     test everybody here. Every one of us must give an account of
     himself to God. It is an individual testing of character. Mark
     the man or the woman who derides this movement, who turns his or
     her back upon it; who is disposed to let misrule keep on, and you
     will find you have a sure indication of character. You will find
     that such persons are destitute of principles; for if you can
     convict a man of being wanting in principle anywhere, it will be
     everywhere. He who loves the right for its own sake, loves the
     right everywhere. He who is a man of principle, is a man of
     principle always. Let me see the man who is willing to have any
     one of God's rational creatures sacrificed to promote anything,
     aside from the well-being of that creature himself, and I will
     show you an unprincipled man.

     It is so in this movement. Nobody argues against it, nobody
     pretends to have an argument. Your platform is free everywhere,
     wherever, these Conventions are held. Yet no man comes forward in
     a decent, respectable manner, to show you that you are wrong in
     the charges you bring against the law-makers of the land. There
     is no argument against it. The thing is self-evident. I should
     not know how to begin to frame an argument. That which is
     self-evident is greater than argument, and beyond logic. It
     testifies of itself. You and I, as human beings, claim to have
     rights, but I never think of going into an argument with anybody,
     to prove that I ought to have rights. I have the argument and
     logic here, it is in my own breast and consciousness; and the
     logic of the schools becomes contemptible beside these. The more
     you try to argue, the worse you are off. It is not the place for
     metaphysics, it is the place for affirmation. Woman is the
     counterpart of man; she has the same divine image, having the
     same natural and inalienable rights as man. To state the
     proposition is enough; it contains the argument, and nobody can
     gainsay it, in an honorable way.

     I rose simply to say, that though I should deprecate making our
     platform a theological arena, yet believing that men are guilty
     of intentional wrong, in keeping woman subject, I believe in
     having them criminated. You talk of injustice, then there is an
     unjust man somewhere. Even Mrs. Rose could talk of the guilt of
     society. Society! I know nothing of society. I know the guilt of
     individuals. Society is an abstract term: it is made up of
     individuals, and the responsibility rests with individuals. So
     then, if we are to call men to repentance, there is such a thing
     as wrong-doing intelligently, sinning against God and man, with
     light enough to convict us, and to condemn us before God and the
     world. Let this cause then be pressed upon the hearts and
     consciences, against those who hold unjust rights in their
     possession.

     Mrs. ROSE: I want to make a suggestion to the meeting. This is
     the afternoon of the last day of our Convention. We have now
     heard here the Bible arguments on both sides, and I may say to
     them that I agree with both, that is, I agree with neither. A
     gentleman, Dr. Nevin, I believe, said this morning that he also
     would reply to Mr. Barker, this afternoon. We have already had
     Mr. Barker answered. If any one else speaks farther on Miss
     Brown's side, somebody will have to reply upon the other. "There
     is a time and a season for everything," and this is no time to
     discuss the Bible. I appeal to the universal experience of men,
     to sustain me in asking whether the introduction of theological
     quibbles, has not been a firebrand wherever they have been
     thrown? We have a political question under discussion; let us
     take that question and argue it with reference to right and
     wrong, and let us argue it in the same way that your fathers and
     mothers did, when they wanted to throw off the British yoke.

     Dr. NEVIN: It will be unjust, not to permit me to speak.

     Mrs. MOTT moved that he be allowed, since he had already got the
     floor, without attempting to limit him at all; but that
     immediately after, the Convention should take up the resolutions.

     Mrs. ROSE objected, because, if a third person should speak, then
     a fourth must speak, or plead injustice, if not permitted to do
     so.

Considerable confusion ensued, Dr. Nevin, however, persisting in
speaking, whereupon, the President invited him to the platform. He
took the stand, assuring the President and officers, as he passed
them, that he wished only to reply to some misinterpretations of Mr.
Barker's, and would take but little of the time which they so much
needed for business. After commencing, however, with Bible in hand, he
launched out into an irrelevant eulogium upon "his Christ," etc.; from
that to personalities against Mr. Barker and his associates upon the
platform, calling him a "renegade priest," "an infidel from foreign
shores, who had come to teach Americans Christianity!"

     Mr. GARRISON rose to a point of order, with regard to the
     speaker's personalities as to the nativity of anybody.

     Dr. NEVIN retorted: The gentleman has been making personalities
     against the whole priesthood.

     Mr. BARKER: I expressly and explicitly made exceptions. I only
     wish that Mr. Nevin may not base his remarks upon a phantom.

     Dr. NEVIN continued wandering on for some time, when Stephen S.
     Foster rose, to a point of order, as follows: "The simple
     question before us, is whether woman is entitled to all the
     rights to which the other sex is entitled. I want to say, that
     the friend is neither speaking to the general question, nor
     replying to Mr. Barker." Mr. Foster continued his remarks
     somewhat, when Dr. Nevin demanded that the Chair protect him in
     his right to the floor. The Chair decided that Mr. Foster was out
     of order, in continuing to speak so long upon his point of order.

     Mr. FOSTER said he would not appeal to the house from the
     decision of the Chair, because he wished to save time. He
     continued a moment longer, and sat down.

     Dr. NEVIN proceeded, and in the course of his remarks drew
     various unauthorized inferences, as the belief of Mr. Barker, in
     the doctrines of Christ. Mr. Barker repeatedly corrected him, but
     Dr. Kevin very ingeniously continued to reaffirm them in another
     shape. Finally, Mr. Garrison, in his seat, addressing the
     President, said: "It is utterly useless to attempt to correct the
     individual. He is manifestly here in the spirit of a blackguard
     and rowdy." (A storm of hisses and cries of "down!" "down!")

     Dr. NEVIN: I am sorry friend Garrison has thought fit to use
     those words. He has been in scenes and situations like these, and
     has himself stood up and spoken in opposition to the opinions of
     audiences, too often not to have by this time been taught
     patience.

     Mrs. CLARK: Mr. Garrison is accustomed to call things by their
     right names.

     Dr. NEVIN: Very well, then I should call him--turning upon Mr.
     G.--worse names than those. Only one word has fallen from woman
     in this Convention, to which I can take exception, and that fell
     from the lips of a lady whom I have venerated from my
     childhood--it was, that the pulpit was the castle of cowards.

     Mrs. MOTT: I said it was John Chambers' cowards' castle; and I do
     say, that such ministers make it a castle of cowards; but I did
     not wish to make the remark general, or apply it to all pulpits.

     Dr. NEVIN continued some time longer.

     Mrs. FOSTER asked, at the close of his remarks, if he believed it
     was right for woman to speak what she believed to be the truth,
     from the pulpit; to which he replied affirmatively, "there and
     everywhere."

     Mrs. ROSE: I might claim my right to reply to the gentleman who
     has just taken his seat. I might be able to prove from the
     arguments he brought forward, that he was incorrect in the
     statements he made, but I waive that right, the time has been so
     unjustly consumed already. To one thing only, I will reply. He
     charged France with being licentious, and spoke of the degraded
     position of French women, as the result of the infidelity of that
     nation. I throw back the slander he uttered, in regard to French
     women. I am not a French woman, but if there is no other here to
     vindicate them, I will do it. The French women are as moral as
     any other people in any country; and when they have not been as
     moral, it has been because they have been priest-ridden. I love
     to vindicate the rights of those who are not present to defend
     themselves.

     STEPHEN S. FOSTER: Our "reverend" friend spoke of _dragging_
     infidelity into this Convention, as though infidelity had to be
     "dragged" here. I want to know if Christianity has been "dragged"
     here, when the speakers made it the basis of their arguments. Who
     ever dreamed of "dragging" Christianity here when they came to
     advocate the rights of woman in the name of Christ? Why then
     should any one stand up here and charge a speaker with "dragging"
     infidelity when he advocates the rights of woman under the name
     of an infidel. I supposed that Greek and Jew, Barbarian and
     Scythian, Christian and Infidel had been invited to this
     platform. One thing I know, we have had barbarians here, whether
     we invited them or not; and I like to have barbarians here; I
     know of no place where they are so likely to be civilized. I have
     never yet been in a meeting managed by men when there was such
     conflict of feelings, where there was not also ten times as much
     confusion. And I think this meeting a powerful proof of the
     superiority of our principles over those who oppose us.

     Tell me if Christianity has not ever held the reins in this
     country; and what has it done for woman? I am talking now of the
     popular idea of Christianity. What has Christianity done for
     woman for two hundred years past? Why, to-day, in this Christian
     nation, there are a million and a half of women bought and sold
     like cattle; a million and a half of women who can not say who
     are the fathers of their children! I ask, are we to depend on a
     Christianity like that to restore woman her rights? I am speaking
     of your idea of Christianity--of Dr. Nevin's idea of
     Christianity--I shall come to the true Christianity by and by.

     One of two things is certain. The Church and Government deny to
     woman her rights. There is not a denomination in this country
     which places woman on an equality with man. Not one. Can you deny
     it?

     Mrs. MOTT: Except the Progressive Friends.

     Mr. FOSTER: They are not a denomination, they have broken from
     all bands and taken the name of the Friends of Progress. I say
     there is not a religious society, having an organized body of
     ministers, which admits woman's equality in the Gospel. Now, tell
     me, in God's name, what we are to hope from the Church, when she
     leaves a million and a half of women liable to be brought upon
     the auction-block to-day? If the Bible is against woman's
     equality, what are you to do with it? One of two things: either
     you must sit down and fold up your hands, or you must discard the
     divine authority of the Bible. Must you not? You must acknowledge
     the correctness of your position, or deny the authority of the
     Bible. If you admit the construction put upon the Bible by friend
     Barker, to be a false one, or Miss Brown's construction to be the
     true one, what then? Why, then, the priesthood of the country are
     blind leaders of the blind. We have got forty thousand of them,
     Dr. Nevin included with the rest. He stands as an accredited
     Presbyterian, giving the hand of fellowship to the fraternity,
     and withholding it from Garrison and others--he could not even
     pray a few years ago in an anti-slavery meeting. Now, either the
     Bible is against the Church and clergy, or else they have
     misinterpreted it for two hundred years, yes, for six thousand
     years. You must then either discard the Bible or the priesthood,
     or give up Woman's Rights.

     A friend says he does not regret this discussion. Why, it is the
     only thing we have done effectively since we have been here. When
     we played with jack-straws, we were hail-fellow with those who
     now oppose us. When you come to take up the great questions of
     the movement, when you propose to man, to divide with woman the
     right to rule, then a great opposition is aroused. The ballot-box
     is not worth a straw until woman is ready to use it. Suppose a
     law were passed to-morrow, declaring woman's rights equal with
     those of men, why, the facts would remain the same. The moment
     that woman is ready to go to the ballot-box, there is not a
     Constitution that will stand in the country. In this very city,
     in spite of the law, I am told that <DW64>s go to the ballot-box
     and vote, without let or hindrance; and woman will go when she
     resolves upon it. What we want for woman is the right of speech;
     and in Dr. Nevin's reply to Mrs. Foster, does he mean that he
     would be willing to accord the right of speech to woman and admit
     her into the pulpit? I don't believe he would admit Antoinette
     Brown to his pulpit. I was sorry Mrs. Foster did not ask him if
     he would. I don't believe he dares to do it. I would give him a
     chance to affirm or deny it. I hope some other friend will give
     him that opportunity, and that Antoinette Brown may be able to
     say that she was invited by the pastor of one of the largest
     churches in this beautiful city, to speak to his people in his
     pulpit; but if he does it, he is not merely one among a thousand,
     but one among ten thousand.

     I wish to have it understood that an infidel is as much at home
     here as a Christian; and that his principles are no more
     "dragged" here than those of a Christian. For myself, I claim to
     be a Christian. No man ever heard me speak of Christ or of His
     doctrines, but with the profoundest reverence. Still, I welcome
     upon this platform those who differ as far as possible from me.
     And the Atheist no more "drags" in his Atheism, provided he only
     shows that Atheism itself demands woman's equality, and is no
     more out of order than I, when I undertake to show that
     Christianity preaches one law, one faith, and one line of duty
     for all.

     Mrs. MOTT: We ought to thank Dr. Nevin for his kindly fears, lest
     we women should be brought out into the rough conflicts of life,
     and overwhelmed by infidelity. I thank him, but at the same time
     I must say, that if we have been able this afternoon to sit
     uninjured by the hard conflict in which he has been engaged, if
     we can maintain our patience at seeing him so laboriously build
     up a man of straw, and then throw it down and destroy it, I think
     we may be suffered to go into the world and bear many others
     unharmed.

     Again, I would ask in all seriousness, by what right does
     Orthodoxy give the invidious name of Infidel, affix the stigma of
     infidelity, to those who dissent from its cherished opinions?
     What right have the advocates of moral reform, woman's rights,
     abolition, temperance, etc., to call in question any man's
     religious opinions? It is the assumption of bigots. I do not want
     now to speak invidiously, and say sectarian bigots, but I mean
     the same kind of bigotry which Jesus rebuked so sharply, when He
     called certain men "blind leaders of the blind."

     Now, we hold Jesus up as an example, when we perceive the
     assumption of clergymen, that all who venture to dissent from a
     given interpretation, must necessarily be infidels; and thus
     denounce them as infidels; for it was only by inference, that one
     clergyman this afternoon made Joseph Barker deny the Son of God.
     By inference in the same way, he might be made to deny everything
     that is good, and praiseworthy, and true.

     I want we should consider these things upon this platform. I am
     not troubled with difficulties about the Bible. My education has
     been such that I look to that Source whence all the inspiration
     of the Bible comes. I love the truths of the Bible. I love the
     Bible because it contains so many truths; but I never was
     educated to love the errors of the Bible; therefore it does not
     startle me to hear Joseph Barker point to some of those errors.
     And I can listen to the ingenious interpretation of the Bible,
     given by Antoinette Brown, and am glad to hear those who are so
     skilled in the outward, when I perceive that they are beginning
     to turn the Bible to so good an account. It gives evidence that
     the cause is making very good progress. Why, my friend Nevin has
     had to hear the temperance cause denounced as infidel, and proved
     so by Solomon; and he has, no doubt, seen the minister in the
     pulpit, turning over the pages of the Bible to find examples for
     the wrong. But the Bible will never sustain him in making this
     use of its pages, instead of using it rationally, and selecting
     such portions of it as would tend to corroborate the right; and
     these are plentiful; for notwithstanding the teaching of
     theology, and men's arts in the religious world, men have ever
     responded to righteousness and truth, when it has been advocated
     by the servants of God, so that we need not fear to bring truth
     to an intelligent examination of the Bible. It is a far less
     dangerous assertion to say that God is unchangeable, than that
     man is infallible.

In this debate on the Bible-position of woman, Mr. Garrison having
always been a close student of that Book, was so clear in his
positions, and so ready in his quotations, that he carried the
audience triumphantly with him. The Rev. Dr. Nevin came out of the
contest so chagrined, that, losing all sense of dignity, on meeting
Mr. Garrison in the vestibule of the hall, at the close of the
Convention, he seized him by the nose and shook him vehemently. Mr.
Garrison made no resistance, and when released, he calmly surveyed his
antagonist and said, "Do you feel better, my friend? do you hope thus
to break the force of my argument?" The friends of the Rev. Mr. Nevin
were so mortified with his ungentlemanly behavior that they suppressed
the scene in the vestibule as far as possible, in the Cleveland
journals, and urged the ladies who had the report of the Convention in
charge, to make no mention of it in their publication. Happily, the
fact has been resurrected in time to point a page of history.

A question arising in the Convention as to the colleges, Antoinette
Brown remarked:

     That much and deeply as she loved Oberlin, she must declare that
     it has more credit for liberality to woman than it deserves.
     Girls are not allowed equal privileges and advantages there; they
     are not allowed instructions in elocution, nor to speak on
     commencement day. The only college in the country that places all
     students on an equal footing, without distinction of sex or
     color, is McGrawville College in Central New York. Probably
     Antioch College, Ohio (President Horace Mann), will also admit
     pupils on the same ground.

     Mrs. ROSE said she knew of no college where both sexes enjoyed
     equal advantages. It matters not, however, if there be. We do not
     deal with exceptions, but with general principles.

     A sister has well remarked that we do not believe that man is the
     cause of all our wrongs. We do not fight men--we fight bad
     principles. We war against the laws which have made men bad and
     tyrannical. Some will say, "But these laws are made by men."
     True, but they were made in ignorance of right and wrong, made in
     ignorance of the eternal principles of justice and truth. They
     were sanctioned by superstition, and engrafted on society by long
     usage. The Declaration issued by the Seneca Falls Convention is
     an instrument no less great, no less noble than that to which it
     bears a resemblance.

     In closing she alluded to that portion of Mr. Channing's
     Declaration which referred to the code of morals by which a
     fallen woman is forever ruined, while the man who is the cause
     of, or sharer in her crime, is not visited by the slightest
     punishment. "It is time to consider whether what is wrong in one
     sex can be right in another. It is time to consider why if a
     woman commits a fault, too often from ignorance, from
     inexperience, from poverty, because of degradation and
     oppression--aye! because of designing, cruel man; being made
     cruel by ignorance of laws and institutions,--why such a being,
     in her helplessness, in her ignorance, in her inexperience and
     dependency--why a being thus situated, not having her mind
     developed, her faculties called out: and not allowed to mix in
     society to give her experience, not being acquainted with human
     nature, is drawn down, owing often to her best and tenderest
     feelings; in consequence also of being accustomed to look up to
     man as her superior, as her guardian, as her master,--why such a
     being should be cast out of the pale of humanity, while he who
     committed the crime, or who is, if not the main, the great
     secondary cause of it,--he who is endowed with superior
     advantages of education and experience, he who has taken
     advantage of that weakness and confiding spirit, which the young
     always have,--I ask, if the victim is cast out of the pale of
     society, shall the despoiler go free?" The question was answered
     by a thunder of "No! no! no!" from all parts of the house. A
     profound sensation was observable. "And yet," said Mrs. Rose, "he
     does go free!!"

Ernestine L. Rose, says the _Plain Dealer_, is the master-spirit of
the Convention. She is described as a Polish lady of great beauty,
being known in this country as an earnest advocate of human liberty.
Though a slight foreign accent is perceptible, her delivery is
effective. She spoke with great animation. The impression made by her
address was favorable both to the speaker and the cause. In speaking
of the _personnel_ of the platform, it says:

     Mrs. Lydia Ann Jenkins, of New York, who made an effective
     speech, is habited in the Bloomer costume, and appears to much
     advantage on the stage. Her face is amiable, and her delivery
     excellent. She is as fine a female orator as we have heard. The
     address embodied the usual arguments offered in favor of this
     cause, and were put in a forcible and convincing manner. We say
     convincing, because such a speaker would convince the most
     obdurate unbeliever against his will.

     Miss Stone is somewhat celebrated for an extraordinary enthusiasm
     in the cause of her sex, and for certain eccentricities of speech
     and thought, as well as of outward attire. She is as independent
     in mind as in dress. She is as ready to throw off the restraints
     society seems to have placed on woman's mind, as she is to cast
     aside what she considers an absurd fashion in dress. Without
     endorsing the eliminated petticoats, we can not but admire Miss
     Stone's "stern old Saxon pluck," and her total independence of
     the god, Fashion. Her dress is first a black velvet coat with
     collar, fastened in front with buttons, next a skirt of silk,
     reaching to the knees, then "she wears the breeches" of black
     silk, with neat-fitting gaiters. Her hair is cut short and combed
     straight back. Her face is not beautiful, but there is mind in
     it; it is earnest, pleasant, prepossessing. Miss Stone must be
     set down as a lady of no common abilities, and of uncommon energy
     in the pursuit of a cherished idea. She is a marked favorite in
     the Conventions.

During the proceedings, Miss Brown, in a long speech on the Bible,
had expounded many doctrines and passages of Scripture in regard to
woman's position, in direct opposition to the truths generally
promulgated by General Assemblies, and the lesser lights of the
Church. Mrs. Emma R. Coe took an equally defiant position toward the
Bench and the Bar, coolly assuming that she understood the spirit of
Constitutions and Statute Laws. Some lawyer had made a criticism on
the woman's petition then circulating in Ohio, and essayed to give the
Convention some light on the laws of the State, to all of which Mrs.
Coe says:

     I have very little to say this evening beyond reading a letter,
     received by me to-day. (Here follows the letter). I beg leave to
     inform the gentleman, if he is present, that I believe I
     understand these laws, and this point particularly, very nearly
     as well as himself; and that I am well acquainted with the laws
     passed since 1840, as with those enacted previous to that time. I
     would also inform him that the committee, some of whom are much
     better read in law than myself, were perfectly aware of the
     existence of the statutes he mentions, but did not see fit to
     incorporate them into the petition, not only on account of their
     great length, but because they do not at all invalidate the
     position which the petition affects to establish, viz: the
     inequality of the sexes before the law. Their insertion,
     therefore, would have been utterly superfluous. This letter
     refers, evidently, to that portion of the petition which treats
     of the equalization of property, which I will now read. (Then
     follows the reading of one paragraph of the petition). Again I
     refer you to the letter, the first paragraph of which is as
     follows:

     "Mrs. Emma R. Coe, will you look at Vol. 44, General Laws of
     Ohio, page 75, where you will find that the property of the wife
     can not be taken for the debts of her husband, etc.; and all
     articles of household furniture, and goods which a wife shall
     have brought with her in marriage, or which shall have come to
     her by bequest, gift, etc., after marriage, or purchased with her
     separate money or other property, shall be exempt from liability
     for the debts of her husband, during her life, and during the
     life of any heir of her body."

     Very true: we readily admit the law of which the gentleman has
     given an abstract; and so long as the wife holds the property in
     her hands, just as she received it, it can not be taken for the
     husband's debts, but the moment she permits her husband to
     convert that property into another shape, it becomes his, and may
     be taken for his debts. The gentleman I presume will admit this
     at once.

     The next paragraph of the letter reads thus: "Also in Vol. 51,
     General Laws of Ohio, page 449, the act regulating descent, etc.,
     provides, that real estate, which shall have come to the wife by
     descent, devise, or gift, from her ancestor, shall
     descend--first, to her children, or their legal representatives.
     Second, if there be no children, or their legal representatives
     living, the estate shall pass to the brothers and sisters of the
     intestate, who may be of the blood of the ancestor from whom the
     estate came, or their legal representatives," etc. True again: So
     long as the wife holds real estate in her own name, in title,
     and in title only, it is hers; for her husband even then controls
     its profits, and if she leave it so, it will descend to her heirs
     so long as she has an heir, and so long as she can trace the
     descent. But if she suffers her husband to sell that property and
     receive the money, it instantly becomes his; and instead of
     descending to her heirs, it descends to his heirs. This the
     gentleman will not deny. Now, we readily admit, that while the
     wife abides by the statutes, of which our article has given us an
     abstract, her husband can not take the property from her, he can
     only take the use of it. But the moment she departs from the
     statute, she comes under the provisions of the common law; which,
     when they do not conflict, is equally binding in Ohio, as the
     statute law. And in this case the common and statute laws do not
     conflict. Departing from the statute, that is, suffering her
     property to be exchanged, the provision is thus: (Here follows
     the common law, taken from the petition). I have nothing further
     to add on this point, but will quote the last paragraphs in the
     letter.

     "If you would know what our laws are, you must refer to the laws
     passed in Ohio since 1840."

     This has already been answered.

     "You said last night, that the property of the wife passed to the
     husband, even to his sixteenth cousin! Will you correct your
     error? And oblige                               A BUCKEYE."

     I should be extremely happy to oblige the gentleman, but having
     committed no error there is nothing to correct; and I do not,
     therefore, see that I can in conscience comply with his request.
     I am, however, exceedingly thankful for any expression of
     interest from that quarter. There are other laws which might be
     mentioned, which really give woman an apparent advantage over
     man; yet, having no relevancy to the subject in the petition, we
     did not see fit to introduce them. One of these is, that no woman
     shall be subject to arrest and imprisonment for debt; while no
     man, that is, no ordinary man, none unless he has a halo of
     military glory around his brow, is held sacred from civil process
     of this kind. But this exemption is of very little benefit to
     woman, since, if the laws were as severe to her as to man, she
     would seldom risk the penalty. For this there are two very good
     reasons. One is, that conscious of her inability to discharge
     obligations of this kind, she has little disposition to run
     deeply into debt; and the other is, that she has not the credit
     to do it if she wished! If, however, she does involve herself in
     this way, the law exempts her from imprisonment. This, perhaps,
     is offered as a sort of palliation for the disabilities which she
     suffers in other respects. The only object of the petition is, I
     believe, that the husband and wife be placed upon a legal and
     political equality. If the law gives woman an advantage over man,
     we deprecate it as much as he can. Partiality to either, to the
     injury of the other, is wrong in principle, and we must therefore
     oppose it. We do not wish to be placed in the position which the
     husband now occupies. We do not wish that control over his
     interests, which he may now exercise over the interests of the
     wife. We would no sooner intrust this power to woman than to man.
     We would never place her in authority over her husband.

     The question of woman's voting, of the propriety of woman's
     appearing at the polls, is already settled. See what has been
     done in Detroit: On the day of the late election, the women went
     to the offices and stores of gentlemen, asking them if they had
     voted. If the reply happened to be in the negative, as was often
     the case, the next question was, "Will you be kind enough to take
     this vote, sir, and deposit it in the ballot-box for me?" Which
     was seldom, if ever, refused. And so, many a man voted for the
     "Maine Law," who would not, otherwise, have voted at all. But
     this was not all; many women kept themselves in the vicinity of
     the polls, and when they found a man undecided, they ceased not
     their entreaties until they had gained him to the Temperance
     cause. More than this, two women finding an intemperate man in
     the street, talked to him four hours, before they could get him
     to promise to vote as they wished. Upon his doing so, they
     escorted him, one on each side, to the ballot-box, saw him
     deposit the vote they had given him, and then treated him to a
     good supper.

     Now, this is more than any Woman's Rights advocate ever thought
     of proposing. Yet no one thinks of saying a word against it,
     because it was done for temperance. But how much worse would it
     have been for those women to have gone to the polls with a
     brother or husband, instead of with this man? Or to have
     deposited two votes in perhaps five minutes' time, than to have
     spent four hours in soliciting some other person to give one? Why
     is it worse to go to the ballot-box with our male friends, than
     to the church, parties, or picnics, etc.? If a man should control
     the political principles of his wife, he should also control her
     religious principles.

     CHARLES C. BURLEIGH: Among the resolutions which have been acted
     upon and adopted by this meeting is one which affirms that for
     man to attempt to fix the sphere of woman, is cool assumption. I
     purpose to take that sentiment for the text of a few words of
     remark this evening, for it is just there that I think the whole
     controversy hinges. It is not so much what is woman's appropriate
     sphere; it is not so much what she may do and what she may not
     do, that we have to contend about; as whether one human being or
     one class of human beings is to fix for another human being, or
     another class of human beings, the proper field of action and the
     proper mode of employing the faculties which God has given them.
     If I understand aright the principles of liberty, just here is
     the point of controversy, between the despot and the champion of
     human rights, in any department. Just when one human being
     assumes to decide for another what is that other's sphere of
     action, just then despotism begins. Everything else is but the
     legitimate consequence of this.

     I have said it is not so much a matter of controversy what woman
     may do or may not do. Why, it would be a hard matter to say what
     has been recognized by men themselves, as the legitimate sphere
     of woman. We have a great deal of contradiction and opposition
     nowadays when woman attempts to do this, that, or the other
     thing, although that very thing has sometime or other, and
     somewhere or other, been performed or attempted to be performed
     by woman, with man's approval. If you talk about politics, why,
     woman's participation in politics is no new thing, is no mere
     assumption on her part, but has been recognized as right and
     proper by men.

     You have already been told of distinguished women who have borne
     a very prominent part in politics, both in ancient and modern
     times, and yet the multitude of men have believed and
     acknowledged that it was all right; and are now acknowledging it
     with all the enthusiasm of devoted loyalty. They are now
     acknowledging it in the case of an Empire on which it has been
     said that the sun never sets--an Empire, "The morning drumbeat of
     whose military stations circles the earth with one continued peal
     of the martial airs of England." It is recognized, too, not by
     the ignorant and thoughtless only, or the radical and heretical
     alone, but also by multitudes of educated and pious men. That
     bench of Bishops, sitting in the House of Lords, receiving its
     very warrant to act politically, from the hands of a woman,
     listening to a speech from a woman on the throne, endorses every
     day the doctrine that a woman may engage in politics.

     If you seize the young tree, when it just begins to put forth to
     the air and sunshine and dews, and bend it in all directions for
     fear it will not grow in proper shape, do not hold the tree
     accountable for its distortion. There is no danger that from
     acorns planted last year, pine trees will grow, if you do not
     take some special care to prevent it. There is no danger that
     from an apple will grow an oak, or, from a peach-stone an elm;
     leave nature to work out her own results, or, in other words,
     leave God to work out His own purpose, and be not so anxious to
     intrude yourselves upon Him and to help Him govern the Universe
     He has made. Some of us have too high an estimation of His
     goodness and wisdom to be desirous of thrusting ourselves into
     His government. We are willing to leave the nature of woman to
     manifest itself in its own aptitudes. Try it. Did one ever trust
     in God and meet with disappointment? Never! Tyrants always say it
     is not safe to trust their subjects with freedom. Austria says it
     is not safe to trust the Hungarian with freedom. Man says woman
     is not safe in freedom, she will get beyond her sphere.

     After having oppressed her for centuries, what wonder if she
     should rebound, and at the first spring, even manifest that law
     of reaction somewhat to your inconvenience, and somewhat even
     beyond the dictates of the wisest judgment. What then? Is the
     fault to be charged to the removal of the restraint; or is it to
     be charged to the first imposition of the restraint? The
     objection of our opponents remind one of the Irishman walking
     among the bushes just behind his companion, who caught hold of a
     branch, and passing on, let it fly back into the face of his
     friend; "Indade I am thankful to ye!" said the injured man, "for
     taking hold of that same; it a'most knocked the brains out of me
     body as it was, an' sure, if ye hadn't caught hold of it, it
     would have kilt me intirely!"

     The winds come lashing over your lake, the waters piling upon
     each other, wave rolling upon wave, and you may say what a pity
     we could not bridge the lake over with ice, so as to keep down
     these billows which may rise so high as to submerge us. But stand
     still! God has fixed the law upon the waters, "thus far shalt
     thou come"; and as you watch the ever piling floods, it secures
     their timely downfall. When they come as far as their appointed
     limits, the combing crest of the wave tells that the hour of
     safety has arrived, proving that God was wiser than you in
     writing down laws for His creation. We need not bridge over
     woman's nature with the ice of conventionalism, for fear she will
     swell up, aye, and overflow the continent of manhood. There is no
     danger. Trust to the nature God has given to humanity, and do not
     except the nature He has given to this portion of humanity.

     But I need not dwell upon such an argument before an audience who
     have witnessed the bearing of women in this Convention. It is a
     cool, aye, insolent assumption for man to prescribe the sphere of
     woman. What is the sphere of woman? Clearly, you say, her powers,
     her natural instincts and desires determine her sphere. Who,
     then, best knows those instincts and desires? Is it he who has
     all his knowledge at second-hand, rather than she who has it in
     all her consciousness?

     If, then, you find in the progress of the race hitherto, that
     woman has revealed herself pure, true, and beautiful, and lofty
     in spirit, just in proportion as she has enjoyed the right to
     reveal herself; if this is the testimony of all past experience,
     I ask you where you will find the beginning of an argument
     against the claim of woman to the right to enlarge her sphere yet
     more widely, than she has hitherto done. Wait until you see some
     of these apprehended evils, aye, a little later even, than that,
     until you see the natural subsidence of the reaction from the
     first out-bound of their oppression, before you tell us it is not
     safe or wise to permit woman the enlargement of her own sphere.

     The argument which I have thus based upon the very nature of man,
     and of humanity and God, is confirmed in every particular--is
     most impregnably fortified on every point, by the facts of all
     past experience and all present observation; and out of all this
     evidence of woman's right and fitness to determine her own
     sphere, I draw a high prophecy of the future. I look upon this
     longing of hers for a yet higher and broader field, as an
     evidence that God designed her to enter upon it.

          "Want, is the garner of our bounteous Sire;
          Hunger, the promise of its own supply."

     I might even add the rest of the passage as an address to woman
     herself, who still hesitates to assert the rights which she feels
     to be hers and longs to enjoy; I might repeat to her in the words
     of the same poet:

          "We weep, because the good we seek is not,
          When but for _this_ it is not, that we weep;
          We creep in dust to wail our lowly lot,
          Which were not lowly, if we scorned to creep;
          That which we _dare_ we shall be, when the will
          Bows to prevailing Hope, its would-be to fulfill."

     It can be done. This demand of woman can be nobly and
     successfully asserted. It can be, because it is but the
     out-speaking of the divine sentiment of woman. Let us not then
     tremble, or falter, or despair--I know we shall not. I know that
     those who have taken hold of this great work, and carried it
     forward hitherto, against obloquy, and persecution, and
     contempt, will not falter now. No! Every step is bearing us to a
     higher eminence, and thus revealing a broader promise of hope, a
     brighter prospect of success. Though they who are foremost in
     this cause must bear obloquy and reproach, and though it may seem
     to the careless looker-on, that they advance but little or not at
     all; they know that the instinct which impels them being divine,
     it can not be that they shall fail. They know that every quality
     of their nature, every attribute of their Creator, is pledged to
     their success.

          "They never fail who gravely plead for right,
            God's faithful martyrs can not suffer loss.
          Their blazing <DW19>s sow the world with light,
            Heaven's gate swings open on their bloody cross."

     Pres. MAHAN: If I would not be interrupting at all, there are a
     few thoughts having weight upon my mind which I should be very
     happy to express. I have nothing to say to excite controversy at
     all, but there are things which are said, the ultimate bearing of
     which I believe is not always understood. I have heard during
     these discussions, things said which bear this aspect--that the
     relation of ruler and subject is that of master and slave. The
     idea of the equality of woman with man, seems to be argued upon
     this idea. I am not now to speak whether it is lawful for man to
     rule the woman at all; but I wish to make a remark upon the
     principles of governor and governed. The idea seems to be
     suggested that if the wife is subject to the husband, the wife is
     a slave to the man--if He has said, in the sense in which some
     would have it, even that the woman should be subject to the man,
     and the wife to the husband, you will find that in no other
     position will woman attain her dignity; for God has never dropped
     an inadvertent thought, never penned an inadvertent line. There
     is not a law or principle of His being, that whoever penned that
     Book did not understand. There is not a right which that Book
     does not recognize; and there is not a duty which man owes to
     woman, or woman to man, that is not there enjoined. It is my firm
     conviction, that there is but one thing to be done on this
     subject--if the women of this State want the elective franchise,
     they can have it. I don't believe it is in the heart of man to
     refuse it. Only spread the truth, adhere to Woman's Rights, and
     adhere to that one principle, and when the people are convinced
     that her claim is just, it will be allowed.

Of Charles C. Burleigh the _Plain Dealer_ says:

     This noble poet had not said much in the Convention. He had taken
     no part in the interferences and interruptions of other
     gentlemen, Mr. Barker and Mr. Nevin for instance.

     When at length he took the stand he did indeed speak out a noble
     defense of woman's rights. It was the only speech made before the
     Convention by man in which the cause of woman was advocated
     exclusively. When Mr. Burleigh arose, two or three geese hissed;
     when he closed, a shower of applause greeted him.

We hope the reader will not weary of these debates. As the efforts of
many of our early speakers were extemporaneous, but little of what
they said will be preserved beyond this generation unless recorded
now. These debates show the wit, logic, and readiness of our women;
the clear moral perception, the courage, and honesty of our noble
Garrison; the skill and fiery zeal of Stephen Foster; the majesty and
beauty of Charles Burleigh; and, in Asa Mahan, the vain struggles of
the wily priest, to veil with sophistry the degrading slavery of
woman, in order to reconcile her position as set forth in certain
man-made texts of Scripture with eternal justice and natural law. Mr.
Mahan would not have been willing himself, to accept even the mild
form of subjection he so cunningly assigns to woman. The deadliest
opponents to the recognition of the equal rights of woman, have ever
been among the orthodox clergy as a class.


WORLD'S TEMPERANCE CONVENTION.

Just previous to this, two stormy Conventions had been held in the
city of New York; one called to discuss Woman's Rights, the other a
World's Temperance Convention. Thus many of the leaders of each
movement met for the first time to measure their powers of logic and
persuasion.

Antoinette L. Brown was appointed a delegate by two Temperance
associations. Her credentials were accepted, and she took her seat as
a member of the Convention; but when she arose to speak a tempest of
indignation poured upon her from every side. As this page in history
was frequently referred to in the Cleveland Convention, we will let
Miss Brown here tell her own story:

     Why did we go to that World's Convention? We went there because
     the call was extended to "the world." On the 12th of May a
     preliminary meeting had been held at New York--the far-famed
     meeting at the Brick Chapel. There, because of the objection
     taken by some who were not willing to have the "rest of mankind"
     come into the Convention, a part of those present withdrew. They
     thought they would have a "Whole World's Temperance Convention,"
     and they thought well, as the result proved. When it was known
     that such a Convention would be called, that all persons would be
     invited to consider themselves members of the Convention, who
     considered themselves members of the world, some of the leaders
     of the other Convention--the half world's Convention--felt that
     if it were possible, they would not have such a meeting held;
     therefore they took measures to prevent it. Now, let me read a
     statement from another delegate to that Convention, Rev. Wm. H.
     Channing, of Rochester. (Miss Brown read an extract from the
     _Tribune_, giving the facts in regard to her appointment as
     delegate, by a society of long standing, in Rochester, and
     extracts, also, of letters from persons prominent in the Brick
     Chapel meeting, urging Mr. Greeley to persuade his party to
     abandon the idea of a separate Convention, a part of such
     writers pleading that it was an unnecessary movement, as the call
     to the World's Temperance Convention was broad enough, and
     intended to include all). This appointment was made without my
     knowledge or consent, but with my hearty endorsement, when I knew
     it was done. Let me state also, that a society organized and for
     years in existence in South Butler, N. Y., also appointed
     delegates to that Convention, and myself among the number. They
     did so because, though they knew the call invited all the world
     to be present, yet they thought it best to have their delegations
     prepared with credentials, if being prepared would do any good.

     When we reached New York, we heard some persons saying that women
     would be received as delegates, and others saying they would not.
     We thought we ought to test that matter, and do it, too, as
     delicately and quietly as possible. There were quite a number of
     ladies appointed delegates to that meeting, but it was felt that
     not many would be necessary to make the test of their sincerity.

     We met at the Woman's Bights Convention on the day of the opening
     of the half world's Temperance Convention, and had all decided to
     be content with our own Temperance Convention, which had passed
     off so quietly and triumphantly. Wendell Phillips and I sat
     reconsidering the whole matter. I referred him to the fact, which
     had come to me more than once during the few last days, that the
     officials of the Convention in session at Metropolitan Hall, and
     others, had been saying that women would be received no doubt;
     that the Brick Chapel meeting was merely an informal preliminary
     meeting, and its decisions of no authority upon the Convention
     proper; and that the women were unjust in saying, that their
     brethren would not accept their co-operation before it had been
     fairly tested. Then, said Phillips, "Go, by all means; if they
     receive you, you have only to thank them for rebuking the action
     of the Brick Chapel meeting. Then we will withdraw and come back
     to our own meeting. If, on the other hand, they do not receive
     you, we will quietly and without protest, withdraw, and, in that
     case, not be gone half an hour." I turned and invited one lady,
     now on this platform, as gentle and lady-like as woman can be,
     Caroline M. Severance, of your own city, to go with me. She said:
     "I am quite willing to go, both in compliance with your wish, and
     from interest in the cause itself. But I am not a delegate, and I
     have in this city venerated grandparents, whose feelings I
     greatly regard, and would not willingly or unnecessarily wound;
     so that I prefer to go in quietly, but take no active part in
     what will seem to them an antagonistic position for woman, and
     uncalled for on my part. In that way I am quite ready to go." And
     so we went out from our own meeting, Mr. Phillips, Mrs. S., and
     myself; none others went with us, nor knew we were going.

     After arriving at Metropolitan Hall, accompanied by these
     friends, I did quietly what we had predetermined was the best to
     do. The Secretary was sitting upon the platform. I handed him my
     credentials from both societies. He said: "I can not now tell
     whether you will be received or not. There is a resolution before
     the house, stating, in substance, that they would receive all
     delegates without distinction of color or sex. If this
     resolution is adopted, you can be received." I then left my
     credentials in his hands, and went down from the platform. It was
     rather trying, in the sight of all that audience, to go upon the
     platform and come down again; and I shall not soon forget the
     sensations with which I stepped off the platform. After a little
     time they decided that the call admitted all delegates. I thought
     this decision settled my admission, and I went again upon the
     platform. In the meantime a permanent organization was effected.
     I went there, for the purpose of thanking them for their course,
     and merely to express my sympathy with the cause and their
     present movement, and then intended to leave the Hall. I arose,
     and inquired of the President, Neal Dow, if I was rightly a
     member of the Convention. He said, "Yes, if you have credentials
     from any abstinence societies." I told him I had, and then
     attempted to thank him. There was no appeal from the President's
     decision, but yet they would not receive my expression of thanks;
     therefore I took my seat and waited for a better opportunity.

     And now let me read a paragraph again from this paper, the
     temperance organ of your State. The writer is still Gen. Carey.
     (The extract intimated that Miss Brown, supported and urged on by
     several others, made an unwomanly entrance into the Convention,
     and upon the platform itself, which was reserved for officers,
     and as it would imply, already filled). There were only the two
     other persons I mentioned who went with me to that Convention,
     but they took their seats back among the audience, and did not
     approach the platform. There were friends I found in that
     audience to sustain me, but none others came with me for that
     purpose. The platform was far from being full; it is a large
     platform, and there might a hundred persons sit there, and not
     incommode each other at all.

     (Here Miss Brown read another extract from the same article, in
     which Gen. Carey implies, that concerted measures had been set on
     foot at the Woman's Rights meeting at the Tabernacle, the evening
     after Miss Brown's first attempt at a hearing before the
     Temperance Convention, for coming in upon them again _en masse_,
     and revengefully).

     Not a word was said that night upon the subject in the Convention
     at the Tabernacle, except what was said by myself; and I said
     what I did, because some one inquired whether I was hissed on
     going upon the platform. As to that matter, when I went upon the
     platform I was not hissed, at others times I did not know whether
     they hissed me or others, and

          "Where ignorance is bliss,'tis folly to be wise."

     I stated some of the facts to our own Convention, but I did not
     refer to this resolution (the one which was to exclude all but
     officers or invited guests from the platform), for I was not
     entirely clear with regard to the nature of it, it was passed in
     so much confusion. I did state this, that there had been a
     discussion raised upon such a resolution, and that it was decided
     that only officers and invited guests should sit upon the
     platform; but that they had received me as a delegate, and had
     thus revoked the action of the Brick Chapel meeting, and that on
     the morrow Neal Dow might invite me to sit upon the platform.
     That was the substance of my remarks, and not one word of
     objection was taken, or reply made by our Convention.

     I read again from this paper. (An extract implying that among the
     measures taken to browbeat the Convention into receiving Miss
     Brown, was the forming of a society instantly, under the special
     urgency of herself and friends, for this especial object, etc.)
     That again is a statement without foundation. I intend to-night
     to use no harsh words, and I shall say nothing with regard to
     motives. You may draw your own conclusions in regard to all this.
     I shall state dispassionately, the simple, literal facts as they
     occurred, and they may speak for themselves.

     When Wendell Phillips went out of the Convention, he told persons
     with whom he came in contact, that a delegate had been received
     by the President, and that delegate had been insulted, and nobody
     had risen to sustain her. He said to me, too, "I shall not go
     to-morrow, but do you go. I can do nothing for you, because I am
     not a delegate." There were a few earnest friends in New York,
     however, who felt that the rights of a delegate were sacred. They
     organized a society and appointed just three delegates to that
     Temperance Convention. Those three persons were Wendell Phillips,
     of Boston; Mr. Cleveland, one of the editors of the Tribune; and
     Mr. Gibbon, son-in-law of the late venerated Isaac T. Hopper. The
     last two were men from New York City. The question was already
     decided that women might be received as delegates to that
     Convention; therefore there was no need of appointing any one to
     insist upon woman's right to appear, and no one was appointed for
     that purpose.

     The next morning we went there with Mr. Phillips, who presented
     his credentials. During the discussion, Mr. Phillips took part,
     and persisted in holding the Convention to parliamentary rules.
     He carried in his hand a book of rules, which is received
     everywhere as authority, and when he saw that they were wrong, he
     quoted the standard authority to them. After a while the
     preliminary business was disposed of, and various resolutions
     were brought forward. I arose, and the President said I had the
     floor. I was invited upon the stand, and was therefore an
     "invited guest" within their own rules; but when once there, I
     was not allowed to speak, although the President said repeatedly
     that the floor was mine. The opposition arose from a dozen or
     more around the platform, who were incessantly raising "points of
     order"--the extempore bantlings of great minds in great
     emergencies. For the space of three hours I endeavored to be
     heard, but they would not hear me (although as a delegate, and I
     spoke simply as a delegate), I could have spoken but ten minutes
     by a law of the house. Twice the President was sustained in his
     decision by the house; but finally some one insisted that there
     might be persons voting in the house who were not delegates, and
     it was decided that the Hall should be cleared by the police, and
     that those who were delegates might come in, one by one, and
     resume their seats.

     There were printed lists of the delegates of the Convention, but
     there were several new delegates whose names were not on the
     lists. Wendell Phillips and his colleagues were among them. He
     went to the President and said: "I rely upon you to be admitted
     to the Hall, for we know that our names are not yet on the list."
     The President assented. As the delegates returned, the names
     upon the printed lists were called, and while the rest of us were
     earnest to be admitted to the house, and while they were
     examining our credentials and deciding whether or not we should
     be received, Neal Dow had gone out of the Hall, and Gen. Carey
     had taken the Chair! The action of a part of the delegates who
     were in the house while the other part were shut out, was like to
     nothing that ever had occurred in the annals of parliamentary
     history. Those persons who came in afterward, asked what was the
     business before the house, and on being informed, moved that it
     be reconsidered. The President decided upon putting it to the
     house, that they had not voted in the affirmative, and would not
     reconsider. Gen. Samuel F. Carey is a man of firmness, and I
     could not but admire the firmness with which he presided,
     although I felt that his decisions were wrong. "Gentlemen," said
     he, "there can be no order when you are raising so many points of
     order; take your seats!" and they took their seats.

     Previous to the adjournment, a question was raised about Wendell
     Phillips' credentials, and again next morning they raised it and
     decided it against him, so that he felt all further effort vain,
     and left the Hall. After this, there came up a multitude of
     resolutions, which were passed so rapidly that no one could get
     the opportunity of speaking to them. A resolution also written by
     Gen. Carey, was presented by him, as follows:

     "_Resolved_, That the common usages have excluded women from the
     public platform," etc.

     That resolution, amid great confusion, was declared as passed. Of
     course, then soon after, I left the Hall. I ought to say, in
     regard to Mr. Phillips' credentials, that they had been referred
     to a committee, who decided that he had not properly been sent to
     the Convention, for no reason in the world, but because the
     society who sent him, had been organized only the night before;
     while I know positively, and others knew, that there were
     societies organized one week before, for the very purpose of
     sending delegates to that Convention; which societies will never
     be heard of again, I fear. But the Neal Dow Association, of New
     York, exists yet. Their society shall not die; so good comes out
     of evil often.

     A motion was also made by some one, as better justice to Mr.
     Phillips, to refer the credentials of all the delegates of
     Massachusetts to the Committee on Credentials, but for very
     obvious and prudent reasons, it was not suffered to have a
     moment's hearing or consideration. (Miss Brown here read a few
     additional lines from the same article, asserting that she was
     merely the tool of others, and thrust by them upon the platform;
     and charging all the disorder and disturbance of that Convention
     to herself and friends, etc.) I needed no thrusting upon the
     platform. I was able to rise and speak without urging or
     suggestion. And as to the disorder which prevailed throughout the
     Convention, who made that disorder? I said not a word to cause
     it, for they gave me no opportunity to say a word, and the other
     delegates with me, sat quietly. No mention is made in this paper
     that I had credentials. It is stated that throughout Ohio the
     impression is that I had none; and it is generally believed that
     I went there without proper credentials.

     One word more as to Mr. Carey. He says, "The <DW64> question was
     not discussed as Greeley & Co. wished it to be. O Greeley, how
     art thou fallen!" These are Gen. Carey's words, not mine. Mr.
     Greeley has risen greatly in my estimation, and not fallen. A
      delegate[18] did take his credentials to the Convention,
     but he was not received. I saw him myself, and asked him what
     could be done about it. He folded up his hands and said it was
     too late. And this was a "World's Temperance Convention!"

     And this paper says that the _New York Tribune_, which has
     usually been an accredited sheet, has most shamefully
     misrepresented the whole affair, and refers to what was said in
     the _Tribune_, as to what the Convention had accomplished: "The
     first day, crowding a woman from the platform; second day,
     gagging her; and the third day voting she should stay gagged;"
     and asserts that it is a misrepresentation.

     The evenings of that Convention were not devoted to this
     discussion, and wore not noisy or fruitless. There were burning
     words spoken for temperance during the evenings; but whether the
     _Tribune's_ report of the day-sessions be correct or not, you
     yourselves can be the judges. I must say, however, the _Tribune_
     did not misrepresent that affair in its regular report; and I
     call upon Gen. Carey, in all kindness and courtesy; to point out
     just what the misstatements are--and upon any one acquainted with
     the facts, to show the false statement, if it can be shown.

     And now I leave the action of the Convention to say what were our
     motives in going there. From what I have related of the
     circumstances which conspired to induce us to go, and the manner
     of our going, you can but see that no absurd desire for
     notoriety, no coveting of such unenviable fame as we know must
     await us, were the inducements. And as a simple fact, there was
     nothing so very important in a feeble woman's going as a delegate
     to that Convention; but the fact was made an unpleasant one in
     the experience of that delegate, and was blown into notoriety by
     the unmanly action of that Convention itself. But what were our
     reasons for going to that Convention? Did we go there to forward
     the cause of Temperance or to forward the cause of woman, or what
     were our motives in going? Woman was pleading her own cause in
     the Convention at the Tabernacle, and she had no need that any
     should go there to forward her cause for her; and much as I love
     temperance, and love those poor sisters who suffer because of
     intemperance, it was not especially to plead their cause that I
     went there. I went to assert a principle, a principle relevant to
     the circumstances of the World's Convention to be sure, but one,
     at the same time, which, acknowledged, must forward all good
     causes, and, disregarded, must <DW44> them. I went there, asking
     no favor as a woman, asking no special recognition of the
     woman-cause. I went there in behalf of the cause of humanity. I
     went there, asking the indorsement of no ism, and as the exponent
     of no measure, but as a simple item of the world in the name of
     the world, claiming that all the sons and daughters of the race
     should be received in that Convention, if they went there with
     the proper credentials. I simply planted my feet upon the rights
     of a delegate. I asked for nothing more, and dare take nothing
     less. The principle which we were there to assert, was that which
     is the soul of the Golden Rule, the soul of that which says, "All
     things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye
     even so unto them." I went there to see if they would be true to
     their own call, and recognize delegates without distinction of
     color, sex, creed, party, or condition; to see if they would
     recognize each member of the human family, as belonging to the
     human family; to see if they would grant the simple rights of a
     delegate to all delegates.

     And do you ask, did this not <DW44> the cause of Temperance? No;
     it carried it forward, as it carries every good cause forward. It
     awakened thought, and mankind need only to be aroused to thought,
     to forever destroy all wrong customs, and among them the rum
     traffic. They need only to think to the purpose, and when this
     shall be done, all good causes are bound to go forward together.
     Christianity is the heart and soul of them all, and those reforms
     which seek to elevate mankind and better their condition, cling
     around our Christianity, and are a part of it. They are like the
     cluster of grapes, all clinging about the central stem.

     A wrong was done in that Convention to a delegate, and many
     people saw and felt that wrong, and they began to inquire for the
     cause of it; and so the causes of things were searched more
     nearly than before, and this was a good which promoted
     temperance. It is absurd to believe that any man or woman is any
     less a temperance man or woman, or a "Maine law" man or woman
     now, than before. If ever they loved that cause they love it now
     as before.

     Water is the very symbol of democracy! a single jet of it in a
     tube will balance the whole ocean. We went there, only to claim
     in the name of Democracy and Christianity, that all be treated
     alike and impartially. The human soul is a holy thing; it is the
     temple of living joy or sorrow. It is freighted with vital
     realities. It can outlengthen Heaven itself, and it should be
     reverenced everywhere, and treated always as a holy thing. We
     only went there in the name of the world, in the name of
     humanity, to promote a good cause; and it is what I pledge myself
     now anew to do, at all times and under all circumstances, when
     the opportunity shall present itself to me. It was a good act, a
     Christian duty, to go there under those circumstances.

     But let me now leave this matter, and say something which may
     have a direct bearing upon the circumstances of our Convention,
     and show why it is proper to bring up these facts here. Let us
     suppose ourselves gathered in Metropolitan Hall. It is a large
     hall, with two galleries around its sides. I could see men up
     there in checked blouses, who looked as though they might disturb
     a Convention, but they looked down upon the rowdyism of the
     platform, a thing unprecedented before, with simple expressions
     of wonder, while they were quiet. Well, here we are upon the
     platform. The President is speaking.

     PRESIDENT: "Miss Brown has the floor."

     A DELEGATE: "Mr. President, I rise to a point of order."

     PRESIDENT: "State your point of order."

     It is stated, but at the same time, in the general whirl and
     confusion all around, another voice from the floor exclaims: "I
     rise to a point of order!"

     The PRESIDENT: "State it!"

     But while these things are going on, a voice arises, "She sha'n't
     speak!" another, "She sha'n't be heard!" another, "You raise a
     point of order when he is done, and I will raise another." In the
     confusion I hear something almost like swearing, but not
     swearing, for most of those men are "holy men," who do not think
     of swearing. The confusion continues. Most of this time I am
     standing, but presently a chair is presented me, and now a new
     class of comforters gathers around me, speaking smooth, consoling
     words in my ear while upon the other side are angry disputants,
     clinching their fists and growing red in the face. Are the former
     good Samaritans, pouring into my wounded heart the oil and the
     wine? Listen. "I know you are acting conscientiously; but now
     that you have made your protest, do, for your own sake, withdraw
     from this disgraceful scene."

     "I can not withdraw," I say; "it is not now the time to withdraw;
     here is a principle at stake."

     "Well, in what way can you better the cause? Do you feel you are
     doing any good?" Another voice chimes in with: "Do you love the
     Temperance cause? Can you continue here and see all this
     confusion prevailing around you? Why not withdraw, and then the
     Convention will be quiet;" and all this in most mournful,
     dolorous tones. I think if the man cries, I shall certainly cry
     too.

     But then a new interval of quiet occurs, and so I rise to get the
     floor. I fancy myself in a melting mood enough to beg them, with
     prayers and tears, to be just and righteous; but no, "this kind
     goeth not out by prayer and fasting," and so I stand up again.
     Directly Rev. John Chambers points his finger at me, and calls
     aloud: "Shame on the woman! Shame on the woman!" Then I feel cool
     and calm enough again, and sit down until his anger has way.
     Again the "friends" gather around me, and there come more appeals
     to me, while the public ear is filled with "points of order"; and
     the two fall together, in a somewhat odd, but very pointed
     contrast, somewhere in the center of my brain. "Do you think,"
     says one, "that Christ would have done so?" spoken with a
     somewhat negative emphasis. "I think He would," spoken with a
     positive emphasis. "Do you love peace as well as Christ loved it,
     and can you do thus?"

     What answer I made I know not, but there came rushing over my
     soul the words of Christ: "I came not to send peace, but a
     sword." It seems almost to be spoken with an audible voice, and
     it sways the spirit more than all things else. I remember that
     Christ's doctrine was, "first pure, then peaceable;" that He,
     too, was persecuted. So are my doctrines good; they ask only for
     the simple rights of a delegate, only that which must be
     recognized as just, by the impartial Father of the human race,
     and by His holy Son. Then come these mock pleading tones again
     upon my ear, and instinctively I think of the Judas kiss, and I
     arise, turning away from them all, and feeling a power which may,
     perhaps, never come to me again. There were angry men confronting
     me, and I caught the flashing of defiant eyes; but above me, and
     within me, and all around me, there was a spirit stronger than
     they all. At that moment not the combined powers of earth and
     hell could have tempted me to do otherwise than to stand firm.
     Moral and physical cowardice were subdued, thanks to that
     Washington delegate for the sublime strength roused by his
     question: "Would Christ have done so?"

     That stormy scene is passed; that memorable time when chivalrous
     men forgot the deference, which according to their creed is due
     to woman, and forgot it as they publicly said, because a woman
     claimed a right upon the platform; and so they neither recognized
     her equality of rights, nor her conceded courtesy as a lady. This
     was neither just nor gallant, but to me it was vastly preferable
     to those appeals made to me as a lady--appeals which never would
     have been made to a man under the same circumstances; and which
     only served to show me the estimation in which they held
     womanhood. It reminded me of a remark which was made concerning
     the Brick Chapel meeting: "If you had spoken words of flattery,
     they would have done what you wanted."

     Let the past be the past. "Let the dead bury their dead,"
     contains truths we well may heed. Is God the impartial Father of
     humanity? Is He no respecter of persons? Is it true that there is
     known neither male nor female in Christ Jesus? In my heart of
     hearts, I believe it is all true. I believe it is the foundation
     of the Golden Rule. And now let me tell you in conclusion: if it
     be true, this truth shall steal into your souls like the accents
     of childhood; it shall come like a bright vision of hope to the
     desponding; it shall flash upon the incredulous; it shall twine
     like a chain of golden arguments about the reason of the skeptic.

     WM. LLOYD GARRISON, having listened to the narration of the
     action of the World's Convention in New York, said: I rise to
     offer some resolutions by which the sense of this Convention may
     be obtained. I happened to be an eyewitness of these proceedings,
     and I bear witness to the accuracy of the account given us this
     evening by Miss Brown. I have seen many tumultuous meetings in my
     day, but I think on no occasion have I ever seen anything more
     disgraceful to our common humanity, than when Miss Brown
     attempted to speak upon the platform of the World's Temperance
     Convention in aid of the glorious cause which had brought that
     Convention together. It was an outbreak of passion, contempt,
     indignation, and every vile emotion of the soul, throwing into
     the shade almost everything coming from the vilest of the vile,
     that I have ever witnessed on any occasion or under any
     circumstances; venerable men, claiming to be holy men, the
     ambassadors of Jesus Christ, losing all self-respect and
     transforming themselves into the most unmannerly and violent
     spirits, merely on account of the sex of the individual who
     wished to address the assembly.

     Miss Brown was asked while standing on the platform, "Do you love
     the temperance cause?" What could have been more insulting than
     such a question as that at that moment? What but the temperance
     cause had brought her to the Convention? Why had she been
     delegated to take her seat in that body except on the ground that
     she was a devoted friend of the temperance enterprise, and had an
     interest in every movement pertaining to the total abstinence
     cause? She had been delegated there by total abstinence societies
     because of her fitness as a temperance woman to advocate the
     temperance cause, so dear to the hearts of all those who love
     perishing humanity. Was it the love of the temperance cause that
     raised the outcry against her? or was it not simply contempt of
     woman, and an unwillingness that she should stand up anywhere to
     bear her testimony against popular wrongs and crimes, the curses
     of the race?

     MISS BROWN: Allow me to state one incident. A Doctor of Divinity
     was present at the meeting. His son and daughter-in-law stated to
     me the fact. "I said to my father, you had stormy times at the
     Convention to-day." "Yes," said the father, "stormy times." Said
     the son, "Why didn't you allow her to speak?" "Ah," said the
     Doctor, "it was the principle of the thing!" But it so happened
     that the son and daughter thought the principle a wrong one.

     Mr. Garrison: Yes, it was the principle that was at stake. It was
     not simply the making of a speech at that Convention, by a woman.
     By her speaking something more was implied, for if woman could
     speak there and for that object, she might speak elsewhere for
     another object, and she might, peradventure, as my friend does,
     proceed to occupy a pulpit and settle over a congregation. In
     fact, there is no knowing where the precedent would lead;
     reminding me of the man who hesitated to leave off his profanity,
     because having left that off he should have to leave off
     drinking, and if he left off drinking he should have to leave off
     his tobacco and other vile habits. He liked symmetry of
     character, and so he was unwilling to take the first step toward
     reform.

     The principle for which Miss Brown contended, was this: every
     society has a right to determine who shall represent it in
     convention. Invitation was given to the "whole world" to meet
     there in convention, to promote the cause of Temperance. Our
     friend needed no credentials under the call. It is true all
     societies were invited to send delegates, but in addition to that
     all the friends of Temperance throughout the world were expressly
     and earnestly invited to be present, and under that last express
     invitation she had a right to come in as an earnest friend of the
     cause, and take her seat in the Convention. When a body like that
     comes together, the principle is this, each delegate stands on
     the same footing as every other delegate, and no one delegate nor
     any number of delegates has a right to exclude any other delegate
     who has been sent there by any like society. Our friend had
     credentials from two societies, and thus was doubly armed; but
     she was put down by a most disgraceful minority of the
     Convention, who succeeded in carrying their point. In view of all
     this, I would present for the action of this Convention the
     following resolutions:

     WHEREAS, a cordial invitation having been extended to all
     temperance societies and all the friends of temperance throughout
     the world, to meet personally or by delegates in a "World's
     Temperance Convention" in the city of New York, Sept. 6th and
     7th, 1853;

     And whereas, accepting this invitation in the spirit in which it
     was apparently given, the "South Butler Temperance Association,"
     and the "Rochester Toronto Division of the Sons of Temperance,"
     duly empowered the Rev. Antoinette L. Brown, to act in that
     Convention as their delegate, representative, and advocate.

     And whereas, on presenting herself at the time specified, her
     credentials were received by the Committee on the roll of the
     Convention, but on rising to address the assembly (though
     declared by the President to be entitled to the floor, and
     although his decision was repeatedly sustained by a majority of
     the delegates) she was met with derisive outcries, insulting
     jeers, and the most rowdyish manifestations, by a shameless
     minority, led on by the Rev. John Chambers, of Philadelphia, and
     encouraged by Gen. Carey, of Ohio, and other professed friends of
     the temperance cause--so as to make it impossible for her to be
     heard, and thus virtually excluding her from the Convention in an
     ignominious manner, solely on account of her being a woman;
     therefore,

     _Resolved_, That in the judgment of this Convention, the
     treatment received by the Rev. Antoinette L. Brown in the
     "World's Temperance Convention" (falsely so called) was in the
     highest degree disgraceful to that body, insulting to the
     societies whose credentials she bore, worthy only of those who
     are filled with strong drink, and a scandal to the temperance
     movement.

     _Resolved_, That the thanks of this Convention be given to Miss
     Brown, for having accepted the credentials so honorably proffered
     to her by the temperance societies aforesaid, and claiming a
     right, not as a woman, but as a duly authorized delegate, an
     eloquent and devoted advocate of the temperance enterprise, to a
     seat and voice in the "World's Temperance Convention;" and for
     the firm, dignified, and admirable manner in which she met the
     storm of opprobrium and insult which so furiously assailed her on
     her attempting to advocate the beneficent movement for the
     promotion of which the Convention was expressly called together.

     Hon. JOSHUA R. GIDDINGS: Ladies and gentlemen, although I had
     designed to take no active part in the proceedings, I can not
     avoid rising, to second that resolution. When I learned of the
     appointing of this Convention, it brought a thrill of joy to me.
     I had read the transactions to which the lady has made such
     feeling allusion. I had read and mourned over them, and I
     rejoiced that an opportunity was to be given to the people of
     Cleveland, and this Western Reserve, to tender their thanks to
     this Convention, which had been appointed to meet upon the shores
     of Lake Erie; and that they also might see what sort of a
     greeting the friends of the rights of woman would receive here.
     And I now rejoice at the hearty manner in which the Convention
     has proceeded. I rejoice at the treatment the Convention has
     received. Then I was about to say, the fogies of New York, if
     they could see and know all that they might see here, would not
     be like some spirits, whom Swedenborg says he saw in the other
     world. He found spirits who had been departed several years, who
     had not yet learned that they were dead. I think Rev. John
     Chambers would now look down and begin to suspect that he had
     departed.

     My friends, I know not how the remarks of Miss Brown fell upon
     your ears. I can only say that they struck me with deep feelings
     of mortification, that at this noontide of the nineteenth century
     any human being, who can give her thoughts to an assembly in the
     eloquent manner in which she has spoken to us, has been treated
     as she was; and when this resolution of reproof by my friend from
     Massachusetts was presented, I resolved to rise and second it,
     and express myself willing that it be sent out in the report,
     that I most heartily concur in the expressions contained in these
     resolutions.

     WILLIAM L. GARRISON: I wish to make one statement in regard to
     General Carey, to show that he does not himself act on consistent
     principles, in this matter. The last number of the _Pennsylvania
     Freeman_ contains an account of a temperance gathering held in
     Kennett Square. That square is for that region the headquarters
     of Abolitionists, Liberals, Come-outers, and so forth. In that
     meeting women were appointed for Vice-Presidents and Secretaries
     with men, and there was a complete mixture throughout the
     committees without regard to sex; and who do you think were those
     who spoke on that occasion recognizing that woman was equal with
     man in that gathering? The first was G. W. Jackson, of Boston,
     who made himself very conspicuous in the exclusion of women from
     the "World's Convention"; second, Judge O'Neil, of South
     Carolina, who spoke at New York, and who was also very active in
     the efforts to exclude Miss Brown; last of all was General Carey,
     of Ohio; and three days afterward they wended their way to New
     York, and there conspired with others to prevent a delegate from
     being admitted, on the ground of being a woman; showing that
     while at old Kennett they were willing to conform, finding it
     would be popular; in New York they joined in this brutal
     proscription of a woman, only because she was a woman.

     LUCY STONE: I know it is time to take the question upon these
     resolutions, but I wish to say one word. When a world's
     convention of any kind is called--when the Rev. Drs. Chambers,
     Hewett, Marsh, and I don't know how many more, backed up by a
     part of those who were in that convention, are ready to ignore
     the existence of woman, it should show us something of the amount
     of labor we have to do, to teach the world even to know that we
     are a part of it; and when women tell us they don't want any more
     rights, I want them to know that they are held to have no right
     in any world's convention. I took up a book the other day,
     written by the Rev. Mr. Davis, in which he sketches the events of
     the last fifty years. He states that the Sandwich Islands at one
     time had one missionary at such a station; Mr. Green--and his
     wife! Then he went on to state another where there were nineteen,
     and--their wives! Now these are straws on the surface, but they
     indicate "which way the wind blows," and indicate, in some sense,
     the estimation in which woman is held. I mention these facts so
     that we may see something of the length of the way we must tread,
     before we shall even be recognized.

The reader will see from these debates the amount of prejudice,
wickedness, and violence, woman was compelled to meet from all classes
of men, especially the clergy, in those early days, and on the other
hand the wisdom, courage, and mild self-assertion with which she
fought her battle and conquered. There is not a man living who took
part in that disgraceful row who would not gladly blot out that page
in his personal history. But the few noble men--lawyers, statesmen,
clergymen, philanthropists, poets, orators, philosophers--who have
remained steadfast and loyal to woman through all her struggles for
freedom--have been brave and generous enough to redeem their sex from
the utter contempt and distrust of all womankind.


NATIONAL CONVENTION AT CINCINNATI, OHIO.

In 1855, October 17th and 18th, the people of Cincinnati, Ohio, were
summoned to the consideration of the question of Woman's Rights. A
brief report in the city journals, is all we can find of the
proceedings. From these we learn that the meetings were held in
Nixon's Hall, that some ladies wore bloomers, and some gentlemen
shawls, that the audiences were large and enthusiastic, that the
curiosity to see women who could make a speech was intense. Martha C.
Wright, of Auburn, a sister of Lucretia Mott, was chosen President. On
the platform sat Mrs. Mott, Hannah Tracy Cutler, Josephine S.
Griffing, Mary S. Anthony, of Rochester, N. Y.; Ernestine L. Rose,
Adeline Swift, Joseph Barker, an Englishman, an ex-member of
Parliament, Lucy Stone and her husband, Henry B. Blackwell, recently
married. Mrs. Stone did not take her husband's name, because she
believed a woman had a right to an individual existence, and an
individual name to designate that existence.

After the election of officers,[19] the President stated the object of
the Convention to be to secure equality with man in social, civil, and
political rights. It was only seven years, she said, since this
movement commenced, since our first Convention was called, in timidity
and doubt of our own strength, our own capacity, our own powers; now,
east, west, north, and even south, there were found advocates of
woman's rights. The newspapers which ridiculed and slandered us at
first, are beginning to give impartial accounts of our meetings.
Newspapers do not lead, but follow public opinion; and doing so, they
go through three stages in regard to reforms; they first ridicule
them, then report them without comment, and at last openly advocate
them. We seem to be still in the first stage on this question.

     Mrs. CUTLER said: "Let there be light, and there was light," "And
     many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased."
     This light, this increase of knowledge, we are seeking. Men have
     always applied the last text to themselves, and did not expect
     woman to run to and fro and increase in knowledge. They objected
     to her raising her voice on this platform in the pursuit or
     diffusion of knowledge; but when she is employed upon the stage
     to minister to everything that pollutes and degrades man, no
     voice was raised against it. It was but a few years ago that a
     French queen brought over with her to the British Isles, a male
     mantua-maker. It was not supposed then that woman was capable of
     fitting woman's clothes properly. She has since advanced to have
     the charge of man's wardrobe; and it will be right when the time
     comes, for man to take care of himself. Conservatism opposes this
     now; but I love conservatism; it is guarding our institutions
     until the new mother is prepared to take the charge.

     I desire that marriage shall not be simply a domestic union as in
     early days, or a social one as it has now become, but a complete
     and perfect union, conferring equal rights on both parties. I
     desire light from the source of light. The question is frequently
     asked, "What more do these women want?" A lady in Cincinnati told
     me that she did not desire any change, for she thought we had now
     entirely the best of it; while the men toiled in their shops and
     offices, the women walked the streets splendidly dressed, or
     lounged at home with nothing to do but spend the money their
     husbands earned. I never understood the elevating effect of the
     elective franchise until I went to England, where so few enjoy
     it. I attended a political meeting during the canvass of Derby,
     as a reporter for three or four political papers in the United
     States. One of the candidates proposed to legislate for universal
     suffrage; his opponent replied by showing the effect of it upon
     France, which he declared was the only country in which it
     existed. "You forget," exclaimed one, "America!" "America! never
     name her! a land of three millions of slaves." The multitude
     would not believe this; they shouted in derision, whenever the
     speaker attempted to resume. America was their last hope. If that
     country was given up to slavery, they could only despair. Party
     leaders rose and tried to calm them as Christ calmed the sea, but
     they could do nothing. "You are an American," said one near me;
     "get up and defend your country!" What could I say? I spoke,
     however, and pledged them that the stain of slavery should be
     wiped out.

     Mr. WISE, of North Carolina, made a long and learned address,
     treating principally of geology and women. He claimed for woman
     more even than she for herself. He said: "Women are generally
     more competent to vote than their husbands, and sisters better
     fitted to be judges than their brothers, the mother more capable
     of wisely exercising the elective franchise than her booby son."

     LUCY STONE said: The last speaker alluded to this movement as
     being that of a few disappointed women. From the first years to
     which my memory stretches, I have been a disappointed woman.
     When, with my brothers, I reached forth after the sources of
     knowledge, I was reproved with "It isn't fit for you; it doesn't
     belong to women." Then there was but one college in the world
     where women were admitted, and that was in Brazil. I would have
     found my way there, but by the time I was prepared to go, one was
     opened in the young State of Ohio--the first in the United States
     where women and <DW64>s could enjoy opportunities with white men.
     I was disappointed when I came to seek a profession worthy an
     immortal being--every employment was closed to me, except those
     of the teacher, the seamstress, and the housekeeper. In
     education, in marriage, in religion, in everything,
     disappointment is the lot of woman. It shall be the business of
     my life to deepen this disappointment in every woman's heart
     until she bows down to it no longer. I wish that women, instead
     of being walking show-cases, instead of begging of their fathers
     and brothers the latest and gayest new bonnet, would ask of them
     their rights.

     The question of Woman's Rights is a practical one. The notion has
     prevailed that it was only an ephemeral idea; that it was but
     women claiming the right to smoke cigars in the streets, and to
     frequent bar-rooms. Others have supposed it a question of
     comparative intellect; others still, of sphere. Too much has
     already been said and written about woman's sphere. Trace all the
     doctrines to their source and they will be found to have no basis
     except in the usages and prejudices of the age. This is seen in
     the fact that what is tolerated in woman in one country is not
     tolerated in another. In this country women may hold
     prayer-meetings, etc., but in Mohammedan countries it is written
     upon their mosques, "Women and dogs, and other impure animals,
     are not permitted to enter." Wendell Phillips says, "The best and
     greatest thing one is capable of doing, that is his sphere." I
     have confidence in the Father to believe that when He gives us
     the capacity to do anything He does not make a blunder. Leave
     women, then, to find their sphere. And do not tell us before we
     are born even, that our province is to cook dinners, darn
     stockings, and sew on buttons. We are told woman has all the
     rights she wants; and even women, I am ashamed to say, tell us
     so. They mistake the politeness of men for rights--seats while
     men stand in this hall to-night, and their adulations; but these
     are mere courtesies. We want rights. The flour-merchant, the
     house-builder, and the postman charge us no less on account of
     our sex; but when we endeavor to earn money to pay all these,
     then, indeed, we find the difference. Man, if he have energy, may
     hew out for himself a path where no mortal has ever trod, held
     back by nothing but what is in himself; the world is all before
     him, where to choose; and we are glad for you, brothers, men,
     that it is so. But the same society that drives forth the young
     man, keeps woman at home--a dependent--working little cats on
     worsted, and little dogs on punctured paper; but if she goes
     heartily and bravely to give herself to some worthy purpose, she
     is out of her sphere and she loses caste. Women working in
     tailor-shops are paid one-third as much as men. Some one in
     Philadelphia has stated that women make fine shirts for twelve
     and a half cents apiece; that no woman can make more than nine a
     week, and the sum thus earned, after deducting rent, fuel, etc.,
     leaves her just three and a half cents a day for bread. Is it a
     wonder that women are driven to prostitution? Female teachers in
     New York are paid fifty dollars a year, and for every such
     situation there are five hundred applicants. I know not what you
     believe of God, but I believe He gave yearnings and longings to
     be filled, and that He did not mean all our time should be
     devoted to feeding and clothing the body. The present condition
     of woman causes a horrible perversion of the marriage relation.
     It is asked of a lady, "Has she married well?" "Oh, yes, her
     husband is rich." Woman must marry for a home, and you men are
     the sufferers by this; for a woman who loathes you may marry you
     because you have the means to get money which she can not have.
     But when woman can enter the lists with you and make money for
     herself, she will marry you only for deep and earnest affection.

     I am detaining you too long, many of you standing, that I ought
     to apologize, but women have been wronged so long that I may
     wrong you a little. (Applause). A woman undertook in Lowell to
     sell shoes to ladies. Men laughed at her, but in six years she
     has run them all out, and has a monopoly of the trade. Sarah
     Tyndale, whose husband was an importer of china, and died
     bankrupt, continued his business, paid off his debts, and has
     made a fortune and built the largest china warehouse in the
     world. (Mrs. Mott here corrected Lucy. Mrs. Tyndale has not the
     largest china warehouse, but the largest assortment of china in
     the world). Mrs. Tyndale, herself, drew the plan of her
     warehouse, and it is the best plan ever drawn. A laborer to whom
     the architect showed it, said: "Don't she know e'en as much as
     some men?" I have seen a woman at manual labor turning out
     chair-legs in a cabinet-shop, with a dress short enough not to
     drag in the shavings. I wish other women would imitate her in
     this. It made her hands harder and broader, it is true, but I
     think a hand with a dollar and a quarter a day in it, better than
     one with a crossed ninepence. The men in the shop didn't use
     tobacco, nor swear--they can't do those things where there are
     women, and we owe it to our brothers to go wherever they work to
     keep them decent. The widening of woman's sphere is to improve
     her lot. Let us do it, and if the world scoff, let it scoff--if
     it sneer, let it sneer--but we will go on emulating the example
     of the sisters Grimke and Abby Kelly. When they first lectured
     against slavery they were not listened to as respectfully as you
     listen to us. So the first female physician meets many
     difficulties, but to the next the path will be made easy.

     Lucretia Mott has been a preacher for years; her right to do so
     is not questioned among Friends. But when Antoinette Brown felt
     that she was commanded to preach, and to arrest the progress of
     thousands that were on the road to hell; why, when she applied
     for ordination they acted as though they had rather the whole
     world should go to hell, than that Antoinette Brown should be
     allowed to tell them how to keep out of it. She is now ordained
     over a parish in the State of New York, but when she meets on the
     Temperance platform the Rev. John Chambers, or your own Gen.
     Carey (applause) they greet her with hisses. Theodore Parker
     said: "The acorn that the school-boy carries in his pocket and
     the squirrel stows in his cheek, has in it the possibility of an
     oak, able to withstand, for ages, the cold winter and the driving
     blast." I have seen the acorn men and women, but never the
     perfect oak; all are but abortions. The young mother, when first
     the new-born babe nestles in her bosom, and a heretofore unknown
     love springs up in her heart, finds herself unprepared for this
     new relation in life, and she sends forth the child scarred and
     dwarfed by her own weakness and imbecility, as no stream can rise
     higher than its fountain.

We find no report of the speeches of Frances D. Gage, Lydia Ann
Jenkins, Ernestine L. Rose, Euphemia Cochrane, of Michigan, nor J.
Mitchell, of Missouri, editor of the _St. Louis Intelligencer_, nor of
the presence of James Mott, whose services were always invaluable on
the committees for business and resolutions.

In 1857, the Legislature of Ohio passed a bill enacting that no
married man shall dispose of any personal property without having
first obtained the consent of his wife; the wife being empowered in
case of the violation of such act, to commence a civil suit in her own
name for the recovery of said property; and also that any married
woman whose husband shall desert her or neglect to provide for his
family, shall be entitled to his wages and to those of her minor
children. These amendments were warmly recommended by Gov. Salmon P.
Chase in his annual message. The Select Committee[20] of the Senate on
the petition asking the right of suffrage for woman, reported in favor
of the proposed amendment, recommending the adoption of the following
resolution:

     _Resolved_, That the Judiciary Committee be instructed to report
     to the Senate a bill to submit to the qualified electors at the
     next election for Senators and Representatives an amendment to
     the Constitution, whereby the elective franchise shall be
     extended to the citizens of Ohio without distinction of sex.

But the bill was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 44 to 44. The
petition had received 10,000 signatures. We give this able report in
full.[21]

The proceedings of these early Conventions might be read with pride
and satisfaction by the women of Ohio to-day, with all their superior
advantages of education. Frances D. Gage was a natural orator. Her wit
and pathos always delighted her audiences, and were highly appreciated
by those on the platform. Her off-hand speeches, ready for any
occasion, were exactly complemented by J. Elizabeth Jones, whose
carefully prepared essays on philosophy, law, and government, would do
honor to any statesman. Together they were a great power in Ohio. From
this time Conventions were held annually for several years, the
friends of woman suffrage being thoroughly organized; J. Elizabeth
Jones was made General Agent. In her report of May 16th, 1861, she
says:

     And through the earnest efforts of Mrs. Robinson, Mrs. Gage, Mrs.
     Wilson, Mrs. Tilden, and many others, the Legislature was
     petitioned from year to year for a redress of legal and political
     wrongs. At a later period, the indefatigable exertions of Mrs.
     Adeline T. Swift sustained the interest and the agitation in such
     portions of the State as she could reach. As the fruit of her
     labor, many thousands of names, pleading for equality, have been
     presented to the General Assembly, which labor has been continued
     to the present time.

     Our last effort, of which I am now more particularly to speak,
     was commenced early in the season, by extensive correspondence to
     enlist sympathy and aid in behalf of petitions. As soon as we
     could get the public ear, several lecturing agents were secured,
     and they did most efficient service, both with tongue and with
     pen. One of these was Mrs. C. I. H. Nichols, of Kansas, formerly
     of Vermont; and perhaps no person was ever better qualified than
     she. Ever ready and ever faithful, in public and in private, and
     ever capable, too, whether discussing the condition of woman with
     the best informed members of the legal profession, or striving at
     the fireside of some indolent and ignorant sister, over whose
     best energies "death is creeping like an untimely frost," to
     waken in her heart a desire for that which is truly noble and
     good.

     Of another of our agents--Mrs. Cutler, of Illinois--equally as
     much can be said of her qualifications and her efficiency. Having
     been very widely acquainted with the sorrowful experiences of
     women, both abroad and in our own country, which have been caused
     by their inferior position, and by legal disabilities; and
     lamenting, too, as only great and elevated natures can, the utter
     wreck of true, noble womanhood in the higher circles of society,
     a necessity is thus laid upon her to do all in her power to lift
     both classes into a freer, better life.

     Mrs. Frances D. Gage, of Ohio, deeply interested herself in this
     question in the beginning, and has never failed in faithful
     testimony and timely word, to promote its success. Although not
     identified with us as an agent, yet we had her active
     co-operation during the campaign. Her editorial connection with
     the press, and her lectures on the West India Islands, gave her
     abundant opportunity, which she did not fail to embrace, of
     circulating petitions and advocating the cause to which she has
     so largely given her energies.

     Besides the General Agent, whose time was divided between
     correspondence, lecturing, and the general details of the
     movement, there were other and most efficient workers, especially
     in canvassing for signatures. We are indebted to Mrs. Anne Ryder,
     of Cincinnati, for much labor in this direction; and also to
     Mrs. Howard, of Columbus for similar service. Miss Olympia Brown,
     a graduate of Antioch College, canvassed several towns most
     successfully--adding thousands of names to the lists heretofore
     obtained. Equally zealous were women, and men also, in various
     sections of the State. By means of this hearty co-operation, both
     branches of the Legislature were flooded with Woman's Rights
     petitions during the first part of the session--a thousand and
     even two thousand names were presented at a time.

     Our main object this year, as heretofore, has been to secure
     personal property and parental rights, never ignoring, however,
     the right to legislate for ourselves. We were fortunate in the
     commencement in enlisting some of the leading influences of the
     State in favor of the movement. Persons occupying the highest
     social and political position, very fully endorsed our claims to
     legal equality, and rendered valuable aid by public approval of
     the same. We took measures at an early period to obtain the
     assistance of the press; and by means of this auxiliary our work
     has been more fully recognized, and more generally appreciated
     than it could otherwise have been. Without exception, the leading
     journals of the State have treated our cause with consideration,
     and generously commended the efforts of its agents.

     So numerous were the petitions, and so largely did they represent
     the best constituency of the State, that the committees in whose
     hands they were placed, felt that by all just parliamentary
     usage, they were entitled to a candid consideration. Accordingly
     they invited several of us who had been prominent, to defend our
     own cause in the Senate chamber, before their joint Committee and
     such of the General Assembly and of the public, as might choose
     to come and listen. From the reports of the numerous
     letter-writers who were present, I will place one extract only
     upon record.

     "The Senate chamber was filled to overflowing to hear Mrs. Jones,
     Cutler, and Gage, and hundreds went away for want of a place to
     stand. Columbus has seldom seen so refined and intelligent an
     audience as that which gathered round those earnest women, who
     had none of the charm of youth or beauty to challenge admiration,
     but whose heads were already sprinkled with the frosts of life's
     winter. Earnest, truthful, womanly, richly cultivated by the
     experiences of practical life, those women, mothers, and two of
     them grandmothers, pleaded for the right of woman to the fruit of
     her own genius, labor, or skill, and for the mother her right to
     be the joint guardian of her own offspring. I wish I could give
     you even the faintest idea of the brilliancy of the scene, or the
     splendor of the triumph achieved over the legions of prejudice,
     the cohorts of injustice, and the old national guard of hoary
     conservatism. If the triumph of a prima donna is something to
     boast, what was the triumph of these toil-worn women, when not
     only the members of the Committee, but Senators and Members of
     the House, crowded around them with congratulations and
     assurances that their able and earnest arguments had fully
     prevailed, and the prayers of their petitioners must be granted."

     The address of the first speaker was a written argument on legal
     rights. It was solicited by members of the General Assembly for
     publication, and distributed over the State at their expense.

     The change in public sentiment, the marked favor with which our
     cause began to be regarded in the judicial and legislative
     departments, encouraged us to hope that if equal and exact
     justice were not established, which we could hardly expect, we
     should at least obtain legal equality in many particulars. The
     Senate committee soon reported a bill, drafted by one of their
     number--Judge Key--and fully endorsed by all the judges of the
     Supreme Court, securing to the married woman the use of her real
     estate, and the avails of her own separate labor, together with
     such power to protect her property, and do business in her own
     name, as men possess. The last provision was stricken out and the
     bill thus amended passed both Houses, the Senate by a very large
     majority.

     Although this secures to us property rights in a measure only,
     yet it is a great gain. He, who in abject bondage has striven
     with his fetters, rejoices to have the smallest amount of their
     weight removed. We have, therefore, reason to be grateful not
     only for the benefits we shall derive from this Act, but for the
     evidence of a growing sense of justice on the part of those who
     claim for themselves the exclusive right to legislate. Senator
     Parish had already prepared a Bill for Guardianship, and to
     change the Laws of Descent, that something more than a paltry
     dower should be secured to the widow in the common estate; but
     the press of business, and the sudden commencement of open
     hostilities between the North and South, precluded all
     possibility of further legislation in our behalf. While Judge Key
     has deservedly received universal thanks from the women of Ohio,
     for proposing and carrying through the Legislature the Property
     Bill, they are no less indebted to the Hon. Mr. Parish for his
     faithful defense of their cause, not only during the present
     session, but in years past. If all the Honorable Senators and
     Representatives who have given their influence in favor of it
     were to be mentioned, and all the faithful men and earnest women
     who have labored to promote it, the list would be long and
     distinguished.

                                               J. ELIZABETH JONES.

Thus, in a measure, were the civil rights of the women of Ohio
secured. Some of those who were influential in winning this modicum of
justice have already passed away; some, enfeebled by age, are
incapable of active work; others are seeking in many latitudes that
rest so necessary in the declining years of life.

The question naturally suggests itself, where are the young women of
Ohio, who will take up this noble cause and carry it to its final
triumph? They are reaping on all sides the benefits achieved for
them by others, and they in turn, by earnest efforts for the
enfranchisement of woman, should do what they can to broaden the lives
of the next generation.

In Ohio, as elsewhere, the great conflict between the North and South
turned the thoughts of women from the consideration of their own
rights, to the life of the nation. Many of them spent their last days
and waning powers in the military hospitals and sanitariums,
ministering to sick and dying soldiers; others at a later period in
the service of the freedmen, guiding them in their labors, and
instructing them in their schools; all alike forgetting that justice
to woman was a more important step in national safety than freedom or
franchise to any race of men.


FOOTNOTES:

[14] Years before the calling of this Convention, Mrs. Frances D. Gage
had roused much thought in Ohio by voice and pen. She was a long time
in correspondence with Harriet Martineau and Mrs. Jane Knight, who was
energetically working for reduced postage rates, even before the days
of Rowland Hill.

[15] See Appendix.

[16] Said to have been written by J. Elizabeth Jones.

[17] My notoriety as an Abolitionist made it very difficult for me to
reach people at home, and, consequently, I had to work through press
and social circle; women dared not speak then. But the seed was sown
far and wide, now bearing fruit.

[18] James McCune Smith.

[19] See Appendix.

[20] J. D. Cattell and H. Canfield.

[21] See Appendix.




CHAPTER VII.

REMINISCENCES BY CLARINA I. HOWARD NICHOLS.


     VERMONT: Editor _Windham County Democrat_--Property Laws, 1847
       and 1849--Addressed the Legislature on school suffrage, 1852.

     WISCONSIN: Woman's State Temperance Society--Lydia F. Fowler in
       company--Opposition of Clergy--"Woman's Rights" wouldn't
       do--Advertised "Men's Rights."

     KANSAS: Free State Emigration, 1854--Gov. Robinson and Senator
       Pomeroy--Woman's Rights speeches on Steamboat, and at
       Lawrence--Constitutional Convention, 1859--State Woman Suffrage
       Association--John O. Wattles, President--Aid from the Francis
       Jackson Fund--Canvassing the State--School Suffrage gained.

     MISSOURI: Lecturing at St. Joseph, 1858, on Col. Scott's
       invitation--Westport and the John Brown raid, 1859--St. Louis,
       1854--Frances D. Gage, Rev. Wm. G. Eliot, and Rev. Mr. Weaver.

In gathering up these individual memories of the past, we feel there
will be an added interest in the fact that we shall thus have a
subjective, as well as an objective view of this grand movement for
woman's enfranchisement. To our older readers, who have known the
actors in these scenes, they will come like the far-off whispers of
by-gone friends; to younger ones who will never see the faces of the
noble band of women who took the initiative in this struggle, it will
be almost as pleasant as a personal introduction, to have them speak
for themselves; each in her own peculiar style recount the experiences
of those eventful years. As but few remain to tell the story, and each
life has made a channel of its own, there will be no danger of
wearying the reader with much repetition.

To Clarina Howard Nichols the women of Kansas are indebted for many
civil rights they have as yet been too apathetic to exercise.

Her personal presence in the Constitutional Convention of 1859,
secured for the women of that State liberal property rights, equal
guardianship of their children, and the right to vote on all school
questions. She is a large-hearted, brave, faithful woman, and her life
speaks for itself. Her experiences are indeed the history of all that
was done in the above-mentioned States.


VERMONT.

I was born in Townshend, Windham County, Vermont, January 25, 1810.

From 1843 to 1853 inclusive, I edited _The Windham County_
_Democrat_, published by my husband, Geo. W. Nichols, at Brattleboro.

Early in 1847, I addressed to the voters of the State a series of
editorials setting forth the injustice and miserable economy of the
property disabilities of married women. In October of the same year,
Hon. Larkin Mead, of Brattleboro, "moved," as he said, "by Mrs.
Nichols' presentation of the subject" in the _Democrat_, introduced in
the Vermont Senate a bill securing to the wife real and personal
property, with its use, and power to defend, convey, and devise as if
"sole." The bill as passed, secured to the wife real estate owned by
her at marriage, or acquired by gift, devise, or inheritance during
marriage, with the rents, issues, and profits, as against any debts of
the husband; but to make a sale or conveyance of either her realty or
its use valid, it must be the joint act of husband and wife. She might
by last will and testament dispose of her lands, tenements,
hereditaments, and any interest therein descendable to her heirs, as
if "sole." A subsequent Legislature added to the latter clause,
moneys, notes, bonds, and other assets, accruing from sale or use of
real estate. And this was the first breath of a legal civil existence
to Vermont wives.

In 1849, Vermont enacted a Homestead law. In 1850, a bill empowering
the wife to insure, in her own interest, the life, or a term of the
life of her husband; the annual premium on such insurance not to
exceed $300; also an act giving to widows of childless husbands the
whole of an estate not exceeding $1,000 in value, and half of any
amount in excess of $1,000; and if he left no kin, the whole estate,
however large, became the property of the widow. Prior to this Act,
the widow of a childless husband had only half, however small the
estate, and if he left no kindred to claim it, the remaining half went
into the treasury of the State, whose gain was the town's loss, if, as
occasionally happened, the widow's half was not sufficient for her
support.[22]

In 1852, I drew up a petition signed by more than 200 of the most
substantial business men, including the staunchest conservatives, and
tax-paying widows of Brattleboro, asking the Legislature to make the
women of the State voters in district school meetings.

Up to 1850 I had not taken position for suffrage, but instead of
disclaiming its advocacy as improper, I had, since 1849, shown the
absurdity of regarding suffrage as unwomanly. Having failed to secure
her legal rights by reason of her disfranchisement, a woman must look
to the ballot for self-protection. In this cautious way I proceeded,
aware that not a house would be opened to me, did I demand the
suffrage before convicting men of legal robbery, through woman's
inability to defend herself.

The petition was referred to the Educational Committee of the House,
whose chairman, editor of the _Rutland Herald_, was a bitter opponent,
and I felt that he would, in his report, lampoon "Woman's Rights" and
their most prominent advocates, thus sending his poison into all the
towns ignorant of our objects, and strengthening the already repellant
prejudices of the leading women at the capital. I wrote to Judge
Thompson, editor of the _Green Mountain Freeman_ (a recent accession
to the press of the State and friendly to our cause), what I feared,
and asked him to plead before the Committee and interest influential
members to protect woman's cause against abuse before the House. He
counseled with leading members of the three political parties--Whig,
Free-Soil, and Democrat--including the Speaker of the House, and they
advised, as the best course, that "Mrs. Nichols come to Montpelier,
and they would invite her, by a handsome vote, to speak to her
petition before the House." "When," added Judge T., "you can use your
privilege to present the whole subject of Woman's Rights. Come, and I
will stick by you like a brother." I went. The resolution of
invitation was adopted with a single dissenting vote, and that from
the Chairman of the Educational Committee, who unwittingly made the
vote unanimous by the unfortunate exclamation, "If the lady wants to
make herself ridiculous, let her come and make herself as ridiculous
as possible and as soon as possible, but I don't believe in this
scramble for the breeches!"

In concluding my plea before the House (in which I had cited the
statutes and decisions of courts, showing that the husband owned even
the wife's clothing), I thanked the House for its resolution, and
referred to the concluding remark of the Chairman of the Educational
Committee, and said that though I "had earned the dress I wore, my
husband owned it--not of his own will, but by a law adopted by
bachelors and other women's husbands," and added: "I will not appeal
to the gallantry of this House, but to its manliness, if such a taunt
does not come with an ill grace from gentlemen who have legislated our
skirts into their possession? And will it not be quite time enough for
them to taunt us with being after their wardrobes, when they shall
have restored to us the legal right to our own?"

With a bow I turned from the Speaker's stand, when the profound hush
of as fine an audience as earnest woman ever addressed, was broken by
the muffled thunder of stamping feet, and the low, deep hum of pent-up
feeling loosed suddenly from restraint. A crowd of ladies from the
galleries, who had come only at the urgent personal appeal of Judge
Thompson, who had spent the day calling from house to house, and who a
few months before had utterly failed to persuade them to attend a
course of physiological lectures from Mrs. Mariana Johnson, on account
of her having once presided over a Woman's Rights Convention, these
women met me at the foot of the Speaker's desk, exclaiming with
earnest expressions of sympathy: "We did not know before what Woman's
Rights were, Mrs. Nichols, but we are for Woman's Rights."

Said Mrs. Thompson to me upon our return to her home: "I broke out in
a cold perspiration when your voice failed and you leaned your head on
your hand."[23] "I thought you were going to fail," continued Mrs.
Thompson. "Yes," said the Judge, "I was very doubtful how it would
come out when I saw how sensitive Mrs. Nichols was. But," (turning to
me), "you have had a complete triumph! That final expression of your
audience was perfect. _Mr. Herald_ with his outside recruits did not
come forward with the suit of male attire at the close, as he had
advertised he would, (I did not tell Mrs. N. this, my dear," said the
Judge.) "He'll catch it now, in the House and out." And he did "catch
it."

The effort brought me no reproach, no ridicule from any quarter, but
instead, cordial recognition and delicate sympathy from unexpected
quarters, and even from those who had heard but the report of persons
present. The editorial criticism of the Chairman of the Educational
Committee, paid me the high compliment of saying, that "in spite of
her efforts Mrs. Nichols could not unsex herself; even her voice was
full of womanly pathos." The report of the Committee was adverse to my
petition, but not disrespectful. Though the petition failed, the
favorable impression created was regarded as a great triumph for
woman's rights.

From the time I spoke at the Worcester Convention, 1850, until I left
for Kansas, October, 1854, I responded to frequent calls from town and
neighborhood committees and lyceums--in the county and adjoining
territory of New Hampshire and Massachusetts as well as Vermont, to
lecture or join in debate with men and women, the women voting me
their time, on the subject of woman's legal and political equality. In
these neighborhood lyceums, ministers and deacons and their wives and
daughters took part. Generally wives were appointed in opposition to
their husbands, and from their rich and varied experience did
excellent execution. In order to secure opposition, I used to let the
negative open and close, other wise the debate was sure to be tame or
no debate at all. In all my experience it was the same; the
"affirmative" had the merit and the argument.

The clergy often spoke--always when present--and in the negative, if
it was their first hearing; and without a single exception they faced
the audience at the close with a cordial endorsement of the cause.
Said one such: "I told you, ladies and gentlemen, that I had given
little attention to the subject, and you see that I told the truth.
Mrs. Nichols has made out her case, and let her and the women laboring
like her, persevere, and woman will gain her rights." "Let your wife
go all she can," said one of these converts to Mr. Nichols, "she is
breaking down prejudices and making friends for your paper. Your
political opponents have represented her as a masculine brawler for
rights, and those who have never met her know no better. I went to
hear her, full of misgivings that it might be so."

In the winter of 1852 I went as often as twice a week--late P.M. and
returned early A.M.--from six to twenty miles. I was sent for where
there was no railroad. I often heard of "ready-made pants," and once
of a "rail," but the greater the opposition, the greater the victory.

On a clear, cold morning of January, 1852, I found myself some six
miles from home at a station on the Vermont side of the Massachusetts
State line, on my way to Templeton, Mass., whither I had been invited
by a Lyceum Committee to lecture upon the subject of "Woman's Rights."
I had scarcely settled myself in the rear of the saloon for a restful,
careless two hours' ride, when two men entered the car. In the younger
man I recognized the sheriff of our county. Having given a searching
glance around the ear, the older man, with a significant nod to his
companion, laid his hand upon the saloon door an instant, and every
person in the car had risen to his feet, electrified by the wail of a
"Rachel mourning for her children." "O, father! she's _my_ child!
_she's my child!_" I reached the door, which was guarded by the
sheriff, in a condition of mental exaltation (or concentration), which
to this day reflects itself at the recollection of that agonizing cry
of the beautiful young mother, set upon by the myrmidons of the law
whose base inhumanity shames the brute! "Who is it?" "What is it?"
"What does it all mean?" were the anxious queries put up on all sides.
I answered: "It means, my friends, that a woman has no legal right to
her own babies; that the law-makers of this _Christian country_ (!)
have given the custody of the babies to the father, drunken or sober,
and he may send the sheriff--as in this case--to arrest and rob her of
her little ones! You have heard sneers at 'Woman's Rights.' This is
one of the rights--a mother's right to the care and custody of her
helpless little ones!"

From that excited crowd--all young men and grown boys, I being the
only woman among them--rose thick and fast--"_They've no business with
the woman's babies!_" "_Pitch 'em overboard!_" "_I'll help._" "_Good
for you; so'll I!_" "All aboard." (The conductor had come upon the
scene). "_All aboard._" "Wait a minute till he gets the other child,"
cries the old man, rushing out of the saloon with a little
three-year-old girl in his arms, while the sheriff rushed in. Standing
behind the old man, I beckoned to the conductor, who knew me, to "_go
on_," and in five minutes we were across the Massachusetts line, and I
was in the saloon. With his hand on her child, the sheriff was urging
the mother to let go her hold. "Hold on to your baby," I cried, "he
has no right to take it from you, and is liable to fine and
imprisonment for attempting it. Tell me, Mr. C----, are you helping
the other party as a favor, or in your official capacity? In the
latter case you might have taken her child in Vermont, but we are in
Massachusetts now, quite out of your sheriff's beat." "The grandfather
made legal custodian by the father, was he? That would do in Vermont,
sir, but under the recent decision of a Massachusetts Court, given in
a case like this, _only the father_ can take the child from its
mother, and in attempting it you have made yourselves liable to fine
and imprisonment." Thus the "sheriffalty" was extinguished, and mother
and child took their seat beside me in the car.

Meantime the conductor had made the old gentleman understand that they
could get off at the next station, where they might take the "up
train," and get back to their "team" on the Vermont side of the
"line." As they could get no carriage at the bare little station, and
with the encumbrance of the child, could not foot it six miles in the
cold and snow, they must wait some three or four hours for the train,
which suggested the possibility of a rescue. I could not stop over a
train, but I could take the baby along with me, if some one could be
found--The conductor calls. The car stops. As the child robbers step
out (the little girl, clutched in the old grandfather's arms) 'mid the
frantic cries of the mother and the execrations of the passengers, two
middle-aged gentlemen of fine matter-of-fact presence, entered. I at
once met their questioning faces with a hurried statement of facts,
and the need of some intelligent, humane gentleman to aid the young
mother in the recovery of her little girl. Having spoken together
aside, the younger man introduced "Dr. B----, who lives in the next
town, where papers can be made out, and a sheriff be sent back to
bring the men and child; the lady can go with the doctor, and the baby
with Mrs. Nichols. I would stop, but I must be in my seat in the
Legislature." "I have no money, only my ticket to take me to my
friends," exclaimed the anxious mother. "I will take care of that,"
said the good doctor; "you won't need any." "They will have to pay," I
whispered....

I gave my lecture at Templeton to a fine audience; accepted an
invitation to return and give a second on the same subject, and having
left the dear little toddler happy and amply protected, at noon next
day found myself back at Orange, where I had left the mother. Here the
conductor, who by previous arrangement, left a note from me telling
her where to go for her baby, reported that the party had been brought
to Orange for trial, spent the night in care of the sheriff, and were
released on giving up the little girl and paying a handsome sum of the
needful to the mother. He had scarcely ended his report when the pair
entered the car, like myself, homeward bound. The old gentleman,
care-worn and anxious, probably thinking of his team left standing at
the Vermont station, looked straight ahead, but the kind-hearted
sheriff caught my eye and smiled. In my happiness I could not do
otherwise than give smile for smile.

Arrived at home, I found the affair, reported by the conductor of the
evening train, had created quite an excitement, sympathy being
decidedly with the mother. I was credited with being privy to the
escapade and the pursuit, and as having gone purposely to the rescue.
Had this been true, I could not have managed it better, for a good
Providence went with me. I received several memorial "hanks" of yarn,
with messages from the donors that "they would keep me in
knitting-work while preaching woman's rights on the railroad"--a
reference to my practice of knitting on the cars, and the report that
I gave a lecture on the occasion to my audience there.

And thus was the seed of woman's educational, industrial, and
political rights sown in Vermont, through infinite labor, but in the
faith and perseverance which bring their courage to all workers for
the right.


WISCONSIN.

In September and October, 1853, I traveled 900 miles in Wisconsin, as
agent of the Woman's State Temperance Society, speaking in forty-three
towns to audiences estimated at 30,000 in the aggregate, people coming
in their own conveyances from five to twenty miles. I went to
Wisconsin under an engagement to labor as agent of the State
Temperance League, an organization composed of both sexes and
officered by leading temperance men--at the earnest and repeated
solicitations of its delegates whom I met at the "Whole World's
Temperance Convention," held in New York City in September, and who
were commissioned by the League to employ speakers to canvass the
State; the object being to procure the enactment of a "Maine Law" by
the next Legislature. These delegates had counseled, among others,
with Horace Greeley, who advised my employment, curiosity to hear a
woman promising to call out larger audiences and more votes for
temperance candidates in the pending election.

I, at first, declined to make the engagement, on the ground that I
could not be spared from my newspaper duties; but to escape further
importunity, finally consented to "ask my husband at home," and report
at New York, where one of the gentlemen would await my answer, and
myself, if I decided to accept their proposition. My husband's
cheerful, "Go, wife, you will be doing just the work you love, and
enjoying a journey which you have not means otherwise to undertake,"
and a notice from Mrs. Lydia F. Fowler, that she would join us in the
trip with a view to arranging for physiological lectures at eligible
points in the State, decided me to go. Mrs. F.'s company was not only
a social acquisition, but a happy insurance against pot-house witlings
on the alert to impale upon the world's dread laugh, any woman who, to
accomplish some public good, should venture for a space to cut loose
from the marital "buttons" and go out into the world alone!

In making the engagement, I had taken it for granted, that the right
and propriety of woman's public advocacy of temperance was a settled
question in the field to which I was invited. But arrived at
Milwaukee, I found that the popular prejudice against women as public
speakers, and especially the advocacy of Woman's Rights, with which I
had for years been identified, had been stirred to its most disgusting
depths by a reverend gentleman who had preceded us, and who had for
years been a salaried "agent at large," of the New York State
Temperance Society. A highly respectable minority of the Executive
Committee of the League endorsed the action of their delegation, but
were overruled by a numerical majority, and I found myself in the
position of agent "at large," while the reverend traducer secured his
engagement in my place.

This turn of affairs, embarrassing at first, proved in the end
providential--a timely clearance for a more congenial craft--since the
women of the State had organized a Woman's State Temperance Society,
and advertised a Convention to meet the following week at Delavan, the
populous shire town of Walworth County, fifty miles distant in the
interior. Thither the friendly Leaguers proposed to take us. Meantime
it was arranged that Mrs. F. and I should address the citizens of
Milwaukee. A capacious church was engaged for Sabbath evening, from
which hundreds went away unable to get in. But neither clergyman nor
layman could be found willing to commit himself by opening the
services; and with "head uncovered," in a church in which it was "a
shame for a woman to speak," I rested my burden with the dear Father,
as only burdens are rested with Him, in conscious unity of purpose.

Mrs. F. addressed the audience on the physiological effects of
alcoholic drinks. I followed, quoting from the prophecy of King
Lemuel, that "his mother taught him," Proverbs xxxi., verses 4, 5, 8,
9, "Open thy mouth for the dumb; in the cause of all such as are
appointed to destruction. Open thy mouth, judge righteously and plead
the cause of the poor and needy." The spirit moved audience and
speaker. We forgot ourselves; forgot everything but "the poor and
needy," the drunkard's wife and children "appointed to destruction"
through license laws and alienated civil rights.

At Delavan we met a body of earnest men and women, indignant at the
action of the Executive Committee of the League, to which many of them
had contributed funds for the campaign, and ready to assume the
responsibility of my engagement, and the expenses of Mrs. F., who in
following out her original plan, generously consented to precede my
lectures with a brief physiological dissertation apropos to the object
of the canvass. The burden of the speaking, as planned, rested with
me, provided my hitherto untested physical ability proved equal, as it
did, to the daily effort.

In counsel with Mrs. R. Ostrander, President of the Society, and her
sister officials, women of character and intelligence, I could
explain, as I could not have done to any body of equally worthy men,
that in justice to ourselves, to them, and to the cause we had at
heart, we must make the canvass in a spirit and in conditions above
reproach. "I can not come down from my work," said Miss Lyon, founder
of Mount Holyoke Female Seminary, when importuned to rebut some
baseless scandal. To fight our way would be to mar the spirit and
effect of our work. We must place the opposition at a disadvantage
from the first; then we could afford to ignore it altogether and rise
to a level with the humane issues of the campaign. It was accordingly
arranged that the friends should make appointments and secure us
suitable escort to neighboring towns; and to distant and less
accessible points a gentleman was engaged to take us in a private
carriage,--his wife, a woman of rare talent and fine culture, to
accompany us. A programme which was advertised in the local papers and
happily carried out.

From Delavan we returned to Milwaukee to perfect our arrangements.
From thence our next move was to Waukesha, the shire town of Waukesha
County, twenty miles by rail, to a Temperance meeting advertised for
"speaking and the transaction of business." The meeting was held in
the Congregational church, the pastor acting as chairman. The real
business of the meeting was soon disposed of, and then was enacted the
most amusing farce it was ever my lot to witness. The chairman and his
deacon led off in a long-drawn debate on sundry matters of no
importance, and of less interest to the audience, members of which
attempted in vain, by motions and votes, to cut it short. When it had
become sufficiently apparent that the gentlemen were "talking against
time" to prevent speaking, there were calls for speakers. The chairman
replied that it was a "business meeting, but Rev. Mr. ----, from
Illinois, would lecture in the evening." Several gentlemen rose to
protest. One said he "had walked seven miles that his wife and
daughters might ride, to hear the ladies speak." Another had "ridden
horseback twelve miles to hear them." A storm was impending; the
chairman was prepared; he declared the meeting adjourned and with his
deacon left the house.

There was a hurried consultation in the ante-room, which resulted in
an urgent request for "Mrs. Nichols to remain and speak in the
evening." The speaker noticed for the evening, joined heartily in the
request; "half an hour was all the time he wanted." But when the
evening came, he insisted that I should speak first, and when I should
have given way for him, assured me that he "had made arrangements to
speak the next evening," and joined in the "go on, go on!" of the
audience. So it was decided that I should remain over the Sabbath, and
Mrs. F. return with the friends to Milwaukee.

Meantime it had transpired that in the audience were several
Vermonters from a settlement of fourteen families from the vicinity of
my home; among them a lady from my native town; we had been girls
together. "We know all about Mrs. N.," said one. "We take the
_Tribune_, and friends at home send us her paper." So the good Father
had sent vouchers for His agent at large. But this was not all. I had
a pleasant reserve for the evening. I had recognized in the deacon, a
friend from whom I had parted twenty-one years before in Western New
York. In the generous confidence of youthful enthusiasm we had
enlisted in the cold-water army; together pledged ourselves to fight
the liquor interest to the death. And here my old friend, whose debut
on the Temperance platform I had aided and cheered, had talked a full
hour to prevent me from being heard! Was I indignant? Was I grieved?
Nay! It was not a personal matter. Time's graver had made us strange
to each other. His name and voice had revealed him to me; but the name
I bore was not that by which he had known me. Besides, I remembered
that twenty-one years before, I could not have been persuaded to hear
a woman speak on any public occasion, and I had nothing to
forgive,--my friend had only stood still where I had left him. Such,
suppressing his name, was the story I told my audience on that
evening. And with his puzzled and kindly face intently regarding me, I
assured my hearers that I had not a doubt of his whole-souled and
manly support in my present work. Nor was I disappointed.

Next morning, (Sabbath) I listened to a scholarly sermon on infidel
issues and innovations from the chairman of the "business meeting" of
the previous afternoon, he having stayed away from my lecture to
prepare it. In the evening, after the temperance lecture of my
Illinois friend, I improved the opportunity of a call from the
audience, the Rev. Chairman being present, to meet certain points of
the sermon, personal to myself and the advocates of rights for women,
closing with a brief confession of my faith in Christ's rule of love
and duty as impressing every human being into the service of a common
humanity--the right to serve being commensurate with the obligation,
as of God and not of man.

One week later, another business meeting was held in the same house,
and in its published proceedings was a resolution introduced by the
Rev. Chairman, endorsing Mrs. Nichols, and inviting her "to be present
and speak" at a County Convention appointed for a subsequent day. Not
long after he sent me, through a brother clergyman, an apology that
would have disarmed resentment, had I felt any, toward a man who,
having opposed me without discourtesy and retracted by a published
resolution, was yet not satisfied without tendering a private apology.

I had achieved a grateful success; license to "plead the cause of the
poor and needy," where, _how_ to do so, without offending old-time
ideas of woman's sphere, had seemed to the women under whose direction
I had taken the field, the real question at issue. In consideration of
existing prejudices, they had suggested the prudence of silence on the
subject of Woman's Rights. And here, on the very threshold of the
campaign, I had been compelled to vindicate my right to speak for
woman; as a woman, to speak for her from any stand-point of life to
which nature, custom, or law had assigned her. I had no choice, no
hope of success, but in presenting her case as it stood before God and
my own soul. To neither could I turn traitor, and do the work, or
satisfy the aspirations of a true and loving woman.

For more than a quarter of a century earnest men had spoken, and
failed to secure justice to the poor and needy, "appointed to
destruction" by the liquor traffic. They had failed because they had
denied woman's right to help them, and taken from her the means to
help herself. In speaking for woman, I must be heard from a domestic
level of legal pauperism disenchanted of all political prestige. In
appealing to the powers that be, I must appeal from sovereigns drunk
to sovereigns sober,--with eight chances in ten that the decision
would be controlled by sovereigns drunk.

To impress the paramount claim of women to a no-license law, without
laying bare the legal and political disabilities that make them "the
greatest sufferers," the helpless victims of the liquor traffic, was
impossible. It would have been stupidly unwise to withhold what with a
majority of voters is the weightier consideration, that in alienating
from women their earnings, governments impose upon community taxes for
the support of the paupered children of drunken fathers, whose mothers
would joyfully support and train them for usefulness; and who, as a
rule, have done so when by the death or divorce of the husband they
have regained the control of their earnings and the custody of their
children. Thus proving, that man, by his disabling laws, has made
woman helpless and dependent, and not God, who has endowed her with
capabilities equal to the responsibilities He has imposed.

Worse than unwise would it have been to allow an unjust prejudice
against Woman's Rights, to turn the edge of my appeals for a law in
the interest of temperance, when by showing the connection, as of
cause and effect, between men's rights and women's wrongs, between
women's _no_-rights and their helplessness and dependence, I could
disarm that prejudice and win an intelligent support for both
temperance and equal rights. On such a showing I based my appeals to
the noble men and women of Wisconsin. I assured my audiences, that I
had not come to talk to them of "Woman's Rights," that indeed I did
not find that women had any rights in the matter, but to "suffer and
be still; to die and give no sign." But I had come to them to speak of
_man's rights_ and _woman's needs_.

From the Lake Shore cities, from the inland villages, the shire towns,
and the mining communities of the Mississippi, whose churches,
court-houses, and halls, with two or three exceptions, could not hold
the audiences, much less seat them; the responses were hearty, and
when outspoken, curiously alike in language as well as sentiment on
the subject of rights. "I like Mrs. Nichols' idea of talking man's
rights; the result will be woman's rights," said a gentleman rising in
his place in the audience at the close of one of my lectures. On
another occasion, "Let Mrs. Nichols go on talking men's rights and
we'll have women's rights." "Mrs. Nichols has made me ashamed of
myself--ashamed of my sex! I didn't know we had been so mean to the
women," was the outspoken conclusion of a man who had lived honored
and respected, his threescore years and ten. This reaction from the
curiosity and doubt which everywhere met us in the expressive faces of
the people, often reminded me of an incident in my Vermont labors for
a Maine law.

In accepting an invitation to address an audience of ladies in the
aristocratic old town of C----, in an adjoining county, I had
suggested, that as it was votes we needed, I would prefer to address
an audience of both sexes. Arrived at C----, I found that the ladies
of the committee, having acted upon my suggestion, were intensely
anxious as to the result. "An audience," they said, "could not be
collected to listen to woman's rights; the people were sensitive even
to the innovation of a mixed audience for a woman, and they felt that
I ought to be informed of the facts." And I felt in every nerve, that
they were suffering from fear lest I should fail to vindicate the
womanliness of our joint venture. But the people came, a church,
full; intelligent, expectant, and curious to hear a woman. The
resident clergyman, of my own faith, declined to be present and open
with prayer. A resident Universalist clergyman present, declined to
pray. A young Methodist licentiate in the audience, not feeling at
liberty to decline, tried. His ideas stumbled; his words hitched, and
when he prayed: "Bless thy serv--a'hem--thy handmaid, and a'hem--and
let all things be done decently and in order;" we in the committee pew
felt as relieved as did the young Timothy when he had achieved his
amen!

Utterly unnerved by the anxious faces of my committee, I turned to my
audience with only the inspiration of homes devastated and families
paupered, to sustain me in a desperate exhibit of the need and the
"determination of women, impelled by the mother-love that shrinks
neither from fire or flood, to rescue their loved ones from the fires
and floods of the liquor traffic, though to do so they must make their
way through every platform and pulpit in the land!" "Thank God!"
exclaimed the licentiate on my right. "Amen!" emphasized the chairman
oh my left. My committee were radiant. My audience had accepted
woman's rights in her wrongs; and I ---- only woman's recording angel
can tell the sensations of a disfranchised woman when her "declaration
of intentions" is endorsed by an Anti-Woman's Rights audience with
fervent thanks to God!

Latter-day laborers can have little idea of the trials of the early
worker, driven by the stress of right and duty against popular
prejudices, to which her own training and early habits of thought have
made her painfully sensitive. St. Paul, our patron saint, I think had
just come through such a trial of his nerves when he wrote: "The
spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." The memory of the beautiful
scenery, the charming Indian summer skies, the restful companionship
of our family party in the daily drive, and the generous hospitality
of the people of Wisconsin, is one of the pleasantest of a life, as
full of sweet memories as of trials, amid and through which they have
clung to me with a saving grace.

The Temperance majority in the ensuing election, so far as influenced
by canvassing agents, was due to the combined efforts of all who
labored for it, and of these it was my good fortune to meet a younger
brother of William H. and O. C. Burleigh, who from his man's
stand-point of precedents and statistics did excellent service.

The law enacted by the Legislature securing to the wives of drunkards
their earnings and the custody and earnings of their minor children, I
think I may claim as a result of appeals from the home stand-point of
woman's sphere. As a financial measure diverting the supplies and
lessening the profits of the liquor traffic, this law is a civil
service reform of no mean promise for the abatement of pauper and
criminal taxes. In a plea of counsel for defendant in a case of
wife-beating to which I once listened, said the gentlemanly attorney:
"If Patrick will let the bottle alone"--"Please, your honor," broke in
the weeping wife, "if you will stop Misthur Kelly from filling it."


KANSAS.

In October, 1854, with my two eldest sons, I joined a company of two
hundred and twenty-five men, women, and children, emigrants from the
East to Kansas. In our passage up the Missouri River I gave two
lectures by invitation of a committee of emigrants and Captain Choteau
and brother, owners of the boat. A pious M.D. was terribly shocked at
the prospect, and hurried his young wife to bed, but returned to the
cabin himself in good time to hear. As the position was quite central,
and I wished to be heard distinctly by the crowd which occupied all
the standing room around the cabin, I took my stand opposite the
Doctor's berth. Next morning, poor man! his wife was an outspoken
advocate of woman's rights. The next evening she punched his ribs
vigorously, at every point made for suffrage, which was the subject of
my second lecture.

The 1st of November, 1854--a day never to be forgotten--heaven and
earth clasped hands in silent benedictions on that band of immigrants,
some on foot, some on horseback, women and children, seventy-five in
number, with the company's baggage, in ox-carts and wagons drawn by
the fat, the broken-down, and the indifferent "hacks" of wondering,
scowling Missouri, scattered all along the prairie road from Kansas
City to Lawrence, the Mecca of their pilgrimage.

In advance of all these, at 11 o'clock A.M., Mrs. H---- and myself
were sitting in front of the Lawrence office of the New England
Emigrant Aid Company, in the covered wagon of Hon. S. C. Pomeroy, who
had brought us from Kansas City, and entered the office to announce
the arrival of our company; when a hilarious explosion of several
voices assured us that good lungs as well as brave hearts were within.
Directly Col. P. and Dr. (Governor) Robinson came out. "Did you hear
the cheering?" asked the Doctor. "I did, and was thinking when you
came out, what a popular man the Colonel must be to call forth such a
greeting!" "But the cheers were for Mrs. Nichols," was the reply; and
the Doctor proceeded to tell us that, "the boys" had been hotly
discussing women's rights, when one of their advocates who had heard
her lecture, expressed a wish that his opponents could hear Antoinette
Brown on the subject; a second wished they could hear Susan B.
Anthony; and a third wished they could hear Mrs. Nichols. On the heels
of these wishes, the announcement of Colonel Pomeroy, that "Mrs.
Nichols was at the door," was the signal for triumphant cheering. "The
boys" wanted a lecture in the evening. The Doctor said: "No; Mrs.
Nichols is tired. To-morrow the thatching of the church will be
completed, and she can dedicate the building."

Thus truths sown broadcast among the stereotyped beliefs and
prejudices of the old and populous communities of the East, had
wrought a genial welcome for myself and the advocacy of woman's cause
on the disputed soil of Kansas. But, alas! for the "stony ground." One
of "the boys" didn't stay to the "dedication." He had "come to Kansas
to get away from the women," and left at once for Leavenworth. I
wonder if the Judge--he is that now, and a benedict--remembers? I
still regret that lost opportunity for making his acquaintance.

At Lawrence, the objective point of all the Free State immigration,
where I spent six weeks in assisting my sons to make a home for the
winter, I mingled freely with the incoming population, and gave
several lectures to audiences of from two to three hundred, the entire
population coming together at the ringing of the city dinnerbell. I
returned to Vermont early in January, 1855, and in April following,
with two hundred and fifty emigrants (my husband and younger son
accompanying me), rejoined my other sons in the vicinity of Baldwin
City, where we took claims and commenced homes. I presented the whole
subject of Woman's Rights on the boats in going and returning, as at
first, by invitation. In the summer of 1855, delegates were elected to
a Constitutional Convention, which later convened at Topeka. Governor
Robinson, who with six other delegates voted for the exclusion of the
word "male" from qualification for elector, sent me an invitation to
attend its sessions, speak before it for woman's equality, and they
would vote me a secretary's or clerk's position in the Convention. My
husband's fatal illness prevented me from going.

In January, 1856, I returned from Kansas to Vermont, widowed and
broken in health, to attend to matters connected with my husband's
estate. Prevented by the ruffian blockade of the Missouri from
returning as intended, I spent some time in the summer and all of the
autumn of 1856 and January, 1857, lecturing upon Kansas, the character
and significance of its political involvements, its promise and
importance as a free or slave State, and its claims to an efficient
support in the interest of freedom. In September, being appealed to by
the "Kansas National Aid Committee," at the instance of Horace
Greeley, I engaged for two months in a canvass of Western New York,
lecturing and procuring the appointment of committees of women to
collect supplies for the suffering people of Kansas; my two oldest
sons, C. H. and A. O. Carpenter being among its armed defenders, the
latter having been wounded in the fight between the invaders under
Captain Pate and the forces under John Brown and Captain S. Shores, at
Black Jack.

Between May, 1856, and February, 1857 (not counting my engagement with
the Aid Committee), I gave some fifty Kansas lectures in the States of
Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and
New York, followed occasionally by one or two lectures on the legal
and political disabilities of women; receiving more invitations on
both subjects than I could possibly fill.

My experiences in these semi-political labors were often racy, never
unsatisfactory. In a public conveyance one day, an honest old
Pennsylvania farmer asked if I was "the lady who made an appointment
to speak in his place on Kansas, and did not come?" I replied that I
had filled all the appointments made for me with my knowledge; that I
made a point of keeping my promises. "I believe you, ma'am," said he.
"I suspicioned then it was jest a republican trick. You see, ma'am,
our folks all are dimocrats and wouldn't turn out to hear the
republican speakers; so they appointed a meeting for _you_ and
everybody turned out, for we'd hearn of your lectures. But instid of
you, General D---- and Lawyer C---- came, and we were mad enough. I
was madder, 'cause I'd opened my house, seein' as it was the largest
and most convenient in the neighborhood."

Occasionally I stumbled on a loose segment of woman's sphere, even
among the friends of "free Kansas." In a populous Vermont village, at
a meeting called for the purpose, a committee was appointed to invite
me to speak, composed of the two clergymen of the village and Judge
S----. Reverend W---- excused himself from the service on the ground
of "conscientious scruples as to the propriety of women speaking in
public." Judge S----, a man who for a quarter of a century had, by a
racy combination of wit and logic, maintained his ground against the
foes of temperance and freedom, with inimitable gravity thanked the
audience for the honor conferred on him; adding, "I have no
conscientious scruples about getting desirable information wherever I
can find it."

In Sinclairville, Chautauque County, New York, where I arrived late,
in consequence of a railroad accident, I found a crowded church. A
gentleman introduced to me as "Mr. Bull" was sitting at a table in the
extreme front corner of the spacious platform, recording the names and
advance payments of a class in music, which, as I had been told
outside, was being organized by a gentleman who had arrived with the
news of my probable detention.

During the next half hour gentlemen rose at three several times and
requested Mr. B---- to "postpone the class business till the close of
the lecture: that people had come from a distance to hear the lecture,
and were anxious to return home, the night being dark and rainy." "I
will be through soon. I like to finish a thing when I begin."
"There'll be time enough," were the several replies, given in a tone
and with an emphasis that suggested to my mind a doubt of the
speaker's sympathy with my subject. When the clock pointed to eight, I
quietly took my seat in the desk and was smoothing my page of notes
when there fell on my astonished ear--"I was about to introduce the
lady speaker, but she has suddenly disappeared." Stepping forward, I
said, "Excuse me, sir; as the hour is very late I took my place to be
in readiness when you should be through with your class." "Madam, you
will speak on this platform." "I noticed, sir, that I could not see my
audience from the platform, also that the desk was lighted for me."
"Madam, you can't speak in that pulpit!" "This is very strange. Will
you give me your reasons?" "It's none of your business!" "Indeed, sir,
I do not understand it. Will you give me your authority?" "It's my
pulpit, and if you speak in this house to-night you speak from this
platform!" "Excuse me, sir; I mistook you for the music-teacher, who,
as I was told, was organizing a class in music." And stepping quickly
to the platform to restore the equanimity of the house, I remarked, as
indicating my position, that my self-respect admonished me to be the
lady always, no matter how ungentlemanly the treatment I might
receive; that the cause of humanity, the cause of suffering Kansas was
above all personal considerations, and proceeded with my lecture.

At the close, Mr. B---- arose and said: "I owe this audience an
apology for my ungentlemanly language to Mrs. Nichols. I am aware that
I shall get into the public prints, and I wish to set myself right." A
gentleman in the audience rose and moved, "that we excuse the Rev. R.
B---- for his ungentlemanly language to Mrs. Nichols to-night, on the
score of his ignorance." The motion was seconded with emphasis by a
man of venerable presence. "Friends," I appealed, "this is a personal
matter; it gives me no concern. It will affect neither me nor my work.
Please name suitable women for the committee of relief which I am here
to ask." Business being concluded, I turned to Mr. B----, who was shut
in with me by a press of sympathizing friends, and expressed my
regret, that he should have said anything to place him under the
necessity of apologizing, adding, "but I hope in future you will
remember the words of Solomon: 'Greater is he that controlleth his own
spirit, than he that taketh a city.' Good-night, sir." I learned that
a few months before he had prevented his people from inviting
Antoinette Brown to speak to them on Temperance, by declaring that "he
would never set his foot in a pulpit that had been occupied by a
woman." When three weeks later I heard of his dismissal from his
charge in S----, I could appreciate the remark of his brother
clergyman in a neighboring town, to whom I related the incident, that
"Brother B---- is rather given to hooking with those horns of his, but
he's in hot water now."

In the winter and spring of 1856, I had, by invitation of its editor,
written a series of articles on the subject of woman's legal
disabilities, preparatory to a plea for political equality, for the
columns of the Kansas _Herald of Freedom_, the last number of which
went down with the "_form_" and press of the office to the bottom of
the Kansas river, when the Border ruffians sacked Lawrence in 1856.

In March, 1857, I again returned to Kansas, and with my daughter and
youngest son, made a permanent home in Wyandotte County.

The Constitution was adopted in November, 1859, by popular vote. In
January, 1860, Kansas having been admitted to the Union, the first
State Legislature met at Topeka, the capital of the new State. I
attended its sessions, as I had those of the Convention, and addressed
both in behalf of justice for the women of the State, as delegate of
the Kansas Woman's Rights Association. This Association was formed in
the spring of 1859 with special reference to the Convention which had
already been called to meet in the July following, in the city of
Wyandotte.

The Association--if I recollect aright--numbered some twenty-five
earnest men and women of the John Brown type, living in Moneka, Linn
County; John O. Wattles, President; Susan Wattles, Secretary. Wendell
Phillips, treasurer of the Francis Jackson Woman's Rights Fund,
guaranteed payment of expenses, and the Association sent me, with
limited hopes and unstinted blessings, to canvass the principal
settlements in the Territory, obtain names to petitions and represent
them--if allowed by courtesy of the Convention--in behalf of equal
civil and political rights for the women of the State to be organized.
I was appealed to as the only woman in the Territory who had
experience and could take the field, which was I believe true.

We had no material for Conventions, and the population was so sparse,
distances so great, and means of conveyance and communication so slow
and uncertain, that I felt sure an attempt at Conventions would be
disastrous, only betraying the weakness of our reserves, for I must
have done most, if not all the speaking.

It was the policy of the Republicans to "keep shady," as a party. John
Wattles came to Wyandotte before I addressed the Convention, counseled
with members, and reported to me that "I didn't need him, that it was
better that no man appear in it."

After spending some four weeks in the field, I went to the Convention,
and with a very dear friend, Mrs. Lucy B. Armstrong, of Wyandotte, was
given a permanent seat beside the chaplain, Rev. Mr. Davis, Presiding
Elder of the Methodist Episcopal Church of the District, which I
occupied till the adjournment of the Convention, laboring to develop
an active and corresponding interest in outsiders as well as members,
until my petitions had been acted upon and the provisions finally
passed; purposely late in the session.

Having at the commencement, only two known friends of our cause among
the delegates to rely upon for its advocacy, against the compact
opposition of the sixteen Democratic members, and the bitter
prejudices of several of the strongest Republicans, including the
first Chief Justice of the new State and its present unreconstructed
Senator Ingalls, an early report upon our petitions would have been
utter defeat. Persistent "button-holing" of the delegates, any
"unwomanly obtrusiveness" of manners, a vague apprehension of which,
at that period of our movement, was associated in the minds of even
good men and women, with the advocacy of the cause, was the
"big-'fraid" followed by more than one "little 'fraid," that made my
course one of anxiety, less only than my faith in the ultimate
adoption of the provisions named.

Of political suffrage I had, as I confidentially told my friends of
the Association, no hope, and for the very reason given me later by
members of the Convention who consented to school suffrage; viz: "even
if endorsed by popular vote, such a provision would probably defeat
admission to the Union." None the less, however, was the necessity for
disarming the prejudices and impressing upon delegates and citizens
the justice of the demand for political enfranchisement.

Fortunately, the hospitable tea-table of Mrs. Armstrong, with whom I
was domiciled for the session, offered abundant womanly opportunity
for conference and discussion with delegates; and in the homes of
leading citizens I met a hearty sympathy which I can never forget.

During a recess of the Convention, a friendly member introduced me to
Governor Medary, as "the lady who, by vote of the Convention, will
speak here this evening in behalf of equal Constitutional rights for
the women of Kansas." "But, Mrs. Nichols, you would not have women go
down into the muddy pool of politics?" asked the Governor. "Even so,
Governor, I admit that you know best how muddy that pool is, but you
remember the Bethesda of old; how the angel had to go in and trouble
the waters before the sick could be healed. So I would have the angels
trouble this muddy pool that it may be well with the people; for you
know, Governor Medary, that this people is very sick. But here is a
petition to which I am adding names as I find opportunity; will you
place your name on the roll of honor?" "Not now, Madam, not now. I
will _sign the bill_." And the Governor, quite unconscious of his
mistake, with a smile and a bow, hurried away amid the good-natured
raillery of the little circle that had gathered around us. But it was
Governor Robinson, the life-long friend of woman and a free humanity,
that had the pleasure of "signing the bills."

In compliance with the earnest request of delegates, supported by the
action of the Association, I labored from the adjournment of the
Convention till the vote on the adoption of the Constitution, to
"remove the prejudices"--as the delegates expressed it--"of their
constituents, against the Woman's Rights provisions" of that document.
The death of Mr. Wattles on the eve of the campaign sent me alone into
the lecture field. For with the exception of Hon. Charles Robinson,
our first State Governor, and always an outspoken friend of our cause,
the politicians in the field either ignored or ridiculed the idea of
women being entitled under the school provision to vote.

At Bloomington, when I had presented its merits in contrast with
existing legal provisions, a venerable man in the audience rose and
remarked that the Hon. James H. Lane, in addressing them a few days
before, denied that the provision regarding Common Schools meant
anything more than equal educational privileges, and that the Courts
would so decide. That it would never do to allow women to vote, for
only vile women would go to the polls. And now, added the old
gentleman, "I would like to hear what Mrs. Nichols has to say on this
point?" Taking counsel only of my indignation, I replied: "Mrs.
Nichols has to say, that vile men who seek out vile women elsewhere,
may better meet them at the polls under the eyes of good men and good
women:" and dropped into my seat 'mid a perfect storm of applause, in
which women joined as heartily as men.

Policy restrained the few Republican members who had voted against the
provisions[24] from open opposition, and the more that everywhere
Democrats, whom I appealed to as "friends in political disguise,"
treated me with marked courtesy; often contributing to my expenses.
One such remarked, "There, Mrs. Nichols, is a Democratic half-dollar;
I like your Woman's Rights."

At Troy, Don. Co., sitting behind the closed shutters of an open
window, I heard outside a debate between Republicans and Democrats.
One of the latter, an ex-Secretary of the Territory, at one time
acting Governor, and a member of the Constitutional Convention, who
had dwelt much on the superior prerogatives of the Anglo-Saxon race,
was saying, "You go for political equality with the <DW64>; we
Democrats won't stand that, it would demoralize the white man." On my
way to lecture in the evening, a friend forewarned me that the
ex-Secretary, with two or three of his political stripe, had engaged a
shrewd Democratic lawyer, by getting him half drunk, to reply to me.
So when in my concluding appeal I turned as usual to the Democrats, I
narrated the above incident and bowed smilingly to the ex-Secretary,
with whom I was acquainted, and said, "Gentlemen who turn up their
'Anglo-Saxon' noses at the idea of 'political equality with the
<DW64>,' as demoralizing to the white man, forget that in all these
years the white woman has been 'on a political equality with the
<DW64>'; they forget, that in keeping their own mothers, wives and
daughters in the <DW64> pew, to save them from demoralization by
political equality with the white man, they are paying themselves a
sorry compliment." The drunken lawyer was quietly hustled out by his
friends, the Democrats themselves joining the audience in expressions
of respect at the close of my lecture. But these from hundreds of
telling incidents must suffice to initiate you in the spirit of that
ever memorable campaign.

[Illustration: CLARINA HOWARD NICHOLS (with autograph).]

In 1854, when I was about leaving Vermont for Kansas, an earnest
friend of our cause protested that I was "going to bury myself in
Kansas, just as I had won an influence and awakened a public sentiment
that assured the success of our demand for equal rights." I replied
that it was a thousand times more difficult to procure the repeal of
unjust laws in an old State, than the adoption of just laws in the
organization of a new State. That I could accomplish more for woman,
even the women of the old States, and with less effort, in the new
State of Kansas, than I could in conservative old Vermont, whose
prejudices were so much stronger than its convictions, that justice to
women must stand a criminal trial in every Court of the State to win,
and then pay the costs.

My husband went to Kansas for a milder climate; my sons to make homes
under conditions better suited than the old States to their tastes and
means. I went to work for a Government of "equality, liberty,
fraternity," in the State to be.

I had learned from my experience with the legal fraternity, that as a
profession they were dead-weights on our demands, and the reason why.
When pressed to logical conclusions, which they were always quick to
see, and in fair proportion to admit, were in our favor, they almost
invariably retreated under the plea that the reforms we asked "being
fundamental, would destroy the harmony of the statutes!" And I had
come to the conclusion that it would cost more time and effort to
disrupt the woman's "disabilities" attachment from the legal and
political harmonicons of the old States, than it would to secure
vantage ground for legal and political equality in the new. I believed
then and believe now that Woman Suffrage would have received a
majority vote in Kansas if it could have been submitted unembarrassed
by the possibility of its being made a pretext for keeping Kansas out
of the Union. And but for Judge Kingman, I believe it would have
received the vote of a majority in convention. He played upon the old
harmonicon, "organic law," and "the harmony of the statutes."

My pleas before the Constitutional Convention and the people, were for
equal legal and political rights for women. In detail I asked:

1st. Equal educational rights and privileges in all the schools and
institutions of learning fostered or controlled by the State.

2d. An equal right in all matters pertaining to the organization and
conduct of the Common Schools.

3d. Recognition of the mother's equal right with the father to the
control and custody of their mutual offspring.

4th. Protection in person, property, and earnings for married women
and widows the same as for men.

The first three were fully granted. In the final reading. Kingman
changed the wording of the fourth, so as to leave the Legislature a
chance to preserve the infamous common law right to personal services.
There were too many old lawyers in the Convention. The Democracy had
four or five who pulled with Kingman, or he with them against us. Not
a Democrat put his name to the Constitution when adopted.

The debate published in the Wyandotte _Gazette_ of July 13, 1859, on
granting Mrs. Nichols a hearing in the Constitutional Convention, and
the Committee's report on the Woman's Petition, furnishes a page of
history of which some of the actors, at least, will have no reason to
read with special pride.

    REPORT OF JUDICIARY FRANCHISE COMMITTEE ON WOMAN SUFFRAGE PETITIONS.

     The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom in connection with the
     Committee on Franchise was referred the petition of sundry
     citizens of Kansas, "protesting against any constitutional
     distinctions based on difference of sex," have had the same under
     consideration, and beg leave to make the following report:

     Your Committee concede the point in the petition upon which the
     right is claimed, that "the women of the State have individually
     an evident common interest with its men in the protection of
     life, liberty, property, and intellectual culture, and are not
     disposed to deny, that sex involves greater and more complex
     responsibilities, but the Committee are compelled to dissent from
     conclusion of petition; they think the rights of women are safe
     in present hands. The proof that they are so is found in the
     growing disposition on the part of different Legislatures to
     extend and protect their rights of property, and in the
     enlightened and progressive spirit of the age which acts gently,
     but efficiently upon the legislation of the day. Such rights as
     are natural are now enjoyed as fully by women as men. Such rights
     and duties as are merely political they should be relieved from,
     that they may have more time to attend to those greater and more
     complicated responsibilities which petitioners claim, and which
     your Committee admit devolves upon woman.

     All of which is respectfully submitted.

          SAM. A. KINGMAN, GEO. H. LILLIE, P. S. PARKS, JOHN P. SLOUGH,
            SAM. A. STINSON, JOHN F. BURNS, J. D. GREER, G. BLUNT,
            BEN. WRIGLEY.


MISSOURI.

In the spring of 1858, having arranged my home affairs, I set about
the prosecution of a plan for widening the area of woman's work and
influence on the Missouri border. Separated only by the steam-plowed
river from my Kansas home, Missouri towns and hamlets lay invitingly
before me. For more than three years I had held my opportunity in
reserve. The time to improve it seemed to have come.

When our company landed at Kansas City, October, 1854, members of a
Missouri delegation opposed to the Free State emigration to that
Territory met us. More than half the company that preceded ours had
been turned back by their representations without a look at the
territory. As our boat touched the landing, Col. Scott, of St. Joseph,
stepped on board, and commenced questioning Hon. E. M. Thurston, of
Maine, who, as Committee of Arrangements for the transfer of the
company's baggage, excused himself, and turning to me, added: "Here,
sir, is a lady who can give you the information you desire--Mrs.
Nichols, editor of the _Windham County Democrat_." In accepting the
introduction, I caught the surprised and quizzical survey of a pair of
keen, black eyes, culminating in an unmistakable expression of
humorous anticipation; and, certain that my interviewer was
intelligent and a gentleman, I resolved to follow his lead in kind.
"Madam," he inquired, "can you tell me where all these people are
from, and where they are going?" They are from the New England States,
and are going to Kansas. "And what are they going to do in Kansas?"
Make homes and surround themselves with the institutions, social and
political, to which they are accustomed. "But, madam, they can't make
homes on the Kansas prairies with free labor; it is impossible!"

Why, sir, our ancestors felled the primitive forests and cleared the
ground to grow their bread, but Kansas prairies are ready for the
plow; their rank grasses invite the flocks and herds. Do you know what
a country we come from? did you never hear how in New Hampshire and
Vermont the sheeps' noses have to be sharpened, so that they can pluck
the spires of grass from between the rocks?

With a humorous, give-it-up sort of laugh, he remarked, abruptly: "You
are an editor; do you ever lecture?" Sometimes I do. "On what
subjects?" Education, Temperance, Woman's Rights--"Oh, woman's rights!
Will you go to St. Joseph and lecture on woman's rights? Our people
are all anxious to hear on that subject." Why, sir, I am an
Abolitionist, and they would tar and feather me! "You don't say
anything about slavery in your woman's rights' lectures, do you?" No,
sir; I never mix things.

After a sharp, but good natured tilt on the slavery question, the
Colonel returned to the lecture, about which he was so evidently in
earnest--guaranteeing "a fine audience, courteous treatment, and ample
compensation"; that I gave a promise to visit St. Joseph on my return
if there should be time before the closing of navigation, a promise I
was prevented from fulfilling. And now after three years, in which the
emigrants had made homes and secured them against the aggressions of
the slave power, I wrote him that if the people of St. Joseph still
wished to hear, and it pleased him to renew his guarantees of aid and
protection, I was at leisure to lecture on woman's rights. His reply
was prompt; his assurances hearty. I had "only to name the time," and
I would find everything in readiness. That the truce-like courtesy of
the compact between us may be appreciated, I copy a postscript
appended to his letter and a postscript in reply added to my note of
appointment; with the explanation, that in our Kansas City interview,
the Colonel had declared the <DW64> incapable of education, and that
emancipation would result in amalgamation.

Postscript No. 1.--Have you tried your experiment of education on any
little <DW65> yet?                                              J. S.

Postscript No. 2.--No, I have not tried my educational experiment, for
the reason that the horrid amalgamationists preceded us, and so
bleached the "<DW65>s" that I have not been able to find a pure-blood
specimen.                                                 C. I. H. N.

The subject of slavery was not again mentioned between us. And when we
shook hands in the cabin of the steamer at parting, he remarked, with
a manly frankness in grateful contrast with the covert contempt felt,
rather than expressed, in his previous courtesies, that he thought it
proper I should know, that my audiences, composed of the most
intelligent and respectable people of St. Joseph, were pleased with my
lectures. One of its most eminent citizens had said to him, that he
"had not thought of the subject in the light presented, but he really
could see no objection to women voting."

Only one lecture had been proposed. By a vote of my audience I gave a
second, and had reason to feel that I had effectually broken ground in
Missouri; that I had not only won a respectful consideration for
woman's cause and its advocacy, but improved my opportunity to
vindicate New England training, in face of Southern prejudices. One
little episode, as rich in its significance, as in the inspiration it
communicated, will serve to round out my St. Joseph experience.

In introducing me to my audience, the Colonel--remembering, perhaps,
that I did not "mix things," or feeling that he might trust my
consciousness of being cornered on the slavery question--remarked in a
vein of courteously concealed irony: "It looks very strange to us for
a lady to speak in public, but we must remember that in the section of
country from which this lady comes, the necessity of self-support
bears equally upon women, and crowds them out of domestic life into
vocations more congenial to the sterner sex. Happily our domestic
institutions, by relieving women of the necessity to labor, protect
them in the sacred privacy of home."

In his ignorance of the subject, my friend had unwittingly resined the
bow. In bringing his "domestic institution" to the front, he had so
"mixed things," that in my showing of the legal disabilities of women,
of the _no_-right of the white wife and mother to herself, her
children, and her earnings, my audience could not fail to appreciate
the anomalous character of a "protection" so pathetically suggestive
of the legal level of the slave woman, to which man, in his greed of
wealth and power, had "crowded" both.

Some months later, at the breakfast-table of a Missouri River steamer,
a gentleman of St. Joseph recognized me, and reported my lectures to
ex-Governor Rollins, who was also on board, and asked an introduction.
After a long and pleasant discussion with the Governor, who entered at
once upon the subject, in its legal, political, and educational
aspects, it was agreed that I should lecture at my earliest
convenience in several of the principal towns of the State, the
capital included; the Governor himself proposing to communicate with
influential citizens to make the necessary arrangements.

An early compliance with my promise was prevented by the Kansas
movement for a constitutional convention; my connection with which
left me no leisure till late in the autumn, when I commenced my
proposed lecture course in Missouri by an appointment at Westport, by
arrangement of a gentleman of that place, whose acquaintance I had
made in my Kansas campaign. Arrived at the Westport hotel, where my
entertainment had been bespoken, I was taken by the landlady to her
own cosy sitting-room, and made pleasantly at home. Later in the day I
became aware of considerable excitement in the bar-room and street of
the town. The landlord held several hurried consultations with his
wife in the ante-room. My dinner was served in the private room, it
"being more pleasant," my hostess said, "than eating at the public
table with a lot of strange men." An hour after time, the gentleman
who was to call for myself and the landlady, announced an assembly of
a "dozen rude boys," and that in consequence of the news of John
Brown's raid at Harper's Ferry (of which I had not before heard), the
excitement was such that he could not persuade the ladies to come out.
With some hesitation he added, that it "had even been suggested that I
might be an emissary or accomplice, in what was suspected to be a
general and preconcerted abolition movement." This explained the
questionings of my hostess, and the provision against any possible
rudeness which I might have received from the "strange men" at the
public table. Thus ended my projected campaign in Missouri. For every
city and hamlet in the State was so haunted by the marching spirit of
the Kansas hero, that to have suggested a lecture on any subject from
a known Abolitionist, would have ruined the political prospects of
even an ex-Governor.

Three years later, assisted by a former resident of Kansas, I lectured
to a very small, but respectful audience in Kansas City; and in the
spring of 1867 was invited by a committee of ladies to lecture at a
Fair of the Congregational Society of that city, with accompanying
assurances from the pastor and his wife, of their confidence in the
salutary influence of such a lecture, on a community which had been
recently treated to an unfriendly presentation of the woman's rights
movement and its advocates. I was too ill at the time to leave home,
but the difference between my anxious efforts three years before to be
heard, and this more than cordial assurance of a waiting audience, was
a happy tonic. It was from persons who knew me only through my
advocacy of woman's equality, and evidenced the progress of our cause.

In December, 1854, on my return from Kansas to Vermont, I spent
several days in St. Louis, in the pleasant family of my friend, Mrs.
Frances D. Gage, who, very much to my regret, was away in Illinois.
The Judge having recently removed to the city, the family were
comparatively strangers; Abolitionists in a pro-slavery community.
Mrs. Gage, I think, had broken ground for temperance, but they could
tell me of no friends to woman's rights. Rev. Mr. Elliot was not then
one of us, as I learned through a son of Mrs. Gage, who called on him
in my behalf for the use of his lecture-room. I felt instinctively
that, unfettered by home and business interests, I was less
constrained than my friend, and resolved, if possible, to win a
hearing for woman. Having secured a hall, I called at the business
office of a gentleman of wealth and high social position--a
slave-holder and opposed to free Kansas, with whom I had formed a
speaking acquaintance in Brattleboro'--and procured from him a voucher
for my respectability. Armed with this I called on the editors of the
_Republican_ (pro-slavery), and secured a paid notice of my lecture.
The editor of the _Democrat_, who had an interest in free Kansas, and
was glad of news items from its immigrants, received me cordially, and
gave the "lady lecturer" a handsome "personal," though he had no more
interest in my subject than either of the other gentlemen, and gave me
little encouragement of an audience. Nevertheless, when the evening
came, I met an audience intelligent and respectful, and larger than I
had ventured to expect, but not numerous enough to warrant the venture
of a second lecture in the expensive hall, which from the refusal of
church lecture-rooms, I had been obliged to occupy. But here, as often
before and after, a good Providence interposed. Rev. Mr. Weaver,
Universalist, claimed recognition as "a reader in his boyhood of Mrs.
Nichols' paper"--his father was a patron of the _Windham County
Democrat_--and tendered the use of his church for further lectures. I
had found a friend of the cause. The result was a full house, and
hearty appeals for "more."

As isolated, historical facts, how very trivial all these
"reminiscences" appear! How egotistical the pen that presumes upon
anything like a popular interest in their perusal! But to the social
and political reformer, as to the Kanes and Livingstons, trifles teach
the relations of things, and indicate the methods and courses of
action that result in world-wide good or evil. Seeds carried by the
winds and waves plant forests and beautify the waste places of the
earth. Truths that flowed from the silent nib of my pen in Vermont,
had been garnered in a boy's sympathies to yield me a man's welcome
and aid in St. Louis. How clear the lesson, that for seed-sowing, all
seasons belong to God's truth!

The autumn and winter of 1860-61 I spent in Wisconsin and Ohio; in
Wisconsin, visiting friends and lecturing. In Ohio, Mrs. Frances D.
Gage, Mrs. Hannah Tracy Cutler, and myself were employed under
direction of Mrs. Elizabeth Jones, of Salem, to canvass the State,
lecturing and procuring names to petitions to the Legislature for
equal legal and political rights for the women of the State. The time
chosen for this work was inopportune for immediate success--the
opening scenes of the rebellion alike absorbing the attention of the
people and their Legislature. Women in goodly numbers came out to
hear, but men of all classes waited in the streets, or congregated in
public places to hear the news and discuss the political situation.

From December, 1863, to March, 1866, I was in Washington, D. C.,
writing in the Military or Revenue Departments, or occupying the
position of Matron in the Home for  Orphans, which had been
opened in the second year of the rebellion, by the help of the
Government and the untiring energy of a few noble women intent on
saving the helpless waifs of slavery cast by thousands upon the bare
sands of military freedom.

In the autumn of 1867, the Legislature of Kansas having submitted to
the voters of the State a woman suffrage amendment to its
Constitution, I gave some four weeks to the canvass, which was engaged
in by some of the ablest friends of the cause from other States, among
them Lucy Stone, Rev. Olympia Brown, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan
B. Anthony. In our own State, among others, Governor Robinson, John
Ritchie, and S. N. Wood of the old Free State Guard, rallied to the
work. With the canvass of Atchison and Jefferson Counties, and a few
lectures in Douglass, Shawnee, and Osage Counties, I retired from a
field overlaid with happy reminders of past trials merged in present
blessings. The work was in competent hands, but the time was
ill-chosen on account of the political complications with <DW64>
suffrage, and failure was the result.

Since December, 1871, my home has been in California, where family
cares and the infirmities of age limit my efforts for a freer and a
nobler humanity to the pen. Trusting that love of God and man will
ever point it with truth and justice, I close this _expose_ of my
public life.


FOOTNOTES:

[22] Mrs. Nichols had written up a case occurring among the
subscribers to the _Democrat_, in which $500, the whole estate, was
divided, the half of that amount being all the law allowed for the
support of a woman, then in the decline of life, and sent fifty marked
copies of the paper to members of the Legislature elect. One of them
introduced the bill, which passed the first day of the session.

[23] The violent throbbing of Mrs. Nichols' heart, caused by her
unusual position and her intense anxiety that her plea might be
successful, had stopped her speaking at the close of a brief preface
to her plea. She, however, soon rallied, though her voice was
tremulous throughout, from the conviction that only an eminently
successful presentation of her subject, could spike the enemy's
batteries and win a verdict of "just and womanly." Mrs. Nichols hoped
no further than that. She did not expect conservative Vermont to yield
at once for what she asked, as she stood alone with her paper among
the press; and there was no other advocate in the State to take the
field.

[24] The head and front of the opposition was Judge Kingman, Chairman
of the Judiciary Committee, to which, with the Committee on Elections,
my petition was referred. He wrote the Report against granting our
demand, and of those who signed it all but (Gen.) Blunt and himself
were Democrats. The report was adopted by a solid vote of the
Democrats (16), and enough Republicans to make a majority. Thirty-six
Republicans and 16 Democrats comprised the whole delegation. If my
memory is not at fault, 27 Republicans voted in caucus for the
provisions which were ultimately carried in our behalf, which was a
majority of the whole Convention. In caucus a majority were in favor
of political rights; but only a minority, from conviction that Woman
Suffrage would prevent admission to the Union, would vote it in
Convention.




CHAPTER VIII.

MASSACHUSETTS.


     Women in the Revolution--Anti-Tea Leagues--Phillis
     Wheatley--Mistress Anne Hutchinson--Heroines in the Slavery
     Conflict--Women Voting under the Colonial Charter--Mary Upton
     Ferrin Petitions the Legislature in 1848--Woman's Rights
     Conventions in 1850, '51--Letter of Harriet Martineau from
     England--Letter of Jeannie Deroine from a Prison Cell in
     Paris--Editorial from _The Christian Inquirer_--_The Una_, edited
     by Paulina Wright Davis--Constitutional Convention in
     1853--Before the Legislature in 1857--Harriet K. Hunt's Protest
     against Taxation--Lucy Stone's Protest against the Marriage
     Laws--Boston Conventions--Theodore Parker on Woman's Position.

During the Revolutionary period, the country was largely indebted to
the women of Massachusetts. Their patriotism was not only shown in the
political plans of Mercy Otis Warren,[25] and the sagacious counsels
of Abigail Smith Adams, but by the action of many other women whose
names history has not preserved. It was a woman who sent Paul Revere
on his famous ride from Boston to Concord, on the night of April 18,
1775, to warn the inhabitants of the expected invasion of the British
on the morrow. The church bells pealing far and near on the midnight
air, roused tired sleepers hurriedly to arm themselves against the
invaders of their homes.

During the war two women of Concord dressed in men's clothing,
captured a spy bearing papers which proved of the utmost importance to
the patriot forces.

During these early days, the women of various Colonies--Virginia, New
York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts--formed Anti-Tea Leagues. In
Providence, R. I., young ladies took the initiative; twenty-nine
daughters of prominent families, meeting under the shade of the
sycamore trees at Roger Williams' spring, there resolving to drink no
more tea until the duty upon it was repealed. The name of one of these
young ladies, Miss Coddington, has been preserved, to whose house they
all adjourned to partake of a frugal repast; hyperion[26] taking the
place of the hated bohea. In Newport, at a gathering of ladies, where
both hyperion and bohea were offered, every lady present refused the
hated bohea, emblem of political slavery. In Boston, early in 1769,
the matrons of three hundred families bound themselves to use no more
tea until the tax upon it was taken off. The young ladies also entered
into a similar covenant, declaring they took this step, not from
personal motives, but from a sense of patriotism and a regard for
posterity.[27] Liberty, as alone making life of value, looked as sweet
to them as to their fathers. The Women's Anti-Tea Leagues of Boston
were formed nearly five years previous to the historic "Boston Tea
Party," when men disguised as Indians, threw the East India Company's
tea overboard, and six years before the declaration of war.

American historians ignoring woman after man's usual custom, have
neglected to mention the fact that every paper in Boston was suspended
during its invasion by the British, except the chief rebel newspapers
of New England, _The Massachusetts Gazette_ and _North Boston
News-Letter_, owned and edited by a woman, Margaret Draper.

They make small note of Women's Anti-Tea Leagues, and the many
instances of their heroism during the Revolutionary period, equaling,
as they did, any deeds of self-sacrifice and bravery that man himself
can boast.

The men of Boston, in 1773, could with little loss to themselves,
throw overboard a cargo of foreign tea, well knowing that for the last
five years this drink had not been allowed in their houses by the
women of their own families. Their reputation for patriotism was thus
cheaply earned in destroying what did not belong to them and what was
of no use to them. Their wives, daughters, mothers, and sisters drank
raspberry, sage, and birch, lest by the use of foreign tea they should
help rivet the chains of oppression upon their country. Why should not
the American Revolution have been successful, when women so nobly
sustained republican principles, taking the initiative in
self-sacrifice and pointing the path to man by patriotic example.

In Massachusetts, as in other States, were also formed associations
known as "Daughters of Liberty."[28] These organizations did much to
fan the nascent flames of freedom.

The first naval battle of the Revolution was fought at Machias, Maine,
then a part of Massachusetts. An insult having been offered its
inhabitants, by a vessel in the harbor, the men of the surrounding
country joined with them to avenge this indignity to their "Liberty
Tree," arming themselves, from scarcity of powder, with scythes,
pitchforks, and other implements of peace. At a settlement some twenty
miles distant, a quantity of powder was discovered, after the men had
left for Machias. What was to be done, was the immediate question.
Every able-bodied man had already left, only small boys and men too
aged or too infirm for battle having remained at home. Upon that
powder reaching them the defeat of the British, might depend. In this
emergency the heroism of woman was shown. Two young girls, Hannah and
Rebecca Weston, volunteered their services. It was no holiday
excursion for them, but a trip filled with unseen dangers. The way led
through a trackless forest, the route merely indicated by blazed
trees. Bears, wolves, and wild-cats were numerous. The distance was
impossible to be traversed in a single day; these young girls must
spend the night in that dreary wilderness. Worse than danger from wild
animals, was that to be apprehended from Indians, who might kill them,
or capture and bear them away to some distant tribe. But undauntedly
they set out on their perilous journey, carrying twenty pounds of
powder. They reached Machias in safety, before the attack on the
British ship, finding their powder a most welcome and effective aid in
the victory which soon crowned the arms of the Colonists. The heroism
of these young girls was far greater than if they had fought in the
ranks, surrounded by companions,'mid the accompaniments of beating
drums, waving flags, and all the paraphernalia of war.

In the war of 1812 two young girls of Scituate, Rebecca and Abigail W.
Bates, by their wit and sagacity, prevented the landing of the enemy
at this point.[29] Congress, during its session of 1880, nearly
seventy years afterward, granted them pensions, just as from extreme
age they were about to drop into the grave.

Though it is not considered important to celebrate the virtues of the
Pilgrim Mothers in gala days, grand dinners, toasts, and speeches, yet
a little retrospection would enable us to exhume from the past, many
of their achievements worth recording. More facts than we have space
to reproduce, testify to the heroism, religious zeal, and literary
industry of the women who helped to build up the early civilization of
New England. Their writings, for some presumed on authorship, are
quaint and cumbrous; but in those days, when few men published books,
it required marked courage for women to appear in print at all. They
imitated the style popular among men, and received much attention for
their literary ability. Charles T. Congdon, as the result of his
explorations through old book-stores, has brought to light some of
these early writers.

In 1630, Mrs. Anne Bradstreet, known as quite a pretentious writer,
came to Boston with her husband, Simon Bradstreet, Governor of
Massachusetts. Her first work was entitled "The Tenth Muse lately
sprung up in America." The first edition was published in London in
1650, and the first Boston edition was published in 1678. If Mrs.
Bradstreet loved praise, she was fortunate in her time and position.
It would have been in bad taste, as it would have been bad policy, not
to eulogize the poems of the Governor's wife. She was frequently
complimented in verse as bad as her own. Her next great epic was
entitled "A Complete Discourse and Description of the Four Elements,
Constitutions, Ages of Man, Seasons of the Year, together with an
exact epitome of the Four Monarchies, viz: the Assyrian, Persian,
Grecian, and Roman." "Glad as we were," says the owner, "to obtain
this book at a considerable price, we are still gladder of the
privilege of closing it." Although this lady had eight children, about
whom she wrote some amusing rhymes, she found time in the wilds of
America to perpetuate also these ponderous-titled poems.

Phillis Wheatly, a <DW52> girl, also wrote poetry in Colonial Boston,
years before our Declaration of Independence startled the world. She
was brought from Africa, and sold in the slave market of Boston, when
only six years old. Mr. Sparks, the biographer of Washington, thinks
"that the poems contained in her published volume, exhibit the most
favorable evidence on record, of the capacity of the African intellect
for improvement." When the Rev. George Whitefield died, at
Newburyport, Mass., in 1770, the same writer from whom we quote these
facts, says: "It was quite natural, his demise being much talked of in
religious families, that our sable Phillis should burst into monody.
That expression of grief I have before me. Of the most rhetorical
preacher of his age, it is not inspiring to read:

    "He prayed that grace in every heart might dwell.
    He louged to see America excel."

Phillis married badly, and died at the age of thirty-one, in 1784,
utterly impoverished, leaving three little children. Her own copy of
her poems is in the library of Harvard College. When she died it was
sold for her husband's debts.

In a letter thanking her for an acrostic on himself, General
Washington said: "If you should ever come to Cambridge, or near
headquarters, I shall be happy to see a person so gifted by the muses,
and to whom Nature has been so liberal and beneficent in her
dispensations."

Was there ever any story, which had such a hold upon the readers of a
generation, as "Charlotte Temple"? It is said 25,000 copies were sold
soon after publication--an enormous sale for that day. Mrs. Rowson,
who wrote the book, was a daughter of a lieutenant in the Royal Navy;
she was an actress in Philadelphia, and afterward kept a school in
Boston for young ladies, where she died, in 1824. Her seminary was
highly recommended.

Women in the last age naturally drifted into the didactic. They should
have the credit of trying always to be useful. They go through so many
pages, seeking to give the little people some notion of botany, of
natural history, of other branches of human intelligence. There is no
book cleverer in its way than Miss Hannah Adams' "History of New
England," of which the second edition was published in Boston in
1807. The object of this lady was, as she tells us in the preface, "to
impress the minds of young persons with veneration for those eminent
men to whom their posterity are so highly indebted." All the tradition
is that Miss Adams was a wonderfully learned lady. She is best known
by her "History of the Jews." She wrote pretty good English, of which
this may be considered a specimen: "Exalted from a feeble state to
opulence and independence, the Federal Americans are now recognized as
a nation throughout the globe." To a sentence so admirably formed,
possibly there is nothing to add.


MISTRESS ANNE HUTCHINSON.

Mistress Anne Hutchinson, founder of the Antinomian party of New
England, was a woman who exerted great influence upon the religious
and political free thought of those colonies. She was the daughter of
an English clergyman, and with her husband, followed Pastor Cotton, to
whom she was much attached, to this country in 1634, and was admitted
a member of the Boston church, becoming a resident of Massachusetts
one hundred and forty years before the Revolutionary war. She was of
commanding intellect, and exerted a powerful influence upon the infant
colony.

It was a long established custom for the brethren of the Boston church
to hold, through the week, frequent public meetings for religious
exercises. Women were prohibited from taking part in these meetings,
which chafed the free spirit of Mistress Hutchinson, and soon she
called meetings of the sisters, where she repeated the sermons of the
Lord's day, making comments upon them. Her illustrations of Scripture
were so new and striking that the meetings were rendered more
interesting to the women than any they had attended. At first the
clergy approved, but as the men attracted by the fame of her
discourses, crowded into her meetings, they began to perceive danger
to their authority; the church was passing out of their control. Her
doctrines, too, were alarming. She taught the indwelling of the Holy
Spirit in each believer, its inward revelations, and that the
conscious judgment of the mind should be the paramount authority. She
was the first woman in America to demand the right of individual
judgment upon religious questions. Her influence was very great, yet
she was not destined to escape the charge of heresy.

The first Synod in America was called upon her account. It convened
August 30, 1637, sat three weeks, and proclaimed eighty-two errors
extant; among them the tenets taught by Mistress Hutchinson. She was
called before the church and ordered to retract upon twenty-nine
points. The infant colony was shaken by this discussion, which took on
a political aspect.[30] Mistress Hutchinson remained steadfast, and
was sustained by many important people, among whom was the young
Governor Vane.

Church and State became united in their opposition to Mistress Anne
Hutchinson. The fact that she presumed to teach men, was prominently
brought up, and in November, 1637, she was arbitrarily tried before
the Massachusetts General Court upon a joint charge of sedition and
heresy. She was examined for two days by the Governor and prominent
members of the clergy. The Boston Church, which knew her worth,
sustained her, with the exception of five members, one of them the
associate pastor, Wilson. But the country churches and clergy were
against her, and she was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment and
banishment.

As the winter was very severe, she was allowed to remain in Roxbury
until spring, when she joined Roger Williams in Rhode Island, where
she helped form a body-politic, democratic in principle, in which no
one was "accounted delinquent for doctrine." Mistress Hutchinson thus
helped to dissever Church and State, and to found religious freedom in
the United States.

After her residence in Rhode Island, four men were sent to reclaim
her, but she would not return. Upon the death of her husband she
moved, for greater security, to "The Dutch Colony," and died somewhere
in the State of New York.

Thus, through the protracted struggle of the American Colonies for
religious and political freedom, woman bravely shared the dangers and
persecutions of those eventful years. As spy in the enemy's camp;
messenger on the battle-field; soldier in disguise; defender of
herself and children in the solitude of those primeval forests;
imprisoned for heresy; burned, hung, drowned as a witch: what
suffering and anxiety has she not endured! what lofty heroism has she
not exemplified!

And when the crusade against slavery in our republic was inaugurated
in 1830, another Spartan band of women stood ready for the battle, and
the storm of that fierce conflict, surpassing in courage, moral
heroism, and conscientious devotion to great principles, all that
woman in any age had done or dared. With reverent lips we mention the
names of Sarah and Angelina Grimke, Lydia Maria Child, Maria Weston
Chapman, Mary S. Parker, Abby Kelly, whose burning words of rebuke
aroused a sleeping nation to a new-born love of liberty. To their
brave deeds, pure lives, and glowing eloquence, we pay our tributes of
esteem and admiration.

To such as these let South Carolina and Massachusetts build future
monuments, not in Quincy granite, or Parian marble, but in more
enduring blessing to the people; inviolable homesteads for the
laborer; free schools and colleges for boys and girls, both black and
white; justice and mercy in the alms-house, jail, prison, and the
marts of trade, thus securing equal rights to all.


WOMAN'S EARLY POLITICAL RIGHTS.

In Massachusetts, women voted at an early day. First, under the Old
Province Charter, from 1691 to 1780, for all elective officers;
second, they voted under the Constitution for all elective officers
except the Governor, Council, and Legislature, from 1780 to 1785. The
Bill of Rights, adopted with the Constitution of 1780, declared that
all men were born free and equal. Upon this, some slaves demanded
their freedom, and their masters yielded.[31] Restrictions upon the
right of suffrage were very great in this State; church membership
alone excluded for thirty years three-fourths of the male inhabitants
from the ballot-box.[32]

That women exercised the right of suffrage amid so many restrictions,
is very significant of the belief in her right to the ballot, by those
early Fathers.[33]


THE FIRST STEP IN MASSACHUSETTS.

Woman's rights petitions were circulated in Massachusetts as early as
1848. Mary Upton Ferrin, of Salem, in the spring of that year,
consulting Samuel Merritt, known as "the honest lawyer of Salem," in
regard to the property rights of married women, and the divorce laws,
learned that the whole of the wife's personal property belonged to the
husband, as also the improvements upon her real estate; and that she
could only retain her silver and other small valuables by secreting
them, or proving them to have been loaned to her. To such deception
did the laws of Massachusetts, like those of most States, based on the
Old Common Law idea of the wife's subjection to the husband, compel
the married woman in case she desired to retain any portion of her own
property.

Mrs. Ferrin reported the substance of the above conversation to Mrs.
Phebe King,[34] of Danvers, who at once became deeply interested,
saying, "If such are the laws by which women are governed, every woman
in the State should sign a petition to have them altered."

"Will you sign one if drawn up?" queried Mrs. Ferrin.

"Yes," replied Mrs. King, "and I should think every woman would sign
such a petition."

As the proper form of petitions was something with which women were
then quite unfamiliar, the aid of several gentlemen was asked, among
them Hon. D. P. King and Judge John Heartley, but all refused.

Miss Betsy King then suggested that Judge Pitkin[35] possessed
sufficient influence to have the laws amended without the trouble of
petitioning the Legislature. Strong in their faith that the enactment
of just laws was the business of legislative bodies, these ladies
believed they but had to bring injustice to the notice of a law-maker
in order to have it done away. Therefore, full of courage and hope,
Judge Pitkin was respectfully approached. But, to their infinite
astonishment, he replied:

"The law is very well as it is regarding the property of married
women. Women are not capable of taking care of their own property;
they never ought to have control of it. There is already a law by
which a woman can have her property secured to her."

"But not one woman in fifty knows of the existence of such a law," was
the reply.

"They ought to know it; it is no fault of the law if they don't. I do
not think the Legislature will alter the law regarding divorce. If
they do, they will make it more stringent than it now is."

Repulsed, but not disheartened, Mrs. Ferrin herself drew up several
petitions, circulated them, obtaining many hundred signatures of old
and young; though finding the young more ready to ask for change than
those inured to ill-usage and injustice. Many persons laughed at her;
but knowing it to be a righteous work, and deeming laughter healthful
to those indulging in it, Mrs. Ferrin continued to circulate her
petitions.

They were presented to the Legislature by Rev. John M. Usher, a
Universalist minister of Lynn, and member of the lower House. Although
too late in the session for action, these petitions form the
initiative step for Woman Suffrage in Massachusetts.

Early the next fall, similar petitions were circulated. It was
determined to attack the Legislature in such good season, that
lateness of time would not again be brought up as an excuse for
non-attention to the prayers of women. Mrs. King's interest continued
unabated, and through her advice, Mrs. Ferrin prepared an address to
accompany the petitions. Hon. Charles W. Upham, minister of the First
Unitarian church of Salem, afterward Representative in Congress, was
State Senator that year. From him they received much encouragement. "I
concur with you in every sentiment," said he, "but please re-write
your address, making two of it; one in the form of a memorial to the
Legislature, and the other, an address to the Judiciary Committee, to
whom your petitions will be referred." These two documents will be
found to suggest most of the important demands, afterward made in
every State, for a change of laws relating to woman. The fallacy of
"sacredness" for these restrictive laws was shown; the rights of
humanity as superior to any outside authority, asserted; and justice
made the basis of the proposed reformation. The right of woman to
trial by a jury of her peers was claimed, followed by the suggestion
that woman is capable of making the laws by which she is governed. The
memorial excited much attention, and was printed by order of the
Legislature, though the possibility of a woman having written it was
denied.[36]

But in 1850, as in 1849, no action was taken, the petitioners having
"leave to withdraw." Petitions of a similar character were again
circulated throughout Salem and Danvers, in 1850, '51, '52, '53,
making six successive years, in each of which the petitioners had
"leave to withdraw," as the only reply to their prayers for relief.
The Hon. Mr. Upham, however, remained woman's steadfast friend through
all this period, and Mrs. Phebe Upton King was as constantly found
among the petitioners.

In 1852 the petitions were signed only by ladies over sixty years of
age, women of large experience and matured judgment, whose prayers
should have received at least respectful consideration from the
legislators of the State. We give the appeal accompanying their
petition:

     GENTLEMEN:--Your petitioners, who are tax-payers and originators
     of these petitions, are upwards of three-score years; ten of them
     are past three-score years and ten; three of them three-score and
     twenty. If length of days, a knowledge of the world and the
     rights of man and woman entitle them to a respectful hearing,
     few, if any, have prior or more potent claims, for reason has
     taught them what individual rights are, experience, what woman
     and her children suffer for the want of just protection in those,
     and humanity impels them once more to appear before you, it may
     be for the last time. Let not their gray hairs go down in sorrow
     to the grave for the want of this justice in your power to
     extend, as have several of their number whose names are no longer
     to be found with theirs, whose voices can plead never more in
     behalf of your own children and those of your constituents.

In 1853 a petition[37] bearing only Mrs. King's name was presented. In
1854 the political organization called the "Know Nothings" came into
power, and although no petition was presented, a bill securing the
control of their own property to all women married subsequent to the
passage of the law, was passed. The power to make a will without the
husband's consent, was also secured to wives, though not permitted to
thus will more than one-half of their personal property. This law also
gave to married women having no children, whose husbands should die
without a will, five thousand dollars, and one-half of the remainder
of the husband's property. The following year the Divorce Law[38] was
amended, and shortly thereafter two old ladies, nearly seventy years
of age, having no future marriage in view, but solely influenced by a
desire to secure their own property to their own children, which
without such divorce they would be unable to do, although one of their
husbands had not provided for his wife in twenty years, nor the other
in thirty years, availed themselves of its new privileges.

The first change in the tyrannous laws of Massachusetts was really due
to the work of this one woman, Mary Upton Ferrin, who for six years,
after her own quaint method, poured the hot shot of her earnest
conviction of woman's wrongs into the Legislature. In circulating
petitions, she traveled six hundred miles, two-thirds of this distance
on foot. Much money was expended besides her time and travel, and her
name should be remembered as that of one of the brave pioneers in this
work.

Although two thousand petitions were sent into the Constitutional
Convention of 1853, from other friends of woman's enfranchisement in
the State, Mrs. Ferrin totally unacquainted with that step, herself
petitioned this body for an amendment to the Constitution securing
justice to women, referring to the large number of petitions sent to
the Legislature during the last few years for this object. Working as
she did, almost unaided and alone, Mrs. Ferrin is an exemplification
of the dissatisfaction of women at this period with unjust laws.[39]


         MRS. FERRIN'S ADDRESS TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OF THE
                   MASSACHUSETTS LEGISLATURE IN 1850.

     Long have our liberties and our lives been lauded to the skies,
     to our amusement and edification, and until our sex has been as
     much regaled as has the Southern slave, with "liberty and law."
     But, says one, "Women are free." So likewise are slaves free to
     submit to the laws and to their masters. "A married woman is as
     much the property of her husband, likewise her goods and
     chattels, as is his horse," says an eminent judge, and he might
     have added, many of them are treated much worse. No more apt
     illustration could have been given. Though man can not beat his
     wife like his horse, he can kill her by abuse--the most
     pernicious of slow poisons; and, alas, too often does he do it.
     It is for such unfortunate ones that protection is needed.
     Existing laws neither do nor can protect them, nor can society,
     on account of the laws. If they were men, society would protect
     and defend them. Long, silently, and patiently have they waited
     until forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

     Should a woman make her will without her husband's consent in
     writing, it is of no use. It is as just and proper that a woman
     should dispose of her own property to her own satisfaction as
     that a man should dispose of his. In many cases she is as
     competent, and sadly to be pitied if not in many cases more so.
     And even with her husband's consent she can not bequeath to him
     her real estate. She can sell it with his consent, but the deeds
     must pass and be recorded, and then, if the husband pleases, he
     can take the money and buy the property back again. Does justice
     require that a man and his wife should use so much deception, and
     be at so much unnecessary expense and trouble, to settle their
     own private affairs to their own satisfaction--affairs which do
     not in the least affect any other individual? Reason, humanity,
     and common sense answer--No!

     "All men are created free and equal," and all women are born
     subject to laws which they have neither the power to make or to
     repeal, but which they are taxed, directly or indirectly, to
     support, and many of which are a disgrace to humanity and ought
     to be forthwith abolished. A woman is compelled by circumstances
     to work for less than half an ordinary man can earn, and yet she
     is as essential to the existence, happiness, and refinement of
     society as is man.

     We are told "a great deal has already been done for woman;" in
     return we would tender our grateful acknowledgments, with the
     assurance that when ours is the right, we will reciprocate the
     favor. Much that has been done, does not in the least affect
     those who are already married; and not one in ten of those who
     are not married, will ever be apprised of the existence of the
     laws by which they might be benefited. Few, if any, would marry a
     man so incompetent as in their opinion to render it necessary to
     avail themselves of such laws; neither would any spirited man
     knowingly marry a woman who considered him so incompetent; hence,
     instead of being a blessing, much labor and expense accrue to
     those who desire to avail themselves of their benefit; and such a
     step often induces the most bitter contention.

     We are told "the Bible does not provide for divorce except for
     one offence." Neither does the Bible prohibit divorce for any
     other justifiable cause. Inasmuch as men take the liberty to
     legislate upon other subjects of which the Bible does, and does
     not, take particular notice, so likewise are they equally at
     liberty to legislate and improve upon this, when the state of
     society demands it.... A woman who has a good husband glides
     easily along under his protection, while those who have bad
     husbands, of which, alas! there are too many, are not aware of
     the depths of their degradation until they suddenly and
     unexpectedly find themselves, through the influence of the law,
     totally destitute, condemned to hopeless poverty and servitude,
     with an ungrateful tyrant for a master. No respectable man with a
     decent woman for a wife, will ever demean himself so much as to
     insult or abuse his wife. Wherever such a state of things exists,
     it is a disgrace to the age and to society, by whomsoever
     practiced, encouraged, or protected, whether public or
     private--whether social, political, or religious.

     A very estimable and influential lady, whose property was valued
     at over $150,000, married a man, in whom she had unbounded, but
     misplaced confidence, as is too often the case; consequently the
     most of her property was squandered through intemperance and
     dissipation, before she was aware of the least wrong-doing. So
     deeply was she shocked by the character of her husband, that she
     soon found a premature grave, leaving several small children to
     be reared and educated upon the remnant of her scattered wealth.

     Nearly twelve years since, a woman of a neighboring town, whose
     husband had forsaken her, hired a man to carry her furniture in a
     wagon to her native place, with her family, which consisted of
     her husband's mother, herself, and six children, the eldest of
     which was but twelve years old. On her arrival there, she had
     only food enough for one meal, and nine-pence left. During the
     summer, in consequence of hardships and deprivations, she was
     taken violently sick, being deprived of her reason for several
     weeks. Her husband had not, as yet, appeared to offer her the
     least assistance, although apprised of her situation. But, being
     an uncommonly mean man, he had sold her furniture, piece by
     piece, and reduced her to penury, so that nothing but the aid of
     her friends and her own exertions, saved her and her family from
     the alms-house.

     Says the law to this heroic woman, "What, though your property is
     squandered, your health and spirits broken, and you have six
     small children, besides yourself and your husband's mother to
     support! After five years of incessant toil in humility and
     degradation, why should not your lord and master intrude his
     loathsome person, like a blood-sucker upon your vitals, never
     offering you any assistance; and should your precarious life be
     protracted to that extent of time, for twenty dollars you can buy
     a divorce from bed and board, and have your property secured to
     you. Such, Madam, is your high privilege. Complain then not to
     us, lest instead of alleviating your sufferings, we strengthen
     the cords that already bind you."

     The moral courage of the "Hero of the Battle-field" would shrink
     in horror from scenes like these; but such is the fate of woman,
     to whom God grant no future "hell."

     In case a man receives a trifle from a departed friend or any
     other source, the wife's signature is not required. Recently a
     poor man left his daughter twenty dollars, of which her husband
     allowed her ten, retaining the remainder for acknowledging its
     receipt. It was probably the only ten dollars the woman ever
     received, except for her own exertions, which were constantly
     required to supply the necessities of her family, her husband
     being very intemperate and abusive, often pulling her by the ears
     so as to cause the blood to flow freely.

     No bodily pain, however intense, can compare with the mental
     suffering which we witness and experience, and which would long
     since have filled our Insane Asylums to overflowing, were it not
     for the unceasing drudgery to which we are subjected, in order to
     save ourselves and families from starvation.

     Often does the drunkard bestow upon his wife from one to a dozen
     children to rear and support until old enough to render her a
     little assistance, when they are compelled to seek service in
     order to clothe themselves decently, and often are their
     earnings, with those of their mother, appropriated to pay for
     rum, tobacco, gambling, and other vices. "Say not that we
     exaggerate these evils; neither tongue nor pen can do it!" says
     the unfortunate wife of a man whose moral character, so far as
     she knew, was unimpeachable, but who proved to be an insufferable
     tyrant, depriving her of the necessaries of life, and often
     ordering her out of the house which her friends provided for them
     to live in, using the most abusive epithets which ingenuity, or
     the want of it, could suggest. Intemperance degraded the
     character of the man with whom she lived as long as apprehensions
     for the safety of her life would warrant; from the fact that her
     health was rapidly failing under the severity and deprivation to
     which she was subjected, and the repeated threats of violence to
     her own life and that of her friends. "But one step farther and
     you drive us to desperation! Sooner would I pour out my heart's
     blood, drop by drop, than suffer again what I have hitherto
     experienced, or that my female friends should suffer as I have
     done, and I know that many of them do. Yet, neither sacrifice,
     sympathy, argument, or influence can avail us anything under
     existing circumstances."

     Such an appeal from helpless, down-trodden humanity, though it
     were made to a council of the most benighted North American
     savages, would not pass unheeded. Shall it be made in vain to
     you?

     To many of us death would be a luxury compared to what we suffer
     in consequence of the abusive treatment we receive from
     unprincipled men, which existing laws sanction and encourage by
     their indiscriminate severity, and with which we are told "it
     would be difficult to meddle on account of their sacredness and
     sublimity." The idea is sufficiently ludicrous to excite the
     risibility of the most grave. Though the sublime and the
     ridiculous may be too nearly allied for females to distinguish
     the difference, unjust inequality is to them far more
     contemptible than sacred, having thus far been ungraciously
     subjected to it. Well may we be called "the weaker sex" if the
     error in judgment is ours, although we have intellect and energy
     enough not to respect the circumstances under which we are
     placed, nor the powers which would designedly inflict such
     injustice upon us.

     Debased indeed would a man consider himself to employ a woman to
     plead his cause, with a woman for judge and twelve women for
     jurors. How much less degraded are women when exposed to a
     similar assembly of men, who have for them neither interest,
     sympathy, nor respect, subjected as they are to insolent
     questions and the uncharitable remarks of an indifferent
     multitude.

     It is urged that women are ignorant of the laws. They are
     sufficiently enlightened to comprehend the meaning of justice--a
     far more important thing--which admits of neither improvement nor
     modification, but is applicable to every emergency. With the
     perceptibility that some can boast, it would require but a short
     time for them to enact laws sufficient to govern themselves,
     which is all that the most aspiring can covet; convinced as they
     are that, as in families, so likewise in government, the mild,
     indulgent parent who would consult the greatest good of the
     greatest number, is rewarded with agreeable and honorable
     children; while the one who is unjust, partial, and severe, is
     proportionably recompensed for his indiscretion.

     In regard to unjust imprisonment we are told, "It is of too rare
     occurrence to require legal enactments." How many a devoted wife,
     mother, and child can tell a far different story. Who of us or
     our children is secure from false accusation and imprisonment,
     or, perhaps, an ignominious death upon the gallows, to screen
     some miserable villain from justice? Witnesses, lawyers, judges,
     jurors, and executioners are paid for depriving innocent persons
     of their time, liberty, health, and reputation, which, to many,
     is dearer than life, while the guilty one escapes, and society,
     when too late, laments the sad catastrophe. The life-blood of
     many a victim demands not only justice for the guilty, but
     protection for the innocent.


FIRST NATIONAL CONVENTION IN WORCESTER, OCTOBER 23d and 24th, 1850.

The Conventions in New York and Ohio, though not extensively
advertised, nor planned with much deliberation, for in both cases
they were hastily decided upon, yet their novelty attracted much
attention, and drew large audiences. Those who had long seen and felt
woman's wrongs, were now for the first time inspired with the hope
that something might be done for their redress by organized action.
When Massachusetts decided to call a convention, the initiative steps
were well considered, as there were many men and women in that State
trained in the anti-slavery school, skilled in managing conventions,
who were also interested in woman's enfranchisement. But to the energy
and earnestness of Paulina Wright Davis, more than to any other one
person, we may justly accord the success of the first Conventions in
Massachusetts.

In describing the preliminary arrangements in a report read in the
second decade meeting in New York in 1870, she says:

"In May, 1850, a few women in Boston attending an Anti-Slavery
meeting, proposed that all who felt interested in a plan for a
National Woman's Rights Convention, should consult in the ante-room.
Of the nine who went out into that dark, dingy room, a committee of
seven were chosen to do the work. Worcester was the place selected,
and the 23d and 24th of October the appointed time. However, the work
soon devolved upon one person.[40] Illness hindered one, duty to a
brother another, duty to the slave a third, professional engagements a
fourth, the fear of bringing the gray hairs of a father to the grave
prevented another from serving; but the pledge was made, and could not
be withdrawn.

"The call was prepared, an argument in itself, and sent forth with
earnest private letters in all directions. It covered the entire
question, as it now stands before the public. Though moderate in tone,
carefully guarding the idea of the absolute unity of interests and of
the destiny of the two sexes which nature has established, it still
gave the alarm to conservatism.

"Letters, curt, reproachful, and sometimes almost insulting, came with
absolute refusals to have the names of the writers used, or added to
the swelling list already in hand. There was astonishment at the
temerity of the writer in presenting such a request.

"Some few there were, so cheering and so excellent, that it is but
justice to give extracts from them:


     "'I doubt whether a more important movement has ever been
     launched, touching the destiny of the race, than this in
     regard to the equality of the sexes. You are at liberty to
     use my name.                              WILLIAM LLOYD GARRISON.'

     "'You do me but justice in supposing me deeply interested in the
     question of woman's elevation.             CATHERINE M. SEDGWICK.'

     "'The new movement has my fullest sympathy, and my name is at
     its service.                              WILLIAM HENRY CHANNING.'

"None came with such perfect and entire fullness as the one from which
I quote the closing paragraph:


     "'Yes, with all my heart I give my name to your noble call.
                                            "'ELIZABETH CADY STANTON.'

     "'You are at liberty to append my own and my wife's name to your
     admirable call,                             "'ANN GREEN PHILLIPS,
                                                  "'WENDELL PHILLIPS.'

"Rev. Samuel J. May's letter, full of the warmest sympathy, well
deserves to be quoted entire, but space forbids; suffice it that we
have always known just where to find him.


     "'Your business is to launch new ideas--not one of them will ever
     be wrecked or lost. Under the dominion of these ideas, right
     practice must gradually take the place of wrong, and the first we
     shall know we shall find the social swallowing up the political,
     and the whole governing its parts.
               "'With genuine respect, your co-worker,
     "'MRS. PAULINA W. DAVIS.                          ELIZUR WRIGHT.'

"Letters from Gerrit Smith, Joshua R. Giddings, John G. Whittier,
Ralph Waldo Emerson, A. Bronson Alcott, Caroline Kirkland, Ann Estelle
Lewis, Jane G. Swisshelm, William Elder, Rev. Thomas Brainard, and
many others, expressive of deep interest, are before us.

"The Convention came together in the bright October days, a solemn,
earnest crowd of noble men and women.

"One great disappointment fell upon us. Margaret Fuller, toward whom
many eyes were turned as the future leader in this movement, was not
with us. The 'hungry, ravening sea,' had swallowed her up, and we were
left to mourn her guiding hand--her royal presence. To her, I, at
least, had hoped to confide the leadership of this movement. It can
never be known if she would have accepted it; the desire had been
expressed to her by letter; but be that as it may, she was, and still
is, a leader of thought; a position far more desirable than a leader
of numbers.

"The Convention was called to order by Mrs. Sarah H. Earl,[41] of
Worcester, and a permanent list of officers presented in due order,
and the whole business of the Convention was conducted in a
parliamentary manner. Mrs. Earl, to whose memory we pay tribute
to-day as one gone before, not lost, was one of the loveliest
embodiments of womanhood I have ever known. She possessed a rare
combination of strength, gentleness, and earnestness, with a childlike
freedom and cheerfulness. I miss to-day her clear voice, her graceful
self-poise, her calm dignity.

"From our midst another is missing: Mrs. Sarah Tyndale, of
Philadelphia--one of the first to sign the call. Indeed, the idea of
such a convention had often been discussed in her home, more than two
years before, a home where every progressive thought found a cordial
welcome. To this noble woman, who gave herself to this work with
genuine earnestness, it is fitting that we pay a tribute of
affectionate respect. She was, perhaps, more widely known than any
other woman of her time for her practical talents; having conducted
one of the largest business houses in her native city for nearly a
quarter of a century. Genial and largely hospitable, there was for her
great social sacrifice in taking up a cause so unpopular; but she had
no shrinking from duty, however trying it might be. Strong and grand
as she was, in her womanly nature, she had nevertheless the largest
and tenderest sympathies for the weak and erring. She was prescient,
philosophical, just, and generous. The mother of a large family, who
gathered around to honor and bless her, she had still room in her
heart for the woes of the world, and the latter years of her life were
given to earnest, philanthropic work. We miss to-day her sympathy, her
wise counsel, her great, organizing power.

"Many others there are, whose names well deserve to be graven in gold,
and it is cause of thanksgiving to God that they are still present
with us, their lives speaking better than words. Some are in the Far
West, doing brave service there; others are across the water; others
are withheld by cares and duties from being present; but we would fain
hope none are absent from choice.

"Profound feeling pervaded the entire audience, and the talent
displayed in the discussions, the eloquence of women who had never
before spoken in public, surprised even those who expected most. Mrs.
C. I. H. Nichols, of Vermont, made a profound impression. There was a
touching, tender pathos in her stories which went home to the heart;
and many eyes, all unused to tears, were moistened as she described
the agony of the mother robbed of her child by the law.

"Abby H. Price, large-hearted and large-brained, gentle and strong,
presented an address on the social question not easily forgotten, and
seldom to the present time bettered.

"Lucy Stone, a natural orator, with a silvery voice, a heart warm and
glowing with youthful enthusiasm; Antoinette L. Brown, a young
minister, met firmly the Scriptural arguments; and Dr. Harriot K.
Hunt, earnest for the medical education of woman, gave variety to the
discussions of the Convention.

"In this first national meeting the following resolution was passed,
which it may be proper here to reiterate, thus showing that our
present demand has always been one and the same:

     "'_Resolved_, That women are clearly entitled to the right of
     suffrage, and to be considered eligible to office; the omission
     to demand which, on her part, is a palpable recreancy to duty,
     and a denial of which is a gross usurpation on the part of man,
     no longer to be endured; and that every party which claims to
     represent the humanity, civilization, and progress of the age, is
     bound to inscribe on its banners, "Equality before the Law,
     without distinction of Sex or Color."'

"From North to South the press found these reformers wonderfully
ridiculous people. The 'hen convention' was served up in every variety
of style, till refined women dreaded to look into a newspaper.
Hitherto man had assumed to be the conscience of woman, now she
indicated the will to think for herself; hence all this odium. But,
however the word was preached, whether for wrath or conscience sake,
we rejoiced and thanked God.

"In July, following this Convention, an able and elaborate notice
appeared in the _Westminster Review_. This notice, candid in tone and
spirit, as it was thorough and able in discussion, successfully
vindicated every position we assumed, reaffirmed and established the
highest ground taken in principle or policy by our movement. The
wide-spread circulation and high authority of this paper told upon the
public mind, both in Europe and this country. It was at the time
supposed to be by Mr. John Stuart Mill. Later we learned that it was
from the pen of his noble wife, to whom be all honor for thus coming
to the aid of a struggling cause. I can pay no tribute to her memory
so beautiful as the following extract from a letter recently received
from her husband:

     "'It gives me the greatest pleasure to know that the service
     rendered by my dear wife to the cause which was nearer her heart
     than any other, by her essay in the _Westminster Review_, has had
     so much effect and is so justly appreciated in the United States.
     Were it possible in a memoir to have the formation and growth of
     a mind like hers portrayed, to do so would be as valuable a
     benefit to mankind as was ever conferred by a biography. But such
     a psychological history is seldom possible, and in her case the
     materials for it do not exist. All that could be furnished is her
     birth-place, parentage, and a few dates, and it seems to me that
     her memory is more honored by the absence of any attempt at a
     biographical notice than by the presence of a most meagre one.
     What she was, I have attempted, though most inadequately, to
     delineate in the remarks prefaced to her essay, as reprinted with
     my "Dissertations and Discussions."'

     "'I am very glad to hear of the step in advance made by the Rhode
     Island Legislature in constituting a Board of Women for some
     important administrative purposes. Your intended proposal, that
     women be impaneled on every jury where women are to be tried,
     seems to me very good, and calculated to place the injustice to
     which women are at present subjected, by the entire legal system,
     in a very striking light.

                          "'I am, dear madam, yours sincerely,
      "'MRS. PAULINA WRIGHT DAVIS.                     J. S. MILL.'

"Immediately after the reports were published, they were sent to
various persons in Europe, and before the second Convention was held,
letters of cheer were received from Harriet Martineau, Marion Reid,
and others.

"Thus encouraged, we felt new zeal to go on with a work which had
challenged the understanding and constrained the hearts of the best
and soundest thinkers in the nation; had given an impulse to the women
of England and of Sweden--for Frederika Bremer had quoted from our
writings and reported our proceedings; our words had been like an
angel's visit to the prisoners of State in France and to the wronged
and outraged at home!

"Many letters were received from literary women in this country as
well as abroad. If not always ready to be identified with the work,
they were appreciative of its good effects, and, like Nicodemus, they
came by night to inquire 'how these things could be.' Self-interest
showed them the advantages accruing from the recognition of
equality--self-ism held them silent before the world till the reproach
should be worn away; but we credit them with a sense of justice and
right, which prompts them now to action. The rear guard is as
essential in the army as the advance; each should select the place
best adapted to their own powers."

As Mrs. Davis has fallen asleep since writing the above, we have
thought best to give what seemed to her the salient points of that
period in her own words.

October 23, 1850, a large audience assembled in Brinley Hall,
Worcester, Mass. The Convention was called to order by Sarah H. Earle,
of Worcester. Nine States were represented. There were Garrison,
Phillips, Burleigh, Foster, Pillsbury, leaders in the anti-slavery
struggle; Frederick Douglass and Sojourner Truth representing the
enslaved African race. The Channings, Sargents, Parsons, Shaws, from
the liberal pulpit and the aristocracy of Boston. From Ohio came
Mariana and Oliver Johnson, who had edited the _Anti-Slavery Bugle_,
that sent forth many a blast against the black laws of that State, and
many a stirring call for the woman's conventions. From Ohio, too, came
Ellen and Marion Blackwell, sisters of Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell.
Pennsylvania sent its Lucretia Mott, its Darlingtons, Plumlys,
Hastings, Millers, Hicks, who had all taken part in the exciting
divisions among the "Friends," as a sect. On motion of Mariana
Johnson, a temporary chairman was chosen, and a nominating committee
appointed, which reported the following list of officers adopted by
the Convention:

_President_--PAULINA WRIGHT DAVIS, R. I.

_Vice-Presidents_--WILLIAM HENRY CHANNING, Mass.; SARAH TYNDALE, Pa.

_Secretaries_--HANNAH M. DARLINGTON, Pa.; JOSEPH C. HATHAWAY, N. Y.

The Call of the Convention was read. It contains so good a digest of
the demands then made, in language so calm and choice, in thought so
clear and philosophical, that we give it entire, that the women of the
future may see how well their mothers understood their rights, and
with what modesty and moderation they pressed their wrongs on the
consideration of their rulers.

                                 THE CALL.

     A Convention will be held at Worcester, Mass., on the 23d and
     24th of October next, to consider the question of Woman's Rights,
     Duties, and Relations. The men and women who feel sufficient
     interest in the subject to give an earnest thought and effective
     effort to its rightful adjustment, are invited to meet each other
     in free conference at the time and place appointed.

     The upward tending spirit of the age, busy in an hundred forms of
     effort for the world's redemption from the sins and sufferings
     which oppress it, has brought this one, which yields to none in
     importance and urgency, into distinguished prominence. One-half
     the race are its immediate objects, and the other half are as
     deeply involved, by that absolute unity of interest and destiny
     which Nature has established between them. The neighbor is near
     enough to involve every human being in a general equality of
     rights and community of interests; but men and women in their
     reciprocities of love and duty, are one flesh and one blood;
     mother, sister, wife, and daughter come so near the heart and
     mind of every man, that they must be either his blessing or his
     bane. Where there is such mutuality of interests, such an
     interlinking of life, there can be no real antagonism of position
     and action. The sexes should not, for any reason or by any
     chance, take hostile attitudes toward each other, either in the
     apprehension or amendment of the wrongs which exist in their
     necessary relations; but they should harmonize in opinion and
     co-operate in effort, for the reason that they must unite in the
     ultimate achievement of the desired reformation.

     Of the many points now under discussion, and demanding a just
     settlement; the general question of woman's rights and relations
     comprehends these: Her education--literary, scientific, and
     artistic; her avocations--industrial, commercial, and
     professional; her interests--pecuniary, civil, and political; in
     a word, her rights as an individual, and her functions as a
     citizen.

     No one will pretend that all these interests, embracing as they
     do all that is not merely animal in a human life, are rightly
     understood, or justly provided for in the existing social order.
     Nor is it any more true that the constitutional differences of
     the sexes which should determine, define, and limit the resulting
     differences of office and duty, are adequately comprehended and
     practically observed.

     Woman has been condemned for her greater delicacy of physical
     organization, to inferiority of intellectual and moral culture,
     and to the forfeiture of great social, civil, and religious
     privileges. In the relation of marriage she has been ideally
     annihilated and actually enslaved in all that concerns her
     personal and pecuniary rights, and even in widowed and single
     life, she is oppressed with such limitation and degradation of
     labor and avocation, as clearly and cruelly mark the condition of
     a disabled caste. But by the inspiration of the Almighty, the
     beneficent spirit of reform is roused to the redress of these
     wrongs.

     The tyranny which degrades and crushes wives and mothers sits no
     longer lightly on the world's conscience; the heart's
     home-worship feels the stain of stooping at a dishonored altar.
     Manhood begins to feel the shame of muddying the springs from
     which it draws its highest life, and womanhood is everywhere
     awakening to assert its divinely chartered rights and to fulfill
     its noblest duties. It is the spirit of reviving truth and
     righteousness which has moved upon the great deep of the public
     heart and aroused its redressing justice, and through it the
     Providence of God is vindicating the order and appointments of
     His creation.

     The signs are encouraging; the time is opportune. Come, then, to
     this Convention. It is your duty, if you are worthy of your age
     and country. Give the help of your best thought to separate the
     light from the darkness. Wisely give the protection of your name
     and the benefit of your efforts to the great work of settling the
     principles, devising the methods, and achieving the success of
     this high and holy movement.

This call was signed by eighty-nine leading men and women of six
States.[42]

On taking the chair, Mrs. Davis said:

     The reformation we propose in its utmost scope is radical and
     universal. It is not the mere perfecting of a reform already in
     motion, a detail of some established plan, but it is an epochal
     movement--the emancipation of a class, the redemption of half the
     world, and a conforming reorganization of all social, political,
     and industrial interests and institutions. Moreover, it is a
     movement without example among the enterprises of associated
     reformations, for it has no purpose of arming the oppressed
     against the oppressor, or of separating the parties, or of
     setting up independence, or of severing the relations of either.

     Its intended changes are to be wrought in the intimate texture of
     all societary organizations, without violence or any form of
     antagonism. It seeks to replace the worn-out with the living and
     the beautiful, so as to reconstruct without overturning, and to
     regenerate without destroying.

     Our claim must rest on its justice, and conquer by its power of
     truth. We take the ground that whatever has been achieved for the
     race belongs to it, and must not be usurped by any class or
     caste. The rights and liberties of one human being can not be
     made the property of another, though they were redeemed for him
     or her by the life of that other; for rights can not be forfeited
     by way of salvage, and they are, in their nature, unpurchasable
     and inalienable. We claim for woman a full and generous
     investiture of all the blessings which the other sex has solely,
     or by her aid, achieved for itself. We appeal from man's
     injustice and selfishness to his principles and affections.

It was cheering to find in the very beginning many distinguished men
ready to help us to the law, gospel, social ethics, and philosophy
involved in our question. A letter from Gerrit Smith to William Lloyd
Garrison says:

                                   PETERBORO, N. Y., _Oct. 16, 1850_.

     MY DEAR SIR:--I this evening received from my friend H. H. Van
     Amringe, of Wisconsin, the accompanying argument on woman's
     rights. It is written by himself. He is, as you are aware, a
     highly intellectual man. He wishes me to present this argument to
     the Woman's Convention which is to be held in Worcester. Permit
     me to do so through yourself.

     My excessive business engagements compel me to refuse all
     invitations to attend public meetings not in my own county. May
     Heaven's richest blessings rest on the Convention.

          Very respectfully and fraternally yours,      GERRIT SMITH.

Mr. Van Amringe's paper on "Woman's Rights in Church and State" was
read and discussed, and a large portion of it printed in the regular
report of the proceedings.

The papers read by the women, in style and argument, were in no way
inferior to those of the men present.

Letters were read from Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Rev. Samuel J. May, L.
A. Hine, Elizur Wright, O. S. Eowler, Esther Ann Lukens, Margaret
Chappel Smith, Nancy M. Baird, Jane Cowen, Sophia L. Little, Elizabeth
Wilson, Maria L. Varney, and Milfred A. Spaford.[43]

Mrs. Abby H. Price, of Hopedale, made an address on the injustice of
excluding girls from the colleges, the trades and the professions, and
the importance of training them to some profitable labor, and thus to
protect their virtue, dignity, and self-respect by securing their
pecuniary independence.

     She thought the speediest solution of the vexed problem of
     prostitution was profitable work for the rising generation of
     girls. The best legislation on the social vice was in removing
     the legal disabilities that <DW36> all their powers. Woman, in
     order to be equally independent with man, must have a fair and
     equal chance. He is in nowise restricted from doing, in every
     department of human exertion, all he is able to do. If he is bold
     and ambitious, and desires fame, every avenue is open to him. He
     may blend science and art, producing a competence for his
     support, until he chains them to the car of his genius, and, with
     Fulton and Morse, wins a crown of imperishable gratitude. If he
     desires to tread the path of knowledge up to its glorious
     temple-summit, he can, as he pleases, take either of the learned
     professions as instruments of pecuniary independence, while he
     plumes his wings for a higher and higher ascent. Not so with
     woman. Her rights are not recognized as equal; her sphere is
     circumscribed--not by her ability, but by her sex. If, perchance,
     her taste leads her to excellence, in the way they give her leave
     to tread, she is worshiped as almost divine; but if she reaches
     for laurels they have in view, the wings of her genius are
     clipped because she is a woman.

Dr. Harriot K. Hunt, of Boston, the first woman who practiced medicine
in this country, spoke on the medical education of women.

Sarah Tyndale, a successful merchant in Philadelphia, on the business
capacity of woman.

Antoinette L. Brown, a graduate of Oberlin College, and a student in
Theology, made a logical argument on woman's position in the Bible,
claiming her complete equality with man, the simultaneous creation of
the sexes, and their moral responsibilities as individual and
imperative.

The debates on the resolutions were spicy, pointed, and logical, and
were deeply interesting, continuing with crowded audiences through two
entire days. In these debates Lucy Stone, Lucretia Mott, Wendell
Phillips, William Henry Channing, Ernestine L. Rose, Frederick
Douglass, Martha Mowry, Abby Kelly and Stephen Foster, Elizabeth B.
Chase, James N. Buffam, Sojourner Truth, Eliab Capron, and Joseph C.
Hathaway, took part. As there was no phonographic reporter present,
most of the best speaking, that was extemporaneous, can not be handed
down to history.

Among the letters to the Convention, there was one quite novel and
interesting from Helene Marie Weber,[44] a lady of high literary
character, who had published numerous tracts on the Rights of Woman.
She contended that the physical development of woman was impossible in
her present costume, and that her consequent enfeebled condition made
her incapable of entering many of the most profitable employments in
the world of work. Miss Weber exemplified her teachings by her
practice. She usually wore a dress coat and pantaloons of black cloth;
on full-dress occasions, a dark blue dress coat, with plain flat gilt
buttons, and drab- pantaloons. Her waistcoat was of buff
cassimere, richly trimmed with plain, flat-surfaced, gold buttons,
exquisitely polished; this was an elegant costume, and one she wore to
great advantage. Her clothes were all perfect in their fit, and of
Paris make; and her figure was singularly well adapted to male attire.
No gentleman in Paris made a finer appearance.

One of the grand results of this Convention was the thought roused in
England. A good report of the proceedings in the New _York Tribune_,
for Europe, of October 29, 1850, was read by the future Mrs. John
Stuart Mill, then Mrs. Taylor, and at once called out from her pen an
able essay in the _Westminster and Foreign Quarterly Review_, entitled
"Enfranchisement of Woman." This attracted the attention of many
liberal thinkers, and foremost of these, one of England's greatest
philosophers and scholars, the Hon. John Stuart Mill, who became soon
after the champion of woman's cause in the British Parliament. The
essayist in speaking of this Convention says:

     Most of our readers will probably learn, from these pages, for
     the first time, that there has risen in the United States, and in
     the most Civilized and enlightened portion of them, an organized
     agitation, on a new question, new not to thinkers, nor to any one
     by whom the principles of free and popular government are felt,
     as well as acknowledged; but new, and even unheard of, as a
     subject for public meetings, and practical political action. This
     question is the enfranchisement of women, their admission in law,
     and in fact, to equality in all rights, political, civil, social,
     with the male citizens of the community.

     It will add to the surprise with which many will receive this
     intelligence, that the agitation which has commenced is not a
     pleading by male writers and orators _for_ women, those who are
     professedly to be benefited remaining either indifferent, or
     ostensibly hostile; it is a political movement, practical in its
     objects, carried on in a form which denotes an intention to
     persevere. And it is a movement not merely _for_ women, but _by_
     them....

     A succession of public meetings was held, under the name of a
     "Woman's Rights Convention," of which the President was a woman,
     and nearly all the chief speakers women; numerously reinforced,
     however, by men, among whom were some of the most distinguished
     leaders in the kindred cause of <DW64> emancipation....

     According to the report in the _New York Tribune_, above a
     thousand persons were present, throughout, and "if a larger place
     could have been had, many thousands more would have attended."

     In regard to the quality of the speaking, the proceedings bear an
     advantageous comparison with those of any popular movement with
     which we are acquainted, either in this country or in America.
     Very rarely in the oratory of public meetings is the part of
     verbiage and declamation so small, and that of calm good sense
     and reason so considerable.

     The result of the convention was in every respect encouraging to
     those by whom it was summoned; and it is probably destined to
     inaugurate one of the most important of the movements toward
     political and social reform, which are the best characteristic of
     the present age. That the promoters of this new agitation take
     their stand on principles, and do not fear to declare these in
     their widest extent, without time-serving or compromise, will be
     seen from the resolutions adopted by the Convention[45].

After giving an able argument in favor of all the demands made in the
Convention with a fair criticism of some of the weak things uttered
there, she concludes by saying:

     There are indications that the example of America will be
     followed on this side of the Atlantic; and the first step has
     been taken in that part of England where every serious movement
     in the direction of political progress has its commencement--the
     manufacturing districts of the north. On the 13th of February,
     1851, a petition of women, agreed to by a public meeting at
     Sheffield, and claiming the elective franchise, was presented to
     the House of Lords by the Earl of Carlisle.

William Henry Channing, from the Business Committee, suggested a plan
for organization and the principles that should govern the movement.
In accordance with his views a National Central Committee was
appointed, in which every State was represented[46]. Paulina Wright
Davis, Chairman; Sarah H. Earle, Secretary; Wendell Phillips,
Treasurer.

This Convention was a very creditable one in every point of view. The
order and perfection of the arrangements, the character of the papers
presented, and the sustained enthusiasm, reflect honor on the men and
women who conducted the proceedings. The large number of letters
addressed to Mrs. Davis show how extensive had been her
correspondence, both in the old world and the new. Her wealth,
culture, and position gave her much social influence; her beauty,
grace, and gentle manners drew around her a large circle of admiring
friends. These, with her tall fine figure, her classic head and
features, and exquisite taste in dress; her organizing talent and
knowledge of the question under consideration, altogether made her so
desirable a presiding officer, that she was often chosen for that
position.


THE SECOND NATIONAL CONVENTION IN WORCESTER.

In accordance with a call from the Central Committee, the friends of
Woman Suffrage assembled again in Brinley Hall, Oct. 15th and 16th,
1851. At an early hour the house was filled, and was called to order
by Paulina Wright Davis, who was again chosen permanent President.
This Convention was conducted mainly by the same persons who had so
successfully managed the proceedings of the previous year. Mrs. Davis,
on taking the chair, gave a brief _resume_ of the steps of progress
during the year, and at the close of her remarks, letters were read
from Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry Ward Beecher, Horace Mann, Angelina
Grimke Weld, Frances D. Gage, Estelle Anna Lewis, Marion Blackwell,
Oliver Johnson, and Eliza Barney, all giving a hearty welcome to the
new idea. Mrs. Emma R. Coe, of the Business Committee, called upon
Wendell Phillips to read the resolutions[47] prepared for the
consideration of the Convention.

On rising Mr. PHILLIPS said:

     In drawing up some of these resolutions, I have used very freely
     the language of a thoughtful and profound article in the
     _Westminster Review_. It is a review of the proceedings of our
     Convention, held one year ago, and states with singular clearness
     and force the leading arguments for our reform, and the grounds
     of our claim in behalf of woman. I rejoice to see so large an
     audience gathered to consider this momentous subject, the most
     magnificent reform that has yet been launched upon the world. It
     is the first organized protest against the injustice which has
     brooded over the character and the destiny of one-half of the
     human race. Nowhere else, under any circumstances, has a demand
     ever yet been made for the liberties of one whole half of our
     race. It is fitting that we should pause and consider so
     remarkable and significant a circumstance; that we should discuss
     the questions involved with the seriousness and deliberation
     suitable to such an enterprise.

     It strikes, indeed, a great and vital blow at the whole social
     fabric of every nation; but this, to my mind, is no argument
     against it.... Government commenced in usurpation and oppression;
     liberty and civilization at present are nothing else than the
     fragments of rights which the scaffold and the stake have wrung
     from the strong hands of the usurpers. Every step of progress the
     world has made has been from scaffold to scaffold, from stake to
     stake.... Government began in tyranny and force; began in the
     feudalism of the soldier and the bigotry of the priest; and the
     ideas of justice and humanity have been fighting their way like a
     thunderstorm against the organized selfishness of human nature.

     And this is the last great protest against the wrong of ages. It
     is no argument, to my mind, therefore, that the old social fabric
     of the past is against us. Neither do I feel called upon to show
     what woman's proper sphere is. In every great reform the majority
     have always said to the claimant, no matter what he claimed, "You
     are not fit for such a privilege." Luther asked of the Pope
     liberty for the masses to read the Bible. The reply was that it
     would not be safe to trust the masses with the word of God. "Let
     them try," said the great reformer, and the history of three
     centuries of development and purity proclaims the result.

     The lower classes in France claimed their civil rights; the right
     to vote, and to a direct representation in government, but the
     rich and lettered classes cried out, "You can not be made fit."
     The answer was, "Let us try." That France is not as Spain,
     utterly crushed beneath the weight of a thousand years of
     misgovernment, is the answer to those who doubt the ultimate
     success of the experiment.

     Woman stands now at the same door. She says: "You tell me I have
     no intellect. Give me a chance." "You tell me I shall only
     embarrass politics; let me try." The only reply is the same stale
     argument that said to the Jews of Europe: You are fit only to
     make money; you are not fit for the ranks of the army, or the
     halls of Parliament.

     How cogent the eloquent appeal of Macaulay: "What right have we
     to take this question for granted? Throw open the doors of this
     House of Commons; throw open the ranks of the imperial army,
     before you deny eloquence to the countrymen of Isaiah, or valor
     to the descendants of the Maccabees."

     It is the same now with us. Throw open the doors of Congress;
     throw open those court-houses; throw wide open the doors of your
     colleges, and give to the sisters of the De Staels and the
     Martineaus the same opportunity for culture that men have, and
     let the results prove what their capacity and intellect really
     are. When woman has enjoyed for as many centuries as we have the
     aid of books, the discipline of life, and the stimulus of fame,
     it will be time to begin the discussion of these questions: "What
     is the intellect of woman?" "Is it equal to that of man?" Till
     then, all such discussion is mere beating of the air. While it is
     doubtless true, that great minds make a way for themselves, spite
     of all obstacles, yet who knows how many Miltons have died, "mute
     and inglorious"? However splendid the natural endowments, the
     discipline of life, after all, completes the miracle. The ability
     of Napoleon--what was it? It grew out of the hope to be Caesar, or
     Marlborough; out of Austerlitz and Jena--out of his
     battle-fields, his throne, and all the great scenes of that
     eventful life.

     Open to woman the same scenes, immerse her in the same great
     interests and pursuits, and if twenty centuries shall not produce
     a woman Charlemagne, or a Napoleon, fair reason will then allow
     us to conclude that there is some distinctive peculiarity in the
     intellects of the sexes.

     Centuries alone can lay a fair basis for the argument. I believe
     on this point there is a shrinking consciousness of not being
     ready for the battle, on the part of some of the stronger sex, as
     they call themselves; a tacit confession of risk to this imagined
     superiority, if they consent to meet their sisters in the lecture
     halls, or the laboratory of science.

     My proof of it is this, that the mightiest intellects of the
     race, from Plato down to the present time, some of the rarest
     minds of Germany, France, and England, have successively yielded
     their assent to the fact, that woman is not, perhaps,
     identically, but equally endowed with man in all intellectual
     capabilities. It is generally the second-rate men who doubt;
     doubt because, perhaps, they fear a fair field.

     Suppose that woman is essentially inferior to man, she still has
     rights. Grant that Mrs. Norton[48] never could be Byron; that
     Elizabeth Barrett never could have written Paradise Lost; that
     Mrs. Somerville never could be La Place, nor Sirani have painted
     the Transfiguration. What then? Does that prove they should be
     deprived of all civil rights?

     John Smith will never be, never can be, Daniel Webster. Shall he
     therefore be put under guardianship, and forbidden to vote?
     Suppose woman, though equal, does differ essentially in her
     intellect from man, is that any ground for disfranchising her?
     Shall the Fultons say to the Raphaels, because you can not make
     steam engines, therefore you shall not vote? Shall the Napoleons
     or the Washingtons say to the Wordsworths or the Herschels,
     because you can not lead armies, and govern States, therefore you
     shall have no civil rights?

The following interesting letter from Harriet Martineau was then read,
which we give in full, that the reader may see how clearly defined was
her position at that early day:

                                   CROMER, ENGLAND, _Aug. 3, 1851_.

     PAULINA WRIGHT DAVIS:

     DEAR MADAM:--I beg to thank you heartily for your kindness in
     sending me the Report of the Proceedings of your Woman's Rights
     Convention. I had gathered what I could from the newspapers
     concerning it, but I was gratified at being able to read, in a
     collected form, addresses so full of earnestness and sound truth,
     as I found most of the speeches to be. I hope you are aware of
     the interest excited in this country by that Convention, the
     strongest, proof of which is the appearance of an article on the
     subject in _The Westminster Review_ (for July), as thorough-going
     as any of your own addresses, and from the pen (at least as it is
     understood here) of one of our very first men, Mr. John S. Mill.
     I am not without hope that this article will materially
     strengthen your hands, and I am sure it can not but cheer your
     hearts.

     Ever since I became capable of thinking for myself, I have
     clearly seen, and I have said it till my listeners and readers
     are probably tired of hearing it, that there can be but one true
     method in the treatment of each human being, of either sex, of
     any color, and under any outward circumstances, to ascertain what
     are the powers of that being, to cultivate them to the utmost,
     and _then_ to see what action they will find for themselves. This
     has probably never been done for men, unless in some rare
     individual cases. It has certainly never been done for women,
     and, till it is done, all debating about what woman's intellect
     is, all speculation, or laying down the law, as to what is
     woman's sphere, is a mere beating of the air. _A priori_
     conceptions have long been worthless in physical science, and
     nothing was really effected till the experimental method was
     clearly made out and strictly applied in practice, and the same
     principle holds most certainly through the whole range of moral
     science.

     Whether we regard the physical fact of what women are able to do,
     or the moral fact of what women ought to do, it is equally
     necessary to abstain from making any decision prior to
     experiment. We see plainly enough the waste of time and thought
     among the men who once talked of Nature abhorring a vacuum, or
     disputed at great length as to whether angels could go from end
     to end without passing through the middle; and the day will come
     when it will appear to be no less absurd to have argued, as men
     and women are arguing now, about what woman ought to do, before
     it was ascertained what woman can do.

     Let us once see a hundred women educated up to the highest point
     that education at present reaches; let them be supplied with such
     knowledge as their faculties are found to crave, and let them be
     free to use, apply, and increase their knowledge as their
     faculties shall instigate, and it will presently appear what is
     the sphere of each of the hundred.

     One may be discovering comets, like Miss Herschell; one may be
     laying open the mathematical structure of the universe, like Mrs.
     Somerville; another may be analyzing the chemical relations of
     Nature in the laboratory; another may be penetrating the
     mysteries of physiology; others may be applying science in the
     healing of diseases; others maybe investigating the laws of
     social relations, learning the great natural laws under which
     society, like everything else, proceeds; others, again, may be
     actively carrying out the social arrangements which have been
     formed under these laws; and others may be chiefly occupied in
     family business, in the duties of the wife and mother, and the
     ruler of the household.

     If, among the hundred women, a great diversity of powers should
     appear (which I have no doubt would be the case), there will
     always be plenty of scope and material for the greatest amount
     and variety of power that can be brought out. If not--if it
     should appear that women fall below men in all but the domestic
     functions--then it will be well that the experiment has been
     tried; and the trial better go on forever, that woman's sphere
     may forever determine itself to the satisfaction of everybody. It
     is clear that education, to be what I demand on behalf of women,
     must be intended to issue in active life.

     A man's medical education would be worth little, if it was not a
     preparation for practice. The astronomer and the chemist would
     put little force into their studies, if it was certain that they
     must leave off in four or five years, and do nothing for the rest
     of their lives; and no man could possibly feel much interest in
     political and social morals, if he knew that he must, all his
     life long, pay taxes, but neither speak nor move about public
     affairs.

     Women, like men, must be educated with a view to action, or their
     studies can not be called education, and no judgment can be
     formed of the scope of their faculties. The pursuit must be
     life's business, or it will be mere pastime or irksome task. This
     was always my point of difference with one who carefully
     cherished a reverence for woman, the late Dr. Channing.

     How much we spoke and wrote of the old controversy, Influence vs.
     Office. He would have had any woman study anything that her
     faculties led her to, whether physical science or law, government
     and political economy; but he would have her stop at the study.
     From the moment she entered the hospital as physician and not
     nurse; from the moment she took her place in a court of justice,
     in the jury box, and not the witness box; from the moment she
     brought her mind and her voice into the legislature, instead of
     discussing the principles of laws at home; from the moment she
     announced and administered justice instead of looking at it from
     afar, as a thing with which she had no concern, she would, he
     feared, lose her influence as an observing intelligence, standing
     by in a state of purity "unspotted from the world."

     My conviction always was, that an intelligence never carried out
     into action could not be worth much; and that, if all the action
     of human life was of a character so tainted as to be unfit for
     women, it could be no better for men, and we ought all to sit
     down together, to let barbarism overtake us once more.

     My own conviction is, that the natural action of the whole human
     being occasions not only the most strength, but the highest
     elevation; not only the warmest sympathy, but the deepest purity.
     The highest and purest beings among women seem now to be those
     who, far from being idle, find among their restricted
     opportunities some means of strenuous action; and I can not doubt
     that, if an active social career were open to all women, with due
     means of preparation for it, those who are high and holy now,
     would be high and holy then, and would be joined by an
     innumerable company of just spirits from among those whose
     energies are now pining and fretting in enforced idleness, or
     unworthy frivolity, or brought down into pursuits and aims which
     are anything but pure and peaceable.

     In regard to the old controversy--Influence vs. Office--it
     appears to me that if Influence is good and Office bad for human
     morals and character, Man's present position is one of such
     hardship, as it is almost profane to contemplate; and if, on the
     contrary, Office is good and a life of Influence is bad, Woman
     has an instant right to claim that her position be amended.

                                   Yours faithfully, HARRIET MARTINEAU.

From her letter, we find, that Miss Martineau shared the common
opinion in England that the article in the _Westminster Review_ on the
"Enfranchisement of Woman" was written by John Stuart Mill. It was
certainly very complimentary to Mrs. Taylor, the real author of that
paper, who afterward married Mr. Mill, that it should have been
supposed to emanate from the pen of that distinguished philosopher. An
amusing incident is related of Mr. Mill, for the truth of which we can
not vouch, but report says, that after reading this article, he
hastened to read it again to Mrs. Taylor, and passing on it the
highest praises, to his great surprise she confessed herself the
author.

At this Convention Mrs. Elizabeth Oakes Smith made her first
appearance on our platform. She was well known in the literary circles
of New York as a writer of merit in journals and periodicals. She
defended the Convention and its leaders through the columns of the
_New York Tribune_, and afterward published a series of articles
entitled "Woman and her Needs." She early made her way into the
lyceums and some pulpits never before open to woman. Her "Bertha and
Lily," a woman's rights novel, and her other writings were influential
in moulding popular thought.

Angelina Grimke, familiar with plantation life, spoke eloquently on
the parallel between the slave code and the laws for married women.

Mehitable Haskell, of Gloucester, said:

     Perhaps, my friends, I ought to apologize for standing here.
     Perhaps I attach too much importance to my own age. This meeting,
     as I understand it, was called to discuss Woman's Rights. Well, I
     do not pretend to know exactly what woman's rights are; but I do
     know that I have groaned for forty years, yea, for fifty years,
     under a sense of woman's wrongs. I know that even when a girl, I
     groaned under the idea that I could not receive as much
     instruction as my brothers could. I wanted to be what I felt I
     was capable of becoming, but opportunity was denied me. I rejoice
     in the progress that has been made. I rejoice that so many women
     are here; it denotes that they are waking up to some sense of
     their situation. One of my sisters observed that she had received
     great kindness as a wife, mother, sister, and daughter. I, too,
     have brethren in various directions, both those that are natural,
     and those that are spiritual brethren, as I understand the
     matter; and I rejoice to say I have found, I say it to the honor
     of my brothers, I have found more men than women, who were
     impressed with the wrongs under which our sex labor, and felt the
     need of reformation. I rejoice in this fact.

Rebecca B. Spring followed with some pertinent remarks. Mrs. Emma E.
Coe reviewed in a strain of pungent irony the State Laws in relation
to woman. In discussing the resolutions, Charles List, Esq., of
Boston, said:

     I lately saw a book wherein the author in a very eloquent, but
     highly wrought sentence, speaks of woman as "the connecting link
     between man and heaven." I think this asks too much, and I deny
     the right of woman to assume such a prerogative; all I claim is
     that woman should be raised by noble aspiration to the loftiest
     moral elevation, and thus be fitted to train men up to become
     worthy companions for the pure, high-minded beings which all
     women should strive to be. A great duty rests on woman, and it
     becomes you not to lose a moment in securing for yourselves every
     right and privilege, whereby you maybe elevated and so prepared
     to exert the influence which man so much needs. Women fall far
     short now of exerting the moral influence intrusted to them as
     mothers and wives, consequently men are imperfectly developed in
     their higher nature.

     Mrs. Nichols rejoined: Woman has been waiting for centuries
     expecting man to go before and lift her up, but he has failed to
     meet our expectations, and now comes the call that she should
     first grasp heaven and pull man up after her.

     Mrs. Coe said: The signs are truly propitious, when man begins to
     complain of his wrongs--women not fit to be wives and mothers!

     Who placed them in their present position? Who keeps, them there?
     Let woman demand the highest education in our land, and what
     college, with the exception of Oberlin, will receive her? I have
     myself lately made such a demand and been refused simply on the
     ground of sex. Yet what is there in the highest range of
     intellectual pursuits, to which woman may not rightfully aspire?
     What is there, for instance, in theology, which she should not
     strive to learn? Give me only that in religion which woman may
     and should become acquainted with, and the rest may go like chaff
     before the wind.

     Lucy Stone said: I think it is not without reason that men
     complain of the wives and mothers of to-day. Let us look the fact
     soberly and fairly in the face, and admit that there _is_
     occasion to complain of wives and mothers. But while I say this,
     let me also say that when you can show one woman who is what she
     ought to be as a wife and a mother, you can show not more than
     one man who is what he should be as a husband and father. The
     blame is on both sides. When we add to what woman ought to be for
     her own sake, this other fact, that woman, by reason of her
     maternity, must exert a most potent influence over the
     generations yet to be, there is no language that can speak the
     magnitude or importance of the subject that has called us
     together. He is guilty of giving the world a dwarfed humanity,
     who would seek to hinder this movement for the elevation of
     woman; for she is as yet a starved and dependent outcast before
     the law. In government she is outlawed, having neither voice nor
     part in it. In the household she is either a ceaseless drudge, or
     a blank. In the department of education, in industry, let woman's
     sphere be bounded only by her capacity. We desire there should no
     walls be thrown about it. Let man read his own soul, and turn
     over the pages of his own Book of Life, and learn that in the
     human mind there is always capacity for development, and then let
     him trust woman to that power of growth, no matter who says nay.
     Laying her hand on the helm, let woman steer straight onward to
     the fulfillment of her own destiny. Let her ever remember, that
     in following out the high behests of her own soul will be found
     her exceeding great reward.

William Henry Channing then gave the report from the committee on the
social relations. Those present speak of it as a very able paper on
that complex question, but as it was not published with the
proceedings, all that can be found is the following meagre abstract
from _The Worcester Spy_:

     Woman has a natural right to the development of all her
     faculties, and to all the advantages that insure this result. She
     has the right not only to civil and legal justice, which lie on
     the outskirts of social life, but to social justice, which
     affects the central position of society.

     Woman should be as free to marry, or remain single, and as
     honorable in either relation, as man. There should be no stigma
     attached to the single woman, impelling her to avoid the
     possibility of such a position, by crushing her self-respect and
     individual ambition. A true Christian marriage is a sacred union
     of soul and sense, and the issues flowing from it are eternal.
     All obstacles in the way of severing uncongenial marriages should
     be removed, because such unions are unnatural, and must be evil
     in their results. Divorce in such cases should be honorable,
     without subjecting the parties to the shame of exposure in the
     courts, or in the columns of the daily papers.

     Much could be accomplished for the elevation of woman by
     organizations clustering round a social principle, like those
     already clustered round a religious principle, such as "Sisters
     of Mercy," "Sisters of Charity," etc. There should be social
     orders called "Sisters of Honor," having for their object the
     interests of unfortunate women. From these would spring up
     convents, where those who have escaped from false marriages and
     illegal social relations would find refuge. These organizations
     might send out missionaries to gather the despised Magdalens into
     safe retreats, and raise them to the level of true womanhood.

Mr. Channing spoke at length on the civil and political position of
woman, eloquently advocating the rightfulness and expediency of
woman's co-sovereignty with man, and closed by reading a very eloquent
letter from Jeanne Deroine and Pauline Roland, two remarkable French
women, then in the prison of St. Lagare, in Paris, for their liberal
opinions.

Just as the agitation for woman's rights began in this country,
Pauline Roland began in France a vigorous demand for her rights as a
citizen. The 27th of February, 1848, she presented herself before the
electoral reunion to claim the right of nominating the mayor of the
city where she lived. Having been refused, she claimed in April of the
same year the right to take part in the elections for the Constituent
Assembly, and was again refused. On April 12, 1849, Jeanne Deroine
claimed for woman the right of eligibility by presenting herself as a
candidate for the Legislative Assembly, and she sustained this right
before the preparatory electoral reunions of Paris. On the 3d of
October Jeanne Deroine and Pauline Roland, delegates from the
fraternal associations, were elected members of the Central Committee
of the Associative Unions. This Central Committee was for the
fraternal associations what the Constituent Assembly was for the
French Republic in 1848.

     _To the Convention of the Women of America_:

     DEAR SISTERS:--Your courageous declaration of Woman's Rights has
     resounded even to our prison, and has filled our souls with
     inexpressible joy.

     In France the reaction has suppressed the cry of liberty of the
     women of the future. Deprived, like their brothers, of the
     Democracy, of the right to civil and political equality, and the
     fiscal laws which trammel the liberty of the press, hinder the
     propagation of those eternal truths which must regenerate
     humanity.

     They wish the women of France to found a hospitable tribunal,
     which shall receive the cry of the oppressed and suffering, and
     vindicate in the name of humanity, solidarity, the social right
     for both sexes equally; and where woman, the mother of humanity,
     may claim in the name of her children, mutilated by tyranny, her
     right to true liberty, to the complete development and free
     exercise of all her faculties, and reveal that half of truth
     which is in her, and without which no social work can be
     complete.

     The darkness of reaction has obscured the sun of 1848, which
     seemed to rise so radiantly. Why? Because the revolutionary
     tempest, in overturning at the same time the throne and the
     scaffold, in breaking the chain of the black slave, forgot to
     break the chain of the most oppressed of all of the pariahs of
     humanity.

     "There shall be no more slaves," said our brethren. "We proclaim
     universal suffrage. All shall have the right to elect the agents
     who shall carry out the Constitution which should be based on the
     principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity. Let each one
     come and deposit his vote; the barrier of privilege is
     overturned; before the electoral urn there are no more oppressed,
     no more masters and slaves."

     Woman, in listening to this appeal, rises and approaches the
     liberating urn to exercise her right of suffrage as a member of
     society. But the barrier of privilege rises also before her. "You
     must wait," they say. But by this claim alone woman affirms the
     right, not yet recognized, of the half of humanity--the right of
     woman to liberty, equality, and fraternity. She obliges man to
     verify the fatal attack which he makes on the integrity of his
     principles.

     Soon, in fact during the wonderful days of June, 1848, liberty
     glides from her pedestal in the flood of the victims of the
     reaction; based on the "right of the strongest," she falls,
     overturned in the name of "the right of the strongest."

     The Assembly kept silence in regard to the right of one-half of
     humanity, for which only one of its members raised his voice, but
     in vain. No mention was made of the right of woman in a
     Constitution framed in the name of Liberty, Equality, and
     Fraternity.

     It is in the name of these principles that woman comes to claim
     her right to take part in the Legislative Assembly, and to help
     to form the laws which must govern society, of which she is a
     member.

     She comes to demand of the electors the consecration of the
     principle of equality by the election of a woman, and by this act
     she obliges man to prove that the fundamental law which he has
     formed in the sole name of liberty, equality, and fraternity, is
     still based upon privilege, and soon privilege triumphs over this
     phantom of universal suffrage, which, being but half of itself,
     sinks on the 31st of May, 1850.

     But while those selected by the half of the people--by men
     alone--evoke force to stifle liberty, and forge restrictive laws
     to establish order by compression, woman, guided by fraternity,
     foreseeing incessant struggles, and in the hope of putting an end
     to them, makes an appeal to the laborer to found liberty and
     equality on fraternal solidarity. The participation of woman gave
     to this work of enfranchisement an eminently pacific character,
     and the laborer recognizes the right of woman, his companion in
     labor.

     The delegates of a hundred and four associations, united, without
     distinction of sex, elected two women, with several of their
     brethren, to participate equally with them in the administration
     of the interests of labor, and in the organization of the work of
     solidarity.

     Fraternal associations were formed with the object of
     enfranchising the laborer from the yoke of spoilage and
     patronage, but, isolated in the midst of the Old World, their
     efforts could only produce a feeble amelioration for themselves.

     The union of associations based on fraternal solidarity had for
     its end the organization of labor; that is to say, an equal
     division of labor, of instruments, and of the products of labor.

     The means were, the union of labor, and of credit among the
     workers of all professions, in order to acquire the instruments
     of labor and the necessary materials, and to form a mutual
     guarantee for the education of their children, and to provide for
     the needs of the old, the sick, and the infirm.

     In this organization all the workers, without distinction of sex
     or profession, having an equal right to election, and being
     eligible for all functions, and all having equally the initiative
     and the sovereign decision in the acts of common interests, they
     laid the foundation of a new society based on liberty, equality,
     and fraternity.

     It is in the name of law framed by man only--by those elected by
     privilege--that the Old World, wishing to stifle in the germ the
     holy work of pacific enfranchisement, has shut up within the
     walls of a prison those who had founded it--those elected by the
     laborers.

     But the impulse has been given, a grand act has been
     accomplished. The right of woman has been recognized by the
     laborers, and they have consecrated that right by the election of
     those who had claimed it in vain for both sexes, before the
     electoral urn and before the electoral committees. They have
     received the true civil baptism, were elected by the laborers to
     accomplish the mission of enfranchisement, and after having
     shared their rights and their duties, they share to-day their
     captivity.

     It is from the depths of their prison that they address to you
     the relation of these facts, which contain in themselves high
     instruction. It is by labor, it is by entering resolutely into
     the ranks of the working people, that women will conquer the
     civil and political equality on which depends the happiness of
     the world. As to moral equality, has she not conquered it by the
     power of sentiment? It is, therefore, by the sentiment of the
     love of humanity that the mother of humanity will find power to
     accomplish her high mission. It is when she shall have well
     comprehended the holy law of solidarity--which is not an obscure
     and mysterious dogma, but a living providential fact--that the
     kingdom of God promised by Jesus, and which is no other than the
     kingdom of equality and justice, shall be realized on earth.

     Sisters of America! your socialist sisters of France are united
     with you in the vindication of the right of woman to civil and
     political equality. We have, moreover, the profound conviction
     that only by the power of association based on solidarity--by the
     union of the working-classes of both sexes to organize labor--can
     be acquired, completely and pacifically, the civil and political
     equality of woman, and the social right for all.

     It is in this confidence that, from the depths of the jail which
     still imprisons our bodies without reaching our hearts, we cry to
     you, Faith, Love, Hope, and send to you our sisterly salutations,

                                             JEANNE DEROINE,
                                             PAULINE ROLAND.

     PARIS, PRISON OF ST. LAGARE, _June 15, 1851_.

Ernestine L. Rose, having known something of European despotism,
followed Mr. Channing in a speech of great pathos and power. She said:

     After having heard the letter read from our poor incarcerated
     sisters of France, well might we exclaim, Alas, poor France!
     where is thy glory? Where the glory of the Revolution of 1848, in
     which shone forth the pure and magnanimous spirit of an oppressed
     nation struggling for Freedom? Where the fruits of that victory
     that gave to the world the motto, "Liberty, Equality, and
     Fraternity"? A motto destined to hurl the tyranny of kings and
     priests into the dust, and give freedom to the enslaved millions
     of the earth. Where, I again ask, is the result of those noble
     achievements, when woman, ay, one-half of the nation, is deprived
     of her rights? Has woman then been idle during the contest
     between "right and might"? Has she been wanting in ardor and
     enthusiasm? Has she not mingled her blood with that of her
     husband, son, and sire? Or has she been recreant in hailing the
     motto of liberty floating on your banners as an omen of justice,
     peace, and freedom to man, that at the first step she takes
     practically to claim the recognition of her rights, she is
     rewarded with the doom of a martyr?

     But right has not yet asserted her prerogative, for might rules
     the day; and as every good cause must have its martyrs, why
     should woman not be a martyr for her cause? But need we wonder
     that France, governed as she is by Russian and Austrian
     despotism, does not recognize the rights of humanity in the
     recognition of the rights of woman, when even here, in this
     far-famed land of freedom, under a Republic that has inscribed on
     its banner the great truth that "all men are created free and
     equal, and endowed with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and
     the pursuit of happiness"--a declaration borne, like the vision
     of hope, on wings of light to the remotest parts of the earth, an
     omen of freedom to the oppressed and down-trodden children of
     man--when, even here, in the very face of this eternal truth,
     woman, the mockingly so-called "better half" of man, has yet to
     plead for her rights, nay, for her life. For what is life without
     liberty, and what is liberty without equality of rights? And as
     for the pursuit of happiness, she is not allowed to choose any
     line of action that might promote it; she has only thankfully to
     accept what man in his magnanimity decides as best for her to do,
     and this is what he does not choose to do himself.

     Is she then not included in that declaration? Answer, ye wise men
     of the nation, and answer truly; add not hypocrisy to oppression!
     Say that she is not created free and equal, and therefore (for
     the sequence follows on the premise) that she is not entitled to
     life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But with all the
     audacity arising from an assumed superiority, you dare not so
     libel and insult humanity as to say, that she is not included in
     that declaration; and if she is, then what right has man, except
     that of might, to deprive woman of the rights and privileges he
     claims for himself? And why, in the name of reason and justice,
     why should she not have the same rights? Because she is woman?
     Humanity recognizes no sex; virtue recognizes no sex; mind
     recognizes no sex; life and death, pleasure and pain, happiness
     and misery, recognize no sex. Like man, woman comes involuntarily
     into existence; like him, she possesses physical and mental and
     moral powers, on the proper cultivation of which depends her
     happiness; like him she is subject to all the vicissitudes of
     life; like him she has to pay the penalty for disobeying nature's
     laws, and far greater penalties has she to suffer from ignorance
     of her more complicated nature; like him she enjoys or suffers
     with her country. Yet she is not recognized as his equal!

     In the laws of the land she has no rights; in government she has
     no voice. And in spite of another principle, recognized in this
     Republic, namely, that "taxation without representation is
     tyranny," she is taxed without being represented. Her property
     may be consumed by taxes to defray the expenses of that unholy,
     unrighteous custom called war, yet she has no power to give her
     vote against it. From the cradle to the grave she is subject to
     the power and control of man. Father, guardian, or husband, one
     conveys her like some piece of merchandise over to the other.

     At marriage she loses her entire identity, and her being is said
     to have become merged in her husband. Has nature thus merged it?
     Has she ceased to exist and feel pleasure and pain? When she
     violates the laws of her being, does her husband pay the penalty?
     When she breaks the moral laws, does he suffer the punishment?
     When he supplies his wants, is it enough to satisfy her nature?
     And when at his nightly orgies, in the grog-shop and the
     oyster-cellar, or at the gaming-table, he squanders the means she
     helped, by her co-operation and economy, to accumulate, and she
     awakens to penury and destitution, will it supply the wants of
     her children to tell them that, owing to the superiority of man
     she had no redress by law, and that as her being was merged in
     his, so also ought theirs to be? What an inconsistency, that from
     the moment she enters that compact, in which she assumes the high
     responsibility of wife and mother, she ceases legally to exist,
     and becomes a purely submissive being. Blind submission in woman
     is considered a virtue, while submission to wrong is itself
     wrong, and resistance to wrong is virtue, alike in woman as in
     man.

     But it will be said that the husband provides for the wife, or in
     other words, he feeds, clothes, and shelters her! I wish I had
     the power to make every one before me fully realize the
     degradation contained in that idea. Yes! he _keeps_ her, and so
     he does a favorite horse; by law they are both considered his
     property. Both may, when the cruelty of the owner compels them
     to, run away, be brought back by the strong arm of the law, and
     according to a still extant law of England, both may be led by
     the halter to the market-place, and sold. This is humiliating
     indeed, but nevertheless true; and the sooner these things are
     known and understood, the better for humanity. It is no fancy
     sketch. I know that some endeavor to throw the mantle of romance
     over the subject, and treat woman like some ideal existence, not
     liable to the ills of life. Let those deal in fancy, that have
     nothing better to deal in; we have to do with sober, sad
     realities, with stubborn facts.

     Again, I shall be told that the law presumes the husband to be
     kind, affectionate, and ready to provide for and protect his
     wife. But what right, I ask, has the law to presume at all on the
     subject? What right has the law to intrust the interest and
     happiness of one being into the hands of another? And if the
     merging of the interest of one being into the other is a
     necessary consequence on marriage, why should woman always remain
     on the losing side? Turn the tables. Let the identity and
     interest of the husband be merged in the wife. Think you she
     would act less generously toward him, than he toward her? Think
     you she is not capable of as much justice, disinterested
     devotion, and abiding affection, as he is? Oh, how grossly you
     misunderstand and wrong her nature! But we desire no such undue
     power over man; it would be as wrong in her to exercise it as it
     now is in him. All we claim is an equal legal and social
     position. We have nothing to do with individual man, be he good
     or bad, but with the laws that oppress woman. We know that bad
     and unjust laws must in the nature of things make man so too. If
     he is kind, affectionate, and consistent, it is because the
     kindlier feelings, instilled by a mother, kept warm by a sister,
     and cherished by a wife, will not allow him to carry out these
     barbarous laws against woman.

     But the estimation she is generally held in, is as degrading as
     it is foolish. Man forgets that woman can not be degraded without
     its reacting on himself. The impress of her mind is stamped on
     him by nature, and the early education of the mother, which no
     after-training can entirely efface; and therefore, the estimation
     she is held in falls back with double force upon him. Yet, from
     the force of prejudice against her, he knows it not. Not long
     ago, I saw an account of two offenders, brought before a Justice
     of New York. One was charged with stealing a pair of boots, for
     which offense he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment; the
     other crime was assault and battery upon his wife: he was let off
     with a reprimand from the judge! With my principles, I am
     entirely opposed to punishment, and hold, that to reform the
     erring and remove the causes of evil is much more efficient, as
     well as just, than to punish. But the judge showed us the
     comparative value which he set on these two kinds of _property_.
     But then you must remember that the boots were taken by a
     stranger, while the wife was insulted by her legal owner! Here it
     will be said, that such degrading cases are but few. For the sake
     of humanity, I hope they are. But as long as woman shall be
     oppressed by unequal laws, so long will she be degraded by man.

     We have hardly an adequate idea how all-powerful law is in
     forming public opinion, in giving tone and character to the mass
     of society. To illustrate my point, look at that infamous,
     detestable law, which was written in human blood, and signed and
     sealed with life and liberty, that eternal stain on the statute
     book of this country, the Fugitive Slave Law. Think you that
     before its passage, you could have found any in the free
     States--except a few politicians in the market--base enough to
     desire such a law? No! no! Even those who took no interest in the
     slave question, would have shrunk from so barbarous a thing. But
     no sooner was it passed, than the ignorant mass, the rabble of
     the self-styled Union Safety Committee, found out that we were a
     law-loving, law-abiding people! Such is the magic power of Law.
     Hence the necessity to guard against bad ones. Hence also the
     reason why we call on the nation to remove the legal shackles
     from woman, and it will have a beneficial effect on that still
     greater tyrant she has to contend with, Public Opinion.

     Carry out the republican principle of universal suffrage, or
     strike it from your banners and substitute "Freedom and Power to
     one half of society, and Submission and Slavery to the other."
     Give woman the elective franchise. Let married women have the
     same right to property that their husbands have; for whatever the
     difference in their respective occupations, the duties of the
     wife are as indispensable and far more arduous than the
     husband's. Why then should the wife, at the death of her husband,
     not be his heir to the same extent that he is heir to her? In
     this inequality there is involved another wrong. When the wife
     dies, the husband is left in the undisturbed possession of all
     there is, and the children are left with him; no change is made,
     no stranger intrudes on his home and his affliction. But when the
     husband dies, the widow, at best receives but a mere pittance,
     while strangers assume authority denied to the wife. The
     sanctuary of affliction must be desecrated by executors;
     everything must be ransacked and assessed, lest she should steal
     something out of her own house: and to cap the climax, the
     children must be placed under guardians. When the husband dies
     poor, to be sure, no guardian is required, and the children are
     left for the mother to care and toil for, as best she may. But
     when anything is left for their maintenance, then it must be
     placed in the hands of strangers for safe keeping! The
     bringing-up and safety of the children are left with the mother,
     and safe they are in her hands. But a few hundred or thousand
     dollars can not be intrusted with her!

     But, say they, "in case of a second marriage, the children must
     be protected in their property." Does that reason not hold as
     good in the case of the husband as in that of the wife? Oh, no!
     When _he_ marries again, he still retains his identity and power
     to act; but _she_ becomes merged once more into a mere nonentity;
     and therefore the first husband must rob her to prevent the
     second from doing so! Make the laws regulating property between
     husband and wife, equal for both, and all these difficulties
     would be removed.

     According to a late act, the wife has a right to the property she
     brings at marriage, or receives in any way after marriage. Here
     is some provision for the favored few; but for the laboring many,
     there is none. The mass of the people commence life with no other
     capital than the union of heads, hearts, and hands. To the
     benefit of this best of capital, the wife has no right. If they
     are unsuccessful in married life, who suffers more the bitter
     consequences of poverty than the wife? But if successful, she can
     not call a dollar her own. The husband may will away every dollar
     of the personal property, and leave her destitute and penniless,
     and she has no redress by law. And even where real estate is left
     she receives but a life-interest in a third part of it, and at
     her death, she can not leave it to any one belonging to her: it
     falls back even to the remotest of his relatives. This is law,
     but where is the justice of it? Well might we say that laws were
     made to prevent, not to promote, the ends of justice.

     In case of separation, why should the children be taken from the
     protecting care of the mother? Who has a better right to them
     than she? How much do fathers generally do toward bringing them
     up? When he comes home from business, and the child is in good
     humor and handsome trim, he takes the little darling on his knee
     and plays with it. But when the wife, with the care of the whole
     household on her shoulders, with little or no help, is not able
     to put them in the best order, how much does he do for them? Oh,
     no! Fathers like to have children good natured, well-behaved, and
     comfortable, but how to put them in that desirable condition is
     out of their philosophy. Children always depend more on the
     tender, watchful care of the mother, than of the father. Whether
     from nature, habit, or both, the mother is much more capable of
     administering to their health and comfort than the father, and
     therefore she has the best right to them. And where there is
     property, it ought to be divided equally between them, with an
     additional provision from the father toward the maintenance and
     education of the children.

     Much is said about the burdens and responsibilities of married
     men. Responsibilities indeed there are, if they but felt them;
     but as to burdens, what are they? The sole province of man seems
     to be centered in that one thing, attending to some business. I
     grant that owing to the present unjust and unequal reward for
     labor, many have to work too hard for a subsistence; but whatever
     his vocation, he has to attend as much to it before as after
     marriage. Look at your bachelors, and see if they do not strive
     as much for wealth, and attend as steadily to business, as
     married men. No! the husband has little or no increase of burden,
     and every increase of comfort after marriage; while most of the
     burdens, cares, pains, and penalties of married life fall on the
     wife. How unjust and cruel, then, to have all the laws in his
     favor! If any difference should be made by law between husband
     and wife, reason, justice, and humanity, if their voices were
     heard, would dictate that it should be in her favor.

     No! there is no reason against woman's elevation, but there are
     deep-rooted, hoary-headed prejudices. The main cause of them is,
     a pernicious falsehood propagated against her being, namely, that
     she is inferior by her nature. Inferior in what? What has man
     ever done, that woman, under the same advantages, could not do?
     In morals, bad as she is, she is generally considered his
     superior. In the intellectual sphere, give her a fair chance
     before you pronounce a verdict against her. Cultivate the frontal
     portion of her brain as much as that of man is cultivated, and
     she will stand his equal at least. Even now, where her mind has
     been called out at all, her intellect is as bright, as capacious,
     and as powerful as his. Will you tell us, that women have no
     Newtons, Shakespeares, and Byrons? Greater natural powers than
     even those possessed may have been destroyed in woman for want of
     proper culture, a just appreciation, reward for merit as an
     incentive to exertion, and freedom of action, without which, mind
     becomes cramped and stifled, for it can not expand under bolts
     and bars; and yet, amid all blighting, crushing
     circumstances--confined within the narrowest possible limits,
     trampled upon by prejudice and injustice, from her education and
     position forced to occupy herself almost exclusively with the
     most trivial affairs--in spite of all these difficulties, her
     intellect is as good as his. The few bright meteors in man's
     intellectual horizon could well be matched by woman, were she
     allowed to occupy the same elevated position. There is no need of
     naming the De Staels, the Rolands, the Somervilles, the
     Wollstonecrofts, the Sigourneys, the Wrights, the Martineaus, the
     Hemanses, the Fullers, Jagellos, and many more of modern as well
     as ancient times, to prove her mental powers, her patriotism, her
     self-sacrificing devotion to the cause of humanity, and the
     eloquence that gushes from her pen, or from her tongue. These
     things are too well known to require repetition. And do you ask
     for fortitude, energy, and perseverance? Then look at woman under
     suffering, reverse of fortune, and affliction, when the strength
     and power of man have sunk to the lowest ebb, when his mind is
     overwhelmed by the dark waters of despair. She, like the tender
     ivy plant bent yet unbroken by the storms of life, not only
     upholds her own hopeful courage, but clings around the
     tempest-fallen oak, to speak hope to his faltering spirit, and
     shelter him from the returning blast of the storm.

In looking over the speeches of Elizabeth Oakes Smith, Abby Kelly
Foster, Clarina Howard Nichols, Antoinette Brown, and Lucy Stone, and
the well-digested reports by Paulina Wright Davis on Education, Abby
Price on Industry, and William Henry Channing on the Social Relations,
comprising the whole range of woman's rights and duties, we feel that
the report of one of these meetings settles the question of woman's
capacity to reason. At every session of this two days' Convention
Brinley Hall was so crowded at an early hour that hundreds were unable
to gain admittance. Accordingly, the last evening it was proposed to
adjourn to the City Hall; and even that spacious auditorium was
crowded long before the hour for assembling. It may be said with
truth, that in the whole history of the woman suffrage movement there
never was at one time more able and eloquent men and women on our
platform, and represented by letter there, than in these Worcester
Conventions, which called out numerous complimentary comments and
editorial notices, notably the following:


     [_From the New York Christian Inquirer_, Rev. Henry Bellows,
     D.D., editor.]

             THE WOMAN'S RIGHTS CONVENTION AT WORCESTER.

     We have read the report of the proceedings of this Convention
     with lively interest and general satisfaction. We confess
     ourselves to be much surprised at the prevailing good sense,
     propriety, and moral elevation of the meeting. No candid reader
     can deny the existence of singular ability, honest and pure aims,
     eloquent and forcible advocacy, and a startling power in the
     reports and speeches of this Convention. For good, or for evil,
     it seems to us to be the most important meeting since that held
     in the cabin of the _Mayflower_. That meeting recognized the
     social and political equality of one-half the human race; this
     asserts the social and political equality of the other half, and
     of the whole. Imagine the difference which it would have made in
     our Declaration of Independence, to have inserted "and women" in
     the first clause of the self-evident truths it asserts: "that all
     men _and women_ are created equal." This Convention declares this
     to be the true interpretation of the Declaration, and at any
     rate, designs to amend the popular reading of the instrument to
     this effect. Nor is it a theoretical change which is aimed at. No
     more practical or tremendous revolution was ever sought in
     society, than that which this Woman's Rights Convention
     inaugurates. To emancipate half the human race from its present
     position of dependence on the other half; to abolish every
     distinction between the sexes that can be abolished, or which is
     maintained by statute or conventional usage; to throw open all
     the employments of society with equal freedom to men and women;
     to allow no difference whatsoever, in the eye of the law, in
     their duties or their rights, this, we submit, is a reform,
     surpassing, in pregnancy of purpose and potential results, any
     other now upon the platform, if it do not outweigh Magna Charta
     and our Declaration themselves.

     We very well recollect the scorn with which the annual procession
     of the first Abolitionists was greeted in Boston, some thirty
     years ago. The children had no conception of the "Bobolition
     Society," but as of a set of persons making themselves ridiculous
     for the amusement of the public; but that "Bobolition Society"
     has shaken the Union to its center, and filled the world with
     sympathy and concern. The Woman's Rights Convention is in like
     manner a thing for honest scorn to point its finger at; but a few
     years may prove that we pointed the finger, not at an illuminated
     balloon, but at the rising sun.

     We have no hesitation in acknowledging ourselves to be among
     those who have regarded this movement with decided distrust and
     distaste. If we have been more free than others to express this
     disgust, we have perhaps rendered some service, by representing a
     common sentiment with which this reform has to contend. We would
     be among the first to acknowledge that our objections have not
     grown out of any deliberate consideration of the principles
     involved in the question. They have been founded on instinctive
     aversion, on an habitual respect for public sentiment, on an
     irresistible feeling of the ludicrousness of the proposed reform
     in its details. Certainly social instinct has its proper place in
     the judgments we pass on the manners of both sexes. What is
     offensive to good taste--meaning by good taste, the taste of the
     most educated and refined people--has the burden of proof resting
     upon it when it claims respect and attention. But we should be
     the last to assert that questions of right and rights have no
     appeal from the bar of conventional taste to that of reason.

     And however it may have been at the outset, we think the Woman's
     Rights question has now made good its title to be heard in the
     superior court. The principles involved in this great question we
     can not now discuss; but we have a few thoughts upon the attitude
     of the reformer toward society, which we would respectfully
     commend to attention. If the female sex is injured in its present
     position, it is an injury growing out of universal mistake; an
     honest error, in which the sexes have conspired, without
     intentional injustice on one side, or feeling of wrong on the
     other. Indeed, we could not admit that there had been thus far
     any wrong or mistake at all, except in details. Mankind have
     hitherto found the natural functions of the two sexes marking out
     different spheres for them. Thus far, as we think, the
     circumstances of the world have compelled a marked division of
     labor, and a marked difference of culture and political position
     between the sexes.

     The facts of superior bodily strength on the masculine side, and
     of maternity on the feminine side, small as they are now made to
     appear, are very great and decisive facts in themselves, and have
     necessarily governed the organization of society. It is between
     the sexes, as between the races, the strongest rules; and it has
     hitherto been supposed to be of service to the common interest of
     society, that this rule should be legalized and embodied in the
     social customs of every community. As a fact, woman, by her
     bodily weakness and her maternal office, was from the first, a
     comparatively private and domestic creature; her education, from
     circumstances, was totally different, her interests were
     different, the sources of her happiness different from man's, and
     as a fact, all these things, though with important modifications,
     have continued to be so to this day. The fact has seemed to the
     world a final one. It has been thought that in her present
     position, she was in her best position relative to man, which her
     nature or organization admitted of. That she is man's inferior in
     respect to all offices and duties requiring great bodily powers,
     or great moral courage, or great intellectual effort, has been
     almost universally supposed,--honestly thought too, and without
     the least disposition to deny her equality, on this account, in
     the scale of humanity.

     For in respect to moral sensibility, affections, manners, tastes,
     and the passive virtues, woman has long been honestly felt to be
     the superior of man. The political disfranchisement of women, and
     their seclusion from publicity, have grown out of sincere
     convictions that their nature and happiness demanded from man an
     exemption from the cares, and a protection from the perils of the
     out-of-door world. Mankind, in both its parts, may have been
     utterly mistaken in this judgment; but it has been nearly
     universal, and thoroughly sincere,--based thus far, we think,
     upon staring facts and compulsory circumstances.

     In starting a radical reform upon this subject, it is expedient
     that it should be put, not on the basis of old grievances, but
     upon the ground of new light, of recent and fresh experiences, of
     change of circumstances. It may be that the relative position of
     the sexes is so changed by an advancing civilization, that the
     time has come for questioning the conclusion of the world
     respecting woman's sphere. All surprise at opposition to this
     notion, all sense of injury, all complaint of past injustice,
     ought to cease. Woman's part has been the part which her actual
     state made necessary. If another and a better future is opening,
     let us see it and rejoice in it as a new gift of Providence.

     And we are not without suspicion that the time for some great
     change has arrived. At any rate, we confess our surprise at the
     weight of the reasoning brought forward by the recent Convention,
     and shall endeavor henceforth to keep our masculine mind,--full,
     doubtless, of conventional prejudices,--open to the light which
     is shed upon the theme.

     Meanwhile, we must beg the women who are pressing this reform, to
     consider that the conservatism of instinct and taste, though not
     infallible, in respectable and worth attention. The opposition
     they will receive is founded on prejudices that are not selfish,
     but merely masculine. It springs from no desire to keep women
     down, but from a desire to keep them up; from a feeling, mistaken
     it may be, that their strength, and their dignity, and their
     happiness, lie in their seclusion from the rivalries, strifes,
     and public duties of life. The strength and depth of the respect
     and love for woman, as woman, which characterize this age, can
     not be overstated. But woman insists upon being respected, as a
     kindred intellect, a free competitor, and a political equal. And
     we have suspicions that she may surprise the conservative world
     by making her pretensions good. Only meanwhile let her respect
     the affectionate and sincere prejudices, if they be prejudices,
     which adhere to the other view, a view made honorable, if not
     proved true, by the experiences of all the ages of the past. We
     hope to give the whole subject more attention in future. Indeed
     it will force attention. It may be the solution of many social
     problems, long waiting an answer, is delayed by the neglect to
     take woman's case into fuller consideration. The success of the
     present reform would give an entirely new problem to political
     and social philosophers! At present we endeavor to hold ourselves
     in a candid suspense.

Judging Dr. Bellows by the above editorial, he had made some progress
in one year. A former article from his pen called out the following
criticism from Mrs. Rose:

     After last year's Woman's Convention, I saw an article in the
     _Christian Inquirer_, a Unitarian paper, edited by the Rev. Mr.
     Bellows, of New York, where, in reply to a correspondent on the
     subject of Woman's Rights, in which he strenuously opposed her
     taking part in anything in public, he said: "Place woman
     unbonneted and unshawled before the public gaze and what becomes
     of her modesty and her virtue?" In his benighted mind, the
     modesty and virtue of woman is of so fragile a nature, that when
     it is in contact with the atmosphere, it evaporates like
     chloroform. But I refrain to comment on such a sentiment. It
     carries with it its own deep condemnation. When I read the
     article, I earnestly wished I had the ladies of the writer's
     congregation before me, to see whether they could realize the
     estimation their pastor held them in. Yet I hardly know which
     sentiment was strongest in me, contempt for such foolish
     opinions, or pity for a man that has so degrading an opinion of
     woman--of the being that gave him life, that sustained his
     helpless infancy with her ever-watchful care, and laid the very
     foundation for the little mind he may possess--of the being he
     took to his bosom as the partner of his joys and sorrows--the one
     whom, when he strove to win her affection, he courted, as all
     such men court woman, like some divinity. Such a man deserves our
     pity; for I can not realize that a man purposely and willfully
     degrades his mother, sister, wife, and daughter. No! my better
     nature, my best knowledge and conviction forbid me to believe it.


THE UNA.

In February, 1853, Paulina Wright Davis started a woman's paper called
_The Una_, published in Providence, Rhode Island, with the following
prospectus:

     Usage makes it necessary to present our readers with a prospectus
     setting forth our aims and objects. Our plan is to publish a
     paper monthly, devoted to the interests of woman. Our purpose is
     to speak clear, earnest words of truth and soberness in a spirit
     of kindness. To discuss the rights, duties, sphere, and destiny
     of woman fully and fearlessly. So far as our voice shall be
     heard, it will be ever on the side of freedom. We shall not
     confine ourselves to any locality, sex, sect, class, or caste,
     for we hold to the solidarity of the race, and believe if one
     member suffers, all suffer, and the highest made to atone for the
     lowest. Our mystical name, _The Una_, signifying _Truth_, will be
     to us a constant suggestion of fidelity to all.

_The Una_ could boast for its correspondents some of the ablest men
and women in the nation; such as William H. Channing, Elizabeth
Peabody, Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Rev. A. D. Mayo, Dr. William
Elder, Ednah D. Cheney, Caroline H. Dall, Fanny Fern, Elizabeth Oakes
Smith, Frances D. Gage, Hannah Tracy Cutler, Abby H. Price, Marion
Finch, of Liverpool, Hon. John Neal, of Portland, Lucy Stone, and
Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

For some time Mrs. Dall assisted in the editorial department. _The
Una_ was the first pronounced Woman Suffrage paper; it lived three
years. Glancing over the bound volumes, one may glean much valuable
information of what was said and done during that period. We learn
that Lady Grace Vandeleur, in person, canvassed the election of
Kilrush, Ireland, and from her ladyship's open carriage, addressed a
large assemblage of electors on behalf of her husband, the
Conservative candidate. She was enthusiastically greeted by the
populace.

The _Maine Age_ announces the election of a Miss Rose to the office of
Register of Deeds, and remarks: "Before the morning of the twentieth
century dawns, women will not simply fill your offices of Register of
Deeds, but they will occupy seats in your Legislative Halls, on your
judicial benches, and in the executive chair of State and Nation. We
deprecate it, yet we perceive its inevitability, and await the shock
with firmness and composure."

This same year, _The Una_ narrates the following amusing incident that
occurred in the town of P----, New Hampshire: It is customary in the
country towns for those who choose to do so, to pay their proportion
of the highway tax, in actual labor on the roads, at the rate of eight
cents an hour, instead of paying money. Two able-bodied and
strong-hearted women in P----, who found it very inconvenient to pay
the ready cash required of them, determined to avail themselves of
this custom. They accordingly presented themselves to the surveyor of
the highway with hoes in their hands, and demanded to be set to work.
The good surveyor was sorely puzzled; such a thing as women working
out their taxes, had never been heard of, and yet the law made no
provision against it. He consulted his lawyer, who advised him that he
had no power to refuse. Accordingly the two brave women worked, and
worked well, in spreading sand and gravel, saved their pennies, and no
doubt felt all the better for their labor.

In the April Number, 1853, we find the following appeal to the
citizens of Massachusetts, on the equal political rights of woman:

     FELLOW-CITIZENS:--In May next a Convention will assemble to
     revise the Constitution of the Commonwealth.

     At such a time it is the right and duty of every one to point out
     whatever he deems erroneous and imperfect in that instrument, and
     press its amendment on public attention.

     We deem the extension to woman of all civil rights, a measure of
     vital importance to the welfare and progress of the State. On
     every principle of natural justice, as well as by the nature of
     our institutions, she is as fully entitled as man to vote, and to
     be eligible to office. In governments based on force, it might be
     pretended with some plausibility, that woman being supposed
     physically weaker than man, should be excluded from the State.
     But ours is a government professedly resting on the consent of
     the governed. Woman is surely as competent to give that consent
     as man. Our Revolution claimed that taxation and representation
     should be co-extensive. While the property and labor of women are
     subject to taxation, she is entitled to a voice in fixing the
     amount of taxes, and the use of them when collected, and is
     entitled to a voice in the laws that regulate punishments. It
     would be a disgrace to our schools and civil institutions, for
     any one to argue that a Massachusetts woman who has enjoyed the
     full advantage of all their culture, is not as competent to form
     an opinion on civil matters, as the illiterate foreigner landed
     but a few years before upon our shores--unable to read or
     write--by no means free from early prejudices, and little
     acquainted with our institutions. Yet such men are allowed to
     vote.

     Woman as wife, mother, daughter, and owner of property, has
     important rights to be protected. The whole history of
     legislation so unequal between the sexes, shows that she can not
     safely trust these to the other sex. Neither have her rights as
     mother, wife, daughter, laborer, ever received full legislative
     protection. Besides, our institutions are not based on the idea
     of one class receiving protection from another; but on the
     well-recognized rule that each class, or sex, is entitled to such
     civil rights, as will enable it to protect itself. The exercise
     of civil rights is one of the best means of education. Interest
     in great questions, and the discussion of them under momentous
     responsibility, call forth all the faculties and nerve them to
     their fullest strength. The grant of these rights on the part of
     society, would quickly lead to the enjoyment by woman, of a share
     in the higher grades of professional employment. Indeed, without
     these, mere book study is often but a waste of time. The learning
     for which no use is found or anticipated, is too frequently
     forgotten, almost as soon as acquired. The influence of such a
     share, on the moral condition of society, is still more
     important. Crowded now into few employments, women starve each
     other by close competition; and too often vice borrows
     overwhelming power of temptation from poverty. Open to women a
     great variety of employments, and her wages in each will rise;
     the energy and enterprise of the more highly endowed, will find
     full scope in honest effort, and the frightful vice of our cities
     will be stopped at its fountain-head. We hint very briefly at
     these matters. A circular like this will not allow room for more.
     Some may think it too soon to expect any action from the
     Convention. Many facts lead us to think that public opinion is
     more advanced on this question than is generally supposed.
     Beside, there can be no time so proper to call public attention
     to a radical change in our civil polity as now, when the whole
     framework of our government is to be subjected to examination and
     discussion. It is never too early to begin the discussion of any
     desired change. To urge our claim on the Convention, is to bring
     our question before the proper tribunal, and secure at the same
     time the immediate attention of the general public.
     Massachusetts, though she has led the way in most other reforms,
     has in this fallen behind her rivals, consenting to learn, as to
     the protection of the property of married women, of many younger
     States. Let us redeem for her the old pre-eminence, and urge her
     to set a noble example in this the most important of all civil
     reforms. To this we ask you to join with us[49] in the
     accompanying petition to the Constitutional Convention.

In favor of this Appeal Lucy Stone, Theodore Parker, Wendell Phillips,
and Thomas Wentworth Higginson, were heard.

We find in _The Una_ the following report of Mr. Higginson's speech
before the Committee of the Constitutional Convention on the
qualification of voters, June 3, 1853, the question being on the
petition of Abby May Alcott, and other women of Massachusetts, that
they be permitted to vote on the amendments that may be made to the
Constitution.

                         MR. HIGGINSON'S SPEECH.

     I need hardly suggest to the Committee the disadvantage under
     which I appear before them, in coming to glean after three of the
     most eloquent voices in this community, or any other [Lucy Stone,
     Wendell Phillips, and Theodore Parker]; in doing this, moreover,
     without having heard all their arguments, and in a fragment of
     time at the end of a two hours' sitting. I have also the minor
     disadvantage of gleaning after myself, having just ventured to
     submit a more elaborate essay on this subject, in a different
     form, to the notice of the Convention.

     I shall therefore abstain from all debate upon the general
     question, and confine myself to the specific point now before
     this Committee. I shall waive all inquiry as to the right of
     women to equality in education, in occupations, or in the
     ordinary use of the elective franchise. The question before this
     Committee is not whether women shall become legal voters--but
     whether they shall have power to say, once for all, whether they
     wish to become legal voters. Whether, in one word, they desire to
     accept this Constitution which the Convention is framing.

     It is well that the question should come up in this form, since
     the one efficient argument against the right of women to vote, in
     ordinary cases, is the plea that they do not wish to do it.
     "Their whole nature revolts at it." Very well; these petitioners
     simply desire an opportunity for Massachusetts women to say
     whether their nature does revolt at it or no.

     The whole object of this Convention, as I heard stated by one of
     its firmest advocates, is simply this: to "make the Constitution
     of Massachusetts consistent with its own first principles." This
     is all these petitioners demand. Give them the premises which are
     conceded in our existing Bill of Rights, or even its Preamble,
     and they ask no more. I shall draw my few weapons from this
     source. I know that this document is not binding upon your
     Convention; nothing is binding upon you but eternal and absolute
     justice, and my predecessor has taken care of the claims of that.
     But the Bill of Rights is still the organic law of this State,
     and I can quote no better authority for those principles which
     lie at the foundation of all that we call republicanism.

     I. My first citation will be from the Preamble, and will
     establish as Massachusetts doctrine the principle of the
     Declaration of Independence, that all government owes its just
     powers to the consent of the governed.

     "The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration of
     government, is to secure the existence of the body politic....
     The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of
     individuals; it is a social compact, by which the whole people
     covenants with each citizen and each citizen with the whole
     people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common
     good.... It is the duty of the people, therefore, in framing a
     constitution of government, to provide for an equitable mode of
     making laws, as well as for an impartial interpretation and a
     faithful execution of them," etc., etc.

     Now, women are "individuals"; women are a part of "the people";
     women are "citizens," for the Constitution elsewhere
     distinguishes male citizens. This clause, then, concedes
     precisely that which your petitioners claim. Observe how explicit
     it is. The people are not merely to have good laws, well
     administered; but they must have an equitable mode of making
     those laws. The reason of this is, that good laws are no
     permanent security, unless enacted by equitable methods. Your
     laws may be the best ever devised; yet still they are only given
     as a temporary favor, not held as a right, unless the whole
     people are concerned in their enactment. It is the old claim of
     despots--that their laws are good. When they told Alexander of
     Russia that his personal character was as good as a constitution
     for his people, "then," said he, "I am but a lucky accident."
     Your constitution may be never so benignant to woman, but that is
     only a lucky accident, unless you concede the claim of these
     women to have a share in creating it. Nothing else "is an
     equitable mode of making laws." But it is too late to choose
     female delegates to your Convention, and the only thing you can
     do is to allow women to vote on the acceptance of its results.
     The claim of these petitioners may be unexpected, but is
     logically irresistible. If you do not wish it to be renewed, you
     must remember either to alter or abrogate your Bill of Rights;
     for the petition is based on that.

     The last speaker called this movement a novelty. Not entirely so.
     The novelty is partly the other way. In Europe, women have direct
     political power; witness Victoria. It is a false democracy which
     has taken it away. In my more detailed argument, I have cited
     many instances of these foreign privileges. In monarchical
     countries the dividing lines are not of sex, but of rank. A
     plebeian woman has no political power--nor has her husband. Rank
     gives it to man, and, also, in a degree, to woman. But among us
     the only rank is of sex. Politically speaking, in Massachusetts
     all men are patrician, all women plebeian. All men are equal, in
     having direct political power; and all women are equal, in having
     none. And women lose by democracy precisely that which men gain.
     Therefore I say this disfranchisement of woman, as woman, is a
     novelty. It is a now aristocracy; for, as De Tocqueville says,
     wherever one class has peculiar powers, as such, there is
     aristocracy and oligarchy.

     We see the result of this in our general mode of speaking of
     woman. We forget to speak of her as an individual being, only as
     a thing. A political writer coolly says, that in Massachusetts,
     "except criminals and paupers, there is no class of persons who
     do not exercise the elective franchise." Women are not even a
     "class of persons." And yet, most readers would not notice this
     extraordinary omission. I talked the other day with a young
     radical preacher about his new religious organization. "Who votes
     under it?" said I. "Oh," (he said, triumphantly,) "we go for
     progress and liberty; anybody and everybody votes." "What!" said
     I, "women?" "No," said he, rather startled; "I did not think of
     them when I spoke." Thus quietly do we all talk of "anybody and
     everybody," and omit half the human race. Indeed, I read in the
     newspaper, this morning, of some great festivity, that "all the
     world and his wife" would be there! Women are not a part of the
     world, but only its "wife." They are not even "the rest of
     mankind"; they are womankind! All these things show the results
     of that inconsistency with the first principles of our
     Constitution of which the friends of this Convention justly
     complain.

     II. So much for the general statement of the Massachusetts Bill
     of Rights in its Preamble. But one clause is even more explicit.
     In Section 9, I find the following:

     "All the inhabitants of this Commonwealth, having such
     qualifications as they shall establish by their form of
     government, have an equal right to elect officers," etc.

     As "they" shall establish. Who are _they_? Manifestly, the
     inhabitants as a whole. No part can have power, except by the
     consent of the whole, so far as that consent is practicable.
     Accordingly, you submit your Constitution for ratification--to
     whom? Not to the inhabitants of the State, not even to a majority
     of the native adult inhabitants; for it is estimated that at any
     given moment--in view of the great number of men emigrating to
     the West, to California, or absent on long voyages--the majority
     of the population of Massachusetts is female. You disfranchise
     the majority, then; the greater part of "the inhabitants" have no
     share in establishing the form of government, or assigning the
     qualifications of voters. What worse can you say of any
     oligarchy? True, your aristocracy is a large one--almost a
     majority, you may say. But so, in several European nations, is
     nobility almost in a majority, and you almost hire a nobleman to
     black your shoes; they are as cheap as generals and colonels in
     New England. But the principle is the same, whether the
     privileged minority consists of one or one million.

     It is said that a tacit consent has been hitherto given by the
     absence of open protest? The same argument maybe used concerning
     the black majority in South Carolina. Besides, your new
     Constitution is not yet made, and there has been no opportunity
     to assent to it. It will not be identical with the old one; but,
     even if it were, you propose to ask a renewed consent from men,
     and why not from women? Is it because a lady's "Yes" is always so
     fixed a certainty, that it never can be transformed to a "No," at
     a later period?

     But I am compelled, by the fixed period of adjournment (10 A.M.),
     to cut short my argument, as I have been already compelled to
     condense it. I pray your consideration for the points I have
     urged. Believe me, it is easier to ridicule the petition of these
     women than to answer the arguments which sustain it. And, as the
     great republic of ancient times did not blush to claim that laws
     and governments were first introduced by Ceres, a woman, so I
     trust that the representatives of this noblest of modern
     commonwealths may not be ashamed to receive legislative
     suggestions from even female petitioners.

On Tuesday, August 12, 1853, in Committee of the Whole, the report
that "it is inexpedient to act on the petition" of several parties
that women may vote, was taken up.

     Mr. GREEN, of Brookfield, opposed the report, contending that
     women being capable of giving or withholding their assent to the
     acts of government, should upon every principle of justice and
     equality, be permitted to participate in its administration. He
     denied that men were of right the guardians or trustees of women,
     since they had not been appointed, but had usurped that position.
     Women had inherent natural rights as a portion of the people, and
     they should be permitted to vote in order to protect those
     inherent rights.

     Mr. KEYES, of Abington, paid a warm tribute to the virtues and
     abilities of the fairer sex, and was willing to concede that they
     were to some extent oppressed and denied their rights; but he did
     not believe the granting of the privileges these petitioners
     claimed would tend to elevate or ameliorate their condition.
     Woman exerted great power by the exercise of her feminine graces
     and virtues, which she would lose the moment she should step
     beyond her proper sphere and mingle in the affairs of State!

     Mr. WHITNEY, of Boylston, believed that the same reasoning that
     would deny the divine right of kings to govern men without their
     consent, would also deny a similar right of men over women. The
     Committee had given the best of reasons for granting the prayer
     of the petitioners, and then reported that they have leave to
     withdraw. He expatiated on the grievances to which women are
     subjected, and concluded by moving as an amendment to the report,
     that the prayer of the petitioners ought to be granted.

     The Committee then rose, and had leave to sit again. Wednesday
     the first business of importance was the taking up in Committee
     of the report "leave to withdraw," relative to giving certain
     privileges to women. Question on the amendment of Mr. Whitney to
     amend the conclusion of the report, by inserting "that the prayer
     of the petitioners be granted." Debate ensued on the subject
     between Messrs. Marvin, of Winchendon; Kingman, of West
     Bridgewater; when the question was taken, and Mr. Whitney's
     amendment rejected. Mr. Marvin then moved to substitute
     "inexpedient to act" for "leave to withdraw"; which was adopted.
     The Committee then rose, and recommended the adoption of the
     report as amended, by a vote of 108 to 44.

The prejudices of the 108 outweighed all the able arguments made by
those who represented the petitioners, and all the great principles of
justice on which a true republic is based.

We find the following comments on the character and duties of the
gentlemen who composed the Convention, from the pen of Mr. Higginson,
in _The Una_ of June, 1853:

     _To the members of the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention:_

     The publication in our newspapers of the list of members of your
     honorable body, has won the just tribute of men of all parties to
     the happy result of the selection. Never, it is thought, has
     Massachusetts witnessed a political assembly of more eminent or
     accomplished men. And yet there are those to whom the daring
     thought has occurred, that to convoke such ability and learning,
     only to decide whether our Legislature shall be hereafter elected
     by towns or districts, is somewhat like the course of Columbus in
     assembling the dignitaries of his nation to decide whether an egg
     could be best poised upon the larger or the smaller end. A
     question which was necessarily settled, after all, by a
     compromise, as this will be.

     But at that moment, there lay within the brain of the young
     Genoese a dream, which although denounced by prelates and derided
     by statesmen was yet destined to add another half to the visible
     earth; so there is brooding in the soul of this generation, a
     vision of the greatest of all political discoveries, which, when
     accepted, will double the intellectual resources of society, and
     give a new world, not to Castile and Leon only, but to
     Massachusetts and the human race.

     And lastly, as we owe the labor and the laurels of Columbus only
     to the liberal statesmanship of a woman, it is surely a noble
     hope, that the future Isabellas of this Nation may point the way
     for their oppressed sisters of Europe to a suffrage truly
     universal, and a political freedom bounded neither by station nor
     by sex.

Elizabeth Oakes Smith, writing in _The Una_, says of this historical
occasion:

     The Massachusetts Convention did not deign to notice the prayer
     of these two thousand women who claimed the privilege of being
     heard by men who assert that we are represented through them.
     They decided that "it is inexpedient to act upon said petition."
     This is no cause for discouragement to those who have the subject
     at heart. Two thousand signers are quite as many, if not more,
     than we supposed would be procured. The believers in the rights
     of woman to entire equality with man in every department
     involving the question of human justice are entirely in the
     minority. The majority believe that their wives and mothers are
     household chattels; believe that they were expressly created for
     no other purposes than those of maternity in their highest
     aspect; in their next for purposes of passion, with the long
     retinue of unhallowed sensualities, debasements, and pollutions
     which follow in the train of evil indulgence. With others, women
     are sewers on of buttons; darners of stockings; makers of
     puddings; appendages to wash days, bakings, and brewings; echoes
     and adjectives to men for ever and ever. They are compounds of
     tears, hysterics, frettings, scoldings, complainings; made up of
     craftiness and imbecilities, to be wheedled, and coaxed, and
     coerced like unmanageable children. _The idea of a true, noble
     womanhood is yet to be created._ It does not live in the public
     mind. Now, in answer to the petition of these two thousand women,
     the Committee reply that all just governments exist by the
     consent of the governed. An old truism. We reply, women have
     given no such consent, and therefore are not bound to allegiance.
     But our sapient Legislators say, since there are two hundred
     thousand women in Massachusetts twenty-one years of age, and only
     two thousand who sign this petition, therefore it is fair to
     suppose that the larger part of the women of the State have
     consented to the present form of government. Now, this is
     assuredly a willful and unworthy perversion of the truth. These
     women are simply ignorant, simply supine. They have neither
     affirmed nor denied. They have not thought at all upon the
     subject. But there are two thousand women in Massachusetts who
     think and act, to say nothing of the thousands of intelligent men
     there who believe in the same doctrine. Now here is a little army
     in one State alone, and that a conservative one, while through
     the Middle and Western States are thousands thinking in the same
     direction. Here is the leaven that must leaven the whole lump.
     Here is the wise minority which will hereafter become the
     overwhelming majority of the country. The Committee remark on the
     fact that while 50,000 women have petitioned for a law to repress
     the sale of intoxicating liquor, only two thousand petition for
     the right to vote! While the multitude could readily trace the
     downfall of father, husband, brother, and son, to the dram-shop,
     only the thinking few could see the power beyond the law and the
     lawmaker that protects the traffic, the right to the ballot, with
     which to strike the most effective blow in the right place.


NEW ENGLAND WOMAN'S RIGHTS CONVENTION.

                                   BOSTON, Friday, _June 2, 1854_.

This Convention assembled the day on which poor Anthony Burns was
consigned to hopeless bondage;[50] and though many friends of the
woman movement remained in the streets to see his surrender, still at
an early hour the hall was literally crowded with earnest men and
women, whom a deep interest in the cause had drawn together. Sarah H.
Earle, of Worcester, was chosen President; Lucy Stone, Chairman of the
Business Committee, reported the resolutions, among which we find the
following:

     _Resolved_, That the Common Law, which governs the marriage
     relation, and blots out the legal existence of a wife, denies her
     right to the product of her own industry, denies her equal
     property rights, even denies her right to her children, and the
     custody of her own person, is grossly unjust to woman,
     dishonorable to man, and destructive to the harmony of life's
     holiest relation.

     _Resolved_, That the laws which destroy the legal individuality
     of woman after her marriage are equally pernicious to man as to
     woman, and may give to him in marriage a slave, or a tyrant, but
     never a wife.

William Lloyd Garrison, Emma E. Coe, Josephine S. Griffing, Wendell
Phillips, Dr. Harriot K. Hunt, Rev. S. S. Griswold, Sarah Pellet, Abby
Kelly Foster, Mrs. Morton, and Lucy Stone took part in the debates.
Letters were received from Thomas W. Higginson, Rev. A. D. Mayo,
Paulina Wright Davis, Mrs. Nichols, and Sarah Crosby. Francis
Jackson,[51] of Boston, made a contribution of $50. Committees were
appointed from each of the New England States to circulate petitions
for securing a change in the laws regulating the property of married
women, and limiting the right of suffrage to men. All the sessions
drew crowded audiences, and the enthusiasm was sustained to the end.
The sympathy for Burns intensified the feelings of those present
against all forms of oppression. Those who had witnessed the military
parade through the streets of Boston to drive the slave--a minister of
the Baptist denomination in his southern home--from the land of the
Pilgrims where he had sought refuge, were roused to plead with new
earnestness and power for equal rights to all without distinction of
sex or color.


WOMAN'S RIGHTS CONVENTION IN BOSTON.

                                          _Sept. 19 and 20, 1855._

This Convention was fully attended through six sessions, and gave
great satisfaction to all engaged in it. After its close, its officers
received such expressions of interest from persons not previously
enlisted in the cause, as to convince them that a lasting impression
was made. The attendance was the best that Boston could furnish in
intelligence and respectability, and to a greater degree than usual
clerical. Mrs. Paulina Wright Davis was again chosen President.
Business Committee--Dr. William F. Channing, Caroline H. Dall, Wendell
Phillips, and Caroline M. Severance. Among the Vice-Presidents we find
the names of Harriot K. Hunt and Thomas Wentworth Higginson. Caroline
H. Dall, Ellen M. Tarr, and Paulina Wright Davis presented carefully
prepared digests of the laws of several of the New England States.
Mrs. Davis said:

     In 1844 a bill was introduced into the Legislature of this State
     (Rhode Island) by Hon. Wilkins Updike, securing to married women
     their property "under certain regulations." The step was a
     progressive one, and hailed at that time as a bright omen for the
     future. Other States have followed the example, and the right of
     woman to some control of her property has been recognized. In
     1847 Vermont passed similar enactments; in 1848-'49, Connecticut,
     New York, and Texas; in 1850-'52, Alabama and Maine; in 1853, New
     Hampshire, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Iowa followed. But the
     provisions "under certain regulations" left married women almost
     as helpless as before.

     Mrs. DAVIS further says: If in 1855, from the practical workings
     of these statutes, we find ourselves compelled to pronounce them
     despotic in spirit, degrading and tyrannical in effect, we do not
     the less give honor to the man who was so far in advance of his
     age as to conceive the idea of raising woman a little in the
     scale of being.

We have always claimed the honor for New York as being first in this
matter, because the Property Bill was presented there in 1836, and
when finally passed in 1848, was far more liberal than in any other
State; and step by step her legislation was broadened, until 1860 the
revolution was complete, securing to married women their own
inheritance absolutely, to use, will, and dispose of as they see fit;
to do business in their name, make contracts, sue, and be sued.

The speakers on the first day of this Convention were Wendell
Phillips, Thomas W. Higginson, and Lucy Stone; on the second morning,
Caroline H. Dall, Antoinette L. Brown, and Susan B. Anthony. The
evening closed with a lecture from Ralph Waldo Emerson, and a poem by
Elizabeth Oakes Smith. No report of the debates was preserved.

In a letter to her family Susan B. Anthony, under date of Sept. 27th,
says:

     I went into Boston on Tuesday, with Lucy Stone, to attend the
     Convention. We stopped at Francis Jackson's, where we found
     Antoinette Brown and Ellen Blackwell. A pleasant company in that
     most hospitable home. The Convention passed off pleasantly, but
     with none of the enthusiasm we have in our New York meetings. As
     this was my first visit to Boston, Mr. Jackson took Antoinette
     and myself round to see the lions; to the House of Correction,
     the House of Reformation, the Merchant's Exchange, the
     Custom-House, State House, and Faneuil Hall, and then dined with
     his daughter, Eliza J. Eddy, in South Boston, returning in the
     afternoon. Lucy and Antoinette left, one for New York and the
     other for Brookfield. In the evening, Ellen Blackwell and I
     attended a reception at Mr. Garrison's, where we met several of
     the _literati_, and were most heartily welcomed by Mrs. Garrison,
     a noble, self-sacrificing woman, the loving and the loved,
     surrounded with healthy, happy children in that model home. Mr.
     Garrison was omnipresent now talking and introducing guests, now
     soothing some child to sleep, and now, with his charming wife,
     looking after the refreshments. There we met Mrs. Dall, Elizabeth
     Peabody, Mrs. McCready, the Shakespearian reader, Mrs. Severance,
     Dr. Hunt, Charles F. Hovey, Francis Jackson, Wendell Phillips,
     Sarah Pugh, of Philadelphia, and others. Having worshiped these
     distinguished people afar off, it was a great satisfaction to see
     so many face to face.

     On Saturday morning, in company with Mr. and Mrs. Garrison and
     Sarah Pugh, I visited Mount Auburn. What a magnificent
     resting-place this is! We could not find Margaret Fuller's
     monument, which I regretted. I spent Sunday with Charles Lenox
     Remond; we drove to Lynn with matchless steeds to hear Theodore
     Parker preach. What a sermon! our souls were filled. We discussed
     its excellence at James Buffum's, where, with other friends, we
     dined. Visited the steamer _Africa_ next day, in which Ellen
     Blackwell was soon to sail for Liverpool.

     Monday Mr. Garrison escorted me to Charlestown; we stood on the
     very spot where Warren fell, and mounted the interminable
     staircase to the top of Bunker Hill Monument, where we had an
     extensive view of the harbor and surrounding country. Then we
     called on Theodore Parker; found him up three flights of stairs
     in his library, covering that whole floor of his house; the room
     is lined all round with books to the very top--16,000
     volumes--and there, at a large table in the center of the
     apartment, sat the great man himself. It really seemed audacious
     in me to be ushered into such a presence, and on such a
     commonplace errand, to ask him to come to Rochester to speak in a
     course of lectures I am planning. But he received me with such
     kindness and simplicity, that the awe I felt on entering was soon
     dissipated. I then called on Wendell Phillips, in his sanctum,
     for the same purpose. I have invited Ralph Waldo Emerson by
     letter, and all three have promised to come. In the evening, with
     Mr. Jackson's son James, the most diffident and sensitive man I
     ever saw, Miss B---- and I went to the theater to see Dussendoff,
     the great tragedian, play Hamlet. The theater is new, the scenery
     beautiful, and, in spite of my Quaker training, I find I enjoy
     all these worldly amusements intensely.

     Returning to Worcester, I attended the Anti-Slavery Bazaar. I
     suppose there were many beautiful things exhibited, but I was so
     absorbed in the conversation of Mr. Higginson, Samuel May, Jr.,
     Sarah Earle, Cousin Dr. Seth Rogers, Stephen and Abby Foster,
     that I really forgot to take a survey of the tables. The next day
     Charles F. Hovey drove me out to the home of the Fosters, where
     we had a pleasant call.

Francis Jackson and Charles F. Hovey, though neither speakers nor
writers, yet they furnished the "sinews of war." None contributed more
generously than they to all the reforms of their times. They were the
first men to make a bequest to our movement. To them we are indebted
for the money that enabled us to carry on the agitation for years.
Beside giving liberally from time to time, Francis Jackson left $5,000
in the hands of Wendell Phillips, which he managed and invested so
wisely, that the fund was nearly doubled. Charles F. Hovey left
$50,000 to be used in anti-slavery, woman suffrage, and free religion.
With the exception of $1,000 from Lydia Maria Child, we have yet to
hear of a woman of wealth who has left anything for the
enfranchisement of her sex. Almost every daily paper heralds the fact
of some large bequest to colleges, churches, and charities by rich
women, but it is proverbial that they never remember the Woman
Suffrage movement that underlies in importance all others.


               HEARING BEFORE THE MASSACHUSETTS LEGISLATURE,
                                MARCH, 1857.

     _The Boston Traveller_ says: The Representatives Hall yesterday
     afternoon was completely filled, galleries and all, to hear the
     arguments before the Judiciary Committee, to whom was referred
     the petition of Lucy Stone and others for equal rights for
     "females" in the administration of government, for the right of
     suffrage, etc.

     Rev. JAMES FREEMAN CLARKE was the first speaker. He said:
     Gentlemen, the question before you is, Shall the women of
     Massachusetts have equal rights with the men? The fundamental
     principles of the Constitution set forth equal rights to all. A
     large portion of the property of Massachusetts is owned by women,
     probably one-third of the whole amount, and yet they are not
     represented, though compelled to pay taxes. It has been said they
     are represented by their husbands. So it was said that the
     American colonies were represented in the British Parliament, but
     the colonies were not contented with such representation; neither
     are women contented to be represented by men. As long as we put
     woman's name on the tax-list we should put it in the ballot-box.

     WENDELL PHILLIPS said: Self-government was the foundation of our
     institutions. July 4, 1776, sent the message round the world that
     every man can take care of himself better than any one else can
     do it for him. If you tax me, consult me. If you hang me, first
     try me by a jury of my own peers. What I ask for myself, I ask
     for woman. In the banks, a woman, as a stockholder, is allowed to
     vote. In the Bank of England, in the East India Company, in State
     Street, her power is felt, her voice controls millions.

     Three hundred years ago it was said woman had no right to profess
     any religion, as it would make discord in the family if she
     differed from her husband. The same conservatism warns us of the
     danger of allowing her any political opinions.

     LUCY STONE said: The argument that the wife, having the right of
     suffrage, would cause discord in the family, is entirely
     incorrect. When men wish to procure the vote of a neighbor, do
     they not approach them with the utmost suavity, and would not the
     husband who wished to influence the wife's vote be far more
     gracious than usual? She instanced the heroic conduct of Mrs.
     Patton, who navigated her husband's ship into the harbor of San
     Francisco, as an argument in favor of woman's power of command
     and of government. The captain and mate lying ill with a fever,
     she had the absolute control of both vessel and crew. Mrs.
     Stone's speech was comprehensive and pointed, and called forth
     frequent applause.

Dr. Harriot K. Hunt, a woman of wealth and position, protested every
year against being compelled to pay taxes while not recognized in the
government.


                      DR. HUNT'S PROTEST OF 1852.

     _To Frederick W. Tracy, Treasurer, and the Assessors, and other
     Authorities of the city of Boston, and the Citizens generally:_

     Harriot K. Hunt, physician, a native and permanent resident of
     the city of Boston, and for many years a taxpayer therein, in
     making payment of her city taxes for the coming year, begs leave
     to protest against the injustice and inequality of levying taxes
     upon women, and at the same time refusing them any voice or vote
     in the imposition and expenditure of the same. The only classes
     of male persons required to pay taxes, and not at the same time
     allowed the privilege of voting, are aliens and minors. The
     objection in the case of aliens is their supposed want of
     interest in our institutions and knowledge of them. The objection
     in the case of minors, is the want of sufficient understanding.
     These objections can not apply to women, natives of the city, all
     of whose property interests are here, and who have accumulated,
     by their own sagacity and industry, the very property on which
     they are taxed. But this is not all; the alien, by going through
     the forms of naturalization, the minor on coming of age, obtain
     the right of voting; and so long as they continue to pay a mere
     poll-tax of a dollar and a half, they may continue to exercise
     it, though so ignorant as not to be able to sign their names, or
     read the very votes they put into the ballot-boxes. Even
     drunkards, felons, idiots, and lunatics, if men, may still enjoy
     that right of voting to which no woman, however large the amount
     of taxes she pays, however respectable her character, or useful
     her life, can ever attain. Wherein, your remonstrant would
     inquire, is the justice, equality, or wisdom of this?

     That the rights and interests of the female part of the community
     are sometimes forgotten or disregarded in consequence of their
     deprivation of political rights, is strikingly evinced, as
     appears to your remonstrant, in the organization and
     administration of the city public schools. Though there are open
     in this State and neighborhood, a great multitude of colleges and
     professional schools for the education of boys and young men, yet
     the city has very properly provided two High-Schools of its own,
     one Latin, the other English, in which the "male graduates" of
     the Grammar Schools may pursue their education still farther at
     the public expense. And why is not a like provision made for the
     girls? Why is their education stopped short, just as they have
     attained the age best fitted for progress, and the preliminary
     knowledge necessary to facilitate it, thus giving the advantage
     of superior culture to sex, not to mind?

     The fact that our colleges and professional schools are closed
     against females, of which your remonstrant has had personal and
     painful experience; having been in the year 1847, after twelve
     years of medical practice in Boston, refused permission to attend
     the lectures of Harvard Medical College. That fact would seem to
     furnish an additional reason why the city should provide, at its
     own expense, those means of superior education which, by
     supplying our girls with occupation and objects of interest,
     would not only save them from lives of frivolity and emptiness,
     but which might open the way to many useful and lucrative
     pursuits, and so raise them above that degrading dependence, so
     fruitful a source of female misery.

     Reserving a more full exposition of the subject to future
     occasions, your remonstrant, in paying her tax for the current
     year, begs leave to protest against the injustice and
     inequalities above pointed out.

     This is respectfully submitted,              HARRIOT K. HUNT,
                                        32 Green Street, Boston, Mass.

Harriot K. Hunt commenced the practice of medicine at the age of
thirty, in 1835; twelve years after, was refused admission to Harvard
Medical Lectures. She often said that as her love element had all
centered in her profession, she intended to celebrate her silver
wedding, which she did, in the summer of 1860. Her house was crowded
with a large circle of loving friends, who decorated it with flowers
and many bridal offerings, thus expressing their esteem and affection
for the first woman physician, who had done so much to relieve the
sufferings of women and children. The degree of M.D. was conferred on
her by "The Woman's Medical College of Pennsylvania," in 1853. Her
biographer says she honored the title more than the title could her.


                   MARRIAGE OF LUCY STONE UNDER PROTEST.

     It was my privilege to celebrate May day by officiating at a
     wedding in a farm-house among the hills of West Brookfield. The
     bridegroom was a man of tried worth, a leader in the Western
     Anti-Slavery Movement; and the bride was one whose fair name is
     known throughout the nation; one whose rare intellectual
     qualities are excelled by the private beauty of her heart and
     life.

     I never perform the marriage ceremony without a renewed sense of
     the iniquity of our present system of laws in respect to
     marriage; a system by which "man and wife are one, and that one
     is the husband." It was with my hearty concurrence, therefore,
     that the following protest was read and signed, as a part of the
     nuptial ceremony; and I send it to you, that others may be
     induced to do likewise.

                                   Rev. THOMAS WENTWORTH HIGGINSON.


                                  PROTEST.

     While acknowledging our mutual affection by publicly assuming the
     relationship of husband and wife, yet in justice to ourselves and
     a great principle, we deem it a duty to declare that this act on
     our part implies no sanction of, nor promise of voluntary
     obedience to such of the present laws of marriage, as refuse to
     recognize the wife as an independent, rational being, while they
     confer upon the husband an injurious and unnatural superiority,
     investing him with legal powers which no honorable man would
     exercise, and which no man should possess. We protest especially
     against the laws which give to the husband:

     1. The custody of the wife's person.

     2. The exclusive control and guardianship of their children.

     3. The sole ownership of her personal, and use of her real
     estate, unless previously settled upon her, or placed in the
     hands of trustees, as in the case of minors, lunatics, and
     idiots.

     4. The absolute right to the product of her industry.

     5. Also against laws which give to the widower so much larger and
     more permanent an interest in the property of his deceased wife,
     than they give to the widow in that of the deceased husband.

     6. Finally, against the whole system by which "the legal
     existence of the wife is suspended during marriage," so that in
     most States, she neither has a legal part in the choice of her
     residence, nor can she make a will, nor sue or be sued in her own
     name, nor inherit property.

     We believe that personal independence and equal human rights can
     never be forfeited, except for crime; that marriage should be an
     equal and permanent partnership, and so recognized by law; that
     until it is so recognized, married partners should provide
     against the radical injustice of present laws, by every means in
     their power.

     We believe that where domestic difficulties arise, no appeal
     should be made to legal tribunals under existing laws, but that
     all difficulties should be submitted to the equitable adjustment
     of arbitrators mutually chosen.

     Thus reverencing law, we enter our protest against rules and
     customs which are unworthy of the name, since they violate
     justice, the essence of law.

                          (Signed),               HENRY. B. BLACKWELL,
     _Worcester Spy_, 1855.                       LUCY STONE.


To the above _The Liberator_ appended the following:

     We are very sorry (as will be a host of others) to lose Lucy
     Stone, and certainly no less glad to gain Lucy Blackwell. Our
     most fervent benediction upon the heads of the parties thus
     united.

This was a timely protest against the whole idea of the old Blackstone
code, which made woman a nonentity in marriage. Lucy Stone took an
equally brave step in refusing to take her husband's name, respecting
her own individuality and the name that represented it. These protests
have called down on Mrs. Stone much ridicule and persecution, but she
has firmly maintained her position, although at great inconvenience in
the execution of legal documents, and suffering the injustice of
having her vote refused as Lucy Stone, soon after the bill passed in
Massachusetts giving all women the right to vote on the school
question.

In 1858, Caroline H. Dall, of Boston, gave a series of literary
lectures in different parts of the country, on "Woman's Claims to
Education," beginning in her native city. Her subjects were:

     _Nov. 1st._--The ideal standard of education, depressed by public
     opinion, but developed by the spirit of the age; Egypt and
     Algiers.

     _Nov. 8th._--Public opinion, as it is influenced by the study of
     the Classics and History, by general literature, newspapers, and
     customs.

     _Nov. 15th._--Public opinion as modified by individual lives:
     Mary Wollstonecroft, Anna Jamieson, Charlotte Bronte, and
     Margaret Fuller.

In June 11th, of this year, Mrs. Dall writes to the _Liberator_ of her
efforts to circulate the following petition:

     _To the Honorable, the Senate and House of Representatives of the
     Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in General Court assembled:_

     WHEREAS, The women of Massachusetts are disfranchised by its
     State Constitution solely on account of sex.

     We do respectfully demand the right of suffrage, which involves
     all other rights of citizenship, and one that can not justly be
     withheld, as the following admitted principles of government
     show:

     1st. "All men are born free and equal."

     2d. "Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the
     governed."

     3d. "Taxation and representation are inseparable." We, the
     undersigned, therefore petition your Honorable Body to take the
     necessary steps to revise the Constitution so that all citizens
     may enjoy equal political rights.


NEW ENGLAND CONVENTION.

May 27th, 1859, an enthusiastic Convention was held in Mercantile
Hall. Long before the hour announced the aisles, ante-rooms,, and
lobbies were crowded. At three o'clock Mrs. Caroline H. Dall called
the meeting to order. Mrs. Caroline M. Severance was chosen President.
On taking the chair, she said:

     This movement enrolls itself among the efforts of the age, and
     the anniversaries of the week as the most radical, and yet in the
     best sense the most conservative of them all. It bears the same
     relation, to all the charities of the day, which strive nobly to
     serve woman, that the Anti-Slavery movement bears to all
     superficial palliations of slavery. Like that, it goes beneath
     effects, and seeks to remove causes. After showing in a very
     lucid manner the difference in the family institution, when the
     mother is ignorant and enslaved, and when an educated,
     harmoniously developed equal, she closed by saying: It will be
     seen then, that instead of confounding the philosophy of the new
     movement with theories that claim unlimited indulgence for
     appetite or passion, the world should recognize in this the only
     radical cure.... No statement could better define this movement
     than Tennyson's beautiful stanzas:

          The woman's cause is man's; they sink or rise
          Together, dwarfed or godlike, bond or free,
          If she be small, slight-natured, miserable,
          How shall man grow?
          The woman is not undeveloped man,
          But diverse.

          Yet in the long years, _liker_ must they grow;
          The man be more of woman, she of man:
          _He_ gain in sweetness and in moral height--
          _She_ mental breadth, nor fail in childward care,
          Nor lose the childlike in the larger mind.

          And so these twain, upon the skirts of Time
          Sit side by side, full-summed in all their powers,
          Self-reverent each, and reverencing each;
          Distinct in individualities,
          But like each other, as are those who love.

          Then comes the statelier Eden back to man;
          Then reign the world's great bridals, chaste and calm;
          Then springs the crowning race of humankind.

     And we who are privileged with the poet to foresee this better
     Eden; we who have

          The Future grand and great,--
          The safe appeal of Truth to Time,--

     adopting the victorious cry of the Crusaders, "God wills it!" may
     listen to hear above the present din and discord, the stern
     mandate of His laws, bidding the world "Onward! onward!" and
     catch the rhythmical reply of all its movements, "We advance."

Mrs. Severance then read an appropriate poem from the pen of Mrs.
Sarah Nowell, in which she eulogizes Florence Nightingale, Rosa
Bonheur, Harriet Hosmer, and asserts the equality of man and woman in
the creation.

Dr. Harriot K. Hunt made some pointed remarks on the education of
woman.

The Rev. James Freeman Clarke was then introduced. He said:

     I understand the cause advocated on this platform to be an
     unpopular one. It is a feeble cause, a misunderstood cause, a
     misrepresented cause. Hence, it seems to me, if any one is asked
     to say anything in behalf of it, and if he really believes it is
     a good cause, he should speak; and so I have come.

     Certainly any interest which concerns one-half the human race is
     an important one. Every man, no matter how stern, hard, and
     unrelenting he may have become in the bitter strife and struggle
     of the world, every man was once a little infant, cradled on a
     mother's knee, and taking his life from the sweet fountains of
     her love. He was a little child, watched by her tender, careful
     eye, and so secured from ill. He was a little, inquiring boy,
     with a boundless appetite for information, which only his mother
     could give. At her knee he found his primary school: it is where
     we have all found it. He had his sisters--the companions of his
     childhood; he had the little girls, who were to him the ideals of
     some wonderful goodness and excellence, some strange grace and
     beauty, though he could not tell what it was. With these
     antecedents no man on the face of the round world can refuse to
     hear woman, when she comes earnestly, but quietly saying, "We are
     not where we ought to be;" "We do not have what we ought to
     have." I think their demands are reasonable, all of them. What
     are they? Occupation, education, and the highest sphere of work
     of which they are capable. These I understand to be the three
     demands.

     1st. Occupation. When your child steals on a busy hour and asks
     for "something to do," you feel ashamed that you have nothing for
     him--that you can not give him the natural occupation which shall
     develop all the faculties of mind and body. Is it not a
     reasonable request which women make, when they ask for something
     to do? They want to be useful in the world. They ask permission
     to support themselves and those who are dear to them. What can
     they do now? They can go into factories, a few of them; a few
     more can be servants in your homes; they can cook your dinner if
     they have been taught how. If they are women of genius, they can
     take the pen and write; but how few are there in this world,
     either men or women of genius. If they have extraordinary
     business talent, they can keep a boarding-house. If they have
     some education they can keep school. After this, there is the
     point of the needle upon which they may be precipitated--and
     nothing else.

     We see the gloom that must fall on them, on their children, and
     on all they love, when the male protector is taken away. This
     demand for more varied occupation is not a new one. Many years
     ago, one of the wisest and truest men of this country, a
     philanthropist and reformer--Matthew Carey, of
     Philadelphia--labored to impress upon the people the fact, that
     what was wanted for the elevation of woman was to open to her new
     avenues of business. A very sad book was written a few months
     ago, "Dr. Sanger's work on Prostitution." It is a very dreadful
     book; not calculated, I think, to excite any prurient feeling in
     any one. In that book he says:

     First, that the majority of the prostitutes of this country are
     mere children, between the ages of fifteen and twenty. That the
     lives of these poor, wretched, degraded creatures, last on an
     average about four years. Now, when we hear of slaves used up in
     six years on a sugar plantation, we think it horrible; but here
     are these poor girls killed in a more dreadful way, in a shorter
     time. And he adds that the principal cause of their prostitution
     is that they have no occupation by which they can support
     themselves. Without support, without resources, they struggle for
     a while and then are thrown under the feet of the trampling city.
     Give them occupation and they will take care of themselves: they
     will rise out of the mire of pollution, out of this filth; for
     it is not in the nature of woman to remain there. Give them at
     least a chance; open wide every door; and whenever they are able
     to get a living by their head or their hands in an honest way,
     let them do it. This is the first claim; and it seems to me that
     no one can reasonably object to it.

     2d. Education. You say that public schools are open to girls as
     well as boys. I know that, but what is it that educates? The
     school has but little to do with it. When the boy goes there you
     say, "Go there, work with a will, and fit yourself for an
     occupation whereby you may earn your bread." But you say to the
     girls, "Go to school, get your education, and then come home, sit
     still, and do nothing." We must give them every chance to fit
     themselves for new spheres of duty. If a woman wants to study
     medicine, let her study it; if she wants to study divinity, let
     her study it; if she wants to study anything, let her have the
     opportunity. If she finds faculties within her, let them have a
     chance to expand. That is the second demand--the whole of it.

     And the third claim is for a Sphere of Influence. "That is not
     it," do you say? "You want to take woman _out_ of her sphere."
     Not at all, we wish to give her a sphere, not to take her from
     any place she likes to fill; to give her a chance to exercise
     those wonderful, those divine faculties that God has wrapped in
     the feminine mind, in the woman's heart.

     As regards voting, why should not women go to the polls? You
     think it a very strange desire, I know; but we have thought many
     things stranger which seem quite natural now. One need not live
     long to find strange things grow common. Why not vote, then? Is
     it because they have not as much power to understand what is true
     and right as man? If you go to the polls, and see the style of
     men who meet there voting, can you come away, and tell us that
     the women you meet are not as able to decide what is right as
     those men? "Ah, it will brush off every feminine grace, if woman
     goes to the polls." Why? "Because she must meet rude men there."
     Very well, so she must meet them in the street, and they do not
     hurt her; nor will I believe that there is not sufficient
     inventive power in the Yankee intellect to overcome this
     difficulty. I can conceive of a broader and more generous
     activity in politics. I can see her drawing out all the harshness
     and bitterness when she goes to the polls. These three points are
     all I intended to touch; and I will give way to those who are to
     follow.

     Mrs. CAROLINE H. DALL was then introduced. She said: I have
     observed that all public orators labor under some embarrassment
     when they rise to speak. Not to be behind the dignity of my
     position, I labor under a _double_ embarrassment.

     The first is the "embarras des richesses." There are so many
     topics to touch, so many facts to relate, that it is impossible
     to cover them in one half hour, and the second--perhaps you will
     think that an embarrassment of riches also; for it is an
     embarrassment of Clarke and Phillips. The orator needs no common
     courage who follows the one and precedes the other. It is my duty
     to speak of the progress of the cause; it is impossible to keep
     pace with it. You may work day and night, but this thought of God
     outstrips you, working hourly through the life of man. Yet we
     must often feel discouraged. Our war is not without; our work
     follows us into the heart of the family. We must sustain
     ourselves in that dear circle against our nearest friends;
     against the all-pervading law, "Thus far shalt thou come, and no
     farther."

     What have we gained since 1855? Many things, so important, that
     they can not be worthily treated here. I have often mentioned in
     my lectures, that in his first report to the French Government,
     Neckar gave the credit of his retrenchments to his thrifty,
     order-loving wife. Until this year, that acknowledgment stood
     alone in history. But now John Stuart Mill, the great philosopher
     and political economist of England, dedicates his "Essay on
     Liberty" to the memory of his beloved wife, who has been the
     _inspiration of all, and the author of much_ that was best in his
     writings for many years past. Still farther, in a pamphlet on
     "English Political Reform," treating of the extension of the
     suffrage, he has gone so far as to recommend that all
     householders, without distinction of sex, be adopted into the
     constituency, upon proving to the registrar's officer that they
     have a certain income--say fifty pounds--and "that they can read,
     write, and calculate."

     A great step was taken also in the establishment of the
     Institution for the Advancement of Social Science. The sexes are
     equal before it. It has five departments. 1. Jurisprudence, or
     Law Reform; 2. Education; 3. Punishment and Reformation; 4.
     Public Health; 5. Social Economy.

     The first meeting at Liverpool considered the woman's question;
     and, while it was debated, Mary Carpenter sat upon the platform,
     or lifted her voice side by side with Brougham, Lord John
     Russell, and Stanley. At the second meeting (last October), Lord
     John Russell was in the chair. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland
     presided over Law Reform; the Right Hon. W. F. Cooper, over the
     department of Education; the Earl of Carlyle--personally known to
     many on this platform--over that which concerns the Reformation
     of Criminals; the Earl of Shaftesbury over Public Health; and
     Conolly and Charles Kingsley and Tom Taylor and Rawlinson bore
     witness side by side with Florence Nightingale. Sir James Stephen
     presided over Social Economy. Isa Craig, the Burns poetess, is
     one of its Secretaries.

     Ten communications were read at this session by women; among
     them, Florence Nightingale, Mary Carpenter, Isa Craig, Louisa
     Twining, and Mrs. Fison. Four were on Popular Education, two upon
     Punishment and Reformation, three on the Public Health in the
     Army and elsewhere, one upon Social Economy. Still another proof
     of progress may be seen in the examination of Florence
     Nightingale by the Sanitary Commission.

     [In the establishment of _The Englishwoman's Journal_ with an
     honorable corps of writers, in the passage of the new Divorce
     Bill, of the Married Woman's Property Bill in Canada, the cause
     had gained much; on each of which Mrs. Dall spoke at some length,
     especially this Property Bill, which some foolish member had
     shorn of its most precious clause--that which secured her
     earnings to the working-woman, lest, by tempting her to labor, it
     should create a divided interest in the family].

     Do you ask me why I have dwelt on this Institution for Social
     Science, cataloguing the noble names that do it honor? To
     strengthen the timorous hearts at the West End; to suggest to
     them that a coronet of God's own giving may possibly rest as
     secure as one of gold and jewels in the United Kingdom. I wish to
     draw your attention to the social distinction of the men upon
     that platform. No real nobleness will be imperiled by impartial
     listening to our plea. Would you rest secure in our respect,
     first feel secure in your own. If ten Beacon Street ladies would
     go to work, and take pay for their labor, it would do more good
     than all the speeches that were ever made, all the conventions
     that were ever held. I honor women who act. That is the reason
     that I greet so gladly girls like Harriet Hosmer, Louisa Lander,
     and Margureite Foley. Whatever they do, or do not do, for Art,
     they do a great deal for the cause of Labor. I do not believe any
     one in this room has any idea of the avenues that are open to
     women already. Let me read you some of the results of the last
     census of the United Kingdom. Talk of women not being able to
     work! Women have been doing hard work ever since the world began.
     You will see by this that they are doing as much as men now.
     [Applause].

     In 1841, there were engaged in agriculture, 66,329 women. In
     1851, 128,418; nearly double the number. Of these, there are
     64,000 dairy-women; women who lift enormous tubs, turn heavy
     cheeses, slap butter by the hundred weight. Then come
     market-gardeners, bee-mistresses, florists, flax producers and
     beaters, haymakers, reapers, and hop-pickers.

     In natural connection with the soil, we find seven thousand women
     in the mining interest; not harnessed on all-fours to creep
     through the shafts, but dressers of ore, and washers and
     strainers of clay for the potteries. Next largest to the
     agricultural is one not to be exactly calculated--the fishing
     interest. The Pilchard fishery employs some thousands of women.
     The Jersey oyster fishery alone employs one thousand. Then follow
     the herring, cod, whale, and lobster fisheries.

     Apart from the Christie Johnstones--the aristocrats of the
     trade--the sea nurtures an heroic class like Grace Darling, who
     stand aghast when society rewards a deed of humanity, and cry out
     in expostulation, "Why, every girl on the coast would have done
     as I did!" Then follow the kelp-burners, netters, and bathers.
     The netters make the fisherman's nets; the bathers manage the
     machines at the watering-places.

     And, before quitting this subject, I should like to allude to the
     French fishwomen; partly as a matter of curiosity, partly to
     prove that women know how to labor. In the reign of Henry IV.,
     there existed in Paris a privileged monopoly called the United
     Corporation of Fishmongers and Herringers. In the reign of Louis
     XIV. this corporation had managed so badly as to become
     insolvent. The women who had hawked and vended fish took up the
     business, and managed so well as to become very soon a political
     power. They became rich, and their children married into good
     families. You will remember the atrocities generally ascribed to
     them in the first revolution. It is now known that these were
     committed by ruffians disguised in their dress.

     To return: there are in the United Kingdom 200,000 female
     servants. Separate from these, brewers, custom-house searchers,
     matrons of jails, lighthouse-keepers, pew-openers.

     I have no time to question; but should not a Christian community
     offer womanly ministrations to its imprisoned women? Oh, that
     some brave heart, in a strong body, might go on our behalf to the
     city jail and Charlestown! Pew-opening has never been a trade in
     America; but, as there are signs that it may become so in this
     democratic community, I would advise our women to keep an eye to
     that. [Laughter].

     There are in the United Kingdom 500,000 business women, beer-shop
     keepers, butcher-wives, milk-women, hack-owners, and shoemakers.

     As one item of this list, consider 26,000 butcher-wives--women
     who do not merely preside over a business, but buy stock, put
     down meat, drive a cart even if needed--butchers to all intents
     and purposes. There are 29,000 shop-keepers, but only 1,742
     shop-women.

     Telegraph reporters are increasing rapidly. Their speed and
     accuracy are much praised. From the Bright Festival, at
     Manchester, a young woman reported, at the rate of twenty-nine
     words a minute, six whole columns, with hardly a mistake, though
     the whole matter was political, such as she was supposed not to
     understand!

     Phonographic reporters also. A year ago there were but three
     female phonographers in America; and two of these did not get
     their bread by the work. Now hundreds are qualifying themselves,
     all over the land; and two young girls, not out of their teens,
     are at this moment reporting my words. [Cheers].

     I hope the phonographers will take that clapping to themselves. I
     wish you would make it heartier. [Repeated cheers]. Now let us
     turn to the American census. I must touch it lightly. Of factory
     operatives, I will only say, that, in 1845, there were 55,828 men
     and 75,710 women engaged in textile manufactures. You will be
     surprised at the preponderance of women: it seems to be as great
     in other countries. Then follow makers of gloves, makers of glue,
     workers in gold and silver leaf, hair-weavers, hat and cap
     makers, hose-weavers, workers in India rubber, lamp-makers,
     laundresses, leechers, milliners, morocco-workers, nurses,
     paper-hangers, physicians, picklers and preservers, saddlers and
     harness-makers, shoemakers, soda-room keepers, snuff and
     cigar-makers, stock and suspender-makers, truss-makers, typers
     and stereotypers, umbrella-makers, upholsterers, card-makers.

     Cards were invented in 1361. In less than seventy years the
     German manufacture was in the hands of women--Elizabeth and
     Margaret, at Nuremberg. Then grinders of watch crystals, 7,000
     women in all.

     My own observation adds to this list phonographers, house and
     sign painters, fruit-hawkers, button-makers, tobacco-packers,
     paper-box makers, embroiderers, and fur-sewers.

     Perhaps I should say haymakers and reapers; since, for three or
     four years, bands of girls have been so employed in Ohio, at
     sixty-two and a half cents a day.

     In New Haven, seven women work with seventy men in a clock
     factory, at half wages. If the proprietor answered honestly, when
     asked why he employed them, he would say, "To save money;" but he
     does answer, "To help our cause."

     In Waltham, a watch factory has been established, whose
     statistics I shall use elsewhere.

     In Winchester, Va., a father has lately taken a daughter into
     partnership; and the firm is "J. Wysong and Daughter."
     [Applause]. Is it not a shame it should happen first in a slave
     State?

     Then come registers of deeds and postmistresses. We all know that
     the rural post-office is chiefly in the hands of irresponsible
     women. Petty politicians obtain the office, take the money, and
     leave wives and sisters to do the work.

     [Here Mrs. Dall read an interesting letter from a female
     machinist in Delaware; but, as it will be published in another
     connection, it is here withheld].

     Is it easy for women to break the way into new avenues? You know
     it is not.

     [Here Mrs. Dall referred to the opposition shown to the
     employment of women in watch-making, by Mr. Bennett, in London;
     to the school at Marlborough House; to the employment of women in
     printing-offices--substantiating her statements by dates and
     names].

     When I first heard that women were employed in Staffordshire to
     paint pottery and china--which they do with far more taste than
     men--I heard, also, that the jealousy of the men refused to allow
     them the customary hand-rest, and so kept down their wages. I
     refused to believe anything so contemptible. [Applause]. Now the
     Edinburgh Review confirms the story. Thank God! that could never
     happen in this country. With us, Labor can not dictate to
     Capital.

     But the great evils which lie at the foundation of depressed
     wages are:

     1st. That want of respect for labor which prevents ladies from
     engaging in it.

     2d. That want of respect for women which prevents men from
     valuing properly the work they do.

     Women themselves must change these facts.

     [Mrs. Dall here read some letters to show that wages were at a
     starving-point in the cities of America as well as in Europe].

     I am tired of the folly of the political economist, constantly
     crying that wages can never rise till the laborers are fewer. You
     have heard of the old law in hydraulics, that water will always
     rise to the level of its source; but, if by a forcing-pump, you
     raise it a thousand feet above, or by some huge syphon drop it a
     thousand feet below, does that law hold? Very well, the
     artificial restrictions of society are such a forcing-pump--are
     such a syphon. Make woman equal before the law with man, and
     wages will adjust themselves.

     But what is the present remedy? A very easy one--for employers to
     adopt the cash system, and be content with rational profits. In
     my correspondence during the past year, master-tailors tell me
     that they pay from eight cents to fifty cents a day for the
     making of pantaloons, including the heaviest doeskins. Do you
     suppose they would dare to tell me how they charge that work on
     their slowly-paying customer's bills? Not they. The eight cents
     swells to thirty, the fifty to a dollar or a dollar twenty-five.
     Put an end to this, and master-tailors would no longer vault
     into Beacon Street over prostrate women's souls; but neither
     would women be driven to the streets for bread.

     If I had time, I would show you, women, how much depends upon
     yourselves. As it is, we may say with the heroine of "Adam Bede,"
     which you have doubtless all been reading:

     "I'm not for denying that the women are foolish. God Almighty
     made 'em to match the men!" [Laughter].

     Do you laugh? It is but a step from the ridiculous to the
     sublime; and Goethe, who knew women well, was of the same mind
     when he wrote:

         "Wilt thou dare to blame the woman for her seeming sudden
             changes--
         Swaying east and swaying westward, as the breezes shake the
             tree?
         Fool! thy selfish thought misguides thee. Find the man that
             never ranges.
         Woman wavers but to seek him. Is not, then, the fault in thee?"

     Mrs. Dall was followed by the Rev. JOHN T. SARGENT, who said:

     MADAM PRESIDENT AND FRIENDS:--I appreciate the honor of an
     invitation to this platform, but my words must be few; first,
     because the call comes to me within a few hours, and amid the
     cares and responsibilities of the chair on another platform, and
     I had no time for preconcerted forms of address; second, because
     the general principles of this organization, and the subject
     matters for discussion, are so well sifted and disposed of by
     previous speakers, that nothing new remains for me to say; and,
     third, because we are all waiting for the words of one [Wendell
     Phillips] whose sympathies are never wanting in any cause of
     truth and justice, whose versatile eloquence never hesitates on
     any platform where he waves aloft "the sword of the spirit" in
     behalf of human rights. [Applause].

     I may truly say, that this is my maiden speech in behalf of
     maidens and others [laughter]; and, if it amount to nothing else,
     I may say, as did my friend Clarke, I feel bound, at least, to
     take my stand, and show my sympathy for the noble cause. I come
     here under the pressure of an obligation to testify in behalf of
     an interest truly Christian, and one of the greatest that can
     engage the reason or the conscience of a community. I would that
     you had upon this platform and every other, more women speakers
     for the upholding and consummation of every righteous cause! And
     so far am I from being frightened to death or embarrassed, as our
     friend Mrs. Dall has intimated any one might be, at the prospect
     of either following James Freeman Clarke or preceding Wendell
     Phillips, I am much more concerned by the contrast of my speech
     with such speakers as your President, or Dr. Hunt, or Mrs. Dall
     herself.

     There is one feature of the general question of "Woman's Rights"
     on which I would say a single word; and it may constitute the
     specialty of my address, so far as it has any. I mean the bearing
     of social inequalities particularly upon the poor--the poor of a
     city--the poor women of a city.

     It may not be unknown to most of you, that for nearly two years
     past, in connection with the so-called "Boston Provident
     Association," I have been engaged in an agency wherein the
     peculiar trials of this class have been revealed to me as never
     before.

     Hundreds of poor, desolate, forsaken women, especially in the
     winter months, have come to that office with the same pitiable
     tale of poverty, desertion, and tyranny on the part of their
     worthless and drunken husbands, who had gone off to California,
     Kansas, or the West, taking away from their wives and children
     every possible means of support, and leaving them the pauper
     dependents on a public charity. Now, if this be not the denial of
     Woman's Rights, I know not what is. Had we time, I might fill the
     hour with a journal of statistics in painful illustration of
     these facts. Now, I say, that a system of society which can
     tolerate such a state of things, and, by sufferance even, allow
     such men to wrench away the plain rights of their wives and
     families, needs reforming.

     But let us look a little higher in the social scale, to the
     rights and claims of a class of women not so dependent--a class
     who, by their education and culture, are competent to fill, or
     who may be filling, the position of clerks, secretaries, or
     assistant agents. How inadequate and insufficient, as a general
     thing, is the compensation they receive!

     There was associated with me in the agency and office to which I
     have referred, as office-clerk and coadjutor, among others, an
     intelligent and very worthy young woman, whose term of service
     there has been coeval and coincident with the Association itself,
     even through the whole seven years or more; and there she still
     survives, through all the vicissitudes of the General Agency by
     death or otherwise, with a fidelity of service worthy of more
     liberal compensation; for she receives, even now, for an amount
     of service equal to that of any other in the office, only about
     one-third the salary paid to a male occupant of the same sphere!

     Look next at the professional sphere of women, properly so
     called; and who shall deny her right and claim to that position?
     A young brother clergyman came to my office one day, wanting his
     pulpit supplied; and, in the course of conversation, asked very
     earnestly, "How would it do to invite a woman-preacher into my
     pulpit?" "Do!" said I (giving him the names of Mrs. Dall, Dr.
     Hunt, etc., as the most accessible) "of course it'll do." And all
     I have to say is, if I ever resume again the charge of a pulpit
     myself, and either of those preachers want an exchange, I shall
     be honored in the privilege of so exchanging.

     Well, my young friend, the brother clergyman referred to, whom I
     am glad to see in this audience, went and did according to my
     suggestion; and, by the professional service of Mrs. Dall in his
     pulpit, more than once, I think, ministered no little edification
     to his people. And, in this connection, let me say: If the
     argument against woman's preaching be, "Oh! it looks so awkward
     and singular to see a woman with a gown on in the pulpit" (for
     that's the whole gist of it), why, then, the same logic might as
     well disrobe the male priesthood of their silken paraphernalia,
     cassock and bands.

     But there are other and better words in waiting, and I yield the
     floor.

     CHARLES G. AMES expressed his gratitude at being permitted to
     occupy this platform, and identify himself with the cause of
     those noblest of living women who had dared the world's
     scorn--had dared to stand alone on the ground of their moral
     convictions. He thought Rev. Mr. Clarke had spoken but half the
     truth in saying, "Half the human race are concerned in the
     Woman's Rights movement."

     If the Mohammedan doctrine (that woman has no soul) be true,
     then the opponents of this cause are justifiable. But concede
     that she has a rational soul, and you concede the equality of her
     rights. Concede that she is capable of being a Christian, and you
     concede that she has a right to help do the Christian's work; and
     the Christian's work includes all forms of noble activity, as
     well as the duty of self-development.

     But some people are afraid of agitation. You remember the story
     of the rustic, who fainted away in the car when taking his first
     railroad ride, and gasped out, on coming to himself, "Has the
     thing lit?" He belonged, probably, to that large class of people
     who go into hysterics every time the world begins to move, and
     who are never relieved from their terror till quiet is restored.

     Great alarm prevails lest this agitation should breed a fatal
     quarrel between man and woman; as though there could be a want of
     harmony, a collision of rights, between the sexes. Sad visions
     are conjured up before us of family feuds, mutual hair-pullings,
     and a general wreck of all domestic bliss. Certainly, there are
     difficulties about settling some domestic questions. Marriage is
     a partnership between two; no third person to give the casting
     vote. Then they must "take turns"; the wife yielding to the
     husband in those cases where he is best qualified to judge, and
     the husband yielding to the wife in those matters which most
     concern her, or concerning which she can best judge. Yet man is
     the senior partner of the firm: his name comes first. Few women
     would be pleased to see the firm styled in print as "Mrs.
     So-and-So and Husband."

     Woman wants more self-reliance. Has she not always been taught
     that it is very proper to faint at the sight of toads and spiders
     and fresh blood, and whenever a gentleman pops the question? Has
     she not always been taught that man was the strong, towering oak,
     and she the graceful, clinging vine, sure to collapse like an
     empty bag whenever his mighty support was withdrawn? Until all
     this folly is unlearned, how can she be self-dependent and truly
     womanly?

     Women are afraid to claim their rights; and not timidity only,
     but laziness--the love of ease--keeps them back from the great
     duty of self-assertion. True, it is a good deal like work to
     summon up the soul to such a conflict with an opposing and
     corrupt public opinion. But woman must do that work for herself,
     or it will never be done.

     Woman's _rights_ we talk of. There is a grandeur about these
     great questions of right, which makes them the glory of our age;
     and it is the shame of our age, that right and rights in every
     form get so generally sneered at. What use have I for my
     conscience, what remains of my noble manhood, if, when half the
     human race complain that I am doing them a wrong, I only reply
     with a scoff? A man without a conscience to make him quick and
     sensitive to right and duty, is neither fit for heaven nor for
     hell. He is an outsider, a monster!

     Conservatism says, "Let the world be as it is"; but Christianity
     says, "Make it what it should be." No man need call himself a
     Christian, who admits that a wrong exists, and yet wishes it to
     continue, or is indifferent to its removal. Let us

          "Strike for that which ought to be,
          And God will bless the blows."

     [Illustration: PAULINA WRIGHT DAVIS (with autograph).]

     The speaker spoke of the abuse and injustice done to the Bible by
     those who make it the shelter and apologist for all the wrong,
     vileness, and sneaking meanness that the world bears up; and
     closed with a testimony against the cowardice of those
     time-serving ministers who allow their manhood to be suffocated
     by a white cravat, and who never publicly take sides with what
     they see to be a good cause, until "popular noises" indicate that
     the time has come for speaking out their opinions.

     The President then introduced to the audience WENDELL PHILLIPS,
     Esq., of Boston:

     MADAM PRESIDENT:--I am exceedingly happy to see that this
     question calls together so large an audience; and perhaps that
     circumstance will make me take exception to some representations
     of the previous speakers as to the unpopularity of this movement.
     The gentleman who occupied this place before me thought that
     perhaps he might count the numbers of those that occupied this
     platform as the real advocates of that question. Oh, no! The
     number of those who sympathize with us must not be counted so.
     Our idea penetrates the whole life of the people. The shifting
     hues of public opinion show like the colors on a dove's neck; you
     can not tell where one ends, or the other begins. [Cheers].
     Everybody that holds to raising human beings above the popular
     ideas, and not caring for artificial distinctions, is on our
     side; I think I can show my friend that. Whenever a new reform is
     started, men seem to think that the world is going to take at
     once a great stride. The world never takes strides. The moral
     world is exactly like the natural. The sun comes up minute by
     minute, ray by ray, till the twilight deepens into dawn, and dawn
     spreads into noon. So it is with this question. Those who look at
     our little island of time do not see it; but, a hundred years
     later, everybody will recognize it.

     No one need be at all afraid; there is no disruption, no breaking
     away from old anchorage--not at all. In the thirteenth and
     fourteenth centuries, there were two movements--first, the
     peasants in the town were striving to fortify each man his own
     house--to set up the towns against the kings; then, in the
     colleges, the great philosophers were striving each to fortify
     his own soul to make a revolution against Rome. The peasants
     branded the collegians as "infidels," and the collegians showed
     the peasants to be "traitors." Cordially they hated each other;
     blindly they went down to their graves, thinking they had been
     fighting each other; but, under the providence of God, they were
     entwined in the same movement. Now, if I could throw you back
     to-day into the civilization of Greece and Rome, I could show you
     the fact that our question is two thousand years old. [Cheers.]
     In the truest sense, it did not begin in 1848, as my friend Dr.
     Hunt stated; it began centuries ago. Did you ever hear of the old
     man who went to the doctor, and asked him to teach him to speak
     prose? "Why, my dear fellow," was the reply, "you have been
     speaking prose all your life." But he did not know it. So with
     some people in regard to the movement for Woman's Rights.

     Many think the steps taken since 1850 are shaking this land with
     a new infidelity. Now, this infidelity is a good deal older than
     the New Testament. When man began his pilgrimage from the cradle
     of Asia, woman was not allowed to speak before a court of
     justice. To kill a woman was just as great a sin as to kill a
     cow, and no greater. To sell an unlicensed herb in the city of
     Calcutta, was exactly the same crime as to kill a woman. She did
     not belong to the human race. Come down thousands of years, and
     the civilization of Greece said, "Woman has not got enough of
     truth in her to be trusted in the court of justice;" and, if her
     husband wants to give her to a brother or friend, he can take her
     to their door, and say, "Here, I give you this." And so it
     continues till you reach the feudal ages; when woman, though she
     might be queen or duchess, was often not competent to testify in
     a court of justice. She had not soul enough, men believed, to
     know a truth from a lie. That is the code of the feudal system.
     But all at once the world has waked up, and thinks a man is not a
     man because he has a pound of muscle, or because he has a
     stalwart arm; but because he has thoughts, ideas, purposes: he
     can commit crime, and he is capable of virtue.

     No man is born in a day. A baby is always six months old before
     he is twenty-one. Our fathers, who first reasoned that God made
     all men equal, said: "You sha'n't hang a man until you have asked
     him if he consents to the law." Some meddlesome fanatic, engaged
     in setting up type, conceived the idea, that he need not pay his
     tax till he was represented before the law: then why should woman
     do so? Now, I ask, what possible reason is there that woman, as a
     mother, as a wife, as a laborer, as a capitalist, as an artist,
     as a citizen, should be subjected to any laws except such as
     govern man? What moral reason is there for this, under the
     American idea? Does not the same interest, the same strong tie,
     bind the mother to her children, that bind the father? Has she
     not the same capacity to teach them that the father has? and
     often more? Now, the law says: "If the father be living, the
     mother is nothing; but, if the father be dead, the mother is
     everything." Did she inherit from her husband his great
     intellect? If she did not, what is the common sense of such a
     statute? The mother has the same rights, in regard to her
     children, that the father has: there should be no distinction.

     Yours is not a new reform. The gentleman who occupied the
     platform a few moments ago gave the common representation of this
     cause: "If a husband doesn't do about right, his wife will pull
     his hair; and, if you let her have her way, she may vote the
     Democratic ticket, and he the Republican; and _vice versa_."
     Well, now, my dear friend, suppose it were just so; it is too
     late to complain. That point has long been settled; if you will
     read history a little, you will see it was settled against you.
     In the time of Luther, it was a question: "Can a woman choose her
     own creed?" The feudal ages said: "No; she believes as her
     husband believes, of course." But the reformers said: "She ought
     to think for herself; her husband is not her God." "But," it was
     objected, "should there be difference of opinion between man and
     wife, the husband believing one creed and the wife another, there
     would be continual discord." But the reply was: "God settled
     that; God has settled it that every responsible conscience should
     have a right to his own creed." And Christendom said: "Amen." The
     reformers of Europe, to this day, have allowed freedom of
     opinion; and who says that the experience of three centuries has
     found the husband and wife grappling each other's throats on
     religious differences? It would be Papal and absurd to deny woman
     her religious rights. Then why should she not be allowed to
     choose her party?

     We claim the precedents in this matter. It was arranged and
     agreed upon, in the reform of Europe, that women should have the
     right to choose their religious creeds. I say, therefore, this is
     not a new cause; it is an old one. It is as old as the American
     idea. We are individuals by virtue of our brains, not by virtue
     of our muscles. "Why do you women meddle in politics?" asked
     Napoleon of De Stael. "Sire, so long as you will hang us, we must
     ask the reason," was the answer. The whole political philosophy
     of the subject is in that. The instant you say, "Woman is not
     competent to go to the ballot-box," I reply: "She is not
     competent to go to the gallows or the State prison. If she is
     competent to go to the State prison, then she is competent to go
     to the ballot-box, and tell how thieves should be punished."
     [Applause].

     Man is a man because he thinks. Woman has already begun to think.
     She has touched literature with the wand of her enchantment, and
     it rises to her level, until woman becomes an author as well as
     reader. And what is the result? We do not have to expurgate the
     literature of the nineteenth century before placing it in the
     hands of youth. Those who write for the lower level sink down to
     dwell with their kind.

     Mr. Sargent and Mr. Clarke expatiated on the wholesome influence
     of the side-by-side progress of the sexes. There are no women
     more deserving of your honest approbation than those who dare to
     work singly for the elevation of their sex....

     Woman's Rights and <DW64> Rights! What rights have either women or
     <DW64>s that we have any reason to respect? The world says:
     "None!"

     There has lately been a petition carried into the British
     Parliament, asking--for what? It asks that the laws of marriage
     and divorce shall be brought into conformity with the creed and
     civilization of Great Britain in the middle of the nineteenth
     century. The state of British law, on the bill of divorce, was a
     disgrace to the British statute-book. Whose was the intellect and
     whose the heart to point out, and who had the courage to look in
     the face of British wealth and conservatism, and claim that the
     law of divorce was a disgrace to modern civilization? It was the
     women of Great Britain that first said her statute-book disgraced
     her. Who could say, that if those women had been voters, they
     might not have reformed it?

     Douglas Jerrold said: "Woman knows she is omnipotent"; and so she
     is. She may be ignorant, she may not have a dollar, she may have
     no right given her to testify in the court of justice; she may be
     a slave, chained by a dozen statutes; but, when her husband loves
     her, she is his queen and mistress, in spite of them all; and the
     world knows it. All history bears testimony to this omnipotent
     influence. What we are here for is to clear up the choked
     channel; make hidden power confess itself, and feel its
     responsibility, feel how much rests upon it, and therefore gird
     itself to its duty. We are to say to the women: "Yours is
     one-half of the human race. Come to the ballot-box, and feel,
     when you cast a vote in regard to some great moral question, the
     dread post you fill, and fit yourself for it." Woman at home
     controls her son, guides her husband--in reality, makes him
     vote--but acknowledges no responsibility, and receives no
     education for such a throne. By her caprices in private life, she
     often ruins the manhood of her husband, and checks the
     enthusiastic purposes of her son.

     Many a young girl, in her married life, loses her husband, and
     thus is left a widow with two or three children. Now, who is to
     educate them and control them? We see, if left to her own
     resources, the intellect which she possesses, and which has
     remained in a comparatively dormant state, displayed in its full
     power. What a depth of heart lay hidden in that woman! She takes
     her husband's business--guides it as though it were a trifle; she
     takes her sons, and leads them; sets her daughters an example;
     like a master-leader, she governs the whole household. That is
     woman's influence. What made that woman? Responsibility. Call her
     out from weakness, lay upon her soul the burden of her children's
     education, and she is no longer a girl, but a woman!

     Horace Greeley once said to Margaret Fuller: "If you should ask a
     woman to carry a ship round Cape Horn, how would she go to work
     to do it? Let her do this, and I will give up the question." In
     the fall of 1856, a Boston girl, only twenty years of age,
     accompanied her husband to California. A brain-fever laid him
     low. In the presence of mutiny and delirium, she took his vacant
     post, preserved order, and carried her cargo safe to its destined
     port. Looking in the face of Mr. Greeley, Miss Fuller said: "Lo!
     my dear Horace, it is done; now say, what shall woman: do next?"
     [Cheers].

     Mrs. CAROLINE H. DALL then dismissed the assembly.[52]

In _The Liberator_ of July 6, 1860, we find a brief mention of what
was called Mrs. Dall's "Drawing-room" Convention, in which it was
proposed to present the artistic and aesthetic view of the question.
The meeting was held June 1st, in the Melodeon. Mrs. Caroline M.
Severance presided. Mrs. Dall, Rev. Samuel J. May, R. J. Hinton, Moses
(Harriet Tubman), James Freeman Clarke, Dr. Mercy B. Jackson,
Elizabeth M. Powell, and Wendell Phillips took part in the
discussions.

We close our chapter on Massachusetts, with a few extracts from a
sermon by Theodore Parker, to show his position on the most momentous
question of his day and generation. In March, 1853, he gave two
discourses in Music Hall, Boston, one on the domestic, and one on the
public function of woman, in which he fully expressed himself on every
phase of the question.


               THEODORE PARKER--THE PUBLIC FUNCTION OF WOMAN.

     If woman is a human being, first, she has the Nature of a human
     being; next, she has the Right of a human being; third, she has
     the Duty of a human being. The Nature is the capacity to possess,
     to use, to develop, and to enjoy every human faculty; the Right
     is the right to enjoy, develop, and use every human faculty; and
     the Duty is to make use of the Right, and make her human nature,
     human history. She is here to develop her human nature, enjoy her
     human rights, perform her human duty. Womankind is to do this for
     herself, as much as mankind for himself. A woman has the same
     human nature that a man has; the same human rights, to life,
     liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; the same human duties; and
     they are as inalienable in a woman as in a man.

     Each man has the natural right to the normal development of his
     nature, so far as it is general-human, neither man nor woman, but
     human. Each woman has the natural right to the normal development
     of her nature, so far as it is general-human, neither woman nor
     man. But each man has also a natural and inalienable right to the
     normal development of his peculiar nature as man, where he
     differs from woman. Each woman has just the same natural and
     inalienable right to the normal development of her peculiar
     nature as woman, and not man. All that is undeniable.

     Now see what follows. Woman has the same individual right to
     determine her aim in life, and to follow it; has the same
     individual rights of body and of spirit--of mind and conscience,
     and heart and soul; the same physical rights, the same
     intellectual, moral, affectional, and religious rights, that man
     has. That is true of womankind as a whole; it is true of Jane,
     Ellen, and Sally, and each special woman that can be named.

     Every person, man or woman, is an integer, an individual, a whole
     person; and also a portion of the race, and so a fraction of
     humankind. Well, the Rights of individualism are not to be
     possessed, developed, used, and enjoyed, by a life in solitude,
     but by joint action. Accordingly, to complete and perfect the
     individual man or woman, and give each an opportunity to possess,
     use, develop, and enjoy these rights, there must be concerted and
     joint action; else individuality is only a possibility, not a
     reality. So the individual rights of woman carry with them the
     same domestic, social, ecclesiastical, and political rights, as
     those of man.

     The Family, Community, Church and State, are four modes of action
     which have grown out of human nature in its historical
     development; they are all necessary for the development of
     mankind; machines which the human race has devised, in order to
     possess, use, develop, and enjoy their rights as human beings,
     their rights also as men.

     These are just as necessary for the development of woman as of
     man; and, as she has the same nature, right, and duty, as man, it
     follows that she has the same right to use, shape, and control
     these four institutions, for her general human purpose and for
     her special feminine purpose, that man has to control them for
     his general human purpose and his special masculine purpose. All
     that is as undeniable as anything in metaphysics or mathematics.

     If woman had been consulted, it seems to me theology would have
     been in a vastly better state than it is now. I do not think that
     any woman would ever have preached the damnation of babies
     new-born; and "hell, paved with the skulls of infants not a span
     long," would be a region yet to be discovered in theology. A
     celibate monk--with God's curse writ on his face, which knew no
     child, no wife, no sister, and blushed that he had a
     mother--might well dream of such a thing. He had been through the
     preliminary studies. Consider the ghastly attributes which are
     commonly put upon God in the popular theology; the idea of
     infinite wrath, of infinite damnation, and total depravity, and
     all that. Why, you could not get a woman, that had intellect
     enough to open her mouth, to preach these things anywhere. Women
     think they think that they believe them; but they do not.
     Celibate priests, who never knew marriage, or what paternity was,
     who thought woman was a "pollution"--they invented these ghastly
     doctrines; and when I have heard the Athanasian Creed and the
     Dies Irae chanted by monks, with the necks of bulls and the lips
     of donkeys--why, I have understood where the doctrine came from,
     and have felt the appropriateness of their braying out the
     damnation hymns; woman could not do it. We shut her out of the
     choir, out of the priest's house, out of the pulpit; and then the
     priest, with unnatural vows, came in, and taught these "doctrines
     of devils." Could you find a woman who would read to a
     congregation, as words of truth, Jonathan Edwards' sermon on a
     Future State--"Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," "The
     Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners," "Wrath upon the
     Wicked to the Uttermost," "The Future Punishment of the Wicked,"
     and other things of that sort? Nay, can you find a worthy woman,
     of any considerable culture, who will read the fourteenth chapter
     of Numbers, and declare that a true picture of the God she
     worships? Only a she-dragon could do it in our day.

     The popular theology leaves us nothing feminine in the character
     of God. How could it be otherwise, when so much of the popular
     theology is the work of men who thought woman was a "pollution,"
     and barred her out of all the high places of the church? If women
     had had their place in ecclesiastical teaching, I doubt that the
     "Athanasian Creed" would ever have been thought a "symbol" of
     Christianity. The pictures and hymns which describe the last
     judgment are a protest against the exclusion of woman from
     teaching in the church. "I suffer not a woman to teach, but to be
     in silence," said a writer in the New Testament. The sentence has
     brought manifold evil in its train. So much for the employments
     of women.

            *       *       *       *       *

     By nature, woman has the same political rights that man has--to
     vote, to hold office, to make and administer laws. These she has
     as a matter of right. The strong hand and the great head of man
     keep her down; nothing more. In America, in Christendom, woman
     has no political rights, is not a citizen in full; she has no
     voice in making or administering the laws, none in electing the
     rulers or administrators thereof. She can hold no office--can not
     be committee of a primary school, overseer of the poor, or
     guardian to a public lamp-post. But any man, with conscience
     enough to keep out of jail, mind enough to escape the
     poor-house, and body enough to drop his ballot into the box, he
     is a voter. He may have no character--even no money; that is no
     matter--he is male. The noblest woman has no voice in the State.
     Men make laws, disposing of her property, her person, her
     children; still she must bear it, "with a patient shrug."

     Looking at it as a matter of pure right and pure science, I know
     no reason why woman should not be a voter, or hold office, or
     make and administer laws. I do not see how I can shut myself into
     political privileges and shut woman out, and do both in the name
     of inalienable right. Certainly, every woman has a natural right
     to have her property represented in the general representation of
     property, and her person represented in the general
     representation of persons.

     Looking at it as a matter of expediency, see some facts. Suppose
     woman had a share in the municipal regulation of Boston, and
     there were as many alderwomen as aldermen, as many common council
     women as common council men, do you believe that, in defiance of
     the law of Massachusetts, the city government, last spring, would
     have licensed every two hundred and forty-fourth person of the
     population of the city to sell intoxicating drink? would have
     made every thirty-fifth voter a rum-seller? I do not.

     Do you believe the women of Boston would spend ten thousand
     dollars in one year in a city frolic, or spend two or three
     thousand every year, on the Fourth of July, for sky-rockets and
     firecrackers; would spend four or five thousand dollars to get
     their Canadian guests drunk in Boston harbor, and then pretend
     that Boston had not money enough to establish a high-school for
     girls, to teach the daughters of mechanics and grocers to read
     French and Latin, and to understand the higher things which rich
     men's sons are driven to at college? I do not.

     Do you believe that the women of Boston, in 1851, would have
     spent three or four thousand dollars to kidnap a poor man, and
     have taken all the chains which belonged to the city and put them
     round the court-house, and have drilled three hundred men, armed
     with bludgeons and cutlasses, to steal a man and carry him back
     to slavery? I do not. Do you think, if the women had had the
     control, "fifteen hundred men of property and standing" would
     have volunteered to take a poor man, kidnapped in Boston, and
     conduct him out of the State, with fire and sword? I believe no
     such thing.

     Do you think the women of Boston would take the poorest and most
     unfortunate children in the town, put them all together into one
     school, making that the most miserable in the city, where they
     had not and could not have half the advantages of the other
     children in different schools, and all that because the
     unfortunates were dark-? Do you think the women of Boston
     would shut a bright boy out of the High-School or Latin-School,
     because he was black in the face?

     Women are said to be cowardly. When Thomas Sims, out of his
     dungeon, sent to the churches his petition for their prayers, had
     women been "the Christian clergy," do you believe they would not
     have dared to pray?

     If women had a voice in the affairs of Massachusetts, do you
     think they would ever have made laws so that a lazy husband could
     devour all the substance of his active wife--spite of her wish;
     so that a drunken husband could command her bodily presence in
     his loathly house; and when an infamous man was divorced from his
     wife, that he could keep all the children? I confess I do not.

     If the affairs of the nation had been under woman's joint
     control, I doubt that we should have butchered the Indians with
     such exterminating savagery, that, in fifty years, we should have
     spent seven hundred millions of dollars for war, and now, in time
     of peace, send twenty annual millions more to the same waste. I
     doubt that we should have spread slavery into nine new States,
     and made it national. I think the Fugitive Slave bill would never
     have been an act. Woman has some respect for the natural law of
     God.

     I know men say woman can not manage the great affairs of a
     nation. Very well. Government is political economy--national
     housekeeping. Does any respectable woman keep house so badly as
     the United States? with so much bribery, so much corruption, so
     much quarrelling in the domestic councils?

     But government is also political morality, it is national ethics.
     Is there any worthy woman who rules her household as wickedly as
     the nations are ruled? who hires bullies to fight for her? Is
     there any woman who treats one-sixth part of her household as if
     they were cattle and not creatures of God, as if they were things
     and not persons? I know of none such. In government as
     housekeeping, or government as morality, I think man makes a very
     poor appearance, when he says woman could not do as well as he
     has done and is doing.

     I doubt that women will ever, as a general thing, take the same
     interest as men in political affairs, or find therein an abiding
     satisfaction. But that is for women themselves to determine, not
     for men.

     In order to attain the end--the development of man in body and
     spirit--human institutions must represent all parts of human
     nature, both the masculine and the feminine element. For the
     well-being of the human race, we need the joint action of man and
     woman, in the family, the community, the Church, and the State. A
     family without the presence of woman--with no mother, no wife, no
     sister, no womankind--is a sad thing. I think a community without
     woman's equal social action, a church without her equal
     ecclesiastical action, and a State without her equal political
     action, is almost as bad--is very much what a house would be
     without a mother, wife, sister, or friend.

     You see what prevails in the Christian civilization of the
     nineteenth century; it is Force--force of body, force of brain.
     There is little justice, little philanthropy, little piety.
     Selfishness preponderates everywhere in Christendom--individual,
     domestic, social, ecclesiastical, national selfishness. It is
     preached as gospel and enacted as law. It is thought good
     political economy for a strong people to devour the weak nations;
     for "Christian" England and America to plunder the "heathen" and
     annex their land; for a strong class to oppress and ruin the
     feeble class; for the capitalists of England to pauperize the
     poor white laborer; for the capitalists of America to enslave the
     poorer black laborer; for a strong man to oppress the weak men;
     for the sharper to buy labor too cheap, and sell its product too
     dear, and so grow rich by making many poor. Hence, nation is
     arrayed against nation, class against class, man against man.
     Nay, it is commonly taught that mankind is arrayed against God,
     and God against man; that the world is a universal discord: that
     there is no solidarity of man with man, of man with God. I fear
     we shall never get far beyond this theory and this practice,
     until woman has her natural rights as the equal of man, and takes
     her natural place in regulating the affairs of the family, the
     community, the Church, and the State. It seems to me God has
     treasured up a reserved power in the nature of woman to correct
     many of those evils which are Christendom's disgrace to-day.

     Circumstances help or hinder our development, and are one of the
     two forces which determine the actual character of a nation or of
     mankind, at any special period. Hitherto, amongst men,
     circumstances have favored the development of only intellectual
     power, in all its forms--chiefly in its lower forms. At present,
     mankind, as a whole, has the superiority over womankind, as a
     whole, in all that pertains to intellect, the higher and the
     lower. Man has knowledge, has ideas, has administrative skill;
     enacts the rules of conduct for the individual, the family, the
     community, the Church, the State, and the world. He applies these
     rules of conduct to life, and so controls the great affairs of
     the human race. You see what a world he has made of it. There is
     male vigor in this civilization, miscalled "Christian"; and in
     its leading nations there are industry and enterprise, which
     never fail. There is science, literature, legislation,
     agriculture, manufactures, mining, commerce, such as the world
     never saw. With the vigor of war, the Anglo-Saxon now works the
     works of peace. England abounds in wealth--richest of lands; but
     look at her poor, her vast army of paupers, two million strong,
     the Irish whom she drives with the hand of famine across the sea.
     Martin Luther was right when he said: "The richer the nation, the
     poorer the poor." Look at the cities of England and America. What
     riches, what refinement, what culture of man and woman too! Ay;
     but what poverty, what ignorance, what beastliness of man and
     woman too! The Christian civilization of the nineteenth century
     is well summed up in London and New York--the two foci of the
     Anglo-Saxon tribe, which control the shape of the world's
     commercial ellipse. Look at the riches and the misery; at the
     "religious enterprise" and the heathen darkness; at the virtue,
     the decorum, and the beauty of woman well-born and well bred; and
     at the wild sea of prostitution, which swells and breaks and
     dashes against the bulwarks of society--every ripple was a woman
     once!

     Oh, brother-men, who make these things, is this a pleasant sight?
     Does your literature complain of it--of the waste of human life,
     the slaughter of human souls, the butchery of woman? British
     literature begins to wail, in "Nicholas Nickleby" and "Jane Eyre"
     and "Mary Barton" and "Alton Locke," in many a "Song of the
     Shirt"; but the respectable literature of America is deaf as a
     cent to the outcry of humanity expiring in agonies. It is busy
     with California, or the Presidency, or extolling iniquity in high
     places, or flattering the vulgar vanity which buys its dross for
     gold. It can not even imitate the philanthropy of English
     letters; it is "up" for California and a market. Does not the
     Church speak?--the English Church, with its millions of money;
     the American, with its millions of men--both wont to bay the moon
     of foreign heathenism? The Church is a dumb dog, that can not
     bark, sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber. It is a church
     without woman, believing in a male and jealous God, and rejoicing
     in a boundless, endless hell!

     Hitherto, with woman, circumstances have hindered the development
     of intellectual power, in all its forms. She has not knowledge,
     has not ideas or practical skill to equal the force of man. But
     circumstances have favored the development of pure and lofty
     emotion in advance of man. She has moral feeling, affectional
     feeling, religious feeling, far in advance of man; her moral,
     affectional, and religious intuitions are deeper and more
     trustworthy than his. Here she is eminent, as he is in knowledge,
     in ideas, in administrative skill.

     I think man will always lead in affairs of intellect--of reason,
     imagination understanding--he has the bigger brain; but that
     woman will always lead in affairs of emotion--moral, affectional,
     religious--she has the better heart, the truer intuition of the
     right, the lovely, the holy. The literature of women in this
     century is juster, more philanthropic, more religious, than that
     of men. Do you not hear the cry which, in New England, a woman is
     raising in the world's ears against the foul wrong which America
     is working in the world? Do you not hear the echo of that woman's
     voice come over the Atlantic--returned from European shores in
     many a tongue--French, German, Italian, Swedish, Danish, Russian,
     Dutch? How a woman touches the world's heart! because she speaks
     justice, speaks piety, speaks love. What voice is strongest,
     raised in continental Europe, pleading for the oppressed and
     down-trodden? That also is a woman's voice!

     Well, we want the excellence of man and woman both united;
     intellectual power, knowledge, great ideas--in literature,
     philosophy, theology, ethics--and practical skill; but we want
     something better--the moral, affectional, religious intuition, to
     put justice into ethics, love into theology, piety into science
     and letters. Everywhere in the family, the community, the Church,
     and the State, we want the masculine and feminine element
     co-operating and conjoined. Woman is to correct man's taste, mend
     his morals, excite his affections, inspire his religious
     faculties. Man is to quicken her intellect, to help her will,
     translate her sentiments to ideas, and enact them into righteous
     laws. Man's moral action, at best, is only a sort of general
     human providence, aiming at the welfare of a part, and satisfied
     with achieving the "greatest good of the greatest number."
     Woman's moral action is more like a special human providence,
     acting without general rules, but caring for each particular
     case. We need both of these, the general and the special, to make
     a total human providence.

     If man and woman are counted equivalent--equal in rights, though
     with diverse powers,--shall we not mend the literature of the
     world, its theology, its science, its laws, and its actions too?
     I can not believe that wealth and want are to stand ever side by
     side as desperate foes; that culture must ride only on the back
     of ignorance; and feminine virtue be guarded by the degradation
     of whole classes of ill-starred men, as in the East, or the
     degradation of whole classes of ill-starred women, as in the
     West; but while we neglect the means of help God puts in our
     power, why, the present must be like the past--"property" must be
     theft, "law" the strength of selfish will, and
     "Christianity"--what we see it is, the apology for every powerful
     wrong.

            *       *       *       *       *

     To every woman let me say--Respect your nature as a human being,
     your nature as a woman; then respect your rights, then remember
     your duty to possess, to use, to develop, and to enjoy every
     faculty which God has given you, each in its normal way.

     And to men let me say--Respect, with the profoundest reverence,
     respect the mother that bore you, the sisters who bless you, the
     woman that you love, the woman that you marry. As you seek to
     possess your own manly rights, seek also, by that great arm, by
     that powerful brain, seek to vindicate her rights as woman, as
     your own as man. Then we may see better things in the Church,
     better things in the State, in the Community, in the Home. Then
     the green shall show what buds it hid, the buds shall blossom,
     the flowers bear fruit, and the blessing of God be on us all.


REMINISCENCES OF PAULINA WRIGHT DAVIS.

BY E. C. S.

Hearing that my friend had returned from Europe too ill to leave her
room, I hastened to her charming home in the suburbs of Providence,
Rhode Island. There in her pleasant chamber, bright with the sunshine
of a clear December day,[53] surrounded with her books and pictures of
her own painting, looking out on an extensive lawn, grand old trees,
and the busy city in the distance, we passed three happy days together
reviewing our own lives, the progress of the reforms we advocated, and
in speculations of the unknown world. In my brief sketch of the
"Woman's Rights Movement" and its leaders for the "Eminent Women of
the Age," I made no mention of Mrs. Davis, being ignorant of the main
facts of her life. I waited for her return from Florida, until it was
too late, as the work was hurried to press. Hence I was glad of this
opportunity to dot down fresh from her own lips some of the incidents
and personal experiences of her life.

Paulina Kellogg was born in Bloomfield, New York, the very day, Capt.
Hall delivered up the fort at Detroit. Her father, Capt. Kellogg,
being a volunteer in the army at that time, would often jocosely refer
to those two great events on the 7th of August, 1813. Her grandfather
Saxton was a colonel in the Revolution, and on Lafayette's staff. Both
her father and mother possessed great personal beauty, and were
devotedly attached to each other, and were alike conservative in their
opinions and associations. When Paulina was four years old her
grandfather bought a large tract of land at Cambria, near Niagara
Falls, where all his children settled. That trip was the first memory
of her childhood. A cavalcade of six army wagons, men, women,
children, horses, cattle, dogs, hens, pushed their weary way eleven
days through wild woods, cutting their own roads, and fording creeks
and rivers. Crossing the Genesee in a scow, one immense cow walked off
into the water, others followed and swam ashore. The little girl
thinking that everything was going overboard, trembled like an aspen
leaf until she felt herself safe on land. The picnics under the trees,
the beds in the wagons drawn up in a circle to keep the cattle in, the
friendly meetings with the Indians, all charmed her childish fancies.
The summer the first bridge was built to Goat Island, her uncle caught
her in his arms, ran across the beams, and set her down, saying:
"There, you are probably the first white child that ever set foot on
Goat Island."

When seven years old she was adopted by an aunt, and moved to Le Roy,
New York, where she was educated. Her aunt was a strict orthodox
Presbyterian, a stern, strong Puritan. Her life in her new home was
sad and solitary, and one of constant restraint. In the natural
reaction of the human mind, with such early experiences, we can
readily account for Paulina's love of freedom, and courage in
attacking the wrongs of society. In referring to these early years,
she said: "I was not a happy child, nor a happy woman, until in mature
life, I outgrew my early religious faith, and felt free to think and
act from my own convictions." Having joined the church in extreme
youth, and being morbidly conscientious, she suffered constant torment
about her own sins, and those of her neighbors. She was a religious
enthusiast, and in time of revivals was one of the bright and shining
lights in exhortation and prayer.

She was roused to thought on woman's position by a discussion in the
church as to whether women should be permitted to speak and pray in
promiscuous assemblies. Some of the deacons protested against a
practice, in ordinary times, that might be tolerated during seasons of
revival. But those who had discovered their gifts in times of
excitement were not so easily remanded to silence; and thus the Church
was distracted then as now with the troublesome question of woman's
rights. Sometimes a liberal pastor would accord a latitude denied by
the elders and deacons, and sometimes one church would be more liberal
than others in the same neighborhood, or synod; hence individuals and
congregations were continually persecuted and arraigned for violation
of church discipline and God's law, according to man's narrow
interpretation. "Thus," she says, "my mind was confused and uncertain
with conflicting emotions and opinions in regard to all human
relations. And it was many years before I understood the philosophy of
life, before I learned that happiness did not depend on outward
conditions, but on the harmony within, on the tastes, sentiments,
affections, and ambitions of the individual soul."

On leaving school, Paulina had made up her mind to be a missionary to
the Sandwich Islands, as that was the Mecca in those days to which all
pious young women desired to go. But after five months of ardent
courtship, Mr. Francis Wright, a young merchant of wealth and position
in Utica, New York, persuaded her that there were heathen enough in
Utica to call out all the religious zeal she possessed, to say nothing
of himself as the chief of sinners, hence in special need of her
ministrations.

So they began life together, worshiped in Bethel church, and devoted
themselves to the various reforms that in turn attracted their
attention. They took an active part in the arrangements for the first
Anti-Slavery Convention, held in Utica, Oct. 21, 1835, a day on which
anti-slavery meetings were mobbed and violently dispersed in different
parts of the country. It was at this meeting that Gerrit Smith gave in
his adhesion to the anti-slavery movement and abandoned the idea of
the colonization of slaves to Liberia. As the mob would not permit a
meeting to be held in Utica, Mr. Smith invited them to Peterboro,
where they adjourned. It was a fearful day for Abolitionists
throughout that city, as the mob of roughs was backed by its leading
men. Mr. Wright's house was surrounded, piazzas and fences torn down
and piled up with wood and hay against it, with the evident intention
of burning it down. But several ladies who had come to attend the
Convention were staying there, and, as was their custom, they had
family prayers that night. The leaders of the mob peeping through the
windows, saw a number of women on their knees, and the sight seemed to
soften their wrath and change their purpose, for they quietly withdrew
their forces, leaving the women in undisturbed possession of the
house. The attitude of the Church at this time being strongly
pro-slavery, Mr. and Mrs. Wright withdrew, as most Abolitionists did,
from all church organizations, and henceforth their religious zeal was
concentrated on the anti-slavery, temperance, and woman's rights
reforms. Thus passed twelve years of happiness in mutual improvement
and co-operation in every good work. Having no children, they devoted
themselves unreservedly to one another. But Mr. Wright, being a man of
great executive ability, was continually overworking, taxing his
powers of mind and body to the uttermost, until his delicate
organization gave way and his life prematurely ended.

Having occupied her leisure hours in the study of anatomy and
physiology, Mrs. Wright gave a course of lectures to women. As early
as 1844 she began this public work. She imported from Paris the first
_femme modele_ that was ever brought to this country. She tells many
amusing anecdotes of the effect of unveiling this manikin in the
presence of a class of ladies. Some trembled with fear, the delicacy
of others was shocked, but their weaknesses were overcome as their
scientific curiosity was awakened. Many of Mrs. Wright's pupils
were among the first to enter the colleges, hospitals, and
dissecting-rooms, and to become successful practitioners of the
healing art.

While lecturing in Baltimore, a "Friend," by the name of Anna
Needles, attended the course. Another "Friend," seeing her frequently
pass, hailed her on one occasion, and said, "Anna, where does thee go
every day?" "I go to hear Mrs. Wright lecture." "What, Anna, does thee
go to hear that Fanny Wright?" "Oh, no! Paulina Wright!" "Ah! I warn
thee, do not go near her, she is of the same species." Many women, now
supporting themselves in ease, gratefully acknowledge her influence in
directing their lives to some active pursuits.

Thus passed the four years of her widowed life, lecturing to women
through most of the Eastern and Western States.

In 1849, she was married to the Hon. Thomas Davis, a solid, noble man
of wealth and position, who has since been a member of the Rhode
Island Legislature seven years, and served one term in Congress. As he
is very modest and retiring in his nature, I will not enumerate his
good qualities of head and heart, lest he should be pained at seeing
himself in print; and perhaps "the highest praise for a true _man_ is
never to be spoken of at all." With several successive summers in
Newport and winters in Providence, Mrs. Davis gave more time to
fashionable society than she ever had at any period of her life.

When her husband was elected to Congress, in 1853, she accompanied him
to Washington and made many valuable acquaintances. As she had already
called the first National Woman Suffrage Convention, and started _The
Una_, the first distinctively woman's rights journal ever published,
and was supposed to be a fair representative of the odious,
strong-minded "Bloomer," the ladies at their hotel, after some
consultation, decided to ignore her, as far as possible. But a lady of
her fine appearance, attractive manners, and general intelligence,
whose society was sought by the most cultivated gentlemen in the
house, could not be very long ostracised by the ladies.

What a writer in the British Quarterly for January, says of Mrs. John
Stuart Mill, applies with equal force to Mrs. Davis. "She seems to
have been saved from the coarseness and strenuous tone of the typical
strong-minded woman, although probably some of her opinions might
shock staid people who are innocent alike of philosophy and the
doctrines of the new era." Though in fact this typical strong-minded
woman of whom we hear so much in England and America, is after all a
"myth"; for the very best specimens of womanhood in both countries are
those who thoroughly respect themselves, and maintain their political,
civil, and social rights. For nearly three years Mrs. Davis continued
_The Una_, publishing it entirely at her own expense. It took the
broadest ground claimed to-day: individual freedom in the State, the
Church, and the home; woman's equality and suffrage a natural right.
In 1859, she visited Europe for the first time, and spent a year
traveling in France, Italy, Austria, and Germany, giving her leisure
hours to picture galleries and the study of art. She made many
valuable friends on this trip, regained her health, and returned home
to work with renewed zeal for the enfranchisement of woman.

Having decided to celebrate the second decade of the National Woman
Suffrage movement, in New York, Mrs. Davis took charge of all the
preliminary arrangements, including the foreign correspondence. She
gave a good report at the opening session of the Convention, of what
had been accomplished in the twenty years, and published the
proceedings in pamphlet form, at her own expense. One of Mrs. Davis'
favorite ideas was a Woman's Congress in Washington, to meet every
year, to consider the national questions demanding popular action;
especially to present them in their moral and humanitarian bearings
and relations, while our representatives discussed them, as men
usually do, from the material, financial, and statistical points of
view. In this way only, said she, "can the complete idea on any
question ever be realized. All legislation must necessarily be
fragmentary, so long as one-half the race give no thought whatever on
the subject."

In 1871, Mrs. Davis, with her niece and adopted daughter, again
visited Europe, and pursued her studies of art, spending much time in
Julian's life studio, the only one open to women. She took lessons of
Carl Marko in Florence. When in Paris she spent hours every day
copying in the Louvre and Luxembourg. The walls of her home were
decorated with many fine copies, and a few of her own creations. Her
enthusiasm for both art and reform may seem to some a singular
combination; but with her view of life, it was a natural one.
Believing, as she did, in the realization of the ultimate equality of
the human family, and the possibility of the race sometime attaining
comparative perfection, when all would be well-fed, clothed,
sheltered, and educated; humanity in its poverty, ignorance, and
deformity, were to her but the first rude sketch on the canvas, to be
perfected by the skillful hand of the Great Artist. Hence she labored
with faith and enthusiasm to realize her ideal alike in both cases.

In Naples she made the acquaintance of Mary Somerville, then in her
ninetieth year. She found her quite conversant with American affairs,
and she expressed great pleasure in reading Mrs. Davis' history of
the suffrage movement in this country. There too she met Mrs.
Merrycoyf, a bright, accomplished woman, a sister of Josephine Butler,
and like her, engaged in English reforms. She had many discussions
with Mrs. Proby, the wife of the English Consul, who thought Mrs.
Davis was wasting her efforts for the elevation of woman, as she
considered it a hopeless case to make women rational and self-reliant.
However, before they parted, Mrs. Davis inspired her with some faith
in her own sex. I read a very interesting letter from Mrs. Proby
acknowledging the benefit derived from her acquaintance with Mrs.
Davis, in giving her new hope for woman. At Rome she received the
blessing of the Pope, and met Pere Hyacinthe and his charming wife,
and attended one of his lectures, but the crowd was so great she could
not get in, so she went the Sunday after to hear the prayers for the
Pope and the Church against the influence of the dangerous Pere. She
says: "It was a most impressive occasion, the immense crowd, the grand
music swelling through the arches of that vast cathedral, the
responses of the ten thousand voices, rolling like the great tidal
waves of the mighty ocean, were altogether sublime beyond
description." At Paris she met Mrs. Crawford, wife of the
corresponding editor of _The London Times_, a woman of fine
conversational powers, and a brilliant writer, now the Paris
correspondent of _The New York Tribune_. She found her a woman of very
liberal opinions. At one of her breakfasts she met Martin, the
historian, and several members of the Assembly. She also visited the
Countess Delacoste, who sympathized deeply with the republican
movement, and had concealed Clusaret three months in her house. There
she met several distinguished Russians and Frenchmen. In London she
attended one of Mrs. Peter Taylor's receptions, where she met Mrs.
Margaret Lucas, sister of John Bright, and other notables. She visited
Josephine Butler at her home in Liverpool. Friends sent her tickets of
admission to the lady's gallery, in the House of Commons, where she
heard Jacob Bright make his opening speech on the woman's disability
bill, and Fawcett, the blind member, also on the same bill. And with
all these distinguished people, in different countries, speaking
different languages, she found the same interest in the progressive
ideas that had gladdened and intensified her own life.

On the 29th of May she sailed for America, and reached her home in
safety, but the disease that had been threatening her for years
(rheumatic gout) began to develop itself, until in the autumn she was
confined to her room, and unable at times even to walk. It was thus I
found her in a large arm-chair quietly making all her preparations for
the sunny land, resigned to stay or to go, to accept the inevitable,
whatever that might be.[54] As she was an enthusiastic spiritualist,
the coming journey was not to her an unknown realm, but an inviting
home where the friends of her earlier days were waiting with glad
hearts to give her tin heavenly welcome.


FOOTNOTES:

[25] Mercy Otis, born at Barnstable, Mass., September 35, 1728,
married James Warren, about 1754. Reference has been made to her
correspondence with the eminent men of the Revolution. Aside from her
patriotism, Mrs. Warren was a woman of high literary ability. She
wrote several dramatic and satirical works in 1773, against the
royalists, which, with two tragedies, were included in a volume of
Dramatic and Miscellaneous Poems, published in 1790. She also wrote "A
History of the Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American
Revolution, interspersed with Biographical, Political, and Moral
Observations," in three volumes, published in Boston, 1805. Mrs.
Warren lived quite into the present century, dying October 19, 1814.

Mrs. Ellet, "Queens of Society," says: "In point of influence, Mercy
Warren was the most remarkable woman who lived in the days of the
American Revolution."

Rochefoucauld, "Tour in the United States," says: "Seldom has a woman
in any age acquired such ascendency by the mere force of a powerful
intellect, and her influence continued through her life."

Generals Lee and Gates were among her correspondents; Knox wrote: "I
should be happy to receive your counsels from time to time." Mrs.
Washington was frequently entertained by Mrs. Warren, at one time when
the former was in Massachusetts with the General, Mrs. Warren going
with her chariot to headquarters at Cambridge for her.

[26] Dried leaves of the raspberry.--LOSSING.

[27] Lossing, "Field-Book of the Revolution," says: "On February 9,
1769, the Mistresses of three hundred families met and formed a
league, and upon the second day the young ladies assembled in great
numbers, signing the following covenant: 'We, the daughters of those
patriots who have, and do now, appear for public interest, and in
proper regard for their posterity as such, do, with pleasure, engage
with them in denying ourselves the drink of foreign tea, in hopes to
frustrate a plan which tends to deprive a whole country of all that is
valuable in life."

[28] Lossing's "Field-Book of the Revolution" states that on the 12th
of June, 1769, the "Daughters of Liberty," met at the house of pastor
Moorehead, in such numbers that in one afternoon they spun two hundred
and ninety skeins of fine yarn, which they presented to him. After
supper they were joined by many "Sons of Liberty," who united with the
"Daughters" in patriotic songs.

[29] These girls, then only about twelve and fourteen years of age,
saw the enemy making preparations to land at an isolated point. No men
were near to defend the place, or to whom warning could be given. A
bright thought struck one of the girls. Accustomed to play the drum,
she well knew how to beat the call to arms, and no sooner had this
thought entered her mind, than she began a tattoo, calling her sister
to take the fife as an accompaniment. Together they marched toward the
shore, careful to keep hidden by the rocks, among whose intricacies
they wound back and forth, the sound of their instruments falling upon
the enemy's ears, now far, now near, as though a force of many hundred
men was marching down upon them, and thoroughly frightened, they beat
a retreat to their boats.

[30] "This dispute infused its spirit into everything. It interfered
with the levy of troops for the Pequot war; it influenced the respect
shown to the magistrates, the distribution of town lots, the
assessment of rates, and at last the continued existence of the two
parties was considered inconsistent with the public peace."--Bancroft,
"History of the United States."

[31] _Atlantic Monthly_, June, 1871.

[32] In three New England colonies church membership was required for
the franchise.--Frothingham, "Rise of the Republic."

[33] Dr. John Weis, of New York, now an aged gentleman, well remembers
his grandmother saying, that at an early day women were allowed to
vote in all the New England colonies.

[34] Mother of the late Daniel P. King, at that time a member of the
Massachusetts Legislature, and since then a Representative in
Congress.

[35] Benj. C. Pitkin, of Salem, at that time State Senator.

[36] Hon. Mr. Upham saying: "A great many of the members told me they
didn't believe a woman wrote it."

[37] This petition was put in the hands of a gentleman to secure his
mother's name (who had signed numbers of petitions before), and those
of certain other ladies, but unfaithful to this trust, he forwarded
the petition with but its single name, which, Mrs. Ferrin remarks, was
powerful in itself.

[38] James W. North, a lawyer, of Augusta, Maine, to his honor be it
said, assisted Mrs. Ferrin, by perfecting the divorce petition, in
circulation during her six years of petition work.

[39] A lady commenting upon unjust legislation, said: "When the laws
were made regarding women and children, the most impotent men were
employed to make them; decent men had other business to do."

From time to time, Mrs. Ferrin sent in memorials and addresses with
the petitions she yearly forwarded. One of these, in reply to the
oft-made boast of man's unsolicited amelioration of woman's condition,
carried the following retort: "The Powers tell us much has been done
to ameliorate the condition of woman without any effort on woman's
part. It would add a huge feather to their caps should they give us
the history of the cause of the need of such reformation. It can not
be because woman placed herself in so degrading a position. So, the
merit of the up-lifting hardly reaches the demerit of the
down-treading."

[40] Mrs. Davis herself.

[41] Wife of John Milton Earl, editor of the _Worcester Spy_.

[42] See Appendix.

[43] See Appendix.

[44] See Appendix.

[45] See Appendix

[46] See Appendix

[47] See Appendix.

[48] Mrs. Caroline Norton, a distinguished English author, who
separated from her husband because of cruel treatment. He robbed nor
of all the profits of her books, and of her children, and when she
appealed to the Courts, English law sustained the husband in all his
violations of natural justice.

[49] Abby May Alcott, Abby Kelly Foster, Lucy Stone, Thomas W.
Higginson, Ann Green Phillips, Wendell Phillips, Anna Q. T. Parsons,
Theodore Parker, William J. Bowditch, Samuel E. Sewall, Ellis Gray
Loring, Charles K. Whipple, Wm. Lloyd Garrison, Harriot K. Hunt,
Thomas T. Stone, John W. Browne, Francis Jackson, Josiah F. Flagg,
Mary Flagg, Elizabeth Smith, Eliza Barney, Abby H. Price, William C.
Nell, Samuel May, Jr., Robert F. Wallcott, Robert Morris, A. Bronson
Alcott.

[50] Anthony Burns, the slave, was a Baptist minister In his Southern
home, and had sought freedom in Boston, but was pursued and
recaptured.

[51] A gentleman of wealth, who gave most liberally to all reforms,
and in his will bequeathed $5,000 to the cause of woman suffrage.

[52] The Publishing Committee do not willingly print the above report
of one of the ablest and most eloquent speeches ever delivered in
Boston. Mr. Phillips never writes his speeches. He is now too far
distant to be consulted. Two very young girl reporters--after a week's
hard practice, and three hours' excessive heat--wrote these heads
down, without the most distant idea of publication. All the Committee
can do is to rejoice that the accident did not happen to a young
speaker, but to one whose reputation is established, and whose
immortality is certain. C. H. D.

[53] In the year 1875.

[54] See Appendix.




CHAPTER IX.

INDIANA AND WISCONSIN.


     Indiana Missionary Station--Gen. Arthur St. Clair--Indian
     surprises--The terrible war whoop--One hundred women join the
     army, and are killed fighting bravely--Prairie schooners--
     Manufactures in the hands of women--Admitted to the Union in
     1816--Robert Dale Owen--Woman Suffrage Conventions--Wisconsin--C.
     L. Sholes' report.

The earliest settlement of Indiana was a missionary one, in 1777,
though it was not admitted as a Territory until 1800, then including
the present States of Michigan and Illinois. A number of Indian wars
took place in this part of the country during the twenty-five years
between 1780 and 1805. What was known as the Northwest Territory was
organized in 1789, and General Arthur St. Clair appointed Governor, an
office he held until 1802. In 1790 a war of unusually formidable
character broke out among the Indian tribes of the Northwest, and in
1791, St. Clair was created General-in-Chief of the forces against
them. Many of the settlers of this portion of the country joined his
army, among whom were one hundred women, who accompanied their
husbands in preference to being left at home subject to the surprises
and tortures of the savages with whom the country was at war. In
giving command of these forces to St. Clair, Washington warned him
against unexpected assaults from the enemy; but this general who was
of foreign birth, a Scotchman, was no match for the cunning of his
wily foe, who suddenly fell upon him, November 4th, near the Miami
villages (present site of Terra Haute), making great havoc among his
forces.

When, the terrible war-whoop was heard, the heroism of these hundred
women rose equal to the emergency. They did not cling helplessly to
their husbands--the women of those early days were made of sterner
stuff--but with pale, set faces, they joined in the defense, and the
records say, were most of them killed fighting bravely. They died a
soldier's death upon the field of battle in defense of home and
country. They died that the prairies of the West and the wilderness of
the North should at a later period become the peaceful homes of untold
millions of men and women. They were the true pioneers of the
Northwest, the advance-guard of civilization, giving their lives in
battle against a terrible enemy, in order that safety should dwell at
the hearth-stones of those who should settle this garden of the
continent at a future period. History is very silent upon their
record; not a name has been preserved; but we do know that they lived,
and how they died, and it is but fitting that a record of woman's work
for freedom should embalm their memory in its pages. Many other women
defended homes and children against the savage foe, but their deeds of
heroism have been forgotten.

There is scarcely a portion of the world so far from civilization as
Indiana was at that day. No railroads spanned the continent, making
neighbors of people a thousand miles apart; no steamboat sailed upon
the Western lakes, nor indeed upon the broad Atlantic; telegraphy,
with its annihilation of space, was a marvel as yet unborn; even the
Lucifer match, which should kindle fire in the twinkling of an eye,
lay buried in the dark future. Little was known of these settlements;
the Genesee Valley of New York was considered the _far West_, to which
people traveled (the Erie Canal was not then in existence) in strong,
spring less wagons, over which large hoops, covered with white cloth,
were securely fastened, thus sheltering the inmates from sun and
storm. These wagons, afterward known as "Prairie Schooners," were for
weeks and months the traveling homes of many a family of early
settlers.

But even in 1816 Indiana could boast her domestic manufactures, for
within the State at this time were "two thousand five hundred and
twelve looms and two thousand seven hundred spinning-wheels, most of
them in private cabins, whose mistresses, by their slow agencies,
converted the wool which their own hands had often sheared, and the
flax which their own fingers had pulled, into cloth for the family
wardrobe."[55]

Thus in 1816 the manufactures of Indiana were chiefly in the hands of
its women. It is upon the industries of the country that a nation
thrives. Its manufactures build up its commerce and make its wealth.
From this source the Government derives the revenue which is the
life-blood circulating in its veins. Its strength and its perpetuity
alike depend upon its industries, and when we look upon the work of
women through all the years of the Republic, and remember their
patriotic self-devotion and self-sacrifice at every important crisis,
we are no less amazed at the ingratitude of the country for their
services in war than at its non-recognition of their existence as
wealth-producers, the elements which build up and sustain every
civilized people.

Viewing its early record, we are not surprised that Indiana claims to
have organized the first State Woman's Rights Society, though we are
somewhat astonished to know that at the time of the first Convention
held in Indianapolis, a husband of position locked his wife within the
house in order to prevent her presence thereat, although doubtless, as
men have often done before and since, he deemed it not out of the way
that he himself should be a listener at a meeting he considered it
contrary to family discipline that his wife should attend.

December 11, 1816, Indiana was admitted into the Union. William
Henry Harrison, who had been Governor of the Territory, and
Brigadier-General in the army, with the command of the Northwest
Territory, was afterward President of the United States. He
encountered the Indians led by Tecumseh at Tippecanoe, on the Wabash,
and after a terrible battle they fled. This was the origin of the
song, "Tippecanoe and Tyler too," that was sung with immense effect by
the Whigs all over the country in the presidential campaign of 1840,
when Harrison and Tyler were the candidates; and when women, for the
first time, attended political meetings.

Indiana, though one of the younger States, by her liberal and rational
legislation on the questions of marriage and divorce, has always been
the land of freedom for fugitives from the bondage and suffering of
ill-assorted unions. Many an unhappy wife has found a safe asylum on
the soil of that State. Her liberality on this question was no doubt
partly due to the influence of Robert Owen, who early settled at New
Harmony, and made the experiment of communal life; and later, to his
son, the Hon. Robert Dale Owen, who was in the Legislature several
years, and in the Constitutional Convention of 1850. The following
letter from Mr. Owen gives a few facts worth perusing:

                                   LAKE GEORGE, N. Y., _Sept. 20, 1876_.

     DEAR MISS ANTHONY:--I know you will think the reply I am about to
     make to your favor of September 18th unsatisfactory, but it is
     the best I can do.

     1. As regards Frances Wright: All the particulars regarding her
     and her noble but unsuccessful experiment at Nashoba, near
     Memphis, which I thought it important to make public, are
     contained in an article of mine entitled "An Earnest Sowing of
     Wild Oats," in the _Atlantic Monthly_ for July, 1874.

     2. As to Ernestine L. Rose, I think it probable that you know
     more of her than I do. I remember that she was the daughter of a
     Polish rabbi; the wife of William Rose, a silversmith; and that
     she came with her husband to this country at an early day. She
     was a great admirer and follower of my father, Robert Owen, and
     was a skeptic as to any future beyond the grave; greatly opposed
     to Spiritualism.

     3. As to my action in the Indiana Legislature: I was a member of
     that body during the sessions of 1836-'7, and '8, and in 1851,
     but I have not the materials here that would enable me to give
     particulars. In a general way I had the State law so altered that
     a married woman owned and had the right to manage her own
     property, both real and personal; and I had the law of descents
     so changed that a widow, instead of dower, which is a mere
     tenancy or life interest, now has, in all cases, an absolute fee
     in one-third of her husband's estate; if only one child, then a
     half; and if no children, I think two-thirds. I also had an
     additional clause added to the divorce law, making two years'
     habitual drunkenness imperative cause for divorce.

     I took no action in regard to suffrage while in the Legislature.
     In those days it would have been utterly unavailing.

     All this is very meagre, which I the more regret, sympathizing as
     I do with the object you have in view.

     Give my kindest regards to my old friend, Mrs. Stanton, and
     believe me,

                                         Faithfully your friend,
     MISS ANTHONY.                                  ROBERT DALE OWEN.

Before 1828, Frances Wright had visited Mr. Owen's colony, and
assisted him in the editorial department of the _New Harmony Gazette_,
changed afterward to the _Free Enquirer_, published in New York. Such
a circle of remarkably intelligent and liberal-minded people, all
effective speakers and able writers, was not without influence in
moulding the sentiment of that young community. As a glimpse into the
domestic life of this remarkable family may be interesting to the
reader, we give a pleasing sketch from the pen of Mr. Owen's daughter.
No monument of the whitest parian marble could shed such honor on the
memory of a venerated father and mother as this tribute from an
affectionate, appreciative child:


ROBERT DALE OWEN AND MARY ROBINSON.

BY ROSAMOND DALE OWEN.

Some fifty years ago a large audience was gathered in one of the
public halls of New York listening to a lecture. In the sea of faces
upturned to him, the speaker read a cold response, the opinions he was
expounding being exceedingly unpopular, and rarely expressed in those
days. The theme was the equality of the sexes, the right of woman to
control person and property in the marriage relation, the right to
breathe, to think, to act as an untrammeled citizen, the co-equal of
man. His eyes searched tier after tier, seeking in vain for that
magnetism of sympathy which is as wine to a man who stands before his
people pleading with them that he may save them from their errors.

Suddenly his wandering gaze was arrested by a face, a child's face,
with short, clustering curls, but a strong soul steadied the deep
eyes, and on the rounded cheek paled and glowed the earnestness of a
woman's searching thought. His words grew clear and strong as he
looked into the upturned eyes, as he answered the listening face. The
speaker was Robert Dale Owen; the hearer, Mary Robinson.

That night when she reached her own room, Mary Robinson flung off
bonnet and shawl with a swift gesture, and, slipping into her
accustomed seat, gazed at the steady-glowing background of coals, with
the blue flames licking in and out like the evil tongues of
fire-scourged elves. A strong excitement held her in thrall; she did
not seem to see her elder sister's wondering looks; she did not seem
to hear the great clocks, far and near, chiming out eleven, and then
twelve, with that deep resonance which sounds in the silence of the
night like a solemn requiem over lost hours. Presently she became
aware that her sister was kneeling beside her, with anxious
questioning look; she seemed, this elder sister, in her long, white
night-dress, with pale, straight hair pushed back from the
clear-tinted, oval face, like a youthful Madonna, and Mary drawing the
gentle face close to her own with sudden impulse, said: "I have seen
the man I shall marry, I have seen him to-night; he is the homeliest
man I have ever known, but if I am married at all, he is to be my
husband."

A few months later this prophecy was verified. On the 12th day of
April, 1832, Robert Dale Owen and Mary Robinson were joined in those
sacred bonds, which, in every true marriage, can be broken only by the
shadow hand of Death. The ceremony was simple and unique; it consisted
in signing a document written by the bridegroom himself, with a
Justice of the Peace and the immediate family as witnesses. The
following extracts will show the character of the compact:

                                   NEW YORK, Tuesday, _April 12, 1832_.

     This afternoon I enter into a matrimonial engagement with Mary
     Jane Robinson, a young person whose opinions on all important
     subjects, whose mode of thinking and feeling, coincide more
     intimately with my own than do those of any other individual with
     whom I am acquainted.... We have selected the simplest ceremony
     which the laws of this State recognize.... This ceremony involves
     not the necessity of making promises regarding that over which
     we have no control, the state of human affections in the distant
     future, nor of repeating forms which we deem offensive, inasmuch
     as they outrage the principles of human liberty and equality, by
     conferring rights and imposing duties unequally on the sexes. The
     ceremony consists of a simply written contract in which we agree
     to take each other as husband and wife according to the laws of
     the State of New York, our signatures being attested by those
     friends who are present.

     Of the unjust rights which in virtue of this ceremony an
     iniquitous law tacitly gives me over the person and property of
     another, I can not legally, but I can morally divest myself. And
     I hereby distinctly and emphatically declare that I consider
     myself, and earnestly desire to be considered by others, as
     utterly divested, now and during the rest of my life, of any such
     rights, the barbarous relics of a feudal, despotic system, soon
     destined, in the onward course of improvement, to be wholly swept
     away; and the existence of which is a tacit insult to the good
     sense and good feeling of this comparatively civilized age.

     I concur in this sentiment,                  ROBERT DALE OWEN.

          MARY JANE ROBINSON.

After a wedding tour in Europe, the young couple returning to America,
settled in New Harmony, Indiana, a small Western village, where their
father, Robert Owen, had been making experiments in Community life.

It was a strange, new world into which these two young creatures were
entering. The husband had passed his youth in a well-ordered, wealthy
English household; the wife had passed the greater part of her
girlhood in Virginia, among slaves. They were now thrown upon the
crudities of Western life, and encountered those daily wearing trials
which strain the marriage tie to the utmost, even though it be based
upon principles of justice. But there was a reserve of energy and
endurance in this delicately reared pair; they felt themselves to be
pioneers in every sense of the word, and the animus which sustains
many a struggling soul seeking to turn a principle into a living
reality, sustained these two.

We of a later civilization can scarcely realize the strain upon women
in those earlier days. The housekeepers of New Harmony were obliged to
buy their groceries in bulk, and have them shipped by slow stages from
Cincinnati; meat was bought from the surrounding farmers, a quarter of
a beef at a time, to be cut up and disposed of by the housewife;
vegetables and most of the small fruits could not be bought at all;
stoves were an unknown luxury, all cooking being done in huge
fire-places or brick ovens.

For thirty years my father and mother labored with unabated energy;
his work leading him into the highways of public affairs, while her
way lay through the by-paths of home and village life.

Through these thirty years my father used such influence as he had on
the side of the weak and oppressed. In the matter of procuring a more
respectful consideration of the property rights of women, he was a
pioneer. To attempt a detailed statement of the amelioration of those
legal hardships under which women labored, is beyond the scope or
purpose of this article. I will only mention, in brief, the more
important provisions he was instrumental in passing in the face of
ridicule and violent opposition. These amendments were: The abolition
of simple dower, giving to widows instead, a fee simple interest;
procuring for women the right to their own earnings; abolishing
tenancy by courtesy, which, in effect, made the husband the
beneficiary of the wife's lands, and in several matters of less
radical change rectifying, so far as he could, the injustice of the
common law toward widows; always keeping in view, however, the proper
heirship of children of a former marriage, and guarding the rights of
creditors.

In the matter of the divorce laws of Indiana, my father has not taken
as prominent a part as is generally supposed. These laws were referred
to him in conjunction with another member of the Legislature for the
revision, and they amended them in a single point, namely: by adding
to the causes for divorce "habitual drunkenness for two years." My
father has expressed himself in full on this point in a discussion
between Horace Greeley and himself, first published in the _New York
Tribune_.

As early as 1828, my father advocated an equal position for woman,
publishing these views through _The Free Enquirer_, a weekly paper
edited by Frances Wright and himself in New York.

My father's political life comprised several terms in the Legislature
of his own State, being elected in 1850 a member of the Convention
which amended the Constitution of Indiana, and chairman of its
Revision Committee. The debates in this Convention show the difference
in the position of my father and his antagonists.


                          CONSTITUTIONAL DEBATES.

     Mr. OWEN: No subject of greater importance has come up since we
     met here, as next in estimation to the right of enjoying life and
     liberty, our Constitution enumerates the right of acquiring,
     possessing, protecting property. And these sections refer to the
     latter right, heretofore declared to be natural, inherent,
     inalienable, yet virtually withheld from one-half the citizens of
     our State. Women are not represented in our legislative halls;
     they have no voice in selecting those who make laws and
     constitutions for them; and one reason given for excluding women
     from the right of suffrage, is an expression of confident belief
     that their husbands and fathers will surely guard their
     interests. I should like, for the honor of my sex, to believe
     that the legal rights of women are, at all times, as zealously
     guarded as they would be if women had votes to give to those who
     watch over their interests.

     Suffer me, sir, in defense of my skepticism on this point, to lay
     before you and this Convention, an item from my legislative
     recollection.

     It will be thirteen years next winter, since I reported from a
     seat just over the way, a change in the then existing law of
     descent. At that time the widow of an intestate dying without
     children, was entitled, under ordinary circumstances, to dower in
     her husband's real estate, and one-third of his personal
     property. The change proposed was to give her one-third of the
     real estate of her husband absolutely, and two-thirds of his
     personal property--far too little, indeed; but yet as great an
     innovation as we thought we could carry. This law remained in
     force until 1841. How stands it now? The widow of an intestate,
     in case there be no children, and in case there be father, or
     mother, or brother, or sister of the husband, is heir to no part
     whatever of her deceased husband's real estate; she is entitled
     to dower only, of one-third of his estate. I ask you whether your
     hearts do not revolt at the idea, that when the husband is
     carried to his long home, his widow shall see snatched from her,
     by an inhuman law, the very property her watchful care had mainly
     contributed to increase and keep together?

     Yet this idea, revolting as it is, is carried out in all its
     unmitigated rigor, by the statute to which I have just referred.
     Out of a yearly rental of a hundred and fifty dollars, the widow
     of an intestate rarely becomes entitled to more than fifty. The
     other hundred dollars goes--whither? To the husband's father or
     mother? Yes, if they survive! But if they are dead, what then? A
     brother-in-law or a sister-in-law takes it, or the husband's
     uncle, or his aunt, or his cousin! Do husbands toil through a
     life-time to support their aunts, and uncles, and cousins? If but
     a single cousin's child, a babe of six months, survive, to that
     infant goes a hundred dollars of the rental, and to the widow
     fifty. Can injustice go beyond this? What think you of a law like
     that, on the statute book of a civilized and a Christian land?
     When the husband's sustaining arm is laid in the grave, and the
     widow left without a husband to cherish, then comes the law more
     cruel than death, and decrees that poverty shall be added to
     desolation!

     Say, delegates of the people of Indiana, answer and say whether
     you, whether those who sent you here are guiltless in this thing?
     Have you done justice? Have you loved mercy?

     But let us turn to the question more immediately before us. Let
     us pass from the case of the widow and look to that of the wife:
     First, the husband becomes entitled, from the instant of
     marriage, to all the goods and chattels of his wife. His right is
     absolute, unconditional. Secondly, the husband acquires, in
     virtue of the marriage, the rents and profits (in all cases
     during her life) of his wife's real estate. The flagrant
     injustice of this has been somewhat modified by a statute barring
     the marital right to the rent of lands, but this protection does
     not extend to personal property. Is this as it should be? Are we
     meting out fair and equal justice?... There is a species of very
     silly sentimentalism which it is the fashion to put forth in
     after-dinner toasts and other equally veracious forms, about
     woman being the only tyrant in a free republic; about the chains
     she imposes on her willing slaves, etc.; it would be much more to
     our credit, if we would administer a little less flattery and a
     little more justice.

From pages upon pages of eloquence delivered in reply, I cull the
following extracts, which are a sample of the spirit of the
opposition:

     "I am of opinion that to adopt the proposition of the gentleman
     from Posey (Mr. Owen), will not ameliorate the condition of
     married women."

     "I can not see the propriety of establishing for women a distinct
     and separate interest, the consideration of which would, of
     necessity, withdraw their attention from that sacred duty which
     nature has, in its wisdom, assigned to their peculiar care. I
     think the law which unites in one common bond the pecuniary
     interests of husband and wife should remain. The sacred ordinance
     of marriage, and the relations growing out of it, should not be
     disturbed. The common law does seem to me to afford sufficient
     protection."

     "If the law is changed, I believe that a most essential injury
     would result to the endearing relations of married life.
     Controversies would arise, husbands and wives would become armed
     against each other, to the utter destruction of true felicity in
     married life."

     "To adopt it would be to throw a whole population morally and
     politically into confusion. Is it necessary to explode a volcano
     under the foundation of the family union?"

     "I object to the gentleman's proposition, because it is in
     contravention of one of the great fundamental principles of the
     Christian religion. The common law only embodies the divine law."

     "Give to the wife a separate interest in law, and all those high
     motives to restrain the husband from wrong-doing will be, in a
     great degree, removed."

     "I firmly believe that it would diminish, if it did not totally
     annihilate woman's influence."

     "Woman's power comes through a self-sacrificing spirit, ready to
     offer up all her hopes upon the shrine of her husband's wishes."

     "Sir, we have got along for eighteen hundred years, and shall we
     change now? Our fathers have for many generations maintained the
     principle of the common law in this regard, for some good and
     weighty reasons."

     "The immortal Jefferson, writing in reference to the then state
     of society in France, and the debauched condition thereof,
     attributes the whole to the effects of the civil law then in
     force in France, permitting the wife to hold, acquire, and own
     property, separate and distinct from the husband."

     "The females of this State are about as happy and contented with
     their present position in relation to this right (suffrage), as
     it is necessary they should be, and I do not favor the
     proposition (of Woman's Suffrage), which my friend from Posey,
     Mr. Owen, appears to countenance."

     "It is not because I love justice less, but woman more, that I
     oppose this section."

     "This doctrine of separate estate will stifle all the finer
     feelings, blast the brightest, fairest, happiest hopes of the
     human family, and go in direct contravention of that law which
     bears the everlasting impress of the Almighty Hand. Sir, I
     consider such a scheme not only as wild, but as wicked, if not in
     its intentions, at least in its results."

It is incredible that men in their sane minds should argue day after
day, that if women were allowed to control their own property, it
would "strike at the root of Christianity," "ruin the home," and "open
wide the door to license and debauchery." And yet these men did so
argue through weeks of stormy debate; the bitterest feeling being
shown, not with regard to the proposed change in the law of descent,
but with regard to the right of women to "acquire and possess property
to their sole use and disposal," during the husband's life-time. It is
strange, indeed, that the man who advocated this "most meagre
justice," as he truly says, should have been a target, not only for
ridicule, but for abuse. I append one extract of the latter
description, to illustrate how violent and unreasoning was the
prejudice with which my father contended. One gentleman after quoting
from the marriage contract of my father and mother, the extract in
which he, my father, divests himself of the right to control the
"person and property of another," proceeds as follows:

     Sir, I would that my principles on this, in contradistinction
     with those of the gentlemen from Posey, were written in
     characters of light across the noon-day heavens, that all the
     world might read them. (Applause). I have in my drawer numerous
     other extracts from the writings of the gentleman from Posey, but
     am not allowed to read them; and, indeed, sir, under the
     circumstances, decency forbids their use. But if I were permitted
     to read them, and show their worse than damning influence upon
     society, in conjunction with this system of separate interests, I
     venture to aver that gentlemen would turn from them with disgust;
     aye, sir, they would shun them as they would shun man's worst
     enemy, and flee from them as from a poisonous reptile. (Page
     1161, "Debates in Indiana Convention").

The section was finally reconsidered and rejected a few days before
adjournment (p. 2013). But my father, with his characteristic
perseverance, continued his efforts until they were finally crowned
with success in the Legislature, after fifteen years of endeavor.

Most of the arguments used by those delegates, if they can be called
by so dignified a name, bear a singular resemblance to the arguments
used to-day by the opponents of woman's suffrage. May we not then
conclude that the fears which have been proved absolutely groundless
in the one case, may be equally so in the other?

An enthusiastic public meeting was held in Indianapolis in honor of my
father by the women of the State, Mrs. Sarah T. Bolton taking a
prominent part. On this occasion a beautiful silver pitcher was
presented to him as a token of gratitude for his persevering efforts
in behalf of women. This pitcher still holds a place of honor in our
family dinings on gala days.

In reply to several slurs in regard to this memorial, my father during
the debates in the Convention thus retorted:

     Since I have had occasion to allude to the testimonial which it
     is proposed to offer me on behalf of the women of my adopted
     State, I will say here, that regarding it as the greatest
     compliment--if in so grave a connection a word often so lightly
     used may be properly employed--the greatest compliment I ever
     received in my life, or ever can receive till I die: it matters
     little to me what may be said of myself in that connection; I am
     accustomed to personal attack, and am proof against ridicule. But
     if any man, whether he disgrace a chair on this floor, or
     dishonor by his presence some of the bar-rooms of the city, utter
     an insinuation, cast a reproach, directly or indirectly, by open
     assertion, or covert insinuation, against the motives or the
     character of those courageous women who may have met in
     Lawrenceburg or elsewhere, to consult regarding rights shamefully
     denied to them, or those who may have publicly expressed
     gratitude to the defenders of these rights--if such a man there
     be, within or without the walls of this capitol, I say here of
     such a one, let him receive it as he will, that I would give my
     hand more freely to the inmate of the penitentiary than to him.
     (Page 1185, "Debates in Indiana Convention").

In 1843 and 1845 my father was elected to Congress, serving until
1847. In 1853 he was appointed Minister to Naples, remaining there
until 1858. During the war his exertions were unremitting. He was the
friend of Governor Morton, and was consulted by that energetic
statesman in all his more important plans. He wrote several letters on
the political crises of the time, which had a wide circulation and
influence. Mr. Lincoln said to several of his friends, that a letter
addressed to him by Mr. Owen, and a conversation consequent thereon,
had done more toward deciding him in favor of the Emancipation
Proclamation, than any other influence which had been brought to bear.
My father also made strenuous efforts during the winter of 1865-'66 to
postpone the enfranchisement of the freedmen ten years, until 1876.
(See _Atlantic Monthly_, June, 1875). Subsequent events have shown his
judgment to have been correct and far-sighted. He believed the
conferring of suffrage upon the <DW64>, dim-visioned in the sudden
light of a new liberty, to be a most dangerous experiment; he foresaw
that the ballot which the North gave to them as a protection against
their arrogant masters, would prove a two-edged sword with a terrible
reactionary force in the hands of an untrained race just freed from
mental leading-strings; he knew the difficulty to be inherent, a
difficulty which the existence of slavery must necessarily have
produced. He maintained that although the sword had struck off the
outward chains, the white-heat of ire kindled in the hearts of the
conquered had not fused the inward shackles of the slave, but had
riveted them the firmer, and that the invisible fetters welded by
revengeful hate should be broken most carefully.

In the latter years of his life my father gave his entire attention to
the study of Modern Spiritualism, or rather to the study of
Spiritualism in both its ancient and its modern phases. He published
two works on this subject, "Footfalls on the Boundary of Another
World," and "The Debatable Land between this World and the Next." In a
letter written shortly before his death, he expresses himself as
follows: "I hope, my child, that you will never, at any period of your
life, be less happy than you now are. If you cultivate your spiritual
nature rationally, I feel assured you never will. For one effect of
rational Spiritualism is to make one more satisfied the longer one
lives, and to make the last scenes of life, hours of pleasant
anticipation, instead of a season of dread, or, as with many it has
been, of horror." It would be well for non-investigators who maintain
that my father's belief in Spiritualism necessarily proves him to have
been illogical, to see to it that they are not falling into the
inconsequence which they are ascribing to him. Reasoning _a priori_,
should we not believe that the man who saw so clearly the dangers
which were unperceived by some of our keenest statesmen, could not
become, except in a rare instance and for a short time, a misled dupe?
Has any one the right to condemn such a man unproved?

While my father was exerting his energies for the welfare of the
nation, my mother was giving her life to her children. Sons and
daughters were welcomed into the Owen homestead, and the wide halls
and great rooms of the rambling country house rang with the voices of
children. Three of these little ones slipped back to Heaven before the
portals had closed. The stricken parents with blinded eyes met only
the rayless emptiness of unbelief. May God help the mother, fainting
beneath a bereavement greater than she can bear, who cries for help
and finds none; who stretches her empty arms upward in an agony of
appeal and is answered by the hollow echo of her own cry; may God help
her, for she is beyond the help of man. Other children came to fill
the vacant places, other voices filled the air, but the hearts of
father and mother were not filled until years later, when a sweet
faith thrilled the hopeless blank.

The story of these two is the story of many beside. Husband and wife
began the long journey side by side with equal talent, hope, energy;
his work led him along the high-road, hers lay in a quiet nook; his
name became world-known, hers was scarcely heard beyond the precinct
of her own village; and yet who can say that his life was the more
successful, who can say that the quiet falling rain, with its slow
resultant of flower and fruit in each little garden nook, is less
important than the mighty ship-laden river bearing its wealth of
commerce in triumph to the sea?

George Eliot, in "Middlemarch," says of Dorothea:

     Her finely-touched spirit had its fine issues, though they were
     not widely visible.... The effect of her being on those around
     her was incalculably diffusive; for the growing good of the world
     is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not
     so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to
     the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in
     unvisited tombs.

This is true of many Dorotheas; it is true of the Dorothea of whom I
am writing. Geographically, Mary Owen's field of labor was narrow; but
a small Western village of a thousand souls may hold within its
ethical strata all the developments of a continent. Let her who feels
that her small limits imprison her, remember that emotions are not
registered by the census. Lovers and business men, struggling youths
and perplexed mothers, children and veterans, poured their griefs and
fears, their hopes and disappointments, into the listening ear of
sympathy, knowing that the clear judgment of this little woman could
unravel much that seemed to be in hopeless entanglement.

Well do I remember the cheer of this our home. Simple were its duties,
simple indeed its pleasures. Well do I remember the busy troop of boys
and girls, with the busy mother at their head, directing their
exuberant energy with a rare administrative ability. Besides her own
children, four of whom reached maturity, she took during her life
seven other young people under her protection, so that the great
old-fashioned house was always filled to overflowing with fresh young
life. Pasture and stable, hennery and dairy, yard and garden, kitchen
and parlor, all were under her immediate guidance and control. Well do
I remember the pots of golden butter, fresh from her cool hand; the
delicious hams cured under her supervision; the succulent vegetables
and juicy fruits fresh from her garden--that trim, symmetrical garden,
with its well-weeded beds, its well-kept walks! Many a bright summer
morning have I seen her resting on a low bench beneath a huge
overhanging elm, overlooking the field of our labors. To a stranger
the flushed face with its irregular features, might have seemed plain;
the earnest, energetic manner might have seemed almost abrupt; but to
the children who sat on the grass at her feet looking upward, the face
was beautiful. That calm eye had pierced through so many childish
intricacies and made them clear; the firm mouth could smile so gently
at any youthful shortcoming, and the strong voice rang with a hope
which sent fear and doubt skulking away in shamefaced silence. It was
the brightest part of the day, this short respite, before mother,
marshalling her young army, led them to the study-room. This impromptu
lesson-hour was filled with a teaching so trenchant, that oftentimes,
in these lonelier days, when perplexed in the intricacies of life's
journeyings, a word spoken in some long ago summer morning, floats
down the years and rises before my troubled vision a guiding star.

When her children were grown, and the task she had undertaken years
before had been well done, our mother turned her attention for a time
to public work. She gave much thought to the Woman Question,
especially that portion of it pertaining to woman's work, and
addressed one or two meetings in New York on this subject. Miss
Anthony recently said to me: "Miss Owen, you do not know how great an
impression your mother made upon us--a woman who had lived nearly her
whole life in a small Western village, absorbed in petty cares, and
yet who could stand before us[56] with a calm dignity, telling us
searching truths in simple and strong words." The only lecture I heard
my mother deliver was in the church of our village. Her subject was
the rearing of children. A calm light rested on her silver hair and
broad brow; her manner was the earnest manner of a woman who has
looked into the heart of life. Blessed is the daughter to whom it is
given to reverence a mother as I reverenced mine that night. A quiet,
but deep attention was given to her words, for the fathers and mothers
who were listening to her knew that she was speaking on a subject to
which she had given long years of careful thought and faithful
endeavor. It would not be possible in the space allotted me to give a
detailed account of my mother's teachings with regard to the rearing
of children; but I will state a few of the more prominent
theories--theories proved by practice, which I remember.

Self-government was the primary principle, the broad foundation. She
held this qualification to be the only guarantee of success in the
broadest sense of the word, and that to be effectual and never-failing
it must be interwoven into the very fiber of the child. During the
earliest years our mother administered punishment, or rather she
invented some means by which the child should be made to feel the
result of its bad conduct. Injuring another was held to be a cardinal
sin. For this misdeed our hands were tied behind us for an
interminable length of time; for running away we were tied to the
bed-post; for eating at irregular hours we were deprived of dainties
at the next meal, etc. But as soon as we reached the age of reason,
she exerted, not a controlling, but a guiding hand. We were restricted
by few rules, for our mother believed in the largest possible liberty,
and she held that it was better to pass over the smaller shortcomings
unnoticed, than constantly to be finding fault. She maintained that
scolding should be indulged in most sparingly, as much of it was
detrimental both to the temper of the child and the dignity of the
mother. She believed that too little allowance was made for the
heedlessness growing out of pure exuberance of spirits. But when a law
was once established it was unalterable, and no child ever thought of
resisting it. For instance, no one, large or small, was allowed to
exhibit a peevish ill-nature, either by word or manner, in the public
rooms of the house. My mother merely said, in a quiet tone: "My child,
you are either tired or sick; in either case, it would be better to go
to your own room and lie down until you are quite restored." The
result of this simple rule was an almost uniform cheerfulness. I have
lived in many homes, in many parts of the world, but I have never seen
one which equaled my mother's in this respect. I do not remember a
single command issued by my mother to her older children; but I can
well remember her saying: "I think you had better do so and so"; and I
recollect distinctly that when we obstinately followed our own
unreasoning will, as we were often inclined to do, we were invariably
taught a bitter but wholesome lesson. She believed these lessons to be
much more effectual for good than any arbitrary prohibition on her
part would have been; she reserved such prohibition for the cases
where the consequences were not confined to ourselves, or were of too
serious a nature.

The one mistake made by my mother was in the physical management of
her children. Like many mothers whose bodies and minds are kept at the
highest tension, she failed to give vital strength to her children.
The most promising of these died in early childhood, "by the will of
God," as we say in our blindness. One of them especially, the "little
king," as he was called, being a magnificent child, both in mental and
moral development. Of those who came to maturity, one died at the age
of twenty-seven, one has been an invalid for years, one has fair
health, and one only rejoices in a vigorous physique. This boy was
born in my grandmother's house, near the sea, where my mother had
spent, as she expressed it, "the laziest year of her whole life."
These children have all had a keen love of study, an energy which
carried them far beyond their strength, and she failed sufficiently to
curb them. But in other respects, our mother has done to the
uttermost. Her children had strong propensities both for good and ill.
She has, so far as is possible, strengthened the virtues and repressed
the faults of every child given into her keeping.

"The sun shines," is a sentence simple and short, but how infinite is
its meaning; myriads of unfolding blossoms flash it back in vivid
coloring; myriads of stalwart trees whisper it; myriads of breathing
things revel in it; myriads of men thank God for it. So is it with the
influence of a good mother. It is not given us to follow each tiny
shaft of light in its endless searchings, neither do we note how the
riot of the waste places within us is pruned by deft hands into a
tenuous symmetry, nor how, in the midst of this life's growth, is laid
the foundation of the kingdom of Heaven, by the silent masonry of a
mother's constant endeavor.

Mothers, all over this broad land, heavy-laden with the puerile
details of daily living, fling off your shrouding cares, and lift your
worn faces that you may see with a broad outlook how full-fruited is
the vineyard in which you are toiling; the thorns are irritating; the
glebe is rough; your spirit faints in the heat of the toilsome day.
Look up! the lengthening shadows are falling like dew upon you! tired
hearts, look up! purple-red hangs the clustering fruit of your
life-long work; the vintage has come, the freest from blight that can
ever come--the vintage of a faithful mother!

The name of Mary Owen was not written upon the brains of men, but it
is graven upon the hearts of these her children; so long as they live,
the blessed memory of that home shall abide with them, a home wherein
all that was sweet, and strong, and true, was nurtured by a wise hand,
was sunned into blossoming by a loving heart.

A benediction rests upon the brow of him who has given his best work
to help this world onward, even though it be but a hair's-breadth; but
the mother who has given herself to her children through long years of
an unwritten self-abnegation, who has thrilled every fiber of their
beings with faith in God and hope in man, a faith and a hope which no
canker-worm of worldly experience can ever eat away, she shall be
crowned with a sainted halo.


REMINISCENCES BY DR. MARY F. THOMAS AND AMANDA M. WAY.

At an anti-slavery meeting held in Greensboro, Henry Co., in 1851, a
resolution was offered by Amanda M. Way, then an active agent in the
"Underground Railroad," as follows:

     WHEREAS, The women of our land are being oppressed and degraded
     by the laws and customs of our country, and are in but little
     better condition than chattel slaves; therefore,

     _Resolved_, That we call a Woman's Rights Convention, and that a
     committee be now appointed to make the necessary arrangements.

The resolution was adopted. Amanda M. Way, Joel Davis, and Fanny Hiatt
were appointed.

The Convention met in October, 1851, in Dublin, Wayne Co., and
organized by electing Hannah Hiatt, President; Amanda Way,
Vice-President; and Henry Hiatt, Secretary. Miss Way made the opening
address, and stated the object of the Convention to be a full, free,
and candid discussion of the legal and social position of women. The
meetings continued two days. Henry C. Wright addressed large audiences
at the evening sessions. A letter was received from Mary F. Thomas, of
North Manchester, urging all those who believe in woman's rights to be
firm and outspoken. She encouraged young ladies to enter the trades
and professions, to fit themselves in some way for pecuniary
independence, and adds, "Although a wife, mother, and housekeeper,
with all that that means, I am studying medicine, and expect to
practice, if I live."

Such a Convention being a novel affair, called out some ridicule and
opposition, but the friends were so well pleased with their success,
that a committee was appointed to arrange for another the next year,
which was held in Richmond, Oct. 15 and 16, 1852. A few of the
resolutions[57] will show the spirit of the leaders at that time. A
Woman's Rights Society was formed at this Convention, a Constitution
and By-laws adopted, and it became one of the permanent organizations
of the State. Hannah Hiatt, President; Jane Morrow, Vice-President;
Mary B. Birdsall, Secretary; Amanda Way, Treasurer.

Another Convention was held at Richmond October 12, 1853. The
President being absent, Lydia W. Vandeburg presided with dignity and
ability. Frances D. Gage, Josephine S. Griffing, Emma R. Coe, and
Lydia Ann Jenkins were among the prominent speakers. Having heard that
Antoinette Brown had been denied admission as a delegate to the
"World's Temperance Convention," held in New York, on account of her
sex, they passed a resolution condemning this insult offered to all
womankind. Thirty-two persons[58] signed the Constitution in the first
Convention, and the movement spread rapidly in the Hoosier State.

The fourth annual meeting convened in Masonic Hall, Indianapolis,
October 26, 1854. Frances D. Gage, Caroline M. Severance, and L. A.
Hine were the invited speakers, and right well did they sustain the
banner of equal rights in the capital of the State. J. W. Gordon, then
a young and promising lawyer, and since one of the leading men of the
State, avowed himself in favor of woman suffrage, and added much to
the success of the Convention. The press, as usual, ridiculed,
burlesqued, and misrepresented the proceedings; but the citizens
manifested a serious interest, and requested that the next Convention
be held at the capital.

About this time the "Maine Liquor Law" was passed in this State. The
women took an active part in the temperance campaign, and helped to
secure the prohibitory law. This made the suffrage movement more
popular, as was shown in the increased attendance at the next
Convention in Indianapolis, October 12, 1855, at which Emma B. Swank
presided. The prominent speakers were James and Lucretia Mott, Frances
D. Gage, Ernestine L. Rose, Joseph Barker, Amanda Way, Henry Hiatt,
and J. W. Gordon. With such women as these to declare the gospel of
equality, and to enforce it with their pure faces, womanly graces, and
noble lives, the people could not fail to give their sympathy, and to
be convinced of the rightfulness of our cause. The two leading papers
again did their best to make the movement ridiculous. The reporters
gave glowing pen sketches of the "masculine women" and "feminine men";
they described the dress and appearance of the women very minutely
but said little of the merits of the question, or the arguments of the
speakers. Amanda Way was chosen President of the Society; Dr. Mary
Thomas, Vice-President; Mary B. Birdsall, Secretary; Abbe Lindley,
Treasurer.

The next annual meeting was held in Winchester, October 16 and 17,
1856. In her introductory remarks, the President referred to the great
change that had taken place in five years. Women were now often seen
on the platform making speeches on many questions, behind the counters
as clerks, in the sick-room as physicians. The temperance organization
of Good Templars, now spreading rapidly over the State, makes no
distinction in its members; women as well as men serve on committees,
hold office, and vote on all business matters. Emma B. Swank and Sarah
E. Underhill were the principal speakers at this Convention. For
logical argument and beauty of style, Miss Swank was said to have few
equals. Dr. Mary Thomas was chosen President for the next year.

The annual meeting of 1857 was again held in Winchester, by an
invitation from the citizens, and the Methodist Episcopal Church was
tendered for their use. On taking the chair, the President, Dr. Mary
F. Thomas, said:

     This is the first time I have had the pleasure of meeting with
     this Association, still my heart, my influence, and my prayers
     have all been with the advocates of this cause. Although I have
     not enjoyed the privilege of attending the annual meetings, owing
     to my many cares, I have not been an idler in the vineyard. By my
     example, as well as my words, I have tried to teach women to be
     more self-reliant, and to prepare themselves for larger and more
     varied spheres of activity.

Frances D. Gage, who was always a favorite speaker in Indiana, was
again present, and scattered seeds of truth that have produced
abundant fruit. On motion of Amanda Way, who said she believed it was
time for us to begin to knock at the doors of the Legislature, a
committee of three was appointed to prepare a form of petition to be
circulated and presented to the next Legislature.

In 1858 the Convention again met in Richmond, Sarah Underhill,
President. Adeline T. Swift and Anne D. Cridge, of Ohio, both
excellent speakers, were present. The committee appointed to draft a
form of petition, reported the following:

     _To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives of the
     State of Indiana:_

     The undersigned, residents of the State of Indiana, respectfully
     ask you to grant to women the same rights in property that are
     enjoyed by men. We also ask you to take the necessary steps to
     amend the Constitution so as to extend to woman the right of
     suffrage.

Sarah Underhill, Emma Swank, Mary Birdsall, Agnes Cook, Dr. Mary F.
Thomas, and Amanda Way were appointed to present said petition to the
Legislature. The interest was so great, and the discussions so
animated, for many new speakers from all parts of the State had risen
up, that the Convention continued through three days.

On the 19th of January, 1859, the petition was presented to the
Legislature by Mary Birdsall, Agnes Cook, and Dr. Mary Thomas. An
account of the proceedings was given in _The Lily_, a woman's rights
paper, published and edited by Dr. Mary Thomas. The occasion of the
presentation of petitions in person by a delegation of the Indiana
Woman's Rights Association before the assembled Houses of the
Legislature, drew an immense crowd long before the appointed hour. On
the arrival of the Committee, they were escorted to the Speaker's
stand. The President, J. R. Cravens, introduced them to their
Representatives.

Mrs. Agnes Cook, in a few brief remarks, invited a serious and candid
consideration of the intrinsic merits of the petition about to be
presented, and the arguments of the petitioners.

Dr. Mary Thomas read the petition signed by over one thousand
residents of Indiana, and urged the Legislature to pass laws giving
equal property rights to married women, and to take the necessary
steps to so amend the Constitution of the State as to secure to all
women the right of suffrage. She claimed these rights on the ground of
absolute justice, as well as the highest expediency, pointing out
clearly the evils that flow from class legislation.

Mrs. Birdsall being introduced, read a clear, concise address,
occupying about half an hour.

The following resolution, offered by Gen. Steele, was unanimously
adopted:

     _Resolved_, That the addresses just read be spread upon the
     Journal, and that copies be requested for publication in the city
     papers.

After the Senate adjourned, the Speaker called the House to order, and
on the motion of Mr. Murray, it resolved itself into committee of the
whole on the memorial just presented. On motion of Mr. Hamilton, the
petition was made the special order for Friday, when it was referred
to the Committee on "Rights and Privileges," who reported "that
legislation on this subject is inexpedient at this time," which report
was concurred in by the House.

The ninth annual meeting was held in Good Templars' Hall, Richmond, in
October, 1859. It continued but one day, as the time was fully
occupied in business plans for future work. Mary B. Birdsall was
chosen President of the Association.

The intense excitement of the political campaign of 1860, and the
civil war that followed, absorbed every other interest. The women who
had so zealously worked for their own rights, were just as ready to
help others. Some hastened to the hospitals; others labored in the
sanitary movement. Others did double duty at home, tilling the ground
and gathering in the harvests, that their fathers, husbands, brothers,
and sons might go forth to fight the battles of freedom. No
conventions were held for ten years; but public sentiment had taken a
long stride during those years of conflict, and when the pioneers
of this reform, who had been accustomed to opposition and
misrepresentation, again began the work, they were astonished to find
themselves in a comparatively popular current.

We find the following letters from Henry C. Wright and Esther Ann
Lukens, in _The Liberator_:

                         DUBLIN, WAYNE CO., Indiana, _Oct. 14, 1851_.

     DEAR GARRISON:--I am in a Woman's Rights Convention, the first
     ever held in this State, called by the women of Indiana to
     consider the true position of woman. An excellent but short
     address was made by the President, Hannah Hiatt, on the
     importance of the movement and the ruinous consequences of
     dividing the interests of men and women, and making their
     relations antagonistic in the State, the Church, and the affairs
     of every-day life. Much was said against woman's taking part in
     government. It would degrade her to vote and hold office, and
     destroy her influence as mother, wife, daughter, sister. It was
     an answer that if voting and holding office would degrade women,
     they would degrade men also; whatever is injurious to the moral
     nature, delicacy, and refinement of woman is equally so to man.
     Moral obligations rest equally on both sexes. Man should be as
     refined and chaste as woman if we would make our social life
     pure. Women may as well say to men, "Keep away from the
     ballot-box and from office, for it degrades you and unfits you to
     be our companions," as for man to say so to women. Dr. Curtis, a
     Methodist class-leader, said the Bible had placed the _final
     appeal_ in all disputes in man; that if woman refused obedience,
     God gave man the right to use force. This "Christian teacher" was
     the only person in the Convention who appealed to the spirit of
     rowdyism, whose language was unbecoming the subject and the
     occasion. He was the only one who appealed to the Bible to
     justify the subjection of woman. And while he awarded to man the
     right to use force, he said the only influence the Bible
     authorized woman to use was moral suasion. Man is to rule woman
     by violence; woman must rule man by love, kindness, and
     long-suffering. So says the Bible according to the interpretation
     of the learned Dr. Curtis. The Convention lasted two days. It was
     a thrilling meeting.

                              Yours,                  HENRY C. WRIGHT.


                                   NEW GARDEN, Ohio, _Oct. 2, 1851_.

     DEAR FRIENDS:--When Goethe was asked if the world would be better
     if the Golden Age were restored, he answered, "A synod of good
     women shall decide."

     Could his spirit look down upon us he would see those synods, of
     which he perhaps prophetically spoke, assembling all over the
     land, not to restore an age of semi-barbarism, but to hasten the
     advent of a new and far more golden era, when there will be no
     dangerous pilgrimage of years' duration to win back the Holy
     Sepulchre, but a far more divine and sacred inheritance shall
     have been sought and found; namely, freedom for woman to exercise
     every right, capacity, and power with which God has endowed her.

     If there are any natural rights, then they belong to all by
     virtue of our humanity, and are not graduated by degrees of
     superiority. If the privilege of voting had been limited to those
     men who were strong in mind and morals, we should never have had
     a Governor's signature to "the black laws of Ohio."

     It is perverse and cruel to raise the cry that we make war upon
     domestic life; that we would destroy its natural order and
     attraction by allowing woman to mingle in the coarse and noisy
     scenes of political life. Is not the aid of man equally important
     in the family, and would his necessary duties in the home
     conflict with his duties as a citizen and a patriot?

     Man can not wrong and oppress woman without jeopardizing his own
     liberty. Cramped and crippled as she may be by inexorable law,
     she avenges herself, and decides his destiny. So long as woman is
     outlawed, man pays the penalty in ignorance, poverty, and
     suffering. Our interests are one, we rise or fall together.

     Sisters of Indiana, accept my heartfelt sympathy in the work you
     have undertaken. It is well for the pioneers of a new country to
     call down God's blessing on their labors by an early claim to an
     equality of rights.

                    Yours, for justice to all,     ESTHER ANN LUKENS.

Having never met the brave women who endured the first shower of
ridicule in Indiana, we asked to be introduced to them in some brief
pen-sketches, and in the following manner they present themselves:

                           REV. AMANDA M. WAY

     may be truthfully called the mother of "The Woman Suffrage
     Association" in Indiana organized in 1851, and took an active
     part in all the Conventions until she became a resident in Kansas
     in 1872. Miss Way was always an abolitionist, a prohibitionist,
     and an uncompromising suffragist--the great pioneer of all
     reforms. It is amusing to hear how many places she has been the
     first to fill; yet she has done it all in such a quiet way that
     no one seemed to feel that she was ever out of place. It was a
     common remark, "Amanda can do that, but she is not like other
     people." She was the first woman elected Grand Secretary of the
     "Indiana Order of Good Templars," in 1856; the first State
     lecturer and organizer; the first in the world to be elected
     Grand Worthy Chief Templar; the first one in her State to be a
     representative to the national lodge; the first one admitted as a
     regular representative to the Grand Division, Sons of Temperance,
     and the first to be a licensed preacher in the Methodist
     Episcopal Church. What is better still, she continues in the work
     she began, gaining power and influence with the experience of
     years. An editor, speaking of her, said: "There is no woman more
     widely and favorably known in this State than Amanda Way. Her
     name is a household word, and in the hearts of the temperance
     reformers her memory will ever be sacred."

     In 1859, she was associated with Mrs. Underhill in editing _The
     Ladies' Tribune_, and has since been connected with the press
     much of the time. During the Rebellion, her time and thoughts
     were given to active labors in the hospitals and the sanitary
     movement. Many a soldier returned to his home who would have died
     but for her care. In company with Mrs. Swank she presented a
     memorial, to the Legislature in 1871, asking the elective
     franchise for women, and made a very effective speech on the
     occasion.

     Her home-life has been equally active and faithful; a widowed
     mother and a sister's orphaned children, have been her special
     care, depending on her for support. Once, when asked why she
     never married, she laughingly replied, "I never had time."

     She has been a consistent member of the Methodist Church twenty
     years, and ten years ago, unsolicited by herself, she was
     licensed as a minister by the Winchester Quarterly Conference,
     Rev. Milton Mahin, Presiding Elder. In her travels over the State
     she preaches almost every Sunday, being invited to fill many
     pulpits, both in Kansas and this State.

     She is a calm, forcible, earnest speaker, and, though quiet and
     reserved in manner, she is genial and warm in her affections.

     She is now fifty-two years old, and though her life has been a
     constant battle with wrongs, she has not become misanthropic nor
     despondent. Knowing that progress is the law of life, she has
     full faith that the moral world, though moving slowly, is still
     moving in the right direction.


                             HELEN Y. AUSTIN,

     Corresponding Secretary of the State Suffrage Association for
     many years, a position for which she was eminently fitted, being
     gifted as a writer. Having had a liberal education, and great
     enthusiasm in our cause, her labors have been valuable and
     effective. She is a correspondent for several journals and
     periodicals, is very active in "The State Horticultural Society,"
     and takes a deep interest in all the progressive movements of the
     day.


                              LOUISE V. BOYD.

     Mrs. Boyd is a lady of fine poetical genius and superior literary
     attainments. She has been an earnest advocate of woman suffrage
     for many years, and is herself a living argument of woman's
     ability to use the rights she asks.

     In 1871 she read a very able essay on the "Women of the Bible,"
     before the State Association of the Christian Church. It was the
     first time a woman's voice had been heard in that religious body.
     The success of her effort on that occasion opened the way for
     other women. Mrs. Boyd and her husband (Dr. S. S. Boyd, who is
     also a zealous friend of our cause), have both been officers of
     the State W. S. Association for many years, taking an active part
     in all our Conventions.


                            REV. MARY T. CLARK.

     Mrs. Clark has been an acceptable lecturer and preacher for many
     years in different parts of the State. She was early a recognized
     minister among the Congregational Quakers. More recently she has
     been ordained in the Universalist Church, and enjoys equal rights
     and honors with the clergymen of that denomination. She is a
     woman of education and culture, and of English parentage.


                               EMMA B. SWANK.

     Mrs. Swank is one of the most pleasing speakers of Indiana. She
     is a graduate of Antioch, and while yet in college she gained
     quite a reputation by her lecturing on Astronomy. She spent
     several years lecturing to classes of women on Physiology,
     Anatomy, and Hygiene. Of late, she has devoted herself to Woman
     Suffrage and Temperance. She served as president of the State
     Society one year before the war and one since, and has always
     done good, service to the cause of woman with both pen and
     tongue.


                            SARAH E. UNDERHILL.

     Mrs. Underhill was first known in Indiana as the editor and
     proprietor of the _Ladies' Tribune_ at Indianapolis in 1857. She
     associated with her Amanda Way as office editor, that she might
     devote her entire time to lecturing. Though she remained in the
     State but three years, she was widely and favorably known as an
     earnest and effective speaker on Woman Suffrage and Temperance.
     When the war began, she was among the first to go to the sick and
     wounded soldiers. A brief account of her work in the hospitals
     will be found in the "Women of the War."


                              JANE MORROW.

     Miss Morrow was a pioneer in our movement; attended the Second
     Convention in 1852. She was not a speaker, but a practical
     business woman, owning and successfully carrying on a dry-goods
     store in Richmond for many years. By precept and example, she
     taught the doctrine of woman's independence and self-reliance.
     She was a kind, genial, sunny-hearted woman, who made all about
     her bright and happy, though she was what the world calls an "old
     maid." In 1867, she died suddenly, without a moment's warning or
     parting word; but "Aunt Jane," as she was familiarly called, will
     long be remembered in her native town.


                             MARY B. BIRDSALL

     was secretary of the Convention of 1852, and held that position
     for three years. She purchased _The Lily_, a Woman's Rights
     paper, of Amelia Bloomer, in 1855, and published it for three
     years. Her home is in Richmond.


                           MARY ROBINSON OWEN.

     Mrs. Owen, wife of Robert Dale Owen, was not known to the public
     until after the war. It is said, however, that she suggested and
     helped prepare the amendments to the laws with reference to
     woman's property rights, that her husband carried through our
     Legislature. She had a strong, clear intellect, and her lectures
     were more argumentative and pointed than rhetorical and flinched.
     She sympathized with and aided her husband in all his reformatory
     movements, and was his equal in mental power. She was one of the
     vice-presidents of our Indiana State Woman Suffrage Association
     at the time of her death, 1871.


                             MARY F. THOMAS.

     Mary F. Thomas, M.D., was born October 28. 1816, in Montgomery
     County, Maryland. Her parents, Samuel and Mary Myers, were
     members of the Society of Friends, and resided in their early
     days in Berks and Chester Counties, in Pennsylvania. Her father
     was the associate of Benjamin Lundy, in organizing and attending
     the first anti-slavery meeting held in Washington, at the risk of
     their lives.

     Desiring to place his family beyond the evil influences of
     slavery, he moved to Columbiana County, Ohio. He purchased a farm
     there; his daughters assisted him in his outdoor labors in the
     summer, and studied under his instructions in the winter. While
     in Washington he frequently took his daughters to the capitol to
     listen to the debates, which gave them interest in political
     questions. Mary was early roused to the consideration of woman's
     wrongs by the unequal wages paid to teachers of her own sex. In
     1845 she was much moved in listening to the preaching of Lucretia
     Mott at a yearly meeting in Salem, Ohio, and resolved that her
     best efforts should be given to secure justice for woman.

     In 1839 she was married to Dr. Owen Thomas. She has three
     daughters, all well educated, self-reliant women. Her youngest
     daughter, a graduate of Cornell University, Ithaca, New York,
     took the Greek prize in the intercollegiate contest in 1874. As
     Mrs. Thomas' husband was a physician, she studied medicine with
     him, and graduated at the Penn Medical College of Philadelphia in
     1854. She was the first woman to take her place in the State
     Medical Association as a regularly admitted delegate. She is a
     member of the Wayne County Medical Association; has been
     physician for "The Home for Friendless Women" in the city of
     Richmond for nine years, and has filled the office of City
     Physician by the appointment of the Commissioners for several
     years.

     Though deeply interested in the woman suffrage reform, owing to
     her domestic cares and medical studies she could not attend any
     public meetings until 1857; since that time she has been one of
     the most responsible standard-bearers, and for several years
     President of the State Association.

     Mrs. Thomas was always a conscientious abolitionist; the poor
     fugitive from bondage did not knock at her door in vain. The
     temperance reform, too, has had her warm sympathy and the benefit
     of her pure example. She is a member of the Grand Lodge of Good
     Templars, and has held important offices in that Order, having
     been a faithful disciple in spreading the gospel of temperance
     over forty years, always a member of some organization.

     During the war of the rebellion she gave herself in every way
     that was open to woman to the loyal service of her country. As
     assistant physician in hospitals, looking after the sick and
     wounded, and in sanitary work at home, she manifested as much
     patriotism as any man did on the battle-field. After her long
     experience, she comes to the conclusion, that with the ballot in
     her own hand, with the power to coin her will into law, a woman
     might do a far more effective work in preventing human misery and
     crime, than she ever can accomplish by indirect influence, in
     merely mitigating the evils man perpetuates by law.


                   (_From the Liberator of May, 1856_).

                      RIGHTS OF WOMEN IN WISCONSIN.

     Minority Report of C. L. Sholes, from the "Committee on
         Expiration and Re-enactment of Laws," to whom were referred
         sundry petitions, praying that steps may be taken to confer
         upon women the right of suffrage in Wisconsin.

     The minority of the Committee on Expiration and Re-enactment of
     Laws, beg leave to report:

     The theory of our government, proclaimed some eighty years since,
     these petitioners ask may be reduced to practice. The undersigned
     is aware that the opinion has been announced from a high place
     and high source, that this theory is, in the instrument which
     contains it, a mere rhetorical flourish, admirable to fill a
     sentence and round a period, but otherwise useless and
     meaningless; that so far from all mankind being born free and
     equal, it is those only who have rights that are entitled to
     them; those yet out of the pale of that fortunate condition being
     intended by Providence always to be and remain there. But
     notwithstanding this opinion has the weight of high authority,
     and notwithstanding the practice of the American people has thus
     far been in strict accordance with such opinion, the undersigned
     believes the theory proclaimed is not simply a rhetorical
     flourish, nor meaningless, but that it means just what it says;
     that it is true, and being true, is susceptible of an application
     as broad as the truth proclaimed.

     All humankind, says the theory, are endowed by their Creator with
     certain inalienable rights. Other governments proclaim the divine
     right of kings, and assume that man is the mere creature of the
     government, deriving all his rights from its concessions, and
     forever subject to all its impositions, while this government (or
     at least its theory) elevates all men to an equality with kings,
     brings every man face to face with the author of his being and
     the arbiter of his destiny, deriving his rights from that source
     alone; and makes government his creature instead of his master,
     instituted by him solely for the better protection and
     application of his God given rights. It is important to keep in
     mind this theory of our government and its difference with the
     theories of all other governments. Endowed by their Creator with
     certain inalienable rights, it says, because those rights are
     necessary to correct relations between each individual of
     humanity and his Creator. Herein is the whole merit of the
     American theory of government, and of its practice too, so far as
     that practice has gone. It is a grand theory, opening as it does
     to every human being the boundless plains of progress which
     stretch out to the foot of the eternal throne, and implying as it
     does such noble powers in humanity, and such noble conditions and
     uses for those powers. Its effect upon those who have enjoyed the
     benefit of its application has been in harmony with its own
     exalted character. Though but a day old, as it were, in the
     history of nations, the United States, in a great many respects,
     outstrip all other nations of the earth, and are inferior in few
     or no particulars to any. The mass of her people are conceded to
     be the most intelligent people of the world, and manifest,
     individually and collectively, the fruits of superior
     intelligence. It will not be denied that our theory of
     government, viewing as it does every man as a sovereign, opening
     up to every man all the distinctions, all the honors, and all
     the wealth which man is capable of desiring, appreciating, or
     grasping, exercises a powerful, indeed a controlling influence in
     making our people what they are, and our nation what it is.

     These petitions ask only that these rights, enjoyed by one
     portion of the American people, may be extended to embrace the
     whole, not less for the abstract but all-sufficient reason, that
     they have been given to the whole by the Creator, than that by
     their application to the whole, the more general will be the
     benefits experienced; and the deeper, broader, more prevailing
     and more enduring will become those benefits. Manifestly, such
     must be the case; for as these rights belong to humanity, and
     produce their exalted and beneficial fruits by their application
     to and upon humanity, it follows that, wherever humanity is,
     there they belong, and there they will work out their beneficial
     results. To exclude woman from the possession of equal political
     rights with man, it should be shown that she is essentially a
     different being; that the Creator of man is not her Creator; that
     she has not the same evil to shun, the same heaven to gain; in
     short, the same grand, immortal destiny which is supposed to
     invite to high uses the capacity of man, does not pertain to nor
     invite her. We say this must be shown; and if it can not be, as
     certainly it can not, then it follows that to withhold these
     rights, so beneficial to one portion, is to work an immediate and
     particular injury to those from whom they are withheld, and,
     although a more indirect, not a less certain injury to all.
     Man-masculine is not endowed by his Creator with certain
     inalienable rights because he is male, but because he is human;
     and when, in virtue of our strong and superior physical capacity,
     we deny to man-feminine the rights which are ours only in virtue
     of our humanity, we exercise the same indefensible tyranny
     against which _we_ felt justified in taking up arms, and
     perilling life and fortune.

     The argument against conceding these rights all are familiar
     with. They are precisely the same which have been in the mouths
     of tyrants from the beginning of time, and have been urged
     against any and every demand for popular liberty. A want of
     capacity for self-government--freedom will be only
     licentiousness--and out of the possession of rights will grow
     only the practice of follies and wrongs. This is the argument, in
     brief, applied to every step of gradual emancipation on the part
     of the male, and now by him applied to the female struggling to
     reach the common platform. Should the American male, in the van
     of human progress, as the result of this theory of a capacity for
     self-government, turn round and ignore this divinity, this
     capacity in another branch of the human family? The theory has
     worked only good in its application thus far, and it is a most
     unreasonable, a most unwarrantable distrust to expect it to
     produce mischief when applied to others in all respects mentally
     and morally the equals of those who now enjoy it. It neither can
     nor will do so; but, necessarily, the broader and more universal
     its application, the broader and more universal its benefits.

     The possession of political rights by woman does not necessarily
     imply that she must or will enter into the practical conduct of
     all the institutions, proper and improper, now established and
     maintained by the male portion of the race. These institutions
     may be right and necessary, or they may not, and the nature of
     woman may or may not be in harmony with them. It is not proposed
     to enact a law compelling woman to do certain things, but it is
     proposed simply to place her side by side with man on a common
     platform of rights, confident that, in that position, she will
     not outrage the "higher law" of her nature by descending to a
     participation in faults, follies, or crimes, for which she has no
     constitutional predilections. The association of woman with man,
     in the various relations of life in which such association is
     permitted, from the first unclosing of his eyes in the imbecility
     of infancy, till they close finally upon all things earthly, is
     conceded to be highly beneficial. Indeed, we think it will be
     found, on scrutiny, that it is only those institutions of society
     in which women have no part, and from which they are entirely
     excluded, which are radically wrong, and need either thorough
     renovation or entire abrogation. And if we have any duties so
     essentially degrading, or any institution so essentially impure,
     as to be beyond the renovating influence which woman can bring to
     bear on them, beyond question they should be abrogated without
     delay--a result which woman's connection with them would speedily
     bring about.

     Who dares say, then, that such association would not be equally
     beneficial, if in every sphere of activity opened to man, woman
     could enter with him and be at his side? Are our politics, in
     their practice, so exalted, so dignified, so pure, that we need
     no new associations, no purer and healthier influences, than now
     connected with them? Is our Government just what we would have
     it; are our rulers just what we would have them; in short, have
     we arrived at that happy summit where perfection in these
     respects is found? Not so. On the contrary, there is an universal
     prayer throughout the length and breadth of the land, for reform
     in these respects; and where, let us ask, could we reasonably
     look for a more powerful agent to effect this reform, than in the
     renovating influences of woman? That which has done so much for
     the fireside and social life generally, neither can nor will lose
     its potent, beneficial effect when brought to bear upon other
     relations of life.

     To talk of confining woman to her proper sphere by legal
     disabilities, is an insult to the divinity of her nature,
     implying, as it does, the absence of instinctive virtue, modesty,
     and sense on her part. It makes her the creature of law--of our
     law--from which she is assumed to derive her ability to keep the
     path of rectitude, and the withdrawal of which would leave her to
     sink to the depths of folly and vice. Do we really think so badly
     of our mothers, wives, sister, daughters? Is it really we only of
     the race who are instinctively and innately so sensible, so
     modest, so virtuous, as to be qualified, not only to take care of
     ourselves, but to dispense all these exalted qualities to the
     weaker, and, as we assume, inferior half of the race? If it be
     so, it may be doubted whether Heaven's last gift was its best.
     Kings, emperors, and dictators confine their subjects, by the
     interposition of law, to what they consider their proper spheres;
     and there is certainly as much propriety in it as in the
     dictation, by one sex, of the sphere of a different sex. In the
     assumption of our strength, we say woman must not have equal
     rights with us, because she has a different nature. If so, by
     what occult power do we understand that different nature to
     dictate by metes and bounds its wants and spheres? Fair play is a
     Yankee characteristic; and we submit, if but one-half of the race
     can have rights at a time because of their different natures,
     whether it is not about time the proscribed half had its chance
     in, to assume the reins of Government, and dictate _our_ sphere.
     It is no great compliment to that part of the race to venture the
     opinion, that the country would be full as well governed as it
     now is, and our sphere would be bounded with quite as much
     liberality as now is theirs.

     Let every human being occupy a common platform of political
     rights, and all will irresistibly gravitate exactly to their
     proper place and sphere, without discord, and with none but the
     most beneficial results. In this way human energy and capacity
     will be fully economized and expended for the highest interest of
     all humanity; and this result is only to be obtained by opening
     to all, without restriction, common spheres of activity.

     Woman has all the interests on earth that man has--she has all
     the interest in the future that man has. Man has rights only in
     virtue of his relations to earth and heaven; and woman, whose
     relations are the same, has the same rights. The possession of
     her rights, on the part of woman, will interfere no more with the
     duties of life, than their possession by man interferes with his
     duties; and as man is presumed to become a better man in all
     respects by the possession of his rights, such must be the
     inevitable effect of their possession upon woman.

     The history of the race, thus far, has been a history of tyranny
     by the strong over the weak. Might, not right, has been as yet
     the fundamental practice of all governments; and under this order
     of things, woman, physically weak, from a slave, beaten, bought,
     and sold in the market, has but become, in the more civilized and
     favored portions of the earth, the toy of wealth and the drudge
     of poverty. But we now have at least a new and different theory
     of government; and as the aspiration of one age is sure to be the
     code of the next, and practice is sure at some time to overtake
     theory, we have reason to expect that principle will take the
     place of mere brute force, and the truth will be fully realized,

          "That men and women have one glory and one shame;
          Everything that's done inhuman injures all of us the same."

     Never, till woman stands side by side with man, his equal in the
     eye of the law as well as the Creator, will the high destiny of
     the race be accomplished. She is the mother of the race, and
     every stain of littleness or inferiority cast upon her by our
     institutions will soil the offspring she sends into the world,
     and clip and curtail to that extent his fair proportions. If we
     would abrogate that littleness of her character which finds a
     delight in the gewgaws of fashion, and an enjoyment in the narrow
     sphere of gossipping, social life, or tea-table scandal, so long
     the ridicule of our sex; open to her new and more ennobling
     fields of activity and thought--fields, the exploration of which
     has filled the American males with great thoughts, and made them
     the foremost people of the world, and which will place the
     American females on their level, and make them truly helps meet
     for them. When we can add to the men of America a race of women
     educated side by side with them, and enjoying equal advantages
     with them in all respects, we may expect an offspring of giants
     in the comprehension and application of the great truths which
     involve human rights and human happiness.

     These petitions ask that the necessary steps may be taken to
     strike from the Constitution the legal distinction of sex. Your
     Committee is in favor of the prayer of the petitions; but, under
     the most favorable circumstances, that is a result which could
     not be attained in less than two years. In all probability, it
     will not be longer than that before the Constitution will come up
     directly for revision, which will be a proper, appropriate, and
     favorable time to press the question.

     Your Committee, therefore, introduces no bill, and recommends no
     action at present.

     All of which is respectfully submitted.             C. L. SHOLES.


This able report was the result, in a great measure, of the agitation
started by Mrs. Nichols and Mrs. Fowler in 1853, and by Lucy Stone's
lecturing tour in 1855, thus proving that no true words or brave deeds
are ever lost. The experiences of these noble pioneers in their first
visits to Wisconsin, though in many respects trying and discouraging,
brought their own rich rewards, not only in higher individual
development, but in an improved public opinion and more liberal
legislation in regard to the rights of women in that State.


FOOTNOTES:

[55] "The Relation of Woman to Industry in Indiana," by May Wright
Sewall.

[56] The vast audience of women alone, in Apollo Hall, to discuss the
McFarland and Richardson tragedy.

[57] See Appendix.

[58] See Appendix.




CHAPTER X.

PENNSYLVANIA.


     William Penn--Independence Hall--British troops--Heroism of
     women--Lydia Darrah--Who designed the Flag--Anti-slavery
     movements in Philadelphia--Pennsylvania Hall destroyed by a
     mob--David Paul Brown--Fugitives--Millard Fillmore--John
     Brown--Angelina Grimke--Abby Kelly--Mary Grew--Temperance in
     1848--Hannah Darlington and Ann Preston before the Legislature--
     Medical College for Women in 1850--Westchester Woman Rights
     Convention, 1852--Philadelphia Convention, 1854--Lucretia
     Mott answers Richard H. Dana--Jane Grey Swisshelm--Sarah Josepha
     Hale--Anna McDowell--Rachel Foster searching the records.

In 1680, Charles II., King of England, granted to William Penn a tract
of land in consideration of the claims of his father, Admiral Penn,
which he named Pennsylvania. The charter for this land is still in
existence at Harrisburg, among the archives of the State. The
principal condition of the bargain with the Indians was the payment of
two beaver skins annually. This was the purchase money for the great
State of Pennsylvania.

Penn landed at New Castle October 27, 1682, and in November visited
the infant city of Philadelphia, where so many of the eventful scenes
of the Revolution transpired. Penn had been already imprisoned in
England several times for his Quaker principles, which had so
beneficent an influence in his dealings with the Indians, and on the
moral character of the religious sect he founded in the colonies.

While yet a student he was expelled from Christ Church, Oxford,
because he was converted to Quakerism under the preaching of Thomas
Loe. He was imprisoned in Cork for attending a Quaker meeting, and in
the Tower of London in 1668 for writing "The Sandy Foundation Shaken,"
and while there he wrote his great work, "No Cross, No Crown." In
1671, he was again imprisoned for preaching Quakerism, and as he would
take no oath on his trial, he was thrown into Newgate, and while there
he wrote his other great work on "Toleration."

In 1729 the foundations of Independence Hall, the old State House,
were laid, and the building was completed in 1734. Here the first
Continental Congress was held in September, 1774; a Provincial
Convention in January, 1775; the Declaration of Independence
proclaimed July 4, 1776, and on the 8th, read to thousands assembled
in front of the building. These great events have made Philadelphia
the birthplace of freedom, the Mecca of this western world, where the
lovers of liberty go up to worship; and made the Keystone State so
rich in memories, the brightest star in the republican constellation,
where in 1776 freedom was proclaimed, and in 1780 slavery was
abolished.

Philadelphia remained the seat of Government until 1800. The British
troops occupied the city from September 26, 1777, to June 18, 1778.
During this period we find many interesting incidents in regard to the
heroism of women. In every way they aided the struggling army, not
only in providing food and clothes, ministering to the sick in camp
and hospitals, but on active duty as messengers and spies under most
difficult and dangerous circumstances. The brave deeds and severe
privations the women of this nation endured with cheerfulness would
fill volumes, yet no monuments are built to their memory, and only by
the right of petition have they as yet the slightest recognition in
the Government. A few instances that occurred at Philadelphia will
illustrate the patriotism of American women.[59]

     While the American army remained encamped at White Marsh, the
     British being in possession of Philadelphia, Gen. Howe made some
     vain attempts to draw Washington into an engagement. The house
     opposite the headquarters of Gen. Howe, tenanted by William and
     Lydia Darrah, members of the Society of Friends, was the place
     selected by the superior officers of the army for private
     conference, whenever it was necessary to hold consultations.

     On the afternoon of the 2d of December, the British
     Adjutant-General called and informed the mistress that he and
     some friends were to meet there that evening, and desired that
     the back room up-stairs might be prepared for their reception.
     "And be sure, Lydia," he concluded, "that your family are all in
     bed at an early hour. When our guests are ready to leave the
     house, I will myself give you notice, that you may let us out and
     extinguish the candles."

     Having delivered this order, the Adjutant-General departed. Lydia
     betook herself to getting all things in readiness. But she felt
     curious to know what the business could be that required such
     secrecy, and resolved on further investigation. Accordingly, in
     the midst of their conference that night, she quietly approached
     the door, and listening, heard a plan for the surprise of
     Washington's forces arranged for the next night. She retreated
     softly to her room and laid down; soon there was a knocking at
     her door. She knew well what the signal meant, but took no heed
     until it was repeated again and again, and then she arose
     quickly and opened the door. It was the Adjutant-General who
     came to inform her they were ready to depart. Lydia let them out,
     fastened the door, extinguished the fire and lights, and returned
     to her chamber, but she was uneasy, thinking of the threatened
     danger.

     At the dawn of day she arose, telling her family that she must go
     to Frankfort to procure some flour. She mounted her horse, and
     taking the bag, started. The snow was deep and the cold intense,
     but Lydia's heart did not falter. Leaving the grist at the mill,
     she started on foot for the camp, determined to apprise Gen.
     Washington of his danger. On the way she met one of his officers,
     who exclaimed in astonishment at seeing her, but making her
     errand known, she hastened home.

     Preparations were immediately made to give the enemy a fitting
     reception. None suspected the grave, demure Quakeress of having
     snatched from the English their anticipated victory; but after
     the return of the British troops Gen. Howe summoned Lydia to his
     apartment, locked the door with an air of mystery, and motioned
     her to a seat. After a moment of silence, he said: "Were any of
     your family up, Lydia, on the night when I received my company
     here?" "No," she replied, "they all _retired_ at eight o'clock."
     "It is very strange," said the officer, and mused a few minutes.
     "I know you were asleep, for I knocked at your door three times
     before you heard me; yet it is certain that we were betrayed."

     Afterward some one asked Lydia how she could say her family were
     all in bed while she herself was up; she replied, "Husband and
     wife are one, and that one is the husband, and my husband was in
     bed." Thus the wit and wisdom of this Quaker woman saved the
     American forces at an important crisis, and perhaps turned the
     fate of the Revolutionary War.

During that dreadful winter, 1780, at Valley Forge, the ladies of
Philadelphia combined to furnish clothing for the army. Money and
jewels were contributed in profusion. Those who could not give money,
gave their services freely. Not less than $7,500 were contributed to
an association for this purpose, of which Esther De Berdt Reed was
president. Though an English woman, the French Secretary said of her:
"She is called to this office as the best patriot, the most zealous
and active, and the most attached to the interests of the country."

The archives of the Keystone State prove that she can boast many noble
women from the time of that great struggle for the nation's existence,
the signal for which was given when the brave old bell rang out from
Independence Hall its message of freedom. The very colors then
unfurled, and for the first time named the flag of the United States,
were the handiwork, and in part the invention of a woman. That to the
taste and suggestions of Mrs. Elizabeth Ross, of Philadelphia, we owe
the beauty of the Union's flag can not be denied. There are those who
would deprive her of all credit in this connection, and assert that
the committee appointed to prepare a flag gave her the perfected
design; but the evidence is in favor of her having had a large share
in the change from the original design to the flag as it now is; the
same flag which we have held as a nation since the memorable year of
the Declaration of Independence, the flag which now floats on every
sea, whose stars and stripes carry hope to all the oppressed nations
of the earth; though to woman it is but an _ignis fatuus_, an ever
waving signal of the ingratitude of the republic to one-half its
citizens.

An anecdote of a female spy is related in the journal of Major
Tallmadge. While the Americans were at Valley Forge he was stationed
in the vicinity of Philadelphia with a detachment of cavalry to
observe the enemy and limit the range of British foraging parties. His
duties required the utmost vigilance, his squad seldom remained all
night in the same position, and their horses were rarely unsaddled.
Hearing that a country girl had gone into the city with eggs; having
been sent by one of the American officers to gain information;
Tallmadge advanced toward the British lines, and dismounted at a small
tavern within view of their outposts. The girl came to the tavern, but
while she was communicating her intelligence to the Major, the alarm
was given that the British light-horse were approaching. Tallmadge
instantly mounted, and as the girl entreated protection, bade her get
up behind him. They rode three miles at full speed to Germantown, the
damsel showing no fear, though there was some wheeling and charging,
and a brisk firing of pistols.

Tradition tells of some women in Philadelphia, whose husbands used to
send intelligence from the American army through a market-boy, who
came into the city to bring provisions, and carried the dispatches
sent in the back of his coat. One morning, when there was some fear
that his movements were watched, a young girl undertook to get the
papers. In a pretended game of romps, she threw her shawl over his
head, and secured the prize. She hastened with the papers to her
friends, who read them with deep interest, after the windows were
carefully closed. When news came of Burgoyne's surrender, the
sprightly girl, not daring to give vent openly to her exultation, put
her head up the chimney and hurrahed for Gates.

And not only in the exciting days of the Revolution do we find
abundant records of woman's courage and patriotism, but in all the
great moral movements that have convulsed the nation, she has taken an
active and helpful part. The soil of Pennsylvania is classic with the
startling events of the anti-slavery struggle. In the first
Anti-Slavery Society, of which Benjamin Franklin was president, women
took part, not only as members, but as officers. The name of Lydia
Gillingham stands side by side with Jacob M. Ellis as associate
secretaries, signing reports of the "Association for the Abolition of
Slavery."

The important part women took in the later movement, inaugurated by
William Lloyd Garrison, has already passed into history. The interest
in this question was intensified in this State, as it was the scene of
the continued recapture of fugitives. The heroism of the women, who
helped to fight this great battle of freedom, was only surpassed by
those who, taking their lives in their hands, escaped from the land of
slavery. The same love of liberty that glowed in eloquent words on the
lips of Lucretia Mott, Angelina Grimke, and Mary Grew, was echoed in
the brave deeds of Margaret Garner, Linda Brent, and Mrs. Stowe's
Eliza.

On December 4, 1833, the Abolitionists assembled in Philadelphia to
hold a national convention, and to form the American Anti-Slavery
Society. During all the sessions of three days, women were constant
and attentive listeners. Lucretia Mott, Esther More, Sidney Ann Lewis,
and Lydia White, took part in the discussions.

The following resolution, passed at the close of the third day,
without dissent, or a word to qualify or limit its application, shows
that no one then thought it improper for women to speak in public:

     _Resolved_, That the thanks of the Convention be presented to our
     female friends for the deep interest they have manifested in the
     cause of anti-slavery, during the long and fatiguing sessions of
     this Convention.

Samuel J. May, in writing of this occasion many years after, says: "It
is one of the proudest recollections of my life that I was a member of
the Convention in Philadelphia, in December, 1833, that formed the
American Anti-Slavery Society. And I well remember the auspicious
sequel to it, the formation of the Philadelphia Female Anti-Slavery
Society. Nor shall I ever forget the wise, the impressive, the
animating words spoken in our Convention by dear Lucretia Mott and two
or three other excellent women who came to that meeting by divine
appointment. But with this last recollection will be forever
associated the mortifying fact, that we _men_ were then so blind, so
obtuse, that we did not recognize those women as members of our
Convention, and insist upon their subscribing their names to our
'Declaration of Sentiments and Purposes.'"


PHILADELPHIA ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY.

No sooner did the National Society adjourn, than the women who had
listened to the discussions with such deep interest, assembled to
organize themselves for action. A few extracts from Mary Grew's final
report of the Philadelphia Female Anti-Slavery Society in 1870 show
that--

     A meeting convened at the school-room of Catherine McDermott,
     12th mo. 9th, 1833, to take into consideration the propriety of
     forming a Female Anti-Slavery Society; addresses were made by
     Samuel J. May, of Brooklyn, Conn., and Nathaniel Southard, of
     Boston, who pointed out the important assistance that might be
     rendered by our sex in removing the great evil of slavery. After
     some discussion upon this interesting subject, it was concluded
     to form a Society, in the belief that our combined efforts would
     more effectually aid in relieving the oppression of our suffering
     fellow-creatures. For this purpose a Committee was appointed to
     draft a Constitution, and to propose such measures as would be
     likely to promote the Abolition of Slavery, and to elevate the
     people of color from their present degraded situation to the full
     enjoyment of their rights, and to increased usefulness in
     society.

     At a meeting held 12th mo. 14th, the Committee appointed on the
     9th submitted a form of Constitution, which was read and adopted.
     After its adoption, the following persons signed their names:
     Lucretia Mott, Esther Moore, Mary Ann Jackson, Margaretta Forten,
     Sarah Louisa Forten, Grace Douglass, Mary Sleeper, Rebecca
     Hitchins, Mary Clement, A. C. Eckstein, Mary Wood, Leah Fell,
     Sidney Ann Lewis, Catherine McDermott, Susan M. Shaw, Lydia
     White, Sarah McCrummell, Hetty Burr. The Society then proceeded
     to the choice of officers for the ensuing year; when the
     following persons were elected: Esther Moore, Presiding Officer;
     Margaretta Forten, Recording Secretary; Lucretia Mott,
     Corresponding Secretary; Anna Bunting, Treasurer; Lydia White,
     Librarian.

     The Annual Reports of the first two years of this Society are not
     extant; but from its third, we learn that in each of those years
     the Society memorialized Congress, praying for the abolition of
     slavery in the District of Columbia and the Territories of the
     United States. In the second year of its existence, it appointed
     a Standing Committee for the purpose of visiting the schools for
     <DW52> children in this city, and aiding them in any practicable
     way. In the third year it appointed a Committee "to make
     arrangements for the establishment of a course of scientific
     lectures, which our  friends were particularly invited to
     attend." The phraseology of this statement implies that white
     persons were not to be excluded from these lectures, and
     indicates a clear-sighted purpose, on the part of the Society, to
     bear its testimony against distinctions founded on color. In this
     year it published an Address to the Women of Pennsylvania,
     calling their attention to the claims of the slave, and urging
     them to sign petitions for his emancipation. Mrs. Elizabeth
     Heyrick's well-known pamphlet, entitled "Immediate, not Gradual
     Emancipation," was during the same year republished by the
     "Anti-Slavery Sewing Society," a body composed of some of the
     members of this Association, but not identical with it, which met
     weekly at the house of our Vice-President, Sidney Ann Lewis.
     Another event, important and far-reaching beyond our power then
     to foresee, had marked the year. A member of this Society[60] had
     received and accepted a commission to labor as an agent of the
     American Anti-Slavery Society. It is evident, from the language
     of the Report, that the newly-appointed agent and her
     fellow-members regarded the mission as one fraught with peculiar
     trial of patience and faith, and anticipated the opposition which
     such an innovation on the usages of the times would elicit. Her
     appointed field of labor was among her own sex, in public or in
     private; but in the next year's Report it is announced that she
     had enlarged her sphere. The fact should never be forgotten by us
     that it was a member of this Society who first broke the soil in
     that field where so many women have since labored abundantly, and
     are now reaping so rich a harvest.

     The next year, 1837, was made memorable by a still greater
     innovation upon established usage--the first National Convention
     of American Anti-Slavery Women. It is interesting and profitable
     to notice, as the years passed, that new duties and new
     responsibilities educated woman for larger spheres of action.
     Each year brought new revelations, presented new aspects of the
     cause, and made new demands. Our early Reports mention these
     Conventions of Women, which were held during three consecutive
     years in New York and this city, as a novel measure, which would,
     of course, excite opposition; and they also record the fact that
     "the editorial rebukes, sarcasm, and ridicule" which they
     elicited, did not exceed the anticipations of the Abolitionists.

     The second of these Conventions was held in this city, in the
     midst of those scenes of riot when infuriated Southern
     slaveholders and cowardly Northern tradesmen combined for
     purposes of robbery and arson, and surrounded Pennsylvania Hall
     with their representatives, the mob which plundered and burnt it,
     while the City Government looked on consenting to these crimes.
     That Convention was the last assembly gathered in that Hall, then
     just dedicated to the service of Freedom. Its fifth session, on
     the 17th of May, 1838, was held, calmly and deliberately, while
     the shouts of an infuriated mob rose around the building,
     mingling with the speakers' voices, and sometimes overwhelming
     them; while stones and other missiles crashing through the
     windows imperilled the persons of many of the audience. The
     presence of an assembly of women was supposed to be a partial
     protection against the fury of the rioters; and believing that
     the mob would not fire the building while it was thus filled, a
     committee of anti-slavery men sent a request to the Convention to
     remain in session during the usual interval between the afternoon
     and evening meetings, if, with their knowledge of their perilous
     surroundings, they felt willing to do so. The President laid the
     request before the Convention, and asked, Will you remain? A few
     minutes of solemn deliberation; a few moments' listening to the
     loud madness surging against the outer walls; a moment's unvoiced
     prayer for wisdom and strength, and the answer came: _We will_;
     and the business of the meeting proceeded. But before the usual
     hour of adjournment arrived, another message came from the
     committee, withdrawing their request, and stating that further
     developments of the spirit pervading the mob and the city,
     convinced them that it would be unwise for the Convention to
     attempt to hold possession of the Hall for the evening. The
     meeting adjourned at the usual hour, and, on the next morning,
     the burnt and crumbling remains of Pennsylvania Hall told the
     story of Philadelphia's disgrace, and the temporary triumph of
     the spirit of slavery.

     The experience of that morning is very briefly mentioned in the
     published "Proceedings," which state that "the Convention met,
     pursuant to adjournment, at Temperance Hall, but found the doors
     closed by order of the managers"; that they were offered the use
     of a school-room, in which they assembled; and there the
     Convention held its closing session of six hours. But they who
     made a part of the thrilling history of those times well remember
     how the women of that Convention walked through the streets of
     this city, from the Hall on Third Street, closed against them, to
     the school-room on Cherry Street, hospitably opened to them by
     Sarah Pugh and Sarah Lewis, and were assailed by the insults of
     the populace as they went. It was a meeting memorable to those
     who composed it; and was one of many interesting associations of
     our early anti-slavery history which cluster around the
     school-house, which in those days was always open to the advocacy
     of the slave's cause.[61]

     An incident in connection with the last of these Conventions,
     shows how readily and hopefully, in the beginning of our work, we
     turned for help to the churches and religious societies of the
     land; and how slowly and painfully we learned their real
     character. It is long since we ceased to expect efficient help
     from them; but in those first years of our warfare against
     slavery, we had not learned that the ecclesiastical standard of
     morals in a nation _can not_ be higher than the standard of the
     populace generally.

     A committee of arrangements appointed to obtain a house in which
     the Convention should be held, reported: "That in compliance with
     a resolution passed at a meeting of this Society, an application
     was made to each of the seven Monthly Meetings of Friends, in
     this city, for one of their meeting-houses, in which to hold the
     Convention." Two returned respectful answers, declining the
     application; three refused to hear it read; one appointed two
     persons to examine it, and then decided "that it should be
     _returned without being read_," though a few members urged "that
     it should be treated more respectfully"; and that from one
     meeting no answer was received.

     As to other denominations of professed Christians, similar
     applications had been frequently refused by them, although there
     was one exception which should be ever held in honorable
     remembrance by the Abolitionists of Philadelphia. The use of the
     church of the Covenanters, in Cherry street, of which Rev. James
     M. Wilson was for many years the pastor, was never refused for an
     anti-slavery meeting, even in the most perilous days of our
     enterprise. Another fact in connection with the Convention of
     1839 it is pleasant to remember now, when the faithful friend
     whose name it recalls has gone from among us. The Committee of
     Arrangements reported that their difficulties and perplexities
     "were relieved by a voluntary offer from that devoted friend of
     the slave, John H. Cavender, who, with kindness at once
     unexpected and gratifying, offered the use of a large unfurnished
     building in Filbert Street, which had been used as a riding
     school; which was satisfactorily and gratefully occupied by the
     Convention."

     In the year 1840, our Society sent delegates to the assembly
     called "The World's Anti-Slavery Convention," which was held in
     London, in the month of May of that year. As is well known, that
     body refused to admit any delegates excepting those of the male
     sex, though the invitation was not thus limited; consequently,
     this Society was not represented there.

     The year 1850 was an epoch in the history of the anti-slavery
     cause. The guilt and disgrace of the nation was then intensified
     by that infamous statute known by the name of "The Fugitive Slave
     Law." Its enactment by the Thirty-first Congress, and its
     ratification by Millard Fillmore's signature, was the signal for
     an extensive and cruel raid upon the <DW52> people of the North.
     Probably no statute was ever written, in the code of a civilized
     nation, so carefully and cunningly devised for the purpose of
     depriving men of liberty. It put in imminent peril the personal
     freedom of every <DW52> man and woman in the land. It furnished
     the kidnapper all possible facilities, and bribed the judge on
     the bench to aid him in his infamous work. The terrible scenes
     that followed; the cruel apathy of the popular heart and
     conscience; the degradation of the pulpit, which sealed the deed
     with its loud Amen! the mortal terror of a helpless and innocent
     race; the fierce assaults on peaceful homes; the stealthy
     capture, by day and by night, of unsuspecting free-born people;
     the blood shed on Northern soil; the mockeries of justice acted
     in United States courts; are they not all written in our
     country's history, and indelibly engraven on the memories of
     Abolitionists?

     The case of Adam Gibson, captured in this city by the notorious
     kidnapper, Alberti, and tried before the scarcely less notorious
     Ingraham, in the year 1850, and which was succeeded in the next
     year by the Christiana tragedy, are instances of many similar
     outrages committed in Pennsylvania. No pen can record, no human
     power can estimate, the aggregate of woe and guilt which was the
     legitimate result of that Fugitive Slave Bill.

     The year 1855 was marked by a series of events unique in our
     history. A citizen of Philadelphia, whose name will always be
     associated with the cause of American liberty, in the legal
     performance of his duty, quietly informed three slaves who had
     been brought into this State by their master, a Virginia
     slaveholder, that by the laws of Pennsylvania they were free. The
     legally emancipated mother, Jane Johnson, availing herself of
     this knowledge, took possession of her own person and her own
     children; and their astonished master suddenly discovered that
     his power to hold them was gone forever. No judge, commissioner,
     or lawyer, however willing, could help him to recapture his prey.
     But a judge of the United States District Court could assist him
     in obtaining a mean revenge upon the brave man who had
     enlightened an ignorant woman respecting her legal right to
     freedom. Judge Kane, usurping jurisdiction in the case, and
     exercising great ingenuity to frame a charge of contempt of
     Court, succeeded in his purpose of imprisoning Passmore
     Williamson in our County jail. The baffled slaveholder also found
     sympathizers in the Grand Jury, who enabled him to indict for
     riot and assault and battery, Passmore Williamson, William Still,
     and five other persons. During the trial which ensued, the
     prosecutor and his allies were confounded by the sudden
     appearance of a witness whose testimony that she was not forcibly
     taken from her master's custody, but had left him freely,
     disconcerted all their schemes, and defeated the prosecution. The
     presence of Jane Johnson in that court room jeoparded her
     newly-acquired freedom; for though Pennsylvania was pledged to
     her protection, it was questionable whether the slave power, in
     the person of United States officers and their ever ready
     minions, would not forcibly overpower State authority and obtain
     possession of the woman. It was an intensely trying hour for her
     and for all who sympathized with her. Among those who attended
     her through that perilous scene, were the president of this
     Society, Sarah Pugh, and several of its members. All those ladies
     will testify to the calm bearing and firm courage of this
     emancipated slave-mother, in the hour of jeopardy to her
     newly-found freedom. Protected by the energy and skill of the
     presiding Judge, William D. Kelley, and of the State officers,
     her safe egress from the court-room was accomplished; and she was
     soon placed beyond the reach of her pursuers.

     In 1859 we reaped a rich harvest from long years of sowing, in
     the result of the trial of the alleged fugitive slave, Daniel
     Webster. This trial will never be forgotten by those of us who
     witnessed it. The arrest was made in Harrisburg, in the month of
     April, and the trial was in this city before United States
     Commissioner John C. Longstreth. We do not, at this distance of
     time, need the records of that year, to remind us that "it was
     with heavy and hopeless hearts that the Abolitionists of this
     city gathered around that innocent and outraged man, and attended
     him through the solemn hours of his trial." The night which many
     of the members of this Society passed in that court, keeping
     vigils with the unhappy man whose fate hung tremulous on the
     decision of the young commissioner, was dark with despair; and
     the dawn of morning brought no hope to our souls. We confidently
     expected to witness again, as we had often witnessed before, the
     triumph of the kidnapper and his legal allies over law and
     justice and human liberty. In the afternoon of that day we
     re-assembled to hear the judicial decision which should consign
     the wretched man to slavery, and add another page to the record
     of Pennsylvania's disgrace. But a far different experience
     awaited us. Commissioner Longstreth obeyed the moral sentiment
     around him, and doubtless the voice of his conscience, and
     pronounced the captive free. "The closing scenes of this trial;
     the breathless silence with which the crowded assembly in the
     court-room waited to hear the death-knell of the innocent
     prisoner; the painfully sudden transition from despair to hope
     and thence to certainty of joy; the burst of deep emotion; the
     fervent thanksgiving, wherein was revealed that sense of the
     brotherhood of man which God has made a part of every human soul;
     the exultant shout which went up from the multitude who thronged
     the streets waiting for the decision"; these no language can
     portray, but they are life-long memories for those who shared in
     them. This event proved the great change wrought in the popular
     feeling, the result of twenty-five years of earnest effort to
     impress upon the heart of this community anti-slavery doctrines
     and sentiments. Then for the first time the Abolitionists of
     Philadelphia found their right of free speech protected by city
     authorities. Alexander Henry was the first Mayor of this city who
     ever quelled a pro-slavery mob.

     Our last record of a victim sacrificed to this statute, is of the
     case of Moses Horner, who was kidnapped near Harrisburg in March,
     1860, and doomed to slavery by United States Judge John
     Cadwallader, in this city. One more effort was made a few months
     later to capture in open day in the heart of this city a man
     alleged to be a fugitive slave, but it failed of ultimate
     success. The next year South Carolina's guns thundered forth the
     doom of the slave power. She aimed them at Fort Sumter and the
     United States Government. God guided their fiery death to the
     very heart of American slavery.

     If the history of this Society were fully written, one of its
     most interesting chapters would be a faithful record of its
     series of annual fairs. Beginning in the year 1836, the series
     continued during twenty-six years, the last fair being held in
     December, 1861. The social attraction of these assemblies induced
     many young persons to mingle in them, besides those who labored
     from love of the cause. Brought thus within the circle of
     anti-slavery influence, many were naturally converted to our
     principles, and became earnest laborers in the enterprise which
     had so greatly enriched their own souls. The week of the fair was
     the annual Social Festival of the Abolitionists of the State.
     Though held under the immediate direction of this Society, it
     soon became a Pennsylvania institution. Hither our tribes came up
     to take counsel together, to recount our victories won, to be
     refreshed by social communion, and to renew our pledges of
     fidelity to the slave. There were years when these were very
     solemn festivals, when our skies were dark with gathering storms,
     and we knew not what peril the night or the morning might bring.
     But they were always seasons from which we derived strength and
     encouragement for future toil and endurance, and their value to
     our cause is beyond our power to estimate.

     The pro-slavery spirit which always pervaded our city, and which
     sometimes manifested itself in the violence of mobs, never
     seriously disturbed our fair excepting in one instance. In the
     year 1859 our whole Southern country quaked with mortal fear in
     the presence of John Brown's great deed for Freedom. The coward
     North trembled in its turn lest its Southern trade should be
     imperilled, and in all its cities there went up a frantic cry
     that the Union must be saved and the Abolitionists suppressed.
     The usual time for holding our fair was at hand. Before it was
     opened a daily newspaper of this city informed its readers that
     notwithstanding the rebuke which the Abolitionists had received
     from a recent meeting of Union-savers, they had audaciously
     announced their intention of holding another fair, the avowed
     purpose of which was the dissemination of anti-slavery
     principles. The indignant journalist asked if Philadelphia would
     suffer such a fair to be held. This was doubtless intended as a
     summons to a mob, and a most deadly mob responded to the call. It
     did not expend its violence upon our fair, but against an
     assembly in National Hall, gathered to listen to a lecture by
     George W. Curtis, upon the Present Aspect of the Country.

     The High Constable, Mayor, and Sheriff were the agents employed
     by the slave power to take and hold possession of Concert Hall,
     and in its behalf, if not in its name, to eject us and our
     property. The work was commenced by the Mayor, who sent the High
     Constable with an order that our flag should be removed from the
     street. Its offensiveness consisted in the fact that it presented
     to the view of all passers-by a picture of the Liberty Bell in
     Independence Hall, inscribed with the words, "Proclaim liberty
     throughout all the land, to all the inhabitants thereof." The
     next step was an attempt to induce the lessee to eject us from
     the hall. On his refusal to violate his contract with us, the
     trustees obtained legal authority to dispossess us on the plea
     that the hall had been rented for a purpose which tended to
     excite popular commotion. The sheriff entered, took possession,
     and informed the managers that our property must be removed
     within three hours. Then were the doors of this hall,[62] where
     we are now assembled, opened to us, and here our fair was held,
     with great success, during the remainder of the week. In the
     stormiest seasons of our enterprise these saloons have never been
     closed against anti-slavery meetings; and our fair of 1860 was
     welcomed to them amidst the loud threatenings of a mob which were
     seeking to appease the angry South, then just rising in open
     rebellion against the United States Government. The experience of
     those four days of December spent in these rooms will never be
     forgotten by us. It was a season of trial, of rejoicing, and of
     victory. The veterans of our cause, long accustomed to the
     threats and the presence of mobs, found reason for rejoicing in
     the courage and serenity with which the young recruits in our
     ranks faced the peril of scenes so new to them, and proved their
     faith in the principles of our cause and their devotion to the
     right. Our victory was complete, our right of peaceful assemblage
     maintained, without any active demonstration of hostility from
     the indignant citizens who had fiercely resolved that the
     Anti-Slavery Fair should be suppressed. Such demonstrations were,
     doubtless, restrained by a knowledge of the fact that they would
     be met by vigorous and effectual opposition by the Mayor of the
     city, who, upon that occasion, as upon many other similar ones,
     was faithful to the responsibility of his office.

     In the year 1862 the nation was convulsed with the war consequent
     upon the Southern Rebellion; our soldiers, wounded and dying in
     hospitals and on battle-fields; claimed all possible aid from the
     community; anti-slavery sentiments were spreading widely through
     the North, and it was believed to be feasible and expedient to
     obtain the funds needful for our enterprise by direct appeal to
     the old and new friends of the cause. Therefore, our series of
     fairs closed with the twenty-sixth, in December, 1861.

     The money raised by this Society in various ways amounted to
     about $35,000. Nearly the whole of this revenue has been expended
     in disseminating the principles of our cause, by means of printed
     documents and public lectures and discussions. In the earlier
     years of this Society, a school for <DW52> children, established
     and taught by Sarah M. Douglass, was partially sustained from our
     treasury. We occasionally contributed, from our treasury, small
     sums for the use of the Vigilance Committees, organized to assist
     fugitive slaves who passed through this State on their way to a
     land where their right to liberty would be protected. But these
     enterprises were always regarded as of secondary importance to
     our great work of direct appeal to the conscience of the nation,
     in behalf of the slave's claim to immediate, unconditional
     emancipation. To this end a large number of tracts and pamphlets
     have been circulated by this Society; but its chief agencies have
     been the anti-slavery newspapers of the country. Regarding these
     as the most powerful instrumentalities in the creation of that
     public sentiment which was essential to the overthrow of slavery,
     we expended a considerable portion of our funds in the direct
     circulation of _The Liberator_, _The Pennsylvania Freeman_, and
     _The National Anti-Slavery Standard_, and a small amount in the
     circulation of other anti-slavery papers. Our largest
     appropriations of money have been made to the Pennsylvania and
     American Anti-Slavery Societies, and by those Societies to the
     support of their organs and lecturing agents.

     The financial statistics of this Society are easily recorded.
     Certain great and thrilling events which marked its history are
     easily told and written. But the life which it lived through all
     its thirty-six years; the influence which flowed from it,
     directly and indirectly, to the nation's heart; the work quietly
     done by its members, individually, through the word spoken in
     season, the brave, self-sacrificing deed, the example of fidelity
     in a critical hour, the calm endurance unto the end; these can be
     written in no earthly book of remembrance. Its life is lived; its
     work is done; its memorial is sealed. It assembles to-day to take
     one parting look across its years; to breathe in silence its
     unutterable thanksgiving; to disband its membership, and cease to
     be. Reviewing its experience of labor and endurance, the united
     voices of its members testify that it has been a service whose
     reward was in itself; and contemplating the grandeur of the work
     accomplished (in which it has been permitted to bear a humble
     part), the overthrow of American slavery, the uplifting from
     chattelhood to citizenship of four millions of human souls; with
     one heart and one voice we cry, "Not unto us, O Lord! not unto
     us, but unto Thy name" be the glory; for Thy right hand and Thy
     holy arm "hath gotten the victory."

In 1838, Philadelphia was the scene of one of the most disgraceful
mobs that marked those eventful days. The lovers of free speech had
found great difficulty in procuring churches or halls in which to
preach the anti-slavery gospel. Accordingly, a number of individuals
of all sects and no sect, of all parties and no party, erected a
building wherein the principles of Liberty and Equality could be
freely discussed.

David Paul Brown, one of Pennsylvania's most distinguished lawyers,
was invited to give the oration dedicating this hall to "Freedom and
the Rights of Man." In accepting the invitation, he said:

     For some time past I have invariably declined applications that
     might be calculated to take any portion of my time from my
     profession. But I always said, and now say again, that I will
     fight the battle of liberty as long as I have a shot in the
     locker. Of course, I will do what you require.

                      Yours truly,                   DAVID PAUL BROWN.
     S. WEBB and WM. H. SCOTT, Esqs.

Whenever fugitives were arrested on the soil of Pennsylvania, this
lawyer stood ready, free of charge, to use in their behalf his skill
and every fair interpretation of the letter and spirit of the law, and
availing himself of every quirk for postponements, thus adding to the
expense and anxiety of the pursuer, and giving the engineers of the
underground railroad added opportunities to run the fugitive to
Canada.

Pennsylvania Hall was one of the most commodious and splendid
buildings in the city, scientifically ventilated and brilliantly
lighted with gas. It cost upward of $40,000. Over the forum, in large
gold letters, was the motto, "Virtue, Liberty, Independence." On the
platform were superb chairs, sofas, and desk covered with blue silk
damask; everything throughout the hall was artistic and complete.
Abolitionists from all parts of the country hastened to be present at
the dedication; and among the rest came representatives of the Woman's
National Convention, held in New York one year before.

Notices had been posted about the city threatening the speedy
destruction of this temple of liberty. During this three days'
Convention, the enemy was slowly organizing the destructive mob that
finally burned that grand edifice to the ground. There were a large
number of strangers in the city from the South, and many Southern
students attending the medical college, who were all active in the
riot. The crowds of women and <DW52> people who had attended the
Convention intensified the exasperation of the mob. Black men and
white women walking side by side in and out of the hall, was too much
for the foreign plebeian and the Southern patrician.

As it was announced that on the evening of the third day some ladies
were to speak, a howling mob surrounded the building. In the midst of
the tumult Mr. Garrison introduced Maria Chapman,[63] of Boston, who
rose, and waving her hand to the audience to become quiet, tried in a
few eloquent and appropriate remarks to bespeak a hearing for Angelina
E. Grimke, the gifted orator from South Carolina, who, having lived in
the midst of slavery all her life, could faithfully describe its
cruelties and abominations. But the indescribable uproar outside,
cries of fire, and yells of defiance, were a constant interruption,
and stones thrown against the windows a warning of coming danger. But
through it all this brave Southern woman stood unmoved, except by the
intense earnestness of her own great theme.


                       ANGELINA GRIMKE'S ADDRESS.

     Do you ask, "What has the North to do with slavery?" Hear it,
     hear it! Those voices without tell us that the spirit of slavery
     is _here_, and has been roused to wrath by our Conventions; for
     surely liberty would not foam and tear herself with rage, because
     her friends are multiplied daily, and meetings are held in quick
     succession to set forth her virtues and extend her peaceful
     kingdom. This opposition shows that slavery has done its
     deadliest work in the hearts of our citizens. Do you ask, then,
     "What has the North to do?" I answer, cast out first the spirit
     of slavery from your own hearts, and then lend your aid to
     convert the South. Each one present has a work to do, be his or
     her situation what it may, however limited their means or
     insignificant their supposed influence. The great men of this
     country will not do this work; the Church will never do it. A
     desire to please the world, to keep the favor of all parties and
     of all conditions, makes them dumb on this and every other
     unpopular subject.

     As a Southerner, I feel that it is my duty to stand up here
     to-night and bear testimony against slavery. I have seen it! I
     have seen it! I know it has horrors that can never be described.
     I was brought up under its wing. I witnessed for many years its
     demoralizing influences and its destructiveness to human
     happiness. I have never seen a happy slave. I have seen him dance
     in his chains, it is true, but he was not happy. There is a wide
     difference between happiness and mirth. Man can not enjoy
     happiness while his manhood is destroyed. Slaves, however, may
     be, and sometimes are mirthful. When hope is extinguished, they
     say, "Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die." [Here stones
     were thrown at the windows--a great noise without and commotion
     within].

     What is a mob? what would the breaking of every window be? What
     would the levelling of this hall be? Any evidence that we are
     wrong, or that slavery is a good and wholesome institution? What
     if the mob should now burst in upon us, break up our meeting, and
     commit violence upon our persons, would that be anything compared
     with what the slaves endure? No, no; and we do not remember them,
     "as bound with them," if we shrink in the time of peril, or feel
     unwilling to sacrifice ourselves, if need be, for their sake.
     [Great noise]. I thank the Lord that there is yet life enough
     left to feel the truth, even though it rages at it; that
     conscience is not so completely seared as to be unmoved by the
     truth of the living God. [Another outbreak of the mob and
     confusion in the house].

     How wonderfully constituted is the human mind! How it resists, as
     long as it can, all efforts to reclaim it from error! I feel that
     all this disturbance is but an evidence that our efforts are the
     best that could have been adopted, or else the friends of slavery
     would not care for what we say and do. The South know what we do.
     I am thankful that they are reached by our efforts. Many times
     have I wept in the land of my birth over the system of slavery. I
     knew of none who sympathized in my feelings; I was unaware that
     any efforts were made to deliver the oppressed; no voice in the
     wilderness was heard calling on the people to repent and do works
     meet for repentance, and my heart sickened within me. Oh, how
     should I have rejoiced to know that such efforts as these were
     being made. I only wonder that I had such feelings. But in the
     midst of temptation I was preserved, and my sympathy grew warmer,
     and my hatred of slavery more inveterate, until at last I have
     exiled myself from my native land, because I could no longer
     endure to hear the wailing of the slave.

     I fled to the land of Penn; for here, thought I, sympathy for the
     slave will surely be found. But I found it not. The people were
     kind and hospitable, but the slave had no place in their
     thoughts. I therefore shut up my grief in my own heart. I
     remembered that I was a Carolinian, from a State which framed
     this iniquity by law. Every Southern breeze wafted to me the
     discordant tones of weeping and wailing, shrieks and groans,
     mingled with prayers and blasphemous curses. My heart sank within
     me at the abominations in the midst of which I had been born and
     educated. What will it avail, cried I, in bitterness of spirit,
     to expose to the gaze of strangers the horrors and pollutions of
     slavery, when there is no ear to hear nor heart to feel and pray
     for the slave? But how different do I feel now! Animated with
     hope, nay, with an assurance of the triumph of liberty and
     good-will to man, I will lift up my voice like a trumpet, and
     show this people what they can do to influence the Southern mind
     and overthrow slavery. [Shouting, and stones against the
     windows].

     We often hear the question asked, "What shall we do?" Here is an
     opportunity. Every man and every woman present may do something,
     by showing that we fear not a mob, and in the midst of revilings
     and threatenings, pleading the cause of those who are ready to
     perish. Let me urge every one to buy the books written on this
     subject; read them, and lend them to your neighbors. Give your
     money no longer for things which pander to pride and lust, but
     aid in scattering "the living coals of truth upon the naked heart
     of the nation"; in circulating appeals to the sympathies of
     Christians in behalf of the outraged slave.

     But it is said by some, our "books and papers do not speak the
     truth"; why, then, do they not contradict what we say? They can
     not. Moreover, the South has entreated, nay, commanded us, to be
     silent; and what greater evidence of the truth of our
     publications could be desired?

     Women of Philadelphia! allow me as a Southern woman, with much
     attachment to the land of my birth, to entreat you to come up to
     this work. Especially, let me urge you to petition. Men may
     settle this and other questions at the ballot-box, but you have
     no such right. It is only through petitions that you can reach
     the Legislature. It is, therefore, peculiarly your duty to
     petition. Do you say, "It does no good!" The South already turns
     pale at the number sent. They have read the reports of the
     proceedings of Congress, and there have seen that among other
     petitions were very many from the women of the North on the
     subject of slavery. Men who hold the rod over slaves rule in the
     councils of the nation; and they deny our right to petition and
     remonstrate against abuses of our sex and our kind. We have these
     rights, however, from our God. Only let us exercise them, and,
     though often turned away unanswered, let us remember the
     influence of importunity upon the unjust judge, and act
     accordingly. The fact that the South looks jealously upon our
     measures shows that they are effectual. There is, therefore, no
     cause for doubting or despair.

     It was remarked in England that women did much to abolish slavery
     in her colonies. Nor are they now idle. Numerous petitions from
     them have recently been presented to the Queen to abolish
     apprenticeship, with its cruelties, nearly equal to those of the
     system whose place it supplies. One petition, two miles and a
     quarter long, has been presented. And do you think these labors
     will be in vain? Let the history of the past answer. When the
     women of these States send up to Congress such a petition our
     legislators will arise, as did those of England, and say: "When
     all the maids and matrons of the land are knocking at our doors
     we must legislate." Let the zeal and love, the faith and works of
     our English sisters quicken ours; that while the slaves continue
     to suffer, and when they shout for deliverance, we may feel the
     satisfaction of "having done what we could."

     ABBY KELLY, of Lynn, Massachusetts, rose, and said: I ask
     permission to pay a few words. I have never before addressed a
     promiscuous assembly; nor is it now the maddening rush of those
     voices, which is the indication of a moral whirlwind; nor is it
     the crashing of those windows, which is the indication of a moral
     earthquake, that calls me before you. No, these pass unheeded by
     me. But it is the "still small voice within," which may not be
     withstood, that bids me open my mouth for the dumb; that bids me
     plead the cause of God's perishing poor; aye, _God's_ poor.

     The parable of Lazarus and the rich man we may well bring home
     to ourselves. The North is that rich man. How he is clothed in
     purple and fine linen, and fares sumptuously! Yonder, yonder, at
     a little distance, is the gate where lies the Lazarus of the
     South, full of sores and desiring to be fed with the crumbs that
     fall from our luxurious table. Look! see him there! even the dogs
     are more merciful than we. Oh, see him where he lies! We have
     long, very long, passed by with averted eyes. Ought not we to
     raise him up; and is there one in this Hall who sees nothing for
     himself to do?

     LUCRETIA MOTT, of Philadelphia, then stated that the present was
     not a meeting of the Anti-Slavery Convention of American women,
     as was supposed by some, and explained the reason why their
     meetings were confined to females; namely, that many of the
     members considered it improper for women to address promiscuous
     assemblies. She hoped that such false notions of delicacy and
     propriety would not long obtain in this enlightened country.

While the large Hall was filled with a promiscuous audience, and
packed through all its sessions with full three thousand people, the
women held their Convention in one of the committee-rooms. As they had
been through terrible mobs already in Boston and New York, they had
learned self-control, and with their coolness and consecration to the
principles they advocated, they were a constant inspiration to the men
by their side.

The Second National Anti-Slavery Convention of American Women
assembled in the lecture-room of Pennsylvania Hall in Philadelphia,
May 15, 1838, at ten o'clock A.M. The following officers were
appointed:

     PRESIDENT--Mary L. Parker, of Boston.

     VICE-PRESIDENTS--Maria Weston Chapman, Catharine M. Sullivan,
     Susan Paul, of Boston, Mass.; Mariana Johnson, Providence, R. I.;
     Margaret Prior, Sarah T. Smith, of New York; Martha W. Storrs, of
     Utica, N. Y.; Lucretia Mott, of Philadelphia; Mary W. Magill, of
     Buckingham, Pa.; Sarah Moore Grimke, of Charleston, S. C.

     SECRETARIES--Anne W. Weston, Martha V. Ball, of Boston; Juliana
     A. Tappan, of New York; Sarah Lewis, of Philadelphia.

     TREASURER--Sarah M. Douglass, of Philadelphia.

     BUSINESS COMMITTEE--Sarah T. Smith, Sarah R. Ingraham, Margaret
     Dye, Juliana A. Tappan, Martha W. Storrs, New York; Miriam
     Hussey, Maine; Louisa Whipple, New Hampshire; Lucy N. Dodge,
     Miriam B, Johnson, Maria Truesdell, Waity A. Spencer, Rebecca
     Pittman, Rhode Island; Lucretia Mott, Mary Grew, Sarah M.
     Douglass, Hetty Burr, Martha Smith, Pennsylvania; Angelina Grimke
     Weld, South Carolina.

     On motion of SARAH PUSH, Elizabeth M. Southard, Mary G. Chapman,
     and Abby Kelly were appointed a committee to confer with other
     associations and the managers of Pennsylvania Hall to arrange for
     meetings during the week.

     SARAH T. SMITH, from the Business Committee, presented letters
     from the Female Anti-Slavery Societies of Salem and
     Cambridgeport, Massachusetts, signed by their respective
     secretaries, Mary Spencer and L. Williams.

At this time, even the one and only right of woman, that of petition,
had been trampled under the heel of slavery on the floor of Congress,
which roused those noble women to a just indignation, as will be seen
in their resolutions on the subject, presented by Juliana A. Tappan:

     _Resolved_, That whatever may be the sacrifice, and whatever
     other rights may be yielded or denied, we will maintain
     practically the right of petition until the slave shall go free,
     or our energies, like Lovejoy's, are paralyzed in death.

     _Resolved_, That for every petition rejected by the National
     Legislature during their last session, we will endeavor to send
     five the present year; and that we will not cease our efforts
     until the prayers of every woman within the sphere of our
     influence shall be heard in the halls of Congress on this
     subject.

MARY GREW offered the following resolution, which was adopted:

     WHEREAS, The disciples of Christ are commanded to have no
     fellowship with the "unfruitful works of darkness"; and

     WHEREAS, Union in His Church is the strongest expression of
     fellowship between men; therefore

     _Resolved_, That it is our duty to keep ourselves separate from
     those churches which receive to their pulpits and their communion
     tables those who buy, or sell, or hold as property, the image of
     the living God.

This resolution was supported by Miss Grew, Lucretia Mott, Abby Kelly,
Maria W. Chapman, Anne W. Weston, Sarah T. Smith, and Sarah Lewis; and
opposed by Margaret Dye, Margaret Prior, Henrietta Wilcox, Martha W.
Storrs, Juliana A. Tappan, Elizabeth M. Southard, and Charlotte
Woolsey. Those who voted in the negative stated that they fully
concurred with their sisters in the belief that slaveholders and their
apologists were guilty before God, and that with the former, Northern
Christians should hold no fellowship; but that, as it was their full
belief that there was moral power sufficient in the Church, if rightly
applied, to purify it, they could not feel it their duty to withdraw
until the utter inefficiency of the means used should constrain them
to believe the Church totally corrupt. And as an expression of their
views, Margaret Dye moved the following resolution:

     _Resolved_, That the system of American slavery is contrary to
     the laws of God and the spirit of true religion, and that the
     Church is deeply implicated in this sin, and that it therefore
     becomes the imperative duty of her members to petition their
     ecclesiastical bodies to enter their decided protests against it,
     and exclude slaveholders from their pulpits and communion tables.

The last session was opened by the reading of the sixth chapter of 2
Corinthians, and prayer by Sarah M. Grimke. An Address to Anti-Slavery
Societies was read by Sarah T. Smith, and adopted. We copy from it the
plea and argument for woman's right and duty to be interested in all
questions of public welfare:

                   ADDRESS TO ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETIES.

     DEAR FRIENDS:--In that love for our cause which knows not the
     fear of man, we address you in confidence that our motives will
     be understood and regarded. We fear not censure from you for
     going beyond the circle which has been drawn around us by
     physical force, by mental usurpation, by the usages of ages; not
     any one of which can we admit gives the right to prescribe it;
     else might the monarchs of the old world sit firmly on their
     thrones, the nobility of Europe lord it over the man of low
     degree, and the chains we are now seeking to break, continue
     riveted, on the neck of the slave. Our faith goes not back to the
     wigwam of the savage, or the castle of the feudal chief, but
     would rather soar with hope to that period when "right alone
     shall make might"; when the truncheon and the sword shall lie
     useless; when the intellect and heart shall speak and be obeyed;
     when "He alone whose right it is shall rule and reign in the
     hearts of the children of men."

     We are told that it is not within "the province of woman" to
     discuss the subject of slavery; that it is a "political
     question," and that we are "stepping out of our sphere" when we
     take part in its discussion. It is not true that it is merely a
     political question; it is likewise a question of justice, of
     humanity, of morality, of religion; a question which, while it
     involves considerations of immense importance to the welfare, and
     prosperity of our country, enters deeply into the home--concerns
     the every-day feelings of millions of our fellow beings. Whether
     the laborer shall receive the reward of his labor, or be driven
     daily to unrequited toil: whether he shall walk erect in the
     dignity of conscious manhood, or be reckoned among the beasts
     which perish; whether his bones and sinews shall be his own, or
     another's; whether his child shall receive the protection of its
     natural guardian, or be ranked among the live-stock of the
     estate, to be disposed of as the caprice or interest of the
     master may dictate; whether the sun of knowledge shall irradiate
     the hut of the peasant, or the murky cloud of ignorance brood
     darkly over it; whether "every one shall have the liberty to
     worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience," or
     man assume the prerogative of Jehovah and impiously seek to plant
     himself upon the throne of the Almighty. These considerations are
     all involved in the question of liberty or slavery.

     And is a subject comprehending interests of such magnitude,
     merely a "political question," and one in which woman "can take
     no part without losing something of the modesty and gentleness
     which are her most appropriate ornaments"? May not the "ornament
     of a meek and quiet spirit" exist with an upright mind and
     enlightened intellect? Must woman necessarily be less gentle
     because her heart is open to the claims of humanity, or less
     modest because she feels for the degradation of her enslaved
     sisters, and would stretch forth her hand for their rescue?

     By the Constitution of the United States, the whole physical
     power of the North is pledged for the suppression of domestic
     insurrections; and should the slaves maddened by oppression
     endeavor to shake off the yoke of the task-master, the men of the
     North are bound to make common cause with the tyrant, to put down
     at the point of the bayonet every effort on the part of the slave
     for the attainment of his freedom. And when the father, husband,
     son, and brother shall have left their homes to mingle in the
     unholy warfare; "to become the executioners of their brethren, or
     to fall themselves by their hands," will the mother, wife,
     daughter, and sister feel that they have no interest in this
     subject? Will it be easy to convince them that it is no concern
     of theirs, that their homes are rendered desolate and their
     habitations the abodes of wretchedness? Surely this consideration
     is of itself sufficient to arouse the slumbering energies of
     woman, for the overthrow of a system which thus threatens to lay
     in ruins the fabric of her domestic happiness; and she will not
     be deterred from the performance of her duty to herself, her
     family, and her country, by the cry of "political question."

     But, admitting it to be a political question, have we no interest
     in the welfare of our country? May we not permit a thought to
     stray beyond the narrow limits of our own family circle and of
     the present hour? May we not breathe a sigh over the miseries of
     our countrywomen nor utter a word of remonstrance against the
     unjust laws that are crushing them to the earth? Must we witness
     "the headlong rage of heedless folly" with which our nation is
     rushing onward to destruction, and not seek to arrest its
     downward course? Shall we silently behold the land which we love
     with all the heart-warm affection of children, rendered a hissing
     and a reproach throughout the world by the system which is
     already "tolling the death-knell of her decease among the
     nations"?

     No; the events of the last two years have "cast their dark
     shadows before," overclouding the bright prospects of the future,
     and shrouding our country in more than midnight gloom; and we can
     not remain inactive. Our country is as dear to us as to the
     proudest statesman; and the more closely our hearts cling to "our
     altars and our homes," the more fervent are our aspirations, that
     every inhabitant of our land may be protected in his fireside
     enjoyments by just and equal laws; that the foot of the tyrant
     may no longer invade the domestic sanctuary, nor his hand tear
     asunder those whom God himself has united by the most holy ties.

     Let our course then still be onward! Justice, humanity,
     patriotism; every high and every holy motive urge us forward, and
     we dare not refuse to obey. The way of duty lies open before us,
     and though no pillar of fire be visible to the outward sense, yet
     an unerring light shall illumine our pathway, guiding us through
     the sea of persecution and the wilderness of prejudice and
     error, to the promised land of freedom, where "every man shall
     sit under his own vine and fig-tree, and none shall make him
     afraid."

THANKFUL SOUTHWICK[64] moved the following:

     _Resolved_, That it is the duty of all those who call themselves
     Abolitionists, to make the most vigorous efforts to procure for
     the use of their families the products of FREE LABOR, so that
     their hands may be clean in this particular when inquisition is
     made for blood.

     ESTHER MOORE made remarks upon the importance of carrying into
     effect the resolutions that had been passed.

This was the last meeting held in Pennsylvania Hall! Business
connected with the safety of the building made it necessary for
members of the board of managers to pass several times through the
saloon, when this Convention was in session, and they said

     they never saw a more dignified, calm, and intrepid body of
     persons assembled. Although the building was surrounded all day
     by the mob who crowded about the doors, and at times even
     attempted to enter the saloon, yet the women were perfectly
     collected, unmoved by the threatening tempest. The cause which
     they were assembled to promote is one that nerves the soul to
     deeds of noble daring. The Convention had already adjourned late
     in the afternoon, when the mob which destroyed the building began
     to assemble. The doors were blocked up by the crowd, and the
     streets almost impassable from the multitude of "fellows of the
     baser sort." But these "American Women" passed through the whole
     without manifesting any sign of fear, as if conscious of their
     own greatness and of the protecting care of the God of the
     oppressed.

We give our readers these interesting pages of anti-slavery history
because they were the initiative steps to organized public action and
the Woman Suffrage Movement _per se_, and to show how much more
enthusiasm women manifested in securing freedom for the slaves, than
they ever have in demanding justice and equality for themselves. Where
are the societies to rescue unfortunate women from the bondage they
suffer under unjust law? Where are the loving friends who keep
midnight vigils with young girls arraigned in the courts for
infanticide? Where are the underground railroads and watchful friends
at every point to help fugitive wives from brutal husbands? The most
intelligent, educated women seem utterly oblivious to the wrongs of
their own sex; even those who so bravely fought the anti-slavery
battle have never struck as stout blows against the tyranny suffered
by women.

Take, for example, the resolution presented by Mary Grew, and passed
in the Woman's Anti-Slavery Convention forty-three years ago,
declaring that it was the Christian duty of every woman to withdraw
from all churches that fellowshiped with slavery, which was a sin
against God and man. Compare the conscience and religious earnestness
for a principle implied in such a resolution with the apathy and
supineness of the women of to-day. No such resolution has ever yet
passed a woman's rights convention. And yet is injustice to a <DW52>
man a greater sin than to a woman? Is liberty and equality more sweet
to him than to her! Is the declaration by the Church that woman may
not be ordained or licensed to preach the Gospel, no matter how well
fitted, how learned or devout, because of her sex, less insulting and
degrading than the old custom of the <DW64> pew?

The attitude of the Church to-day is more hostile and insulting to
American womanhood than it ever was to the black man, by just so much
as women are nearer the equals of priests and bishops than were the
unlettered slaves. When women refuse to enter churches that do not
recognize them as equal candidates for the joys of earth and heaven,
equal in the sight of man and God, we shall have a glorious revival
of liberty and justice everywhere.

How fully these pages of history illustrate the equal share woman has
had in the trials and triumphs of all the political and moral
revolutions through which we have passed, from feeble colonies to an
independent nation; suffering with man the miseries of poverty and
war, all the evils of bad government, and enjoying with him the
blessings of luxury and peace, and a wise administration of law. The
experience of the heroines of anti-slavery show that no finespun
sentimentalism in regard to woman's position in the clouds ever exempt
her from the duties or penalties of a citizen. Neither State officers,
nor mobs in the whirlwind of passion, tempered their violence for her
safety or benefit.

When women proposed to hold a fair in Concert Hall, their flag was
torn down from the street, while they and their property were ejected
by the high constable. When women were speaking in Pennsylvania Hall,
brickbats were hurled at, them through the windows. When women
searched Philadelphia through for a place where they might meet to
speak and pray for the slave-mother and her child (the most miserable
of human beings), halls and churches were closed against them. And who
were these women? Eloquent speakers, able writers, dignified wives and
mothers, the most moral, religious, refined, cultured, intelligent
citizens that Massachusetts, New York, South Carolina, and
Pennsylvania could boast. There never was a queen on any European
throne possessed of more personal beauty, grace, and dignity than
Maria Weston Chapman.[65] The calmness and impassioned earnestness of
Angelina Grimke, speaking nearly an hour 'mid that howling mob, was
not surpassed in courage and consecration even by Paul among the wild
beasts at Ephesus. Here she made her last public speech, and as the
glowing words died upon her lips, a new voice was heard, rich, deep,
and clear upon the troubled air; and the mantle of self-sacrifice, so
faithfully worn by South Carolina's brave daughter, henceforth rested
on the shoulders of an equally brave and eloquent Quaker girl from
Massachusetts,[66] who for many years afterward preached the same glad
tidings of justice, equality, and liberty for all.


TEMPERANCE.

In this reform, also, the women of Pennsylvania took an equally active
part. We are indebted to Hannah Darlington, of Kennett Square, Chester
Co., for the following record of the temperance work in this State:

                                        KENNETT SQUARE, 2 mo., 6, 1881.

     DEAR MRS. STANTON:--I did not think our early temperance work of
     sufficient account to preserve the reports, hence with
     considerable research am able to send you but very little. Many
     mixed meetings were held through the county before 1847.
     Woods-meetings, with decorated stands, were fashionable in
     Chester in warm weather, for several years before we branched off
     with a call for a public meeting. That brought quite a number
     together in Friends' Meeting-house at Kennett Square, where we
     discussed plans for work and appointed committees to carry them
     out.

     Sidney Peirce, Ann Preston, and myself, each prepared addresses
     to read at meetings called in such places as the Committee
     arranged; and with Chandler Darlington to drive us from place to
     place, we addressed many large audiences, some in the day-time
     and some in the evening; scattered appeals and tracts, and
     collected names to petitions asking for a law against licensing
     liquor-stands.

     In 1848, we went to Harrisburg, taking an address to the
     Legislature written by Ann Preston, and sanctioned by the meeting
     that appointed us. The address, with our credentials and
     petitions, was presented to the two Houses, read in our presence,
     and referred to the Committee on "Vice and Immorality," which
     called a meeting and invited us to give our address. Sidney
     Peirce, who was a good reader, gave it with effect to a large
     roomful of the Committee and legislators. It was listened to with
     profound attention, complimented highly, and I think aroused a
     disposition among the best members to give the cause of
     temperance more careful consideration. The Local Option Law was
     passed by that Legislature.

     We also aided the mixed meetings by our presence and addresses,
     and by circulating petitions, and publishing appeals in the
     county papers; helping in every way to arouse discussion and
     prepare the people to sustain the new law. But the Supreme Court
     of the State, through the liquor influence, declared the law
     unconstitutional, after a few months' successful trial. Drinking,
     however, has not been as respectable since that time. We
     continued active work in our association until the inauguration
     of the Good Templars movement, in which men and women worked
     together on terms of equality.

                    Respectfully yours,      HANNAH M. DARLINGTON.


                         TEMPERANCE CONVENTION.

     A Temperance Convention of Women of Chester County, met at
     Marlborough Friends' Meeting-house, on Saturday, the 30th of
     December, 1848, and was organized by the appointment of MARTHA
     HAYHURST, President; SIDNEY PEIRCE and HANNAH PENNOCK,
     Secretaries.

     Letters received by a Committee of Correspondence, appointed at a
     Convention last winter, were read; one, from Pope Bushnell,
     Chairman of the Committee on Vice and Immorality, to which
     temperance petitions were referred; and also from our
     Representatives in the Legislature, pledging themselves to use
     all their influence to obtain the passage of a law to prohibit
     the sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage amongst us. The
     Business Committee reported addresses to the men and women of
     Chester County, which were considered, amended, and adopted, as
     follows:

     _To the Women of Chester County_:

     DEAR SISTERS:--Again we would urge upon you the duty and
     necessity of action in the temperance cause. Notwithstanding the
     exertions that have been made, intoxicating liquors continue to
     be sold and drank in our midst. Still, night after night, the
     miserable drunkard reels to that home he has made desolate.
     Still, wives and sisters weep in anguish as they look on those
     dearer to them than life, and see, trace by trace, their delicacy
     and purity of soul vanishing beneath the destroying libations
     that tempt them when they pass the domestic threshold.

     We need not depict to you the poverty and crime and unutterable
     woe that result from intemperance, nor need you go far to be
     reminded of the revolting fact, that under the sanction of laws,
     men still make it a deliberate business to deal out that terrible
     agent, the only effect of which is to darken the God-like in the
     human soul, and to foster in its place the appetites of demons.
     The law passed the 7th of April, 1846, under which the sale of
     intoxicating drinks was prohibited by vote of the people in most
     of the townships in Chester County, has been decided by the
     Supreme Court to be unconstitutional; and this decision, by
     inspiring confidence in the dealers and consumers of the fatal
     poison, seems to have given a new impetus to this diabolical
     traffic. Wider and deeper its ravages threaten to extend
     themselves; and to every benevolent mind comes the earnest
     question, What must now be done? It is too late for women to
     excuse themselves from exertion in this cause, on the ground that
     it would be indelicate to leave the sheltered retirement of home.
     Alas! where is the home-shelter that guards the delicacy of the
     drunkard's wife and daughter? We all recognize the divine
     obligation to relieve suffering and to cherish virtue as binding
     alike on man and woman. Our hearts thrill at the mention of those
     women who were "last at the cross and earliest at the grave" of
     the crucified Nazarine. We commend her whose prayers and
     entreaties once saved her native Rome from pillage. We admire the
     heroism of a Joan of Arc, as it is embalmed in history and song.
     We boast of virgin martyrs to the faith of their convictions, and
     we dare not now put forth the despicable plea of feminine
     propriety to excuse our supineness, when fathers, sons, and
     brothers are falling around us, degraded, bestialized, thrice
     murdered by this foe at our doors. No! we have solemn obligations
     resting upon us, and we should be unfaithful to the holiest call
     of duty, false to the instincts of womanhood and the pleading
     voice of love, if we should sit quietly down in careless ease
     while vice is thus spreading around us, and human souls are
     falling into the fell snare of the destroyer.

     By meeting together and taking counsel one with another, we will
     become more alive to our duty in relation to this momentous
     subject. The more we prize the sweet privacy of happy homes, the
     more strong is the appeal to us to labor to make sacred and
     joyful the hearth-stones of others. If _men_ will remain
     comparatively supine we must the more energetically sound the
     alarm, and point them to the danger. If rulers will devise
     wickedness by law, we must give them no rest, till, like the
     unjust judge, they yield to our very importunity, and repeal
     their iniquitous statutes. The temporal and spiritual welfare of
     many an immortal being is at stake, and we should esteem it a
     high privilege to labor in this holy cause with an earnest and,
     if need be, a life-long consecration. Let us, then, apply
     ourselves devotedly to the work, and a fresh and resistless
     impulse will be given to the temperance reformation. The
     electrical fervor of earnest spirits ever communicates itself to
     others, and the Legislature itself can not long resist our united
     efforts. In such a cause "we have great allies." God and humanity
     are on our side, our own souls Will be strengthened and elevated
     by the work; "failure" is a word that belongs not to us, since
     our efforts are in a righteous cause.

     _To the Men of Chester County:_

     Permit us once more to plead with you on behalf of temperance. We
     know that to some of you this may seem an old and wearisome
     subject, but we know also that the sorrow and crime caused by
     intemperance are _not_ old; new, fresh cases are around us now.
     Its ravages are repeated every day, and we must beseech you to
     "hear us for our cause." We can not be silent while the grog-shop
     stands like the poisonous upas amongst us, and men openly deal
     out crime and wretchedness in the form of intoxicating drinks.

     We need not in this place enlarge upon the danger ever attendant
     upon the use of those stimulants, nor will we now stop long to
     dwell upon the solemn fact, that whoever, at the demand of
     appetite, drinks even the sweet cider, weakens his own moral
     strength, becomes a tempter to the weak, and casts away the pure
     influence of an unsullied example. Reckless and guilty indeed is
     that man who, in the light of this day, dares to insult humanity
     and defy heaven by publicly putting the glass to his lips.

     Men of Chester County! you possess the power to put a stop to the
     traffic in liquors, and we conjure you by the sacred obligations
     of virtue and humanity, as you hope to stand acquitted before the
     just tribunal of God, to arise in your might and banish it from
     the community; think, we beseech you, of the depths of pollution
     to which intemperance leads, of the bestial appetites it fosters,
     of all the unnameable impurities that revel in its abodes; think
     of the hearth-stones desolated, of the mothers and daughters
     whose earthly hopes and joys have been destroyed by that
     charnel-house, the tavern. The incendiary who applies the
     midnight torch to peaceful dwellings, the robber who commits
     murder to secure his prey, is not an enemy to society half so
     dangerous, as he who inflames all evil passions and scatters
     wretchedness through a community, by dispensing alcoholic poison.
     Oh! are there not sorrows enough in our best condition? have we
     not temptations strong enough within and without? Shall men
     progress too fast in the "onward and upward" road of virtue and
     happiness, that you leave before them these sinks of pollution,
     these trap-doors of ruin, these fatal sirens, enticing the unwary
     listener to destruction? Call us not fanatical. Indifference is
     crime; silence is fatal here. When the midnight cry of fire is
     sounded, you rush from your slumbers, and, heedless of danger,
     hasten to extinguish the flames; but here is a devouring element,
     burning on from year to year, consuming not mere shingles and
     rafters, but the priceless hopes and aspirations of immortal
     souls, leaving blackened ruins in the place of beauty; and we
     must continue to cry "Fire! fire!" until you hasten to stop the
     fearful conflagration. Tell us not of liberty and natural right,
     as a plea for this traffic. It is the liberty to rob innocent
     families and reduce them to pauperism; the right to break hearts
     and hopes, to reduce men to demons, to scatter vice and anguish
     and desolation around the land. Well may we exclaim with Madame
     Roland, when she was taken along the bloody streets of Paris,
     about to be murdered in the abused name of freedom, "Oh, Liberty,
     what crimes are committed in thy name!"

     Fathers and brothers, shall woman in her agony, and man in his
     degradation, appeal to you in vain? Too long has this evil been
     borne, too long have minor points of public good taken precedence
     of this reform. It must not be that you will be content to dwell
     in quiet indifference, in the midst of a rum-selling community,
     and die, leaving your children exposed to the tempter's snare. It
     must not be endured that this infernal traffic, this shame to
     civilization, this slur on Christianity, shall continue amongst
     us. It must not be endured that men shall be clothed with the
     monstrous authority to demoralize neighborhoods and scatter the
     fire-brands of death and destruction. The power to arrest this
     horrible work is in your hands. Be vigilant, be active. There is
     resistless might in the energy of earnest wills devoted to a
     noble cause. Petition, remonstrate, work while yet it is day. Say
     not that we can gain nothing by petitioning. Was it not through
     this means, we obtained the law under which a vote of the
     majority excluded the sale of intoxicating liquors amongst us?
     Did not our petitions last winter cause a bill for its
     prohibition to be reported in the Legislature, which was lost in
     the House by a small majority? True, the law we desire may not
     entirely prevent drunkenness, but it will certainly act as a
     restraint. It will make drinking less reputable, and thus prevent
     drunkard-making. It will have the moral influence of a State
     verdict against the practice. The dread responsibility of this
     traffic must rest upon you, if, through silent acquiescence, you
     permit its ravages. Do what you can, and peace and prosperity
     will soon sit where the blackness of ruin has brooded, and the
     sweet reward of approving consciences and the blessings of joyful
     hearts will gladden your pathway.

     The following resolutions were adopted:

     _Resolved_, That petitioning the Legislature is the most definite
     and efficient means at our command, whereby to obtain a law to
     abolish the sale of intoxicating drinks, as a beverage amongst
     us.

     _Resolved_, That the following persons be appointed to obtain
     names in their respective neighborhoods, to the petition referred
     to: Sarah Evans, Grace Anna Lewis, Jane Kimber, H. A.
     Pennypacker, Catherine Hawley, Deborah Way, Sarah Wood, M. B.
     Thomas, Anna Parke, Margaret Lea, Susannah Cox, Elizabeth Evans,
     E. Garrett, M. Darlington, Eliza Agnew, M. P. Wilson, Eliza Pyle,
     Mary Chambers, H. M. Barnard, Mrs. Jefferis, Alice Speakman,
     Sarah S. Barnard, Susan Fulton, Mary W. Coates, Millicent Stern,
     Mrs. Ramsey, Mrs. Hamilton, A. E. Valentine, Ruth Ann Seal, R. W.
     Taylor, M. K. Darlington, Lydia Agnew, M. Taylor, Alice Lewis,
     Ann Barnard, Rebecca Pugh, Lydia Jacobs, Margaret Ross, Rachel
     Leake, Ann Preston, M. W. Cox, Ann Coates, Rachel Good, Esther
     Jane Kent, Ellen Wilkinson, Mary Pugh, Sarah Ann Cunningham,
     Eliza Lysle, Beulah Hughes, Sarah Ann Conard.

     _Resolved_, That we urgently solicit those having care of
     petitions, to make use of every opportunity to obtain men's and
     women's names in different columns, or on separate petitions, and
     thus aid the Chester County Temperance Society in procuring the
     names of those favorable to obtaining a prohibitory law.

     _Resolved_, That Hannah Cox, Sidney Peirce, Ann Preston, Mary
     Cox, Mary Ann Fulton, Dinah Mendenhall, Mary K. Darlington, Mary
     S. Agnew, and Hannah M. Darlington, be a committee to call
     meetings of the people in different neighborhoods, at which to
     read the addresses to men and women, obtain signatures to
     petitions, etc.

     _Resolved_, That we offer the proceedings of this meeting for
     publication in the County papers and _Temperance Standard_.

     _Resolved_, That we adjourn to meet in Kennett Square, on
     Saturday, the 3d of February, 1849.

                                     MARTHA HAYHURST, _President_.

     SIDNEY PEIRCE   }
                     } _Secretaries_.
     HANNAH PENNOCK  }

At their next Convention in Kennett Square, another stirring
appeal was issued, and the following resolutions adopted:

     WHEREAS, The peace of our homes, the security of our property,
     and our inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
     happiness, are all jeoparded by intemperance; and whereas, this
     monstrous vice, with all its attendant train of evils, will
     continue to spread its ravages over our fair country so long as
     the traffic in intoxicating drinks is supported and sanctioned by
     law; and,

     WHEREAS, The people have the same right to be protected from the
     desolations of this vice, that they have to be protected from the
     depredations of the incendiary, the robber, and the murderer,
     whose deeds are but too often instigated by it; therefore,

     _Resolved_, That we demand of the Representatives of the people,
     at the next session, a law for the total prohibition of the
     traffic in intoxicating drinks as a beverage, within the limits
     of Chester County.

     _Resolved_, That we see neither reason nor consistency in the
     conduct of our law-makers in restraining the thief, the burglar,
     the counterfeiter, and the robber, while they let loose upon
     society the legalized rum-seller.

          "Will they the felon fox restrain,
          And yet take oft the tiger's chain?"

     _Resolved_, That we hail with joy the appearance of a recent
     pastoral letter issued by the Synod of the Free Church of
     Cincinnati, containing sentiments in regard to the advancement of
     this reform, which meet our hearty approval, and which, if
     adopted by all religious bodies, would insure the speedy triumph
     of temperance, with all the blessings that follow in its train.

     _Resolved_, That we adjourn to meet at Old Kennett, on Saturday,
     the 8th of December, 1849.

                                      HANNAH M. DARLINGTON, _President_.

     ALICE LEWIS    }
                    }_Secretaries_.
     MARY S. AGNEW, }


     NORTH AMERICAN AND UNITED STATE GAZETTE, FEB. 6, 1852.

     The ladies of the City and County of Philadelphia, and all other
     persons who feel impressed with the importance of PETITIONING THE
     LEGISLATURE TO ENACT A LAW PROHIBITING THE USE OF ALL
     INTOXICATING DRINKS as a beverage, are earnestly requested to
     attend a meeting to be held at the CHINESE MUSEUM, corner of
     NINTH and GEORGE STREETS, on SATURDAY EVENING, Feb. 7th, at 7-1/2
     o'clock.

     The meeting will be addressed by the REV. ALBERT BARNES, REV.
     JOHN CHAMBERS, JUDGE KELLEY, DR. JAS. BRYAN, and WM. J. MULLEN.
     JUDGE ALLISON will preside. The LADIES' TEMPERANCE UNION is
     particularly invited to attend. Admittance five cents, to defray
     expenses.

Two weeks after this, Feb. 21st, a Woman's Temperance Mass Meeting was
held in Philadelphia; an immense assemblage of both sexes.

_The Pennsylvania Freeman_ of March 4, 1852, says: "A large number of
petitions from various parts of the State, most of them numerously
signed, asking for the passage of the Maine Anti-Liquor Law, have been
presented in both Houses. On Tuesday, in the Senate, one was presented
from this city signed by 15,580 ladies; and another in the House,
signed by 14,241 ladies. What the Legislature will do we shall not
venture to predict."

It is interesting to note the same successive steps in every State,
and how naturally, in laboring for anti-slavery and temperance, women
have at last in each case demanded freedom for themselves. In the
anti-slavery school, 'mid violence and persecution they learned the
a, b, c of individual rights; in the temperance struggle they learned
that the ultimate power in moral movements is found in wise
legislation, and in graduating on the woman suffrage platform, they
have learned that prayers and tears are worth little until coined into
law, and that to command the attention of legislators, petitioners
must represent votes.

A moral power that has no direct influence on the legislation of a
nation, is an abstraction, and might as well be expended in the clouds
as outside of codes and constitutions, and this has too long been the
realm where women have spent their energies fighting shadows. The
power that makes laws, and baptizes them as divine at every church
altar, is the power for woman to demand now and forever.


WESTCHESTER CONVENTION. _June 2, 1852_.

The first Woman's Rights Convention held in Pennsylvania was called in
the leafy month of June, in the quiet Quaker town of West Chester, in
one of the loveliest regions of that State. Chester County had long
been noted for its reform movements and flourishing schools, in which
the women generally took a deep interest.

It was among these beautiful hills that Bayard Taylor lived and wrote
his "Hannah Thurston," a most contemptible burlesque of his own
neighbors and the reforms they advocated.

Kennett Square and Longwood have for years been noted for their
liberal religious meetings, in which the leading reformers of the
nation have in turn been annually represented. In those gatherings of
the Progressive Friends, all the questions of the hour were freely
discussed, and their printed testimonies sent forth to enlighten the
people.

The Convention assembled at ten o'clock in Horticultural Hall, and was
called to order by Lucretia Mott, and the following officers chosen:

     PRESIDENT.--Mariana Johnson.

     SERVICE-PRESIDENTS.--Mary Ann Fulton, William Jackson, Chandler
     Darlington.

     SECRETARIES.--Sarah L. Miller, Hannah Darlington, Sidney Peirce,
     Edward Webb.

     BUSINESS COMMITTEE.--James Mott, Ann Preston, Lucretia Mott,
     Frances D. Gage, Sarah D. Barnard, Dr. Harriot K. Hunt, Joseph A.
     Dugdale, Margaret Jones, Ernestine L. Rose, Alice Jackson, Jacob
     Painter, Phebe Goodwin.

     FINANCE COMMITTEE, appointed by the Chair.--Hannah Darlington,
     Jacob Painter, Isaac Mendenhall, Elizabeth Miller.

     Mrs. Mott read the following call:

     The friends of Justice and Equal Rights are earnestly invited to
     assemble in Convention, to consider and discuss the present
     position of Woman in Society, her Natural Eights and Relative
     Duties.

     The reasons for such a Convention are obvious. With few
     exceptions, both the radical and conservative portions of the
     community agree that woman, even in this progressive age and
     country, suffers under legal, educational, and vocational
     disabilities which ought to be removed. To examine the nature of
     these disabilities, to inquire into their extent, and to consider
     the most feasible and proper mode of removing them, will be the
     aim of the Convention which it is proposed to hold.

     If it shall promote in any degree freedom of thought and action
     among women; if it shall assist in opening to them any avenues to
     honorable and lucrative employment (now unjustly and unwisely
     closed); if it shall aid in securing to them more thorough
     intellectual and moral culture; if it shall excite higher
     aspirations; if it shall advance by a few steps just and wise
     public sentiment, it will not have been held in vain.

     The elevation of woman is the elevation of the human race. Her
     interests can not be promoted or injured without advantage or
     injury to the whole race. The call for such a Convention is
     therefore addressed to those who desire the physical,
     intellectual, and moral improvement of mankind. All persons
     interested in its objects are respectfully requested to be
     present at its sessions and participate in its deliberations.


                         THE PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS

     The position in which woman has been placed is an anomaly. On the
     one hand she is constantly reminded of duties and
     responsibilities from which an angel might shrink. The world is
     to be saved by her prayers, her quiet and gentle efforts. Man,
     she is told, is ruled by her smiles; his whole nature subdued by
     the potency of her tears. Priests, politicians, and poets assure
     her with flattering tongue, that on her depend the progress and
     destiny of the race. On the other hand, she is told that she must
     lovingly confide in the strength and skill of man, who has been
     endowed with superior intellectual powers; that she must count it
     her highest honor to reflect upon the world the light of his
     intelligence and wisdom, as the moon reflects the light of the
     sun!

     We may congratulate one another on this occasion in view of the
     cheering indications so manifest on every hand that the ignorance
     and darkness which have so long brooded over the prospects of
     woman, are beginning to give place to the light of truth. In the
     summer of 1848, in the village of Seneca Falls, a small number of
     women, disregarding alike the sneers of the ignorant and the
     frowns of the learned, assembled in Convention and boldly claimed
     for themselves, and for their sex, the rights conferred by God
     and so long withheld by man. Their courageous words were the
     expression of sentiments which others had felt as deeply as
     themselves, but which the restraints imposed by long-established
     custom had taught them to suppress. But now the hour had come,
     and the world stood prepared for the reception of a new thought,
     which is destined to work a revolution in human society, more
     beneficent than any that has preceded it. The seeds of truth
     which that Convention planted in faith and hope were not left to
     perish. In many thoughtful minds they germinated apace and
     brought forth fruit. That fruit was seen in the large Convention
     held in Ohio in the spring of 1850, in that held in Massachusetts
     in the autumn of the same year, and in those which have followed
     since in New England and the West.

     Woman at length is awaking from the slumber of ages. Many of the
     sex already perceive that knowledge, sound judgment, and perfect
     freedom of thought and action are quite as important for the
     mothers as for the fathers of the race. They weary of the
     senseless talk of "woman's sphere," when that sphere is so
     circumscribed that they may not exert their full influence and
     power to save their country from war, intemperance, slavery,
     licentiousness, ignorance, poverty, and crime, which man, in the
     mad pursuit of his ambitious schemes, unchecked by their presence
     and counsel, permits to desolate and destroy all that is fair and
     beautiful in life and fill the world with weeping, lamentation,
     and woe. Woman begins to grow weary of her helpless and dependent
     position, and of being treated as if she were formed only to
     cultivate her affections, that they may flow in strong and deep
     currents merely to gratify the self-love of man.

     She does not listen with delight, as she once did, when she hears
     her relations to her equal brother represented by the poetical
     figure of the trellis and creeping tendril, or of the oak and the
     gracefully clinging vine. No, she feels that she is, like him, an
     accountable being--that the Infinite Father has laid
     responsibilities upon her which may not be innocently transferred
     to another, but which, in her present ignorance, she is not
     prepared to meet. She is becoming rapidly imbued with the spirit
     of progress, and will not longer submit, without remonstrance, to
     the bondage of ancient dogmas and customs. In the retirement and
     seclusion of life, the stirring impulse of the times has reached
     even the heart of woman, and she feels the necessity of a more
     thorough culture and a wider field of usefulness. She sees the
     glaring injustice by which she has long been deprived of all fair
     opportunity to earn an independent livelihood, and thus, in too
     many instances, constrained to enter the marriage relation, as a
     choice of evils, to secure herself against the ills of impending
     poverty. The wrong she so deeply feels she is at length arousing
     herself to redress.

     What, then, is the substance of our demand? I answer, we demand
     for woman equal freedom with her brother to raise her voice and
     exert her influence directly for the removal of all the evils
     that afflict the race; and that she be permitted to do this in
     the manner dictated by her own sense of propriety and justice. We
     ask for her educational advantages equal to those enjoyed by the
     other sex; that the richly endowed institutions which she has
     been taxed to establish and support, may be open alike to all her
     children. We claim for her the right to follow any honorable
     calling or profession for which she may be fitted by her
     intellectual training and capacity. We claim for her a fair
     opportunity to attain a position of pecuniary independence, and
     to this end that she receive for her labor a compensation
     equivalent to its recognized value when performed by the other
     sex.

     These demands, we think, must be admitted to be essentially wise
     and just. We make them in no spirit of selfish antagonism to the
     other sex, but under a deep conviction that they are prompted by
     an enlightened regard for the highest welfare of the race. Some
     one has justly said that God has so linked the human family
     together that any violence done at one end of the chain is felt
     throughout its length. The true interests of the sexes are not
     antagonistic, but harmonious. There can be no just conflict
     between their respective rights and duties. For the coming of the
     day when this great truth shall be universally received, we must
     work and pray as we have opportunity. When that day shall arrive,
     it will be clearly perceived that in the true Harmonic Order
     "woman and her brother are pillars in the same temple and priests
     of the same worship."

     The Secretary, SIDNEY PEIRCE, read the following letter from


                            SARAH M. GRIMKE.

     When an insect emerges with struggles from its chrysalis state,
     how feeble are all its movements, how its wings hang powerless
     until the genial air has dried and strengthened them, how
     patiently the insect tries again and again to spread them, and
     visit the flowers which bloom around, till at last it enjoys the
     recompense of its labors in the nectar and the fragrance of the
     garden.

     This illustrates the present condition of Woman. She is just
     emerging from the darkness and ignorance by which she has been
     shrouded. She looks forth from her chrysalis and sees the natural
     and intellectual world lying around her clothed in radiant
     beauty, and inviting her to enter and possess this magnificent
     inheritance. How came I, she asks, to be excluded from all these
     precious privileges? I will arise and go to my Father and say,
     "Father, permit me to share the labors of my brethren and partake
     of the fruits which they enjoy." "Go, my daughter," is the
     paternal response. "Be unto man, in an infinitely higher sense
     than heretofore, a help-meet." How is woman fulfilling her divine
     mission? Is she looking on the benefits she is commissioned to
     bestow on the human race, or is she keeping her eye on her own
     interests and seeking her own elevation, with little of that
     expansive benevolence, that philosophical foresight which seeks
     the development of all?

     Woman is now in the transition state, a glorious mission is
     before her, a glorious destiny awaits her. To fulfill that
     mission, to be worthy of that destiny, she must patiently wait
     and quietly hope, blessing those who scorn and deride her feeble
     and often unsuccessful efforts, to free herself from her
     entanglements. She must expect many failures in her attempts to
     emancipate herself from the thralldom of public opinion. Those
     who have long held the reins of power and the rank of
     superiority, naturally look with distrust on a movement which
     threatens to overturn long established customs and transform the
     baby and the toy into an intellectual being, desiring equal
     rights with themselves and asserting her claim to all the
     immunities they enjoy. Woman must be willing to see herself as
     she is, the slave of fashion, assuming all the Proteus forms she
     invents, without reference to health or convenience. She must
     remember how few of us give evidence of sufficient development to
     warrant our claims; and whilst we feel a divine impulse to
     proceed in achieving the enlargement of woman, whilst we hear a
     voice saying, "Ye have compassed this mountain long enough; speak
     to the people that they go forward," let us not be dismayed at
     the hindrances we shall encounter from those whom we are laboring
     to release from the swaddling bands of infancy, or the
     grave-clothes of superstition, time-honored opinion and crushing
     circumstances. We are now in a perilous and difficult position.
     We feel all the inconveniences of our past condition, all the
     disadvantages and uneasiness of the one we are constrained to
     occupy, and see in bold relief all the advantages which a change
     will yield us. But let us remember that our transition state,
     although replete with temptations and suffering, is necessary to
     our improvement; we need it to strengthen us and enable us to
     bear hardships as good soldiers of truth.

     To regard any state of society as fixed, is to regard it as the
     ultimate good, as the best condition to which we can attain. But
     when man has progressed, when his morality and his religion have
     assumed a higher tone, it is impossible to perpetuate his
     childhood, or to give permanence to institutions and opinions
     whose days are numbered. When reform has truth for its basis and
     is instinct with the life of progression, no power can dress it
     in the habiliments of the grave, and bury it out of sight, either
     in the Potter's-field or under the magnificent mausoleum. There
     is nothing so precious to man as progress; he has defended it
     with his heart's best blood, and according to his development has
     aided it, although sometimes in his blindness he has scattered
     fire and sword, destruction and misery around, in endeavoring to
     force mankind to adopt the truths he thought essential to
     progress. "Woman has come on the stage," says Horace Mann, "6,000
     years after man, to profit by his misdeeds and correct his
     errors." Until now, the world was not prepared to receive, in
     full measure, the hallowed influence which woman is designed to
     shed. Her holy mission is to bring peace on earth and good-will
     to man. She does not ask for irresponsible power; she has seen
     that from the earliest records of the human race the possession
     of such power is fraught with danger, that it has always made
     tyrants. She feels Divinity stirring within her, and its
     irrepressible aspirings can not, should not be controlled.
     Mankind have always rejected the means appointed by Infinite
     Wisdom to assist their upward flight. Let us then go calmly
     forward, alike regardless of the scorn and ridicule of the
     shallow, the grave denunciations of the bigot, or the weighty
     counsel of the narrow-minded and selfish, who would point out the
     exact position fitted for us to occupy, and with seeming
     condescension invite us to fill some posts of honor and profit,
     while they undertake to confine us within their bounds, leaving
     nothing to our good sense, intelligence, intuitive desires, and
     aspiring hopes. The truth is, "It is not in man that walketh to
     direct his steps." God alone is competent to do this, and in the
     present movement His power, wisdom, and will, are so
     conspicuous, that it will be well to set no bounds to His work,
     but let it have free course, expecting that contradictions and
     inconsistencies will mar it, but believing that those
     contradictions will cease, those inconsistencies disappear, and
     the perfected human being be developed.

     If we adopt as our watchword the language of Margaret Fuller, we
     can not but overcome all obstacles, outlive all opposition: "Give
     me Truth. Cheat me by no illusion. Oh, the granting of this
     prayer is sometimes terrible; I walk over the burning plowshares
     and they sear my feet--yet nothing but Truth will do."

                                                  SARAH M. GRIMKE


     LUCRETIA MOTT addressed the Convention, briefly referring to the
     importance of the movement and expressing her gratification on
     seeing the response given to the call, by the great number of
     persons assembled. She saw before her not only a large delegation
     from the immediate vicinity, but a goodly number from other and
     distant States.

     The movement for the enfranchisement of woman is indeed making
     rapid progress. Since the first Convention held at Seneca Falls,
     in 1848, where a few women assembled, and notwithstanding their
     ignorance of the parliamentary modes of conducting business,
     promulgated these principles, which took deep root, and are
     already producing important results. Other large Conventions have
     been held in different places, which have done much toward
     disseminating the great principles of equality between the sexes;
     and a spirit of earnest inquiry has been aroused. She referred to
     the fact that the agitation commenced in those States most
     distinguished for intellectual and moral culture, while we in
     Pennsylvania are ready to embrace their views on this subject;
     and trusted that the Convention now assembled, would be neither
     less interesting nor less efficient than those that have been
     already held.

     Mrs. CLARINA HOWARD NICHOLS, of Brattleboro, Vermont, spoke
     briefly on the absurdity of the popular idea of woman's sphere.
     She thought the sphere of sex could only be determined by
     capacity and moral obligation. She had once thought politics
     necessarily too degrading for woman, but she had changed her
     views. The science of government, it is said, is of divine
     origin; a participation in its administration can not then
     necessarily involve anything to deteriorate from the true dignity
     of woman. The world's interests have never yet been fully
     represented. The propriety of woman voting had been to her a
     stumbling-block; the idea was repelling. She was not yet allowed
     to vote, but she had ceased to consent to the arrangement which
     deprived her of that right, and therefore experienced a freedom
     of spirit which she had not known before. The idea that woman
     could not go to the ballot-box without a sacrifice of her
     delicacy was absurd. Women were allowed to vote in church matters
     unquestioned. They can hold railroad stock, bank stock, and stock
     of other corporations, where their influence is in proportion to
     the amount held.

     But we are not called upon to maintain the position of the
     propriety or expediency of women voting. The question is, Shall
     they have the right so to do?--the propriety should be left to
     themselves. Woman can now travel alone securely, where formerly
     it was considered a risk. She can deposit her vote with men,
     with as much propriety as she can ride with them in railroad
     cars, on steamboats, etc. She came all the way from the Green
     Mountains without any male attendant; she traveled with members
     of Congress and delegates to the Baltimore Convention, and not a
     "bear" among them offered her the least indignity.

     ERNESTINE L. ROSE quoted the testimony of Horace Mann,[67] that
     our Legislatures were "bear gardens, our representatives too rude
     and rough for woman's association, hence the impropriety and
     indelicacy of her mingling in politics." But we are told it is
     woman's province to soothe the angry passions and calm the
     belligerent feelings of man, and if what Horace Mann says is
     true, where can we find a riper harvest awaiting us than in the
     halls of legislation!

Harriet K. Hunt then read an address upon the medical education of
women; on concluding, she offered the following resolutions:

     _1st. Resolved_, That the present position of medical
     organizations, precluding women from the same educational
     advantages with men, under pretext of delicacy, virtually
     acknowledges the impropriety of his being her medical attendant.

     _2d. Resolved_, That we will do all in our power to sustain those
     women who, from a conviction of duty, enter the medical
     profession, in their efforts to overcome the evils that have
     accumulated in their path, and in attacking the strongholds of
     vice.

     _3d. Resolved_, That the past actions and present indications of
     our medical schools should not affect us at all; and
     notwithstanding Geneva and Cleveland Medical Colleges closed
     their doors after graduating one woman each, and Harvard, through
     the false delicacy of the students, declared it inexpedient to
     receive one who had been in successful practice many years, we
     would still earnestly follow in peace and love where duty points,
     and leave the verdict to an enlightened public sentiment.

The address of Dr. Hunt called out a discussion on the importance of a
thorough medical training for women in all departments of science
belonging to that profession.

     Mrs. NICHOLS spoke earnestly of the imperfect education of woman.
     With no knowledge of the laws of health, she has no means of
     obtaining the required information. Men hold the purse even when
     it is filled by the labor of both. They close the college doors,
     though we have helped to build and endow them. And at what a
     fearful cost of life and health are we thus wronged. Does it cost
     too much to educate the future mothers of this nation in the
     science of life? Who can estimate how much greater are the
     expenses incurred by our ignorant violation of the laws of
     health?

     FRANCES DANA GAGE, of Ohio, spoke of the high scholarship and
     very successful examinations of those women who had been admitted
     into the medical colleges, far surpassing the young men in their
     recitations and general intelligence. So long as the lives of
     children are conceded to be in the hands of their mothers, it is
     of vital consequence to the race that women be thoroughly
     educated for the medical profession.

     Mrs. ROSE said: These are mighty questions. When our little ones
     are removed by death from our care and affection, we feel most
     keenly our ignorance, and long to know something of those
     immutable laws of life and health we have so long violated. Woman
     should at least know enough to be physician to herself and
     children, but she is denied the advantages granted to man for
     obtaining knowledge of these things more necessary if possible to
     her than to him.

     The idea of a female doctor is ridiculed. But what is she worth
     as a nurse of the sick without a knowledge of the art of healing?
     Why am I in the prime of life in such feeble health? In my
     country, the laws of life are, comparatively speaking, kept in a
     nutshell. The girl must not exercise; it is not fashionable. She
     must not be seen in active life; it is not feminine. The boy may
     run, the girl must creep. It is to discuss all these grave
     inequalities that we have assembled here, and I trust the
     influence of this Convention may be felt in opening to woman all
     honest and honorable means of self-support and self-development,
     and in removing all the legal shackles that block her pathway
     through life.

     EVA PUGH said: The degradation of one sex is the degradation of
     the other. This question is universal, affecting all alike. No
     fact is better established than that the character of the parent
     is inherited by the child. Can noble men be born of infirm women?
     Who are the mothers of great men? Women of mind, of thought, of
     independence; not women degraded by man's tyranny, laboring in
     prescribed limits, thinking other people's thoughts, and echoing
     their opinions. This question of woman's rights affects the whole
     human race. We know from sad experience that man can not rise
     while woman is degraded.

     Mrs. MOTT spoke of the great change in public sentiment within
     her recollection in regard to the so-called sphere of woman.
     Twenty years ago people wondered how a modest girl could attend
     lectures on Botany; but modest girls did attend them and other
     places frequented only by men, and the result was not a loss of
     delicacy, but a higher and nobler development; a true modesty.

     JOSEPH A. DUGDALE made a few remarks on the injustice of the laws
     by which happy households are often broken up on the death of the
     husband and father. He said there remained one way in which this
     great evil could be avoided even while the law remains unchanged,
     and that was by a will of the husband conveying the whole
     property of their joint industry and economy to the wife, in the
     event of his death. He urged this as the duty of every husband
     and father. He closed his remarks with the following extract from
     the will of Martin Luther, proving that other errors than those
     of the Church, were deemed by the great reformer of sufficient
     magnitude to awaken his earnest opposition:


                         MARTIN LUTHER'S WILL.

     "This is all I am worth, and I give it all to my wife for the
     following reasons:

     "1. Because she has always conducted herself toward me lovingly,
     worthily, and beautifully, like a pious, faithful, and noble
     wife; and by the rich blessings of God, she has borne and brought
     up five living children, who yet live, and God grant they may
     long live.

     "2. Because she will take upon herself and pay the debts which I
     owe and may not be able to pay during my life, which, so far as I
     can estimate, may amount to about 450 florins, or perhaps a
     little more.

     "3. But most of all, because I will not have her dependent on the
     children, but the children on her; that they may hold her in
     honor, and submit themselves to her as God has commanded. For I
     see well and observe, how the devil, by wicked and envious
     mouths, heats and excites children, even though they be pious,
     against this command; especially when the mothers are widows, and
     the sons get wives, and the daughters get husbands, and again
     _socrus murum, nurus socrum_. For I hold that the mother will be
     the best guardian for her own children, and will use what little
     property and goods she may have, not for their disadvantage and
     injury, but for their good and improvement, since they are her
     own flesh and blood, and she carried them under her heart.

     "And if, after my death, she should find it necessary or
     desirable to marry again (for I can not pretend to set limits to
     the will or providence of God), yet I trust and herewith express
     my confidence that she will conduct herself toward our mutual
     children as becometh a mother, and will faithfully impart to them
     property, and do whatever else is right.

     "And herewith I humbly pray my most gracious lord, his grace Duke
     John Frederick, elector of Saxony, graciously to guard and
     protect the above-named gifts and property.

     "I also entreat all my good friends to be witnesses for my dear
     Catey, and help to defend her should any good-for-nothing mouth
     reprove and slander her, as if she had secretly some personal
     property of which she would defraud the poor children. For I
     testify there is no personal property except the plate and
     jewelry enumerated above.

     "Finally, I beg, since in this will or testament I have not used
     legal forms or words (and thereto I have my reasons), that every
     one may let me be the person that I am in truth, namely, openly
     and known both in heaven and earth, and in hell, and let me have
     respect and authority enough so that I may be trusted and
     believed more than any lawyer. For so God the Father of all
     mercies hath entrusted to me, a poor, miserable, condemned
     sinner, the Gospel of His dear Son, and therein thus far I have
     behaved and conducted myself truly and faithfully, and it has
     made much progress in the world through me, and I am honored as a
     teacher of truth, notwithstanding the curse of the Pope and the
     wrath of emperors, kings, princes, priests, and all kinds of
     devils; much rather then let me be believed in this little
     matter, especially as here in my hand which is very well known;
     and I hope it may be enough, when it can be said and proved that
     this is the serious and deliberate desire of Dr. Martin Luther
     (who is God's lawyer and witness of His Gospel) to be proved by
     his own hand and seal, Sept. 16, 1542."

     LUCRETIA MOTT (see 8th resolution) thought it important that we
     should not disclaim the antagonism that woman's present position
     rendered it necessary she should assume. Too long had wrongs and
     oppressions existed without an acknowledged wrong-doer and
     oppressor. It was not until the slaveholder was told, "thou art
     the man," that a healthful agitation was brought about. Woman is
     told that the fault is in herself, in too willingly submitting to
     her inferior condition; but, like the slave, she is pressed down
     by laws in the making of which she has had no voice, and crushed
     by customs that have grown out of such laws. She can not rise,
     therefore, while thus trampled in the dust. The oppressor does
     not see himself in that light until the oppressed cry for
     deliverance.

In commenting on the will just read, she further said:

     The extract from Luther's will which has been read, while it
     gives evidence of the appreciation of the services of his wife,
     to a certain extent, and manifests a generous disposition to
     reward her as a faithful wife, still only proves the degrading
     relation she bore to her husband. There is no recognition of her
     equal right to their joint earnings. While the wife is obliged to
     accept as a gift that which in justice belongs to her, however
     generous the boon, she is but an inferior dependent.

     The law of our State and of New York, has within a few years been
     so amended that the wife has some control over a part of her
     property. Much yet remains to be done; and if woman "contend
     earnestly" for the right, man will co-operate with her in
     adjusting all her claims. We have only to look back a few years,
     to satisfy ourselves that the demands already made are met in a
     disposition to redress the grievances. When a delegation of women
     to the World's Anti-Slavery Convention in 1840, could find no
     favor in London, what were the reasons assigned for the
     exclusion? Not that the right of representation was not as much
     woman's as man's, but that "they would be ridiculed in the
     morning papers."

     Daniel O'Connell felt the injustice done to those delegates, and
     in a letter on the subject to me, expressed his deep regret, that
     owing to business engagements, he was not able to attend the
     Convention and take part in the discussion.[68]

     Dr. Bowring advocated the admission of the delegates at that
     time; and afterward in a letter to this country, said: "How often
     have I regretted that the woman's question, to me of singular
     interest, was launched with so little preparation, so little
     knowledge of the manner in which it had been entangled, by the
     fears of some and the follies of others! But, bear up! for the
     coming of those women will form an era in the future history of
     philanthropic daring. They made a deep, if not a wide impression;
     and have created apostles, if as yet they have not multitudes of
     followers. The experiment was well worth making. It honored
     America--it will instruct England. If in some matters of high
     civilization you are behind us, in this matter of courageous
     benevolence how far are you before us!"

     Since that time women have fairly entered the field as students
     of medicine and as physicians, as editors and lecturers, engaged
     in schools of design, and in the taking of daguerres, as well as
     in some other works of art, and in holding Conventions in several
     of the States of our Union for the advocacy of our entire claims.
     A National Society has been formed; and the proceedings of these
     Conventions and Society meetings have been fairly reported, and
     have received favorable notices in many of the papers of this
     country, as well as in the _Westminster Review_ in England.

     FRANCES D. GAGE said that allusion had been made in the address
     to the popular sentiment, that men are what their mothers made
     them. She repelled this sentiment as an indignity to her sex.
     What mother, she asked, ever taught her son to drink rum, gamble,
     swear, smoke, and chew tobacco? The truth was, that the boy was
     virtually taught to regard his mother as inferior, and that it
     was not manly to follow her instructions. When he left the
     hearth-stone he was beyond her reach. He found men, and those,
     too, in elevated stations, addicted to vulgar and vicious
     practices, and he was liable, in forgetfulness of all that his
     mother had taught him, to fall into such habits himself. Men
     allowed grog-shops to be set up on the street corners, and
     permitted gambling-houses to exist, to tempt the boy from the
     path of virtue; and when the mothers asked for the abatement of
     these evils, they were told to keep in their sphere. In the town
     where she resided (McConnellsville, Morgan Co., Ohio), the women
     sent a large petition to the court asking that grog-shops might
     not be licensed. The judge thereupon remarked that "woman's place
     was in the nursery and the parlor, and that when she interfered
     with public affairs, or set herself up as an instructor of the
     courts, she was out of her sphere." Thus men perpetuate
     institutions which undermine the influence of the mothers, and
     corrupt the morals of the sons. The boys were, therefore, in many
     cases, what men made them. True, there were some cases in which
     the mother, by superior power, shaped the destiny of her sons, in
     spite of adverse influences. Such cases were not the rule, but
     the exception. Mothers, generally, could not exert their full
     influence over their sons, unless they were permitted to stand by
     them as the equals of their fathers in all relations of life.

The following address, written by Ann Preston, and adopted as an
exposition of the principles and purposes of the Convention, was
impressively read by the author:

                        ANN PRESTON'S ADDRESS.

     The question is repeatedly asked by those who have thought but
     little upon the subject of woman's position in society, "What
     does woman want more than she possesses already? Is she not
     beloved, honored, guarded, cherished? Wherein are her rights
     infringed, or her liberties curtailed?"

     Glowing pictures have been drawn of the fitness of the present
     relations of society, and of the beauty of woman's dependence
     upon the protecting love of man, and frightful visions have been
     evoked of the confusion and perversion of nature which would
     occur if the doctrine of the equal rights of man and woman was
     once admitted.

     The idea seems to prevail that movements for the elevation of
     woman arise, not from the legitimate wants of society, but from
     the vague restlessness of unquiet spirits; not from the serene
     dictates of wisdom, but from the headlong impulses of fanaticism.

     We came not here to argue the question of the relative strength
     of intellect in man and woman; for the reform which we advocate
     depends not upon its settlement. We place not the interests of
     woman in antagonism to those of her brother, for

          "The woman's cause is man's:
            They rise or sink together,
          Dwarfed or God-like, bond or free."

     We maintain not that woman should lose any of that refinement and
     delicacy of spirit which, as a celestial halo, ever encircles the
     pure in heart. We contend not that she shall become noisy and
     dictatorial, and abjure the quiet graces of life. We claim not
     that she, any more than her brother, should engage in any
     vocation or appear in any situation to which her nature and
     abilities are not fitted. But we ask for her, as for man,
     equality before the law, and freedom to exercise all her powers
     and faculties under the direction of her own judgment and
     volition.

     When a woman dies, leaving behind her a husband and children, no
     appraisers come into the desolated home to examine the effects;
     the father is the guardian of his offspring; the family relation
     is not invaded by law. But when a man dies the case is entirely
     different; in the hour of the widow's deep distress strangers
     come into the house to take an inventory of the effects,
     strangers are appointed to be the guardians of her children, and
     she, their natural care-taker, thenceforth has no legal direction
     of their interests; strangers decide upon the propriety of the
     sale of the property--earned, perhaps, by her own and her
     husband's mutual efforts--and her interest in the estate is
     coolly designated as the "widow's incumbrance!" In the extremity
     of her bereavement there is piled upon her, not only the dread of
     separation from her children, but that of being sent homeless
     from the spot where every object has been consecrated by her
     tenderest affections.

     Nor is the practical working of this law better than its theory;
     all over the country there are widows who have been made doubly
     desolate by its provisions--widows separated from their children,
     who, if they had had the disposal of their own and their
     husbands' mutual property, might have retrieved their
     circumstances, and kept the household band together. We ask for
     such change in public sentiment as shall procure the repeal of
     this oppressive law.

     We ask that woman shall have free access to vocations of profit
     and honor, the means of earning a livelihood and independence for
     herself! As a general rule, profitable employments are not
     considered open to woman, nor are her business capabilities
     encouraged and developed by systematic training. Gloomy must be
     the feelings of the father of a family of young daughters, when
     he is about to bid farewell to the world, if he is leaving them
     without the means of pecuniary support. Their brothers may go out
     into society and gain position and competency; but for them there
     is but little choice of employment, and, too often, they are left
     with repressed and crippled energies to pine and chafe under the
     bitter sense of poverty and dependence.

     Their pursuits are to be determined, not by their inclination,
     judgment, and ability, as are those of man, but by the popular
     estimate of what is proper and becoming. In Turkey public
     delicacy is outraged if a woman appears unveiled beyond the walls
     of the harem; in America a sentiment no less arbitrary presumes
     to mark out for her the precise boundaries of womanly propriety;
     and she who ventures to step beyond them, must do it at the peril
     of encountering low sneers, coarse allusions, and the withering
     imputation of want of feminine delicacy.

     Even for the same services woman generally receives less than
     man. The whole tendency of our customs, habits, and teaching, is
     to make her dependent--dependent in outward circumstances,
     dependent in spirit.

     As a consequence of her fewer resources, marriage has been to her
     the great means of securing position in society. Thus it is that
     this relation--which should ever be a "holy sacrament," the
     unbiased and generous election of the free and self-sustained
     being--too often is degraded into a mean acceptance of a shelter
     from neglect and poverty! We ask that woman shall be trained to
     unfold her whole nature; to exercise all her powers and
     faculties.

     It is said that the domestic circle is the peculiar province of
     woman; that "men are what mothers make them." But how can that
     woman who does not live for self-culture and self-development,
     who has herself no exalted objects in life, imbue her children
     with lofty aspirations, or train her sons to a free and glorious
     manhood? She best can fulfill the duties of wife and mother, who
     is fitted for other and varied usefulness.

     The being who lives for one relation only can not possess the
     power and scope which are required for the highest excellence
     even in that one. If the whole body is left without exercise, one
     arm does not become strong; if the tree is stunted in its growth,
     one branch does not shoot into surpassing luxuriance.

     That woman whose habits and mental training enable her to assist
     and sustain her husband in seasons of difficulty, and whose
     children rely on her as a wise counselor, commands a life-long
     reverence far deeper and dearer than can be secured by transient
     accomplishments, or the most refined and delicate imbecility! All
     women are not wives and mothers, but all have spirits needing
     development, powers that grow with their exercise.

     Those who are best acquainted with the state of society know that
     there is, at this time, a vast amount of unhappiness among women
     for want of free outlets to their powers; that thousands are
     yearning for fuller development, and a wider field of usefulness.
     The same energies which in man find vent in the professions, and
     in the thousand forms of business and study, must find an
     ennobling channel in woman, else they will be frittered away in
     trifles, or turned into instruments to prey upon their possessor.

     To follow the empty round of fashion, to retail gossip and
     scandal, to be an ornament in the parlor or a mere drudge in the
     kitchen, to live as an appendage to any human being, does not
     fill up nor satisfy the capacities of a soul awakened to a sense
     of its true wants, and the far-reaching and mighty interests
     which cluster around its existence.

     We protest against the tyranny of that public sentiment which
     assigns any arbitrary sphere to woman. God has made the happiness
     and development of His creatures to depend upon the free exercise
     of their powers and faculties. Freedom is the law of beauty,
     written by His fingers upon the human mind, and the only
     condition upon which it can attain to its fall stature, and
     expand in its natural and beautiful proportions.

     It is recognized, in reference to man, that his judgment,
     opportunities, and abilities are the proper measure of his
     sphere. "The tools to him who can use them." But the same
     principles are not trusted in their application to woman, lest,
     forsooth, she should lose her feminine characteristics, and, like
     the lost Pleiad, forsake her native sphere!

     It seems to be forgotten that the laws of nature will not be
     suspended; that the human mind, when released from pressure, like
     water, must find its own level; that woman can not, if she would,
     cast away her nature and instincts; that it is only when we are
     left free to obey the inward attractions of our being that we
     fall into our natural places, and move in our God-appointed
     orbits.

     We ask that none shall dare to come in between woman and her
     Maker, and with unhallowed hands attempt to plant their shallow
     posts and draw their flimsy cords around the Heaven-wide sphere
     of an immortal spirit! We maintain that God has not so failed in
     His adaptations as to give powers to be wasted, talents to be
     wrapped in a napkin; and that the possession of faculties and
     capabilities is the warrant of nature, the command of the
     All-Wise for their culture and exercise.

     We believe that the woman who is obeying the convictions of her
     own soul, and whose ability is commensurate with her employment,
     is ever in her own true sphere; whether in her quiet home she is
     training her children to nobleness and virtue, or is standing as
     a physician by the bed of sickness and sorrow; whether, with
     Elizabeth Fry, she is preaching the gospel of glad tidings to the
     sad dwellers in prison, or like the Italian, Lauri Bassi, is
     filling a professor's chair and expounding philosophy to admiring
     and instructed listeners.

     While we demand for woman a more complete physical, intellectual,
     and moral education, as the means of strengthening and
     beautifying her own nature, and of ennobling the whole race, we
     also ask for a more elevated standard of excellence and moral
     purity in man; and we maintain that if there is any place of
     resort or employment in society, which necessarily would sully
     the delicacy of woman's spirit, in that, man also must be
     contaminated and degraded. Woman indeed should wear about her,
     wherever she moves, the protecting investment of innocence and
     purity; but not less is it requisite that he, who is the
     companion of her life, should guard his spirit with the same
     sacred and beautiful covering.

     We believe that woman, as an accountable being, can not
     innocently merge her individuality in that of her brother, or
     accept from him the limitations of her sphere. In all life's
     great extremities she also is thrown upon her inward resources,
     and stands alone. Man can not step in between her and the
     "accusing angel" of her own conscience; alone in the solitude of
     her spirit she must wrestle with her own sorrows; none can walk
     for her "the valley of the shadow of death!" When her brother
     shall be able to settle for her accountabilities, and "give to
     God a ransom for her soul," then, and not till then, may she
     rightly commit to him the direction of her powers and activities.

     We ask, in fine, for the application of the fundamental
     principles of Christianity and republicanism to this, as to all
     other questions of vital importance; and appealing to all who
     desire the progression and happiness of the whole race, we ask
     them, as magnanimous men and true women, to examine this subject
     in the spirit of a generous and candid investigation.

     RUSH PLUMLY said: Although institutions which recognize all the
     rights of all classes of the people, and allow scope for the
     growth and activity of every faculty, must, in their very nature,
     increase in power and permanence; yet, compared with the duration
     of things, the oldest nations and the best founded governments
     have had but an ephemeral existence, appearing, maturing, and
     decaying with startling rapidity and endless succession.

     No form has been exempt from this national mortality.
     Theocracies, oligarchies, monarchies, despotisms, republics, have
     arisen, flourished, and vanished into history or tradition. So
     inevitable does the successive ruin appear, that we have
     incorporated into our religious faith the idea that limitation,
     conflict, and decay, rather than expansion, permanence, and
     peace, are inherent in all human governments, and, in despair man
     postpones his hope of national, as well as of individual
     stability and happiness, to some future existence.

     For results so certain and so universal among all people, in
     every age, there must be some profound and radical cause which
     religion and philosophy have not discovered, or for which they
     have proposed no remedy. It is not sufficient to say that these
     are consequences of human imperfection; that we know; but whence
     arises the imperfection? It does not satisfy us to assert that
     they proceed from the depravity of man; how came he depraved? Nor
     is it more consoling to declare that all human institutions must
     change and perish. Why must they? Human institutions, if founded
     upon eternal principles, become divine, and may be immortal; it
     is not the human, but the inhuman institutions which perish; not
     humanity, but inhumanity which fills the earth with strife and
     blood.

     No! there is behind and below all these imaginary causes, a real
     cause for the degeneracy of the race. It may be traced to the
     long continued disregard of the laws of God in relation to woman,
     and the retribution is worked out physiologically upon the whole
     nature of man, reaching every tissue of his body and every
     faculty of his mind.

     It is a law of God, well understood, that whenever and wherever
     any community forcibly depresses any class of its people below
     the general level, it not only injures and degrades that class,
     but is itself injured, degraded, and deranged in exact proportion
     to the wrong it perpetrates. Whenever we crowd any portion of our
     fellow-beings into an abyss of ignorance and servitude, we are
     drawn irresistibly, by their weight, to the brink of the same
     gulf.

     If this be the inevitable result of the oppression of an
     individual, or a class, how much more forcibly must it apply when
     one-half the world, the "mothers of the living," are made subject
     to systematic deprivation of rights and tyrannous restriction in
     the exercise of high and noble faculties.

     I do not propose to detail the disabilities under which woman
     suffers. They have been ably depicted by women in this meeting.
     But I wish to indicate the breadth and basis of this reform, for
     the consideration of those people who suppose it to be a
     fractional and transient movement.

     Whatever suffering or degradation woman is subjected to, by the
     depression of the whole sex below the level of society, reacts
     with frightful force upon man; who is thus compelled to
     compensate for the cruel and mistaken policy, which, in all time,
     has denied to her equal opportunities of education and
     development, closed to her those avenues to profit and progress
     open to him, ignored her in the Church and State as feeble and
     inferior, rejected her counsels, and derided her authority in the
     creation of those institutions of society to which not only she,
     but her children are to be subject; although, if there be any
     induction more striking than another it is this, that a child,
     who is the offspring of the physical union of man and woman, can
     only be truly educated and nurtured by institutions springing
     from the unity of mental and moral elements in the father and
     mother.

     This universal ignoring of the feminine element pervades not only
     the politics, but the religion of every country on earth. Men
     worship, as their supreme God, only an embodiment of the
     masculine element--"Power," whether in Jove or Jehovah; and ever
     in the Christian Trinity or Unity, the same masculine ideal is
     maintained. Jesus did, indeed, recognize the feminine element in
     His emphatic declaration that "God is Love," but His professed
     followers have "not so learned Him," for they not only declare
     God to be a triune masculinity, but they have driven woman from
     the pulpit, and would dispute with her the place at the cross and
     the sepulchre.

     The religions of antiquity permitted woman to be a priestess at
     the expense of wifehood and maternity, but our Christian
     Protestantism denies to her the mission of minister, even with
     that penalty. It is true the Catholic Church does recognize women
     among its divinities, and it might be a curious and instructive
     inquiry, how far that Church owes its perpetuity, despite its
     gigantic crimes and crushing despotism, to the recognition of
     "Mary the mother of God." In its effort to perpetuate the
     servitude of woman, as in other attempts to defend oppression
     and falsehood, society has suborned the handmaids of progress,
     Religion and Science, to justify its wickedness; the one to prove
     inferiority from her organism, the other to add the weight of its
     anathema against any effort at equality.

     But Nature vindicates herself against the first, by presenting De
     Stael, Margaret Fuller, and others; and to the cavilling bigot it
     may be said that whoever declared that "man is the head of the
     woman," if he designed to justify the present interpretation of
     that expression, has forfeited all claim to the apostleship of a
     religion whose highest merit it is to equalize the people by
     elevating the oppressed. But Paul taught no such doctrine.

     The result of all this circumscription of woman has been to
     enfeeble and misdirect her faculties, to weaken the influence of
     her nature upon society and especially upon her offspring. Driven
     from the thousand avenues to wealth and position open to man,
     denied access to the best institutions of learning, permitted to
     acquire only superficial accomplishments, she is ushered into
     society at an age when her brothers are preparing to enter
     colleges and halls of learning from which she is excluded, and
     thus undeveloped and comparatively helpless, her instincts
     vitiated and no freedom for her affinities, she is turned adrift
     to encounter obstacles for which she is unprepared, and in the
     severe conflict to barter her honor for subsistence; or if she
     escape that horrible contingency, to exchange her beauty or her
     services for a matrimonial establishment, and thus prepare to
     perpetuate human degeneracy.

     There are many exceptions to this statement, but the statement is
     the rule. From these unequal and discordant relations, and the
     feeble and restricted influence of the mother, spring generations
     of children who are born constitutionally defective in the
     feminine qualities of gentleness, purity, and love; and the utter
     rejection of that element in the societary arrangements under
     which they grow to manhood, aggravates their inherited
     tendencies, until whole nations of warriors founding governments
     of blood have filled the earth, and war and rapine have not only
     become the occupation and the pastime of man, but have grown into
     his religion and become incarnate in the Deities he worships.

     It is thus that the seeds of violence and vice are sown with the
     germs of the generations, and they spring to a frightful harvest
     in each succeeding growth of the race. Millions of human beings
     issue into life, pre-ordained--not in the theological, but in the
     physiological sense--to violence and crime, and they go forth to
     make their calling and election sure. From these the world
     recruits its armies, renews its tyrants, refills its slave-pens
     and its brothels, populates its prisons, alms-houses, and
     asylums. It is in vain to hope for other results while woman,
     upon whom, as "mother of the living," depends the progress of
     man, is denied any other than a limited and indirect influence in
     the fabric of society.

     We may abolish slavery, remove intemperance, banish war and
     licentiousness, but they will have frightful reproduction in the
     elemental discord of our natures; for that which is "in us will
     be revealed." Man indicates his condition by the institutions he
     creates; they are the issues of the life he lives at the time,
     the outward sign of his inward state.

     To improve that inward condition, and arrest at their origin
     these causes of human degeneracy, is the object of this reform.
     It proposes, as before stated, not only to cure, but to prevent
     the diseases of the body politic; to place man and woman in such
     natural and true relations of equal and mutual development, and
     to so sanctify marriage that from their union under the highest
     auspices, a regenerate humanity shall not only cease to be
     violent and vicious, but shall outgrow the dispositions to
     violence and vice.

     We know that this is a work for whole generations, but as we
     believe it to be radical and effectual, it should be at once
     begun. We think the first great step is to clear away the rubbish
     of ages from the pathway of woman, to abolish the onerous
     restrictions which environ her in every direction, to open to her
     the temples of religion, the halls of science and of art, and the
     marts of commerce, affording her the same opportunity for
     education and occupation now enjoyed by man; no longer, by
     corrupt public sentiment and partial legislation, to limit her to
     a few and poorly paid pursuits to obtain subsistence and thus
     increase her dependence upon the charity of man, nor to deny her
     admission to any institution of learning, whose richly endowed
     professorships and vast advantages she by her labor has
     contributed to create, only to see them monopolized by man. I
     know that in answer to this it is urged that she has organic
     limits intellectually which deny to her such attainments. It is
     sufficient to reply, that under all the disabilities to which she
     is subject, her sex has produced De Stael and Margaret Fuller.

Letters were read from Mary Mott, of Auburn, De Kalb County, Indiana;
Paulina Wright Davis, Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell, William and Mary
Johnson, and a series of resolutions passed.[69] Oliver Johnson took
an active part in the discussions, and at the close of the Convention,
moved a resolution of thanks to the friends who had come from a
distance, and contributed so much to the success of the meeting. The
Convention then adjourned _sine die_.

In 1849, Richard H. Dana, of Boston, well known as a man of rare
literary culture, delivered a lecture on womanhood throughout the
country. He ridiculed the new demand of American women for civil and
political rights, and for a larger sphere of action, and eulogized
Shakespeare's women, especially Desdemona, Ophelia, and Juliet, and
recommended them to his dissatisfied countrywomen as models of
innocence, tenderness, and confiding love in man, for their study and
imitation.

He gave this lecture in Philadelphia, and Lucretia Mott was in the
audience. At the close she asked an introduction, and told him that
while she had been much interested in his lecture, and profited by the
information it contained, she could not respond to his idea of
woman's true character and destiny. "I am very sorry," he replied
quickly, at the first word of criticism, and rushed out of the house,
leaving Mrs. Mott, who had hoped to modify his views, somewhat
transfixed with surprise. In describing the scene to some friends
afterward, she remarked that she had never been treated with more
rudeness by one supposed to understand the rules of etiquette that
should always govern the behavior of a gentleman.

Soon after this, she delivered the following discourse in the Assembly
buildings in Philadelphia. After giving the Bible view of woman's
position as an equal,

     LUCRETIA MOTT said: I have not come here with a view of answering
     any particular parts of the lecture alluded to, in order to point
     out the fallacy of its reasoning. The speaker, however, did not
     profess to offer anything like argument on that occasion, but
     rather a sentiment. I have no prepared address to deliver to you,
     being unaccustomed to speak in that way; but I felt a wish to
     offer some views for your consideration, though in a desultory
     manner, which may lead to such reflection and discussion as will
     present the subject in a true light.

     Why should not woman seek to be a reformer? If she is to shrink
     from being such an iconoclast as shall "break the image of man's
     lower worship," as so long held up to view; if she is to fear to
     exercise her reason, and her noblest powers, lest she should be
     thought to "attempt to act the man," and not "acknowledge his
     supremacy"; if she is to be satisfied with the narrow sphere
     assigned her by man, nor aspire to a higher, lest she should
     transcend the bounds of female delicacy; truly it is a mournful
     prospect for woman. We would admit all the difference, that our
     great and beneficent Creator has made, in the relation of man and
     woman, nor would we seek to disturb this relation; but we deny
     that the present position of woman is her true sphere of
     usefulness; nor will she attain to this sphere, until the
     disabilities and disadvantages, religious, civil, and social,
     which impede her progress, are removed out of her way. These
     restrictions have enervated her mind and paralyzed her powers.
     While man assumes that the present is the original state designed
     for woman, that the existing "differences are not arbitrary nor
     the result of accident," but grounded in nature; she will not
     make the necessary effort to obtain her just rights, lest it
     should subject her to the kind of scorn and contemptuous manner
     in which she has been spoken of.

     So far from her "ambition leading her to attempt to act the man,"
     she needs all the encouragement she can receive, by the removal
     of obstacles from her path, in order that she may become the
     "true woman." As it is desirable that man should act a manly and
     generous part, not "mannish," so let woman be urged to exercise a
     dignified and womanly bearing, not womanish. Let her cultivate
     all the graces and proper accomplishments of her sex, but let not
     these degenerate into a kind of effeminacy, in which she is
     satisfied to be the mere plaything or toy of society, content
     with her outward adornings, and the flattery and fulsome
     adulation too often addressed to her.

[Illustration: LUCRETIA MOTT (with autograph).]

     Did Elizabeth Fry lose any of her feminine qualities by the
     public walk into which she was called? Having performed the
     duties of a mother to a large family, feeling that she owed a
     labor of love to the poor prisoner, she was empowered by Him who
     sent her forth, to go to kings and crowned heads of the earth,
     and ask audience of these, and it was granted her. Did she lose
     the delicacy of woman by her acts? No. Her retiring modesty was
     characteristic of her to the latest period of her life. It was my
     privilege to enjoy her society some years ago, and I found all
     that belonged to the feminine in woman--to true nobility, in a
     refined and purified moral nature. Is Dorothea Dix throwing off
     her womanly nature and appearance in the course she is pursuing?
     In finding duties abroad, has any "refined man felt that
     something of beauty has gone forth from her"? To use the
     contemptuous word applied in the lecture alluded to, is she
     becoming "mannish"? Is she compromising her womanly dignity in
     going forth to seek to better the condition of the insane and
     afflicted? Is not a beautiful mind and a retiring modesty still
     conspicuous in her?

     Indeed, I would ask, if this modesty is not attractive also, when
     manifested in the other sex? It was strikingly marked in Horace
     Mann, when presiding over the late National Educational
     Convention in this city. The retiring modesty of William Ellery
     Channing was beautiful, as well as of many others who have filled
     elevated stations in society. These virtues, differing as they
     may in degree in man and woman, are of the same nature, and call
     forth our admiration wherever manifested.

     The noble courage of Grace Darling is justly honored for risking
     her own life on the coast of England, during the raging storm, in
     order to rescue the poor, suffering, shipwrecked mariner.

     Woman was not wanting in courage in the early ages. In war and
     bloodshed this trait was often displayed. Grecian and Roman
     history have lauded and honored her in this character. English
     history records her courageous women too, for unhappily we have
     little but the records of war handed down to us. The courage of
     Joan of Arc was made the subject of a popular lecture not long
     ago by one of our intelligent citizens. But more noble, moral
     daring is marking the female character at the present time, and
     better worthy of imitation. As these characteristics come to be
     appreciated in man too, his warlike acts with all the miseries
     and horrors of the battle-ground will sink into their merited
     oblivion, or be remembered only to be condemned. The heroism
     displayed in the tented field must yield to the moral and
     Christian heroism which is shadowed in the signs of our times.

     The lecturer regarded the announcement of woman's achievements,
     and the offering of appropriate praise through the press, as a
     gross innovation upon the obscurity of female life--he complained
     that the exhibition of attainments of girls in schools was now
     equal to that of boys, and the newspapers announce that "Miss
     Brown received the first prize for English grammar," etc. If he
     objected to so much excitement of emulation in schools, it would
     be well; for the most enlightened teachers discountenance these
     appeals to love of approbation and self-esteem. But while prizes
     continue to be awarded, can any good reason be given why the name
     of the girl should not be published as well as that of the boy?
     He spoke with scorn, that "we hear of Mrs. President so and so;
     and committees and secretaries of the same sex." But if women can
     conduct their own business, by means of presidents and
     secretaries of their own sex, can he tell us why they should not?
     They will never make much progress in any moral movement while
     they depend upon men to act for them. Do we shrink from reading
     the announcement that Mrs. Somerville is made an honorary member
     of a scientific association? That Miss Herschel has made some
     discoveries, and is prepared to take her equal part in science?
     Or that Miss Mitchell, of Nantucket, has lately discovered a
     planet, long looked for? I can not conceive why "honor to whom
     honor is due" should not be rendered to woman as well as man; nor
     will it necessarily exalt her, or foster feminine pride. This
     propensity is found alike in male and female, and it should not
     be ministered to improperly in either sex.

     In treating upon the affections, the lecturer held out the idea
     that as manifested in the sexes they were opposite if not
     somewhat antagonistic, and required a union as in chemistry to
     form a perfect whole. The simile appeared to me far from a
     correct illustration of the true union. Minds that can
     assimilate, spirits that are congenial, attract one another. It
     is the union of similar, not of opposite affections, which is
     necessary for the perfection of the marriage bond. There seemed a
     want of proper delicacy in his representing man as being bold in
     the demonstration of the pure affection of love. In persons of
     refinement, true love seeks concealment in man as well as in
     woman. I will not enlarge upon the subject, although it formed so
     great a part of his lecture. The contrast drawn seemed a fallacy,
     as has much, very much, that has been presented in the sickly
     sentimental strains of the poet from age to age.

     The question is often asked, "What does woman want, more than she
     enjoys? What is she seeking to obtain? Of what rights is she
     deprived? What privileges are withheld from her?" I answer, she
     asks nothing as favor, but as right; she wants to be acknowledged
     a moral, responsible being. She is seeking not to be governed by
     laws in the making of which she has no voice. She is deprived of
     almost every right in civil society, and is a cipher in the
     nation, except in the right of presenting a petition. In
     religious society her disabilities have greatly retarded her
     progress. Her exclusion from the pulpit or ministry, her duties
     marked out for her by her equal brother man, subject to creeds,
     rules, and disciplines made for her by him, is unworthy her true
     dignity.

     In marriage there is assumed superiority on the part of the
     husband, and admitted inferiority with a promise of obedience on
     the part of the wife. This subject calls loudly for examination
     in order that the wrong may be redressed. Customs suited to
     darker ages in Eastern countries are not binding upon enlightened
     society. The solemn covenant of marriage may be entered into
     without these lordly assumptions and humiliating concessions and
     promises.

     There are large Christian denominations who do not recognize
     such degrading relations of husband and wife. They ask no aid
     from magistrate or clergyman to legalize or sanctify this union.
     But acknowledging themselves in the presence of the Highest and
     invoking His assistance, they come under reciprocal obligations
     of fidelity and affection, before suitable witnesses. Experience
     and observation go to prove that there may be as much harmony, to
     say the least, in such a union, and as great purity and
     permanence of affection, as can exist where the common ceremony
     is observed.

     The distinctive relations of husband and wife, of father and
     mother of a family, are sacredly preserved, without the
     assumption of authority on the one part, or the promise of
     obedience on the other. There is nothing in such a marriage
     degrading to woman. She does not compromise her dignity or
     self-respect; but enters married life upon equal ground, by the
     side of her husband. By proper education, she understands her
     duties, physical, intellectual, and moral; and fulfilling these,
     she is a helpmeet in the true sense of the word.

     I tread upon delicate ground in alluding to the institutions of
     religious Associations; but the subject is of so much importance
     that all which relates to the position of woman should be
     examined apart from the undue veneration which ancient usage
     receives.

          "Such dupes are men to custom, and so prone
          To reverence what is ancient, and can plead
          A course of long observance for its use,
          That even servitude, the worst of ills,
          Because delivered down from sire to son,
          Is kept and guarded as a sacred thing."

     So with woman. She has so long been subject to the disabilities
     and restrictions with which her progress has been embarrassed,
     that she has become enervated, her mind to some extent paralyzed;
     and like those still more degraded by personal bondage, she hugs
     her chains. Liberty is often presented in its true light, but it
     is liberty for man. I would not go so far, either as regards the
     abject slave or woman; for in both cases they may be so degraded
     by the crushing influences around them, that they may not be
     sensible of the blessings of freedom. Liberty is not less a
     blessing, because oppression has so long darkened the mind that
     it can not appreciate it. I would, therefore, urge that woman be
     placed in such a situation in society, by the recognition of her
     rights, and have such opportunities for growth and development,
     as shall raise her from this low, enervated, and paralyzed
     condition, to a full appreciation of the blessing of entire
     freedom of mind.

     It is with reluctance that I make the demand for the political
     rights of women, because this claim is so distasteful to the age.
     Woman shrinks, in the present state of society, from taking any
     interest in politics. The events of the French Revolution, and
     the claim for woman's rights, are held up to her as a warning.
     Let us not look at the excesses of women alone, at that period;
     but remember that the age was marked with extravagances and
     wickedness in men as well as women. Political life abounds with
     these excesses and with shameful outrage. Who knows but that if
     woman acted her part in governmental affairs, there might be an
     entire change in the turmoil of political life? It becomes man to
     speak modestly of his ability to act without her. If woman's
     judgment were exercised, why might she not aid in making the laws
     by which she is governed? Lord Brougham remarked that the works
     of Harriet Martineau upon Political Economy were not excelled by
     those of any political writer of the present time. The first few
     chapters of her "Society in America," her views of a Republic,
     and of government generally, furnish evidence of woman's capacity
     to embrace subjects of universal interest.

     Far be it from me to encourage women to vote, or to take an
     active part in politics in the present state of our government.
     Her right to the elective franchise, however, is the same, and
     should be yielded to her, whether she exercise that right or not.
     Would that man, too, would have no participation in a government
     recognizing the life-taking principle; retaliation and the sword.
     It is unworthy a Christian nation. But when in the diffusion of
     light and intelligence a Convention shall be called to make
     regulations for self-government on Christian principles, I can
     see no good reason why women should not participate in such an
     assemblage, taking part equally with man.

     Professor Walker, of Cincinnati, in his "Introduction to American
     Law," says: "With regard to political rights, females form a
     positive exception to the general doctrine of equality. They have
     no part or lot in the formation or administration of government.
     They cannot vote or hold office. We require them to contribute
     their share in the way of taxes to the support of government, but
     allow them no voice in its direction. We hold them amenable to
     the laws when made, but allow them no share in making them. This
     language applied to males would be the exact definition of
     political slavery; applied to females custom does not teach us so
     to regard it." Woman, however, is beginning so to regard it.

     He further says: "The law of husband and wife, as you gather it
     from the books, is a disgrace to any civilized nation. The theory
     of the law degrades the wife almost to the level of slaves. When
     a woman marries, we call her condition coverture, and speak of
     her as a _femme covert_. The old writers call the husband baron,
     and sometimes in plain English, lord.... The merging of her name
     in that of her husband is emblematic of the fate of all her legal
     rights. The torch of Hymen serves but to light the pile on which
     these rights are offered up. The legal theory is, that marriage
     makes the husband and wife one person, and that person is the
     husband. On this subject, reform is loudly called for. There is
     no foundation in reason or expediency for the absolute and
     slavish subjection of the wife to the husband, which forms the
     foundation of the present legal relations. Were woman, in point
     of fact, the abject thing which the law in theory considers her
     to be when married, she would not be worthy the companionship of
     man."

     I would ask if such a code of laws does not require change? If
     such a condition of the wife in society does not claim redress?
     On no good ground can reform be delayed. Blackstone says: "The
     very being and legal existence of woman is suspended during
     marriage; incorporated or consolidated into that of her husband
     under whose protection and cover she performs everything."
     Hurlbut, in his Essay upon Human Rights, says: "The laws touching
     the rights of women are at variance with the laws of the Creator.
     Rights are human rights, and pertain to human beings without
     distinction of sex. Laws should not be made for man or for
     woman, but for mankind. Man was not born to command, nor woman to
     obey.... The law of France, Spain, and Holland, and one of our
     own States, Louisiana, recognizes the wife's right to property,
     more than the common law of England.... The laws depriving woman
     of the right of property are handed down to us from dark and
     feudal times, and are not consistent with the wiser, better,
     purer spirit of the age. The wife is a mere pensioner on the
     bounty of her husband. Her lost rights are appropriated to
     himself. But justice and benevolence are abroad in our land
     awakening the spirit of inquiry and innovation; and the Gothic
     fabric of the British law will fall before it, save where it is
     based upon the foundation of truth and justice."

     May these statements lead you to reflect upon this subject, that
     you may know what woman's condition is in society, what her
     restrictions are, and seek to remove them. In how many cases in
     our country the husband and wife begin life together, and by
     equal industry and united effort accumulate to themselves a
     comfortable home. In the event of the death of the wife the
     household remains undisturbed, his farm or his workshop is not
     broken up or in any way molested. But when the husband dies he
     either gives his wife a portion of their joint accumulation, or
     the law apportions to her a share; the homestead is broken up,
     and she is dispossessed of that which she earned equally with
     him; for what she lacked in physical strength she made up in
     constancy of labor and toil, day and evening. The sons then
     coming into possession of the property, as has been the custom
     until of later time, speak of having to keep their mother, when
     she in reality is aiding to keep them. Where is the justice of
     this state of things? The change in the law of this State and of
     New York in relation to the property of the wife, goes to a
     limited extent toward the redress of these wrongs which are far
     more extensive and involve much more than I have time this
     evening to point out.

     On no good ground can the legal existence of the wife be
     suspended during marriage, and her property surrendered to her
     husband. In the intelligent ranks of society the wife may not in
     point of fact be so degraded as the law would degrade her;
     because public sentiment is above the law. Still, while the law
     stands, she is liable to the disabilities which it imposes. Among
     the ignorant classes of society, woman is made to bear heavy
     burdens, and is degraded almost to the level of the slave. There
     are many instances now in our city, where the wife suffers much
     from the power of the husband to claim all that she can earn with
     her own hands. In my intercourse with the poorer class of people,
     I have known cases of extreme cruelty from the hard earnings of
     the wife being thus robbed by the husband, and no redress at law.

     An article in one of the daily papers lately presented the
     condition of needle-women in England. There might be a
     presentation of this class in our own country which would make
     the heart bleed. Public attention should be turned to this
     subject in order that avenues of more profitable employment may
     be opened to women. There are many kinds of business which women,
     equally with men, may follow with respectability and success.
     Their talents and energies should be called forth, and their
     powers brought into the highest exercise. The efforts of women in
     France are sometimes pointed to in ridicule and sarcasm, but
     depend upon it, the opening of profitable employment to women in
     that country is doing much for the enfranchisement of the sex.
     In England and America it is not an uncommon thing for a wife to
     take up the business of her deceased husband and carry it on with
     success.

     Our respected British Consul stated to me a circumstance which
     occurred some years ago, of an editor of a political paper having
     died in England; it was proposed to his wife, an able writer, to
     take the editorial chair. She accepted. The patronage of the
     paper was greatly increased, and she a short time since retired
     from her labors with a handsome fortune. In that country,
     however, the opportunities are by no means general for woman's
     elevation.

     In visiting the public school in London a few years since, I
     noticed that the boys were employed in linear drawing, and
     instructed upon the black-board in the higher branches of
     arithmetic and mathematics; while the girls, after a short
     exercise in the mere elements of arithmetic, were seated during
     the bright hours of the morning, stitching wristbands. I asked
     why there should be this difference made; why the girls too
     should not have the black-board? The answer was, that they would
     not probably fill any station in society requiring such
     knowledge.

     The demand for a more extended education will not cease until
     girls and boys have equal instruction in all the departments of
     useful knowledge. We have as yet no high-school in this State.
     The normal school may be a preparation for such an establishment.
     In the late convention for general education, it was cheering to
     hear the testimony borne to woman's capabilities for head
     teachers of the public schools. A resolution there offered for
     equal salaries to male and female teachers when equally
     qualified, as practiced in Louisiana. I regret to say, was
     checked in its passage by Bishop Potter; by him who has done so
     much for the encouragement of education, and who gave his
     countenance and influence to that Convention. Still, the fact of
     such a resolution being offered, augurs a time coming for woman
     which she may well hail. At the last examination of the public
     schools in this city, one of the alumni delivered an address on
     Woman, not as is too common in eulogistic strains, but directing
     the attention to the injustice done to woman in her position in
     society in a variety of ways, the unequal wages she receives for
     her constant toil, etc., presenting facts calculated to arouse
     attention to the subject.

     Women's property has been taxed equally with that of men's to
     sustain colleges endowed by the States; but they have not been
     permitted to enter those high seminaries of learning. Within a
     few years, however, some colleges have been instituted where
     young women are admitted upon nearly equal terms with young men;
     and numbers are availing themselves of their long denied rights.
     This is among the signs of the times, indicative of an advance
     for women. The book of knowledge is not opened to her in vain.
     Already is she aiming to occupy important posts of honor and
     profit in our country. We have three females editors in our
     State, and some in other States of the Union. Numbers are
     entering the medical profession; one received a diploma last
     year; others are preparing for a like result.

     Let woman then go on, not asking favors, but claiming as right,
     the removal of all hindrances to her elevation in the scale of
     being; let her receive encouragement for the proper cultivation
     of all her powers, so that she may enter profitably into the
     active business of life; employing her own hands in ministering
     to her necessities, strengthening her physical being by proper
     exercise and observance of the laws of health. Let her not be
     ambitious to display a fair hand and to promenade the
     fashionable streets of our city, but rather, coveting earnestly
     the best gifts, let her strive to occupy such walks in society as
     will befit her true dignity in all the relations of life. No fear
     that she will then transcend the proper limits of female
     delicacy. True modesty will be as fully preserved in acting out
     those important vocations, as in the nursery or at the fireside
     ministering to man's self-indulgence. Then in the marriage union,
     the independence of the husband and wife will be equal, their
     dependence mutual, and their obligations reciprocal.

     In conclusion, let me say, with Nathaniel P. Willis: "Credit not
     the old-fashioned absurdity that woman's is a secondary lot,
     ministering to the necessities of her lord and master! It is a
     higher destiny I would award you. If your immortality is as
     complete, and your gift of mind as capable as ours of increase
     and elevation, I would put no wisdom of mine against God's
     evident allotment. I would charge you to water the undying bud,
     and give it healthy culture, and open its beauty to the sun; and
     then you may hope that when your life is bound up with another,
     you will go on equally and in a fellowship that shall pervade
     every earthly interest."


NATIONAL CONVENTION IN PHILADELPHIA.

October 18, 1854, the Fifth National Convention was held in Sansom
Street Hall, where a large audience, chiefly of ladies, assembled at
an early hour.

At half-past ten o'clock Lucretia Mott made her appearance on the
platform, accompanied by several ladies and gentlemen, notably Lucy
Stone in Bloomer costume. She was the observed of all observers; the
neatness of her attire, and the grace with which she wore it, did much
to commend it to public approval. The press remarked that the officers
of the Convention were all without bonnets, and that many ladies in
the audience had their knitting-work. "A casual visitor," says _The
Bulletin_, "would have been impressed with the number and character of
this assembly, both among the actors and spectators. Every variety of
age, sex, race, color, and costume were here represented. Bloomers
were side by side with the mouse- gowns and white shawls of the
wealthy Quaker dames, and genteelly dressed ladies of the latest Paris
fashion."

The house was crowded, and on the steps ascending the platform were
seated William Lloyd Garrison and James Mott, side by side with men of
the darkest hue. The <DW52> people scattered through the audience
seemed quite at their ease, and were evidently received on grounds of
perfect equality, which was the subject of much comment by outsiders.

Mrs. Frances D. Gage, President of the last Convention at Cleveland,
called the assembly to order, and read

                              THE CALL.

     In accordance with a vote passed at the adjournment of the
     Woman's Rights Convention held in Cleveland, Ohio, in October,
     1853, the Fifth National Convention will be held in Philadelphia,
     October 18th, to continue three days. The subjects for
     consideration will be the Equal Right of Woman to all the
     advantages of education, literary, scientific, artistic; to full
     equality in all business avocations, industrial, commercial,
     professional; briefly, all the rights that belong to her as a
     citizen.

     This wide range of subjects for discussion can not fail to awaken
     the attention of all classes; hence we invite all persons
     irrespective of sex or color to take part in the deliberations of
     the Convention, and thus contribute to the progress of truth and
     the redemption of humanity.

               On behalf of the Central Committee,

                                   PAULINA WRIGHT DAVIS, _President_.
                                   ANTOINETTE L. BROWN, _Secretary_.

The following officers were chosen for the Convention:

     PRESIDENT.--Ernestine L. Rose, of New York.

     VICE-PRESIDENTS.--Lucretia Mott, Philadelphia; Frances D. Gage,
     Missouri; Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Massachusetts; Martha C.
     Wright, New York; Thomas Garrett, Delaware; Hannah Tracy Cutler,
     Illinois; Robert Purvis; Pennsylvania; John O. Wattles, Indiana;
     Marenda B. Randall, Vermont; George Sunter, Canada.

     SECRETARIES.--Joseph A. Dugdale, Abby Kimber, Hannah M.
     Darlington.

     BUSINESS COMMITTEE.--Lucy Stone, William Lloyd Garrison, Myra
     Townsend, Mary P. Wilson, Sarah Pugh, Lydia Mott, Mary Grew.

     FINANCE COMMITTEE.--Susan B. Anthony, James Mott, Ruth Dugdale,
     Rebecca Plumbly.

Mrs. Rose, on taking the chair, said:

     There is one argument which in my estimation is the argument of
     arguments, why woman should have her rights; not on account of
     expediency, not on account of policy, though these too show the
     reasons why she should have her rights; but we claim--I for one
     claim, and I presume all our friends claim--our rights on the
     broad ground of human rights; and I for one again will say, I
     promise not how we shall use them. I will no more promise how we
     shall use our rights than man has promised before he obtained
     them, how he would use them. We all know that rights are often
     abused; and above all things have human rights in this country
     been abused, from the very fact that they have been withheld from
     half of the community.

     By human rights we mean natural rights, and upon that ground we
     claim our rights, and upon that ground they have already been
     conceded by the Declaration of Independence, in that first great
     and immutable truth which is proclaimed in that instrument, "that
     all men are created equal," and that therefore all are entitled
     to "certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty,
     and the pursuit of happiness." Our claims are based upon that
     great and immutable truth, the rights of all humanity. For is
     woman not included in that phrase, "all men are created free and
     equal"? Is she not included in that expression? Tell us, ye men
     of the nation, ay, ye wise law-makers and law-breakers of the
     nation, whether woman is not included in that great Declaration
     of Independence? And if she is, what right has man to deprive her
     of her natural and inalienable rights? It is natural, it is
     inherent, it is inborn, it is a thing of which no one can justly
     deprive her. Upon that just and eternal basis do we found our
     claims for our rights; political, civil, legal, social,
     religious, and every other.

     But, at the outset, we claim our equal political rights with man,
     not only from that portion of the Declaration of Independence,
     but from another, equally well-established principle in this
     country, that "taxation and representation are inseparable."
     Woman, everybody knows, is taxed; and if she is taxed, she ought
     to be represented.

     I will simply here throw out a statement of these principles upon
     which our claims are based; and I trust each separate resolution
     will be taken up by this Convention, fully canvassed and
     commented upon, so as to show it not only an abstract right, but
     a right which can be wisely made practical.

     Again, it is acknowledged in this country, and it is eternally
     true, that "all the just powers of government are derived from
     the consent of the governed." If so, then, as woman is a subject
     of government, she ought to have a voice in enacting the laws. If
     her property is taxed to maintain government, she ought to have a
     voice in forming that government. If she has to pay taxes to
     maintain government, she ought to have a voice in saying how
     those taxes shall be applied.

     On these grounds we make our claims, on natural, humane, eternal,
     and well-recognized laws and principles of this republic. On
     these grounds we ask man to meet us, and meet us in the spirit of
     inquiry, in the spirit of candor and honesty, as rational human
     beings ought to meet each other, face to face, and adduce
     arguments, if they can, to convince us that we are not included
     in that great Declaration of Independence; that although it is a
     right principle that taxation and representation are inseparable,
     yet woman ought to be taxed, and ought not to be represented; and
     that although it is an acknowledged principle that all just power
     of government is derived from the consent of the governed, yet
     woman should be governed without her consent. Let them meet us
     fairly and openly; let them meet us like rational men, men who
     appreciate their own freedom, and we will hear them. If they can
     convince us that we are wrong, we will give up our claims; but if
     we can convince them that we are right in claiming our rights, as
     they are in claiming theirs, then we expect them in a spirit of
     candor and honesty to acknowledge it.

Joseph Dugdale read several letters, which, as usual, seemed to be
something of a bore to the audience. When he finished, Lucretia Mott
suggested that if there were any more lengthy epistles to be read, it
would be well for the secretaries to look them over, and omit all that
in their wisdom might not be worth reading.

Lucy Stone, from the Business Committee, read a series of
resolutions,[70] and as some one from the audience called, "Louder!"
she remarked that if ladies would keep their bonnets tied down over
their ears, they must not ask others to find lungs of sufficient power
to penetrate the heavy pasteboard and millinery over them. She spoke
briefly on the resolutions, and the steadily increasing interest in
the subject of woman's rights.

Hannah Tracy Cutler gave a report of Illinois, Frances Dana Gage of
Missouri, and Susan B. Anthony of New York.

Thomas Wentworth Higginson, of Massachusetts, said he had a matter of
business to present. Mrs. Paulina Wright Davis being too ill to attend
the Convention, Mr. Higginson read a letter from her sister, Mary K.
Spaulding, suggesting the establishment of a newspaper in the city of
New York as "the national organ" of the Woman's Rights movement. He
doubted the wisdom of such a step, and after setting forth the expense
of a central organ and the great danger of its creating a schism, he
offered the following resolutions:

     _Resolved_, That in the opinion of this Convention it is not
     expedient, at present, to establish a newspaper as The National
     Organ of the Woman's Rights Movement.

     _Resolved_, That it is expedient to appoint a Committee who shall
     provide for the preparation and publication, in widely circulated
     journals, facts and arguments relating to the cause.

     Mrs. MOTT approved of the resolutions, and said they had arrived
     at a similar conclusion in the Syracuse Convention; she fully
     concurred in the views of Mr. Higginson.

     WILLIAM LLOYD GARRISON replied, that if organization for any good
     cause be right, it was right for this. Every reform movement
     needs an organ of its own. And this cause needs a paper of the
     most radical character; that shall make no compromises with
     popular prejudices; far above the paralyzing influences of Church
     and State.

     Mrs. MOTT said she did not oppose organization, but was in favor
     of individual freedom and responsibility. _The Liberator_, Mr.
     Garrison's paper, has done far more good than _The Anti-Slavery
     Standard_, the organ of the Anti-Slavery movement.

     Mr. GARRISON said _The Liberator_ was not simply an anti-slavery
     paper, but an advocate of general reform.

Remarks were made on this point by Elizabeth Paxton, Susan H. Cox,
George P. Davis, and George Sunter, of Canada.

     LUCY STONE advocated the resolutions; her experience in the
     anti-slavery cause had taught her a lesson of wisdom for this
     movement. We are rich in principle and enthusiasm, but not in
     silver and gold, and therefore should avoid taking on our
     shoulders a national organ. Widely circulated journals are now
     open to us, in which we can express our opinions with freedom and
     without expense. There is nothing so strong as individual purpose
     and freedom to carry it out. The papers established by Mrs.
     Davis and Mrs. Bloomer are good, and she hoped the friends would
     give generously to their support.

The resolutions were unanimously adopted, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton,
of New York; Paulina Wright Davis, of Rhode Island; Thomas Wentworth
Higginson and Lucy Stone, of Massachusetts; and Oliver Johnson, of New
York, were appointed as the Committee to superintend the work.

     LUCY STONE said she had a new item of business to propose. She
     knew that those who came to these Conventions went away feeling
     stronger and better. She held in her hand a pamphlet containing
     five tracts; one from Wendell Phillips, one from Theodore Parker,
     one from _The Westminster Review_, by Mrs. John Stuart Mill, one
     from Mr. Higginson, and last, but not least, one from Mrs. C. I.
     H. Nichols, which should be distributed. They were able papers,
     and all interested in the movement should exert themselves to
     circulate them. The people only wanted light.

     Another mode of disseminating the principles was by stories
     illustrating the wrongs of women under the present laws. The
     right of a woman to what she earns; to the custody of her person;
     to the guardianship of her children, and all of her other rights,
     should be illustrated in fiction. Prizes should be offered for
     the best stories upon these subjects. She pledged herself to
     raise $500 for the purpose. She pointed to "Uncle Tom's Cabin" to
     show what fiction could accomplish, and trusted that action would
     be taken upon the subject before the Convention adjourned.

     Mr. GARRISONarose to say "ditto to Lucy Stone." In regard to
     "Uncle Tom's Cabin," it was known that Mrs. Stowe was induced to
     write it from a request of Dr. Bailey, of _The National Era_, to
     write a story for his paper. And he thought that such an offer
     might now call forth something to aid the cause of woman. He
     praised the tracts to which Miss Stone alluded.

     The PRESIDENT appointed Wendell Phillips, Elizabeth Cady Stanton,
     and Mary Channing Higginson, the Committee on prize tracts.[71]

     Mrs. TRACY CUTLER read an invitation from the Female Medical
     College for the members of the Convention to visit that
     institution and attend its lectures, and took the opportunity to
     compliment Philadelphia as being the first city, not only in the
     United States, but in the world, to establish a Medical College
     for Women.

     Dr. ANN PRESTON gave an interesting report of The Woman's Medical
     College; of all the persecutions women had encountered in
     securing a medical education and entering that profession. She
     noted the signs of a growing liberality with satisfaction.

     The Rev. HENRY GREW, of Philadelphia, then appeared upon the
     platform, and said he was sorry to differ from the general tone
     of the speakers present, but he felt it to be his duty to give
     his views on the questions under consideration. His opinions as
     to woman's rights and duties were based on the Scriptures. He
     quoted numerous texts to show that it was clearly the will of God
     that man should be superior in power and authority to woman; and
     asserted that no lesson is more plainly and frequently taught in
     the Bible, than woman's subjection.

     Mrs. CUTLER replied at length, and skillfully turned every text
     he had quoted directly against the reverend gentleman, to the
     great amusement of the audience. She showed that man and woman
     were a simultaneous creation, with equal power and glory on their
     heads, and that dominion over the fowl of the air, the fish of
     the sea, and every creeping thing on the earth was given to them,
     and not to man alone. The time has come for woman to read and
     interpret Scripture for herself; too long have we learned God's
     will from the lips of man and closed our eyes on the great book
     of nature, and the safer teaching of our own souls. It is a pity
     that those who would recommend the Bible as the revealed will of
     the all-wise and benevolent Creator, should uniformly quote it on
     the side of tyranny and oppression. I think we owe it to our
     religion and ourselves to wrest it from such hands, and proclaim
     the beautiful spirit breathed through all its commands and
     precepts, instead of dwelling so much on isolated texts that have
     no application to our day and generation.

     Mrs. MOTT said: It is not Christianity, but priestcraft that has
     subjected woman as we find her. The Church and State have been
     united, and it is well for us to see it so. We have had to bear
     the denunciations of these reverend (irreverend) clergymen, as in
     New York, of late. But if we look to their authority to see how
     they expound the text, quite likely we shall find a new reading.
     Why, when John Chambers returned to Philadelphia from the World's
     Temperance Convention at New York, he gave notice that he would
     give an address, and state the rights of woman as defined by the
     Bible. Great allowance has been made by some of the speakers in
     this Convention, on account of his ignorance, and certainly this
     was charitable. But I heard this discourse. I heard him bring up
     what is called the Apostolic prohibition, and the old Eastern
     idea of the subjection of wives; but he kept out of view some of
     the best ideas in the Scriptures.

     Blame is often attached to the position in which woman is found.
     I blame her not so much as I pity her. So circumscribed have been
     her limits that she does not realize the misery of her condition.
     Such dupes are men to custom that even servitude, the worst of
     ills, comes to be thought a good, till down from sire to son it
     is kept and guarded as a sacred thing. Woman's existence is
     maintained by sufferance. The veneration of man has been
     misdirected, the pulpit has been prostituted, the Bible has been
     ill-used. It has been turned over and over as in every reform.
     The temperance people have had to feel its supposed
     denunciations. Then the anti-slavery, and now this reform has
     met, and still continues to meet, passage after passage of the
     Bible, never intended to be so used. Instead of taking the truths
     of the Bible in corroboration of the right, the practice has
     been, to turn over its pages to find example and authority for
     the wrong, for the existing abuses of society. For the usage of
     drinking wine, the example of the sensualist Solomon, is always
     appealed to. In reference to our reform, even admitting that Paul
     did mean preach, when he used that term, he did not say that the
     recommendation of that time was to be applicable to the churches
     of all after-time. We have been so long pinning our faith on
     other people's sleeves that we ought to begin examining these
     things daily ourselves, to see whether they are so; and we should
     find on comparing text with text, that a very different
     construction might be put upon them. Some of our early Quakers
     not seeing how far they were to be carried, became Greek and
     Hebrew scholars, and they found that the text would bear other
     translations as well as other constructions. All Bible
     commentators agree that the Church of Corinth, when the apostle
     wrote, was in a state of great confusion. They fell into
     discussion and controversy; and in order to quiet this state of
     things and bring the Church to greater propriety, the command was
     given out that women should keep silence, and it was not
     permitted them to speak, except by asking questions at home. In
     the same epistle to the same Church, Paul gave express directions
     how women shall prophesy, which he defines to be preaching,
     "speaking to men," for "exhortation and comfort." He recognized
     them in prophesying and praying. The word translated servant, is
     applied to a man in one part of the Scripture, and in another it
     is translated minister. Now that same word you will find might be
     applied to Phebe, a deaconess. That text was quoted in the sermon
     of John Chambers, and he interlarded it with a good many of his
     ideas, that women should not be goers abroad, and read among
     other things "that their wives were to be teachers." But properly
     translated would be "deaconesses."

     It is not so Apostolic to make the wife subject to the husband as
     many have supposed. It has been done by law and public opinion
     since that time. There has been a great deal said about sending
     missionaries over to the East to convert women who are immolating
     themselves on the funeral pile of their husbands. I know this may
     be a very good work, but I would ask you to look at it. How many
     women are there now immolated upon the shrine of superstition and
     priestcraft, in our very midst, in the assumption that man only
     has a right to the pulpit, and that if a woman enters it she
     disobeys God; making woman believe in the misdirection of her
     vocation, and that it is of divine authority that she should be
     thus bound. Believe it not, my sisters. In this same epistle the
     word "prophesying" should be "preaching"--"preaching godliness,"
     etc. On the occasion of the first miracle which it is said Christ
     wrought, a woman went before Him and said, "Whatsoever he biddeth
     you do, that do." The woman of Samaria said, "Come and see the
     man who told me all the things that ever I did."

     These things are worthy of note. I do not want to dwell too much
     upon Scripture authority. We too often bind ourselves by
     authorities rather than by the truth. We are infidel to truth in
     seeking examples to overthrow it. The very first act of note that
     is mentioned when the disciples and apostles went forth after
     Jesus was removed from them, was the bringing up of an ancient
     prophecy to prove that they were right in the position they
     assumed on that occasion, when men and women were gathered
     together on the holy day of Pentecost, when every man heard and
     saw those wonderful works which are recorded. Then Peter stood
     forth--some one has said that Peter made a great mistake in
     quoting the prophet Joel--but he stated that "the time is come,
     this day is fulfilled the prophecy, when it is said, I will pour
     out my spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters
     shall prophesy," etc.--the language of the Bible is beautiful in
     its repetition--"upon my servants and my handmaidens I will pour
     out my spirit and they shall prophesy." Now can anything be
     clearer than that?

     Rev. HENRY GREW again quoted Scripture in reply to Mrs. Mott, and
     said the coming of Christ into the world did not restore man and
     woman to the original condition of our first parents. If the
     position assumed by the women be true, then must the Divine Word
     from Genesis to Revelation be set aside as untrue, that woman may
     be relieved from the, perhaps, unfortunate limitations that hold
     her back in this age of progress.

     Mr. HIGGINSON related a story of an old Methodist clergyman who
     by chance stepped into a Quaker meeting where he heard a woman
     speaking, which so shocked him that he thought Anti-Christ was
     now bound to rule. He went home sad. He had four daughters, one
     of whom, at the age of sixteen, in a few minutes opened the eyes
     of his understanding after he had groped in darkness a long time,
     by showing him a passage in the Testament describing a friend of
     Paul's at Phillippi, who had four daughters that prophesied. This
     girl referred her father to the Greek Testament, and showed him
     that the original word, properly translated, means to preach
     instead of to prophesy. Before we resort to Scriptural texts we
     should be careful to ascertain that they are right, or all
     arguments founded on them must fall.

     Mr. GREW did not consider that the story of the four daughters
     invalidated his position.

     Mr. GARRISON said: Consulting the Bible for opinions as to
     woman's rights, is of little importance to the majority of this
     Convention. We have gone over the whole ground, and placed our
     cause upon the decrees of nature. We _know_ that man and woman
     are equal in the sight of God. We know that texts and books are
     of no importance, and have no taste for the discussion of dry
     doctrinal points.

     But with the American people the case is different. The masses
     believe the Bible directly from God; that it decrees the
     inequality of the sexes; and that settles the question. There is
     no doubt that there are many persons connected with the
     Protestant churches who would be with the movement were it not
     for the supposed Bible difficulty. They shudder at anything they
     think against the Bible, as against the will of God. Take away
     this incubus, and these persons would experience a change in
     their views; they would be with us.

     In regard to Mr. Grew, Mr. G. said he had long known him and
     loved him. He was a man of purity and charity, and he was glad he
     had given his views. Yet this kindly man did not stand upon a
     solid foundation.

     Why go to the Bible to settle this question? As a nation, we have
     practically ignored the Bible. The assertion of the equality and
     inalienability of the rights of man, in the Declaration of
     Independence, includes the whole of the human race. He would
     never attempt to prove to an American the right of any man to
     liberty. He asserted the fact; and considered that in holding
     slaves while they proclaimed liberty to all men, the American
     people were hypocrites and tyrants. Mr. Grew goes to St. Paul to
     prove that woman is not equal to man. Why go to the Bible? What
     question was ever settled by the Bible? What question of theology
     or any other department? None that I ever heard of! With this
     same version of the Bible, and the same ability to read it, we
     find that it has filled all Christendom with theological
     confusion. All are Ishmaelites; each man's hand against his
     neighbor.

     The human mind is greater than any book. The mind sits in
     judgment on every book. If there be truth in the book, we take
     it; if error, we discard it. Why refer this to the Bible? In this
     country, the Bible has been used to support slavery and capital
     punishment; while in the old countries, it has been quoted to
     sustain all manner of tyranny and persecution. All reforms are
     anti-Bible. We must look at all things rationally. We find women
     endowed with certain capacities, and it is of no importance if
     any book denies her such capacities. Would Mr. Grew say that
     woman can not preach, in the face of such a preacher as LUCRETIA
     MOTT?

     Mrs. MOTT begged leave to substitute friend Grew's own daughter,
     Mary Grew, who has already spoken on this platform!! and said,
     Mr. Grew himself does not take all the Bible as inspiration, in
     which most of the speakers concurred. She expressed her
     attachment to the Scriptures, and said many excellent lessons
     could be learned from them. She showed the misinterpretations of
     the texts quoted by Mr. Grew and others against the equality of
     the sexes. Mr. Grew does not take the Bible for his guide,
     altogether. Mrs. Mott then quoted St. Paul in regard to marriage,
     and said: Why in opposition to that text has Mr. Grew married a
     second time? It was because he did not really believe that the
     Scriptures were entirely inspired.

     EMMA R. COE made a few remarks on the position of the clergy
     generally toward this reform, the most beneficent in its results
     of any, man has ever yet been called upon to consider. We often
     hear it remarked that woman owes so much to Christianity. It can
     not be the Christianity that the clergy have proclaimed on our
     platform. From them we hear only of woman's degradation and
     subjection. We have certainly nothing to be thankful for if such
     are the principles Christ came into the world to declare; the
     subjection of one-half of the race to the other half, as far as
     we are concerned, is no improvement upon the religions of all
     nations and ages.

At the close of this protracted discussion on the Bible position of
woman, the following resolutions, presented by Mr. Garrison, were
unanimously adopted:

     _Resolved_, That while remembering and gladly acknowledging the
     exceptional cases which exist to the contrary, we feel it a duty
     to declare in regard to the sacred cause which has brought us
     together, that the most determined opposition it encounters is
     from the clergy generally, whose teachings of the Bible are
     intensely inimical to the equality of woman with man.

     _Resolved_, That whatever any book may teach, the rights of no
     human being are dependent upon or modified thereby, but are
     equal, absolute, essential, inalienable in the person of every
     member of the human family, without regard to sex, race, or
     clime.

     JOHN SIDNEY JONES made a few remarks on the monopoly of the
     pulpit.

     SUSAN B. ANTHONY wished to remind the friends, before separating,
     of one practical measure to be considered in the advancement of
     our noble enterprise. For the purpose of holding Conventions,
     circulating tracts and petitions, giving prizes for good stories,
     supporting newspapers and agents, the first great requisite is
     money, and I hope every one present will contribute generously to
     help us carry on this grand reform.

     Mr. GARRISON seconded Miss Anthony's demand for "the sinews of
     war." He said we Americans are a theoretical people, and we are
     also a practical people. If the women intend to knock at the door
     of every State house to demand their rights, the question must
     be argued in a practical way with facts and statistics.

     When I undertook to have the gallows abolished in Massachusetts,
     I asked the Committee of the Legislature if they wanted a certain
     number of Bible texts quoted on each side of the question, they
     said, "No, we want facts and statistics; we do not ask the
     opinions of Moses and Aaron on this point, but the result of
     human experience in the punishment of crime." So in this case;
     Legislatures will not ask for nor appreciate Bible arguments;
     they will ask for facts as to woman's achievements in education,
     industry, and practical usefulness.

     JOSEPH DUGDALE, whose special concern always seemed to be the
     action of dead men on this question, said it had been his fortune
     to be present at the making of the last wills and testaments of
     many men, and he never knew of a case where a dying husband would
     practically admit that his wife was his equal. He stated a case
     in which a husband of his acquaintance proposed to leave a large
     property, the inheritance and accumulation of his wife's labors,
     to _her_ as long as she remained his widow, and then to divide it
     among _his_ family relatives. And yet this husband claimed to
     have great admiration and affection for this woman whom he would
     deliberately rob of her inheritance from her own father. The
     magnanimity of man passes all understanding!

     Mrs. PRINCE, a <DW52> woman, invoked the blessing of God upon
     the noble women engaged in this enterprise, and said she
     understood woman's wrongs better than woman's rights, and gave
     some of her own experiences to illustrate the degradation of her
     sex in slavery. On a voyage to the West Indies the vessel was
     wrecked, and she was picked up and taken to New Orleans. Going up
     the Mississippi she saw the terrible suffering of a cargo of
     slaves on board, and on the plantations along the shores. On her
     return voyage, attached to the steamboat was a brig containing
     several hundred slaves, among them a large number of young
     quadroon girls with infants in their arms as fair as any lady in
     this room.

     MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE spoke at length of the brilliant record of
     women in the past in every department of human activity--in art,
     science, literature, invention; of their heroism and patriotism
     in time of war, and their industry and endurance in many equally
     trying emergencies in time of peace. Woman has so fully proved
     her equality with man in every position she has filled, that it
     is too late now for clergymen on our platform to remand us to the
     subjection of the women of Corinth centuries ago. We have learned
     too well the lessons of liberty taught in our revolution to
     accept now the position of slaves.

     Mrs. TRACY CUTLER: It would appear, after all, that we women are
     placed pretty much in the condition of the veriest slave. We must
     prove our own humanity by exhibiting our skill in work. We must
     bring forth our own samples; put them, as it were, on the
     auction-block, and thus make our claim to equality of rights a
     matter of dollars and cents. Is it here only that woman can touch
     man's sympathy? She then described the degraded condition of
     women in Europe, and particularly in London, where poverty and
     the tyranny of man have driven women to despair, until they were
     forced to prostitute their own bodies to procure bread. This
     vice, horribly revolting as it is, seems to go hand in hand with
     intemperance. She did not wish women to go into the field to be
     yoked with mules, or to turn scavenger, to pick up rags and
     crusts in the streets to carry home in their aprons. Men bring
     the elements to their aid, and we wish women to do the same. She
     then adverted to the difference in the labor of the kitchen and
     other pursuits open to women. Let the printer advertise for two
     girls to set type, and a hundred applications will be made, while
     women for the kitchen are very scarce. The reason for this is,
     that all other kinds of work are better paid. When woman's labor
     is justly remunerated and equally respected in all departments of
     industry, there will be no such difference in the supply of help
     for the factory, shop, and kitchen.

     FRANCES D. GAGE said: The reason why the work of the kitchen is
     looked upon as degrading, is because the girl is never taken by
     the hand. Where are your philanthropic ladies who assist her?
     Where is she to go when her work is done? Does she sit in the
     same room with you? Does she eat at the same table? No, to your
     shame, she is confined to the basement and the garret. It is not
     so much because the pay for kitchen labor is not so good, as it
     is chiefly because of the public opinion that they are employed
     to _serve_. It is true that there are many who will take a
     quarter off the wages of a girl to put a new bow on their own
     bonnets. The men are not to be blamed for this; they have enough
     sins to answer for.

     Mrs. COE said: It would afford women great pleasure to be able to
     pay their own expenses on pleasure excursions and to the
     concert-room, instead of being always compelled to allow the
     gentlemen to foot the bills for them. Women must have equal pay
     for equal work. Among the Quakers the sexes stand on an equality,
     and everything moves on smoothly and happily.

     SUSAN B. ANTHONY, after relating several instances of the
     injustice of the laws that made the wife subject to the husband,
     said: And all these wrongs are to be redressed by appeals to the
     State Legislatures. In New York and Ohio the women had already
     commenced with every prospect of success. Thousands of petitions
     had been sent into both Legislatures asking for suffrage and
     equal property rights, and their Committees had granted hearings
     to our representatives--Caroline M. Severance, in Ohio; Ernestine
     L. Rose, Rev. William Henry Channing, Elizabeth Cady Stanton,
     Rev. Antoinette L. Brown, and herself, in New York. And closed
     with an earnest appeal to the women of every State to petition,
     PETITION, remembering that "what is worth having is worth asking
     for," and that "who would be free must themselves strike the
     blow."

Frances D. Gage moved that the next National Convention be held at
Cincinnati, Ohio. A gentlemen suggested Washington, to which Mr.
Garrison replied, "We shall go there by and by."[72] After discussion
by Mrs. Mott, Mrs. Rose, and others, the motion was unanimously
adopted. Mrs. Gage then spoke of the Press of the city; its faithful
reports of the proceedings of the Convention, and moved a vote of
thanks. Edward M. Davis begged Mrs. Gage to accept as a substitute the
following resolutions:

     _Resolved_, That the thanks of this Convention are due, and are
     hereby conveyed, to Mrs. Ernestine L. Rose, of New York, for the
     courtesy, impartiality, and dignity with which she has presided
     over its proceedings.

     _Resolved_, That in the crowded and intelligent audiences which
     have attended the sessions of this Convention; in the earnest
     attention given to its proceedings from the commencement to its
     close; in the fair reports of the Press of the city, and in the
     spirit of harmony and fraternity which has prevailed amongst its
     members, we see evidence of the rapid progress of our cause, and
     find incitement to renewed and more earnest efforts in its
     behalf.

Thus closed another most successful Convention. Notwithstanding an
admission fee of ten cents during the day and twenty-five at night,
the audiences grew larger every session, until the last evening the
spacious hall, aisles, stairs, and all available standing-room, was
densely packed, and hundreds went away unable to get in.

Let us remember that behind the chief actors in these Conventions,
there stands in each State, a group of women of stern moral principle,
large experience, refinement and cultivation, filling with honor the
more private walks of life, who, by their sympathy, hospitality, and
generous contributions, are the great sources of support and
inspiration to those on the platform, who represent the ideas they
hold sacred, whose tongues and pens proclaim their thoughts. Among
such in Pennsylvania, let us ever remember Sarah Pugh, Mary Ann
McClintock, Elizabeth Phillips, Anna and Adeline Thomson, Abby and
Gertrude Kimber, Margaretta Forten, Harriet Forten Purvis, Hannah M.
Darlington, Dinah Mendenhall, Sarah Pierce, Elizabeth and Sarah
Miller, and Ruth Dugdale. When success shall at last crown our
efforts, in according due praise to those who have achieved the
victory, such names as these must not be forgotten.

Alice Bradley Neal, of Philadelphia, ridiculed this Woman's Rights
Convention in her husband's[73] paper, and Jane Grey Swisshelm
indignantly replied in her _Pittsburgh Saturday Visitor_ as follows:

     Mrs. Neal can not be ignorant that the principal object of the
     Convention, and all the agitation about woman's rights, is to
     secure to the toiling millions of her own sex a just reward for
     their labor; to save them from the alternative of prostitution,
     starvation, or incessant life-destroying toil; and yet the whole
     subject furnishes her with material for scorn and merriment! Tell
     it not in Gath! Publish it not in the streets of Askelon, lest
     the sons of the Phillistines rejoice that one of the daughters of
     Eve, beautiful and gentle, throws down her knitting-pins, and
     tries her strength to wield the hammer of old Vulcan to aid them
     in forging fetters for the wrists of her unfortunate sisters. We
     would that it had been some one else than the gentle Alice Neal
     who had volunteered to soil her white hands and sweat her fair
     face, laboring in such a blacksmith-shop.

While ever and anon during the last forty years Mrs. Swisshelm has
seized some of these _dilettante_ literary women with her metaphysical
tweezers, and held them up to scorn for their ridicule of the woman
suffrage conventions, yet in her own recently published work in her
mature years, she vouchsafes no words of approval for those who have
inaugurated the greatest movement of the centuries. She complains that
in some of the woman suffrage conventions she attended, there was not
a strict observance of parliamentary rules, and that the resolutions
and speeches were unworthy the occasion. Yet the only time Mrs.
Swisshelm ever honored our platform at a National Convention, her
speech was far below the level of most of the others, and the
resolutions she offered were so verbose and irrelevant, that the
Committee declined to present them to the Convention.

It is quite evident from her last pronunciamento that she has no just
appreciation of the importance and dignity of our demand for justice
and equality. A soldier without a leg is a fact so much more readily
understood, than all women without ballots, and his loss so much more
readily comprehended and supplied, that we can hardly blame any one
for doing the work of the hour, rather than struggling a life-time for
an idea. Hence it is not a matter of surprise that most women are more
readily enlisted in the suppression of evils in the concrete, than in
advocating the principles that underlie them in the abstract, and thus
ultimately doing the broader and more lasting work. On this ground we
can excuse the author of "Half a Century" for giving the reader one
hundred and twenty-five pages of her own work in hospitals and three
to the Woman Suffrage movement, but considering the tone of the three
pages, the advocates of the measure should be thankful she gave no
more.

Mrs. Swisshelm's contempt is only surpassed by Mrs. Hale's "Jeremiad"
over the infidelity of the noble leader of our movement. For a woman
so thoroughly politic and time-serving, who, unlike the great master
she professed to follow, never identified herself with one of the
unpopular reforms of her day, whose pen never by any chance slipped
outside the prescribed literary line of safety, to cheer the martyrs
to truth in her own generation; lamentations from such a source over
Lucretia Mott, are presumptuous and profane. If such a life of
self-sacrifice and devotion to the best interests of humanity; such
courage to stand alone, to do and say the right,'mid persecution,
violence and mobs; such charity and faithfulness in every relation of
life, as daughter, sister, wife, mother, and friend; such calm
declining years and peaceful death could all be realized without a
belief in the creed of Sarah Josepha Hale; the philosophical
conclusion is that there may be some Divine light and love outside of
Mrs. Hale's horizon; that her shibboleth may after all not be the true
measure for the highest Christian graces.

Sarah J. Hale, shuddering over the graves of such women as Harriet
Martineau, Frances Wright, Mary Wollstonecroft, George Sand, George
Eliot and Lucretia Mott, might furnish a subject for an artist to
represent as "bigotry weeping over the triumphs of truth."

Nevertheless, as Mrs. Hale lived in Pennsylvania forty years, the
women of that State may rejoice in the fact that in her great work,
"Woman's Record," she has given "Sketches of all the distinguished
women from the Creation to A.D. 1868"; a labor for which our sex owe
her a debt of gratitude. To exhume nearly seventeen hundred women from
oblivion, classify them, and set forth their distinguished traits of
character, was indeed an herculean labor. This is a valuable book of
reference for the girls of to-day. When our opponents depreciate the
achievements of woman they can turn to the "Woman's Record" and find
grand examples of all the cardinal virtues, of success in art,
science, literature, and government.

In Jane Grey Swisshelm, Pennsylvania can boast a successful editor of
a liberal political newspaper during the eventful years of our
anti-slavery struggle. _The Pittsburgh Saturday Visitor_ was
established Jan. 20, 1848. It was owned and edited by Mrs. Swisshelm
for some years; merged into _The Family Journal and Visitor_ in 1852,
in which she was co-editor until 1857, when she removed to Minnesota.
In spite of a few idiosyncrasies, Mrs. Swisshelm is a noble woman, and
her influence has been for good in her day and generation. However
much we may differ from her in some points, we must concede that she
is a strong, pointed writer.

Among the editors of Pennsylvania, Anna E. McDowell deserves mention.
In _The Una_ of January, 1855, we find the following:


                          THE WOMAN'S ADVOCATE.

     We have received the first number of a paper bearing the above
     name. It is a fair, handsome sheet, seven columns in width,
     edited by Miss Anna E. McDowell, in Philadelphia. It claims to be
     an independent paper. Its design is not to press woman's right to
     suffrage, but to present her wrongs, and plead for their redress.
     It is owned by a joint stock company of women, and is printed and
     all the work done by women. We most heartily bid it God-speed,
     for the great need of woman now is work, work, that she may eat
     honest bread.

Miss McDowell continued her paper several years, and has ever since
been a faithful correspondent in many journals, and now edits a
"Woman's Department" in _The Philadelphia Sunday Republic_. She pleads
eloquently for the redress of all the wrongs of humanity. Jails,
prisons, charitable institutions, the oppression of women and
children, the laborer, the Indian, have all in turn been subjects of
her impartial pen.

Philadelphia was the first city in this country to open her retail
stores to girls as clerks, and among the first to welcome them as
type-setters in the printing offices.

     In the city press, from 1849 to 1854, we find the following
     announcements, which show the general agitation on woman's
     position:

          _The Pennsylvania Freeman_: "A Discourse on Woman," to be
          delivered by Lucretia Mott, at the Assembly Buildings,
          December 17, 1849.

          Lectures by Elizabeth Oakes Smith, April 6, 8, and 10, 1853,
          on "Manhood," "Womanhood," "Humanity."

          _North American and United States Gazette_: Lucretia Mott
          will deliver a lecture on the "Medical Education of Woman,"
          February 2, 1853.

          Horace Mann will lecture on "Woman," February 3, 1853.

          _Philadelphia Public Ledger_, January 20, 1854: Lucy Stone
          will deliver a lecture on "Woman's Rights," at Musical Fund
          Hall, Saturday evening, January 21.

          April 12, 1854: Mrs. Ernestine L. Rose will lecture on
          Thursday evening, April 13, at Spring Garden Institute, on
          "The Education and Influence of Woman"; and on Friday
          evening, April 14th, at Sansom Street Hall, on "The Legal
          Disabilities of Woman." Tickets, 25 cents.


WOMAN'S MEDICAL COLLEGE OF PENNSYLVANIA.

In September, 1850, in a rented building, No. 229 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, the College began its first session with six pupils;
others were added before the class graduated, so that it then numbered
eight:--Hannah E. Longshore, Ann Preston, Phebe W. May, Susanna H.
Ellis, Anna M. Longshore, Pennsylvania; Martha M. Laurin,
Massachusetts; Angonette A. Hunt, New York; Frances G. Mitchell,
England. Since its foundation, the "Woman's Medical College of
Pennsylvania" has prospered, and on its lists of graduates we see,
among other familiar names, those of Dr. Laura Ross Wolcott (1856),
Dr. Mary J. Scarlett Dixon (1857), and Dr. Emeline H. Cleveland
(1855).

Chief among those interested in placing the medical education of woman
on a sound foundation was Ann Preston. The "Woman's Medical College
of Pennsylvania" was the first ever chartered for this purpose, and
Dr. Preston early became identified with its interests. She was one of
its first students, and a graduate at its first commencement. After
the didactic teaching of the regular college course was well
established, each year showed to her more clearly the necessity for
clinical and hospital instruction, since its students were denied such
advantages in other places; and to Dr. Preston's thorough appreciation
of this need may be traced the very origin of the Woman's Hospital in
Philadelphia. Speaking of her efforts in this direction, she says: "I
went to every one who I thought would give me either money or
influence." She was liberally assisted by many noble and true-hearted
men and women, and at last raised sufficient funds, obtained the
charter, found competent men and women willing to serve as Managers,
and skillful physicians who would act on a Consulting Board; and, when
the Hospital was opened, was herself appointed one of the Managers,
Corresponding Secretary, and Consulting Physician--offices which she
held till her death, April 18, 1872.

At the same time, she was serving with equal fidelity and ability the
College whose advancement had so long been one of the chief interests
of her life. For nineteen years she had been one of its Professors,
for six years Dean of the Faculty, and for four years a member of its
Board of Corporators. She lived long enough to see the fruits of her
labors, and to foresee to some extent the position which both College
and Hospital would hold in the medical world. And when, after her
death, her will was published, the friends of the College and Hospital
found that both institutions had been remembered by endowments.

Almost contemporary in length of days with the Medical College is
another useful institution, The Philadelphia School of Design for
Women, which began its corporate existence the first Monday of
November, 1853. There had previously been a class for women in
connection with the Franklin Institute, and this school was its
further development. It was mainly supported by contributions, the
scholars' fees paying merely for the coal, gas, and other necessaries
of the house. The management of the institution was vested in a Board
of twelve Directors, elected annually, and a Board of twelve Lady
Managers, elected by the Board of Directors at the first stated
meeting after the election; these ladies disburse the money received
at the school, and also that appropriated monthly by the Directors. It
is noticeable in the first report of the School of Design for Women,
that men held the leading positions and received the highest salaries,
but that has since been changed.

That there was no organized action in this State, no woman suffrage
association formed, until after the war, was undoubtedly due to the
fact that the same women were prominent in both the anti-slavery and
woman's rights movements. And as Pennsylvania bordered on three slave
States, the escape of fugitives and their innumerable trials in the
courts, just as the whole system was on the eve of dissolution,
compelled the Philadelphia friends to incessant vigilance in the care
and concealment of the unhappy victims. Thus their hands and thoughts
were wholly occupied until the first gun at Sumter proclaimed freedom
in the United States.

For collecting many of the facts contained in this chapter we are
indebted to Julia and Rachel Foster, daughters of Heron Foster, who
founded _The Pittsburgh Dispatch_. What an inspiring vision it would
have been to the earnest women sitting in that Convention in 1854,
could they in imagination have stretched forward to the bright winter
days of 1881, and seen these two young girls tastefully attired,
enthusiastic in the cause of woman's suffrage, tripping through the
streets of Philadelphia, paper and pencil in hand, intent on some
important errand, now here, now there, climbing up long flights of
stairs into the offices of the various journals, to find out from the
records what Lucretia Mott, Frances Dana Gage, and Ernestine L. Rose
had said over a quarter of a century before, about the rights and
wrongs of women. Turning over the dusty journals hour after hour as
they copied page by page, it would have been a pleasing study to watch
their earnest faces, now sad, now pleased, reflecting with every
changing sentiment they read the feelings of their souls, just as
their diamonds paled and glowed in the changing light.

Could the satisfaction of these girls in reading Garrison's stern
logic, Mrs. Mott's repartee and earnest appeal, and all the arguments
by which their opponents had been fairly vanquished; could the
new-born dignity they realized in the conscious possession of rights
and liberties once unknown, confident that full equality could not be
long deferred; could all this have been pre-visioned by the actors in
those scenes, they would have felt themselves fully compensated for
the persecution and ridicule they had endured. And thus the great work
of life goes on; the toils of one generation are the joys of the next.
We have reaped what other hands have planted; let us then in turn sow
bountifully for those who shall follow us, that our children may enter
into a broader inheritance than any legal parchment can bequeath.


ANGELINA GRIMKE.

_Reminiscences by E. C. S._

My first introduction to Mrs. Weld was two years after her marriage,
when she and her husband had retired from the stormy scenes of the
anti-slavery conflict, and in their own home found a harbor of rest,
for quiet though useful occupation. In company with my husband and
Charles Stuart, a Scotch Abolitionist, we took one of those long
closely-covered stages peculiar to New Jersey, for a twelve miles
drive to Belleville, where at the door of an old Dutch-built stone
house, Theodore Weld and the famous daughters of South Carolina gave
us a welcome. There was nothing attractive at first sight in those
plain, frail women, except their rich voices, fluent language, and
Angelina's fine dark eyes. The house with its wide hall, spacious
apartments, deep windows, and small panes of glass was severely
destitute of all tasteful, womanly touches, and though neat and
orderly, had a cheerless atmosphere. Neither was there one touch of
the artistic in the arrangement of the ladies' hair and dresses. They
were just then in the Graham dispensation, and the peculiar table
arrangements, with no tray to mark the charmed circle whence the usual
beverages were dispensed, the cold dishes without a whiff of heat, or
steam, gave one a feeling of strangeness; all those delightful
associations gathering round a covered dish and hot beefsteak, the
tea-pot and china cups and saucers, were missing. A cool evening in
the month of May, after a long drive had left us in a condition
peculiarly susceptible to the attractions of something hot and
stimulating; but they came not. There was no catering in this
household to the weaknesses of those who were not yet weaned from the
flesh-pots of Egypt. The sharp edge of our appetite somewhat dulled
with the simple fare, we were thrown on our own resources, and
memories of tea and coffee for stimulus.

After our repast, the high discourse was slightly interrupted by the
appearance of the infant, Charles Stuart Weld, and his formal
presentation to the distinguished gentleman after whom he was named.
And when Mr. Weld told us how near the boy, in the initiative steps of
his existence, came to being sacrificed to a theory, the old stone
walls rang with bursts of laughter.[74] But the chilling environments
of these noble people were modified by the sincere hospitality with
which we were received. My husband and Mr. Weld had been classmates in
Lane Seminary, and were among the students who left that institution
when the discussion of the slavery question was forbidden by the
President, Dr. Lyman Beecher. They talked with zest of those early
days until a late hour. As Charles Stuart and the two sisters were
also good conversationalists, I listened with pleasure and profit, and
during the three days under that roof obtained much general knowledge
of anti-slavery and church history; volumes of information were
condensed in those familiar talks, of lasting benefit to me, who then
knew so little of reforms.

How changed was the atmosphere of that home to me next day. True,
there were still no pictures on the walls, but the beautiful boy in
his bath, the sunlight on his golden hair, with some new grace or
trick each day, surpassed what any brush could trace. No statues
graced the corners; but the well-built Northern hero of many slavery
battles, bound with the silken cords of love and friendship to those
brave women from the South, together sacrificing wealth and fame and
ease for a great principle, formed a group worthy the genius of a
Rogers to portray.

It has been my good fortune to meet these noble friends occasionally
in the course of our busy lives, sometimes under their roof, sometimes
under mine, and as, day by day, the nobility, the transparency, the
unselfishness of their characters have grown upon me, the memories of
the old stone house and its care-worn inmates, have stood transfigured
before me, with almost a celestial radiance. In grouping the main
facts of this eventful life, and analyzing the impelling motives that
made Angelina Grimke the heroic woman she was, I can not serve her
memory better than in giving the beautiful tributes of loving friends
at the close of her life.

Angelina, the youngest daughter of Judge Grimke, of the Supreme Court
of South Carolina, was born in Charleston, S. C., February 20, 1805.
From her earliest years, her sympathies were with the cruelly treated
race around her; and when a child, she had her little bottle of oil,
and other simple medicaments, with which in the darkness she would
steal out of the house to some wretched creature who had been
terribly whipped, and do what she could to assuage his sufferings. At
the age of fourteen, she was asked by the rector of the Episcopal
church to which her family belonged, to be confirmed--a form, she was
told, which all her companions went through as a matter of course. But
she insisted on knowing the meaning of this form, and, on reading it
in the Prayer-Book, she said she could not promise what was there
required. "But it is only a form," she was told. "If with my feelings
and views as they now are, I should go through that form, it would be
a lie. I can not do it." This single-hearted truthfulness, without
regard to personal consequences to herself, was the key to all her
conduct.

Some years afterward, under the influence of an eloquent Presbyterian
preacher, her religious sensibilities were awakened. Her eyes were
opened to a new world. Through deeper and more vital spiritual
experiences, she entered into a new life, which took entire possession
of all her faculties. She joined the Presbyterian church, and carried
into it the fervor and strength of a regenerated nature. She became a
teacher in its Sunday-school, and after a lapse of fifty years, there
came a letter from one of her first Sunday-school scholars, living in
Georgia, to express thanks for the benefits which her instructions had
been to her. Angelina soon endeavored to impress upon the officers of
the church a sense of what they should do for the slaves, but her
pleadings for them found no response. "Could it then," said she, "be a
Church of Christ?"

There was in Charleston at that time a Friends' Meeting-house, where
there were only two worshipers, and they agreed with her in regard to
slavery. For a year she worshiped there in silence. No word was
spoken. The two aged men, and this young, accomplished, attractive
woman, sat there under a canopy of divine silence, sanctified and
blessed to her. At length she felt that her mission there was ended.
Her elder sister, Sarah, had united with the Friends in Philadelphia;
and she joined her in 1830, giving up in agony of heart all the dear
ties that bound her to her home. But even in the Friends'
Meeting-house, her eye was quick to see <DW64> seats where women of the
despised race were still publicly humiliated. She and her sister
seated themselves with them. The Friends were grieved by their
conduct, and called them to account. The sisters replied: "While you
put this badge of degradation on our sisters, we feel that it is our
duty to share it with them."

In 1883, they attached themselves to the American Anti-Slavery
Society, and lent their powerful aid to the work which it was doing.
There was no more effective or eloquent speaker in the cause than
Angelina Grimke. She had not thought at first of speaking in public;
but wherever she was, among friends and neighbors, she sought relief
to her burdened spirit by testifying to the cruel and fatal influences
of slavery. A few women at first came together to meet her and her
sister Sarah. The numbers and the interest increased till she became
widely known. She and her sister talked to them about slavery in their
own parlors. Soon no parlors could hold the throngs that gathered to
hear her. The small vestry of a church was given to her, then a large
vestry. But this was too small, and the body of the church was opened
to the crowd which had been attracted by her. There, on a platform
beneath the pulpit, for the first time she stood and spoke at what
might be called a public meeting, though she spoke only to women. In
the spring of 1837, the sisters went through a similar experience in
Boston, speaking to women only. She went to Lynn to address the women,
and there men crowded in with their wives and daughters. That was the
beginning of women's speaking to promiscuous assemblies in
Massachusetts.

"Hers was the eloquence of a broken heart. As she gave way to the deep
yearnings of affection for the mother that bore her, still a
slaveholder, for her brothers and sisters, a large family circle, and
for all who had been most closely bound to her by ties of kindred and
neighborhood, she must have felt the desolation of a soul disappointed
and broken in its dearest earthly hopes and love. All the sweet and
tender affections which intertwine themselves so inseparably with the
thought of home had been turned into instruments of torture. As she
thought of her native city, and spoke out her feelings toward it, her
language might well remind one of the lamentations of the ancient
prophets, 'O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and
stonest them that are sent unto thee!' But this broken heart had a
higher life and a mightier voice than can be given or taken away by
any earthly affection. While therefore she often spoke with a pathos
which melted and subdued those who listened to her, she also rose into
a loftier strain, and spoke with the mingled love and sternness of a
messenger from God."

Passages like the following may give some idea of the solemnity and
power with which she, who had left all and taken up her cross in
defence of a poor and friendless race, could appeal to assembled
multitudes:

     The sufferings of the slaves are not only innumerable, but they
     are indescribable. I may paint the agony of kindred torn from
     each other's arms, to meet no more in time; I may depict the
     inflictions of the blood-stained lash; but I can not describe
     the daily, hourly, ceaseless torture, endured by the heart that
     is constantly trampled under the foot of arbitrary power. This is
     a part of the horrors of slavery which, I believe, no one has
     ever attempted to delineate. I wonder not at it; it mocks all
     power of language. Who can describe the anguish of that mind
     which feels itself impaled upon the iron of arbitrary power--its
     living, writhing, helpless victim! every human susceptibility
     tortured, its sympathies torn, and stung, and bleeding--always
     feeling the death weapon in its heart, and yet not so deep as to
     kill that humanity which is made the curse of its existence?

     No one who has not been an integral part of a slaveholding
     community can have any idea of its abominations. It is a whited
     sepulchre, full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. Blessed
     be God, the angel of truth has descended, and rolled away the
     stone from the mouth of the sepulchre, and sits upon it. The
     abominations so long hidden are now brought forth before all
     Israel and the sun. Yes, the angel of truth sits upon this stone,
     and it can never be rolled back again.

     There is a spirit abroad in this country which will not consent
     to barter principle for an unholy peace--a spirit which will not
     hide God's eternal principles of right and wrong, but will stand
     erect in the storm of human passion, prejudice, and interest,
     holding forth the light of truth in the midst of a crooked and
     perverse generation; a spirit which will never slumber nor sleep
     till man ceases to hold dominion over his fellow-creatures, and
     the trump of universal liberty rings in every forest, and is
     re-echoed by every mountain and rock.

"She who spoke in tones like these never lost one of her purely
feminine qualities. Graceful, gentle, retiring, taking upon herself
the lowliest duties as if she had been born to them, this woman, who
stood up that her light might shine on all, and reveal to them the
terrible atrocities of slavery, was like Jeremy Taylor's taper, which
cast ever a modest shadow round itself. She had a very lofty idea of
what a woman should be. 'Whatever it is morally right for a man to do,
it is morally right for a woman to do. I recognize no rights but human
rights. I know nothing of men's rights and women's rights; for in
Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female.' 'Sure I am that woman
is not to be, as she has been, a mere "second-hand agent" in the
regeneration of a fallen world, but the acknowledged equal and
co-worker with man in this glorious work.... Just in proportion as her
moral and intellectual capacities become enlarged, she will rise
higher and higher in the scroll of creation, until she reaches that
elevation prepared for her by her Maker, and upon whose summit she was
originally stationed, only 'a little lower than the angels.'"

In the darkest hours of that fearful conflict with slavery in which
she was engaged, when its advocates were everywhere met with
violence, and threatened with death, she wrote to William Lloyd
Garrison as follows:

     I can hardly express to thee the deep and solemn interest with
     which I have viewed the violent proceedings of the last few
     weeks. Although I expected opposition, yet I was not prepared for
     it so soon; it took me by surprise, and I greatly feared the
     Abolitionists would be driven back in the first onset and thrown
     into confusion. I was afraid of even opening one of thy papers
     lest I should see some indications of a compromise, some
     surrender, some palliation. But I read thy appeal to the citizens
     of Boston, and found my fears were utterly groundless, and that
     thou stoodest firm in the midst of the storm, determined to
     suffer and to die rather than yield one inch!

     Religious persecution always begins with mobs; it is always
     unprecedented in any age or country in which it commences, and
     therefore there are no laws by which reformers can be punished;
     consequently, a lawless band of unprincipled men determine to
     take the matter into their hands, and act out in mobs what they
     know are the principles of a large majority of those who are too
     high in Church and State to condescend to mingle with them,
     though they secretly approve and rejoice over their violent
     measures. The first martyr who ever died was stoned by a lawless
     mob; and, if we look at the rise of various sects--Methodists,
     Friends, etc.--we shall find that mobs began the persecution
     against them; and it was not until after the people had thus
     spoken out their wishes that laws were framed to fine, imprison,
     or destroy them. Let us, then, be prepared for the enactment of
     laws, even in our free States, against Abolitionists. And how
     ardently has the prayer been breathed that God would fit us for
     all He is preparing for us!

     My mind has been especially turned toward those who are standing
     in the fore-front of the battle; and the prayer has gone up for
     their preservation, not the preservation of their lives, but the
     preservation of their minds in humility and patience, faith,
     hope, and charity, that charity which is the bond of perfectness.
     If persecution is the means which God has ordained for the
     accomplishment of this great end--emancipation--then, in
     dependence upon Him for strength to bear it, I feel as if I could
     say, let it come; for it is my deep, solemn conviction that this
     is a cause worth dying for. At one time, I thought this system
     would be overthrown in blood, with the confused noise of the
     warrior; but a hope gleams across my mind that our blood will be
     spilt instead of the slaveholders'; that our lives will be taken,
     and theirs spared. I say a hope; for of all things I desire to be
     spared the anguish of seeing our beloved country desolated with
     the horrors of a servile war.

"These words were written by one who was standing not apart in a place
of safety, but in the foremost post of danger, and who knew that she
was as likely as any one to share in the martyrdom which she foresaw.
The spirit which dictated these sentences went through her whole life
as its ruling influence.

"There is the courage of the mariner who buffets the angry waves.
There is the courage of the warrior who marches up to the cannon's
mouth, coolly pressing forward amidst engines of destruction on every
side. But hers was a courage greater than theirs. She not only faced
death at the hands of stealthy assassins and howling mobs in her
loyalty to truth, duty, and humanity, but she encountered
unflinchingly the awful frowns of the mighty consecrated leaders of
society, the scoffs and sneers of the multitude, the outstretched
finger of scorn, and the whispered mockery of pity, standing up for
the lowest of the low. Nurtured in the very bosom of slavery, by her
own observation and thought, of one thing she became certain, that it
was a false, cruel, accursed relation between human beings. And to
this conviction, from the very budding of her womanhood, she was
true."

"Well do I remember," said one, "when, after the American Anti-Slavery
Society, founded in 1838, had battled for a year or two with the
combined forces of the mob, the press, and the commercial, political,
and ecclesiastical authorities, and it was said in the highest
quarters that we had only exasperated the slaveholders, and made all
the North sympathize with them, when the storm of public indignation,
gathering over the whole heavens, was black upon us, and we were
comparatively only a handful, there appeared in the _Anti-Slavery_
office in New York this mild, modest, soft-speaking woman, then in the
prime of her beauty, delicate as the lily-of-the-valley. She placed in
my hands a roll of manuscript, beautifully written. It was her 'Appeal
to the Christian Women of the South.' It was like a patch of blue sky
breaking through that storm cloud." The manuscript was passed round
among the members of our Executive Committee, and read with wet eyes.
The Society printed it in a pamphlet of thirty-six pages, and
circulated it widely. It made its author a forced exile from her
native State, but it touched hearts that had been proof against
everything else. I remember that the Quarterly Anti-Slavery Magazine
for October, 1836, said of it something to this effect:

     This eloquent pamphlet is from the pen of a sister of the late
     Thomas S. Grimke, of Charleston, S. C. We need hardly say more of
     it than that it is written with that peculiar felicity and
     unction which characterized the works of her lamented brother.
     Among anti-slavery writings there are two classes, one specially
     adapted to make new converts, the other to strengthen the old. We
     can not exclude Miss Grimke's Appeal from either class. It
     belongs pre-eminently to the former. The converts that will be
     made by it, we have no doubt, will be not only numerous, but
     thorough-going.

"Many of us remember," said another, "with what awakening power such
God-inspired souls have roused us from the apathy of our lives. Some
great wrong, like slavery, over which the world had slept for ages,
becomes thus revealed to the clearer vision. Slavery, war,
intemperance, licentiousness, injustice to woman, have thus one after
another been brought to the light, as violations of God's eternal
laws. The soul of Angelina Grimke, and that of her sister Sarah, were
in vital sympathy with all attempts to reform these great wrongs; but
the one which then had pre-eminence above all was human slavery. All
of us who are advanced in years can recall with what almost
overwhelming effect the appeals of our beloved and lamented Garrison
first came to our minds. The conscience of the community was
slumbering over this sin: his utterances stung it to frenzy. In the
midst of it, and in the heartiest response to his appeals, came the
gentle, calm voices of Sarah and Angelina Grimke, enforcing those
appeals by facts of their own observation and experience. I have said
that their nature was full of tenderness and compassion; but, in
addition to this, Angelina, especially, possessed a rare gift of
eloquence, a calm power of persuasion, a magnetic influence over those
that listened to her, which carried conviction to hearts that nothing
before had reached." "I shall never forget the wonderful manifestation
of this power during six successive evenings in what was then called
the Odeon, at the corner of Franklin and Federal Streets. It was the
old Boston Theater, which had been converted into a music hall, the
four galleries rising above the auditorium all crowded with a silent
audience, carried away with the calm, simple eloquence which narrated
what she and her sister had seen from their earliest days. And yet
this Odeon scene, the audience so quiet and intensely absorbed,
occurred at the most enflamed period of the anti-slavery contest. The
effective agent in this phenomenon was Angelina's serene, commanding
eloquence, a wonderful gift, which enchained attention, disarmed
prejudice, and carried her hearers with her."

WENDELL PHILLIPS said:

Friends, this life carries us back to the first chapter of that great
movement with which the name of Angelina Grimke is associated--when
our cities roared with riot, when William Lloyd Garrison was dragged
through the streets, when Dresser was mobbed in Nashville, and
Mackintosh burned in St. Louis. At that time, the hatred toward
Abolitionists was so bitter and merciless that the friends of Lovejoy
left his grave a long time unmarked; and at last ventured to put, with
his name, on his tombstone, only this piteous entreaty: _Jam parce
sepulto_, "Spare him now in his grave." We were but a handful then,
and our words beat against the stony public as powerless as if against
the north wind. We got no sympathy from most Northern men: their
consciences were seared as with a hot iron. At this time, a young girl
came from the proudest State in the slave-holding section. She come to
lay on the altar of this despised cause, this seemingly hopeless
crusade, both family and friends, the best social position, a high
place in the church, genius, and many gifts. No man at this day can
know the gratitude we felt for this help from such an unexpected
source. After this came James G. Birney from the South, and many able
and influential men and women joined us. At last John Brown laid his
life, the crowning sacrifice, on the altar of the cause. But no man
who remembers 1837 and its lowering clouds will deny that there was
hardly any contribution to the anti-slavery movement greater or more
impressive than the crusade of these Grimke sisters from South
Carolina through the New England States.

Gifted with rare eloquence, she swept the chords of the human heart
with a power that has never been surpassed, and rarely equaled. I well
remember, evening after evening, listening to eloquence such as never
then had been heard from a woman. Her own hard experience, the long,
lonely, intellectual and moral struggle from which she came out
conqueror, had ripened her power, and her wondrous faculty of laying
bare her own heart to reach the hearts of others, shone forth till she
carried us all captive. She was the first woman to whom the halls of
the Massachusetts Legislature were opened. My friend, James C. Alvord,
was the courageous chairman who broke that door open for the
anti-slavery women. It gave Miss Grimke the opportunity to speak to
the best culture and character of Massachusetts; and the profound
impression then made on a class not often in our meetings was never
wholly lost. It was not only the testimony of one most competent to
speak, but it was the profound religious experience of one who had
broken out of the charmed circle, and whose intense earnestness melted
all opposition. The converts she made needed no after-training. It was
when you saw she was opening some secret record of her own experience,
that the painful silence and breathless interest told the deep effect
and lasting impression her words were making on minds, that afterward
never rested in their work.

In 1840, '41, this anti-slavery movement was broken in halves by the
woman question. The people believed in the silence of women. But, when
the Grimkes went through New England, such was the overpowering
influence with which they swept the churches that men did not
remember this dogma till after they had gone. When they left, and the
spell weakened, some woke to the idea that it was wrong for a woman to
speak to a public assembly. The wakening of old prejudice to its
combat with new convictions was a fearful storm. But she bore it, when
it broke at last, with the intrepidity with which she surmounted every
obstacle. By the instinctive keenness of her conscience, she only
needed to see truth to recognize it, as the flower turns to the sun.
God had touched that soul so that it needed no special circumstance,
no word of warning or instruction from those about her; for she was
ever self-poised.

When I think of her, there comes to me the picture of the spotless
dove in the tempest, as she battles with the storm, seeking for some
place to rest her foot. She reminds me of innocence personified in
Spencer's poem. In her girlhood, alone, heart-led, she comforts the
slave in his quarters; mentally struggling with the problems his
position wakes her to. Alone, not confused, but seeking something to
lean on, she grasps the Church, which proves a broken reed. No whit
disheartened, she turns from one sect to another, trying each by the
infallible touchstone of that clear, childlike conscience. The two old
lonely Quakers in their innocence rest her foot awhile. But the eager
soul must work, not rest in testimony. Coming North, at last, she
makes her own religion,--one of sacrifice and toil. Breaking away
from, rising above all forms, the dove floats at last in the blue sky
where no clouds reach.

And thus exiled from her native city, she goes forth with her sister
to seek the spot where she can most effectually strike at the
institution. Were I to single out the moral and intellectual trait
which most won me, it was her serene indifference to the judgment of
those about her. Self-poised, she seemed morally sufficient to
herself. Her instincts were all so clear and right she could trust
their lesson. But a clear, wide, patient submission to all suggestion
and influence preceded opinion, and her public addresses were
remarkable for the fullness and clearness of the arguments they urged.
She herself felt truths, but patiently argued them to others.

The testimony she gave touching slavery was, as she termed it, "the
wail of a broken-hearted child." It was known to a few that the
pictures she drew were of her own fireside. That loving heart! how
stern a sense of duty must have wrung it before she was willing to
open that record! But with sublime fidelity, with entire
self-sacrifice, she gave all she could to the great argument that was
to wake a nation to duty. Listen to the fearful indictment she records
against the system. And this was not slavery in its most brutal,
repulsive form. It was slavery hid in luxury, when refinement seemed
to temper some of its worst elements. But, with keen sense of right,
even a child of a dozen years saw through the veil, saw the system in
its inherent vileness, saw the real curse of slavery in the hardened
heart of the slave-holder.

A few years of active life, extensive and most influential labor, many
sheaves and a rich harvest, God's blessing on her service, then
illness barring her from the platform. How serenely she took up the
cross! So specially endowed; men bowing low so readily to the power
and magic of her words; she could not but have seen the grand
possibilities that were opening before her. How peacefully she
accepted the bond, and set herself to training others for the work
against which her own door was shut! East, West, North, and South,
come up to give testimony that these later years bore ample fruit. How
many souls have cause to thank that enforced silence! I have listened
to such testimonies, spoken sometimes in tears, on the shores of the
Great Lakes and beyond the Mississippi."

From the following facts and anecdotes told by her husband, we see
that Angelina united with the highest moral heroism, the physical
courage and coolness in the hour of danger that but few men can boast.
Theodore D. Weld, in his published sketch, says:

     Though high physical courage is also fairly inferrable from her
     anti-slavery career, yet only those most with her in life's
     practical affairs can appreciate her self-poise in danger. Peril
     was to her a sedative; it calmed and girded her, bringing out
     every resource, and making self-command absolute. She knew
     nothing of that flutter which confuses. Great danger instantly
     brought thought and feeling to a focus, and held them there.
     Several perilous emergencies in her life are vividly
     recalled--such as being overturned while in a carriage with a
     child in her arms, the horse meanwhile floundering amid the
     _debris_, a shaft broken, and dash-board kicked into splinters.
     At another time, shots at the road-side set off the horses in a
     run. Seeing her husband, in his struggle to rein them in, jerked
     up from his seat and held thus braced and half-standing, she
     caught him round the waist, adding her weight to his, and thus
     enabled him to pull the harder, till the steady, silent tug upon
     the reins tamed down the steeds. Her residence at Belleville, N.
     J., had no near neighbors, stood back from the road, and was
     nearly hidden by trees and shrubbery. The old stone structure,
     dating back to 1700, was known as the "haunted house." Being very
     large, with barn, sheds, and several out-houses, it was specially
     attractive to stragglers and burglars. Stories had been long
     afloat of outrages perpetrated there, among which was a murder a
     century before, with a burglary and robbery more recent. We had
     not been long there, when one night Angelina, waked by suspicious
     noises, listened, till certain that a burglar must be in the
     house. Then, stealing softly from the room, she struck a light,
     and explored from cellar to attic, looking into closets, behind
     doors, and under beds. For a slight, weak woman, hardly able to
     lift an empty tea-kettle, thus to dare, shows, whether we call it
     courage or presumption, at least the absence of all fear. None
     of the family knew of this fact, until an accident long after
     revealed it.

     Some years after this, when visiting in a friend's family in the
     absence of the parents, she often took the children to ride. Upon
     returning one day, she said to the cook, "Maggie, jump in, and
     I'll give you a ride." So away they went. Soon a by-road struck
     off from the main one. Turning in to explore it, she found that
     it ran a long way parallel to the railroad. Suddenly Maggie
     screamed: "O missus! I forgot. This is just the time for the
     express, and this is the horse that's awful afraid of the cars,
     and nobody can hold him. Oh, dear, dear!" Seeing Maggie's fright,
     she instantly turned back, saying, "Now, Maggie, if the train
     should come before we get back to the turn, do just what I tell
     you, and I'll bring you out safe." "Oh, yes, missus! I will! I
     will!" "Mark, now. Don't scream; don't touch the reins; don't
     jump out; 'twill kill you dead if you do. Listen, and, as soon as
     you hear the cars coming, drop down on the bottom of the wagon.
     Don't look out; keep your eyes and mouth shut tight. I'll take
     care of you." Down flat dropped Maggie on the bottom, without
     waiting to hear the train. Soon the steam-whistle screamed in
     front, instead of rear, as expected! Short about she turned the
     horse, and away he sprang, the express thundering in the rear.
     For a mile the road was a straight, dead level, and right along
     the track. At utmost speed the frantic animal strained on. On
     plunged the train behind. Neither gained nor lost. No sound came
     but the rushing of steed and train. It was a race for life, and
     the blood horse won. Then, as the road turned from the track up a
     long <DW72>, the train shot by, taming the horse's fright; but, as
     his blood was up, she kept him hard pushed to the crest of the
     <DW72>, then slacked his pace, and headed him homeward. Faithful
     Maggie stuck fast to her promise and to the wagon-bottom, until
     told, "It's all over," when she broke silence with her
     wonderments. When she got home the kitchen rang with
     exclamations. That race was long her standing topic, she always
     insisting that she wasn't scared a bit, not she, because she
     "knew the missus wasn't."

     While living in New Jersey, word came that a <DW52> man and his
     wife, who had just come to the township, were lying sick of
     malignant small-pox, and that none of their neighbors dared go to
     them. She immediately sought them out, and found them in a
     deplorable plight, neither able to do anything for the other, and
     at once became to them eyes, hands, feet, nurse, care-taker and
     servant in all needed offices; and thus, relieved in nursing and
     watching by a friend, her patients were able, after three days,
     to minister in part to each other. Meanwhile, no neighbor
     approached them.

     Some striking traits were scarcely known, except by her special
     intimates; and they were never many. Her fidelity in friendship
     was imperishable. Friends might break with her; she never broke
     with them, whatever the wrong they had done her. She never stood
     upon dignity, nor exacted apology, nor resented an unkindness,
     though keenly feeling it; and, if falsely accused, answered
     nothing. She never spoke disparagingly of others, unless clearest
     duty exacted it. Gossips, tattlers, and backbiters were her
     trinity of horrors. Her absolute truthfulness was shown in the
     smallest things. With a severe sincerity, it was applied to all
     those customs looked upon as mere forms involving no
     principle--customs exacting the utterance of what is not meant,
     of wishes unfelt, sheer deceptions. She never invited a visit or
     call not desired. If she said, "Stay longer," the words voiced a
     wish felt. She could not be brought under bondage to any usage or
     custom, any party watch-word, or shibboleth of a speculative
     creed, or any mode of dress or address. In Charleston, she was
     exact in her Quaker costume, because, to the last punctilio, it
     was an anti-slavery document; and for that she would gladly make
     any sacrifice of personal comfort. But, among the "Friends" in
     Philadelphia, she would not wear an article of dress which caused
     her physical inconvenience, though it might be dictated by the
     universal usage of "Friends." Upon first exchanging the warmth of
     a Carolina winter for the zero of a Northern one, she found the
     "regulation" bonnet of the "Friends" a very slight protection
     from the cold. So she ordered one made of fur, large enough to
     protect both head and face. For this departure from usage, she
     was admonished, "It was a grief to 'Friends,'" "It looked like
     pride and self-will," "It was an evil example," etc. While
     adhering strictly to the principles of "Friends," neither she nor
     her sister Sarah could conform to all their distinctive usages,
     nor accept all their rules. Consequently, their examples were
     regarded as quiet protests against some of the settled customs of
     the Society. Such they felt bound to make them in word and act.
     Thus they protested against the <DW64>-seat in their
     meeting-house, by making it their seat. They also felt
     constrained to testify against a rule requiring that no Friend
     should publish a book without the sanction of the "Meeting for
     Sufferings"; so, also, the rule that any one who should marry out
     of the Society should, unless penitent, be disowned.
     Consequently, when Angelina thus married, she was disowned, as
     was Sarah for sanctioning the marriage by her presence. The
     committee who "dealt" with them for those violations of the rule,
     said that if they would "express regret," they would relieve the
     meeting from the painful necessity of disowning them. The sisters
     replied that, feeling no regret, they could express none; adding
     that, as they had always openly declared their disapproval of the
     rule, they could neither regret their violation of it, nor
     neglect so fit an occasion for thus emphasizing their convictions
     by their acts; adding that they honored the "Friends" all the
     more for that fidelity which constrained them to do, however
     painful, what they believed to be their duty.

     Angelina's "Appeal to the Christian Women of the South" "made her
     a forced exile from her native State." As she never voluntarily
     spoke of what she had done or suffered, few, if any, of the
     Abolitionists, either knew then, or know now, that she was really
     exiled by an Act of the Charleston city government. When her
     "Appeal" came out, a large number of copies were sent by mail to
     South Carolina. Most of them were publicly burned by postmasters.
     Not long after this, the city authorities learned that Miss
     Grimke was intending to visit her mother and sisters, and pass
     the winter with them. Thereupon the mayor of Charleston called
     upon Mrs. Grimke, and desired her to inform her daughter that the
     police had been instructed to prevent her landing while the
     steamer remained in port, and to see to it that she should not
     communicate, by letter or otherwise, with any persons in the
     city; and, further, that if she should elude their vigilance, and
     go on shore, she would be arrested and imprisoned, until the
     return of the steamer. Her Charleston friends at once conveyed to
     her the message of the mayor, and added that the people of
     Charleston were so incensed against her, that if she should go
     there, despite the mayor's threat of pains and penalties, she
     could not escape personal violence at the bands of the mob. She
     replied to the letter, that her going would doubtless compromise
     her family; not only distress them, but put them in peril, which
     she had neither heart nor right to do; but for that fact, she
     would certainly exercise her constitutional right as an American
     citizen, and go to Charleston to visit her relatives, and, if for
     that the authorities should inflict upon her pains and penalties,
     she would willingly bear them, assured that such an outrage would
     help to reveal to the free States the fact that slavery defies
     and tramples alike constitutions and laws, and thus outlaws
     itself.

     When the American Anti-Slavery Society wrote to Miss Grimke,
     inviting her to visit New York city, and hold meetings in private
     parlors with Christian women, on the subject of slavery, upon
     reading their letter, she handed it to her sister Sarah, saying,
     "I feel this to be God's call. I can not decline it." A long
     conversation followed, the details of which I received from Sarah
     not long after; and, as they present vividly the marked
     characteristics of both sisters, I give in substance such as I
     can recall.

     S.--But you know that you are constitutionally retiring,
     self-distrustful, easily embarrassed. You have a morbid shrinking
     from whatever would make you conspicuous.

     A.--Yes, you have drawn me to the life. I confess that I have all
     that, and yet at times I have nothing of it. I know that I am
     diffident about assuming responsibilities; but when I feel that
     anything is mine to do, no matter what, then I have no fear.

     S.--You are going among strangers, you wear strange garments,
     speak in a strange language, will be in circumstances wholly
     novel, and about a work that you never attempted, and most of
     those who will listen to you have prejudices against
     Abolitionists, and also against a woman's speaking to any
     audience. Now in all there embarrassing circumstances, and in
     your lack of self-confidence when you come to face an
     unsympathizing audience, does not it seem likely that you will
     find it impossible to speak to edification, and thus will be
     forced to give it up altogether?

     A.--Yes, it seems presumptuous for me to undertake it; but yet I
     can not refuse to do it. The conviction is a part of me. I can
     not absolve myself from it. The responsibility is thrust upon me.
     I can not thrust it off.

     S.--I know you will not and can not. My only desire is for you
     deliberately to look at all things just as they are, and give
     each its due weight. If, after that, your conviction is
     unchanged, with my whole heart I'll help you to carry it out.
     There is but one thing more that I think of. If you were to go
     upon this mission without the sanction of the "Meeting for
     Sufferings," it would be regarded as disorderly, a violation of
     the established usage of the Society, and they would probably
     feel compelled to disown you. [This was prior to the disownment
     that followed the marriage].

     A.--As my mind is made up absolutely to go, I can not ask their
     leave to go. For their fidelity to their views of duty, I honor
     them. It is a grief to me to grieve them, but I have no
     alternative. Very unpleasant it will be to be disowned, but
     misery to be self-disowned.

     S.--I have presented these considerations, that you might
     carefully traverse the whole question and count all the costs. I
     dare not say a word against your decision. I see that it is
     final, and that you can make no other. To me, it is sacred. While
     we have been talking, I, too, have made my decision. It is this:
     where you go, I will go; what you do, I will to my utmost help
     you in doing. We have always thought and wept and prayed
     together over this horrible wrong, and now we will go and work
     together. There will be a deal to be done in private also; that I
     can help you about, and thus you will have the more strength to
     give to the meetings.

     So Miss Grimke wrote at once to the committee, accepting their
     invitation, thanking them for the salary offered, but declining
     to receive any; informing them that her sister would accompany
     her, and that they should both go exclusively at their own
     expense.

In 1864, Mr. and Mrs. Weld removed to Hyde Park, where the sisters
spent the rest of their days. No one who met Angelina there would have
any suspicion of the great work which she had done: she was interested
in her household duties, and the little charities of the neighborhood.
Once, during the war, she was persuaded to go out of her daily
routine, and to attend a small meeting called for the purpose of
assisting the Southern people--freedmen, and those who had formerly
held them in slavery. Very simply and modestly, but very clearly and
impressively, she spoke of the condition of things at the South, of
her friends there, and how we could best help them--all in the most
loving and tender spirit, as if she had only grateful memories of what
they had been, and as if no thought of herself mingled with the
thought of them. The simplicity, directness, and practical good sense
of her speech then, its kindliness toward those who had done her the
greatest wrong, and the entire absence of self-consciousness, made
those who heard her feel that a woman might speak in public without
violating any of the proprieties or prejudices of social traditions
and customs. There was a refinement and dignity about her, an
atmosphere of gentleness and sweetness and strength, which won their
way to the heart. To those who knew her history, there was something
very affecting, sublime, in her absolute self-forgetfulness. As one
who knew her most intimately said, "She seems to have been born in
that mood of mind which made vanity or display impossible. She was the
only person I have ever known who was absolutely free from all
ambition."

Space prevents a fitting record of the noble words and deeds of Sarah
Moore Grimke. She published in 1838, a volume of "Letters on the
Equality of the Sexes," which called out much discussion on woman's
position in both State and Church. The last time Angelina spoke in
public was at the Loyal League Convention in New York in 1863. She
took an active part in the discussion of resolutions, speaking clearly
and concisely on every point, and read a beautiful address she had
prepared--"To the Soldiers of our Second Revolution." All through the
years that Angelina was illustrating woman's capacity on the platform
by holding her audiences spell-bound, Sarah was defending woman's
right to be there with her pen.


FOOTNOTES:

[59] Mrs. Ellet's "Women of the Revolution."

[60] Angelina E. Grimke.

[61] This building, the property of Jacob Peirce, was thus imperilled
with his free consent.

[62] The Assembly Buildings, opened to us by the kindness of the
lessee, Mr. John Toy.

[63] She was the positive power of so much anti-slavery work, that
James Russell Lowell spoke of her as "the coiled-up mainspring of the
movement."

[64] In speaking of her, Lydia Maria Child said in her obituary notice
in the _National Anti-Slavery Standard_ of May 11, 1867: "All
survivors of the old Abolition band will remember Thankful Southwick
as one of the very earliest, the noblest, and the most faithful of
that small army of moral combatants who fought so bravely and so
perseveringly for the deliverance of the down-trodden. Mrs. Southwick
was born and educated in the Society of Friends, and to their calmness
of demeanor she added their indomitable persistence in the path of
duty. One of the most exciting affairs that ever occurred in Boston
was known as the 'Baltimore Slave Case.' Two girls had escaped in a
Boston vessel, and when about to be carried back, were brought out on
a writ of 'habeas corpus.' All Boston was in a ferment for and against
the fugitives. The commercial world were determined that this Southern
property should be restored to the white claimants, and the
Abolitionists were determined that it should remain in the possession
of the original owners until a bill of sale from the Almighty could be
produced. By the vigilance and ingenious arrangements of 'Father
Snowden' and Thankful Southwick, at a given signal the slaves were
spirited away from the crowded court-room, and out of the city. The
agent of the slaveholders standing near Mrs. Southwick, and gazing
with astonishment at the empty space, where an instant before the
slaves stood, she turned her large gray eyes upon him and said, 'Thy
prey hath escaped thee.' Wherever working or thinking was to be done
for our righteous cause, there was Thankful Southwick ever ready with
wise counsel and energetic action. She and her excellent husband were
among the very first to sustain Garrison in his unequal contest with
the strong Goliath of slavery. At that time they were in affluent
circumstances, and their money was poured forth freely for the
unpopular cause which had as yet found no adherents among the rich.
Their commodious house was a caravansary for fugitive slaves, and for
anti-slavery pilgrims from all parts of the country. At the
anniversary meetings when most of the Abolitionists were desirous to
have for their guests, Friend Whittier, the Hon. James G. Birney,
George Thompson, Theodore, or Angelia Weld, Joseph and Thankful
Southwick were quietly looking about for such of the anti-slavery
brothers and sisters as were too little known to be likely to receive
invitations. Always kindly unpretending, clear-sighted to perceive the
right, and faithful in following it wherever it might lead. They were
upright in all their dealings with the world, tender and true in the
relations of private life and the memory they have left is a
benediction."

[65] On a recent visit at the home of Robert Purvis, of Philadelphia,
in talking over those eventful days one evening in company with Daniel
Neale, it was amusing and gratifying to hear those gentlemen dilate on
the grandeur of her bearing through those mobs in Pennsylvania Hall.
It seems on that occasion she had a beautiful crimson shawl thrown
gracefully over her shoulders. One of these gentlemen remarked, "I
kept my eye on that shawl, which could be seen now here, now there,
its wearer consulting with one, cheering another; and I made up my
mind that until that shawl disappeared, every man must stand by his
guns."

[66] Abby Kelly.

[67] Just previous to this Convention Horace Mann, President of
Antioch College, had been giving a lecture through the country, and
made many severe strictures on the false philosophy of the woman
suffrage movement, or rather what he supposed it to be. This was
considered the more damaging because Mr. Mann so strongly favored
co-education. It was as if one in our own camp had suddenly turned
traitor. Among other things he said that our legislative halls were
such bear gardens that they were not fit for women to enter. It is to
this remark reference is made in the debates.

[68] This letter will be found in "Reminiscences of Lucretia Mott," at
the close of this chapter.

[69] See Appendix.

[70] See Appendix.

[71] In accordance with this plan Matilda Joslyn Gage prepared a
story, entitled "The Household," treating different phases of woman's
wrongs, and presented it to the Committee. But as nothing was ever
done to carry out the proposition, the manuscript was returned to the
author, and slumbers in her garret with other rejected manuscripts.

[72] The first National Convention held in Washington was in January,
1869.

[73] Joseph C. Neal.

[74] It seems these inexperienced parents had armed themselves with
the most approved works on the construction and capacities of infants,
in one of which they found the statement that the stomach of a
new-born child could hold only one tablespoonful of milk. Accordingly
the boy was restricted to that amount, once an hour. Although he
protested against this limited supply by constant wailing, and
shrivelled from day to day into a miniature mummy, the system was
pursued, until at last "Sister Sarah," who had had suspicions for some
time that the child's capacity was underrated, thought she would
assume the responsibility of giving him for once all the milk he could
take. What he did do, so far outmeasured what the doctrinaire said he
could do, that the child was happily permitted ever after to decide
for himself. The faith of the trusting parents was thus visibly shaken
in one theory, and I am happy to add, in due time in many others,
regarding the Graham system of dietetics.




CHAPTER XI

LUCRETIA MOTT.


     Eulogy at the Memorial Services[75] held in Washington by the
     National Woman Suffrage Association, January 19, 1881. By
     Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

On the 3d of January, 1793, the little island of Nantucket, fifteen
miles by three and a half, lying far out into the sea on the coast of
Massachusetts, welcomed to its solitude a child destined to be one of
America's most famous women. This was a fitting birthplace for
Lucretia Mott; as the religion and commerce of the island (named for a
woman) had been guided by a woman's brain. In 1708 Mary Starbuck,
known as "The Great Merchant," a woman of remarkable breadth of
intellect, as well as great executive ability, converted the colony to
Quakerism, and vindicated woman's right to interest herself in the
commerce of the world. Perhaps she, like the good genii of old,
brought her gifts to that cradle and breathed into the new life the
lofty inspiration that made this woman the prophet and seer she was.
Here were the descendants of John Wolman, William Rotch, George Fox,
the Macys, the Franklins, the Folgers; and in this pure atmosphere,
and from these distinguished ancestors, Lucretia Mott received her
inheritance. Her father was an honest, sea-faring Quaker. Her mother
belonged to the Folger family, whose culture, genius, common-sense,
and thrift culminated in Benjamin Franklin, and later, in Lucretia
Mott. The resemblance between her head and that of the philosopher and
statesman, was apparent to the most casual observer.

Mrs. Mott says in her diary: "I always loved the good in childhood,
and desired to do the right. In those early years I was actively
useful to my mother, who, in the absence of my father on his long
voyages, was engaged in mercantile business, often going to Boston to
purchase goods in exchange for oil and candles, the staple of the
island. The exercise of women's talents in this line, as well as the
general care which devolved upon them, in the absence of their
husbands, tended to develop and strengthen them mentally and
physically.

"In 1804 my father's family removed to Boston, and in the public and
private schools of that city I mingled with all classes without
distinction. It was the custom then to send the children of such
families to select schools; but my parents feared that would minister
to a feeling of class pride, which they felt was sinful to cultivate
in their children. And this I am glad to remember, because it gave me
a feeling of sympathy for the patient and struggling poor, which but
for this experience I might never have known." Under such humane
influences, with such ancestors and associations, in the public
schools, in the Friends' meeting, on the adventurous island, and in
the suburbs of Boston, the child passed into girlhood, with lessons of
industry and self-denial well learned, and with her life all before.
She lived in a period when women of genius had vindicated their right
to be recognized in art, science, literature, and government, and
through many of the great events that have made the United States a
Nation. It was such a combination of influences that developed
Lucretia Mott into the exceptional woman she was.

In an unlucky hour her father endorsed for a friend, and to save his
honor, was compelled to lose his property. It was a blow from which he
did not recover, and henceforward much of the support of the family
devolved upon the mother, who had remarkable tact, energy, and
courage. Both parents were ambitious for their children, and did all
they could for their education; that was one thing about which all
Quakers were tenacious. In her fourteenth year Lucretia and her elder
sister were sent to "The Nine Partners," a Friends boarding-school in
Dutchess County, New York, and there pursuing her studies with patient
zeal, she remained two years without once going home for a holiday
vacation. At fifteen, a teacher having left, Lucretia was made an
assistant, and at the end of the second year, was tendered the place
of teacher, with the inducement beside, that her services would
entitle a younger sister to her education.

Her well-balanced character enabled her to meet with calmness, all
life's varied trials, of which she had her full share. As one of eight
children in her father's house, with his financial embarrassments, and
sudden death: and afterward with five children of her own, and her
husband's reverses; Lucretia's heroism and strength of mind were
fairly tested. In both of these financial emergencies, she opened a
school, and by her success as a teacher, bridged over the chasm.

In her eighteenth year, Lucretia Coffin and James Mott, according to
Quaker ceremony, became husband and wife, the result of an attachment
formed at boarding-school, which proved to be an exceptionally happy
union, and through their long wedded life, of over half a century,
they remained ever loyal to one another. James Mott, though a Quaker,
was in all personal qualities the very opposite of his wife. He had
the cool judgment, she the enkindling enthusiasm. He had the slow,
sure movement; she the quick, impulsive energy. He enjoyed nothing
more than silence; she nothing more than talking. The one was
completely the complement of the other. She possessed a delicate love
of fun, and was full of dry humor. Once during a visit from her
husband's brother, Richard Mott, of Toledo, Ohio, who like James was a
very silent man, she became suddenly aware of their absence and
started to look for them. Finding them seated on either side of a
large wood fire in the drawing-room, she said, "Oh, I thought you must
both be here it was so quiet."

In speaking of them, Robert Collyer says: "If James and Lucretia had
gone around the world in search of a mate, I think they would have
made the choice which heaven made for them. They had lived together
more than forty years when I first knew them. I thought then, as I
think now, that it was the most perfect wedded life to be found on
earth. They were both of a most beautiful presence. He, large, fair,
with kindly blue eyes, and regular features. She, slight, with dark
eyes and hair. Both, of the sunniest spirit; both, free to take their
own way, as such fine souls always are, and yet their lives were so
perfectly one that neither of them led or followed the other, so far
as one could observe, by the breadth of a line. He could speak well,
in a slow, wise way, when the spirit moved him, and the words were all
the choicer because they were so few. But his greatness, for he was a
great man, lay still in that fine, silent manhood, which would only
break into fluent speech as you sat with him by the bright wood fire
in winter, while the good wife went on with her knitting, putting it
swiftly down a score of times in an hour, to pound a vagrant spark
which had snapped on the carpet, or as we sat under the trees in the
summer twilight. Then James Mott would open his heart to those he
loved, and touch you with wonder at the depth and beauty of his
thoughts; or tell you stories of the city where when a young man he
lived, or of the choice humors of ancient Quakers, who went through
the world esteeming laughter vain, and yet set the whole world which
knew them laughing at their quaint ways and curious fancies."

In his young days, James Mott was a teacher; later on he engaged in
the cotton business, but abandoned it when it was becoming
remunerative, because of its connection with slave labor. He finally
took up the wool business, and retired with a competency some years
before his death, which enabled them to take a trip to Europe, and
afterward live the life of leisure they desired, indulging their
literary tastes. James Mott wrote a very creditable book of their
travels, and Lucretia carried enough observations of foreign life in
her head to fill folios.

Mrs. Mott was a housekeeper of the old school, in so far as everything
from garret to cellar passed under her supervision. She took the
entire care of her children, and although with remarkable economy
supplying the wants and guarding against the wastes of a large family,
she did not allow these necessary cares to absorb all her time and
thought, but cultivated the talents entrusted to her in broader
interests than family life. She felt she had duties in the Church and
the State as well as the home. The time most wives and mothers spend
in gaiety and embroidery, she spent in reading and committing to
memory choice thoughts in poetry and prose. The money others spent in
filling their homes with bric-a-brac she spent in books, and the
result proves the superior wisdom of her course.

When conventions were held in Philadelphia, her house was always
filled with guests. As presiding officer in a woman's convention
nothing escaped her notice. She felt responsible that everything
should be done in good taste and order. Her opinions on woman's
nature, sphere, destiny, were thoroughly digested, and any speaker
that did not come up to her exact ideal, was taken delicately to task
when her turn came to speak. As some one remarks, "she had a playful
way of tapping a speaker in a public meeting, as a skillful driver
touches his horses with the tip end of his whip." Once, says Wendell
Phillips, she tried the experiment on me when I had ventured to say
that one of the drawbacks to the movement, was the indifference of
women themselves. Other speakers too expressed sentiments on which
Mrs. Mott differed from them. When she arose she touched them all
round with her gentle raillery, offending no one, just pronounced
enough in her speech to be effective, and in no way compromising
herself. Glancing at the platform on one occasion in Philadelphia, the
central figure, is Lucretia Mott in Quaker costume, in the zenith of
her refined beauty; around her are grouped James Mott, William Lloyd
Garrison, Wendell Phillips, Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Robert Purvis,
Charles Burleigh, Ernestine L. Rose, Frances Dana Gage, Hannah Tracy
Cutler, Lydia Mott, Martha C. Wright, Ann Preston, Sarah Pugh, Hannah
Darlington, Mary Grew, Matilda Joslyn Gage, Susan B. Anthony, and Lucy
Stone, as refined and remarkable an assembly of men and women as could
be found in any European court. Yet these were the people so hated and
ridiculed by the press and the pulpit, whose grand utterances and
spicy debates were stigmatized as "the maudlin sentimentalisms of
unsexed men and women."

But let us follow these friends to the home of Lucretia Mott. A large
house on Arch Street, like all buildings in the city of brotherly
love, with white shutters, marble cappings and steps, and dining-room
on the second floor of the rear building. There are our stern
reformers, round the social board, as genial a group of martyrs as one
could find. Without the shadow of a doubt as to the rightfulness of
their own position, and knowing too that the common sense of the
nation was on their side, they made merry over the bigotry of the
Church, popular prejudices, conservative fears, absurd laws and
customs hoary with age. How they did hold up in their metaphysical
tweezers the representatives of the dead past that ever and anon
ventured upon our platform. With what peals of laughter their
assumptions and contradictions were chopped into mince meat. On this
occasion, William Lloyd Garrison occupied the seat of honor at Mrs.
Mott's right hand, and led the conversation which the hostess always
skillfuly managed to make general. When seated around her board, no
two-and-two side talk in monotone was ever permissible; she insisted
that the good things said should be enjoyed by all. At the close of
the meal, while the conversation went briskly on, with a neat little
tray and snowy towel, she washed up the silver and china as she
uttered some of her happiest thoughts. James Mott at the head of the
table maintained the dignity of his position, ever ready to throw in a
qualifying word, when these fiery reformers became too intense.

Theirs was the ideal home, perfect in its appointments, and where
discussion on all subjects took the widest range. Being alike in
search of truth, one felt no fear of shocking them. Those accustomed
to see priests and bigots, whenever a doubt was expressed as to any of
their cherished opinions, rise and leave the room with a deeply
wounded expression, were surprised to see James and Lucretia Mott
calmly discussing with guests, their own most cherished creeds, and
questioning the wisdom of others in turn. Freedom was not a deity in
their home to be worshiped afar off, but the patron saint of the
household, influencing all who entered there, giving her benedictions
to each at every feast.

Their home was the castle of safety for runaway slaves, and the
paradise of the unfortunate. All knew that if the mistress met them
empty handed, she would cheer their lonely hearts with kind words,
recognizing their humanity, and with sure promise of some future
consideration. Her house was a resort too for people of distinction.
When Frederika Bremer, Harriet Martineau, Lord Morpeth, Lord and Lady
Amberley, visited this country, the reformers were the people they
desired to see, and chief among them Lucretia Mott, after whom Lady
Amberley named her first daughter. Thus titled foreigners, scholars,
and politicians often met at her fireside. I have frequently heard
Gerrit Smith describe a call he once made there. In a conversation of
an hour, she was interrupted half a dozen times with applications for
charity. At last, in came the glorious Fanny Kemble, meeting Mrs. Mott
in a manner that clearly showed they were warm and well-known friends;
and soon came Frederick Douglass. There sat the millionaire
philanthropist, the world-renowned actor, the grandest representative
of slavery, and the fearless disciple of Elias Hicks. I doubt if the
Quaker City ever unveiled so magnificent a tableaux for the pen of an
artist.

In her diary Mrs. Mott says: "At twenty-five years of age, surrounded
with a family and many cares, I felt called to a more public life of
devotion to duty, and engaged in the ministry in the 'Society of
Friends,' receiving every encouragement from those in authority until
the separation amongst us in 1827, when my convictions led me to
adhere to those who believed in the sufficiency of the light within,
resting on 'truth for authority rather than authority for truth.' The
popular doctrine of original sin never commended itself to my reason
or conscience, except on the theory of original holiness also. I
searched the Scriptures daily, ofttimes finding a construction of the
text wholly different from that which had been pressed on our
acceptance. The highest evidence of a sound faith being the practical
life of the Christian, I have felt a far greater interest in the moral
movements of the age than in any theological discussion."

In 1818 she began to preach in "Friends' Meeting," and through New
England, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia, she spoke at an early
day on the tenets of her sect. She affiliated with the branch called
"Hicksite," or "Unitarian Quakers." As Mrs. Mott was a disciple of
Elias Hicks, we can get some insight as to her religious faith by a
few extracts from different points in his creed as stated by himself.
In one of his sermons he says:

     As many as are led by the Spirit of God they are the sons of God.
     What is the Spirit of God? It is the light and life in the soul
     of man. All that men and books can do is to point us to this
     great principle which is only to be known in our own souls. The
     way to arrive at a knowledge of this divine love and divine
     light, and to fulfill the whole law, is to love all the creation
     of God, and do right to all men and beasts.

     Again he speaks of the divine love and divine light which he says
     are one, indivisibly one. The Lord is love, and love may be
     considered as comprehending all His power and all His wisdom; but
     goodness is the most proper term that we can apply. Every one, he
     says, is enlightened by the same divine light that enlightened
     Jesus, and we receive it from the same source. He had the
     fullness of it as we have our several allotments. All the varied
     names given in Scripture to this divine light and life such as,
     "Emmanuel," "Jesus," "Sent of God," "Great Prophet," "Christ our
     Lord," "Grace," "Unction," "Anointed," mean one and the same
     thing, and are nothing less nor more than the spirit and power of
     God in the soul of man as his Creator, Preserver, Condemner,
     Redeemer, Saviour, Sanctifier, and Justifier.

The Hicksites differed from the other Friends in that they placed the
light within above all external authority, while the Orthodox Friends
make the Scriptures the surer guide, though some make the written word
and inner light of equal authority. In a letter to John C. Sanders, in
1828, Elias Hicks says:

     Not all the books ever written, nor all the miracles recorded in
     the Scriptures, nor all other external evidence of what kind
     soever, has ever revealed God (who is an eternal invisible
     Spirit) to any one of the children of men. Heaven is not a fixed
     place above, nor hell below, but both are states of the soul. The
     blood of Christ shed upon the cross has no more power to cleanse
     us from sin than the blood of bullocks and rams poured out on
     Jewish altars could cleanse that people from their sins. We must
     know Christ within us to save us from sin; men depend so much on
     the crucifixion that they heed not the light within.

This wonderful prophet and seer was seventy-nine years old when the
separation began in Philadelphia. The division in this country created
great excitement among the Quakers in England, who were very active in
their hostility to Elias Hicks and his doctrines. Some of them came to
America to bear their testimony. Among others, Annie Braithwaite
traveled extensively and addressed Friends' meetings. Mrs. Mott states
that on one occasion when she was present, the English Quakeress, in
preaching salvation by the blood of Christ, had spoken with more than
usual unction and enthusiasm. As soon as she finished a profound
silence reigned. Elias Hicks, slowly rising and removing his hat, said
in deep inspired tones: "Friends, to the Christ that never was
crucified; to the Christ that never was slain; to the Christ that can
not die. I commend you."

Many of the professed followers of Elias Hicks lacked the courage and
conscience to maintain his principles when the magnetism of his direct
influence was withdrawn by his death. Hence even in that division of
the Friends to which she belonged, Mrs. Mott encountered much
opposition, especially for her public identification with unpopular
reforms. Many would have gladly seen her withdraw from their
membership, and others were desirous that she should be disowned. But
she understood her own rights and Friends Discipline too well to
violate a single rule. Although her enemies kept close watch, they
never caught her off her guard. At the time of the division, she
remarked to an acquaintance: "It seemed to me almost like death at
first to be shut out of the Friends Meeting where I had loved to go
for religious communion, to see the cold averted looks from those
whose confidence I once enjoyed, to be shunned as unworthy of notice;
all this was hard to endure, but it was the price I paid for being
true to the convictions of my own soul."

Her spiritual life was deep and earnest, but entirely her own. It was
intuitional, not emotional. It was expressed in her love for man in
God, and not God in creeds and ceremonies. She prized the free
sentiments of William Ellery Channing, read his works with avidity,
and always had some volume of his at hand. The Life of Rev. Joseph
Blanco White, a rare book, was for years one of the companions of her
solitude. It was thoroughly worn, and the margin covered with her
notes and marks of approval. Dean Stanley and Buckle's "History of
Civilization" were favorites with her also. Cowper's "Task" and
Young's "Night Thoughts," which had been her text-books at "Nine
Partners," never lost their charm for her. She could repeat pages of
them. In her last days she read "The Light of Asia" with intense
pleasure. When she had already passed her eighty-seventh year, Susan
B. Anthony visiting her, says: "She read aloud to us from that
charming poem until after eleven o'clock at night." Her conversation,
as well as her public addresses, were sprinkled with beautiful and apt
citations from her favorite authors, as it was the habit of her life
to commit to memory sentiments she most valued in poetry and prose.

It was not possible that a woman like Lucretia Mott should keep
silence in the churches, no matter what Paul might say to the
contrary, because that great brain was created to think, that noble
heart to beat through making and moulding speech, and those fine gray
eyes to see what the prophets in all times have seen. I can not
imagine her as one of the silent sisters who though having something
to say, dare not say it though to save her own soul or the souls of
those about her.

     An old friend in Lancaster County, says Robert Collyer, told me
     of his first hearing her in the early days when as yet she was
     almost unknown. It had been a dreary time among Friends up
     there, and being a man who did not care for the traditions of
     "first day" and "fourth day," he was getting tired of silence.
     One "first day" he went to his meeting expecting nothing as
     usual, and pretty sure he would not be disappointed. Nor was he
     for a time. But presently a young woman arose in the high seat he
     had never seen before, whose presence touched him with strange
     new expectations. She looked, he said, as one who had no great
     hold on life, and began to speak in low tones, with just a touch
     of hesitation as of one feeling after her thought, and there was
     a tremor in her voice as if she felt the burden of the spirit.
     But she soon found her way out of this, and then he said he began
     to hold his breath. He had never heard such speaking in all his
     life, so born of conviction, so radiant with that inward light
     for which he had been waiting, that he went home feeling as he
     supposed they must have felt in the olden time who thought they
     had heard an angel.

     I once heard such an outpouring. It was at a woods-meeting up
     among the hills where quite a number of us had our say, and then
     my friend's turn came. She was well on in years then, but the old
     fire still burned clear, and God's breath touched her out of
     heaven and she prophesied. I suppose she spoke for two hours, but
     after the first moment she never faltered or failed to hold the
     multitude spell-bound, and waiting on her words. Yet there was
     not the least hint of premeditation, while there was boundless
     wealth of meditation in her deep, pregnant thoughts. I have said
     she prophesied, no other term would answer to her speech. Her
     eyes had seen the coming glory of the Lord, and she testified
     that she had seen; and this was all the more wonderful to me,
     because it was the habit of her mind in later years to reason, as
     President McCosh does, from premise to conclusion. But she had
     seen a vision there sitting in the August splendor with the voice
     of God's presence whispering in the trees, and the vision had set
     the heart high above the brain. These were care-worn and
     work-worn folks she saw about her with knotted hands resting on
     the staff, or folded quietly on the lap. They had nearly done the
     good day's work, and now preacher and prophet were needed to tell
     them what that day's work meant, where they keep the books for
     us, and so it was not a speech, but a psalm of life.

Mrs. Mott was safe at all points in taking Elias Hicks for a teacher
of morals, as he was pronounced on every reform. On the question of
woman's rights, he says:

     If Paul said of women preachers what we find in Corinthians and
     Timothy, I judge that he had no allusion at all to their
     preaching or prophesying in the churches; and if he had, we have
     no right to admit it as sound doctrine, as it contradicts a
     number of his own declarations (and the general testimony of
     Scripture), which are more rational and clear, as in the
     fourteenth chapter of Romans; and in Philippians where he speaks
     of the women who labored with him in the Gospel; and in 1st
     Corinthians where he speaks of women praying and prophesying; and
     Paul assures us that male and female are one in Christ. Also
     under the law there were prophetesses as well as prophets, and
     the effusion of the Spirit in the latter days as prophesied by
     Joel was to be equally on sons and daughters, servants and
     handmaids. To believe otherwise is irrational and inconsistent
     with the divine attributes, and would charge the Almighty with
     partiality and injustice to one-half of His rational creation.
     Therefore I believe it would be wrong to admit it, although
     asserted in the most plain and positive manner by men or angels.

     In our last conflict with Great Britain, Elias Hicks called the
     attention of "Friends" to a faithful support of their testimony
     against war and injustice, desiring them to maintain their
     Christian liberties against encroachment of the secular powers,
     laws having been enacted levying taxes for the support of the
     war. At one meeting there was considerable altercation; as some
     Friends who refused payment had been distrained some three or
     four fold more than the tax demanded, while others complied, paid
     the tax, and justified themselves in so doing. On this point his
     mind was deeply exercised and he labored to encourage Friends to
     faithfulness to exalt their testimonies for the Prince of Peace.

     Elias Hicks preached against slavery both in Maryland and
     Virginia. He says of a meeting in Baltimore that he especially
     addressed slave-holders. Further, he opposed the use of
     slave-grown goods. At a meeting in Providence, R. I., he said he
     was moved to show the great and essential difference there is
     between the righteousness of man comprehended in his laws,
     customs, and traditions, and the righteousness of God which is
     comprehended in pure, impartial, unchangeable justice. They who
     continue this traffic, and enrich themselves, by the labor of
     these deeply oppressed Africans, violate these plain principles
     of justice, and no cunning sophistical reasoning in the wisdom of
     this world can justify them, or silence the convictions of
     conscience.

Some other Friends were much opposed to the use of slave products, but
the Society in general "had no concern" on this point. Lucretia Mott
used "free goods," and thought that Elias' preaching such extreme
doctrines on all these practical reforms, had their effect in the
division. To refuse to pay taxes, or to use any "slave produce,"
involved more immediate and serious difficulties, than any theoretical
views of the hereafter, and even Friends may be pardoned for feeling
some interest in their own pecuniary independence. To see their
furniture, cattle, houses, lands, all swept away for exorbitant taxes,
seemed worse than paying a moderate one to start with. From these
quotations from the great reformer and religious leader, we see how
fully Mrs. Mott accepted his principles; not because they were his
principles, for she called no man master, but because she felt them to
be true. In her diary she says:

     My sympathy was early enlisted for the poor slave by the
     class-books read in our schools, and the pictures of the
     slave-ship, as published by Clarkson. The ministry of Elias Hicks
     and others on the subject of the unrequited labor of slaves, and
     their example in refusing the products of slave labor, all had
     effect in awakening a strong feeling in their behalf.

     The unequal condition of woman in society, also early impressed
     my mind. Learning while at school that the charge for the
     education of girls was the same as that for boys, and that when
     they became teachers women received but half as much as men for
     their services, the injustice of this was so apparent, that I
     early resolved to claim for my sex all that an impartial Creator
     has bestowed.

     The Temperance reform too engaged my attention; and for more than
     forty years I have practiced total abstinence from all
     intoxicating drinks.

     The cause of Peace has had a share of my efforts; leading to the
     ultra non-resistance ground; that no Christian can consistently
     uphold a government based on the sword, or relying on that as an
     ultimate resort.

     The oppression of the working classes by existing monopolies, and
     the lowness of wages often engaged my attention; and I have held
     many meetings with them, and heard their appeals with compassion,
     and a great desire for a radical change in the system which makes
     the rich richer, and the poor poorer. The various associations
     and communities, tending to greater equality of condition, have
     had from me a hearty God-speed.

     But the millions of down-trodden slaves in our land being the
     most oppressed class, I have felt bound to plead their cause, in
     season and out of season, to endeavor to put my soul in their
     souls' stead, and to aid in every right effort for their
     immediate emancipation. This duty was impressed upon me at the
     time I consecrated myself to that Gospel which anoints to "preach
     deliverance to the captive," to "set at liberty them that are
     bruised." From that time the duty of abstinence, as far as
     practicable, from slave-grown products was so clear that I
     resolved to make the effort "to provide things honest" in this
     respect. Since then, our family has been supplied with free
     labor, groceries, and to some extent, with cotton goods unstained
     by slavery.

     The labors of the devoted Benjamin Lundy, and his "Genius of
     Universal Emancipation," published in Baltimore, added to the
     untiring exertions of Clarkson, Wilberforce, and others in
     England, including Elizabeth Heyrick, whose work on slavery
     aroused them to a change in their mode of action; and of William
     Lloyd Garrison, in Boston, prepared the way for a Convention in
     Philadelphia, to take the ground of immediate, not gradual
     emancipation, and to impress the duty of unconditional liberty
     without expatriation.

December 3, 1833, the American Anti-Slavery Society was formed in
Philadelphia. Among the sixty-two people present were Lucretia Mott,
Lydia White, and Esther Moore, Rev. Beriah Green in the chair. In
reading and discussing their Declaration of Sentiments, Mrs. Mott
wishing to make some suggestions, asked the chairman in her modest way
if she might speak. Mr. Green promptly and enthusiastically responded,
"Certainly, certainly, say all you are moved to say." She at once
proposed to strike out two words from one sentence in the Declaration,
"We may be personally defeated, but our principles never (can be)."
One readily sees how much stronger the sentence is made by striking
out the last two words. The quickness of Mrs. Mott in grasping the
sentiment and phraseology of a resolution or appeal was always
remarkable in our conventions. Mr. Garrison, who wrote the
anti-slavery Declaration, readily accepted her amendment. When the
members were asked for their signatures, as James Mott pen in hand
stood near the desk, Thomas Shipley said that before signing it would
be well to consider, as it would bring down on their heads terrible
persecutions and great losses in their business relations. He said he
should sign it himself, but he would advise James Mott and others to
pause. The moment Mr. Shipley ceased speaking, Lucretia, in a brave
inspiring tone said, "James, put down thy name," which he quickly did,
joining in the general smile of satisfaction.

Soon after the burning of Pennsylvania Hall, at a social gathering one
evening, Dr. Moore in conversation with Mrs. Mott strongly condemned
the fanaticism and impolicy of the Abolitionists, and especially the
women; he said they should do all their reform work through the
Friends' meeting. Being much excited, in the course of his remarks, he
became very insulting. Mrs. Mott patiently reasoned with him for
awhile; at last becoming very indignant, she arose, and leaving him
remarked: "All I have to say to thee in parting is, 'Get thee behind
me, Satan.'" He immediately took his hat and in silence left the
house. Lucretia Mott ante-dated even Mr. Garrison in her protests
against slavery. Robert Purvis, of Philadelphia, says he heard her as
early as 1829 preach against slavery, on several occasions in the
 church.

     In 1833, says Mrs. Mott, the Philadelphia Female Anti-Slavery
     Society was formed, and being actively associated in the efforts
     for the slaves' redemption, I have traveled thousands of miles in
     this country, holding meetings in some of the slave States, have
     been in the midst of mobs and violence, and have shared
     abundantly in the odium attached to the name of an uncompromising
     modern Abolitionist, as well as partaken richly of the sweet
     return of peace, attendant on those who would "undo the heavy
     burdens and let the oppressed go free; and break every yoke."

     In 1840, a World's Anti-Slavery Convention was called in London.
     Women from Boston, New York, and Philadelphia, were delegates to
     that Convention. I was one of the number; but, on our arrival in
     England, our credentials were not accepted, because we were
     women. We were, however, treated with the greatest courtesy and
     attention, as strangers, and were admitted to chosen seats as
     spectators and listeners, while our right of membership was
     denied. This brought the woman question more into view, and an
     increase of interest on the subject has been the result. In this
     work, too, I have engaged heart and hand; as my labors, travels,
     and public discourses evince. The misrepresentation, ridicule,
     and abuse heaped upon this, as well as other reforms, do not in
     the least deter me from my duty. To those whose name is cast out
     as evil for the truth's sake, it is a small thing to be judged of
     man's judgment.

     This imperfect sketch may give some idea of the mode of life of
     one who has found it "good to be always zealously affected in a
     good thing."

When, as an enthusiastic Abolitionist, Mrs. Mott crossed the ocean to
take part in the deliberations of the World's Anti-Slavery
Convention, the last drop in her cup of sorrow was the humiliation she
was called to suffer on account of sex. The vote by which this
injustice was perpetrated, was due to the overwhelming majority of the
clergy, who, with Bible in hand, swept all before them. No man can
fathom the depths of rebellion in woman's soul when insult is heaped
upon her sex, and this is intensified when done under the hypocritical
assumption of divine authority. This fresh baptism into woman's
degradation impelled the current of her thoughts into a new channel,
and returning home, she, with a few friends as rebellious as herself,
called the first Woman's Rights Convention. To this cause she brought
a zeal unknown before, as here she could see the wrongs of a class
from a purely subjective point of view.

There are often periods in the lives of earnest, imaginative beings,
when some new book or acquaintance comes to them like an added sun in
the heavens, lighting the darkest recesses and chasing every shadow
away. Thus came Lucretia Mott to me, at a period in my young days when
all life's problems seemed inextricably tangled; when, like Noah's
dove on the waters, my soul found no solid resting-place in the whole
world of thought. The misery of the multitude was too boundless for
comprehension, too hopeless for tender feeling; despair supplanted all
other emotions, and the appalling views of the future threw their dark
shadows over the sweetest and most innocent pleasures of life. Before
meeting Mrs. Mott, I had heard a few men of liberal opinions discuss
various political, religious, and social theories, but with my first
doubt of my father's absolute wisdom, came a distrust of all men's
opinions on the character and sphere of woman; and I naturally
inferred that if their judgments were unsound on a question I was sure
I did understand, they were quite likely to be so on those I did not.
Hence, I often longed to meet some woman who had sufficient confidence
in herself to frame and hold an opinion in the face of opposition, a
woman who understood the deep significance of life to whom I could
talk freely; my longings were answered at last.

In June, 1840, I met Mrs. Mott for the first time, in London. Crossing
the Atlantic in company with James G. Birney, then the Liberty Party
candidate for President, soon after the bitter schism in the
anti-slavery ranks, he described to me as we walked the deck day after
day, the women who had fanned the flames of dissension, and had
completely demoralized the anti-slavery ranks. As my first view of
Mrs. Mott was through his prejudices, no prepossessions in her favor
biased my judgment. When first introduced to her at our hotel in Great
Queen Street, with the other ladies from Boston and Philadelphia who
were delegates to the World's Convention, I felt somewhat embarrassed,
as I was the only lady present who represented the "Birney faction,"
though I really knew nothing of the merits of the division, having
been outside the world of reforms. Still, as my husband and my cousin,
Gerrit Smith, were on that side, I supposed they would all have a
feeling of hostility toward me. However, Mrs. Mott, in her sweet,
gentle way, received me with great cordiality and courtesy, and I was
seated by her side at dinner.

No sooner were the viands fairly dispensed, than several Baptist
ministers began to rally the ladies on having set the Abolitionists
all by the ears in America, and now proposing to do the same thing in
England. I soon found that the pending battle was on woman's rights,
and that unwittingly I was by marriage on the wrong side. As I had
thought much on this question in regard to the laws, Church action,
and social usages, I found myself in full accord with the other
ladies, combating most of the gentlemen at the table; our only
champion, George Bradburn, was too deaf to hear a word that was said.
In spite of constant gentle nudgings by my husband under the table,
and frowns from Mr. Birney opposite, the tantalizing tone of the
conversation was too much for me to maintain silence. Calmly and
skillfully Mrs. Mott parried all their attacks, now by her quiet humor
turning the laugh on them, and then by her earnestness and dignity
silencing their ridicule and sneers. I shall never forget the look of
recognition she gave me when she saw by my remarks that I fully
comprehended the problem of woman's rights and wrongs. How beautiful
she looked to me that day.

I had always regarded a Quaker woman, as one does a Sister of Charity,
a being above ordinary mortals, ready to be translated at any moment.
I had never spoken to one before, nor been near enough to touch the
hem of a garment. Mrs. Mott was to me an entire new revelation of
womanhood. I sought every opportunity to be at her side, and
continually plied her with questions, and I shall never cease to be
grateful for the patience and seeming pleasure with which she fed my
hungering soul. Seeing the lions in London together, on one occasion
with a large party we visited the British Museum, where it is supposed
all people go to see the wonders of the world. On entering, Mrs. Mott
and myself sat down near the door to rest for a few moments, telling
the party to go on, that we would follow. They accordingly explored
all the departments of curiosities, supposing we were slowly following
at a distance; but when they returned, after an absence of three
hours, there we sat in the same spot, having seen nothing but each
other, wholly absorbed in questions of theology and social life. She
had told me of the doctrines and divisions among "Friends," of the
inward light, of Elias Hicks, of Channing, of a religion of practical
life, of Mary Wollstonecroft, her social theories, and her demands of
equality for women. I had been reading Combe's "Constitution of Man"
and "Moral Philosophy," Channing's works, and Mary Wollstonecroft,
though all tabooed by orthodox teachers, but I had never heard a woman
talk what, as a Scotch Presbyterian, I had scarcely dared to think.

On the following Sunday I went to hear Mrs. Mott preach in a Unitarian
church. Though I had never heard a woman speak, yet I had long
believed she had the right to do so, and had often expressed the idea
in private circles; but when at last I saw a woman rise up in the
pulpit and preach as earnestly and impressively as Mrs. Mott always
did, it seemed to me like the realization of an oft-repeated happy
dream. The day we visited the Zoological Gardens, as we were admiring
the gorgeous plumage of some beautiful birds, one of our gentlemen
opponents remarked, "You see, Mrs. Mott, our Heavenly Father believes
in bright colors. How much it would take from our pleasure if all the
birds were dressed in drab." "Yes," said she, "but immortal beings do
not depend on their feathers for their attractions. With the infinite
variety of the human face and form, of thought, feeling, and
affection, we do not need gorgeous apparel to distinguish us.
Moreover, if it is fitting that woman should dress in every color of
the rainbow, why not man also? Clergymen, with their black clothes and
white cravats, are quite as monotonous as the Quakers."

I remember on one occasion the entire American delegation were invited
to dine with Samuel Gurney, a rich Quaker banker. He had an elegant
place, a little out of London. The Duchess of Sutherland and Lord
Morpeth, who had watched our anti-slavery struggle in this country
with great interest, were quite desirous of meeting the American
Abolitionists, and had expressed the wish to call on them at this
time. Standing near Mrs. Mott when the coach and four gray horses with
the six out-riders drove up, Mr. Gurney, in great trepidation, said,
"What shall I do with the Duchess?" "Give her your arm," said Mrs.
Mott, "and introduce her to each member of the delegation." A
suggestion no commoner in England would have presumed to follow. When
the Duchess was presented to Mrs. Mott, her gracious ease was fully
equaled by that of the simple Quaker woman. Oblivious to all
distinctions of rank, she talked freely and wisely on many topics, and
proved herself in manner and conversation the peer of the first woman
in England. Mrs. Mott did not manifest the slightest restraint or
embarrassment during that marked social occasion. No fictitious
superiority ever oppressed her, neither did she descend in familiar
surroundings from her natural dignity, but always maintained the
perfect equilibrium of respect for herself and others.

I found in this new friend a woman emancipated from all faith in
man-made creeds, from all fear of his denunciations. Nothing was too
sacred for her to question, as to its rightfulness in principle and
practice. "Truth for authority, not authority for truth," was not only
the motto of her life, but it was the fixed mental habit in which she
most rigidly held herself. It seemed to me like meeting a being from
some larger planet, to find a woman who dared to question the opinions
of Popes, Kings, Synods, Parliaments, with the same freedom that she
would criticise an editorial in the _London Times_, recognizing no
higher authority than the judgment of a pure-minded, educated woman.
When I first heard from the lips of Lucretia Mott that I had the same
right to think for myself that Luther, Calvin, and John Knox had, and
the same right to be guided by my own convictions, and would no doubt
live a higher, happier life than if guided by theirs, I felt at once a
new-born sense of dignity and freedom; it was like suddenly coming
into the rays of the noon-day sun, after wandering with a rushlight in
the caves of the earth. When I confessed to her my great enjoyment in
works of fiction, dramatic performances, and dancing, and feared from
underneath that Quaker bonnet (I now loved so well) would come some
platitudes on the demoralizing influence of such frivolities, she
smiled, and said, "I regard dancing a very harmless amusement"; and
added, "the Evangelical Alliance that so readily passed a resolution
declaring dancing a sin for a church member, tabled a resolution
declaring slavery a sin for a bishop."

Sitting alone one day, as we were about to separate in London, I
expressed to her my great satisfaction in her acquaintance, and
thanked her for the many religious doubts and fears she had banished
from my mind. She said, "There is a broad distinction between religion
and theology. The one is a natural, human experience common to all
well-organized minds. The other is a system of speculations about the
unseen and the unknowable, which the human mind has no power to grasp
or explain, and these speculations vary with every sect, age, and type
of civilization. No one knows any more of what lies beyond our sphere
of action than thou and I, and we know nothing." Everything she said
seemed to me so true and rational, that I accepted her words of wisdom
with the same confiding satisfaction that did the faithful Crito
those of his beloved Socrates. And yet this pure, grand woman was
shunned and feared by the Orthodox Friends throughout England. While
in London a rich young Quaker of bigoted tendencies, who made several
breakfast and tea parties for the American delegates, always omitted
to invite Mrs. Mott. He very politely said to her on one occasion when
he was inviting others in her presence, "Thou must excuse me,
Lucretia, for not inviting thee with the rest, but I fear thy
influence on my children!!"

On several occasions when we all met at social gatherings in London,
Elizabeth Fry studiously avoided being in the same apartment with
Lucretia Mott. If Mrs. Mott was conversing with a circle of friends on
the lawn, Mrs. Fry would glide into the house. If Mrs. Mott entered at
one door, Mrs. Fry walked out the other. She really seemed afraid to
breathe the same atmosphere. On another occasion, at William Ball's,
at Tottenham, when more circumscribed quarters made escape impossible,
it was announced that Mrs. Fry felt a concern to say something to
those present. When all was silent she knelt and prayed, pouring forth
a solemn Jeremiad against the apostasy and infidelity of the day in
language so pointed and personal, that we all felt that Mrs. Mott was
the special subject of her petition. She accepted the intercession
with all due humility, and fortunately for the harmony of the occasion
was not moved to pray for Mrs. Fry, that she might have more love and
charity for those who honestly differed with her on unimportant points
of theology. How hateful such bigotry looks to those capable of
getting outside their own educational prejudices. How pitiable, that
even good people should thus allow themselves to ostracise and
persecute those who hold different opinions from their own. Elizabeth
Fry was not afraid to mingle in Newgate prison with the scum of the
earth, but she was afraid to touch the hem of Lucretia Mott's garment.
If Mrs. Fry felt that she had a higher truth, how did she know that
she might not influence Mrs. Mott for good? Lucretia was never afraid
of anybody. Nothing would have pleased her better than to compare her
pearls of thought and faith with Elizabeth Fry.

Visiting in many Quaker families during our travels in England, I was
amazed to hear Mrs. Mott spoken of as a most dangerous woman. Again
and again I was warned against her influence. She was spoken of as an
infidel, a heretic, a disturber, who had destroyed the peace in the
Friends Society in Pennsylvania, and thrown a firebrand into the
World's Convention, and that in a recent speech in London she quoted
sentiments from Mary Wollstonecroft and Thomas Paine. Having just
learned to worship Lucretia Mott as the embodiment of all that was
noble and charming in womanhood, the terrible fear that she inspired
among English "Friends" filled me with sorrow and surprise. I never
ventured to mention her name in their homes unless they first
introduced it.

Sitting in the World's Convention one day after half the world had
been voted out, when Joseph Sturge, a wealthy Quaker, occupied the
chair, I suggested to Mrs. Mott a dangerous contingency. Said I,
"Suppose in spite of the vote of excommunication the Spirit should
move you to speak, what could the chairman do, and which would you
obey? the Spirit or the Convention?" She promptly replied, "Where the
Spirit of God is, there is liberty."

Many anecdotes are told of Mrs. Mott's rigid economy, such as sewing
together the smallest rags to be woven into carpets, and writing
letters on infinitesimal bits of paper; but it must not be inferred
from this peculiarity that she was penurious, as she was generous in
her charities, and in the support of every good cause. Considering her
means and the self-denial she practiced in her personal expenses, her
gifts were lavish. Alfred Love, President of the Peace Society, who
frequently received letters from Mrs. Mott, says: "The one before me
is two and a half inches wide by two and a quarter inches long,
written on both sides, and contains one hundred and forty-one words,
and treats of seven distinct matters, and disposes of them in good
order, apologizing for her apparent economy of paper, and enclosing a
contribution of five dollars for a benevolent object." Though she
always dressed in Quaker costume, she attached no special significance
to it as a means of grace. One Sunday morning at a religious meeting,
she was in her accustomed seat in the gallery, when a young man, a
stranger to many, spoke in behalf of Peace. At the close of the
meeting some one who could not see the speaker asked Lucretia Mott his
name, and added: "Does he wear a standing collar and dress plain?" She
replied in her happy, cheerful manner, "Well, really I did not look to
see, I was too much interested in what he said to look at the cut of
his coat."

'Mid all the differences, dissensions, and personal antagonisms,
through the years we have labored together in the Woman's Rights
movement, I can not recall one word or occasion in which Mrs. Mott's
influence has not been for harmony, good-will, and the broadest
charity. She endured too much persecution herself ever to join in
persecuting others. In every reform she stood in the fore-front of the
battle. Wherever there was a trying emergency to be met, there you
could rely on Lucretia Mott. She never dodged responsibility nor
disagreeable occasions. At one time when excitement on the divorce
question ran high in New York, and there was a great hue and cry about
free love on our platform, I was invited to speak before the
Legislature on the bill then pending asking "divorce for drunkenness."
We chose the time at the close of one of our Conventions, that Mrs.
Mott might be present, which she readily consented to do, and promised
to speak if she felt moved. She charged Ernestine Rose and myself not
to take too radical ground, in view of the hostility to the bill, but
to keep closely to the merits of the main question. I told her she
might feel sure of me, as I had my speech written, and I would read it
to her, which I did, and received her approval.

The time arrived for the hearing, and a magnificent audience greeted
us at the Capitol. The bill was read, I made the opening speech, Mrs.
Rose followed. We had asked for the modification of certain statutes
and the passage of others making the laws more equal for man and
woman. Mrs. Mott having listened attentively to all that was said, and
coming to the conclusion that with eighteen different causes for
divorce in the different States, there might as well be no laws at all
on the question, she arose and said, that "she had not thought
profoundly on this subject, but it seemed to her that no laws whatever
on this relation would be better than such as bound pure, innocent
women in bondage to dissipated, unprincipled men. With such various
laws in the different States, and fugitives from the marriage bond
fleeing from one to another, would it not be better to place all the
States on the same basis, and thus make our national laws
homogeneous?" She was surprised on returning to the residence of Lydia
Mott, to hear that her speech was altogether the most radical of the
three. The bold statement of "no laws," however, was so sugar-coated
with eulogies on good men and the sacredness of the marriage relation,
that the press complimented the moderation of Mrs. Mott at our
expense. We have had many a laugh over that occasion.

An amusing incident occurred the first year, 1869, we held a
Convention in Washington. Chaplain Gray, of the Senate, was invited to
open the Convention with prayer. Mrs. Mott and I were sitting close
together, with our heads bowed and eyes closed, listening to the
invocation. As the chaplain proceeded, he touched the garden scene in
Paradise, and spoke of woman as a secondary creation, called into
being for the especial benefit of man, an afterthought with the
Creator. Straightening up, Mrs. Mott whispered to me, "I can not bow
my head to such absurdities." Edward M. Davis, in the audience,
noticed his mother's movements, and knowing that what had struck his
mind had no doubt disturbed hers also, he immediately left the hall,
returning shortly after Bible in hand, that he might confound the
chaplain with the very book he had quoted. He ascended the platform
just as Mr. Gray said "amen," and read from the opening chapter of
Genesis, the account of the simultaneous creation of man and woman, in
which dominion was given to both alike over every living thing. After
Mr. Davis made a few pertinent remarks on the allegorical character of
the second chapter of Genesis, Mrs. Mott followed with a critical
analysis of the prayer, and the portion of the Scripture read by her
son, showing the eternal oneness and equality of man and woman, the
union of the masculine and feminine elements, like the positive and
negative magnetism, the centripetal and centrifugal forces in nature,
pervading the animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms, the whole world
of thought and action, as there could have been no perpetuation of
creation without these elements equal and eternal in the Godhead. The
press commented on the novelty of reviewing an address to the throne
of grace, particularly when uttered by the chaplain of Congress. Mrs.
Mott remarked on these criticisms, "If we can teach clergymen to be as
careful what they say to God as to man, our Conventions at the capital
will be of great service to our representatives."

As a writer Mrs. Mott was clear and concise; her few published
sermons, her charming private letters and diary, with what those who
knew her best can remember, are all of her thoughts bequeathed to
posterity. As a speaker she was calm, clear, and unimpassioned;
indulged but little in wit, humor, or pathos, but by her good common
sense and liberality on all questions, by her earnestness and
simplicity, she held the most respectful attention of her audiences.
Hence an occasional touch of humor or sarcasm, or an outburst of
eloquent indignation came from her with great power. She had what the
Friends call unction; that made the most radical utterances from her
lips acceptable. In her conversation she was original and brilliant,
earnest and playful. Such was her persuasiveness of voice and manner
that opinions received with hisses from another speaker, were
applauded when uttered by Mrs. Mott.

Some one has said that "sagacity, a mental quick-wittedness for
meeting an emergency, a sagacity that might have been called
shrewdness, had it not been for a pervading heart quality that went
with it, was one of her prominent traits." Perhaps a wise diplomacy
might express this quality more nearly. No one knew better than she
how to avoid the sharp angles of a character or an occasion, as the
many anecdotes told of her so fully illustrate.

Returning from England in 1840, in a merchant vessel, a large number
of Irish emigrants were on board in the steerage. On the voyage Mrs.
Mott was moved to hold a religious meeting among them, but the matter
being broached to them, their Catholic prejudices objected. They would
not hear a woman preach, for women priest were not allowed in their
Church. But the spirit that was pressing upon the "woman preacher" for
utterance was not to be prevented from delivering its message without
a more strenuous effort to remove the obstacle. She asked that the
emigrants might be invited to come together to consider with her
whether they would have a meeting. This was but fair and right, and
they came. She then explained how different her idea of a meeting was
from a church service to which they were accustomed; that she had no
thought of saying anything derogatory of that service nor of the
priests who ministered to them; that her heart had been drawn to them
in sympathy, as they were leaving their old homes for new ones in
America; and that she had wanted to address them as to their habits
and aims in their every-day life in such a way as to help them in the
land of strangers to which they were going. And then asking if they
would listen (and they were already listening because her gracious
voice and words so entranced them they could not help it), she said
she would give an outline of what she had wanted to say at the
meeting, and so she was drawn on by the silent sympathy she had
secured until the Spirit's message was delivered; and only the keenest
witted of her Catholic hearers waked up to the fact, as they were
going out, that they had got the preachment from the woman priest
after all.

Presiding at a woman's convention on one occasion, a speaker painted a
very vivid picture in the darkest colors of this nation's injustice to
oppressed classes, and from the experience of other nations not based
upon principle, he foretold the certain downfall of our republic. On
rising, he had said that "he feared he should not be able to do his
theme justice, as he had just risen from a bed of sickness," but
warming up with his subject he rivaled Isaiah in his Jeremiad, and
left his audience in gloom and despair, the president sharing in the
general feeling, for the appeal had been thrilling and terrible. In a
moment, however, Mrs. Mott arose, saying: "I trust our future is not
as hopeless as our faithful friend, Parker Pillsbury, has just
pictured. We must remember he told us in starting that he had just
risen from a bed of sickness, and that may in a measure account for
his gloomy forebodings." The audience burst forth into a roar of
applause and laughter, and the president introduced the next speaker,
seemingly unconscious that she had stabbed the prophet through and
through, and dissipated the effect of his warnings.

Mrs. Mott was frequently chosen the presiding officer of the early
conventions. Though she seldom regarded Cushing's Manual in her
rulings, she maintained order and good feeling by the persuasiveness
and serenity of her voice and manner. Emerson says: "It is not what
the man says, but it is the spirit behind it which makes the
impression." It was this subtle magnetism of the true, grand woman,
ever faithful to her highest convictions of truth, that made her
always respected in every position she occupied. Hers was pure moral
power, for in that frail organization there could be but little of
what is called physical magnetism. Her placid face showed that she was
at peace with herself, the first requisite in a successful leader of
reform. That Mrs. Mott could have maintained her sweetness and charity
to the end, is a marvel in view of the varied and protracted
persecutions she endured.

Rarely have so many different and superior qualities been combined in
one woman. She had great personal beauty; her brow and eye were
remarkable. Although small in stature, it is said of her as it was of
Channing, he too being of diminutive size, that she made you think she
was larger than she was. She had a look of command. The amount of will
force and intelligent power in her small body was enough to direct the
universe; yet she was modest and unassuming and had none of the
personal airs of leadership. Her manners were gentle and
self-possessed under all circumstances. Her conversation, though
generally serious, earnest and logical, was sometimes playful and
always good humored. Her attitude of mind was receptive. She never
seemed to think even in her latest years that she had explored all
truth. Though she had very clearly defined opinions on every subject
that came under her consideration, she never dogmatized.

It was this healthy balance of good qualities that made her great
among other women of genius; and the multiplicity of her interests in
human affairs that kept her fresh and young to the last. The thinkers,
the scholars, the broadest intellects are often the octogenarians,
while the narrow selfish souls dry up in their own channels. One of
her noble sisters in reform has truly said, "Birth made Victoria a
queen, but her own pure, sweet life made Lucretia Mott a queen; queen
of a realm on which the sun never sets, the realm of humanity. If ever
any one inherited the earth it was this blessed Quaker woman."

Space fails me to tell of all the pleasant memories of our forty
years friendship, of the inspiration she has been to those on our
platform, of the bond of union to hold us together, of the innumerable
conventions over which she has presided, of the many long journeys
both North and South to carry the glad tidings of justice, liberty,
and equality to all. A missionary who always traveled at her own
expense, giving her best thoughts freely, asking nothing in return,
neither money, praise, nor honor; for misrepresentation and cruel
persecution were the only return she had for years. Both in religion
and reform hers was a free gospel to the multitude.

As division has been the law in politics, religion, and reform, woman
suffrage proved no exception. But Lucretia Mott and her noble sister,
Martha O. Wright, remained steadfast with those who had taken the
initiative steps in calling the first Convention, and with the larger
and more radical division their sympathies remained, both being
prominent officers of the National Woman Suffrage Association at the
time of their death. They fully endorsed the great lesson of the war,
National protection for United States citizens, applied to woman as
well as to the African race, the doctrine the association to which
they belonged has so successfully advocated at Washington for twelve
years.

Reading the numerous complimentary obituary notices of our long loved
friend, so fair, so tender, so full of praise, we have exclaimed, what
changes the passing years have wrought in the popular estimate of a
woman once considered so dangerous an innovator in the social and
religious world; and yet the Lucretia Mott of to-day is only the
perfected, well-rounded character of half a century ago. But the
slowly moving masses that feared her then as an infidel, a fanatic, an
unsexed woman, have followed her footsteps until a broader outlook has
expanded their moral vision. The "vagaries" of the anti-slavery
struggle, in which she took a leading part, have been coined into law;
and the "wild fantasies" of the Abolitionists are now the XIII., XIV.,
and XV. Amendments to the National Constitution. The prolonged and
bitter schisms in the Society of Friends have shed new light on the
tyranny of creeds and scriptures. The infidel Hicksite principles that
shocked Christendom, are now the corner-stones of the liberal
religious movement in this country. The demand for woman's social,
civil, and political equality--in which she was foremost--laughed at
from the Atlantic to the Pacific, has been recognized in a measure by
courts and legislatures, in Great Britain and the United States. The
old Blackstone code for woman has received its death-blow, and the
colleges, trades, and professions have been opened for her admission.

The name of Lucretia Mott represents more fully than any other in the
nineteenth century, the sum of all womanly virtues. As wife, mother,
friend, she was marked for her delicate sentiments, warm affections,
and steadfast loyalty; as housekeeper, for her rigid economy,
cleanliness, order, and exhaustless patience with servants and
children; as neighbor, for justice and honor in all her dealings; as
teacher, even at the early age of fifteen, for her skill and
faithfulness.

One who has lived eighty-eight years 'mid a young, impressible people
like ours, ever reflecting the exalted virtues of the true woman, the
earnest reformer, the religious teacher, must have left her impress
for good in every relation of life. When we remember that every word
we utter, every act we perform, the individual atmosphere we create
have their effect, not only on all who come within the circle of our
daily life, but through them are wafted to innumerable other circles
beyond, we can in a measure appreciate the far-reaching influence of
one grand life. Great as has been the acknowledged, moral power of
Lucretia Mott, it would have been vastly greater, had her opinions
been legitimately recognized in the laws and constitutions of the
nation; and could she have enjoyed the consciousness of exerting this
direct influence, it would have intensified the holy purpose of her
life. "The highest earthly desire of a ripened mind," says Thomas
Arnold, "is the desire of taking an active share in the great work of
government." Those only who are capable of appreciating this dignity
can measure the extent to which this noble woman has been defrauded as
a citizen of this great Republic. Neither can they measure the loss to
the councils of the nation, of the wisdom of such a representative
woman.

In the manifold tributes to the memory of our beloved friend, we have
yet to see the first mention of her political degradation, which she
so keenly felt and so often deplored on our platform. Why are the
press and the pulpit, with all their eulogiums of her virtues, so
oblivious to the humiliating fact of her disfranchisement? Are
political disabilities, accounted such grievous wrongs to the Southern
aristocrat, to the emancipated slave, to the proud Anglo-Saxon man in
every latitude, of so little value to woman that when a nation mourns
the loss of the grandest representative of our sex, no tear is shed,
no regret expressed, no mention even made of her political
degradation?

We might ask the question why this universal outpouring of tributes to
our venerated friend, exceeding all honors hitherto paid to the great
women of our nation, who, one by one, have passed away It is because
Lucretia Mott was a philanthropist; her life was dedicated to the
rights of humanity. When the poet, the novelist, the philosopher, and
the metaphysican have been forgotten, the memory of the true reformer
will remain engraven on the hearts of the multitude. Behold! the
beauty of yonder fountain, after its upward flight, is where it turns
again to earth, so is the life of one morally beautiful, ever drawn by
a law of its being from the clouds of speculation to the common
interests of humanity.

The question is often asked of us on this platform, will the children
of these reformers take up the work that falls from their hands? It is
more than probable they will not. It is with reformers' children as
others, they seldom follow in the footsteps of their parents. As a
general thing the son of a farmer hates the plow, the son of a lawyer
is not attracted to the bar, nor the son of a clergyman to the pulpit.
The daughter of the pattern housekeeper turns to literature or art,
and the child of the reformer has no heart for martyrdom. It is
philosophical that our sons and daughters should not be here. To a
certain extent they have shared the odium and persecution we have
provoked, they have been ostracised and ignored for heresies they have
never accepted. The humiliation of our children has been the bitterest
drop in the cup of reformers. Look around our platform, not one
representative of the brave band of women who inaugurated this
movement is here! Not one of our kindred has ever yet in these
conventions echoed our demands. Nevertheless we are, and shall be
represented! We see bright new faces; we hear eloquent new voices;
brave young women are gathering round us, to plead our cause in more
august assemblies, and to celebrate the victory at last. These are our
kindred, by holier ties than blood. As their way through life will be
smoother for all our noble friend has dared and suffered, may they by
the same courage and conscientious devotion to principle, shed new
light on the path of those who follow their footsteps. This is the
great moral lesson the life of our dear friend should impress on the
coming generation.

Having known Lucretia Mott, not only in the flush of life, when all
her faculties were at their zenith, but in the repose of advanced age,
her withdrawal from our midst seems as natural and as beautiful as the
changing foliage of some grand oak from the spring-time to the
autumn.


ENGLISH CORRESPONDENCE.

The following interesting correspondence in regard to the exclusion of
women from the World's Convention, reveals the fact that the action
was the result, after all, of religious bigotry more than prejudice
against sex. And this opinion is further confirmed by the decided
opposition promptly manifested to Lucretia Mott's proposal to have a
series of meetings for women alone. Some of the Orthodox Friends said
they were afraid, that under the plea of discussing emancipation for
the slave, other subjects might be introduced. Mrs. Mott, desiring to
know what Daniel O'Connell thought of the action of the Convention,
wrote him as follows:

     _To Daniel O'Connell, M.P.:_

     The rejected delegates from America to the "General Anti-Slavery
     Conference," are desirous to have the opinion of one of the most
     distinguished advocates of universal liberty, as to the reasons
     urged by the majority for their rejection, viz: that the
     admission of women being contrary to English usage would subject
     them to ridicule, and that such recognition of their acknowledged
     principles would prejudice the cause of human freedom.

     Permit me, then, on behalf of the delegation, to ask Daniel
     O'Connell the favor of his sentiments as incidentally expressed
     in the meeting on the morning of the 13th inst., and oblige his
     sincere friend,

                                                  LUCRETIA MOTT.
     LONDON, _sixth mo., 17, 1840_.


                                   16 PALL MALL, _20th June, 1840_.

     MADAM:--Taking the liberty of protesting against being supposed
     to adopt any of the complimentary phrases in your letter as being
     applicable to me, I readily comply with your request to give my
     opinion as to the propriety of the admission of the female
     delegates into the Convention.

     I should premise by avowing that my first impression was strong
     against that admission; and I believe I declared that opinion in
     private conversation. But when I was called on by you to give my
     personal decision on the subject, I felt it my duty to
     investigate the grounds of the opinion I had formed; and upon
     that investigation I easily discovered that it was founded on no
     better grounds than an apprehension of the ridicule it might
     excite if the Convention were to do what is so unusual in
     England--admit women to an equal share and right of the
     discussion. I also without difficulty recognized that this was an
     unworthy, and, indeed, a cowardly motive, and I easily overcame
     its influence.

     My mature consideration of the entire subject convinces me of the
     right of the female delegates to take their seats in the
     Convention, and of the injustice of excluding them. I do not care
     to add that I deem it also impolitic; because, that exclusion
     being unjust, it ought not to have taken place even if it could
     also be politic. My reasons are:

     _First._ That as it has been the practice in America for females
     to act as delegates and office-bearers, as well as in common
     capacity of members of Anti-Slavery Societies, the persons who
     called this Convention ought to have warned the American
     Anti-Slavery Societies to confine their choice to males, and for
     want of this caution many female delegates have made long
     journeys by land and crossed the ocean to enjoy a right which
     they had no reason to fear would be withheld from them at the end
     of their tedious voyage.

     _Secondly._ The cause which is so intimately interwoven with
     every good feeling of humanity and with the highest and most
     sacred principles of Christianity--the Anti-Slavery cause in
     America--is under the greatest, the deepest, the most
     heart-binding obligations to the females who have joined the
     Anti-Slavery Societies in the United States. They have shown a
     passive but permanent courage, which ought to put many of the
     male advocates to the blush. The American ladies have persevered
     in our holy cause amidst difficulties and dangers, with the zeal
     of confessors and the firmness of martyrs; and, therefore,
     emphatically they should not be disparaged or discouraged by any
     slight or contumely offered to their rights. Neither are this
     slight and contumely much diminished by the fact that it was not
     intended to offer any slight or to convey any contumely. Both
     results inevitably follow from the fact of rejection. This OUGHT
     NOT to be.

     _Thirdly._ Even in England, with all our fastidiousness, women
     vote upon the great regulation of the Bank of England; in the
     nomination of its directors and governors, and in all other
     details equally with men; that is, they assist in the most
     awfully important business--the regulation of the currency of
     this mighty Empire--influencing the fortunes of all commercial
     nations.

     _Fourthly._ Our women in like manner vote at the India House;
     that is, in the regulation of the government of more than one
     hundred millions of human beings.

     _Fifthly._ Mind has no sex; and in the peaceable struggle to
     abolish slavery all over the world, it is the basis of the
     present Convention to seek success by peaceable, moral, and
     intellectual means alone, to the utter exclusion of armed
     violence. We are engaged in a strife not of strength, but of
     argument. Our warfare is not military; it is Christian. We wield
     not the weapons of destruction or injury to our adversaries. We
     rely entirely on reason and persuasion common to both sexes, and
     on the emotions of benevolence and charity, which are more lovely
     and permanent amongst women than amongst men.

     In the Church to which I belong the female sex are devoted by as
     strict rules and with as much, if not more, unceasing austerity
     to the performance (and that to the exclusion of all worldly or
     temporal joys and pleasures) of all works of humanity, of
     education, of benevolence, and of charity, in all its holy and
     sacred branches, as the men. The great work in which we are now
     engaged embraces all these charitable categories; and the women
     have the same duties, and should, therefore, enjoy the same
     rights with men in the performance of their duties.

     I have a consciousness that I have not done _my_ duty in not
     sooner urging these considerations on the Convention. My excuse
     is that I was unavoidably absent during the discussion on the
     subject.

     I have the honor to be, very respectfully, madam,

                            Your obedient servant,
     LUCRETIA MOTT.                          DANIEL O'CONNELL.

The following earnest and friendly letter from William Howitt, was
highly prized by Mrs. Mott:

                                   LONDON, _June 27, 1840_.

     DEAR FRIEND:--....I regret that I was prevented from making a
     part of the Convention, as nothing should have hindered me from
     stating there in the plainest terms my opinion of the _real
     grounds_ on which you were rejected. It is a pity that you were
     excluded on the plea of being women; but it is disgusting that
     under that plea you were actually excluded as heretics. That is
     the real ground, and it ought to have been at once proclaimed and
     exposed by the liberal members of the Convention; but I believe
     they were not aware of the fact. I heard of the circumstance of
     your exclusion at a distance, and immediately said: "Excluded on
     the ground that they are women?" No, that is not the real cause;
     there is something behind. And what are these female delegates?
     Are they orthodox in religion? The answer was "No, they are
     considered to be of the Hicksite party of Friends." My reply was,
     "That is enough; _there_ lies the real cause, and there needs no
     other. The influential Friends in the Convention would never for
     a moment tolerate their presence there if they could prevent it.
     They hate them because they have dared to call in question their
     sectarian dogmas and assumed authority; and they have taken care
     to brand them in the eyes of the Calvinistic Dissenters, who form
     another large and influential portion of the Convention, as
     Unitarians; in their eyes the most odious of heretics."

     But what a miserable spectacle is this! The "World's Convention"
     converting itself into the fag-end of the Yearly Meeting of the
     Society of Friends! That Convention met from various countries
     and climates to consider how it shall best advance the sacred
     cause of humanity; of the freedom of the race, independent of
     caste or color, immediately falls the victim of bigotry; and one
     of its first acts is to establish a caste of sectarian opinion,
     and to introduce color into the very soul! Had I not seen of late
     years a good deal of the spirit which now rules the Society of
     Friends, my surprise would have been unbounded at seeing _them_
     argue for the exclusion of women from a public assembly, _as
     women_. But nothing which they do now surprises me. They have in
     this case to gratify their wretched spirit of intolerance, at
     once abandoned one of the most noble and most philosophical of
     the established principles of their own Society.

     That Society claims, and claims justly, to be the first Christian
     party which has recognized the great Christian doctrine that
     THERE IS NO SEX IN SOULS; that male and female are one in Christ
     Jesus. There were Fox and Penn and the first giants of the
     Society who dared in the face of the world's prejudices to place
     woman in her first rank; to recognize and maintain her moral and
     intellectual equality. It was this Society which thus gave to
     woman her inalienable rights, her true liberty; which restored to
     her the exercise of mind, and the capacity to exhibit before her
     assumed ancient lord and master, the highest qualities of the
     human heart and understanding; discretion, sound counsel, sure
     sagacity, mingled with feminine delicacy, and that beautiful
     innate modesty which avails more to restrain its possessor within
     the bounds of prudence and usefulness than all the laws of
     corrupt society. It was this Society which, at once fearless in
     its confidence in woman's goodness and sense of propriety, gave
     its female portion its own meetings of discipline, meetings of
     civil discussion and transaction of actual and various business.
     It was this Society which did more; which permitted its women in
     the face of a great apostolic injunction to stand forth in its
     churches and preach the Gospel. It has, in fact, sent them out
     armed with the authority of its certificates to the very ends of
     the earth to preach in public; to visit and persuade in private.

     And what has been the consequence? Have the women put their faith
     And philosophy to shame? Have they disgraced themselves or the
     Society which has confided in them? Have they proved by their
     follies, their extravagances, their unwomanly boldness and want
     of a just sense of decorum that these great men were wrong? On
     the contrary, I will venture to say, and I have seen something of
     all classes, that there is not in the whole civilized world a
     body of women to be found of the same numbers, who exhibit more
     modesty of manner and delicacy of mind than the ladies of the
     Society of Friends; and few who equal them in sound sense and
     dignity of character. There can be no question that the
     recognition of the moral and intellectual equality of the most
     lovely and interesting portion of our Society has tended, and
     that very materially, to raise them greatly in value as wives, as
     bosom friends and domestic counselors, whose inestimable worth is
     only discovered in times of trial and perplexity.

     And here have gone the little men of the present day, and have
     knocked down in the face of the world all that their ancestors,
     in this respect, had built up! If they are at all consistent they
     must carry out their new principle and sweep it through the
     ancient constitution of their own Society. They must at once put
     down meetings of discipline among their women; they must call
     home such as are in distant countries, or are traversing this,
     preaching and visiting families. There must be no appointments of
     women to meet committees of men to deliberate on matters of great
     importance to the Society. But the fact is, my dear friend, that
     bigotry is never consistent except that is always narrow, always
     ungracious, and always under plea of uniting God's people,
     scattering them one from another, and rendering them weak as
     water.

     I want to know what religious opinions have to do with a "World's
     Convention." Did you meet to settle doctrines, or to conspire
     against slavery? Many an august council has attempted to settle
     doctrines, and in vain; and you had before you a subject so vast,
     so pressing, so momentous, that in presence of its sublimity, any
     petty jealousy and fancied idea of superiority ought to have
     fallen as dust from the boughs of a cedar. You as delegates, had
     to meet this awful fact in the face, and to consider how it
     should be grappled with; how the united power of civilized
     nations should be brought to bear upon it! The fact that after
     nearly a century of gradually growing and accumulating efforts to
     put down slavery and the slave trade, little has been done; that
     there are now more slaves in the world than ever, and that the
     slave trade is far more extensive and monstrous than it was when
     Clarkson raised his voice against its extinction; that is a fact
     which, if the men who now take the lead in warring on the evil
     were truly great men, it would silence in them every other
     feeling than that of its enormity, and the godlike resolve that
     all hands and all hearts should be raised before Heaven and
     united in its spirit to chase this spreading villainy from the
     earth speedily and forever. But men, however benevolent, can not
     be great men if they are bigots. Bigots are like the peasants who
     build their cabins in the mighty palaces of the ancient Caesars.
     The Caesars who raised the past fabrics are gone, and the power in
     which they raised them is gone with them. Poor and little men
     raise their huts within those august palace walls, and fancy
     themselves the inhabitants of the palaces themselves. So in the
     mighty fane of Christianity, bigots and sectarians are
     continually rearing their little cabins of sects and parties, and
     would fain persuade us, while they fill their own narrow
     tenements, that they fill the glorious greatness of Christianity
     itself!

     It is surely high time that after eighteen hundred years of
     Christ's reign we should be prepared to allow each other to hold
     an opinion on the most important of all subjects to ourselves! It
     is surely time that we opened our eyes sufficiently to see what
     is so plain in the Gospel: the sublime difference between the
     Spirit of Christ and the spirit of His disciples when they fain
     would have made a bigot of Him. "We saw men doing miracles in thy
     name; and we forbade them." "Forbid them not, for they who are
     not against us are for us." It is not by _doctrines_ that Christ
     said His disciples should be known, but by their fruits; and by
     the greatest of all fruits--love.

     You, dear friend, and those noble women to whom I address myself
     when addressing you, have shown in your own country the grand
     Christian testimonial of love to mankind in the highest degree.
     You have put your lives in your hands for the sake of man's
     freedom from caste, color, and mammon; and the greatest disgrace
     that has of late years befallen this country is, that you have
     been refused admittance as delegates to the Convention met
     ostensibly to work that very work for which you have so
     generously labored and freely suffered. The Convention has not
     merely insulted you, but those who sent you. It has testified
     that the men of America are at least far ahead of us in their
     opinion of the discretion and usefulness of women. But above all,
     this act of exclusion has shown how far the Society of Friends is
     fallen from its ancient state of greatness and catholic nobleness
     of spirit.

     But my time is gone. I have not said one-half, one-tenth,
     one-hundredth part of what I could say to you and to your
     companions on this subject; but of this be assured, time and your
     own delegators will do you justice. The true Christians in all
     ages were the heretics of the time; and this I say not because I
     believe exactly as you do, for in truth I neither know nor desire
     to know exactly how far we think alike. All that I know or want
     to know is, that you have shown the grand mark of Christian
     truth--love to mankind.

     I have heard the noble Garrison blamed that he had not taken his
     place in the Convention because you and your fellow-delegates
     were excluded. I, on the contrary, honor him for his conduct. In
     mere worldly wisdom he might have entered the Convention and
     there made his protest against the decision; but in at once
     refusing to enter where you, his fellow-delegates, were shut out,
     he has made a far nobler protest; not in the mere Convention, but
     in the world at large. I honor the lofty principle of that true
     champion of humanity, and shall always recollect with delight,
     the day Mary and I spent with you and him.

     I must apologize for this most hasty and I fear illegible scrawl,
     and with our kind regards and best wishes for your safe return to
     your native country, and for many years of honorable labor there
     for the truth and freedom, I beg to subscribe myself,

                                   Most sincerely your friend,
                                                   WILLIAM HOWITT.

Harriet Martineau, who had visited Mrs. Mott when in America, and was
prevented from attending the Convention by illness, wrote as follows:

     I can not be satisfied without sending you a line of love and
     sympathy. I think much of you amidst your present trials, and
     much indeed have I thought of you and your cause since we parted.
     May God strengthen you. It is a comfort to me that two of my best
     friends, Mrs. Reid and Julia Smith, are there to look upon you
     with eyes of love. I hear of you from them, for busy as they are,
     they remember me from day to day, and make me a partaker of your
     proceedings.... I can not but grieve for you in the
     heart-sickness which you have experienced this last week. We must
     trust that the spirit of Christ will in time enlarge the hearts
     of those who claim his name, that the whites as well as the
     blacks will in time be free.

After the Convention, Mrs. Mott visited Miss Martineau, who was an
invalid, staying at Tynemouth, for the benefit of sea air. And on her
return to London, she received another letter, from which we extract
the following:

     I felt hardly as if I knew what I was about that morning, but I
     was very happy, and I find that I remember every look and word. I
     did not make all the use I might of the opportunity; but when are
     we ever wise enough to do it? I do not think we shall ever meet
     again in this world, and I believe that was in your mind when you
     said farewell. I feel that I have derived somewhat from my
     intercourse with you that will never die, and I am thankful that
     we have been permitted to meet. You will tell the Furnesses
     (Rev. Wm. H.) where and how you found me. Tell them of my
     cheerful room and fine down and sea. I wish my friends would
     suffer for me no more than I do for myself. I hope you have yet
     many years of activity and enjoyment before you. My heart will
     ever be in your cause and my love with yourself.

In James Mott's published volume, "Three months in Great Britain," he
speaks of many distinguished persons who extended to them most
gracious hospitalities, for although Mrs. Mott had been ostracised by
some of the more bigoted "Friends," others were correspondingly marked
in their attentions. Among such was that noble-hearted young woman,
Elizabeth Pease, of Darlington, who was one of the first to call upon
them on their arrival in London, and the last to bid them farewell on
the morning they sailed from Liverpool; having in company with her
father gone from Manchester for that purpose. Her cultivated mind and
fine talents were devoted to subjects of reform, with an energy and
perseverance rarely equaled.

Ann Knight, another sincere friend and advocate of human rights, was
quite indignant, that a Convention called for such liberal measures
should reject women on the flimsy plea, "that it being contrary to
English usage, it would subject them to ridicule and prejudice their
cause." She was unremitting in her attentions to the American women,
doing many things to make their visit pleasant while in London, and
afterward, entertaining several as guests in her own "quiet home."
Amelia Opie, with her happy face and genial manners, was in constant
attendance at the Convention. On entering one of the sessions, she
accosted Mrs. Mott, saying, "though in one sense the women delegates
were rejected, yet they were held in high esteem, and their coming
would have immense influence on the action of future assemblies."

At the "Crown and Anchor," one evening, the members of the Convention
took a parting cup of tea; nearly five hundred persons were present.
As the resolution excluding women did not extend to this company, Mrs.
Mott gave her views on the use of slave products, which were well
received. In the course of her remarks she referred to the example and
faithfulness of the "Society of Friends," in using as far as possible
the produce of free labor in their families. Josiah Forster, ever
vigilant on the battlements of bigotry, could not allow this allusion
to pass unnoticed, and when Mrs. Mott sat down, he arose and said he
"could not conscientiously refrain from informing the company, that
Mrs. Mott did not represent the Society of Friends. He did so with no
other than feelings of kindness, but,"--when he had proceeded thus far
it was evident he was about to disclaim religious fellowship with
her, and a general burst of disapprobation was manifested by cries of
"down, down! order, order! shame, shame!"--but he finished his
disavowal amidst the confusion, though few heard what he said, neither
did they wish to hear his expressions of intolerance. As soon as he
had finished his speech he left the room, probably displeased that his
feelings met with so little sympathy, or at the manifestation of
dissatisfaction with his remarks.

At a dinner party, at Elizabeth J. Reid's, a few days after, Lady
Byron was one of the company; with whom Mr. and Mrs. Mott had a
previous acquaintance, through a letter of introduction from George
Combe. As Colonel Miller, one of the American delegation, had been in
the Greek war with Lord Byron, and knew him well, several interesting
interviews with the wife and daughter grew out of that acquaintance.
They also visited Dr. Bowring and his interesting family several
times, and on one occasion met there Charles Pelham Villiers, the
leading advocate in Parliament for the modification of their corn
laws. Dr. Bowring was a near neighbor and great admirer of Jeremy
Bentham, and entertained them with many anecdotes of his original
friend. William H. Ashurst, a lawyer of eminence in London, gave them
a cordial welcome to his family circle, where they met William and
Mary Howitt, and Robert Owen, the philanthropist. Mr. Ashurst took an
active part in favor of reducing the postage on letters and papers.

At Birmingham, they passed a few days with their liberal "Friend,"
William Boultbee, and visited several of the great manufacturing
establishments. Here they made the acquaintance of a Catholic priest,
Thomas M. McDonald, a man of broad views and marked liberality. He
tendered Mrs. Mott the use of a large room at his disposal, and urged
her to hold a meeting. At Liverpool, they were the guests of William
Rathbone and family. In Dublin, they met James Houghton, Richard
Allen, Richard Webb, and the Huttons, who entertained them most
hospitably and gave them many charming drives in and about the city.
At Edinburgh, they joined Sarah Pugh and Abby Kimber, who had just
returned from the Continent, and had a cordial reception at the home
of George Thompson. They passed two days with George Combe, the great
phrenologist, who examined and complimented Mrs. Mott's head, as
indicating a strong symmetrical character. They took tea with his
brother, Andrew Combe, the author of that admirable work on "Infancy,"
which has proved a real blessing to many young mothers.

At a meeting in Glasgow, to hear George Thompson on the subject of
British India, Mrs. Mott asked the chairman for the liberty of
addressing the audience for a few minutes, but was denied, though a
<DW52> man, Charles Lenox Remond, of Salem, Massachusetts, was
listened to with attention, as he had been in London and other places,
showing that the unholy prejudice against color was not so bitter in
England as that against sex. George Harris, the minister of the
Unitarian Chapel in Glasgow, cordially extended to Mrs. Mott the use
of his church for a lecture on slavery, which was gladly accepted. The
house was crowded, and there was abundant reason to believe the people
were well pleased. But the small handful of "Friends" in that city did
not suffer so good an opportunity of disclaiming them to pass, and
accordingly had the following communication published in the papers:

     _To the Editor of the Glasgow Gazette:_

     RESPECTED FRIEND:--Intimation having been given on the 8th,
     current, by means of placards extensively posted throughout the
     city, that "On Sabbath first, the 9th instant, Mrs. Lucretia
     Mott, a minister of the Society of Friends, Philadelphia, would
     hold a meeting in the Christian Unitarian Chapel"; and that the
     meeting was held and numerously attended by our fellow-citizens,
     we deem it right on behalf of the Society of Friends residing in
     Glasgow, to inform the public that we hold no religious
     fellowship with Lueretia Mott, nor with the body in the United
     States called Hicksites, to which she belongs, they not being
     recognized by the Society of Friends in the United Kingdom, nor
     by those "Friends" with whom we are in connection in America; and
     that we do not wish to be in any way identified with, or
     considered responsible for any sentiments that Lucretia Mott may
     have uttered at the meeting above referred to.

                              We are, respectfully, thy friends,

                    WILLIAM SMEAL, WILLIAM WHITE, JOHN MAXWELL,
                                        JAMES SMEAL, EDWARD WHITE.

     GLASGOW, _12th of 8th mo., 1840_.

To us who knew, loved, and honored Lucretia Mott for her many virtues,
these manifestations of bigotry, so narrowing and embittering in their
effect on the mind, should be an added warning against that evil
spirit of persecution that has brought such sorrow to mankind. We
sincerely hope these few examples we have endeavored to place in their
true light, may awaken thought in the minds of our readers, and
incline them to renewed charity and a wiser appreciation of what is
and what is not vital in religion. Surely life must ever stand for
more than faith.


FOOTNOTES:

[75] In the midst of our first volume the announcement of the death of
Lucretia Mott, Nov. 11th, 1880, reached us. As she was identified with
so many of the historical events of Pennsylvania, where nearly seventy
years of her life were passed, it is fitting that this sketch should
follow the State in which she resided for so long a period.




CHAPTER XII.

NEW JERSEY.


In 1682, William Penn purchased Eastern Jersey, and under a Governor
of his choosing, Robert Barclay, the colony became a refuge for the
persecuted "Friends." It was no doubt due to the peaceful measures of
William Penn in his dealings with the Indians, that this colony was
free from all troubles with them. The last loyal Governor of New
Jersey--1763--was William Franklin, a natural son of Benjamin
Franklin, and a bitter Tory.

The struggle for independence was at this time interesting and
exciting, and behind the Governor was a strong party for
reconciliation with Great Britain. Besides the Governor's instructions
against independence, the Assembly had resolved on a separate petition
to the King.

Aware of this feeling in New Jersey, Congress sent that illustrious
trio, John Dickinson, John Jay, and George Wythe, to procure a
reversal of their determination. They were courteously received on the
floor, and urged in their addresses that nothing but unity and bravery
in the Colonies would bring Great Britain to terms; that she wanted to
procure separate petitions, but that such a course would break the
union, when the Colonies would be like a rope of sand. The Assembly
yielded to their entreaties, and on the 25th of June, 1776, Governor
Franklin, who opposed the action of Congress, was deposed,[76] and
William Livingston, a true patriot, was elected Governor, and
re-elected for fourteen years.

The intense excitement of this period in New Jersey roused many women
loyal to freedom and the independence of the Colonies to persistent
action. Among these was Hannah Arnett, of Elizabethtown, whose story
was first made public one hundred years after the date of its
occurrence.[77] The latter part of the year 1776 was a period of doubt
and despondency to the patriot troops. Although the Colonies had
declared their independence several months before, the American forces
had since suffered many severe defeats, and it seemed not unlikely
that Great Britain would be victorious in her struggle with the
new-born republic. On the 30th of November, Gen. Howe had issued his
celebrated proclamation offering amnesty and protection to all who,
within sixty days, should declare themselves peaceable British
subjects, and bind themselves to neither take up arms nor encourage
others to do so.

After his victory at Fort Lee, Lord Cornwallis marched his army to New
Jersey, encamping at Elizabethtown. His presence on New Jersey soil so
soon after Gen. Howe's proclamation, and the many defeats of the
patriot army, had a very depressing effect. Of this period Dr. Ashbel
Green wrote: "I heard a man of some shrewdness once say, that when the
British troops overran the State of New Jersey, in the closing part of
the year 1776, the whole population could have been bought for
eighteen pence a head."

But however true this statement may have been of the men of New
Jersey, it could not be justly made in regard to its women, one of
whom, at least, did much to stem the tide of panic so strong at this
point where Cornwallis was encamped. A number of men of Elizabeth
assembled one evening in one of the spacious mansions for which this
place was rather famous, to discuss the advisability of accepting the
proposed amnesty. The question was a momentous one, and the discussion
was earnest and protracted. Some were for accepting this proffer at
once; others hesitated; they canvassed the subject from various
points, but finally decided that submission was all that remained to
them. Their hope was gone, and their courage with it; every remnant of
patriotic spirit seemed swept away in the darkness of the hour. But
there was a listener of whom they were ignorant; a woman, Hannah
Arnett, the wife of the host, sitting at her work in an adjoining
room. The discussion had reached her ears, rousing her intense
indignation. She listened until she could sit still no longer;
springing to her feet she pushed open the parlor door, confronting the
amazed men. The writer from whom we glean these facts, says: "Can you
fancy the scene? A large, low room, with the dark, heavy furniture of
the period, dimly lighted by the tall wax candles and the wood fire
which blazed on the hearth. Around the table the group of men, pallid,
gloomy, dejected, disheartened. In the door-way the figure of the
woman in in antique costume, with which in these Centennial days we
have become so familiar. Can you not fancy the proud poise of her
head, the indignant light of her blue eyes, the crisp, clear tones of
her voice, the majesty, and defiance, and scorn, which clothed her as
with a garment?"

The men were appalled and started at the sight. She seemed like some
avenging angel about to bring them to judgment for the words they had
spoken; and, indeed, such she proved. It was strange to see a woman
thus enter the secret councils of men, and her husband hastily
approaching her, whispered: "Hannah, Hannah, this is no place for you,
we do not want you here just now;" and he tried to take her hand to
lead her from the room. But she pushed him gently back, saying to the
startled group: "Have you made your decision, gentlemen? Have you
chosen the part of men, or traitors?"

They stammered and blundered as they tried to find answer. Things
appeared to them in a new light as this woman so pointedly questioned
them. Their answers were a mixture of excuses and explanations. They
declared the country to be in a hopeless condition; the army starving,
half-clothed, undisciplined, the country poor, while England's trained
troops were backed by the wealth of a thousand years.

Hannah Arnett listened in silence until the last abject word was
spoken, when she rapidly inquired: "But what if we should live after
all?" The men looked at each other, but not word was spoken. "Hannah,
Hannah," cried her husband, "do you not see these are no questions for
you? We are discussing what is best for us all. Women do not
understand these things; go to your spinning-wheel and leave us to
discuss these topics. Do you not see that you are making yourself
ridiculous?"

But Mrs. Arnett paid no heed. Speaking to the men in a strangely
quiet, voice, she said: "Can you not tell me? If, after all, God does
not let the right perish; if America should win in the conflict, after
you have thrown yourselves upon British clemency, where will you be
then?" "Then?" spoke a hesitating voice, "why then, if it ever could
be so, we should be ruined. We must then leave home and country
forever. But the struggle is an entirely hopeless one. We have no men,
no money, no arms, no food, and England has everything."

"No," said Mrs. Arnett, "you have forgotten one thing which England
has not, and which we have--one thing which outweighs all England's
treasures, and that is the right. God is on our side; and every volley
from our muskets is an echo of His voice. We are poor and weak and
few, but God is fighting for us. We counted the cost before we began;
we knew the price and were willing to pay; and now, because for the
time the day is going against us, you would give up all and sneak back
like cravens, to kiss the feet that have trampled upon us! And you
call yourselves men; the sons of those who gave up homes and fortune
and fatherland to make for themselves and for dear liberty a
resting-place in the wilderness! Oh, shame upon you, cowards!"

The words had rushed out in a fiery flood which her husband had vainly
striven to check. Turning to the gentlemen present, Mr. Arnett said:
"I beg you will excuse this most unseemly interruption to our council.
My wife is beside herself, I think. You all know her, and that it is
not her custom to meddle with politics. To-morrow she will see her
folly; but now I beg your patience."

But her words had roused the slumbering manhood of her hearers. Each
began to look upon himself as a craven, and to withdraw from the
position he had taken. No one replied to her husband, and Mrs. Arnett
continued. "Take your protection if you will. Proclaim yourselves
traitors and cowards, false to your country and your God, but horrible
will be the judgment upon your heads and the heads of those that love
you. I tell you that England will never conquer. I know it and feel it
in every fiber of my heart. Has God led us thus far to desert us now?
Will He who led our fathers across the stormy winter seas forsake
their children who have put their trust in Him? For me, I stay with my
country, and my hand shall never touch the hand, nor my heart cleave
to the heart of him who shames her"; and she turned a glance upon her
husband; "Isaac, we have lived together for twenty years, and for all
of them I have been a true and loving wife to you. But I am the child
of God and of my Country, and if you do this shameful thing, I will
never again own you for my husband."

"My dear wife!" he cried, aghast, "you do not know what you are
saying. Leave me for such a thing as this?" "For such a thing as
this!" she cried, scornfully. "What greater cause could there be? I
married a good man and true, a faithful friend, and it needs no
divorce to sever me from a traitor and a coward. If you take your
amnesty you lose your wife, and I--I lose my husband and my home!"

With the last words her voice broke into a pathetic fall, and a mist
gathered before her eyes. The men were deeply moved; the words of Mrs.
Arnett had touched every soul. Gradually the drooping heads were
raised, and eyes grew bright with manliness and resolution. Before
they left the house that night they had sworn a solemn oath to stand
by the cause they had adopted, and the land of their birth through
good or evil, and to spurn as deadliest insult the proffered amnesty
of their tyrannical foe.

Some of the men who met in this secret council afterward fought nobly,
and died upon the field of battle for their country. Others lived to
rejoice when the day of triumph came; but the name of this woman was
found upon no heroic roll, nor is it on the page of any history that
men have since written, although she made heroes of cowards, and
helped to stay the wave of desolation which, in the dark days of '76,
threatened to overwhelm the land.

At one time some British officers quartered themselves at the house of
Mrs. Dissosway, situated at the western end of Staten Island, opposite
Amboy. Her husband was a prisoner; but her brother, Captain Nat.
Randolph, was in the American army, and gave much annoyance to the
tories by his frequent incursions. A tory colonel promised Mrs.
Dissosway to procure the release of her husband on condition of her
prevailing on her brother to stay quietly at home. "And if I could,"
she replied, with a look of scorn, drawing up her tall figure to its
utmost height, "if I could act so dastardly a part, think you General
Washington has but one Captain Randolph in his army?"

At a period when American prospects were most clouded, and New Jersey
overrun by the British, an officer stationed at Borden-town (said to
be Lord Cornwallis) endeavored to intimidate Mrs. Borden into using
her influence over her husband and son, who were absent in the
American army. The officer promised her that if she would induce them
to quit the standard they followed and join the royalists, her
property should be protected; while in case of refusal, her estate
would be ravaged and her elegant mansion destroyed. Mrs. Borden
answered, "Begin your threatened havoc then; the sight of my house in
flames would be a treat to me; for I have seen enough to know that you
never injure what you have power to keep and enjoy. The application of
a torch to my dwelling I should regard as a signal for your
departure." The house was burned in fulfillment of the threat, and the
estate laid waste; but, as Mrs. Borden predicted, the retreat of the
spoiler quickly followed.

During the battle of Monmouth a gunner named Pitcher was killed, and
the call was made for some one to take his place; his wife, who had
followed him to the camp and thence to the field of conflict,
unhesitatingly stepped forward and offered her services. The gun was
so well managed as to draw the attention of General Washington to the
circumstance, and to call forth an expression of his admiration of her
bravery and fidelity to her country. To show his appreciation of her
virtues and her highly valuable services, he conferred on her a
lieutenant's commission. She afterward went by the name of "Captain
Molly."

As early as 1706, Thomas Chalkley, visiting the Conestogae Indians,
near Susquehannah, says: "We treated about having a meeting with them
in a religious way, upon which they called a council, in which they
were very grave, and spoke one after another without any heat or
jarring (and some of the most esteemed of their women do sometimes
speak in their councils). I asked our interpreter why they suffered or
permitted the women to speak; he answered: 'Some women are wiser than
some men.' Our interpreter told me that they had not done anything for
many years without the counsel of an ancient, grave woman, who, I
observed, spoke much in their councils, for I was permitted to be
present, and asked what she said. He replied that she was an empress,
and that they gave much heed to what she said amongst them; that she
then said to them that she looked upon our coming to be more than
natural, because we did not come to buy nor sell nor get gain, but
came in love and respect to them, and desired their well doing both
here and hereafter; and that our meeting among them might be very
beneficial to their young people. She related a dream she had three
days before, and interpreted it, advising them to hear us and
entertain us kindly, etc., which they did.

Chief Justice Green, in behalf of Miss Leake, of Trenton, presented to
the New Jersey Historical Society copies of the correspondence between
Colonel Mawhood of the British forces, and Colonel Hand of the
American army, proposing to the latter to surrender, and each man to
go to his home, etc., dated Salem County, March, 1778. The New Jersey
Historical Society has a photographic copy of a print, contemporary
with the event, representing the triumphal arch erected by the ladies
of Trenton in honor of Washington, on his passage through the place
in April, 1779, and a photographic copy of the following original note
(now in possession of the lady who received it), which was written by
Washington at the time:

     General Washington can not leave this place without expressing
     his acknowledgements to the Matrons and Young Ladies who received
     him in so novel and grateful a manner at the Triumphal Arch in
     Trenton, for the exquisite sensations he experienced in that
     affecting scene. The astonishing contrast between his former and
     actual situation at the same spot, the elegant taste with which
     it was adorned for the present occasion, and the innocent
     appearance of the _white-robed choir_, who met him with the
     gratulatory song, have made such an impression on his remembrance
     as he assures them will never be effaced.

     TRENTON, _April 21, 1789_.


THE ORIGIN, PRACTICE, AND PROHIBITION OF FEMALE SUFFRAGE IN NEW
JERSEY.

William A. Whitehead, Corresponding Secretary of the New Jersey
Historical Society, read the following paper at their annual meeting,
January 21, 1858:

     By the Proprietary laws, the right of suffrage in New Jersey was
     expressly to the _free men_ of the province; and in equally
     explicit terms a law passed in 1709 prescribing the
     qualifications of electors, confined the privilege to male
     freeholders having one hundred acres of land in their own right,
     or worth fifty pounds, current money of the province, in real and
     personal estate, and during the whole of the colonial period
     these qualifications remained unaltered.

     By the Constitution adopted July 2, 1776, the elective franchise
     was conferred upon all inhabitants of this colony, of full age,
     who are worth fifty pounds, proclamation money, clear estate in
     the same, and have resided within the county in which they claim
     a vote for twelve months immediately preceding the election; and
     the same, or similar language, was used in the different acts
     regulating elections until 1790; but I have not discovered any
     instance of the exercise of the right by females, under an
     interpretation which the full import of the words, "all
     inhabitants," was subsequently thought to sanction, during the
     whole of this period.

     In 1790, however, a revision of the election law then in force
     was proposed, and upon the committee of the Legislature to whom
     the subject was referred was Mr. Joseph Cooper, of West Jersey, a
     prominent member of the Society of Friends. As the regulations of
     that society authorized females to vote in matters relating
     thereto, Mr. Cooper claimed for them the like privilege in
     matters connected with the State, and to support his views,
     quoted the provisions of the Constitution as sanctioning such a
     course. It was therefore to satisfy him that the committee
     consented to report a bill in which the expression, "he or she,"
     applied to the voter, was introduced into the section specifying
     the necessary qualifications; thus giving a legislative
     endorsement of the alleged meaning of the Constitution. Still,
     no cases of females voting by virtue of this more definite
     provision are on record, and we are warranted in believing that
     the women of New Jersey then, as now, were not apt to overstep
     the bounds of decorum, or intrude where their characteristic
     modesty and self-respect might be wounded.

     This law and its supplements were repealed in 1797, and it is
     some proof that the peculiar provision under review had not been
     availed of to any extent, if at all (as its evil consequences
     would otherwise have become apparent), that we find similar
     phraseology introduced into the new act. The right of suffrage
     was conferred upon "all free inhabitants of this State of full
     age," etc., thus adopting the language of the Constitution with
     the addition of the word "free," and "no person shall be entitled
     to vote in any other township or precinct than that in which he
     or she doth actually reside," etc., and in two other places is
     the possible difference in the sex of the voters recognized.

     The first occasion on which females voted, of which any precise
     information has been obtained, was at an election held this year
     (1797) at Elizabethtown, Essex County, for members of the
     Legislature. The candidates between whom the greatest rivalry
     existed, were John Condit and William Crane, the heads of what
     were known a year or two later as the "Federal Republican" and
     "Federal Aristocratic" parties, the former the candidate of
     Newark and the northern portions of the county, and the latter
     the candidate of Elizabethtown and the adjoining country, for the
     Council. Under the impression that the candidates would poll
     nearly the same number of votes, the Elizabethtown leaders
     thought that by a bold _coup d'etat_ they might secure the
     success of Mr. Crane. At a late hour of the day, and, as I have
     been informed, just before the close of the poll, a number of
     females were brought up, and under the provisions of the existing
     laws, allowed to vote; but the manoeuvre was unsuccessful, the
     majority for Mr. Condit, in the county, being ninety-three,
     notwithstanding. These proceedings were made the topic of two or
     three brief articles in the _Newark Sentinel_, in one of which
     the fact that "no less than seventy-five women were polled at the
     late election in a neighboring borough," was used as a pretended
     argument for the admission of females to office, and to service
     in the diplomatic corps; while another ironically asserts that
     "too much credit can not be given to the Federal leaders of
     Elizabethtown for the heroic virtue displayed in advancing in a
     body to the poll to support their favorite candidates."

     So discreditable was this occurrence thought, that although
     another closely contested election took place the following year,
     we do not find any other than male votes deposited then, in Essex
     County, or elsewhere, until the Presidential election of 1800,
     between Mr. Adams and Mr. Jefferson, at which females voted very
     generally throughout the State; and such continued to be the
     practice until the passage of the act positively excluding them
     from the polls. At first the law had been so construed as to
     admit single women only, but as the practice extended, the
     construction of the privilege became broader and was made to
     include females eighteen years old, married or single; and even
     women of color. At a contested election in Hunterdon County, in
     1802, the votes of two or three such, actually electing a member
     of the Legislature. It is remarkable that these proceedings did
     not sooner bring about a repeal of the laws which were thought to
     sanction them; but that event did not occur until 1807, and it is
     noticeable that, as the practice originated in Essex County, so
     the flagrant abuses which resulted from it reached their maximum
     in that county, and brought about its prohibition.

[Illustration: ANTOINETTE L. BROWN (with autograph).]

     The circumstances attendant upon this event afford abundant
     matter for a most interesting chapter of local history, which I
     am happy to say has been written by a member of the Society (Mr.
     James Ross),[78] and will be communicated before long, I trust,
     for insertion in our Proceedings. But the scope of this paper
     merely calls for a statement of facts. These are as follows:

     In the year 1806 a new Court House and Jail were to be erected in
     the county of Essex. Strenuous exertions were made to have them
     located elsewhere than at Newark, which had been the county town
     from a very early period. Sufficient influence was brought to
     bear upon the Legislature to secure the passage of an act
     (approved November 5th of that year) authorizing a special
     election, at which "the inhabitants" of the county, "qualified to
     vote in elections for members of the State Legislature," etc.,
     were described as the qualified electors to determine by their
     votes where the buildings should be located. The contest caused a
     great excitement throughout the county, and, under the existing
     laws, when the election was held in February, 1807, women of
     "full age," whether single or married, possessing the required
     property qualification, were permitted by the judges of election
     to vote. But as the conflict proceeded, and the blood of the
     combatants waxed warmer, the number of female voters increased,
     and it was soon found that every single and every married woman
     in the county was not only of "full age," but also "worth fifty
     pounds proclamation money, clear estate," and as such entitled to
     vote if they chose. And not only once, but as often as by change
     of dress or complicity of the inspectors, they might be able to
     repeat the process.

     This was not confined to any one precinct, but was more or less
     the case in all, and so apparent were these and many other frauds
     that the Legislature at the ensuing session did not hesitate to
     sat it aside as having been illegally conducted; and, by
     repealing the act authorizing it, left the buildings to be
     erected in Newark, to which they legitimately belonged. And, in
     order that no future occurrence of the kind should take place, an
     act was passed (approved November 16, 1807), the preamble to
     which is as follows:

     "Whereas, doubts have been raised and great diversities in
     practice obtained throughout the State in regard to the admission
     of aliens, females, and persons of color or <DW64>s to vote in
     elections, as also in regard to the mode of ascertaining the
     qualifications of voters in respect to estate; and whereas, it is
     highly necessary to the safety, quiet good order and dignity of
     the State to clear up the said doubts by an act of the
     representatives of the people declaratory of the true sense and
     meaning of the Constitution, and to ensure its just execution in
     these particulars according to the intent of the framers thereof:
     Therefore," etc., etc.

     This act confined the right of suffrage to free white male
     citizens twenty-one years of age, worth fifty pounds proclamation
     money, clear estate; and disposed of the property qualification
     by declaring that every person otherwise entitled to vote whose
     name should be enrolled on the last tax-lists for the State or
     County should be considered as worth the fifty pounds, thus by
     legislative enactment determining the meaning of the Constitution
     and settling the difficulty. The law remained unchanged until the
     adoption of the new Constitution a few years since, which
     instrument is equally restrictive as to persons who shall vote,
     and removes the property qualification altogether.

     Very recently a refusal to respond to a demand for taxes legally
     imposed, was received from a distinguished advocate of "Woman's
     Rights" in one of the northern counties; who gave as her reasons
     "that women suffer taxation, and yet have no representation,
     which is not only unjust to one-half of the adult population, but
     is contrary to our Theory of Government"--and that when the
     attention of men is called to the wide difference between their
     theory of government and its practice in this particular, that
     they can not fail to see the mistake they now make, by imposing
     taxes on women when they refuse them the right of suffrage.[79]

     Similar arguments were advanced by a sister of Richard Henry Lee,
     in 1778,[80] when, if ever, they were calculated to receive due
     consideration, yet the distinguished Virginian did not hesitate
     to show the unreasonableness of the demand; in the course of his
     able answer remarking that (setting aside other motive for
     restricting the power to males) "perhaps 'twas thought rather out
     of character for women to press into those tumultuous assemblages
     of men where the business of choosing representatives is
     conducted!" And as it is very evident that when in times past the
     right was, not only claimed, but exercised in New Jersey, it
     never accorded with public sentiment; so it maybe safely
     predicted that, as was the case in 1807, "the safety, quiet,
     good order, and dignity of the State," will ever call for its
     explicit disavowal in times to come.

In his speech at the Woman's Rights Convention, 1853, in New York,
Rev. John Pierpont said: "I can go back forty years; and forty years
ago, when most of my present audience were not in, but behind, their
cradles, passing a stranger, through the neighboring State of New
Jersey, and stopping for dinner at an inn, where the coach stopped, I
saw at the bar where I went to pay, a list of the voters of the town
stuck up. My eye ran over it, and I read to my astonishment the names
of several women. 'What!' I said, 'do women vote here?' 'Certainly,'
was the answer, 'when they have real estate.' Then the question arose
in my mind, why should not women vote: Laws are made regulating the
tenure of real estate, and the essence of all republicanism is, that
they who feel the pressure of the law should have a voice in its
enactment."


DEFECTS IN THE CONSTITUTION OF NEW JERSEY.

In a very singular pamphlet published in Trenton, 1779, called
"Eumenes: A collection of papers on the Errors and Omissions of the
Constitution of New Jersey," the writer is very severe upon the fact
that women were allowed to exercise the same right as the sterner sex;
observing that "Nothing can be a greater mockery of this inalienable
right, than to suffer it to be exercised by persons who do not pretend
any judgment on the subject."[81]

Extract from "Eumenes," page 31, No. 8: "Defects of the Constitution
respecting the Qualification of Electors and Elected":

     It will not be denied that a Constitution ought to point out what
     persons may elect and who may be elected; and that it should as
     distinctly prescribe their several qualifications, and render
     those qualifications conformable to justice and the public
     welfare. Indeed, on the proper adjustment of the elective
     franchise depends, in a great measure, the liberty of the citizen
     and the safety of the Government. Upon examination it will be
     found that the Constitution requires amendment upon this head in
     several particulars.

     It has ever been a matter of dispute upon the Constitution,
     whether females, as well as males, are entitled to elect officers
     of Government. If we were to be guided by the letter of the
     charter, it would seem to place them on the same footing in this
     particular; and yet, recurring to _political right_ and the
     nature of things, a very forcible construction has been raised
     against the admission of _women_ to participate in the public
     suffrage.

     The 4th Article of the Constitution declares that "_all the
     inhabitants_ of this colony of full age who are worth fifty
     pounds, shall be entitled to vote for representatives."

     Those who support the rights of women say, that "all inhabitants"
     must mean "_all women_" inhabitants as well as "_all men_."
     Whereas, it is urged on the other side that the makers must have
     meant "all _male_ inhabitants," and that the expression is to be
     restrained so as to arrive at the _intent_ of the framers of the
     instrument.

     This difference of sentiment has given rise to diversity of
     _practice_ on this head, and furnished a pretence from which many
     an electioneering trick has resulted. I could refer to instances
     which would prove what is advanced, but the people want no
     proofs. It is well known that women are admitted or rejected,
     just as may suit the views of the persons in direction. The thing
     should be rectified. If women are fit persons to take part in
     this important franchise, though excluded from other public
     functions, it should be expressed in the Constitution. They would
     then know their rights, and those rights could not be sported
     with to serve the wretched purposes of a party election.

     To my mind, without going into an historical or philosophical
     deduction of particulars on the subject, it is evident that
     women, generally, are neither by nature, nor habit, nor
     education, nor by their necessary condition in society, fitted to
     perform this duty with credit to themselves or advantage to the
     public. In a note the author adds: It is perfectly disgusting to
     witness the manner in which women are polled at our elections.
     Nothing can be greater mockery of this invaluable and sacred
     right, than to suffer it to be exercised by persons who do not
     even pretend to any judgment on the subject. The great practical
     mischief, however, resulting from their admission under our
     present form of government, is that the towns and populous
     villages gain an unfair advantage over the country, by the
     greater facility they enjoy over the latter in drawing out their
     women to the elections. Many important election contests have
     been terminated at last by these auxiliaries in favor of
     candidates supported by town interests.

     I believe that the Convention which framed the Constitution had
     no view to the admission of females, either single women or
     widows, to elect the public officers. But such is the phraseology
     of the Constitution that it seems a violation of it not to admit
     their votes. The best constitutions have guarded against mistakes
     on this head. Those of Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania,
     Maryland, Vermont, etc., do not admit of female electors. Whether
     this be right or wrong, the objection to our Constitution is,
     that it does not settle the point one way or the other with an
     absolute certainty. The practice is variable. The generally
     received opinion, however, is that the Constitution permits it.
     In this state of the matter it is not competent for the
     Legislature to interfere. Nothing short of a constitutional
     declaration can decide the question; which is, in fact, an
     important one, and is growing more and more so to the country in
     proportion as the towns and villages increase in numbers and
     population. For, independent of the theoretic question, it is
     evident that the admission of these votes gives a vast advantage
     to the thickly settled places over the more dispersed population
     of the country.

     In another note the author says: "Mr. Fox in his late harangue in
     the British House of Commons, in favor of more _equal_ suffrage,
     concedes the unfitness of _females_ to share in elections. He
     says no instance of their participation of public suffrage in any
     government can be shown; and that this right (which many of his
     party hold to be a natural one, though he affects to stop short
     of that) is properly denied to the fairest productions of nature.
     Of widows and spinsters above twenty-one, there can not, I
     imagine, be fewer than 10,000. It is certainly not unimportant to
     leave doubtful the rights of so great a number of people."

Mr. Whitehead's report clearly shows three unjust inferences from the
facts stated:

_First._ That all the corruptions of that special election in Essex
County could be traced to the women.

_Second._ That the quiet, good order, and dignity of the State could
be secured only by the restriction of the suffrage to "free white male
citizens worth fifty pounds."

_Third._ "The unreasonableness of the demand" for representation by
women tax-payers.

1st. Tradition shows that the voting early and often in varied
feminine costume, was done by men five feet four, "picked men," not
for their bravery, but for their inferiority. Depriving women of their
right to vote, because the men abused their privilege, under cover of
sex, in 1807, was, however, on the same principle that politicians in
1881 propose to disfranchise the women of Utah, because of their
polygamous relations. That is, punish the women who claim a right to
only one-sixth part of a man's time and affections, because the men
claim six wives apiece. The question naturally suggests itself to any
fair mind, why not deprive the men of the suffrage, and let the women
vote themselves each one husband? Who doubts the fate of the system
under such legislation? Every woman in her normal condition, unless
wholly perverted by the religious dogma of self-sacrifice and
self-crucifixion, desires to own the man she loves as absolutely and
completely, as every man desires to consecrate to himself alone the
woman he loves. So to deprive the women of Essex of their right to
vote to have the county buildings in Elizabeth, because of the undue
excitement and dishonesty of the men, was to punish the best class of
citizens for the crimes of the worst.

2d. The assumption that "free white male citizens worth fifty pounds,"
could legislate for "aliens, women, and <DW64>s," better than those
classes could for themselves, is to deny the fundamental principle of
republicanism; Governments derive their just powers from the consent
of the governed; and to reassert the despotic ideas of the old world
that national safety depends on the wisdom of privileged
orders--nobles, kings, and czars. The experiment in Wyoming has fully
proved that when "free white male citizens" reigned supreme, the polls
there were scenes of drunkenness, violence, and death; men knocking
each other down and putting bullets through each other's brains were
of annual occurrence. But when the suffrage was extended, and women
admitted to the polling booths, quiet, good order, and dignity were
inaugurated.

3d. "Taxation without representation is tyranny." James Otis said: "To
tax a man's property without his consent, is in effect disfranchising
him of every civil right. For what one civil right is worth a rush,
after a man's property is subject to be taken from him at the pleasure
of another?" Is not such injustice as grievous to woman as man? Does
the accident of sex place woman outside of all ordinary principles of
law and justice? It is the essence of cruelty and tyranny to take her
hard earnings without her consent, blocked as her way is to wealth and
independence, to make sidewalks, highways, and bridges; to build
jails, prisons, and alms-houses, the legitimate outgrowth of the
whisky traffic, which she abhors. On what principle of republican
government is one class of tax-payers thus defrauded of one of the
most sacred rights of citizenship? What logical argument can be made
to prove "the unreasonableness of this demand," for one class above
all others? Principles of justice, to have any value or significance,
must be universal in their application to all humanity.

4th. As to the point made by "Eumenes," "that women are not fit
persons to take part in government," "that they do not even pretend to
any judgment on the subject," we have simply to say that the writer's
prejudices contradict all the facts of our common experience. Women
are so pre-eminently fitted for government, that the one fear in all
ages among men has been lest by some chance they should be governed by
women; and the smaller the man the greater the fear.

Blackstone says "the elements of sovereignty are three: 'Wisdom,
Goodness, and Power.'" Admitting for the sake of argument that "Power"
in this connection means physical force, the distinctive point of male
superiority, and not moral power, which may be equal in both sexes,
all must concede the remaining necessary elements to woman as well as
man. Who so bold, or blind, as to deny wisdom and goodness, the chief
elements of beneficent government, to woman, with the long record of
illustrious and saintly characters gilding every page of history
before him?

Whatever doubts the women known to the author of "Eumenes" might have
had as to their own capacities; the women of to-day do assume to know
that they are more capable of self-government than men are, and that
they understand the principles that underlie a republic far better
than the vast majority of foreigners now crowding our shores, the
Right Honorable James Charles Fox to the contrary notwithstanding.
Yea, without danger of contradiction, we may say there are women in
this nation even now, who understand the political issues of this hour
quite as well as those who stand at the head of our government.

We are very apt to accept popular assertions ofttimes repeated as
truisms, and in this way man's superiority has passed into a proverb,
and the sex in general believe it. When Milton penned the line, "God,
thy will, thou mine," and made his Eve thus reverently submissive to
her Adam, he little thought of bright girls in the nineteenth century,
well versed in science, philosophy, and the languages, sitting in the
senior class of a college of the American republic, laughing his male
conceit to scorn.


FOOTNOTES:

[76] The _New York Tribune_, Feb. 19, 1881, gives the following
interesting facts: "William Franklin, the illegitimate son of
Benjamin, who was long a resident of New York and hereabout, conducted
in person his father's postal system. At Amboy, or Perth Amboy, a
little town of once high aristocratic standing, which dozes on the
edge of the Jersey hills and overlooks the oyster groves of Prince's
Bay, began the Post-Office of North America under John Hamilton in
1694. It was a private patent, and he sold it to the Government. Many
years afterward William Franklin settled at the same place, where once
his father passed in Hamilton's day a footsore vagrant pressing from
Boston to Philadelphia to get bread. There the younger Franklin reared
a 'palace,' and lived in it as Governor of New Jersey till his
adherence to the Crown, that had done better for him than his
father--made him an exile and a captive. He was sent under guard to
East Windsor, Conn., and his jail was made in the house of Captain
Ebenezer Grant there, of the family of President Grant's ancestors,
and he was prohibited the use of pen, ink, and paper--a needless
punishment to a man who had delivered so many letters to others."

[77] In the _New York Observer_, 1876.

[78] After a diligent search for Mr. James Ross and his promised
"interesting chapter of local history," we learned that the author was
in his grave, and that from his posthumous papers this valuable
document had not yet been exhumed by his literary executor.

[79] The following letter contains the sentiments referred to in the
text:

                                    ORANGE, N. J., _Dec. 18, 1858_.

    MR. MANDEVILLE, TAX COLLECTOR, SIR:--Enclosed I return my tax
    bill, without paying it. My reason for doing so is, that women
    suffer taxation, and yet have no representation, which is not only
    unjust to one-half the adult population, but is contrary to our
    theory of government. For years some women have been paying their
    taxes under protest, but still taxes are imposed, and
    representation is not granted. The only course now left us is to
    refuse to pay the tax. We know well what the immediate result of
    this refusal must be.

    But we believe that when the attention of men is called to the
    wide difference between their theory of government and its
    practice, in this particular, they can not fail to see the mistake
    they now make, by imposing taxes on women, while they refuse them
    the right of suffrage, and that the sense of justice which is in
    all good men, will lead them to correct it. Then we shall
    cheerfully pay our taxes--not till then.

                                 Respectfully,        LUCY STONE.

[80] See _Washington National Intelligencer_ for Oct. 15, 1857, and
_Historical Magazine_, Vol. I., page 360.

[81] _Frank Leslie's Magazine_, Feb., 1877.




CHAPTER XIII.

REMINISCENCES.

BY E. C. S.


The reports of the Conventions held in Seneca Falls and Rochester, N.
Y., in 1848, attracted the attention of one destined to take a most
important part in the new movement--Susan B. Anthony, who for her
courage and executive ability was facetiously called by William Henry
Charming, the Napoleon of our struggle. At this time she was teaching
in the Academy at Canajoharie, a little village in the beautiful
valley of the Mohawk.

"The Woman's Declaration of Independence" issued from those
conventions, startled and amused her, and she laughed heartily at the
novelty and presumption of the demand. But on returning home to spend
her vacation, she was surprised to find that her sober Quaker parents
and sisters having attended the Rochester meetings, regarded them as
very profitable and interesting, and the demands made as proper and
reasonable. She was already interested in the anti-slavery and
temperance reforms, and was an active member of an organization called
"The Daughters of Temperance," and had spoken a few times in their
public meetings. But the new gospel of "Woman's Rights," found a ready
response in her mind, and from that time her best efforts have been
given to the enfranchisement of woman.

It was in the month of May, of 1851, that I first met Miss Anthony.
That was to both of us an eventful meeting, that in a measure
henceforth shaped our lives. As our own estimate of ourselves and our
friendship may differ somewhat from that taken from an objective point
of view, I will give an extract from what a mutual friend wrote of us
some years ago:

     Miss Susan B. Anthony, a well-known, indefatigable and life-long
     advocate of temperance, anti-slavery, and woman's rights, has
     been, since 1851, Mrs. Stanton's intimate associate in
     reformatory labors. These celebrated women are of about equal
     ages, but of the most opposite characteristics, and illustrate
     the theory of counterparts in affection by entertaining for each
     other a friendship of extraordinary strength.

     Mrs. Stanton is a fine writer, but a poor executant; Miss Anthony
     is a thorough manager, but a poor writer. Both have large brains
     and great hearts; neither has any selfish ambition for
     celebrity; but each vies with the other in a noble enthusiasm,
     for the cause to which they are devoting their lives.

     Nevertheless, to describe them critically, I ought to say that
     opposites though they be, each does not so much supplement the
     other's difficiencies as augment the other's eccentricities. Thus
     they often stimulate each other's aggressiveness, and at the same
     time diminish each other's discretion.

     But whatever may be the imprudent utterances of the one, or the
     impolitic methods of the other, the animating motives of both are
     evermore as white as the light. The good that they do is by
     design; the harm by accident. These two women sitting together in
     their parlors, have for the last thirty years been diligent
     forgers of all manner of projectiles, from fire works to
     thunderbolts, and have hurled them with unexpected explosion into
     the midst of all manner of educational, reformatory, religious,
     and political assemblies, sometimes to the pleasant surprise and
     half welcome of the members, more often to the bewilderment and
     prostration of numerous victims; and in a few signal instances,
     to the gnashing of angry men's teeth. I know of no two more
     pertinacious incendiaries in the whole country! Nor will they
     themselves deny the charge. In fact this noise-making twain are
     the two sticks of a drum for keeping up what Daniel Webster
     called "the rub-a-dub of agitation."

How well I remember the day I first met my life-long friend. George
Thompson and William Lloyd Garrison having announced an anti-slavery
meeting in Seneca Falls, Miss Anthony came to attend it. These
gentlemen were my guests. Walking home after the adjournment, we met
Mrs. Bloomer and Miss Anthony on the corner of the street waiting to
greet us. There she stood with her good earnest face and genial smile,
dressed in gray silk, hat and all the same color, relieved with pale
blue ribbons, the perfection of neatness and sobriety. I liked her
thoroughly, and why I did not at once invite her home with me to
dinner, I do not know. She accuses me of that neglect and never has
forgiven me, as she wished to see and hear all she could of our noble
friends. I suppose my mind was full of what I had heard, or my coming
dinner, or the probable behavior of three mischievous boys who had
been busily exploring the premises while I was at the meeting. That I
had abundant cause for anxiety in regard to the philosophical
experiments these young savages might try, the reader will admit when
informed of some of their performances.[82]

It is often said by those who know Miss Anthony best, that she has
been my good angel, always pushing and guiding me to work, that but
for her pertinacity I should never have accomplished the little I
have; and on the other hand, it has been said that I forged the
thunderbolts and she fired them. Perhaps all this is in a measure
true. With the cares of a large family, I might in time, like too many
women, have become wholly absorbed in a narrow family selfishness, had
not my friend been continually exploring new fields for missionary
labors. Her description of a body of men on any platform, complacently
deciding questions in which women had an equal interest, without an
equal voice, readily roused me to a determination to throw a firebrand
in the midst of their assembly.

Thus, whenever I saw that stately Quaker girl coming across my lawn, I
knew that some happy convocation of the sons of Adam were to be set by
the ears, by one of our appeals or resolutions. The little portmanteau
stuffed with facts was opened, and there we had what the Rev. John
Smith and the Hon. Richard Roe had said, false interpretations of
Bible texts, the statistics of women robbed of their property, shut
out of some college, half paid for their work, the reports of some
disgraceful trial, injustice enough to turn any woman's thoughts from
stockings and puddings. Then we would get out our pens and write
articles for papers, or a petition to the Legislature, letters to the
faithful here and there, stir up the women in Ohio, Pennsylvania, or
Massachusetts, call on _The Lily_, _The Una_, _The Liberator_, and
_The Standard_, to remember our wrongs as well as those of the slave.
We never met without issuing a pronunciamento on some question.

We were at once fast friends, in thought and sympathy we were one, and
in the division of labor we exactly complemented each other. In
writing we did better work together than either could alone. While she
is slow and analytical in composition, I am rapid and synthetic. I am
the better writer, she the better critic. She supplied the facts and
statistics, I the philosophy and rhetoric, and together we have made
arguments that have stood unshaken by the storms of thirty long years:
arguments that no man has answered. Our speeches may be considered the
united product of our two brains.

So entirely one are we, that in all our associations, ever side by
side on the same platform, not one feeling of jealousy or envy has
ever shadowed our lives. We have indulged freely in criticism of each
other when alone, and hotly contended whenever we have differed, but
in our friendship of thirty years there has never been a break of one
hour. To the world we always seem to agree and uniformly reflect each
other. Like husband and wife, each has the feeling that we must have
no differences in public. Thus united, at an early day we began to
survey the State and nation, the future field of our labors. We read
with critical eyes the proceedings of Congress and Legislatures, of
General Assemblies and Synods, of Conferences and Conventions, and
discovered that in all alike the existence of woman was entirely
ignored.

Night after night by an old-fashioned fireplace we plotted and planned
the coming agitation, how, when, and where each entering wedge could
be driven, by which woman might be recognized, and her rights secured.
Speedily the State was aflame with disturbances in temperance and
teachers' conventions, and the press heralded the news far and near
that women delegates had suddenly appeared demanding admission in
men's conventions; that their rights had been hotly contended session
after session, by liberal men on the one side; the clergy and learned
professors on the other; an overwhelming majority rejecting the women
with terrible anathemas and denunciations. Such battles were fought
over and over in the chief cities of many of the Northern States,
until the bigotry of men in all the reforms and professions was
thoroughly tested. Every right achieved: to enter a college; to study
a profession; to labor in some new industry, or to advocate a reform
measure, was contended for inch by inch.

Many of those enjoying all these blessings, now complacently say, "If
these pioneers in reform, had only pressed their measures more
judiciously; in a more ladylike manner; in more choice language; in a
more deferential attitude, the gentlemen could not have behaved so
rudely." We give in these pages enough of the characteristics of these
women, of the sentiments they expressed, of their education, ancestry,
and position, to show that no power could have met the prejudice and
bigotry of that period more successfully than they did, who so bravely
and persistently fought and conquered them.

True, those gentlemen were all quite willing that women should join
their societies and churches, to do the drudgery, to work up the
enthusiasm in fairs and revivals, conventions and flag presentations,
to pay a dollar apiece into their treasury for the honor of being
members of their various organizations, to beg money for the church,
circulate petitions from door to door, to visit saloons, to pray with
or defy rum-sellers, to teach school at half-price, and sit round the
outskirts of a hall like so many wall flowers in teachers' State
Conventions; but they would not allow them to sit on the platform,
address the assembly, nor vote for men and measures.

Those who had learned the first lessons of human rights from the lips
of Beriah Green, Samuel J. May, and Gerrit Smith, would not accept any
such position. When women abandoned the temperance reform, all
interest in the question gradually died out in the State, and
practically nothing was done in New York for nearly twenty years.
Gerrit Smith made one or two attempts toward an "anti-dram-shop
party," but as women could not vote they felt no interest in the
measure, and failure was the result.

I soon convinced my new friend that the ballot was the key to the
situation, that when we had a voice in the laws we should be welcomed
to any platform. In turning the intense earnestness and religious
enthusiasm of this great-souled woman into this one channel, I soon
felt the power of my convert in goading me forever forward to more
untiring work. Soon fastened heart to heart with hooks of steel in a
friendship that thirty years of confidence and affection have steadily
strengthened, we have labored faithfully together.

After twelve added years of agitation, from the passage of the
property bill, New York conceded other civil rights to married women.
Pending the discussion of these various bills, Susan B. Anthony
circulated petitions both for the civil and political rights of woman
throughout the State, traveling in stage coaches and open wagons and
sleighs in all seasons, and on foot from door to door through towns
and cities, doing her uttermost to rouse women to some sense of their
natural rights as human beings, to their civil and political rights as
citizens of a republic; and while expending her time, strength, and
money to secure these blessings for the women of the State, they would
gruffly tell her they had all the rights they wanted, or rudely shut
the door in her face, leaving her to stand outside, petition in hand,
with as much contempt as if she were asking alms for herself. None but
those who did that petition work in the early days for the slaves and
the women, can ever know the hardships and humiliations that were
endured. But it was done because it was only through petitions, a
power seemingly so inefficient, that disfranchised classes could be
heard in the national councils, hence their importance.

The frivolous objections some women made to our appeals were as
exasperating as ridiculous. To reply to them politely at all times,
required a divine patience. On one occasion, after addressing the
Legislature, some of the ladies in congratulating me, inquired in a
deprecating tone, "What do you do with your children?" "Ladies," I
said, "it takes me no longer to speak than you to listen; what have
you done with your children the two hours you have been sitting here?
But to answer your questions. I never leave my children to go to
Saratoga, Washington, Newport, or Europe, nor even to come here. They
are at this moment with a faithful nurse at the Delavan House, and
having accomplished my mission, we shall all return home together."

Miss Anthony, who was a frequent guest at my home, sometimes stood
guard on such occasions.[83] The children of our household say that
among their earliest recollections is the tableau of "Mother and
Susan," seated by a large table covered with books and papers, always
writing and talking about the Constitution, interrupted with
occasional visits from others of the faithful. Hither came Elizabeth
Oakes Smith, Paulina Wright Davis, Frances Dana Gage, Dr. Harriot
Hunt, Antoinette Brown, Lucy Stone, Abby Kelly, by turn, until all
these names were as familiar as household words to the children.

Martha C. Wright, of Auburn, was a frequent visitor at the center of
the rebellion, as my sequestered cottage on Locust Hill was
facetiously called. She brought to these councils of war not only her
own individual wisdom, but that of the wife and sister of William H.
Seward, and sometimes encouraging suggestions from the great statesman
himself, from whose writings we often gleaned grand and radical
sentiments. Lucretia Mott, too, being an occasional guest at her
sister's in Auburn, added the dignity of her presence at many of these
important consultations. She was uniformly in favor of toning down our
fiery pronunciamentoes. For Miss Anthony and myself, the English
language had no words strong enough to express the indignation we felt
in view of the prolonged injustice to woman. We found, however, that
after expressing ourselves in the most vehement manner, and thus in a
measure giving our feelings an outlet, we were reconciled to issue the
documents at last in milder terms. If the men of the State could have
known the stern rebukes, the denunciations, the wit, the irony, the
sarcasm that were garnered there, and then judiciously pigeon-holed,
and milder and more persuasive appeals substituted, they would have
been truly thankful that they fared no worse.

Mr. Seward, in the brief intervals in his Washington life, made
frequent visits in our neighborhood at the house of Judge G. V.
Sackett, a man of wealth and some political influence. One of the
Senator's standing anecdotes at dinner to illustrate the purifying
influence of woman at the polls, which he always told with great zest
for my special benefit, was in regard to the manner his wife's sister
exercised the right of suffrage.

"Mrs. Worden having the supervision of a farm near Auburn, was obliged
to hire two or three men for its cultivation. It was her custom,
having examined them as to their capacity to perform the required
labor, their knowledge of tools, horses, cattle, gardening, and
horticulture, to inquire as to their politics. She informed them that
being a woman and a widow, and having no one to represent her, she
must have Republicans to do her voting, to represent her political
opinions, and it always so happened that the men who offered their
services belonged to the Republican party.

"Some one remarked to her one day, 'Are you sure your men vote as they
promise?' 'Yes,' she replied, 'I trust nothing to their discretion. I
take them in my carriage within sight of the polls, put them in charge
of some Republican who can be trusted. I see they have the right
tickets, then I feel sure I am faithfully represented, and I know I am
right in so doing. I have neither husband, father, nor son; am
responsible for my own taxes; am amenable to all the laws of the
State; must pay the penalty of my own crimes if I commit any; hence I
have the right, according to the principles of our government, to
representation, and so long as I am not permitted to vote in person, I
have a right to do so by proxy, hence I hire men to vote my
principles.'" Thus she disposed of the statesman and his seriocomic
morality.

These two sisters, daughters of Judge Miller, an influential man of
wealth and position, were women of culture and remarkable natural
intelligence, and interested in all progressive ideas. They had rare
common-sense and independence of character, great simplicity of
manner, and were wholly indifferent to the little arts of the toilet.

I was often told by fashionable women that one great objection to the
woman's rights movement was the publicity of the conventions; the
immodesty of speaking from a platform; and the trial of seeing one's
name in the papers. Several ladies made such remarks to me one day as
a bevy of us were sitting together in one of the fashionable hotels in
Newport. We were holding a Convention there at that time, and some of
them had been present at one of the sessions. "Really," said I,
"ladies, you surprise me; our Conventions are not as public as the
ball-room where I saw you all dancing last night. As to modesty, it
may be a question in many minds whether it is less modest to speak
words of soberness and truth, plainly dressed with one's person
decently covered on a platform, than gorgeously arrayed with bare arms
and shoulders, to waltz in the arms of strange gentlemen.

"And as to the press, I noticed you all reading with evident
satisfaction the personal compliments and full descriptions of your
dresses at the last ball, in this morning's papers. I presume that any
one of you would have felt slighted if your name had not been
mentioned in the general description. When my name is mentioned, it is
in connection with some great moral movement, as making a speech, or
reading a resolution. Thus we all suffer or enjoy the same publicity,
we are all alike ridiculed, wise men pity and ridicule you, <DW2>s and
fools pity and ridicule me, you as the victims of folly and fashion,
me as the representative of many of the disagreeable 'isms' of the
age, as they choose to distinguish liberal opinions. It is amusing in
analyzing prejudices to see on what slender foundations they rest,"
and the ladies around me were so completely cornered that no one
attempted an answer.

I remember being at a party at Gov. Seward's one evening, when Mr.
Burlingame and his Chinese delegation were among the guests. As soon
as the dancing commenced, and young ladies and gentlemen locked in
each other's arms, began to whirl in the giddy waltz, these Chinese
gentlemen were so shocked that they covered their faces with their
fans, occasionally peeping out each side and expressing their surprise
to each other. They thought us the most immodest women on the face of
the earth. Modesty and good taste are questions of latitude and
education; the more people know, the more their ideas are expanded, by
travel, experience, and observation; the less easily they are shocked.
The narrowness and bigotry of women, are the result of their
circumscribed sphere of thought and action.

Soon after Judge Hurlbut had published his work on "Human Rights," and
I had addressed the Legislature the first time, we met at a dinner
party in Albany; Mr. and Mrs. Seward were there. The Senator was very
merry on that occasion, and made Judge Hurlbut and myself the target
for all his ridicule on the woman's rights question, in which most of
the company joined, so that we stood quite alone. Sure that we had the
right on our side, and the arguments clearly defined in our own minds,
and both being cool and self-possessed, and with wit and sarcasm quite
equal to any of them, we fought the Senator inch by inch until he had
a very narrow platform to stand on. Mrs. Seward maintained an unbroken
silence, while those ladies who did open their lips were with the
opposition, supposing, no doubt, that Mr. Seward represented his
wife's opinions.

When the ladies withdrew from the table, my embarrassment may be
easily imagined. Separated from the Judge, I should now be an hour
with a bevy of ladies who evidently felt a repulsion to all my most
cherished opinions. It was the first time I had met Mrs. Seward, and I
did not then know the broad liberal tendencies of her mind. What a
tide of disagreeable thoughts rushed through me in that short passage
from the dining-room to the parlor; how gladly I would have glided out
the front door, but that was impossible, so I made up my mind to
stroll round as if self-absorbed and look at the books and paintings
until the Judge appeared, as I took it for granted that after all I
said at the table on the political, religious, and social equality of
woman, not a lady would have anything to say to me.

Imagine then my surprise when the moment the parlor door was closed
upon us, Mrs. Seward, approaching me most affectionately said, "Let me
thank you for all the brave words you uttered at the dinner-table, and
for your speech before the Legislature, that thrilled my soul as I
read it over and over." I was filled with joy and astonishment.
Recovering myself, I said, "Is it possible, Mrs. Seward, that you
agree with me? Then why, when I was so hard pressed with foes on every
side, did you not come to the defence? I supposed that all you ladies
were hostile to every one of my ideas on this question!" "No, no!"
said she, "I am with you thoroughly, but I am a born coward; there is
nothing I dread more than Mr. Seward's ridicule. I would rather walk
up to the cannon's mouth than encounter it." "I too am with you," "And
I," said two or three others who had been silent at the table. I never
had a more serious, heartfelt conversation than with these ladies.
Mrs. Seward's spontaneity and earnestness had moved them all deeply,
and when the Senator appeared the first word he said was, "Before we
part I must confess that I was fairly vanquished by you and the Judge,
on my own principles (for we had quoted some of his most radical
utterances). You have the argument, but custom and prejudice are
against you, and they are stronger than truth and logic."

We had quite a magnetic circle of reformers in Central New York, that
kept the missives flying. At Rochester, were William H. Ohanning,
Frederick Douglass, the Anthonys, the Posts, the Hallowells, the
Stebbins, some grand Quaker families in Farmington, and Waterloo; Mrs.
Bloomer and her sprightly weekly called _The Lily_, at Seneca Falls;
Mrs. Wright, Mrs. Worden, Mrs. Seward, at Auburn; Gerrit Smith's
family at Peterboro; Beriah Green's at Whitesboro, with the Sedgwicks
and Mays, and Matilda Joslyn Gage at Syracuse. Although Mrs. Gage was
surrounded with a family of small children for years, yet she was
always a student, an omnivorous reader and liberal thinker, and her
pen was ever at work answering the attacks on the woman movement in
the county and State journals. In the village of Manlius, where she
lived some time after her marriage, she was the sole representative of
this unpopular reform. When walking the street she would often hear
some boy, shielded by a dry-goods box or a fence, cry out "woman's
rights."

On one occasion, at a large evening party at Mr. Van Schaick's, the
host read aloud a poem called Rufus Chubb, a burlesque on
"strong-minded" women, ridiculing careers and conventions, and the
many claims being made for larger freedom. Mrs. Gage, then quite
young, was surprised and embarrassed. Every eye was fixed on her, as
evidently the type of womanhood the author was portraying. As soon as
the reader's voice died away, Mrs. Gage, with marked coolness and
grace, approached him, and with an imaginary wreath crowned him the
poet-laureate of the occasion, and introduced him to the company as
"the immortal Rufus Chubb." The expressive gesture and the few brief
words conferring the honor, turned the laugh on Mr. Van Schaick so
completely, that he was the target for all the merriment of the
evening.

Mrs. Gage was the only daughter of Dr. Hezekiah Joslyn, a man of
learning and philanthropic tendencies. He gave much attention to the
direction of his daughter's thought and reading. She always had a
knack of rummaging through old libraries, bringing more startling
facts to light than any woman I ever knew.[84]

In the winter of 1861, just after the election of Lincoln, the
Abolitionists decided to hold a series of Conventions in the chief
cities of the North. All their available speakers were pledged for
active service. The Republican party, having absorbed the political
Abolitionists within its ranks by its declared hostility to the
extension of slavery, had come into power with overwhelming
majorities; hence the Garrisonian Abolitionists, opposed to all
compromises, felt this was the opportune moment to rouse the people to
the necessity of holding that party to its declared principles, and
pushing it, if possible, a step or two forward.

I was invited to accompany Miss Anthony and Beriah Green to a few
points in Central New York. But we soon found, by the concerted action
of Republicans all over the country, the Conventions were broken up at
every point. This furnished one occasion on which Republicans and
Democrats could work harmoniously together, and they made common cause
against the Abolitionists. The John Brown raid the year before had
intimidated Northern politicians as much as Southern slaveholders, and
the general feeling was that the discussion of the question at the
North should be altogether suppressed.

From Buffalo to Albany our experience was the same, varied only by the
fertile resources of the actors and their surroundings. Thirty years
of education had somewhat changed the character of Northern mobs. They
no longer dragged men through the streets with ropes round their
necks, nor broke up women's prayer-meetings; they no longer threw eggs
and brickbats at the apostles of reform, nor dipped them in barrels of
tar and feathers; they simply crowded the halls, and with laughing,
groaning, clapping, and cheering, effectually interrupted the
proceedings.

Thus we passed the two days we had advertised for a Convention in St.
James' Hall, Buffalo. As we paid for the Hall, the mob enjoyed
themselves at our expense in more ways than one. At the appointed time
every session we took our places on the platform, making at various
intervals of silence renewed efforts to speak. Not succeeding, we sat
and conversed with each other and many friends who crowded the
platform and ante-rooms. Thus among ourselves we had a pleasant
reception and a discussion of many phases of the question that brought
us together. The mob not only vouchsafed to us the privilege of
talking to our friends without interruption, but delegations of their
own came behind the scenes from time to time, to discuss with us the
right of free speech and the constitutionality of slavery.

These Buffalo rowdies were headed by ex-Justice Hinson, aided by
younger members of the Fillmore and Seymour families and the Chief of
Police and fifty subordinates, who were admitted to the hall free for
the express purpose of protecting our right of free speech, which in
defiance of the Mayor's orders, they did not make the slightest effort
to do. At Lockport there was a feeble attempt in the same direction.
At Albion neither hall, church, nor school-house could be obtained, so
we held small meetings in the dining-room of the hotel.

At Rochester, Corinthian Hall was packed long before the hour
advertised. This was a delicately appreciative jocose mob. At this
point Aaron Powell joined us. As he had just risen from a bed of
sickness, looking pale and emaciated, he slowly mounted the platform.
The mob at once took in his look of exhaustion, and as he seated
himself they gave an audible, simultaneous sigh, as if to say, What a
relief it is to be seated! So completely did the tender manifestation
reflect Mr. Powell's apparent condition, that the whole audience burst
into a roar of laughter. Here, too, all attempts to speak were futile.

At Port Byron a generous sprinkling of cayenne pepper on the stove,
soon cut short all constitutional arguments and paeans to liberty. And
so it was all the way to Albany. The whole State was aflame with the
mob spirit, and from Boston and various points in other States, the
same news reached us. As the Legislature was in session, and we were
advertised in Albany, a radical member sarcastically moved "that as
Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony were about to move on Albany, the
militia be ordered out for the protection of the city."

Happily, Albany could then boast a democratic Mayor, a man of courage
and conscience, who said the right of free speech should never be
trodden underfoot where he had the power to prevent it. And grandly
did that one determined man maintain order in his jurisdiction.
Through all the sessions of the Convention Mayor Thatcher sat on the
platform, his police stationed in different parts of the Hall and
outside the building, to disperse the crowd as fast as collected. If a
man or boy hissed or made the slightest interruption, he was
immediately ejected. And not only did the Mayor preserve order in the
meetings, but with a company of armed police, he escorted us every
time to and from the Delavan House. The last night Gerrit Smith
addressed the mob from the steps of the hotel, after which they gave
him three cheers, and dispersed in good order.

When proposing for the Mayor a vote of thanks at the close of the
Convention, Mr. Smith expressed his fears that it had been a severe
ordeal for him to listen to these prolonged anti-slavery discussions,
he smiled, and said: "I have really been deeply interested and
instructed. I rather congratulate myself that a Convention of this
character has at last come in the line of my business, otherwise I
should have probably remained in ignorance of many important facts and
opinions I now understand and appreciate."

Whilst all this was going on publicly, we had an equally trying
experience progressing day by day behind the scenes. Miss Anthony had
been instrumental in helping a fugitive mother with her child, escape
from a husband who had immured her in an insane asylum. The wife,
belonging to one of the first families of New York, her brother a
United States Senator, and the husband a man of position, a large
circle of friends and acquaintances were interested in the result.
Though she was incarcerated in an insane asylum for eighteen months,
yet members of her own family again and again testified that she was
not insane. Miss Anthony knowing that she was not, and believing fully
that the unhappy mother was the victim of a conspiracy, would not
reveal her hiding-place.

Knowing the confidence Miss Anthony felt in the wisdom of Mr. Garrison
and Mr. Phillips, they were implored to use their influence with her
to give up the fugitives. Letters and telegrams, persuasions,
arguments, warnings, from Mr. Garrison, Mr. Phillips, the Senator, on
the one side, and from Lydia Mott, Mrs. Elizabeth F. Ellet, Abby
Hopper Gibbons, on the other, poured in upon her day after day, but
Miss Anthony remained immovable, although she knew she was defying
authority and violating law, and that she might be arrested any moment
on the platform. We had known so many aggravated cases of this kind,
that in daily counsel we resolved that this woman should not be
recaptured if it was possible to prevent it. To us it looked as
imperative a duty to shield a sane mother who had been torn from a
family of little children and doomed to the companionship of lunatics,
and to aid her in fleeing to a place of safety, as to help a fugitive
from slavery to Canada. In both cases an unjust law was violated; in
both cases the supposed owners of the victims were defied, hence, in
point of law and morals, the act was the same in both cases. The
result proved the wisdom of Miss Anthony's decision, as all with whom
Mrs. P. came in contact for years afterward, expressed the opinion
that she was perfectly sane and always had been. Could the dark
secrets of these insane asylums be brought to light, we should be
shocked to know the countless number of rebellious wives, sisters, and
daughters that are thus annually sacrificed to false customs and
conventionalisms, and barbarous laws made by men for women.

Quite an agitation occurred in 1852, on woman's costume. In demanding
a place in the world of work, the unfitness of her dress seemed to
some, an insurmountable obstacle. How can you, it was said, ever
compete with man for equal place and pay, with garments of such frail
fabrics and so cumbrously fashioned, and how can you ever hope to
enjoy the same health and vigor with man, so long as the waist is
pressed into the smallest compass, pounds of clothing hung on the
hips, the limbs cramped with skirts, and with high heels the whole
woman thrown out of her true equilibrium. Wise men, physicians, and
sensible women, made their appeals, year after year; physiologists
lectured on the subject; the press commented, until it seemed as if
there were a serious demand for some decided steps, in the direction
of a rational costume for women. The most casual observer could see
how many pleasures young girls were continually sacrificing to their
dress: In walking, running, rowing, skating, dancing, going up and
down stairs, climbing trees and fences, the airy fabrics and flowing
skirts were a continual impediment and vexation. We can not estimate
how large a share of the ill-health and temper among women is the
result of the crippling, cribbing influence of her costume. Fathers,
husbands, and brothers, all joined in protest against the small waist,
and stiff distended petticoats, which were always themes for unbounded
ridicule. But no sooner did a few brave conscientious women adopt the
bifurcated costume, an imitation in part of the Turkish style, than
the press at once turned its guns on "The Bloomer," and the same
fathers, husbands, and brothers, with streaming eyes and pathetic
tones, conjured the women of their households to cling to the
prevailing fashions.[85] The object of those who donned the new
attire, was primarily health and freedom; but as the daughter of
Gerrit Smith introduced it just at the time of the early conventions,
it was supposed to be an inherent element in the demand for political
equality. As some of those who advocated the right of suffrage wore
the dress, and had been identified with all the unpopular reforms, in
the reports of our conventions, the press rung the changes on
"strong-minded," "Bloomer," "free love," "easy divorce,"
"amalgamation." I wore the dress two years and found it a great
blessing. What a sense of liberty I felt, in running up and down
stairs with my hands free to carry whatsoever I would, to trip through
the rain or snow with no skirts to hold or brush, ready at any moment
to climb a hill-top to see the sun go down, or the moon rise, with no
ruffles or trails to be limped by the dew, or soiled by the grass.
What an emancipation from little petty vexatious trammels and
annoyances every hour of the day. Yet such is the tyranny of custom,
that to escape constant observation, criticism, ridicule,
persecution, mobs,[86] one after another gladly went back to the old
slavery and sacrificed freedom to repose. I have never wondered since
that the Chinese women allow their daughters' feet to be encased in
iron shoes, nor that the Hindoo widows walk calmly to the funeral
pyre. I suppose no act of my life ever gave my cousin, Gerrit Smith,
such deep sorrow, as my abandonment of the "Bloomer costume." He
published an open letter[87] to me on the subject, and when his
daughter, Mrs. Miller, three years after, followed my example, he felt
that women had so little courage and persistence, that for a time he
almost despaired of the success of the suffrage movement; of such
vital consequence in woman's mental and physical development did he
feel the dress to be.

Gerrit Smith[88] Samuel J. May, J. C. Jackson, C. D. Miller and D. C.
Bloomer, sustained the women who lead in this reform, unflinchingly,
during the trying experiment. Let the names of those who made this
protest be remembered. We knew the Bloomer costume never could be
generally becoming, as it required a perfection of form, limbs, and
feet, such as few possessed, and we who wore it also knew that it was
not artistic. Though the martyrdom proved too much for us who had so
many other measures to press on the public conscience, yet no
experiment is lost, however evanescent, that rouses thought to the
injurious consequences of the present style of dress, sacrificing to
its absurdities so many of the most promising girls of this
generation.


FOOTNOTES:

[82] One imagined himself possessed of rare powers of invention (an
ancestral weakness for generations), and had just made a
life-preserver of corks, and tested its virtues on a brother about
eighteen months old. Accompanied by a troop of expectant boys, the
baby was drawn in his carriage to the banks of the Seneca, stripped,
the string of corks tied under his arms, and set afloat in the river,
the philosopher and his satellites in a row-boat, watching the
experiment. The child, accustomed to a morning bath in a large tub,
splashed about joyfully, keeping his head above water. He was as blue
as indigo, and as cold as a frog when rescued by his anxious mother.
The next day, the same victimized infant was seen by a passing friend,
seated on the chimney, on the highest peak of the house. Without
alarming any one, the friend hurried up to the house-top, and rescued
the child from the arms of the philosopher. Another time, three elder
brothers entered into a conspiracy, and locked up the fourth in the
smoke-house. Fortunately, he sounded the alarm loud and clear, and was
set free in safety, whereupon the three were imprisoned in a garret
with two barred windows. They summarily kicked out the bars, and
sliding down on the lightning-rod betook themselves to the barn for
liberty. The youngest boy, then only five years old, skinned his hands
in the descent. This is a fair sample of the quiet happiness I enjoyed
in the first years of motherhood. It was 'mid such exhilarating scenes
that Miss Anthony and I wrote addresses for temperance, anti-slavery,
educational and woman's rights conventions. Here we forged
resolutions, protests, appeals, petitions, agricultural reports, and
constitutional arguments, for we made it a matter of conscience to
accept every invitation to speak on every question, in order to
maintain woman's right to do so. To this end, we took turns on the
domestic watch-towers, directing amusements, settling disputes,
protecting the weak against the strong, and trying to secure equal
rights to all in the home as well as the nation. I can recall many a
stern encounter between my friend and the young experimenter. It is
pleasant to remember that he never seriously injured any of his
victims, and only once came near shooting himself with a pistol. The
ball went through his hand; happily a brass button prevented it from
penetrating his heart.

[83] When the flock reached the magic number of seven, my good angel
would sometimes take one or two to her own quiet home just out of
Rochester, where on a well-cultivated little farm, one could enjoy
uninterrupted rest and the choicest fruits of the season. That was
always a safe harbor for my friend, as her family sympathized fully in
the reforms to which she gave her life. I have many pleasant memories
of my own flying visits to that hospitable Quaker home and the broad
catholic spirit of Daniel and Lucy Anthony. Whatever opposition and
ridicule their daughter endured elsewhere, she enjoyed the steadfast
sympathy and confidence of her own home circle. Her faithful sister
Mary, a most successful principal in the public schools of Rochester
for a quarter of a century, and a good financier, who with her
patrimony and salary has laid by a competence, took on her shoulders
double duty at home in cheering the declining years of her parents,
that Susan might do the public work in these reforms, in which the
sisters were equally interested. At one time when Susan had expended
her last dollar in the publication of her paper, _The Revolution_, and
also $5,000 given her by a wealthy cousin, Anson Lapham, Mary
generously advanced another five thousand, and thus bridged the last
chasm. And now with life's earnest work nearly accomplished, the
sisters are living happily together, illustrating another of the many
charming homes of single women so rapidly multiplying in later years.

[84] Mrs. Gage received a somewhat remarkable early training. Not only
was her father a man of profound thought, a reformer thoroughly
studying all the new questions coming up, but his house was a station
on the underground railroad, the home of anti-slavery speakers and
advanced thinkers upon every subject, as well as that of a large
number of clergymen, who yearly held "protracted meetings" in the
place. Sitting up until midnight listening to the discussions of those
reverend gentlemen upon baptism, original sin, predestination, and
other doctrinal points, her thought was early turned to religious
questions. She read the Bible through before she was nine years old,
and became a church member at the early age of eleven, her parents, in
accordance with their habits, not attempting to influence her mind for
or against this step.

Dr. Joslyn paid great attention to his daughter's education. From her
earliest years it was a law of the household that her childish
questions should not be put off with an idle reply, but must be
reasonably answered; and when she was older, he himself instructed her
in mathematics, Greek, and physiology. But that for which she feels
most indebted to him, as she often says--the grandest training given
her--was to think for herself. She was taught to accept no opinion
because of its authority, but to question the truth of all things.
Thus was laid the foundation of Mrs. Gage's reform tendencies and of
her non-acceptance of masculine authority in matters of religion and
politics. Nor was she, in a certain way, less indebted to her mother,
a Scotch lady, belonging to the noble, old, and influential family of
Leslie, a woman of refined and elevated tastes, universally respected
and beloved. From this side Mrs. Gage inherited her antiquarian tastes
and habits of delving into old histories, from which she has unearthed
so many facts bearing upon woman's degradation.

[85] See Appendix.

[86] See Appendix.

[87] See Appendix.

[88] Gerrit Smith's home was ever a charming resort for lovers of
liberty as well as lovers of Eve's daughters. In his leisure hours my
cousin had a turn for match-making, and his chief delight in this
direction was to promote unions between good Abolitionists and the
sons and daughters of conservative families. Here James G. Birney,
among others, wooed and won his wife. Here one would meet the first
families in the State, with Indians, Africans, slaveholders,
religionists of all sects, and representatives of all shades of
humanity, each class alike welcomed and honored, feasting, feting,
dancing--joining in all kinds of amusements and religious worship
together (the Indians excepted, as they generally came for provisions,
which, having secured, they departed). His house was one of the depots
of the underground railroad. One day Mr. Smith summoned all the young
girls then visiting there, saying he had a great secret to tell them
if they would sacredly pledge themselves not to divulge it. Having
done so, he led the way to the third story, ushered us into a large
room, and there stood a beautiful quadroon girl to receive us.
"Harriet," said Mr. Smith, "I want you to make good Abolitionists of
these girls by describing to them all you have suffered in slavery."
He then left the room, locking us in. Her narrative held us
spell-bound until the lengthening shadows of the twilight hour made
her departure safe for Canada. One remark she made impressed me
deeply. I told her of the laws for women such as we then lived under,
and remarked on the parallel condition of slaves and women. "Yes,"
said she, "but I am both. I am doubly damned in sex and color. Yea, in
class too, for I am poor and ignorant; none of you can ever touch the
depth of misery where I stand to-day." We had the satisfaction to see
Harriet dressed in Quaker costume, closely veiled, drive off in the
moonlight that evening, to find the liberty she could not enjoy in
this Republic, under the shadow of a monarch's throne.




CHAPTER XIV.

NEW YORK.


     First Steps in New York--Woman's Temperance Convention, Albany,
     January, 1852--New York Woman's State Temperance Society,
     Rochester, April, 1852--Women before the Legislature pleading for
     a Maine Law--Women rejected as Delegates to Men's State
     Conventions at Albany and Syracuse, 1852; at the Brick Church
     Meeting and World's Temperance Convention in New York,
     1858--Horace Greeley defends the Rights of Women in _The York
     Tribune_--The Teachers' State Conventions--The Syracuse National
     Woman's Rights Convention, 1852--Mob in the Broadway Tabernacle
     Woman's Rights Convention through two days, 1853--State Woman's
     Rights Convention at Rochester, December, 1853--Albany
     Convention, February, 1854, and Hearing before the Legislature
     demanding the Right of Suffrage--A State Committee
     Appointed--Susan B. Anthony General Agent--Conventions at
     Saratoga Springs, 1854, '55, '59--Annual State Conventions with
     Legislative Hearings and Reports of Committees, until the
     War--Married Women's Property Law, 1860--Bill before the
     Legislature Granting Divorce for Drunkenness--Horace Greeley and
     Thurlow Weed oppose it--Ernestine L. Rose, Lucretia Mott, and
     Elizabeth Cady Stanton Address the Legislature in favor of the
     Bill--Robert Dale Owen defends the Measure in _The New York
     Tribune_--National Woman's Rights Conventions in New York City,
     1856, '58, '59, '60--Status of the Woman's Rights Movement at the
     Opening of the War, 1861.

A full report of the woman's rights agitation in the State of New
York, would in a measure be the history of the movement. In this
State, the preliminary battles in the anti-slavery, temperance,
educational, and religious societies were fought; the first
Governmental aid given to the higher education of woman, and her voice
first heard in teachers' associations. Here the first Woman's Rights
Convention was held, the first demand made for suffrage, the first
society formed for this purpose, and the first legislative efforts
made to secure the civil and political rights of women; commanding the
attention of leading members of the bar; of Savage, Spencer, Hertell,
and Hurlbut. Here too the pulpit made the first demand for the
political rights of woman. Here was the first temperance society
formed by women, the first medical college opened to them, and woman
first ordained for the ministry.

In 1850, in the city of Buffalo, 1,500 women petitioned the Common
Council not to license the sale of intoxicating drinks; and the
following year, they sent a petition to the Legislature, signed by
2,200, asking for an act authorizing some official body to take into
custody, and provide for the swarms of vagrant children, growing up in
ignorance and vice. This may be considered the initiative step to a
Board of Charities. In the same year, a number of spirited women in
Fulton, Oswego Co., disgusted with the inefficient action of the
temperance men, entered complaint against the liquor dealers, for the
violation of the license laws, and some of them attended the trials in
person. In 1851, the ladies of Cardiff, Onondaga Co., appeared before
the Grand Jury, and made complaint against the liquor dealers and
overseers of the poor, the one for violating the law, the other for
neglecting to prosecute the violators on their complaint, and they
succeeded in getting both indicted. In 1851, a petition was sent from
Ontario County, praying the Legislature to exempt women from taxation.

September 15, 1853, Antoinette L. Brown was ordained as pastor of a
church in South Butler, and November 15, performed the ceremony at the
marriage of a daughter of Rhoda de Garmo, of Rochester. In this year,
at a large Convention of liberal people, to promote Christian Union,
held in Syracuse, she made an address. All denominations took part on
the occasion and listened to her with respectful attention. In New
York, woman's voice was first heard on the Nation's great festal day.
In 1853, Mary Vaughan gave the fourth of July oration at Speedsville,
Emily Clarke at Watkins, Amelia Bloomer at Hartford, and Antoinette
Brown at South Butler. Everything on these occasions was conducted as
usual: the grand procession to the grove, or town hall, the military
escort, reading the Declaration, martial music, cannon, fire-crackers,
torpedoes, roast pig, and green peas; none of the usual accompaniments
were omitted. In the same year, Antoinette Brown and Lucy Stone
canvassed the twenty-second district, to secure the election of the
Hon. Gerrit Smith for Congress, and were successful in their efforts.

In April, 1854, the Daughters of Temperance at Johnson's Creek, sent
thirty pieces of silver to Gov. Seymour, for vetoing a bill for a
prohibitory law, and thus betraying the friends of temperance. In New
York, the first anti-tax association, the first woman's club and Loyal
League were formed. Here, too, a woman, Mrs. Josephine Shaw Lowell,
was appointed State Commissioner of Charities, by Gov. Samuel J.
Tilden. Whether the Governor of any other State had preceded him in a
more profitable or honorable appointment, has not yet been discovered.
Lest women should feel too deep a sense of gratitude, they should
understand that this office involves arduous labors, but no pecuniary
recompense. This may be a reason that such positions are being
gradually assigned to women.

At the time of this general uprising, New York was thoroughly stirred
with temperance and anti-slavery excitement. George Thompson, the
great English reformer and orator, who had been mobbed in all the
chief cities of the North, accompanied by William Lloyd Garrison, was
holding a series of conventions through the State. And as these
conventions were held in the midst of the "Jerry rescue trials,"[89]
the apostles of freedom spoke with terrible vehemence and
denunciation. Popular orators, too, were rushing here and there in the
furor of a Presidential campaign, and as all these reforms were thrown
into the governmental cauldron for discussion, the whole people seemed
to be on the watch towers of politics and philanthropy. Women shared
in the general unrest, and began to take many steps before unknown.
Since 1840, they had generally attended political meetings, as with
the introduction of moral questions into legislation, they had
manifested an increasing interest in government.

The repeal of the License Law of 1846, filled the temperance hosts
throughout the State with alarm, and roused many women to the
assertion of their rights. Impoverished, broken-hearted wives and
mothers, were for the first time looking to the State for some
protection against the cruelties and humiliations they endured at the
hands of liquor dealers, when suddenly the beneficent law was
repealed, and their reviving hopes crushed. The burning indignation of
women, who had witnessed the protracted outrages on helpless wives and
children in the drunkard's home, roused many to public speech, and
gave rise to the secret organizations called "Daughters of
Temperance." Others finding there was no law nor gospel in the land
for their protection, took the power in their own hands, visiting
saloons, breaking windows, glasses, bottles, and emptying demijohns
and barrels into the streets. Coming like whirlwinds of vengeance,
drunkards and rum-sellers stood paralyzed before them. Though women
were sometimes arrested for these high-handed proceedings, a strong
public sentiment justified their acts, and forced the liquor dealers
to withdraw their complaints.[90]

There is nothing more terrible than the reckless courage of despairing
women, who, though knowing they have eternal truth and justice on
their side, know also their helplessness against the tide of misery
engulphing the drunkard's home. Women were applauded for these acts of
heroism by the press and temperance leagues; they were welcomed too as
speakers sometimes on their platforms, just as slaves were in the
olden days, to move an audience with their tales of woe. But when they
organized themselves into associations, adopted constitutions, passed
resolutions, and sent their delegates to men's conventions, asking to
be recognized as equals, then began the battle in the temperance
ranks, vindictive and protracted for years. The clergy were the most
bitter opponents of the public action of women; but throughout the
conflict they were sustained by the purest men in the nation, such as
Horace Greeley, Joshua R. Giddings, Rev. E. H. Chapin, Rev. Samuel J.
May, Thomas W. Higginson, William H. Channing, Gerrit Smith, Wendell
Phillips, William Lloyd Garrison, and others. All this persecution on
the ground of sex, intensified the love of liberty in woman's soul,
and deepened the oft repeated lesson of individual rights.

On January 28, 1852, "The Daughters of Temperance" assembled in Albany
to take part in a mass meeting of all the "Divisions" in the State.
Among the delegates present were Susan B. Anthony, Mary C. Vaughan,
and Lydia Fowler, who were received as members of the Convention. But
at the first attempt by Miss Anthony to speak, they were informed that
the ladies were invited to listen, and not to take part in the
proceedings. Those women present who were not satisfied with such a
position withdrew, announcing that they would hold a meeting that
evening in which men and women would stand on equal ground.

At the appointed time they assembled in the vestry-room of the
Presbyterian church on Hudson Street. Samuel J. May, who was in Albany
attending one of the "Jerrey Rescue Trials," was present, and opened
the meeting with prayer. Mrs. Vaughan was chosen President,[91] and on
taking the chair, said:

     We have met to consider what we, as women, can do and may do, to
     forward the temperance reform. We have met, because, as members
     of the human family, we share in all the sufferings which error
     and crime bring upon the race, and because we are learning that
     our part in the drama of life is something beside inactive
     suffering and passive endurance. We would act as well as endure;
     and we meet here to-day because many of us have been trying to
     act, and we would combine our individual experiences, and
     together devise plans for the future, out of which shall arise
     well-based hopes of good results to humanity. We are aware that
     this proceeding of ours, this calling together of a body of women
     to deliberate publicly upon plans to carry out a specified
     reform, will rub rather harshly upon the mould of prejudice,
     which has gathered thick upon the common mind.

     .... There are plenty of women, as well as men, who can labor for
     reforms without neglecting business or duty. It is an error that
     clings most tenaciously to the public mind, that because a part
     of the sex are wives and mothers and have absorbing duties, that
     all the sex should be denied any other sphere of effort. To
     deprive every unmarried woman, spinster, or widow, or every
     childless wife, of the power of exercising her warm sympathies
     for the good of others, is to deprive her of the greatest
     happiness of which she is capable; to rob her highest faculties
     of their legitimate operation and reward; to belittle and narrow
     her mind; to dwarf her affections; to turn the harmonies of her
     nature to discord; and, as the human mind must be active, to
     compel her to employ hers with low and grovelling thoughts, which
     lead to contemptible actions.

     There is no reform in which woman can act better or more
     appropriately than temperance. I know not how she can resist or
     turn aside from the duty of acting in this; its effects fall so
     crushingly upon her and those whose interests are identical with
     her own; she has so often seen its slow, insidious, but not the
     less surely fatal advances, gaining upon its victim; she has seen
     the intellect which was her dearest pride, debased; the
     affections which were her life-giving springs of action,
     estranged; the children once loved, abused, disgraced and
     impoverished; the home once an earthly paradise, rendered a fit
     abode for lost spirits; has felt in her own person all the
     misery, degradation, and woe of the drunkard's wife; has shrunk
     from revilings and cowered beneath blows; has labored and toiled
     to have her poor earnings transferred to the rum-seller's
     ill-gotten hoard; while her children, ragged, fireless, poor,
     starving, gathered shivering about her, and with hollow eyes,
     from which all smiles had fled, begged vainly for the bread she
     had not to bestow. Oh! the misery, the utter, hopeless misery of
     the drunkard's wife!

     .... We account it no reason why we should desist, when
     conscience, an awakened sense of duty, and aroused
     heart-sympathies, would lead us to show ourselves something
     different than an impersonation of the vague ideal which has been
     named, Woman, and with which woman has long striven to identify
     herself. A creature all softness and sensibility, who must
     necessarily enjoy and suffer in the extreme, while sharing with
     man the pleasures and the ills of life; bearing happiness meekly,
     and sorrow with fortitude; gentle, mild, submissive, forbearing
     under all circumstances; a softened reflex of the opinions and
     ideas of the masculines who, by relationship, hold mastery over
     her; without individualism, a mere adjunct of man, the chief
     object of whose creation was to adorn and beautify his existence,
     or to minister to some form of his selfishness. This is nearly
     the masculine idea of womanhood, and poor womanhood strives to
     personify it. But not all women.

     This is an age of iconoclasms; and daring hands are raised to
     sweep from its pedestal, and dash to fragments, this false image
     of woman. We care not how soon, if the true woman but take its
     place. This is also, and most emphatically, an age of progress.
     One old idea, one mouldering form of prejudice after another, is
     rapidly swept away. Thought, written and spoken, acts upon the
     mass of mind in this day of railroads and telegraphs, with a
     thousandfold more celerity than in the days of pillions and slow
     coaches. Scarce have the lips that uttered great thoughts ceased
     to move, or the pen which wrote them dropped from the weary hand,
     ere they vibrate through the inmost recesses of a thousand
     hearts, and awaken deep and true responses in a thousand living,
     truthful souls. Thence they grow, expand, fructify, and the
     result is Progress.

Mrs. Lydia F. Fowler then gave several very touching recitals of the
evils of intemperance in family circles within her own observation.
Her lectures on Hygiene and Physiology through the State, illustrating
as she did the effect of alcohol on the system, and pointing out to
mothers what they could do to promote the health of their children,
and thus ensure temperance and morality, were most effective in their
bearings on this question. Letters were read from Elizabeth Cady
Stanton, Clarina Howard Nichols, and Amelia Bloomer.

     Mr. MAY, on rising, said: The sudden and unjustifiable repeal of
     the License Law of 1846, changed the face of the community, which
     had everywhere brightened with new hope under the brief but
     salutary operation of that law. That repeal, which it was
     indecorous if not presumptuous in the representatives of the
     people to make, seeing the law had been enacted directly by the
     people in their primary assemblies; that repeal brought back all
     the evils of intemperance aggravated by the successful efforts
     which had been openly and covertly made to break down the
     barriers which the law of 1846 had set up. The flood-gates of
     this loathsome vice were slammed open, as if never to be shut
     again. What I have seen and heard since I came to the capital,
     has encouraged me not a little. I have met with gentlemen from
     all parts of the State, who seem to be convinced that the people
     are ready for the passage of a stringent law similar to that
     which has recently gone into operation in Maine.

     But I am particularly encouraged that the women of the State have
     made an especial and somewhat novel movement in this behalf. It
     has in all ages of the world been ominous when the women of a
     country have come out of the retirement they generally choose, to
     take a public part in the affairs of the State. What if this
     Convention be not a large one, it is significant nevertheless. I
     could cite you to a reform in our own country which commenced
     with less than twelve individuals twenty years ago, and now that
     reform has drawn into its vortex all the living spirits in the
     land, and has created an agitation of the public mind that will
     never be quelled until Slavery is buried out of sight forever. If
     the women of New York will act up to the noble sentiments that
     have been expressed in the addresses and letters written by women
     to this Convention, great and glorious results must follow. And
     there are especial reasons why women should be earnest in this
     cause. Their sex, though not so much addicted as ours to the use
     of intoxicating drinks, suffers more from the effects of the
     evil. To them it is the destruction of all domestic peace, the
     wreck of all conjugal and maternal hopes; it is ignorance,
     poverty, misery, for themselves and children. My own attention
     was first called to this reform by the sufferings of women. (Mr.
     May here related several touching anecdotes of most estimable
     women he had known, devoted wives, mothers, sisters, daughters,
     who had been utterly despoiled of all earthly comfort by the
     intemperance of those they loved).

     At one time I thought this evil might be repressed by man alone;
     but I have learned that humanity is dual. God made man male and
     female. The sexes are equally concerned in the welfare of the
     race. What God has joined together must not be put asunder. Women
     are constituent parts of the State and the Church, as well as of
     the home; and their influence is as indispensable to the
     well-being of the former as the latter. A State or Church that
     excludes woman from its councils, is like a family without a
     mother, in a condition of half orphanage.

     In the days of our Revolution women made as many sacrifices and
     endured as great sufferings for independence, as did the men. It
     is most ungrateful when we are speaking of that event, and the
     actors in it, not to make mention of our Revolutionary Mothers.
     In the French Revolution women were conspicuous actors. If Madame
     Roland and her coadjutors had been allowed to sway the public
     councils, the results would have been far happier for France.

     In moral revolutions women have ever signalized themselves. It
     was a woman, Elizabeth Fry, who in England commenced the reform
     in the discipline of prisons, and prosecuted it in person for
     years, until she had proven her plans feasible, and inspired
     others with a faith like her own. It was Dorothea Dix (a very
     delicately organized woman), who first in this country recognized
     the claims and acknowledged the rights of the insane. She found
     these poor victims of man's ignorance everywhere suffering
     terrible hardships. They were dreaded by all, and abhorred by
     many who had charge of them, and believed to be incapable of
     suffering as sane people suffer, and to be beyond the reach of
     those kindly influences which more than all others control those
     who are in their right minds. Miss Dix penetrated their
     cheerless, dark, damp abodes. She brought to light the wrongs
     that were inflicted upon them. She exposed the folly of the fears
     which were entertained of them. She showed by her own courageous
     experiments that even furious maniacs could be controlled by the
     spirit of Christian love. The asylums in many of our States
     to-day are noble monuments to the inestimable value of her
     services.

     When Miss Dix first visited the insane department of the jail in
     Cambridge, to look after one miserable human being she had
     chanced to hear was immured there, she little thought of the
     career of benevolent effort and of high distinction as a
     philanthropist that was opening before her. She went only to give
     relief to a solitary sufferer. But the dejected, helpless and
     wretched condition in which she found the insane there, raised
     the inquiry in her mind whether it could be that the same class
     of unfortunates were treated in this wise elsewhere. Such an
     inquiry could not be suppressed in a heart like hers; it urged
     her on to further investigation. It led to new developments of
     the methods that philanthropists and scientists were advocating
     in France. She came at last to feel that she had a mission to
     that class of "the lost ones," and she has fulfilled it
     gloriously. She has been the angel of the Lord to the insane in
     almost all the States of the Union.

     The Anti-Slavery cause in both England and America, owes as much
     to woman as to man. If in Great Britain the suppression of the
     African slave trade was commenced by men, the abolition of West
     India slavery was begun by women; and it is acknowledged that
     they did more than the men to accomplish the overthrow of that
     system of all imaginable wickedness, which, while it endured,
     stimulated the cupidity of the slave-trader, so that he
     prosecuted his accursed traffic as much as ever, notwithstanding
     the acts of the American Congress and the British Parliament. In
     our country the most efficient, untiring laborers in the
     anti-slavery cause, have from the beginning been women. Lydia
     Maria Child, a lady highly distinguished among the authors of
     America, was the first to publish a sizable book upon slavery.
     Its very title was a pregnant one, viz, "An Appeal in behalf of
     that Class of Americans called Africans." Its contents were of
     great and permanent value. The publication of that volume was to
     her a costly sacrifice of popularity as an author. At a very
     early period of the enterprise, Elizabeth M. Chandler published
     many essays and poems that will live forever. The bravery and
     persistence of Prudence Crandall in maintaining a school for
     <DW52> girls in Connecticut, in the face of terrible
     persecution, is beyond praise. Maria Weston Chapman, since 1834,
     has been among the leaders of the anti-slavery host, directing
     their movements and stimulating them to effort. Lucretia Mott,
     Sarah Pugh, Eliza Lee Follen, Abby Kelly, Mary Grew, are all
     worthy of mention--there is no end to the names of excellent,
     wise, courageous women who have contended nobly for the
     anti-slavery faith and practice. They have been traduced,
     reviled, persecuted, but nothing has deterred them from
     advocating the rights of humanity.


NEW YORK STATE TEMPERANCE CONVENTION,

ROCHESTER, N. Y., _April 20 and 21, 1852_.

At ten o'clock a large audience assembled in Corinthian Hall. The
morning session was composed entirely of women; more than five hundred
being present. The meeting was called to order by Susan B. Anthony,
who read the following call that had been extensively circulated
throughout the State:

     The women of the State of New York who desire to aid in advancing
     the cause of Temperance, and are willing to labor earnestly and
     truthfully for its success, are respectfully invited to meet at
     Corinthian Hall in the city of Rochester on the 20th of April,
     for the purpose of devising, maturing, and recommending such a
     course of associated action as shall best subserve for the
     protection of their interests and of society at large, too long
     invaded and destroyed by legalized intemperance. Feeling that
     woman has hitherto been greatly responsible for the continuance
     of this vice by encouraging social drinking, and by not
     sufficiently exerting her influence for its overthrow, and
     realizing that upon her rest the heaviest burthens which follow
     in its train, the Committee are convinced that they will be
     sustained by all good men and women in urging upon the sex such
     noble and energetic action as shall tend to the downfall of the
     traffic in intoxicating drinks.

     Arrangements have been made to render the occasion one of
     interest to all friends of the cause. Addresses and
     communications from both ladies and gentlemen of known ability
     will be presented, and a general and comprehensive plan of
     operation proposed, whereby woman may aid in the promotion of a
     cause which appeals to her sympathy through the avenue of every
     relation which binds her to the race.

     It is earnestly hoped that this meeting will be numerously
     attended.[92]

          SUSAN B. ANTHONY, H. ATTILIA ALBRO, AND MARY C. VAUGHAN,
                                                _Central Committee_.

The officers of the Convention were then chosen. Elizabeth Cady
Stanton, President,[93] who on rising said:

     I fully appreciate, ladies, the compliment intended, in choosing
     me to fill this place on an occasion of such interest and
     importance. If a sincere love for the principles of temperance, a
     fervent zeal in the welfare of woman, and an unwavering faith in
     the final triumph of truth, fits one for this post of honor, then
     am I not unworthy, though I must confess myself, from the novelty
     of the position, ignorant alike of the rights and duties of the
     office of President. I shall deeply regret if in any omissions or
     commissions of duty I fail to reflect back on this Convention a
     full share of the honor now conferred upon me.

     How my heart throbs to see women assembling in convention to
     inquire what part they have in the great moral struggles of
     humanity! Verily a new era is dawning upon the world, when
     woman, hitherto the mere dependent of man, the passive recipient
     alike of truth and error, at length shakes off her lethargy, the
     shackles of a false education, customs and habits, and stands
     upright in the dignity of a moral being, and not only proclaims
     her own freedom, but demands what she shall do to save man from
     the slavery of his own low appetites. We have come together at
     this time to consult each other as to what woman may do in
     banishing the vice of intemperance from the land. We can do much
     by years of preparation and education of ourselves, for a great
     moral revolution will burst forth with the regeneration of woman.
     We shall do much when the pulpit, the forum, the professor's
     chair, and the ballot-box are ours; but the question is, what can
     we do to-day, under existing circumstances, under all the adverse
     influences that surround us? I will briefly mention several
     points for your consideration that have suggested themselves to
     my mind.

     1. Let no woman remain in the relation of wife with the confirmed
     drunkard. Let no drunkard be the father of her children. Let no
     woman form an alliance with any man who has been suspected even
     of the vice of intemperance; for the taste once acquired can
     never, never be eradicated. Be not misled by any pledges,
     resolves, promises, prayers, or tears. You can not rely on the
     word of a man who is, or has been, the victim of such an
     overpowering appetite.

     2. Let us petition our State governments so to modify the laws
     affecting marriage, and the custody of children, that the
     drunkard shall have no claims on either wife or child.

     3. Let us touch not, taste not, handle not, the unclean thing in
     any combination. Let us eschew it in all culinary purposes, and
     refuse it in all its most tempting and refined forms.

     4. With an efficient organization, lectures, tracts, newspapers,
     and discussion, we shall accomplish much. I would give more for
     the agitation of any question on sound principles, thus
     enlightening and convincing the public mind, than for all the
     laws that could be written or passed in a century. By the
     foolishness of preaching, must all moral revolutions be achieved;
     but remember the truth, the whole truth must be faithfully
     preached.

     5. We must raise the standard of temperance in all things. The
     man who over-eats takes a little wine to aid digestion, and he
     who exhausts himself by licentious indulgence takes a little as a
     stimulus; thus one vice induces another, and all go hand in hand
     together.

     6. Let us endeavor to make labor honorable in all. Work is
     worship, says Emerson. Let us honor the hard hand and sun-burnt
     brow. Remember idleness is the parent of vice; and there is no
     surer way to banish vice from our land, than to see that the
     young just coming on the stage of life are wisely and fully
     employed.

     And lastly, inasmuch as charity begins at home, let us withdraw
     our mite from all associations for sending the Gospel to the
     heathen across the ocean, for the education of young men for the
     ministry, for the building up of a theological aristocracy and
     gorgeous temples, to the unknown God, and devote ourselves to the
     poor and suffering about us. Let us feed and clothe the hungry
     and naked, gather children into schools, and provide
     reading-rooms and decent homes for young men and women thrown
     alone upon the world. Good schools and homes where the young
     could ever be surrounded by an atmosphere of purity and virtue,
     would do much more to prevent immorality and crime in our cities
     than all the churches in the land could ever possibly do toward
     the regeneration of the multitude sunk in poverty, ignorance, and
     vice.

Susan B. Anthony, Chairman of the Central Committee, addressed the
meeting in a clear, forcible manner, alluding to the indifference
manifested by many women on the subject of temperance, and stated the
object of calling the women of the State together at this time. She
read letters[94] from Frances Dana Gage, Clarina Howard Nichols,
Elizabeth Oakes Smith, Abby Kelly Foster, and Horace Greeley. In the
discussion of the resolutions[95] during the different sessions, Giles
B. Stebbins, Benjamin Fish, William Barnes, Amy Post, Mrs. Albro, Mrs.
Vaughan, William C. Bloss, George W. Clark, and the Rev. Mr. Goodwin,
all took part. One resolution denouncing Mr. Gale, a State Senator,
for his insulting epithets in regard to the women who had petitioned
for a Maine law, called down on that gentleman some well-deserved
reprimands. The Rev. Mr. Goodwin expressed his indignation and shame,
that any man of education and position should use such language in
speaking of women who were so faithfully laboring in all the great
reforms of the day. Mrs. Bloomer in the course of her remarks also
criticised Mr. Gale for saying in a sneering way "that representatives
were not accustomed to listen to the voice of woman in legislating
upon great public questions; that the constitution of the female mind
was such as to render woman incapable of correctly deciding upon the
points involved in the passage of the proposed bill." After rousing
the attention of the people of the State by large and enthusiastic
meetings in all the chief cities, and sending into the Legislature a
mammoth petition for a Maine law, this was woman's answer. On the
Divorce resolution,

     Mrs. BLOOMER said: We believe the teachings which have been given
     to the drunkard's wife touching her duty--the commendable
     examples of angelic wives which she has been exhorted to follow,
     have done much to continue and aggravate the vices and crimes of
     society growing out of intemperance. Drunkenness is good ground
     for divorce, and every woman who is tied to a confirmed drunkard
     should sunder the ties; and if she do it not otherwise the law
     should compel it--especially if she have children.

     We are told that such sentiments are "exceptional," "abhorrent,"
     that the moral sense of society is shocked and outraged by their
     promulgation. Can it be possible that the moral sense of a people
     is more shocked at the idea of a pure-minded, gentle woman
     sundering the ties which bind her to a loathsome mass of
     corruption, than it is to see her dragging out her days in
     misery, tied to his besotted and filthy carcass? Are the morals
     of society less endangered by the drunkard's wife continuing to
     live in companionship with him, giving birth to a large family of
     children who inherit naught but poverty and disgrace, and who
     will grow up criminal and vicious, filling our prisons and
     penitentiaries and corrupting and endangering the purity and
     peace of community, than they would be, should she separate from
     him and strive to win for herself and the children she may have,
     comfort and respectability? The statistics of our prisons,
     poor-houses, and lunatic asylums, teach us a fearful lesson on
     this subject of morals.

     The idea of living with a drunkard is so abhorrent, so revolting
     to all the finer feelings of our nature, that a woman must fall
     very low before she can endure such companionship. Every
     pure-minded woman must look with loathing and disgust upon such a
     union of virtue and vice; and he who would compel her to it, or
     dissuade the drunkard's wife from separating herself from such
     wretchedness and degradation, is doing much to perpetuate
     drunkenness and crime, and is wanting in the noblest feelings of
     human nature. Thanks to our Legislature, if they have not given
     us the Maine law, they are deliberating upon the propriety of
     giving to the wives of drunkards and tyrants a loop-hole of
     escape from the brutal cruelty of their self-styled lords and
     masters. A bill of this kind has passed the House, but may be
     lost in the Senate. Should it not pass now, it will be brought up
     again, and passed at no distant day. Then if women have any
     spirit, they will free themselves from much of the oppression and
     wrong which they have hitherto of necessity borne.

A brief address was read by Mrs. Robinson, of Darien. This woman had
been for many years the wife of a drunkard; she had overcome many
obstacles to attend this Convention for the purpose of relating her
experience, and offering words of encouragement. Her narration of the
trials and sufferings she had endured was very affecting. She fully
endorsed the tenth resolution, "That the woman who consents to live in
the relation of wife with a confirmed drunkard, is, in so doing,
recreant to the cause of humanity, and to the dignity of a true
womanhood."

An organization was effected called "The Woman's New York State
Temperance Society"; large numbers of the members of the Convention
signed the Constitution, and elected Elizabeth Cady Stanton
President[96]. A vote of thanks was passed to Horace Greeley for the
kind manner in which he had uniformly sustained the women in their
temperance efforts in _The New York Tribune_, and after six long
sessions, the Convention adjourned.

As President of "The Woman's State Temperance Society," Mrs. Stanton
issued a plain, strong appeal to the women of the State in which it
was said woman's rights predominated over temperance. The strong point
she uniformly pressed on the temperance question was the right and
duty of divorce for drunkenness. A letter of hers to the Convention in
Albany on this point, was so radical, that the friends feared to read
it; however, after much discussion, Susan B. Anthony took the
responsibility. It was read to the Convention, and published in _The
Lily_ and other papers, and called out many condemnatory notices by
the press. _The Troy Journal_ was much excited at the idea of "a
virtuous woman severing the tie that bound her to a confirmed
drunkard," and spoke of such a union of virtue and vice as a "divine
institution," sacred in the eye of the "divine author," and declared
Mrs. Stanton's teachings "reviling Christianity."

However, these bold utterances roused the consciences of many women to
the sinfulness of such relations, and encouraged them in sundering
such unholy ties.

At the Rochester Convention, Gerrit Smith, Susan B. Anthony, and
Amelia Bloomer were appointed delegates to "The Men's State Temperance
Society," to be held in June, at Syracuse. The call for the meeting
contained these words, "Temperance associations of every name are
invited to send delegates." Hence the Woman's State Society being
earnestly enlisted in the good work, responded to this invitation.
Miss Anthony and Mrs. Bloomer accepted the appointment, and on
arriving at Syracuse, found many of the delegates already there, and
everything indicating a large Convention. The next morning, while
preparing to go to the hall, a gentleman was announced, who wished to
see them in the parlor. On descending thither, they were happy to meet
Samuel J. May. He came to inform them that their arrival had created
great excitement among some of the clergy, who were shocked at the
idea of women delegates to the Convention, and threatened if they were
admitted, to withdraw. This had alarmed others who were not quite so
conservative, but who feared to have anything occur to create
disturbance. They had persuaded Mr. May to wait upon the ladies and
urge them quietly to withdraw. Mr. May performed his part well, merely
stating the facts of the case, and leaving them to act upon their own
judgment. But when they decided to present their credentials and
demand their rights as members of the Convention, his face beamed with
joy, as he said to them, "You are right." At the appointed time they
were seated with other ladies in attendance at the side of the
platform. Presently Rev. Dr. Mandeville, of Albany, arose, turned his
chair facing them, his back to the audience, and stared at them with
all the impudence of a boor, as if to wither them with his piercing
glance.

     WILLIAM H. BURLEIGH, says _The Lily_,[97] read the annual report,
     which, among other things, "hailed the formation of the Woman's
     State Society as a valuable auxiliary in the cause of
     temperance." Rev. J. Marsh moved that the report be accepted and
     adopted.

     Dr. MANDEVILLE objected in a speech of some length, characterized
     by more venom and vulgarity than it had ever before been our
     fortune to hear; and such as the most foul-mouthed politician or
     bar-room orator would have hesitated to utter before respectable
     audiences. He denounced the Woman's State Temperance Society, and
     all women who took an active public part in promoting the cause.
     Spoke contemptuously of woman going from home to attend a
     temperance convention, and characterized such as a sort of
     "hybrid species, half man and half woman, belonging to neither
     sex." The short dress and woman's rights questions were "handled
     without gloves." These movements must be put down; cut up root
     and branch, etc., etc., and finally his Reverence wound up with a
     threat that if the report was adopted without striking out the
     offensive sentence he would dissolve his connection with the
     Society. Having thus discharged his venom, and issued his
     commands, he took his hat and with a pompous air left the house
     and did not again show himself at the meetings.

     A warm discussion followed the motion for striking out, which it
     would be impossible to describe. Mr. Havens, of New York, offered
     an amendment--substituting a sort of unmeaning compliment to the
     ladies, and asking their influence in their proper sphere--the
     domestic circle. The discussion was kept up, but amid the
     confusion of "Mr. President!" "Mr. President!" "Order!" "Order!"
     "I have the floor!" "I will speak, right or wrong!" from at
     least half a dozen voices, until all lost sight of both motion
     and amendment.

     Miss Anthony arose and addressed the Chair, but was at once
     called to order by Rev. Fowler, of Utica. He denied woman's right
     to speak in that meeting. Here the confusion again began. "Mr.
     President!" "Mr. President!" "Order!" "Order!" "Hear the lady!"
     "Hear the lady!" "Let her speak!" "Let her speak!" "Go on, go
     on!" "Order! order!" in the midst of which the president left the
     chair, and said if there was any gentleman present who could keep
     order he would thank him to take the chair; he could hear nothing
     when so many were talking at once, and if order was not preserved
     he would not attempt to preside. A moment's quiet followed, and
     then all was confusion again. The conservatives were determined
     to have their way, and nearly every attempt on the part of the
     liberals to make themselves heard was frustrated.

     A. N. COLE, of Belfast, succeeded in keeping the floor a few
     moments, and spoke ably in defence of woman and of her right to
     be heard. He declared that man had no more right to prescribe
     woman's sphere and mark out a course of action for her, than she
     had to prescribe man's sphere and dictate his course of action.
     Woman had ever been untiring and earnest in her labors in this
     cause, and he was ready at all times and everywhere to
     acknowledge her aid, and hail her as a co-worker. He insisted
     that woman had a right to be heard on that floor; that she was
     there on the invitation of the Society, and they could not refuse
     her a voice in the proceedings.

     But points of order were raised, and a determination manifested
     not to permit a fair discussion of the subject. The Chair was at
     length appealed to for a decision. He decided that the letter of
     the Constitution of the State Society, and also the call for this
     meeting would admit woman to an equal participation in the
     proceedings, and allow her a vote; but as there were no female
     societies in existence five years ago when this Society was
     organized, such a thing was not contemplated at that time; he
     therefore considered her inadmissible. "The letter of the
     Constitution and call would admit her, but the spirit would not."

     Mr. Camp must have been very ignorant not to know that ten years
     before there were efficient woman's temperance societies all over
     the State. He was doubtless right in saying that such a thing as
     a woman presuming to speak or vote in the meetings of that
     Society was not contemplated by its founders, but he greatly
     erred in giving a reason for their short-sightedness.

     The decision of the Chair was appealed from, and the excitement
     continued. All tried to talk at the same time, but those
     possessing more firmness than others succeeded in having their
     say; while the opponents of woman were allowed to express their
     sentiments freely, those in favor were called to order and forced
     to yield the floor. The decision of the Chair was finally
     sustained by two votes. As the delegates had not been required to
     make themselves known, it was not ascertained how many were
     present, or who they were; nor how many persons in the crowd
     voted who had no right to do so. All men were permitted to vote,
     without its even being known whether they were temperance men or
     not.

     And so, after spending the whole afternoon in hot discussion of
     the woman's rights question, the disgraceful affair terminated by
     refusing woman the right of uttering her sentiments on a subject
     in which she was deeply interested, and of pleading in behalf of
     the poor crushed victims of man's injustice and cruelty.

Rev. Luther Lee offered his church just before the adjournment, and
Mr. May announced that Miss Anthony and Mrs. Bloomer would speak there
in the evening. They had a crowded house, while the conservatives had
scarce fifty people. The general feeling was hostile to the action of
the Convention. This same battle on the temperance platform was fought
over and over in various parts of the State, and the most deadly
opposition uniformly came from the clergy, though a few noble men in
that profession ever remained true to principle through all the
conflicts of those days, in the anti-slavery, temperance, and woman's
rights movements.


            SUSAN B. ANTHONY'S LETTER, FROM THE "CARSON LEAGUE."

                                         BUFFALO, _July 28, 1852_.

     DEAR LEAGUE:--Permit me to say a few words to your readers,
     relative to the plan of action, recommended by the "Women's New
     York State Temperance Society." We have now three agents
     lecturing, who are endeavoring, by a novel application of woman's
     "marvelous gift of tongue," to rouse their sisters of Western New
     York, to render active service in aid of the Temperance cause.
     Woman has so long been accustomed to "non-intervention" with the
     business of law-making--so long considered it men's business to
     regulate the Liquor Traffic, that it is with much cautiousness
     that she receives the new doctrine which we preach; the doctrine
     that it is her right and her duty to speak out against the liquor
     traffic and all men and institutions that in any way sanction,
     sustain, or countenance it; and since she can not vote, to duly
     instruct her husband, father, or brother how she would have him
     vote, and if he longer continue to misrepresent her, take the
     right to march to the ballot-box, with firm, unwavering tread,
     and deposit a vote indicative of her highest ideas of practical
     temperance. For women longer to submit to be ruled by men and
     legislators who sanction license laws, is to act the part of
     slaves and cowards. Men are just beginning to see that they must
     carry this temperance question into politics, but can see no
     farther than to vote for a rum-drinking President,
     Vice-President, and Congressmen. If they can place temperance men
     in those offices which directly control the license system of our
     own State, they seem to think they need look to, nor care for,
     the habits and principles of the men who fill the National
     offices. And it is for woman now, in the present Presidential
     campaign, to say to her husband, father, or brother, if you vote
     for any candidate for any office whatever, who is not pledged to
     total abstinence and the Maine law, we shall hold you alike
     guilty with the rum-seller. He who loves not humanity better
     than his whig or loco partyism, is not worthy the name of man nor
     the love and respect of woman. But to our Society.

     We recommend that women form temperance societies in their
     respective cities, towns, and villages, which shall be auxiliary
     to the State Association. The work which we propose to do is a
     missionary one. We therefore suggest the name "Temperance Home
     Missionary Society," whose object shall be to raise funds, by
     means of an admission fee and donations, to be expended in
     subscribing for temperance newspapers, for gratuitous
     distribution among all families, both rich and poor, who do not
     furnish themselves with such reading. During the last two weeks I
     have visited several villages in Genesee and Erie Counties, have
     found the women ready for work, and now and then a temperance man
     who had taken in the whole idea of political action.

     Home Missionary Societies are formed in all of the places visited
     except two, and will doubtless soon be in those. I recommend them
     to take _The Lily_ and _Carson League_. _The Lily_, because it is
     particularly devoted to woman's interest in temperance and
     kindred reforms, and because it is their duty to sustain the only
     paper in the State owned and edited by a woman. _The Carson
     League_, because it presents and advocates a definite plan for
     temperance political action. It is to be hoped that the State
     Alliance, at its session at Rochester, the 18th of August, will
     make converts not only of all the professed temperance men of
     Western New York, but of all the temperance newspapers. Alliances
     must be formed in every county and town of the State. An
     additional clause must be appended to the pledge, "that no member
     of the Society shall vote for any officer who is not an open and
     avowed total abstinence man, and pledged to use his influence to
     secure the enactment of the Maine law." There must be concert of
     action; every man must know exactly how and for whom all other
     men of the State are going to vote. Let there be combined
     political action and the Maine law is ours.

                         Yours for Temperance Politics,
                                                              S. B. A.

During this year the Society was active, its agents visiting nearly
every county, forming auxiliary societies, circulating tracts and
petitions, and rolling up subscribers to _The Lily_.

In January, 1853, a great mass-meeting of all the temperance
organizations of the State was held in Albany. Nearly every hall and
church in the city was occupied, with different associations of men
and women. "The Woman's Society" met in the Baptist church in State
Street, which was crowded at every session. Susan B. Anthony presided.
Emily Clark, Mrs. Bloomer, Mrs. Vaughan and Mrs. Albro were appointed
a committee to present to the Legislature a petition signed by 28,000
women for a prohibitory law. On motion of S. M. Burroughs, of Orleans,
the rules of the House were suspended and the ladies invited to the
Speaker's desk. In a brief and dignified speech, Miss Clark presented
the petition, after which they returned to the Convention, and
reported the success of their mission, in full confidence that their
prayers would be answered. But alas! they forgot that women were a
disfranchised class, and that legislators give no heed to the claims
of such for protection.

In the evening, the ladies had two immense meetings, one in the
church, and one in the Assembly Chamber of the Capitol. At the latter,
Susan B. Anthony read Mrs. Stanton's "Appeal to the Legislature," and
addresses were made by Mary C. Vaughan and Antoinette Brown; the
galleries as well as the floor of the house being literally packed;
while at the former, Mrs. Bloomer, Mrs. Fowler, Mrs. Albro, and Miss
Clark addressed an equally crowded audience.

Following this Convention, Mrs. Bloomer, Miss Brown, and Miss Anthony
went to New York, on the invitation of S. P. Townsend, and addressed
3,000 people in Metropolitan Hall; Lydia F. Fowler presided; Mr. and
Mrs. Horace Greeley, Abby Hopper Gibbons, and other prominent
gentlemen and ladies sat on the platform. They also addressed large
audiences in the Broadway Tabernacle and Knickerbocker Hall, and in
Brooklyn. And during March and April made a most successful tour
through the State, speaking at Sing Sing, Poughkeepsie, Hudson, Troy,
Cohoes, Utica, Syracuse, Rochester, Lockport, Buffalo, and many of the
smaller cities, and were greeted everywhere with large audiences and
the most respectful attention from both press and people.

     _The New York Tribune_, under the heading of GREAT GATHERING OF
     THE WOMEN OF NEW YORK, said of their Metropolitan meeting: The
     Women's Grand Temperance Demonstration at Metropolitan Hall last
     evening, was a most brilliant and successful affair. The audience
     which assembled on that occasion to welcome Mrs. Bloomer and her
     assistants in the cause of Temperance, was almost as large and
     fully as respectable as the audiences that nightly greeted Jenny
     Lind and Catharine Hays during their engagement in that hall.
     Good order was observed throughout the evening, and earnest and
     hearty applause was frequent. The only hissing evidently intended
     for the speakers was when Mrs. Bloomer reviewed the sentiments of
     Hon. Horace Mann relative to woman; and then the plaudits came to
     her rescue and triumphantly sustained the speaker. The audience
     was a smiling one; some smiled at the novelty of the occasion;
     others with admiration; the latter, judging from the twinkling of
     eyes and clapping of hands, were in the majority. While some
     evidently writhed under the application of the lash for their
     disregard of the principles of temperance; others enjoyed the
     rigor of the infliction and manifested their satisfaction by
     applause.

     The _New York Evening Post_ said: The first meeting of the
     Women's Temperance Society was held last evening in Metropolitan
     Hall. There were about three thousand persons present, a large
     proportion of whom were ladies. It was the first time that an
     audience in this hall was to be addressed by women, and the
     novelty of the occasion doubtless attracted a large number who
     would otherwise have been absent. The proceedings, however, were
     conducted in the most orderly manner, and the speakers apparently
     felt themselves as much at home with their hearers, as if they
     were merely a private company. They were listened to with much
     attention and frequently applauded. Altogether, the meeting was
     very successful and would compare most favorably with any that
     has ever been held in the same building.

     The proceedings were commenced by Mrs. Lydia F. Fowler being
     appointed President, and Miss Mary S. Rich Secretary. Prayer was
     offered by Rev. Antoinette L. Brown, after which Mrs. Amelia
     Bloomer was introduced amid warm applause. She was dressed in the
     peculiar costume to which her name is given. Her speech, which
     occupied more than an hour in its delivery, was an able
     exposition of the reasons why women should be amongst the
     foremost of the advocates of the temperance reformation. Her
     remarks on the position of woman under the law, and the
     subordinate part she was compelled to play in all the relations
     of life, were listened to with much attention, and though
     sometimes very caustic and severe upon the other sex, they were
     received not only with forbearance, but were frequently
     applauded. Rev. Antoinette L. Brown made a very effective and
     eloquent address, urging the necessity for legislative action
     against the evils of intemperance, and recommended the passage of
     the Maine Law in our Legislature. Addresses were also made by
     Susan B. Anthony, and Horace Greeley.

     _The Tribune_, under the heading of "Grand Temperance Rally,"
     said: Last evening an exceedingly numerous and enthusiastic
     meeting was convened in the Tabernacle, under the auspices of the
     "Fifth Ward Temperance Alliance," it then gave a full report of
     the addresses of the four ladies, and closed with:

     Horace Greeley then came forward in response to numerous and
     repeated calls, and said that within his immediate recollection
     the Temperance cause had been utterly ruined (as it was said)
     three distinct times; first when the pledge of total abstinence
     was introduced; again when the Washingtonian movement was set on
     feet, and then when the Maine Liquor Law came out, every
     rum-drinker in the country mourned the cause as irrevocably
     ruined. But now, however, it was gone entirely, because some
     women came forward to speak for temperance. He had spoken so
     often on the subject that he had nothing new to say; but he
     rejoiced to see that there was another army coming up who could
     speak, as they had heard them that evening and on other
     occasions. There was something of freshness in them; and if they
     did not advance new truth, we, at least, heard truth from a new
     point of view. He had often heard of the fascinating influence of
     woman, and he was glad if she had such that it should be put
     forth for temperance. He was happy to hear her explain the wants
     of the poor mother, or sister, or wife of the unfortunate
     drunkard; he would not object to her saying if her home had
     become intolerable that she should be allowed a separation, and
     permitted to earn a living for herself, seeing that her brute of
     a husband was unwilling or unable to give her a support. The
     great cause would be advanced, he thought, by the advocacy of it
     by women. He considered that the people would be called upon to
     vote for the Maine Liquor Law one way or the other within a year,
     for the politicians were becoming tired of this mischievous
     element. It was one on which they could not calculate, and would
     be glad to get it out of the way by submitting it to the people
     for their disposition. The friends of the cause should be
     rejoiced if women who could speak on this subject did come
     forward and speak until the law was passed. He would feel their
     advocacy an additional assurance of success.

The women of New York brought to this work a religious earnestness and
intense enthusiasm, that seemed determined to override every obstacle
that blocked the way to family purity and peace. Every phase of the
question, without a thought of policy or conciliation, was freely
discussed. Seeing the evils in social life, in the destruction of all
domestic harmony, they demanded divorce for drunkenness. Seeing wine
on the tables of clergymen and bishops, liquor-dealers and
wine-bibbers dignified and honored as elders and deacons in churches,
they called on the women to leave all such unholy organizations. Thus
besieging legislators for a "Maine Law," demanding purity at the
family altar, denouncing the Church for its apathy, and the clergy for
their hostility to the public action of woman, this State Temperance
Society roused the enmity of many classes, and was the target for
varied criticism.

Politicians said such radical measures as the women proposed would
destroy the Whig party, if carried into legislation. Churchmen said
such infidel measures would undermine the influence of the clergy and
the foundations of the Church. Conservatives said the divorce measures
proposed would upheave the whole social fabric. Thus a general
disintegration of society was threatened, if freedom was granted to
woman. Not being allowed to vote themselves, they used their influence
both in the anti-slavery and temperance reforms, to strengthen many
men in their determination not to vote for any man who was in favor of
slavery and license; hence there had been a steadily increasing
defection in the Whig ranks, that cost Clay his election in 1844, and
Scott in 1852.

Mr. Pierce's administration, beginning in 1853, was a period of great
political overturning. Innumerable small office-holders being thrown
out of employment, and feeling hostile to all "isms," as the
opposition designated the reforms of the day, they became a
troublesome element in our Conventions.

To avoid this class in organizing "The Woman's Temperance Society," it
was decided to enroll men as members, but not to allow them to vote
and hold office. They were permitted to attend the meetings, talk, and
contribute money, but they were to have no direct power. On this basis
the Society was formed, and maintained its integrity one year.
However, as the justice of such discrimination on the ground of sex
was questionable, and some women and many men refused to unite with a
Society thus prescriptive, the Constitution was amended, and men
admitted to full membership.


       FIRST ANNUAL MEETING OF THE WOMAN'S STATE TEMPERANCE SOCIETY.

                   ROCHESTER, JUNE 1 and 2, 1853.

     _The Rochester Advertiser_ gives the following report: In
     Corinthian Hall yesterday, at ten o'clock, a large audience
     assembled. The Society was called to order by Mrs. E. C. Stanton,
     who said if any one present desired to offer vocal prayer, there
     was now an opportunity. Prayer was then offered by a young man in
     one of the side seats. The platform was occupied by Mrs. Stanton,
     Emily Clark, Lucy Stone, Mrs. Vaughan, Dr. Harriot Hunt, Mrs.
     Nichols, Mrs. Fish, Mrs. Albro, Mrs. Alling, Elizabeth C. Wright,
     and Mrs. Lydia F. Fowler.

     The attendance at this opening session is much larger this year
     than last, and a more hopeful spirit prevails. There are several
     of the notabilities of the Woman's Rights cause present, and a
     fair sprinkling of Bloomers is scattered through the audience.
     There were many out, attracted by curiosity, though probably the
     most are earnest friends of the Society. The proceedings were of
     a deeply interesting character, both from their novelty and their
     importance. After the prayer was concluded, Mrs. Stanton gave her
     opening address, as follows:

                          MRS. STANTON'S ADDRESS.

     A little more than one year ago, in this same hall, we formed the
     first Woman's State Temperance Society. We believed that the time
     had come for woman to speak on this question, and to insist on
     her right to be heard in the councils of Church and State. It was
     proposed at that time that we, instead of forming a society,
     should go _en masse_ into the Men's State Temperance Society. We
     were assured that in becoming members by paying the sum of $1, we
     should thereby secure the right to speak and vote in their
     meetings.

     We who had watched the jealousy with which man had ever eyed the
     slow aggressions of woman, warned you against the insidious
     proposition made by agents from that Society. We told you they
     would no doubt gladly receive the dollar, but that you would
     never be allowed to speak or vote in their meetings. Many of you
     thought us suspicious and unjust toward the temperance men of the
     Empire State. The fact that Abby Kelly had been permitted to
     speak in one of their public meetings, was brought up as an
     argument by some agent of that Society to prove our fears
     unfounded. We suggested that she spoke by favor and not right,
     and our right there as equals to speak and vote, we well knew
     would never be acknowledged. A long debate saved you from that
     false step, and our predictions have been fully realized in the
     treatment our delegates received at the annual meeting held at
     Syracuse last July, and at the recent Brick Church meeting in New
     York.

     In forming our Society, the mass of us being radical and liberal,
     we left our platform free; we are no respecters of persons, all
     are alike welcome here without regard to sect, sex, color, or
     caste. There have been, however, many objections made to one
     feature in our Constitution, and that is, that although we admit
     men as members with equal right to speak in our meetings, we
     claim the offices for women alone. We felt, in starting, the
     necessity of throwing all the responsibility on woman, which we
     knew she never would take, if there were any men at hand to
     think, act, and plan for her. The result has shown the wisdom of
     what seemed so objectionable to many. It was, however, a
     temporary expedient, and as that seeming violation of man's
     rights prevents some true friends of the cause from becoming
     members of our Society, and as the officers are now well skilled
     in the practical business of getting up meetings, raising funds,
     etc., and have fairly learned how to stand and walk alone, it may
     perhaps be safe to raise man to an entire equality with
     ourselves, hoping, however, that he will modestly permit the
     women to continue the work they have so successfully begun. I
     would suggest, therefore, that after the business of the past
     year be disposed of, this objectionable feature of our
     Constitution be brought under consideration.

     Our experience thus far as a Society has been most encouraging.
     We number over two thousand members. We have four agents who have
     traveled in various parts of the State, and I need not say what
     is well known to all present, that their labors thus far have
     given entire satisfaction to the Society and the public. I was
     surprised and rejoiced to find that women, without the least
     preparation or experience, who had never raised their voices in
     public one year ago, should with so much self-reliance, dignity,
     and force, enter at once such a field of labor, and so ably
     perform the work. In the metropolis of our country, in the
     capital of our State, before our Legislature, and in the country
     school-house, they have been alike earnest and faithful to the
     truth. In behalf of our Society, I thank you for your unwearied
     labors during the past year. In the name of humanity, I bid you
     go on and devote yourselves humbly to the cause you have
     espoused. The noble of your sex everywhere rejoice in your
     success, and feel in themselves a new impulse to struggle upward
     and onward; and the deep, though silent gratitude that ascends to
     Heaven from the wretched outcast, the wives, the mothers, and the
     daughters of brutal drunkards, is well known to all who have
     listened to their tales of woe, their bitter experience, the
     dark, sad passages of their tragic lives.

     I hope this, our first year, is prophetic of a happy future of
     strong, united, and energetic action among the women of our
     State. If we are sincere and earnest in our love of this cause,
     in our devotion to truth, in our desire for the happiness of the
     race, we shall ever lose sight of self; each soul will, in a
     measure, forget its own individual interests in proclaiming great
     principles of justice and right. It is only a true, a deep, and
     abiding love of truth, that can swallow up all petty jealousies,
     envies, discords, and dissensions, and make us truly magnanimous
     and self-sacrificing. We have every reason to think, from reports
     we hear on all sides, that our Society has given this cause a new
     impulse, and if the condition of our treasury is a test, we have
     abundant reason to believe that in the hearts of the people we
     are approved, and that by their purses we shall be sustained.

     It has been objected to our Society that we do not confine
     ourselves to the subject of temperance, but talk too much about
     woman's rights, divorce, and the Church. It could be easily shown
     how the consideration of this great question carries us
     legitimately into the discussion of these various subjects. One
     class of minds would deal with effects alone; another would
     inquire into causes; the work of the former is easily perceived
     and quickly done; that of the latter requires deep thought, great
     patience, much time, and a wise self-denial. Our physicians of
     the present day are a good type of the mass of our reformers.
     They take out cancers, cut off tonsils, drive the poison which
     nature has wisely thrown to the surface, back again, quiet
     unsteady nerves with valerian, and by means of ether infuse an
     artificial courage into a patient that he may bravely endure some
     painful operation. It requires but little thought to feel that
     the wise physician who shall trace out the true causes of
     suffering; who shall teach us the great, immutable laws of life
     and health; who shall show us how and where in our every-day
     life, we are violating these laws, and the true point to begin
     the reform, is doing a much higher, broader, and deeper work than
     he who shall bend all his energies to the temporary relief of
     suffering. Those temperance men or women whose whole work
     consists in denouncing rum-sellers, appealing to legislatures,
     eulogizing Neal Dow, and shouting Maine Law, are superficial
     reformers, mere surface-workers. True, this outside work is well,
     and must be done; let those who see no other do this, but let
     them lay no hindrances in the way of that class of mind, who,
     seeing in our present false social relations the causes of the
     moral deformities of the race, would fain declare the immutable
     laws that govern mind as well as matter, and point out the true
     causes of the evils we see about us, whether lurking under the
     shadow of the altar, the sacredness of the marriage institution,
     or the assumed superiority of man.

     1. We have been obliged to preach woman's rights, because many,
     instead of listening to what we had to say on temperance, have
     questioned the right of a woman to speak on any subject. In
     courts of justice and legislative assemblies, if the right of the
     speaker to be there is questioned, all business waits until that
     point is settled. Now, it is not settled in the mass of minds
     that woman has any rights on this footstool, and much less a
     right to stand on an even pedestal with man, look him in the face
     as an equal, and rebuke the sins of her day and generation. Let
     it be clearly understood, then, that we are a woman's rights
     Society; that we believe it is woman's duty to speak whenever she
     feels the impression to do so; that it is her right to be present
     in all the councils of Church and State. The fact that our
     agents are women, settles the question of our character on this
     point.

     Again, in discussing the question of temperance, all lecturers,
     from the beginning, have made mention of the drunkards' wives and
     children, of widows' groans and orphans' tears; shall these
     classes of sufferers be introduced but as themes for rhetorical
     flourish, as pathetic touches of the speaker's eloquence; shall
     we passively shed tears over their condition, or by giving them
     their rights, bravely open to them the doors of escape from a
     wretched and degraded life? Is it not legitimate in this to
     discuss the social degradation, the legal disabilities of the
     drunkard's wife? If in showing her wrongs, we prove the right of
     all womankind to the elective franchise; to a fair representation
     in the government; to the right in criminal cases to be tried by
     peers of her own choosing, shall it be said that we transcend the
     bounds of our subject? If in pointing out her social degradation,
     we show you how the present laws outrage the sacredness of the
     marriage institution; if in proving to you that justice and mercy
     demand a legal separation from drunkards, we grasp the higher
     idea that a unity of soul alone constitutes and sanctifies true
     marriage, and that any law or public sentiment that forces two
     immortal, high-born souls to live together as husband and wife,
     unless held there by love, is false to God and humanity; who
     shall say that the discussion of this question does not lead us
     legitimately into the consideration of the important subject of
     divorce?

     But why attack the Church? We do not attack the Church; we defend
     ourselves merely against its attacks. It is true that the Church
     and reformers have always been in an antagonistic position from
     the time of Luther down to our own day, and will continue to be
     until the devotional and practical types of Christianity shall be
     united in one harmonious whole. To those who see the philosophy
     of this position, there seems to be no cause for fearful
     forebodings or helpless regret. By the light of reason and truth,
     in good time, all these seeming differences will pass away. I
     have no special fault to find with that part of humanity that
     gathers into our churches; to me, human nature seems to manifest
     itself in very much the same way in the Church and out of it. Go
     through any community you please--into the nursery, kitchen, the
     parlor, the places of merchandise, the market-place, and
     exchange, and who can tell the church member from the outsider? I
     see no reason why we should expect more of them than other men.
     Why, say you, they lay claim to greater holiness; to more rigid
     creeds; to a belief in a sterner God; to a closer observance of
     forms. The Bible, with them, is the rule of life, the foundation
     of faith, and why should we not look to them for patterns of
     purity, goodness, and truth above all other men? I deny the
     assumption. Reformers on all sides claim for themselves a higher,
     position than the Church. Our God is a God of justice, mercy, and
     truth. Their God sanctions violence, oppression, and
     wine-bibbing, and winks at gross moral delinquencies. Our Bible
     commands us to love our enemies; to resist not evil; to break
     every yoke and let the oppressed go free; and makes a noble life
     of more importance than a stern faith. Their Bible permits war,
     slavery, capital punishment, and makes salvation depend on faith
     and ordinances. In their creed it is a sin to dance, to pick up
     sticks on the Sabbath day, to go to the theater, or large parties
     during Lent, to read a notice of any reform meeting from the
     altar, or permit a woman to speak in the church. In our creed it
     is a sin to hold a slave; to hang a man on the gallows; to make
     war on defenseless nations, or to sell rum to a weak brother, and
     rob the widow and the orphan of a protector and a home. Thus may
     we write out some of our differences, but from the similarity in
     the conduct of the human family, it is fair to infer that our
     differences are more intellectual than spiritual, and the great
     truths we hear so clearly uttered on all sides, have been
     incorporated as vital principles into the inner life of but few
     indeed.

[Illustration: AMELIA BLOOMER (with autograph).]

     We must not expect the Church to leap _en masse_ to a higher
     position. She sends forth her missionaries of truth one by one.
     All of our reformers have, in a measure, been developed in the
     Church, and all our reforms have started there. The advocates and
     opposers of the reforms of our day, have grown up side by side,
     partaking of the same ordinances and officiating at the same
     altars; but one, by applying more fully his Christian principles
     to life, and pursuing an admitted truth to its legitimate
     results, has unwittingly found himself in antagonism with his
     brother.

     Belief is not voluntary, and change is the natural result of
     growth and development. We would fain have all church members
     sons and daughters of temperance; but if the Church, in her
     wisdom, has made her platform so broad that wine-bibbers and
     rum-sellers may repose in ease thereon, we who are always
     preaching liberality ought to be the last to complain. Having
     thus briefly noticed some of the objections to our movement, I
     will not detain the audience longer at this time.

An able report of the Executive Committee was then read by Mrs.
Vaughan.

The President, on motion, appointed the various Committees,[98] and
read a letter from Gerrit Smith to Susan B. Anthony:

                                        PETERBORO, _May 7, 1853_.

     DEAR MADAM:--I thank you for your letter. So constantly am I
     employed in my extensive private concerns, that I can attend none
     of the anniversaries this spring. I should be especially happy to
     attend yours; and to testify by my presence, if not by my words,
     that woman is in her place when she is laboring to redeem the
     world from the curse of drunkenness.

     I know not why it is not as much the duty of your sex, as it is
     of mine, to establish newspapers, write books, and hold public
     meetings for the promotion of the cause of temperance. The
     current idea, that modesty should hold women back from such
     services, is all resolvable into nonsense and wickedness. Female
     modesty! female delicacy! I would that I might never again hear
     such phrases. There is but one standard of modesty and delicacy
     for both men and women; and so long as different standards are
     tolerated, both sexes will be perverse and corrupt. It is my duty
     to be as modest and delicate as you are; and if your modesty and
     delicacy may excuse you from making a public speech, then may
     mine excuse me from making one.

     The Quakers are the best people I have ever known--the most
     serious and chaste, and yet the most brave and resisting. But
     there is no other people who are so little concerned, lest man
     get out of his sphere, or lest woman get out of hers. No people
     make so little difference as they do, between man and woman.
     Others appear to think that the happiness and safety of the world
     consist in magnifying the difference. But when reason and
     religion shall rule the world, there will be felt to be no other
     difference between man and woman, than that of their physical
     constitutions. None will then be acknowledged in respect to the
     intellect, the heart, or the manners.

                         Very respectfully, your friend,
                                                     GERRIT SMITH.

The attendance at this Convention was larger than the year previous,
and the debates more interesting, as Mrs. Nichols, William Henry
Channing, Lucy Stone, Antoinette Brown, and Frederick Douglass all
took an active part in the proceedings. During one of the sessions
quite a heated discussion took place on the subject of Divorce, Mrs.
Stanton and Lucy Stone taking the ground that it was not only woman's
right, but her duty, to withdraw from all such unholy relations, Mrs.
Nichols and Miss Brown taking the opposite position.

As it was decided at this second convention to admit gentlemen, a
schism was the immediate result. By their party tactics, in which they
were well versed, they took the initiative steps to scatter the forces
so successfully gathered. The Society, with its guns silenced on the
popular foes, lingered a year or two, and was heard of no more. It was
the policy of these worldly wise men to restrict the debate on
temperance within such narrow limits as to disturb none of the
existing conditions of society. They said, treat it as a purely moral
and religious question; "pray over it," it being too knotty a problem
to be solved on earth, they proposed to have the whole case adjusted
in the courts of Heaven: very much as the wise men to-day think best
to dispose of the temperance reform.

Thus these politic gentlemen manipulated the association, eliminated
the woman's rights element _per se_, which, having been educated in
the anti-slavery school of morals, could not be blinded with any male
sophistries or considerations of policy. It was the universal plea
then as now, in advocating reforms, "Sacrifice principle to numbers,
if you would secure victory," forgetting that one company of brave men
could clear their path to the enemy quicker than a battalion of
cowards. A multitude of timid, undeveloped men and women, afraid of
priests and politicians, are a hindrance rather than help in any
reform. When Garrison's forces had been thoroughly sifted, and only
the picked men and women remained, he soon made political parties and
church organizations feel the power of his burning words. The
temperance cause has had no organized body of fearless leaders. Psalm
singing and prayer it was supposed would accomplish what only could be
done by just laws, enlightened public sentiment, and pure religion,
applied to the practical interests of mankind. When abolitionists left
parties and churches, because of their pro-slavery codes and creeds,
they began alike to purify their organizations in order to win back
that noble army of patriots. Women were urged to enroll themselves as
members of men's associations, pay their initiation fee of one dollar,
gather petitions, do all in their power to rouse enthusiasm; but they
must not presume to sit on the platform, nor speak, nor vote in the
meetings. Those women who had no proper self-respect accepted the
conditions; those who had, tested their status on the platform, and
not being received as equals, abandoned all temperance organizations,
as the same proper pride that forbade them to accept the conditions of
a proscribed class in men's conventions, also prevented their
affiliation with women who would tolerate such insults to the sex. The
long, persistent struggle at last culminated in the World's Temperance
Convention, which may be called our Waterloo in that reform.


BRICK CHURCH MEETING.

May 12th, 1853, the friends of temperance assembled in New York to
make arrangements for a World's Temperance Convention. The meeting was
held in Dr. Spring's old Brick Church, on Franklin Square, where the
_New York Times_ building now stands. It was organized by nominating
the Hon. A. C. Barstow, of Rhode Island, chairman; the Rev. R. C.
Crampton, of New York, and the Rev. George Duffield, of Pennsylvania,
secretaries. The meeting opened with prayer, "asking God's blessing on
the proceedings."[99] A motion was made that all gentlemen present be
admitted as delegates. Dr. Trall, of New York, moved an amendment that
the word "ladies" be inserted, as there were delegates present from
the Woman's State Temperance Society. The motion was carried, and
credentials received, and every man and woman became members of the
convention. A business committee of one from each State was appointed.
A motion was made that Susan B. Anthony, Secretary of the Woman's
State Temperance Society, be added to the business committee. Then the
war commenced in earnest. D.D.'s, M.D.'s, and Honorables were
horrified. Speech followed speech in rapid succession, with angry
vehemence. As the committee was already full, the motion was ruled out
of order. Thomas Wentworth Higginson asked that he be excused from
serving on the committee, and moved that Lucy Stone be added in his
place. Then the confusion was increased. Abby Kelly Foster arose and
tried to explain, but shouts of "order" drowned her voice, and after
persisting in her attempt to speak for ten minutes the uproar was
frightful, and she was compelled to sit down. Emily Clark made a
similar attempt, with the same result.

Hon. Bradford R. Wood, of Albany, then moved, that as there was a
party present determined to introduce the question of woman's rights,
and to run it into the ground, that this convention adjourn _sine
die_; but on request he withdrew it, and moved that a committee on
credentials be appointed to decide who were members of the convention.
This committee, consisting of Rev. John Chambers, of Philadelphia,
Hon. B. R. Wood, of Albany, and Dr. Condit, of New Jersey, were absent
fifteen minutes, and then reported that, as in their opinion, the call
for this meeting was not intended to include female delegates, and
custom had not sanctioned the public action of women in similar
situations, the credentials of the ladies should be rejected. The
report was received, and after a disgraceful contest on the part of
those from whom we look for honor, truth, and nobleness, and every
Christian virtue, on account of their sacred calling and high
position, it was adopted by a vote of 34 to 32, ten of those voting in
the negative being women. During the progress of the discussion--if
discussion it could be called, where all the women who attempted to
speak were silenced, and the men who attempted to speak for them were
almost as rudely treated--Mayor Barstow twice requested the
appointment of another chairman in his stead, stating that he would
not preside over a meeting where woman's rights were introduced, or
women allowed to speak. Having finally silenced them, he was
henceforward content to wear the honors of his temporary office.

Mr. Higginson protested against the action of the meeting as
disgraceful to the leaders, and tendered his resignation as one of the
business committee. He then stated that all persons favorable to
calling a _whole_ world's temperance convention were invited to meet
at Dr. Trall's office at 2 o'clock. The ladies present, and the
gentlemen who had contended for their admission as delegates, then
withdrew. Another disgraceful scene occurred on a protest from Dr.
Townsend against the action of the convention, and a motion to pay the
expenses of the ladies who had come some distance as delegates and
been excluded. The motion was seconded. Again shouts of "order,"
"order," arose, and the confusion was worse than ever. Dr. T. finally
withdrew his motion, on being told that the ladies would accept no
such favor at the hands of a convention of rowdies.

Several speeches then followed, mostly from, clergymen; all condemning
the public action of women in any reforms, and defending the position
of the convention, quoting Scripture and the Divine Will to sanction
their injustice. One Rev. gentleman stated that he would have nothing
to do with the women. Rev. John Chambers said, for one, he rejoiced
that the women were gone; they were now rid of the scum of the
convention!! Other clergymen spoke in the same strain. A motion was
made by Dr. Snodgrass that the committee assign some part of the work
of the World's Convention to women, which called out from Mr. Barstow
some remarks too indecent for repetition. The motion was withdrawn.
The gall and bitterness, the ridicule and vulgarity of the Rev. D.D.'s
being expended on some of the grandest women our nation could boast,
they adjourned, after deciding to hold a four days' convention,
beginning the 6th of September. The other wing of the temperance army
decided to do the same, and held a meeting of protest a few days after
in the Tabernacle.

     The _New York Tribune_ says of the meeting of protest, Saturday
     evening, May 14, 1852: A grand Temperance demonstration was held
     in the Broadway Tabernacle Saturday evening. There could not have
     been less than 3,000 persons present. The floor of the house, the
     aisles, the galleries, every inch of sitting and standing room
     was literally packed. The greatest enthusiasm prevailed
     throughout. The officers of the meeting were:

     PRESIDENT--Susan B. Anthony.[100]

     LUCY STONE, in a letter to _The Una_, says: Last week, at New
     York, we had a foretaste of what woman is to expect when she
     attempts to exercise her equal rights as a human being. In
     conformity with a resolution adopted by the Mass Convention
     recently held in Boston, a call was issued, inviting "the
     _friends of temperance_" to meet in New York, May 11th, and
     prepare for a "World's Convention." Under that call, the Woman's
     State Society of New York, an active and efficient body, sent
     delegates; but though regularly elected, their credentials were
     rejected with scorn. The chairman of the committee reported that
     those who called the meeting never intended to include women.
     Think of it, a _World's_ Convention, in which woman is voted not
     of the world!!

     Rev. Dr. Hewitt affirmed it a burning shame for women to be
     there; and though it was entirely out of order, he discussed the
     question of "Woman's Rights," taking the ground that women should
     be nowhere but at home. Rev. E. M. Jackson, gave it as his
     opinion, that "the women came there expressly to disturb." The
     Rev. Mr. Fowler, of Utica, showed the same contempt for woman
     that he did last year, at the N. Y. State Temperance Society, at
     Syracuse. Rev. Mr. Chambers was particularly bitter.

     It would have been well for those women who accept the foolish
     flattery of men, to have been present to see the real estimate in
     which woman is held by these men who surely represent a large
     class. The President of the meeting, Mayor Barstow, of your city,
     indignantly refused to put the motion made--that Susan B. Anthony
     should be on a committee, declaring "that he would resign rather
     than do it." He said it "was not fit that a woman should be in
     such places." After we left, if the papers reported him
     correctly, he used language which proved that he was not fit to
     be where decent people are. It was next to impossible for us or
     our friends to get a hearing. The "previous question" was called,
     or we were voted out of order, or half a dozen of the opposing
     party talked at once to keep us silent. Rev. T. W. Higginson
     declined serving on a committee from which women were excluded,
     and when it became apparent that only half of the world could be
     represented, he entered his protest, and invited those who were
     in favor of a _Whole_ World's Temperance Convention to meet that
     afternoon at Dr. Trall's. A large minority withdrew, including
     several ministers, and arranged for a Convention that shall know
     "neither male nor female," to be held in New York sometime during
     The World's Fair.

     A large and enthusiastic meeting was held at the Broadway
     Tabernacle, to protest against the above proceedings, and
     although twelve and a half cents were charged at the door, every
     seat was occupied, and much of the "standing room" also.

     The same gentlemen who excluded us, held a meeting subsequently
     in Metropolitan Hall. There your Major Barstow said: "God has
     placed woman in the moral world where he has the sun in the
     physical, to regulate, enlighten, and cheer." C. C. Burleigh,
     alluding to this remark, in our meeting at the Tabernacle, said:
     "Thus he calls his Convention, in which Mars, Jupiter, Saturn,
     Mercury, and Neptune are appointed a committee of arrangements,
     and says the Sun shall be excluded."

     At this meeting, _ladies_ were especially invited to vote, as
     though they had a heart in it, and were urged also to give their
     money to aid these very men by whom every soul of us had been
     insulted. I am sorry to say some gave. But taught such lessons,
     by such masters, woman will one day be wiser. Yours, for
     humanity, without distinction of sex,
                                             LUCY STONE.

After the Brick Church meeting was over, some of the actors being
ashamed of themselves, the Rev. John Marsh tried to defend himself and
his coadjutors, but Mr. Greeley very summarily brushed his sophistry
aside, and placed all the actors in that disgraceful farce in their
true colors.

          _The New York Daily Tribune, Wednesday, May 18, 1853._

                   THE WORLD'S TEMPERANCE CONVENTION.

     _To the Editor of the New York Tribune:_

     SIR:--Your "Inquirer," it appears to me, is bent on throwing
     firebrands into the temperance ranks, and the worst kind of
     firebrands, those of vile sectarianism. Will you permit me to
     answer and remark upon a few of his inquiries?

     1. "Are there to be _two_ World's Conventions?"

     _Answer_. That will be, I suppose, as people please. There may be
     a dozen; and I know not that any harm will be done.

     2. "Did Mayor Barstow occasion the schism in the temperance
     ranks, by refusing to recognize the feminine element in the
     movement?"

     _Ans_. No. The schism, such as there was, was caused by a
     proposal of Rev. Mr. Higginson, and a persistence in it, that a
     representative of the Women's State Society should be added to
     the Business Committee of one from each State; and this after the
     Committee was full. With as good reason, it was said, might one
     be pressed from the _Men's_ State Society or State Alliance. Mr.
     Higginson pertinaciously pressed the matter; and because he could
     not have his own way and rule the Convention, he refused to serve
     on the Committee; and hence arose all the disturbance and the
     schism.

     3. "Did Dr. Hewitt rule out from office Mr. Barnum on the ground
     that he (Mr. Barnum) was an infidel?"

     _Ans_. No. I am confident he used no such phraseology; and
     "Inquirer" has no more right to ask such a question, than he has
     to ask if Dr. Hewitt did not rule him out on the ground that Mr.
     Barnum was a horse thief. The very question amounts to an
     assertion (as is announced in the next inquiry) that he _did_ say
     it; which, if he did not, is calumny. Dr. H. _did_ object to Mr.
     Barnum, as he had a perfect right to do, as one of the Appointing
     Committee. It was desirable to find the best men to get up to the
     World's Convention. I proposed Mr. Barnum as one, knowing his
     amazing efficiency. Dr. H. objected, on the ground that he
     (Barnum) was a very exceptionable man in his part of Connecticut,
     and would do injury to the Convention; and, as harmony was
     desirable, and unexceptionable men should be put upon the
     Committee, his name was withdrawn. It was agreed that what was
     said in Committee should not go abroad.

     4. "Does Mr. Barnum's infidelity consist in his attending another
     church in Bridgeport from Dr. Hewitt's?"

     Here appears the cloven foot of sectarianism. One sect is to be
     held up as persecuted. Here the writer assumes that Dr. Hewitt
     did say that Mr. B. was an infidel; and, assuming it and knowing
     it, why does he hypocritically ask whether Dr. H. _did_ say it?

     5. "Is it true that Dr. H. refused his pulpit for a temperance
     lecture by Rev. E. H. Chapin, on the ground that he was a
     Universalist?"

     Sectarianism again! What has all this to do with the meeting at
     the Brick Chapel? Why is it brought here but to kindle up
     sectarian fires? A pastor of a church has everywhere conceded to
     him the control of his pulpit, and no one may contend with him in
     this matter. Whether that was so or not, I know not, nor is it
     any concern of mine, nor of the public. Such a rule the world
     knows does not govern us in selecting temperance speakers. We
     will not invite speakers to speak at temperance meetings who have
     something else more at heart than temperance, which they will
     most offensively thrust in their speech upon the meeting. But we,
     without hesitation, invite men of all sorts to speak at
     temperance meetings, who will speak to the point, and do us good
     and not hurt. Rev. Mr. Chapin, we all know, is of this character,
     and, without hesitation, I invited him to speak at the late
     Anniversary of the American Temperance Union (as I did Rev. Mr.
     Higginson, who differs from me perhaps as much in religious
     belief), and he (Mr. C.) would have spoken, but was to be out of
     the city.

     6. "How can the proposed Convention be a _World's_ Convention, if
     women and all who do not belong to a particular Church are to be
     excluded?"

     Sectarianism again! Who has said a word about Church but this
     writer, and about excluding women from the Convention and all its
     entertainments? No one. The basis of the Convention has not been
     settled. It probably will be as broad as the world. The last
     query I think unworthy an answer. And I must be permitted to say
     the whole inquiry manifests a very bad spirit, and is calculated
     to promote evils which the public press should suppress rather
     than foster.

     As I sent you an anonymous communication explaining some of these
     matters last Saturday, which you declined publishing, because, I
     suppose, it was anonymous, I feel constrained, though
     reluctantly, to give this my name.

                                         Yours, etc.,     JOHN MARSH,

                       _Office of Am. Temp. Union, No. 149 Nassau St._


                        HORACE GREELEY'S REPLY.

     Rev. John! we have allowed you to be heard at full length; now
     you and your set will be silent and hear us.

     Very palpably your palaver about Mr. Higginson's motion is a
     dodge, a quirk, a most contemptible quibble, reluctant as we are
     to speak thus irreverently of the solemn utterances of a Doctor
     of Divinity. Right well do you know, reverend sir, that the
     particular form, or time, or fashion in which the question came
     up is utterly immaterial, and you interpose it only to throw dust
     in the eyes of the public. Suppose a woman had been nominated at
     the right time, and in the right way, according to your
     understanding of punctilios, wouldn't the same resistance have
     been made and the same row got up? You know right well that there
     would. Then what is all your pettifogging about technicalities
     worth? The only question that anybody cares a button about is
     this, Shall woman be allowed to participate in your World's
     Temperance Convention on a footing of perfect equality with man?
     If yea, the whole dispute turns on nothing, and isn't worth six
     lines in _The Tribune_. But if it was and is the purpose of those
     for whom you pettifog to keep woman off the platform of that
     Convention, and deny her any part in its proceedings except as a
     spectator, what does all your talk about Higginson's untimeliness
     and the Committees being full amount to? Why not treat the
     subject with some show of honesty?

     Now as to Barnum and Hewitt: it is eminently proper that the
     public should know exactly on what ground H. ruled B. off the
     Business Committee, and it is self-criminating to plead that a
     mantle of secrecy was spread over the doings in Committee. If
     Hewitt protested against Barnum on the assumption that the
     latter is a sinner, while this is to be a Convention of saints,
     let that fact be known, so that sinners may keep away from the
     Convention. If on the assumption that Mr. Barnum is an infidel or
     a heretic, let that fact come squarely out, so that we may know
     that infidels or heretics, either or both, are to be proscribed
     at the Hewitt-Marsh Convention. For if there is to be really and
     truly a World's Temperance Convention, according to any fair
     meaning of the phrase, then we say women, as well as men, youth,
     as well as adults, , as well as white, heretic, as well as
     orthodox, sinners, as well as saints--so that they be earnest and
     undoubted upholders of total abstinence--should be invited to
     send delegates, who should be equally welcome to its platform and
     eligible to its offices. An Orthodox White Male Adult Saints'
     Convention may be very proper and very useful, but it should be
     called distinctly as such, and not unqualifiedly as a World's
     Convention.

     Dr. Marsh thinks it nobody's business whether Dr. Hewitt did or
     did not refuse the use of his church for a temperance-meeting at
     which Mr. Chapin was to speak, because he (Mr. C.) was a
     Universalist. Yes, reverend sir, it is a good many people's
     business if the public are purposely left in doubt as to the
     character of the World's Convention that is to issue from the
     Brick Church meeting. For if Dr. Hewitt shut his pulpit against
     so unexceptionable, assiduous, effective an advocate of
     temperance as Mr. Chapin confessedly is (see Marsh, above), then
     we have a cue to his objection to Barnum and to the general
     bearings of the "World's Convention" to be incubated under his
     auspices. That single incident of the pulpit-shutting will have a
     great deal of significance to many other people; wherefore the
     fact that it has none to Marsh is overruled.

     Whenever a real "World's Temperance Convention" shall assemble,
     an inquiry may be found necessary as to what Dr. Hewitt has done
     and sacrificed for temperance these five years that should
     authorize him to rule P. T. Barnum off a temperance committee;
     also, whether men who live by Temperance, like Dr. Marsh, are in
     the right position to judge those, like Barnum, who labor and
     spend money for it. For the present, however, we will leave these
     inquiries on the General Orders.

     One word as to Sectarianism. If "Inquirer," or Mr. Barnum, or Mr.
     Chapin has proposed or intrigued to keep any one out of office,
     or otherwise overslaughed in the Brick Church Meeting, or any of
     its meetings, because of said body's religious opinions or
     associations, then said intriguer has been guilty of a very
     faulty and culpable sectarian dodge, which can not be too
     severely reproached. But if it be in fact t'other fellow's bull
     that has gored this one's ox, then the facts should come out, and
     the culprit can not escape censure by raising the stop-thief cry
     of "Sectarianism." "_Thou_ art the man!"

Let the women of this nation ponder Horace Greeley's arraignment of
the reverend gentlemen who were the chief actors in this farce, and
remember that in all ages of the world the priesthood have found their
pliant tools and most degraded victims in the women of their
respective sects. In all of these meetings there were intelligent,
sincere women, so blinded by the sophistry and hypocrisy of Marsh,
Chambers, Hewitt, _et al._, that they gave them their countenance and
support throughout this disgraceful mob, so-shocking and revolting to
the best men of that day and generation.

In consequence of the action in the Brick Church two temperance
conventions were called, to meet in New York the first week in
September. One designated "The Whole World's Convention," including
men and women, black and white, orthodox and heretic; the other the
"Half World's Convention," restricted to the "simon pure, white (male)
orthodox saints"; which for ribaldry of speech and rudeness of action
surpassed in its proceedings the outside mob, that raged and raved
through an entire week, making pandemonium of our metropolis.


A GRAND GATHERING--ANTI-SLAVERY--WOMAN'S RIGHTS--TEMPERANCE--THE
WORLD'S FAIR, SEPTEMBER, 1853.

The opening days of the autumn of this year were days of intense
excitement in the city of New York. Added to the numbers attracted by
the World's Fair was the announcement of the Anti-Slavery, Woman's
Rights, and two Temperance Conventions. The reformers from every part
of the country assembled in force, each to hold their separate
meetings, though the leaders were to take a conspicuous part in all.
The anti-slavery meetings began on Sunday, and every day two or three
of these conventions were in session, all drawing crowds to listen or
to disturb. William Henry Channing. William Lloyd Garrison, Wendell
Phillips and Thomas Wentworth. Higginson eloquently pleading for the
black man's freedom on the anti-slavery platform, and for the equality
of their mothers, wives, and daughters on the woman's rights platform,
and for both the woman and the black man on the temperance platform;
now face to face with Rynders and his mob, and then with the Rev. John
Chambers, Marsh and Hewitt and their mob, the viler of the two.


THE HALF WORLD'S TEMPERANCE CONVENTION,

led by Chambers, Hewitt, and Marsh, was in session in Metropolitan
Hall several days. As it was simply an organized mob, we find in the
journals of the day no speeches or resolutions on the great question
on which they nominally assembled.

In trying to get rid of Antoinette L. Brown, who had been sent as a
delegate from two respectable and influential societies, and of James
McCune Smith, a  delegate, they quarrelled through most of the
allotted time for the convention over what class of persons could be
admitted. In summing up the proceedings of these meetings

     HORACE GREELEY says, in the _Tribune_, September 7, 1853: "This
     convention has completed three of its four business sessions, and
     the results may be summed up as follows:

     "_First Day_--Crowding a woman off the platform.

     "_Second Day_--Gagging her.

     "_Third Day_--Voting that she shall stay gagged. Having thus
     disposed of the main question, we presume the incidentals will be
     finished this morning."

Antoinette Brown was asked why she went to that Convention, knowing,
as she must, that she would be rejected.

     "I went there," she said, "to assert a principle--a principle
     relevant to the circumstances of that convention, and one which
     would promote _all_ good causes and <DW44> _all_ bad ones. I went
     there, as an item of the world, to contend that the sons and
     daughters of the race, without distinction of sex, sect, class or
     color, should be recognized as belonging to the world, and I
     planted my feet upon the simple _rights of a delegate_. I asked
     no favor as a woman, or in behalf of woman; no favor as a woman
     advocating temperance; no recognition of the cause of woman above
     the cause of humanity; the indorsement of no 'ism' and of no
     measure; but I claimed, in the name of the world, the rights of a
     delegate in a world's convention.

     "Is it asked. Why did you make that issue at that time? I answer,
     I have made it at all times and in all places, whenever and
     wherever Providence has given me the opportunity, and in whatever
     way it could be made to appear most prominent. Last spring, when
     woman claimed the supremacy--the right to hold all the offices in
     the Woman's State Temperance Society--I contended, from this
     platform, for the equality of man; the equal rights of all the
     members of this society. I have claimed everywhere the equality
     of humanity in Church and in State; God helping me, I here pledge
     myself anew to Him, and to you all, to be true everywhere to the
     central principle--the soul of the Divine commandment, 'Thou
     shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.' The temperance cause was not
     injured by our course at that Convention. We went there with
     thoughtful hearts. Said Wendell Phillips: 'Take courage, and
     remember that whether you are received or rejected, you are going
     to make the most effectual speech for temperance, for woman, and
     humanity that you have ever made in your life.' 'God bless you,'
     were the fervent words of Mr. Channing, in a moment when there
     was most need of Divine assistance; and when I stood on the
     platform for an hour and a half, waiting to be heard, I could
     read in the faces of men such as these, and in the faces, too, of
     our opposers, the calm assurance, 'You are making the most
     effectual speech for temperance, for woman, and humanity, that
     you have ever made in your life.' I believed it then; I believe
     it now."[101]

Rev. William Henry Channing, in giving his report of the World's
Temperance Convention to the Toronto Division of Sons of Temperance of
the City of Rochester, said:

     And now it becomes my disagreeable duty, as one of your
     delegates, to report to the Toronto Division how my highly
     honored fellow-delegate was treated. Her credentials were
     received without dissent; she was, of course, then entitled,
     _equally_ with every other delegate, to take part in all the
     proceedings of the Conventions. At a suitable time and in a
     perfectly orderly manner she rose to speak; the floor was
     adjudged to her by Hon. Neal Dow, the President, but her right to
     the platform was questioned. Again and again the President
     declared your delegate to be in order; again and again appeal was
     made to the Convention and the decision of the President
     sustained; but a factious minority succeeded in silencing her
     voice, and so ended the first session in storm.

     On the second morning your delegate wisely waited until the
     resolutions offered to the convention by the Business Committee
     were opened for discussion. When the first resolution, declaring
     the _religious character_ of the Temperance Movement, was
     submitted to the meeting, Miss Brown rose to speak. She rose
     calmly in the body of the house; she was a minister of religion,
     an advocate of temperance; she had it in her heart to press this
     reformation onward in a religious spirit; she had avoided all
     disputes on petty points of order, and now wished to address
     herself earnestly to the momentous theme. Had she not a perfect
     right to do so? And what fitter occasion could occur? The very
     topic was of a kind to banish personalities and hush low
     passions. Your delegate was invited by the President to take the
     platform; she did so with quiet dignity, but scarcely had she
     reached the stand when all around her on the platform itself, and
     among the officers of the Convention, began that disgraceful row,
     which led an onlooker in the gallery to cry out, "Are those men
     drunk?" I have no wish to dwell upon that cowardly transaction,
     but this remark I am bound in honor to make: If any man says that
     Antoinette Brown forced the subject of "Woman's Rights" on that
     Temperance Convention in plain Saxon speech, _He Lies_. She never
     dreamed of asking any _privilege_ as a woman; she stood there in
     her _right_ as a delegate; her aim was to urge forward the
     Temperance Reform. No! the whole uproar on "Woman's Rights" came
     from the professed friends of Temperance, and began with the
     insulting cry--from a man on the platform--of, "Shame on the
     woman!" That man I need hardly tell you was the notorious John
     Chambers, of Philadelphia--the so-called Rev. John Chambers!--he
     it was who, with brazen face and clanging tongue, stood stamping
     until he raised a cloud of dust around him, pointing with coarse
     finger and rudely shouting "shame on the woman," until he even
     stood abashed before the indignant cry from the Convention of
     "shame on John Chambers."

     The Reverend John Chambers! _Reverend_ for what? For his piety;
     manifested in the fact that he, a professed minister of the
     gospel, could by rowdy tumult drown the voice of another minister
     of the gospel while she was asserting the religious character of
     the Temperance Reform! _Reverend_ for what? For his charity;
     manifested by low cries and insulting gestures, to a gentlewoman
     who stood there firm yet meek, before him! Strange that he, of
     all, should thus seek a bad eminence in outraging the decencies
     of social life; for unless report is false, John Chambers owes
     whatever position he may have to woman. It is said--I believe on
     good authority--that he was educated for the ministry by the
     contributions of women; that he preaches in a church built and
     endowed by a woman; that his salary is chiefly paid by
     hard-working needle-women; finally, that he married a rich wife!
     Now what a sight was there! A man, whose brain had been fed with
     books by woman, whose body had been fattened with bread by woman,
     every fragment and stitch of whose ministerial garb, from his
     collar to his boot-heels, had been paid for by woman, whose very
     traveling ticket to that convention had been bought by woman,
     could find no better way to discharge his mission as minister of
     the gospel than to point his finger and shout, "Shame on the
     woman!"

Mr. Channing then bore his testimony to the admirable combination of
energy and mildness, by which Miss Brown's whole air and manner were
distinguished amid these hours of tumult. He said: "Such serene
strength comes only from religious principle and life. I know not how
it may have been with nerves and pulses--there was no apparent tremor.
But of this I am assured, whatever disturbance there was in the outer
court of the Temple, in the Holy of Holies was the heart of peace, and
the dove of the Spirit brooded in light on the tabernacle of
conscience."

In an editorial of _The Una_, headed "Rev. John Chambers Recommended
to Mercy," Mrs. Davis says: "We publish the letter of Rev. Wm. Henry
Channing because it is a noble defence of woman and a part of the
history of the movement. We do not give Mr. Chambers' reply, 1st,
Because we find in it no evidence of penitence nor any testimony as to
who was the guilty party--if he was not; and 2d, Because the tone and
language of the letter is of a character we trust will never sully the
pages of _The Una_. Mr. Channing's rebuke is severe, but we believe it
to have been richly deserved and given in true Christian love."

                                   ROCHESTER, N. Y., Oct. 18, 1853.

     EDITORS SUNDAY MERCURY:--You ask for proof that Rev. John
     Chambers took part in the brutal insult offered to a Christian
     gentlewoman at the late "World's Temperance Convention." I was
     _witness_ of the conduct of that man and his abettors during that
     _cowardly transaction_, and I hereby charge him with being a
     ringleader in that platform row.

     When my honored friend and fellow-delegate, the Rev. Antoinette
     L. Brown, was standing calm, yet firm, amidst those rude
     scoffers, the words of the Psalmist kept sounding in my ear:
     "Strong bulls of Bashan have beset me roundabout, gaping upon me
     with their mouths." I marked the _biggest_ of the herd with the
     purpose, at the first suitable season, of laying on one blow of
     the lash with such a will that it should cut through any hide,
     however callous. That season came when, as a delegate, I was
     called upon to report to the "Toronto Division of the Sons of
     Temperance" how my fellow-delegate had been treated.

     But having thus _indicted the bully_ and put him on trial in open
     court, I merely record my testimony and leave him to go to
     judgment; the public will render a verdict, pass sentence, and
     inflict the _penalty_ in the pillory where he has placed himself;
     may their justice be tempered with mercy. It was necessary, in
     order to _protect women_ in future from the _insolence of
     tyrants_, to make this example; yet let him be cordially pardoned
     as soon as he gives sincere proof of penitence.

                                             WILLIAM HENRY CHANNING.

Another letter of Mr. Channing's of same date to the editor of _The
Daily Register_:

     SIR:--Respect for yourself, your readers, and your paper, prompts
     me to reply at once to your article headed, "Answer," etc., by
     Rev. John Chambers, which, through the courtesy of some friend,
     reached me last evening. I must be frank, but will aim to be
     brief.

     And first, Mr. Birney, a word to yourself. You knew me in "former
     days as mild," etc., and were not prepared for such a speech; you
     charitably suggest that its "vindictiveness" may be owing to a
     substitution of the reporter's language for my own, and "are not
     without hope of seeing a disclaimer." Now, far from wishing to
     disclaim the _one real accusation_ made in my remarks, I am
     ready, anywhere and everywhere, to reiterate that charge. Yet
     there is no "vindictiveness" in my heart toward the criminal whom
     I thus arraign, and no emotion which I should not honor any man
     for feeling toward myself, if I was consciously guilty of having
     played so base a part. You were not wrong in thinking me "mild in
     former days"; I trust I am milder now than then. But my mildness
     never was, and never will be, of that mean quality, which can
     tamely see a sister insulted, whether by a pugilist from the
     ring, or by a _rowdy from the pulpit_. My principle is peace, but
     I remember the saying, "You can not become an angel till you are
     first a man.".... Womanhood, as such, claims honorable courtesy
     of every manly heart; and he is unmanly who does not rejoice to
     testify this respect. The man who can be rude to even a poor
     prostitute in the street, will be rude to wife or daughter at his
     own fireside; while he who is a _gentle_ man to any woman, will
     be a _gentle_ man to all women. _His spirit is brutal_, who could
     ever dream of applying the slang phrase "creature" to any woman
     under any conceivable conditions. What shall be thought then of
     the moral grade of him who chose as the mark for his missiles of
     "contempt," a young lady of rare refinement in her whole presence
     and manner, of spotless delicacy and gentlest dignity, of
     commanding talent and philanthropic earnestness, and who stood
     there before him, serene amid the tumult, clad, even then, in the
     bright robe of heavenly peace?

     And now one word in closing. Let Mr. Chambers, and all of like
     spirit, be assured, that I am but a representative of a large,
     rapidly growing, and influential body in every community
     throughout our land, who are resolved, that women shall no longer
     be insulted in public assemblies with impunity.

                                             WM. HENRY CHANNING.

Through this fierce conflict Horace Greeley, with his personal
presence on the platform, and his brave editorials in the _New York
Tribune_, fought a great battle for free speech and human equality.
Speaking of the _Whole_ World's Convention, he said:


                 _New York Tribune, September 3, 1853._

     This has been the most spirited and able Convention on behalf of
     temperance that was ever held. It has already done good, and can
     not fail to do more. The scarcity of white neck-ties on the
     platform so fully atoned for by the presence of such champions of
     reform and humanity as Antoinette L. Brown, Lucy Stone, and Mrs.
     Jackson, of England, Mrs. C I. H. Nichols, Mrs. Frances D. Gage,
     etc., that like the absence of wine from our festive board when
     it is graced by women, it was the theme of no general or very
     pointed regret. It was a great occasion, and we know truth was
     there uttered which will bear fruit through coming years.


                      _Tribune, September 7, 1853._

     When the call of the World's Temperance Convention was issued, we
     were appealed to by valued friends, whom we know as devoted to
     the temperance cause, to discountenance all efforts to get up a
     rival Convention. "The call is unexceptionably broad," we were
     reminded, "it invites all and excludes nobody, then why not
     accept it and hold but one Convention?" The question was fair and
     forcible, and had there been no antecedents we should have
     acceded to its object. But we could not forget the preliminary
     meeting at the Brick Church Chapel, and we could not take the
     hazard of having many whom we knew as among the most efficient
     and faithful laborers in the Temperance cause shut out of a
     World's Convention of its advocates; so we cast our lot with them
     about whose catholicity of sentiment and action there could be no
     dispute, and yesterday's doings at the Metropolitan Convention
     maintained the conviction created by the whole World's Convention
     that our decision was right.

     We ask especial attention to the proceedings of the World's
     Convention yesterday morning, particularly with reference to
     Antoinette Brown, who had been chosen by two separate temperance
     organizations of men to represent them at this Convention. How
     she was received, how treated, and how virtually crowded off the
     platform, our report most faithfully exhibits. They who are sure
     that the Age of Chivalry is not gone, are urged to ponder this
     treatment of a pure and high-souled woman, a teacher of Christian
     truth, an ornament of her sex, and an example to all, by a
     Convention of Reformers and Gentlemen, many of them from that
     section of the Union where the defence of woman from insult has
     been deemed a manly grace, if not a manly duty. We presume the
     matter will be further considered to-day.

     Of the _Whole_ World's Temperance Convention a correspondent of
     _The Una_ says: "Throughout, the meeting has been one of intense
     interest; not a moment's flagging, not a poor or unworthy speech
     made by either man or woman. Again and again, as we passed into
     the large hall, filled with eager listeners, we felt it to be one
     of the most sublime scenes we had ever looked upon. There the
     audience remained, hour after hour, patient, earnest, full of
     enthusiasm, and yet hundreds could scarcely hear a single
     connected sentence. The majority were women, but the larger
     number of the speakers were men. The right and equality being
     recognized, there was no longer a necessity for controversy to
     maintain principle, hence no woman attempted to speak except she
     had something to say. Mrs. Jackson, of England, Mrs. Nichols,
     Mrs. Vaughan, Miss Stone, Rev. A. L. Brown, Lucretia Mott, and
     Mrs. F. D. Gage addressed the Convention during the different
     sessions."

     The same correspondent says of the _World's_ Temperance
     Convention: "There was one feature more anomalous than the
     rejection and gagging of Miss Brown, darker and far more cruel,
     for it has not the excuse of custom, nor can the Bible be
     tortured into any justification of it. This was the exclusion of
     Dr. James McCune Smith, a gentleman, a graduate of the Edinburgh
     University, a member of a long-established temperance society,
     and a regularly appointed delegate. And wherefore? simply for the
     reason that nature had bestowed on his complexion a darker,
     richer tint than upon some of the sycophants who gathered there;
     it appears to have been simply to pander to a bigoted priesthood
     and a corrupt populace."

In deciding the action of the Convention to be worse in its treatment
toward Mr. Smith than toward Miss Brown, we think _The Una_
correspondent makes a grave mistake.

In point of courtesy the treatment of a lady of culture and
refinement, the peer of any man in that assembly, with the
unpardonable rudeness they did, was infinitely worse than to have done
the same thing to any man, white or black, because by every code of
honor or chivalry all men are bound to defend woman. Again, as a
question of morals, custom, and prejudice, they occupied the same
position in the State and the Church. The "white male" in the
Constitutions placed women and black men on the same platform as
citizens. The popular interpretation of Scripture sanctioned the same
injustice in both cases. In the mouths of the false prophets,
"Servants, obey your masters," was used for the same purpose, and with
equal effect, as "Wives, be in subjection to your own husbands."
"Servant of servants shall he be" has been used with the same
prophetic force as the more cruel curse pronounced on woman. The white
man's Bible has been uniformly used to show that the degradation of
the woman and the black man was in harmony with God's will. On what
principle is proscription on account of color more cruel than on
account of sex?

Most of the liberal men and women now withdrew from all temperance
organizations, leaving the movement in the hands of time-serving
priests and politicians, who, being in the majority, effectually
blocked the progress of the reform for the time--destroying, as they
did, the enthusiasm of the women in trying to press it as a moral
principle, and the hope of the men, who intended to carry it as a
political measure. Henceforward women took no active part in
temperance until the Ohio crusade revived them again all over the
nation, and gathered the scattered forces into "The Woman's National
Christian Temperance Union," of which Miss Frances E. Willard is
president. As now, so in 1853, intelligent women saw that the most
direct way to effect any reform was to have a voice in the laws and
lawmakers. Hence they turned their attention to rolling up petitions
for the civil and political rights of women, to hearings before
legislatures and constitutional conventions, giving their most
persistent efforts to the reform technically called "Woman's Rights."

Susan B. Anthony had a similar battle to fight in the educational
conventions. Having been a successful teacher in the State of New York
fifteen years of her life, she had seen the need of many improvements
in the mode of teaching and in the sanitary arrangements of school
buildings; and more than all, the injustice to women in their half-pay
as teachers. Her interest in educational conventions was first roused
by listening to a tedious discussion at Elmira on the "Divine
ordinance" of flogging children, in which Charles Anthony, principal
of the Albany Academy, quoted Solomon's injunction, "Spare the rod,
and spoil the child."

In 1853, the annual convention being held in Rochester, her place of
residence, Miss Anthony conscientiously attended all the sessions
through three entire days. After having listened for hours to a
discussion as to the reason why the profession of teacher was not as
much respected as that of the lawyer, minister, or doctor, without
once, as she thought, touching the kernel of the question, she arose
to untie for them the Gordian knot, and said, "Mr. President." If all
the witches that had been drowned, burned, and hung in the Old World
and the New had suddenly appeared on the platform, threatening
vengeance for their wrongs, the officers of that convention could not
have been thrown into greater consternation.

There stood that Quaker girl, calm and self-possessed, while with
hasty consultations, running to and fro, those frightened men could
not decide what to do; how to receive this audacious invader of their
sphere of action. At length President Davies, of West Point, in fall
dress, buff vest, blue coat, gilt buttons, stepped to the front, and
said, in a tremulous, mocking tone, "What will the lady have?" "I
wish, sir, to speak to the question under discussion," Miss Anthony
replied. The Professor, more perplexed than before, said: "What is the
pleasure of the Convention?" A gentleman moved that she should be
heard; another seconded the motion; whereupon a discussion pro and con
followed, lasting full half an hour, when a vote of the men only was
taken, and permission granted by a small majority; and lucky for her,
too, was it, that the thousand women crowding that hall could not vote
on the question, for they would have given a solid "no." The president
then announced the vote, and said: "The lady can speak."

We can easily imagine the embarrassment under which Miss Anthony arose
after that half hour of suspense, and the bitter hostility she noted
on every side. However, with a clear, distinct voice, which filled the
hall, she said: "It seems to me, gentlemen, that none of you quite
comprehend the cause of the disrespect of which you complain. Do you
not see that so long as society says a woman is incompetent to be a
lawyer, minister, or doctor, but has ample ability to be a teacher,
that every man of you who chooses this profession tacitly acknowledges
that he has no more brains than a woman? And this, too, is the reason
that teaching is a less lucrative profession, as here men must compete
with the cheap labor of woman. Would you exalt your profession, exalt
those who labor with you. Would you make it more lucrative, increase
the salaries of the women engaged in the noble work of educating our
future Presidents, Senators, and Congressmen."

This said, Miss Anthony took her seat, amid the profoundest silence,
broken at last by three gentlemen, Messrs. Cruttenden, Coburn, and
Fanning, walking down the broad aisle to congratulate the speaker on
her pluck and perseverance, and the pertinency of her remarks. The
editor of _The Rochester Democrat_ said the next morning, that
"whatever the schoolmasters might think of Miss Anthony, it was
evident that she hit the nail on the head."

To give the women of to-day some idea of what it cost those who first
thrust themselves into these conventions, at the close of the session
Miss A. heard women remarking: "Did you ever see anything like this
performance?" "I was actually ashamed of my sex." "I felt so mortified
I really wished the floor would open and swallow me up." "Who can that
creature be?" "She must be a dreadful woman to get up that way and
speak in public." "I was so mad at those three men making such a
parade to shake hands with her; that will just encourage her to speak
again." These ladies had probably all been to theatres, concerts,
operas, and gone into ecstasies over Fanny Kemble, Rachel, and Jenny
Lind; and Fanny Elsler, balanced on one toe, the other foot in the
air, without having their delicacy shocked in the least. But a simple
Quaker girl rising in a teachers' convention to make a common-sense
remark modestly, dressed, making no display of her neck, or arms, or
legs, so tried their delicate sensibilities that they were almost
afraid to attend the next session.

At the opening of the next morning's session, after Miss Anthony's
debut, Professor Davies, in all his majesty and pomposity, with his
thumbs in the arm-holes of his regulation buff vest, called the
Convention to order, and said: "I have been asked by several persons,
why no provisions have been made for women to speak, and vote, and act
on committees, in these assemblies?" My answer is, "Be hold yonder
beautiful pilaster of this superb hall! contemplate its pedestal, its
shaft, its rich entablature, the crowning glory of the whole. Each and
all the parts in their appropriate place contribute to the strength,
symmetry, and beauty of the whole. Could I aid in taking down that
magnificent entablature from its proud elevation, and placing it in
the dust and dirt that surround the pedestal? Neither could I drag
down the mother, wife, and daughter, whom we worship as beings of a
higher order, on the common plane of life with ourselves."

If all men were pedestals and shafts capable of holding the women of
their households above the dirt and dust of common life, in a serene
atmosphere of peace and plenty, the good professor's remarks would
have had some significance; but as the burdens of existence rest
equally on the shoulders of men and women, and we must ever struggle
together on a common plane for bread, his metaphor has no foundation.
Miss Anthony attended these teachers' conventions from year to year,
at Oswego, Utica, Poughkeepsie, Lockport, Syracuse, making the same
demands for equal place and pay, until she had the satisfaction to see
every right conceded. Women speaking and voting on all questions;
appointed on committees, and to prepare reports and addresses, elected
officers of the Association, and seated on the platforms. In 1856, she
was chairman of a committee herself, to report on the question of
co-education; and at Troy, before a magnificent audience of the most
intelligent men and women of the State, she read her report, which the
press pronounced able and conclusive. The President, Mr. Hazeltine, of
New York, congratulating Miss Anthony on her address, said: "As much
as I am compelled to admire your rhetoric and logic, the matter and
manner of your address and its delivery, I would rather follow a
daughter of mine to her grave, than to have her deliver such an
address before such an assembly." Superintendent Randall, overhearing
the President, added: "I should be proud, Madam, if I had a daughter
capable of making such an eloquent and finished argument, before this
or any assembly of men and women. I congratulate you on your
triumphant success."

In 1857, at Binghamton, Professor Fowler, of Rochester, took up the
gauntlet thrown down by Miss Anthony, and presented the other side of
the question, taking the ground that boys and girls should not be
educated together, and that women should not be paid equal wages even
for equally good work. The gentlemen who sustained the side demanding
equal rights for women in these conventions, were Randall, Rice,
Cruttenden, Cavert, Fanning, Johonett, Coburn, Wilder, and Farnham.
The opposition was led by Davies, Valentine, Buckley, Anthony (not S.
B. A.), Ross, an old bachelor, the butt of ridicule, the clown of the
Convention; and McElligott, the latter hardly ranking with the rest,
for though opposed, he was always a gentleman, the others being
ofttimes so coarse in their sneers and innuendoes, that they disgraced
the positions they occupied, as the educators of the youth of the
State. In the discussion at Binghamton, where Miss Anthony introduced
a resolution in favor of co-education, Mr. McElligott said "he was in
favor of allowing her full and equal opportunity with any other member
to present resolutions, or to call them up for discussion. Standing up
as she does before large audiences, to advocate what she
conscientiously considers the rights and privileges of her sex, gives
a touch of moral sublimity to our proceedings worthy the admiration of
all."

Professor Davies denounced the resolutions in the strongest terms. "He
had for four years been trying to escape this discussion; but if the
question must come, let it be boldly met and disposed of. These
resolutions involve a great social rather than an educational
question, calculated to introduce a vast social evil; they are the
first step in that school which seeks to abolish marriage, and behind
the picture presented by them, I see a monster of deformity."[102]

In view of the grand experiment of co-education, so successful in
every part of our country, the fears of those timid men thirty years
ago provoke nothing now but a passing smile. How few of them with a
sober face could at this time defend their old positions. It is
creditable to the stronger sex that so many men in all those
encounters, took no counsel with their fears nor prejudices, but
seeing the principle steadfastly maintained it.

But the temperance and educational conventions, the clergy and the
pedagogues, were alike abandoned now for the legislators. All this
escapading of Miss Anthony's was mere child's play, compared with the
steady bombardment kept up until the war on the legislators of the
Empire State. Calls, appeals, petitions to rouse the women, fell like
snow-flakes in every county, asking for the civil and political rights
of woman; they were carried into the Legislature, frequent hearings
secured, the members debating the question as hotly there as it had
already been discussed in popular conventions. As New York could boast
a larger number of strong-minded women than any other State, whose
continuity of purpose knew no variableness nor shadow of turning, the
agitation was persistently continued in all directions.


THE SYRACUSE NATIONAL CONVENTION,

_September 8, 9, and 10, 1852._

This Convention, lasting three days, was in many respects remarkable,
even for that "City of Conventions." It called out immense audiences,
attracted many eminent persons from different points of the State, and
was most favorably noticed by the press; the debates were unusually
earnest and brilliant, and the proceedings orderly and harmonious
throughout. Notwithstanding an admission fee of one shilling, the City
Hall was densely packed at every session, and at the hour of
adjournment it was with difficulty that the audience could gain the
street. The preliminary[103] editorials of the city papers reflected
their own conservative or progressive tendencies.

In no one respect were the participants in these early Conventions
more unsparingly ridiculed, and more maliciously falsified, than in
their personal appearance; it may therefore be wise to say that in
dignity and grace of manner and style of dress, the majority of these
ladies were superior to the mass of women; while the neat and
unadorned Quaker costume was worn by some, many others were elegantly
and fashionably attired; two of them in such extreme style as to call
forth much criticism from the majority, to whom a happy medium seemed
desirable.

The Convention was called to order by Paulina Wright Davis, chairman
of the Central Committee, and prayer offered by the Rev. Samuel J.
May, pastor of the Unitarian Church in Syracuse.

Although this was the first Woman's Rights Convention at which Mr. May
was ever present, he had been represented in nearly all by letter, and
as early as 1845 had preached an able sermon advocating the social,
civil, and political rights of woman. He had been an early convert to
this doctrine, and enjoyed telling the manner of his conversion.
Speaking once in Providence on the question of slavery, he
was attracted by the earnest attention he received from an
intelligent-looking woman. At the close of the meeting, she said to
him: "I have listened to you with an interest that only a woman can
feel. I doubt whether you see how much of your description of the
helpless dependence of slaves applies equally to all women." She ran
the parallel rapidly, quoting law and custom, maintaining her
assertion so perfectly that Mr. May's eyes were opened at once, and he
promised the lady to give the subject his immediate consideration.

Lucy Stone read the call[104] and expressed the wish that every one
present, even if averse to the new demands by women, would take part
in the debates, as it was the truth on this question its advocates
were seeking. Among the most noticeable features of these early
Conventions was the welcome given to opposing arguments.

The Nominating Committee reported the list of officers,[105] with
Lucretia Mott as permanent President. She asked that the vote be taken
separately, as there might be objections to her appointment. The
entire audience (except her husband, who gave an emphatic "No!") voted
in her favor. The very fact that Mrs. Mott consented, under any
circumstances, to preside over a promiscuous assemblage, was proof of
the progress of liberal ideas, as four years previously she had
strenuously opposed placing a woman in that position, and as a member
of the Society of Friends, by presiding over a meeting to which there
was an admission fee, she rendered herself liable to expulsion. The
vote being taken, Mrs. Mott, who sat far back in the audience, walked
forward to the platform, her sweet face and placid manners at once
winning the confidence of the audience. This impression was further
deepened by her opening remarks. She said she was unpracticed in
parliamentary proceedings, and felt herself incompetent to fulfill the
duties of the position now pressed upon her, and was quite unprepared
to make a suitable speech. She asked the serious and respectful
attention of the Convention to the business before them, referred to
the success that had thus far attended the movement, the respect shown
by the press, and the favor with which the public generally had
received these new demands, and closed by inviting the cordial
co-operation of all present.

In commenting upon Mrs. Mott's opening address, the press of the city
declared it to have been "better expressed and far more appropriate
than those heard on similar occasions in political and legislative
assemblages." The choice of Mrs. Mott as President was pre-eminently
wise; of mature years, a member of the Society of Friends, in which
woman was held as an equal, with undoubted right to speak in public,
and the still broader experience of the Anti-Slavery platform, she
was well fitted to guide the proceedings and encourage the expression
of opinions from those to whom public speaking was an untried
experiment. "It was a singular spectacle," said the _Syracuse
Standard_, "to see this gray-haired matron presiding over a Convention
with an ease, dignity, and grace that might be envied by the most
experienced legislator in the country."

Delegates were present from Canada and eight different States. Letters
were received from Mrs. Marion Reid, of England, author of an able
work upon woman; from John Neal, of Maine, the veteran temperance
reformer; from William Lloyd Garrison, Rev. William Henry Channing,
Rev. A. D. Mayo, Margaret H. Andrews, Sarah D. Fish, Angelina Grimke
Weld, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, from G. W. Johnson, chairman of the
State Committee of the Liberty party, and Horace Greeley, the
world-renowned editor of the _Tribune_. Mr. Johnson's letter enclosed
ten dollars and the following sentiments: 1. Woman has, equally with
man, the inalienable right to education, suffrage, office, property,
professions, titles, and honors--to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness. 2. False to our sex, as well as her own, and false to
herself and to God, is the woman who approves, or who submits without
resistance or protest, to the social and political wrongs imposed upon
her in common with the rest of her sex throughout the world.

Mrs. Stanton's letter[106] presented three suggestions for the
consideration of the Convention, viz.: That all women owning property
should refuse to pay taxes as long as unrepresented; that man and
woman should be educated together, and the abuse of the religious
element in woman. This letter created much discussion, accompanied as
it was by a series of resolutions of the most radical character, which
were finally, with one exception, adopted. Thus at that early day was
the action of those women, who have since refused to pay taxes,
prefigured and suggested. One of the remarkable aspects of this
reform, is the fact that from the first its full significance was seen
by many of the women who inaugurated it.

                         HORACE GREELEY'S LETTER.

                                        NEW YORK, _Sept. 1, 1852_.

     MY FRIEND:--I have once or twice been urged to attend a
     Convention of the advocates of woman's rights; and though
     compliance has never been within my power, I have a right to
     infer that some friends of the cause desire suggestions from me
     with regard to the best means of advancing it. I therefore
     venture to submit some thoughts on that subject. To my mind the
     BREAD problem lies at the base of all the desirable and practical
     reforms which our age meditates. Not that bread is intrinsically
     more important to man than Temperance, Intelligence, Morality,
     and Religion, but that it is essential to the just appreciation
     of all these. Vainly do we preach the blessings of temperance to
     human beings cradled in hunger, and suffering at intervals the
     agonies of famine; idly do we commend intellectual culture to
     those whose minds are daily racked with the dark problem, "How
     shall we procure food for the morrow?" Morality, religion, are
     but words to him who fishes in the gutters for the means of
     sustaining life, and crouches behind barrels in the street for
     shelter from the cutting blasts of a winter's night.

     Before all questions of intellectual training or political
     franchises for women, not to speak of such a trifle as costume,
     do I place the question of enlarged opportunities for work; of a
     more extended and diversified field of employment. The silk
     culture and manufacture firmly established and thriftily
     prosecuted to the extent of our home demand for silk, would be
     worth everything to American women. Our now feeble and infantile
     schools of design should be encouraged with the same view. A
     wider and more prosperous development of our Manufacturing
     Industry will increase the demand for female labor, thus
     enhancing its average reward and elevating the social position of
     woman. I trust the future has, therefore, much good in store for
     the less muscular half of the human race.

     But the reform here anticipated should be inaugurated in our own
     households. I know how idle is the expectation of any general and
     permanent enhancement of the wages of any class or condition
     above the level of equation of Supply and Demand; yet it seems to
     me that the friends of woman's rights may wisely and worthily set
     the example of paying juster prices for female assistance in
     their households than those now current. If they would but
     resolve never to pay a capable, efficient woman less than
     two-thirds the wages paid to a vigorous, effective man employed
     in some corresponding vocation, they would very essentially aid
     the movement now in progress for the general recognition and
     conception of Equal Rights to Woman.

     Society is clearly unjust to woman in according her but four to
     eight dollars per month for labor equally repugnant with, and
     more protracted than that of men of equal intelligence and
     relative efficiency, whose services command from ten to twenty
     dollars per month. If, then, the friends of Woman's Rights could
     set the world an example of paying for female service, not the
     lowest pittance which stern Necessity may compel the defenceless
     to accept, but as approximately fair and liberal compensation for
     the work actually done, as determined by a careful comparison
     with the recompense of other labor, I believe they would give
     their cause an impulse which could not be permanently resisted.

                       With profound esteem, yours,
                                                        HORACE GREELEY.

     MRS. PAULINA W. DAVIS, Providence, R. I.

Mr. Greeley's letter bore two remarkable aspects. First, he recognized
the poverty of woman as closely connected with her degradation. One
of the brightest anti-slavery orators was at that time in the habit of
saying, "It is not the press, nor the pulpit, which rules the country,
but the counting-room"; proving his assertion by showing the greater
power of commerce and money, than of intellect and morality. So Mr.
Greeley saw the purse to be woman's first need; that she must control
money in order to help herself to freedom.

Second, ignoring woman's pauperized condition just admitted, he
suggested that women engaged in this reform should pay those employed
in the household larger wages than was customary, although these very
women were dependent upon others for their shelter, food, and clothes;
so impossible is it for a governing class to understand the
helplessness of dependents, and to fully comprehend the disabilities
of a subject class.

The declaration of sentiments[107] adopted at the Westchester
Convention was read by Martha C. Wright, and commented upon as follows
by

     CLARINA HOWARD NICHOLS: There _is_ no limit to personal
     responsibility. Our duties are as wide as the world, and as
     far-reaching as the bounds of human endeavor. Woman and man must
     act together; she, _his_ helper. She has no sphere peculiar to
     herself, because she could not then be his helper. It is only
     since I have met the varied responsibilities of life, that I have
     comprehended woman's sphere; and I have come to regard it as
     lying within the whole circumference of humanity. If, as is
     claimed by the most ultra opponents of the wife's legal
     individuality, the _interests of the parties are identical_, then
     I claim as a legitimate conclusion that their spheres are also
     identical. For interests determine duties, and duties are the
     land-marks of spheres. The dependence of the sexes is mutual.

     It is in behalf of our sons, the future men of the Republic, as
     well as of our daughters, its future mothers, that we claim the
     full development of our energies by education, and legal
     protection in the control of all the issues and profits of our
     lives called _property_. Woman must seek influence, independence,
     representation, that she may have power to aid in the elevation
     of the human race. When men kindly set aside woman from the
     National Councils, they say the moral field belongs to her; and
     the strongest reason why woman should seek a more elevated
     position, is because her moral susceptibilities are greater than
     those of man.

     Mrs. MOTT thought differently from Mrs. Nichols; she did not
     believe that woman's moral feelings were more elevated than
     man's; but that with the same opportunities for development, with
     the same restrictions and penalties, there would probably be
     about an equal manifestation of virtue.

     ELIZABETH OAKES SMITH: My friends, do we realize for what purpose
     we are convened? Do we fully understand that we aim at nothing
     less than an entire subversion of the present order of society,
     a dissolution of the whole existing social compact? Do we see
     that it is not an error of to-day, nor of yesterday, against
     which we are lifting up the voice of dissent, but that it is
     against the hoary-headed error of all times--error borne onward
     from the foot-prints of the first pair ejected from Paradise,
     down to our own time? In view of all this, it does seem to me
     that we should each and all feel as if anointed, sanctified, set
     apart as to a great mission. It seems to me that we who struggle
     to restore the divine order to the world, should feel as if under
     the very eye of the Eternal Searcher of all hearts, who will
     reject any sacrifice other than a pure offering.

     We are said to be a "few disaffected, embittered women, met for
     the purpose of giving vent to petty personal spleen and domestic
     discontent." I repel the charge; and I call upon every woman here
     to repel the charge. If we have personal wrongs, here is not the
     place for redress. If we have private griefs (and what human
     heart, in a large sense, is without them?), we do not come here
     to recount them. The grave will lay its cold honors over the
     hearts of all here present, before the good we ask for our kind
     will be realized to the world. We shall pass onward to other
     spheres of existence, but I trust the seed we shall here plant
     will ripen to a glorious harvest. We "see the end from the
     beginning," and rejoice in spirit. We care not that we shall not
     reach the fruits of our toil, for we know in times to come it
     will be seen to be a glorious work.

     Bitterness is the child of wrong; if any one of our number has
     become embittered (which, God forbid!), it is because social
     wrong has so penetrated to the inner life that we are crucified
     thereby, and taste the gall and vinegar with the Divine Master.
     All who take their stand against false institutions, are in some
     sense embittered. The conviction of wrong has wrought mightily in
     them. Their large hearts took in the whole sense of human woe,
     and bled for those who had become brutalized by its weight, and
     they spoke as never man spoke in his own individualism, but as
     the embodied race will speak, when the full time shall come. Thus
     Huss and Wickliffe and Luther spoke, and the men of '76.

     No woman has come here to talk over private griefs, and detail
     the small coin of personal anecdote; and yet did woman speak of
     the wrongs, which unjust legislation; the wrongs which corrupt
     public opinion; the wrongs which false social aspects have
     fastened upon us; wrongs which she hides beneath smiles, and
     conceals with womanly endurance; did she give voice to all this,
     her smiles would seem hollow and her endurance pitiable.

     I hope this Convention will be an acting Convention. Let us
     pledge ourselves to the support of a paper in which our views
     shall be fairly presented to the world. At our last Convention in
     Worcester, I presented a prospectus for such a paper, which I
     will request hereafter to be read here. We can do little or
     nothing without such an organ. We have no opportunity now to
     repel slander, and are restricted in disseminating truth, from
     the want of such an organ. _The Tribune_, and some other papers
     in the country, have treated us generously; but a paper to
     represent us must be sustained by ourselves. We must look to our
     own resources. We must work out our own salvation, and God grant
     it be not in fear and trembling! Woman must henceforth be the
     redeemer, the regenerator of the world. We plead not for
     ourselves alone, but for Humanity. We must place woman on a
     higher platform, and she will raise the race to her side. We
     should have a literature of our own, a printing-press and a
     publishing-house, and tract writers and distributors, as well as
     lectures and conventions; and yet I say this to a race of
     beggars, for women have no pecuniary resources.

     Well, then, we must work, we must hold property, and claim the
     consequent right to representation, or refuse to be taxed. Our
     aim is nothing less than an overthrow of our present partial
     legislation, that every American citizen, whether man or woman,
     may have a voice in the laws by which we are governed. We do not
     aim at idle distinction, but while we would pull down our present
     worn-out and imperfect human institutions, we would help to
     reconstruct them upon a new and broader foundation.

     LUCY STONE: It seems to me that the claims we make at these
     Conventions are self-evident truths. The second resolution
     affirms the right of human beings to their persons and earnings.
     Is not that self-evident? Yet the common law which regulates the
     relation of husband and wife, and which is modified only in a
     very few instances where there are statutes to the contrary,
     gives the "custody" of the wife's person to her husband, so that
     he has a right to her even against herself. It gives him her
     earnings, no matter with what weariness they have been acquired,
     or how greatly she may need them for herself or her children. It
     gives him a right to her personal property, which he may will
     entirely from her, also the use of her real estate; and in some
     of the States, married women, insane persons, and idiots are
     ranked together as not fit to make a will. So that she is left
     with only one right, which she enjoys in common with the pauper,
     viz.: the right of maintenance. Indeed when she has taken the
     sacred marriage vow, her legal existence ceases.

     And what is our position politically? Why, the foreigner who
     can't speak his mother tongue correctly; the <DW64>, who to our
     own shame, we regard as fit only for a boot-black (whose dead
     even we bury by themselves), and the drunkard, all are entrusted
     with the ballot, all placed by men politically higher than their
     own mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters. The woman who, seeing
     and feeling this, dare not maintain her rights, is the woman to
     hang her head and blush. We ask only for justice and equal
     rights--the right to vote, the right to our own earnings,
     equality before the law--these are the Gibraltar of our cause.

     Rev. ANTOINETTE L. BROWN: Man can not represent woman. They
     differ in their nature and relations. The law is wholly
     masculine; it is created and executed by man. The framers of all
     legal compacts are restricted to the masculine stand-point of
     observation, to the thought, feelings, and biases of man. The law
     then could give us no representation as woman, and therefore no
     impartial justice even if the present lawmakers were honestly
     intent upon this; for we can be represented only by our peers. It
     is expected then under the present administration, that woman
     should be the legal subject of man, legally reduced to pecuniary
     dependence upon him; that the mother should have lower legal
     claims upon the children than the father, and that, in short,
     woman should be in all respects the legal inferior of man, though
     entitled to full equality.

     Here is the fact and its cause. When woman is tried for crime,
     her jury, her judges, her advocates, are all men; and yet there
     may have been temptations and various palliating circumstances
     connected with her peculiar nature as woman, such as man can not
     appreciate. Common justice demands that a part of the law-makers
     and law executors should be of her own sex. In questions of
     marriage and divorce, affecting interests dearer than life, both
     parties in the compact are entitled to an equal voice. Then the
     influences which arise from the relations of the sexes, when left
     to be exerted in our halls of justice, would at least cause
     decency and propriety of conduct to be maintained there; but now
     low-minded men are encouraged to jest openly in court over the
     most sacred and most delicate subjects. From the nature of
     things, the guilty woman can not now have justice done her before
     the professed tribunals of justice; and the innocent but wronged
     woman is constrained to suffer on in silence rather than ask for
     redress.

     CLARINA HOWARD NICHOLS said: There is one peculiarity in the laws
     affecting woman's property rights, which as it has not to my
     knowledge been presented for the consideration of the public,
     except by myself to a limited extent in private conversation and
     otherwise, I wish to speak of here. It is the unconstitutionality
     of laws cutting off the wife's right of dower. It is a provision
     of our National and State Constitutions, that property rights
     shall not be confiscated for political or other offences against
     the laws. Yet in all the States, if I am rightly informed, the
     wife forfeits her right of dower in case of divorce for
     infidelity to the marriage vow. In Massachusetts and several
     other States, if the wife desert her husband for any cause, and
     he procure a divorce on the ground of her desertion, she forfeits
     her right of dower. But it is worthy of remark that in no case is
     the right of the husband to possess and control the estate which
     is their joint accumulation, set aside; no, not even when the
     wife procures a divorce for the most aggravated abuse and
     infidelity combined. She, the innocent party, goes out childless
     and portionless, by decree of law; and he, the criminal, retains
     the home and the children, by the favor of the same law. I claim,
     friends, that the laws which cut off the wife's right of dower,
     in any case do confiscate property rights, and hence are
     _unconstitutional_. The property laws compel the wife to seek
     divorce in order to protect her earnings for the support of her
     children. A rum-drinker took his wife's clothing to pay his rum
     bill, and the justice decided that the clothing could be held,
     because the wife belonged to him.

     Only under the Common Law of England has woman been deprived of
     her natural rights. Instances are frequent where the husband's
     aged parents are supported by the wife's earnings, and the wife's
     parents left paupers.

     Mrs. Nichols here offered the following resolution:

     _Resolved_, That equally involved as they are in all the Natural
     Relations which lie at the base of society, the sexes are
     equally entitled to all the rights necessary to the discharge of
     the duties of those relations.

     ELIZABETH OAKES SMITH presented the following resolution offered
     by Lucretia Mott:

     _Resolved_, That as the imbruted slave, who is content with his
     own lot, and would not be free if he could, if any such there be,
     only gives evidence of the depth of his degradation; so the woman
     who is satisfied with her inferior condition, avering that she
     has all the rights she wants, does but exhibit the enervating
     effects of the wrongs to which she is subjected.

Susan B. Anthony read the resolutions.[108] The audience called upon
Hon. Gerrit Smith for a speech. His rising was received with cheers.
This was Mr. Smith's first appearance upon our platform, although in
letters to different Conventions he had already expressed his
sympathy. His commanding presence, his benevolent countenance, and
deep rich voice, made a profound impression, and intensified the power
of his glowing words. Being well known in Syracuse for his
philanthropy, his presence added dignity and influence to the
assembly.[109]

     Mr. SMITH said: The women who are engaged in this movement are
     ridiculed for aspiring to be doctors, lawyers, clergymen, sea
     captains, generals, presidents. For the sake of argument
     admitting this to be true, what then? Shall we block the way to
     any individual aspiration? But women are totally unfit for these
     places. Let them try, and their failure will settle the matter to
     their own satisfaction. There is not the slightest danger of a
     human being holding any position that he is incapable of
     attaining. We can not lay down a rule for all women. Because all
     women are not born with a genius for navigation, shall we say
     that one who is by skill and education able to take observations,
     who understands the chart and compass, the dangerous shores,
     currents, and latitudes, shall not, if she chooses, be a sea
     captain? Suppose we apply that rule to man. Because I can not
     stand on my head, shall we deny that right to all acrobats in our
     circuses? Because I can not make a steam engine, shall all other
     men be denied that right? Because all men can not stand on a
     platform and make a speech, shall I be denied the exercise of
     that right? Each individual has a sphere, and that sphere is the
     largest place that he or she can fill.

     These women complain that they have been robbed of great and
     essential rights. They do not ask favors; they demand rights, the
     right to do whatever they have the capacity to accomplish, the
     right to dictate their own sphere of action, and to have a voice
     in the laws and rulers under which they live. Suppose I should go
     to vote, and some man should push me back and say, "You want to
     be Governor, don't you?" "No," I reply, "I want to exercise my
     God-given right to vote." Such a taunt as this would be no more
     insulting than those now cast at women, when they demand rights
     so unjustly denied.

     I make no claim that woman is fit to be a member of Congress or
     President; all I ask for her is what I ask for the <DW64>, a fair
     field. All will admit that woman has a right to herself, to her
     own powers of locomotion, to her own earnings, but how few are
     prepared to admit her right to the ballot. But all rights are
     held by a precarious tenure, if this one be denied. When women
     are the constituents of men who make and administer the laws,
     they will pay due consideration to their interests and not
     before. The right of suffrage is the great right that guarantees
     all others.

Mr. Smith set forth the education, the dignity, the power of
self-government, and took his seat amid great applause.

     LUCY STONE said: It is the duty of woman to resist taxation as
     long as she is not represented. It may involve the loss of
     friends as it surely will the loss of property. But let them all
     go; friends, house, garden spot, and all. The principle at issue
     requires the sacrifice. Resist, let the case be tried in the
     courts; be your own lawyers; base your cause on the admitted
     self-evident truth, that taxation and representation are
     inseparable. One such resistance, by the agitation that will grow
     out of it, will do more to set this question right than all the
     conventions in the world. There are $15,000,000 of taxable
     property owned by women of Boston who have no voice either in the
     use or imposition of the tax.

     J. B. BRIGHAM, a school teacher, said: That the natures of men
     and women showed that their spheres were not the same, and woman
     was only truly lovely and happy when in her own element. He
     wished woman to recognize the feminine element in her being, for
     if she understood this, it would guide her in everything. In the
     domestic animals even this difference was manifest. Women should
     be keepers at home, and mind domestic concerns. The true object
     of this Convention is, I fear, not so much to acquire any real or
     supposed rights, as to make the speakers and actors conspicuous.
     I urge those engaged in this movement to claim nothing masculine
     for woman.

     Mrs. NICHOLS said: Mr. Brigham's allusion to the animal world is
     not a happy one, as no animal has been discovered which
     legislated away the rights of the female.

     GERRIT SMITH said: He would hand his esteemed friend over to
     Lucretia Mott, that he might be slain like Abimelech of old, by
     the hand of a woman; as evidently from his estimate of the sex,
     that would be the most humiliating death he could suffer. I trust
     no gentleman on this platform will consent to play the part of
     the armor-bearer in his behalf, and rescue him from his impending
     fate.

     LUCRETIA MOTT said: It was impossible for one man to have
     arbitrary power over another without becoming despotic. She did
     not expect man to see how woman is robbed. Slaveholders did not
     see that they were oppressors, but slaves did. Gerrit Smith
     alluded to one woman that he intends me to personify, whom our
     friend would consider far out of her sphere. Yet if he believes
     his Bible, he must acknowledge that Deborah, a mother in Israel,
     arose by divine command, and led the armies of Israel,--the wife
     of Heber the Kenite, who drove the nail into the head of the
     Canaanite General, and her praises were chanted in the songs of
     Israel. The preaching of women, too, is approved in the Bible.
     Paul gives special directions to women how to preach, and he
     exhorts them to qualify themselves for this function and not to
     pin their faith on the sleeves of the clergy. I would advise Mr.
     Bingham not to set up his wisdom against the plain decrees of the
     Almighty. As to woman's voice being too weak to be heard as a
     public speaker, did Mr. Brigham send a protest to England against
     Victoria's proroguing Parliament?

     Mr. MAY moved that Mrs. Stephen Smith be placed on a Committee in
     his stead.

     The PRESIDENT quickly replied: Woman's Rights' women do not like
     to be called by their husbands' names, but by their own.

     Mr. MAY corrected himself and said--_Rosa Smith_.

Matilda Joslyn Gage made her first public appearance in an address to
this Convention. She pressed the adoption of some settled plan for the
future--brought up many notable examples of woman's intellectual
ability, and urged that girls be trained to self-reliance. Although
Mrs. Gage, whose residence was Onondaga County, had not before taken
part in a Convention, yet from the moment she read of an organized
effort for the rights of woman, she had united in it heart and soul,
merely waiting a convenient opportunity to publicly identify herself
with this reform; an opportunity given by the Syracuse Convention.
Personally acquainted with none of the leaders except Mr. May, it was
quite a test of moral courage for Mrs. Gage, then quite a young woman,
in fact the youngest person who took part in that Convention, to speak
upon this occasion. She consulted no one as to time or opportunity,
but when her courage had reached a sufficiently high point, with
palpitating heart she ascended the platform, where she was cordially
given place by Mrs. Mott, whose kindness to her at this supreme moment
of her life was never forgotten.

     Mrs. GAGE said: This Convention has assembled to discuss the
     subject of Woman's Rights, and form some settled plan of action
     for the future. While so much is said of the inferior intellect
     of woman, it is by a strange absurdity conceded that very many
     eminent men owe their station in life to their mothers. Women are
     now in the situation of the mass of mankind a few years since,
     when science and learning were in the hands of the priests, and
     property was held by vassalage. The Pope and the priests claimed
     to be not only the teachers, but the guides of the people; the
     laity were not permitted to examine for themselves; education was
     held to be unfit for the masses, while the tenure of their landed
     property was such as kept them in a continual state of dependence
     on their feudal lords.

     It was but a short time since the most common rudiments of
     education were deemed sufficient for any woman; could she but
     read tolerably and write her own name it was enough. Trammeled as
     women have been by might and custom, there are still many shining
     examples, which serve as beacon lights to show what may be
     attained by genius, labor, energy, and perseverance combined.
     "The longer I live in the world," says Goeethe, "the more I am
     certain that the difference between the great and the
     insignificant, is energy, invincible determination, an honest
     purpose once fixed, and then victory."

     Although so much has been said of woman's unfitness for public
     life, it can be seen, from Semiramis to Victoria, that she has a
     peculiar fitness for governing. In poetry, Sappho was honored
     with the title of the Tenth Muse. Helena Lucretia Corano, in the
     seventeenth century, was of such rare scientific attainments,
     that the most illustrious persons in passing through Venice, were
     more anxious to see her than all the curiosities of the city; she
     was made a doctor, receiving the title of Unalterable. Mary
     Cunity, of Silesia, in the sixteenth century, was one of the most
     able astronomers of her time, forming astronomical tables that
     acquired for her a great reputation, Anna Maria Schureman was a
     sculptor, engraver, musician, and painter; she especially
     excelled in miniature painting. Constantina Grierson, an Irish
     girl, of humble parentage, was celebrated for her literary
     acquirements, though dying at the early age of twenty-seven.

     With the learning, energy, and perseverance of Lady Jane Grey,
     Mary and Elizabeth, all are familiar. Mrs. Cowper was spoken of
     by Montague as standing at the head of all that is called
     learned, and that every critic veiled his bonnet at her superior
     judgment. Joanna Baillie has been termed the woman Shakespeare.
     Caroline Herschell shares the fame of her brother as an
     astronomer. The greatest triumphs of the present age in the
     drama, music, and literature have been achieved by women, among
     whom may be mentioned, Charlotte Cushman, Jenny Lind, the Misses
     Carey, Mrs. Stowe, and Margaret Fuller. Mrs. Somerville's renown
     has long been spread over both continents as one of the first
     mathematicians of the present age.

     Self-reliance is one of the first lessons to be taught our
     daughters; they should be educated with our sons, and equally
     with them, taught to look forward to some independent means of
     support, either to one of the professions or the business best
     fitted to exercise their talents. Being placed in a position
     compelling them to act, has caused many persons to discover
     talents in themselves they were before unaware of possessing.
     Great emergencies produce great leaders, by arousing hitherto
     dormant energies.

     Let us look at the rights it is boasted women now possess. After
     marriage the husband and wife are considered as one person in
     law, which I hold to be false from the very laws applicable to
     married parties. Were it so, the act of one would be as binding
     as the act of the other, and wise legislators would not need to
     enact statutes defining the peculiar rights of each; were it so,
     a woman could not legally be a man's inferior. Such a thing would
     be a veritable impossibility. One-half of a person can not be
     made the protection or direction of the other half. Blackstone
     says "a woman may indeed be attorney for her husband, for that
     implies no separation from, but rather a representation of, her
     lord. And a husband may also bequeath anything to his wife by
     will; for it can not take effect till the coverture is determined
     by his death." After stating at considerable length, the reasons
     showing their unity, the learned commentator proceeds to cut the
     knot, and show they are not one, but are considered as two
     persons, one superior, the one inferior, and not only so, but the
     inferior in the eye of the law as acting from compulsion.

     J. ELIZABETH JONES, of Ohio: This is a time of progress; and man
     may sooner arrest the progress of the lightning, or the clouds,
     or stay the waves of the sea, than the onward march of Truth with
     her hand on her sword and her banner unfurled. I am not in the
     habit of talking much about rights; I am one of those who take
     them. I have occupied pulpits all over the country five days out
     of seven, in lecturing on science, and have found no objection.

     I do not know what all the women want, but I do know what I want
     myself, and that is, what men are most unwilling to grant; the
     right to vote. That includes all other rights. I want to go into
     the Legislative Hall, sit on the Judicial Bench, and fill the
     Executive Chair. Now do you understand me? This I claim on the
     ground of humanity; and on the ground that taxation and
     representation go together. The whole question resolves itself
     into this; there has been no attempt to dispute this. No man will
     venture to deny the right of woman to vote. He may urge many
     objections against the expediency of her exercising it, but the
     right is hers.

     But though women are deprived of political rights, there are
     other rights which no law prevents. We can take our rights as
     merchants and in other avocations, by investing our capital in
     them; but we stand back and wait till it is popular for us to
     become merchants, doctors, lecturers, or practitioners of the
     mechanic arts. I know girls who have mechanical genius sufficient
     to become Arkwrights and Fultons, but their mothers would not
     apprentice them. Which of the women of this Convention have sent
     their daughters as apprentices to a watchmaker? There is no law
     against this!!

     Mrs. MOTT: The Church and public opinion are stronger than law.

     LYDIA JENKINS: Is there any law to prevent women voting in this
     State? The Constitution says "white male citizens" may vote, but
     does not say that white female citizens may not.

     Mrs. JONES said: I do not understand that point sufficiently well
     to explain, but whether the statute book is in favor or opposed,
     every citizen in a republic (and a woman is a citizen) has a
     natural right to vote which no human laws can abrogate; the right
     to vote is the right of self-government.

     ANTOINETTE BROWN said: I know instances of <DW52> persons voting
     under the same circumstances, and their votes being allowed by
     the legal authorities; but John A. Dix declared the proceedings
     of a school meeting void because two women voted at it.

     BENJAMIN S. JONES said, in Ohio where there is much splitting of
     hairs between white and black blood, the judges decided in favor
     of a certain <DW52> man's right to vote, because there was 50
     per cent. of white blood in the person in question.

     Mrs. DAVIS: The first draft of the Rhode Island Constitution said
     "all citizens," but as soon as some one suggested that the door
     was thus left open for women to vote, the word "male" was
     promptly inserted.

Mrs. Davis read an interesting letter from the Rev. A. D. Mayo.[110]
Samuel J. May read letters from William Lloyd Garrison, of Boston, and
Margaret H. Andrews, of Newburyport, Massachusetts.

                              NEWBURYPORT, Mass., _September 4, 1852_.

     REV. SAMUEL J. MAY.

     DEAR FRIEND--I wish to express my deep sympathy with those brave
     women who are struggling against ancient prejudices and modern
     folly, and who will eventually elevate our sex to a position
     which will command the respect of those who now regard them with
     derision and contempt, and my gratitude to the noble-minded men
     who are extending a helping hand to those who have hitherto been
     considered the weak and dependent portion of society, and are
     endeavoring to raise them to _their_ level, instead of trying to
     establish their superiority over them. Such conduct shows true
     greatness and dignity of character. I wish to bear my share of
     the reproach and contumely which will be liberally bestowed upon
     this movement by many who ought to know and to do better; this is
     indeed the actuating motive which impels me to write.

     With regard to the counsel which has been requested, I have
     little to say. If there be any one subject which has not been
     sufficiently insisted on, it is the aimless life which young
     women generally lead after they have left school. A large portion
     are occupied in forming matrimonial plans when they are wholly
     unfit to enter into that sacred state. Dr. Johnson makes his
     Nekayah say of young ladies with whom she associated, "Some
     imagined they were in love, when they were only idle." If young
     ladies directed their attention to some definite employment, this
     evil would be remedied.

                                   I am, dear sir,
                                        Very truly yours,
                                             MARGARET H. ANDREWS.

     LUCY STONE said: Mrs. Jones' idea of taking our rights is
     inspiring, but it can not be done. In Massachusetts some women
     apprenticed themselves as printers, but were expelled because men
     would not set type beside them. Dr. Harriot K. Hunt asked
     permission to attend medical lectures at Harvard, but the
     students declared that if she were admitted they would leave, and
     so she was sacrificed.

     HARRIET K. HUNT: No; I am here.

     LUCY STONE: Mrs. Mott says she was only suspended. So, too, when
     the Grimke sisters and Abby Kelley began publicly to plead the
     cause of the slave, they were assailed both by pulpit and press,
     and every species of abuse was heaped upon them; but they
     persevered and proved their capacity to do it, and now we meet in
     quietness, and our right to speak in public is not questioned.
     The woman who first departs from the routine in which society
     allows her to move must suffer. Let us bravely bear ridicule and
     persecution for the sake of the good that will result, and when
     the world sees that we can accomplish what we undertake, it will
     acknowledge our right. We must be true to each other. We must
     stand by the woman whose work of hand or brain removes her from
     the customary sphere. Employ the woman physician, dentist, and
     artist rather than a man of the same calling, and in time all
     professions and trades will be as free to us as to our brothers.

     ABBY PRICE, of Hopedale, said: I shall briefly consider woman's
     religious position, her relation to the Church, and show that by
     its restrictions she has suffered great injustice; that alike
     under all forms of religion she has been degraded and oppressed,
     the Church has proscribed her, and denied the exercise of her
     inalienable rights, and in this the Church is false to the
     plainest principles of Christianity. "There is neither Jew nor
     Greek; there is neither bond nor free; there is neither male nor
     female; for ye all are one in Christ Jesus." Gal., chap, iii., v.
     28. "So God created man in His _own_ image; in the image of God
     created He him; male and _female_ created He _them_, and said
     unto _them_: have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the
     fowl of the air; over every living thing that moveth upon the
     earth." Genesis i., v. 27, 28. Notwithstanding these explicit
     declarations of equality, even in the Godhead, the Church
     claiming to be "Christian" denies woman's right of free speech.
     The priesthood, from Paul down, say gravely: "It is not permitted
     for woman to speak in the churches." Some denominations have
     gravely debated whether she should be allowed in the service, or
     chants, to respond Amen!

     The whole arrangement of Nature in her beautiful and wise
     manifestations to us evinces that the Divine order is for the
     sexes to mingle their different and peculiar characteristics in
     every relation of life. In Jesus the masculine and feminine
     elements of humanity were blended harmoniously. These different
     characteristics in His own person were distinctly and plainly
     seen. The masculine, when He fixed His eye in stern rebuke, and
     made the hypocrite and the Pharisee tremble; and the feminine
     gleamed often through His tears of affection and pity, and shone
     ever a glorious halo of patience and love around Him in the midst
     of suffering the most wasting and intense. The Church, as His
     Representative, should also exhibit these peculiarities in as
     full and glorious harmony.

     Yet very few of the sects allow woman to assume the
     responsibility as religious teacher. However great she may feel
     the duty to be upon her, and however well qualified she may be,
     all ecclesiastical authorities, with one accord, begin to make
     excuses whenever a woman presents herself to be properly
     authorized, according to the popular usage of that Church, to
     preach the Gospel to a people, one-half of whom are her own sex.

     Again, _woman is denied_ a representation in all _Ecclesiastical
     Assemblies_.

     The male portion of the Church assemble in delegation from the
     different bodies with which they are connected to legislate in
     behalf of the churches, but woman has no representation in these
     councils. Her opinion of what is best to promote the interests of
     religion is not respected; her right to representation being
     denied, her claim to just recognition is solemnly mocked. The
     Church places its hands on woman's lips, and says to her, "You
     shall not _speak_; you shall not be represented; you are not
     eligible to office because _you are a woman_!" Is not this
     crucifying with a strange presumption the soul of
     Christ?--treating with contempt the purity of the Christian
     character?--trampling upon _Human Rights?_ And yet woman
     patiently bears this contumely and scorn. The poor young men that
     she often educates by toil early and late, labor, arduous and
     half paid, teach her, when properly prepared, that this absurd
     tyranny is supported by the word of God!

     Woman may speak when the thoughtless crowd the halls of fashion,
     with no aim but amusement, in the theatre, opera, or concert
     hall; she may meet with ministers in revivals, camp meetings, and
     sociables, and reply with smile and bow to the hollow compliments
     addressed to her vanity, but she must keep silence in the
     churches and all religious meetings; if there are only six
     persons present woman may not ask God's blessing to rest there,
     nor presume, should one man be present, to give utterance to her
     religious aspiration.

     Every class of society, and especially each sex, need religious
     teachers of their own class and sex with themselves, having the
     same experience, the same hopes, aims, and relations. Human minds
     are so constituted as to need not merely intellectual
     instruction, but the strength imparted by an earnest sympathy
     born of a like experience. In order rightly to appreciate the
     wants of others, we must know and realize the trials of their
     situation, the struggles they may encounter, the burthens, the
     toils, the temptations that beset their different relations.
     These should be apprehended to some extent, and the more the
     better by the person qualified to speak to the spiritual wants of
     all. Each relation, therefore, needs its teacher--its peculiar
     ministry. No one can demonstrate by college lore the weight of a
     mother's responsibility.

     No man--not even the kindest father--can fully apprehend the
     wearisome cares and anxious solicitude for children of her who
     bore them. The tremblings of a mother's soul none save a mother
     can feel. Man may prepare sound and logical discourses; he may
     clearly define a mother's duty; he may talk eloquently about her
     responsibility; he may urge upon her strong motives to
     faithfulness in the discharge of her maternal duties; he may tell
     her what her children should be in all life's varied aspects. She
     hears the good instruction and advice with more or less of the
     feeling, "_You_ cannot _know_ of what you are talking."....

     The Church needs a varied ministry. Not alone is the power of
     mind needed, but the zeal and the inspiration of the inner life;
     the unction of love and faith and courage produced by a struggle
     amid life's realities. Not the dreamer, but the toiler can best
     affect the lives of others through their hearts. In this ministry
     the sexes must blend harmoniously their ministrations to others
     from their own lives and experiences. This must be the Divine
     order. Reason teaches it to the calm observer. Our souls respond
     to this truth from their deepest chambers.

     ... Doom woman no longer to banishment from the hallowed ground
     of Church and State. She has too long been but as the Pariah of
     the desert. Welcome her ministrations reverently to her human
     nature, kindly to her present weakness, encouragingly to her
     hopes; receive her counsels with respect and confidence, so far
     as they are worthy, and be assured that a better day will begin
     to dawn. The birth of a new spiritual life will be given in this
     new marriage, and melody as from the harps of angels will be
     breathed from the circles of earth.

     PAULINA WRIGHT DAVIS: ... We commence life where our fathers left
     it. We have their mistakes and their achievements. We attempt to
     walk in the paths they trod, and wear the garments left by them;
     but they are all too short and narrow for us; they deform and
     cramp our energies; for they demand the Procrustean process to
     conform the enlarged natures of the present to the past. While
     the human soul, like the infinite in wisdom and love, is ever
     governed by the eternal law of progress, creeds and codes are
     always changing. All things founded in immutable truth grow only
     the stronger by every trial.

     ... The sacred traditions of both Jew and Gentile agree in
     ascribing to woman a primary agency in the introduction of human
     evils. In the Greek Mythology, she is indeed not the first
     offender; but she is the bearer of the box that contained all the
     crimes and diseases which have punished our world for the abuse
     of liberty. It is worthy of remark that Pandora, who is the Eve
     of the Grecian system, being like her Hebrew correspondent,
     created for special purposes, was the joint work of all the gods.
     Venus gave her beauty, Minerva wisdom, Apollo the art of music,
     Mercury eloquence, and the rest the perfection and completeness
     of all her divine accomplishments. Her name signifies gifts from
     all.

          "A combination and a form Indeed
          Where every god did seem to set his seal,
          To give the world assurance of a paragon."

     Prometheus made the first man of clay and animated him with fire
     stolen from Heaven. Jupiter is represented as attaching the
     terrible consequences of a rational and responsible vitality,
     thus conferred upon a creation of earth, by sending this
     wonderfully gifted Pandora into the world loaded with all the
     evils which it was fated to endure. It was her destiny to be the
     occasion of the fall, the instrument of doom; but her fortunes
     are linked to the resurrection and life, as well as the suffering
     and death of the race. Among the gifts of Pandora which had
     otherwise been fatal, she brought hope which lay concealed after
     all the others had flown abroad on their missions of mischief. In
     our Sacred Story this point in the parable has a clear
     explanation: "The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's
     head." If she brought death into the world, she brought forth a
     Son who "taketh away the sins of the world.".... These myths,
     whether received as simple facts, or poetic fiction, whose
     oracles always reveal the deepest signification of facts, alike
     indicate the eminent agency of woman in the fall and rising again
     of the human image of the divine upon earth.

     ... From the marriage hour woman is presented only in a series of
     dissolving views. First. She stands beside her husband radiant in
     girlish beauty. She worships. One side of the lesson is well
     learned, that of entire dependence. Not once has she dreamed that
     there must be mutual dependence and separate fountains of
     reciprocal life.... In the next scene the child wife appears
     withering away from life as from the heart she is not large or
     noble enough to fill--pining in the darkness of her home-life,
     made only the deeper by her inactivity, ignorance, and
     despair.... In another view she has passed the season of despair,
     and appears as the heartless votary of fashion, a flirt, or that
     most to be dreaded, most to be despised being, a married
     coquette; at once seductive, heartless, and basely unprincipled;
     or as beauty of person has faded away, she may be found turning
     from these lighter styles of toys to a quiet kind of hand-maiden
     piety and philanthropy.

     ... Marriage as it now exists is only a name, a form without a
     soul, a bondage, legal and therefore honorable. Only equals can
     make this relation. True marriage is a union of soul with soul, a
     blending of two in one, without mastership or helpless
     dependence. The true family is the central and supreme
     institution among human societies. All other organizations,
     whether of Church or State, depend upon it for their character
     and action. Its evils are the source of all evils; its good the
     fountain of all good. The correction of its abuses is the
     starting-point of all the reforms which the world needs.

Dr. Harriot K. Hunt attracted much attention from the fact of her
yearly protest against taxation. In the course of her remarks she
said, "Unseen spirits have been with us in this Convention; the
spirits of our Shaker sisters whom untold sorrows have driven into
those communal societies, the convents of our civilization."

After quite a brilliant discussion, in which Mr. Brigham made himself
a target for Lucy Stone, Martha C. Wright, Eliza Aldrich, Clarina
Howard Nichols, Harriot K. Hunt, and Mrs. Palmer to shoot at,
Antoinette L. Brown offered the following resolution, and made a few
good points on the Bible argument:

     _Resolved_, That the Bible recognizes the rights, duties, and
     privileges of woman as a public teacher, as every way equal with
     those of man; that it enjoins upon her no subjection that is not
     enjoined upon him; and that it truly and practically recognizes
     neither male nor female in Christ Jesus.

     God created the first human pair equal in rights, possessions,
     and authority. He bequeathed the earth to them as a joint
     inheritance; gave them joint dominion over the irrational
     creation; but none over each other. (Gen. i. 28). They sinned.
     God announced to them the results of sin. One of these results
     was the rule which man would exercise over woman. (Gen. iii. 16).
     This rule was no more approved, endorsed, or sanctioned by God,
     than was the twin-born prophecy, "thou (Satan) shalt bruise his
     (Christ's) heel." God could not, from His nature, command Satan
     to injure Christ, or any other of the seed of woman. What
     particle of evidence is there then for supposing that in the
     parallel announcement He commanded man to rule over woman? Both
     passages should have been translated will, instead of shall.
     Either auxiliary is used indifferently according to the sense, in
     rendering that form of the Hebrew verb into English.

     Because thou hast done this, is God's preface to the
     announcement. The results are the effects of sin. Can woman then
     receive evil from this rule, and man receive good? Man should be
     blessed in exercising this power, if he is divinely appointed to
     do so; but the two who are one flesh have an identity of
     interests, therefore if it is a curse or evil to woman, it must
     be so to man also. We mock God, when we make Him approve of man's
     thus cursing himself and woman.

     The submission enjoined upon the wife in the New Testament, is
     not the unrighteous rule predicted in the Old. It is a Christian
     submission due from man towards man, and from man towards woman:
     "Yea, all of you be subject one to another" (1 Pet. v. 5; Eph. v.
     21; Rom. xii. 10, etc.) In I Cor. xvi. 16, the disciples are
     besought to submit themselves "to every one that helpeth with us
     and laboreth." The same apostle says, "help those women which
     labored with me in the Gospel, with Clement also, and with other
     of my fellow-laborers."

     Man is the head of the woman. True, but only in the sense in
     which Christ is represented as head of His body, the Church. In a
     different sense He is head of all things--of wicked men and
     devils. If man is woman's head in this sense, he may exercise
     over her all the prerogatives of God Himself. This would be
     blasphemous. The mystical Head and Body, or Christ and His
     Church, symbolize oneness, union. Christ so loved the Church He
     gave Himself for it, made it His own body, part and parcel of
     Himself. So ought men to love their wives. Then the rule which
     grew out of sin, will cease with the sin.

     It is said woman is commanded not to teach in the Church. There
     is no such command in the Bible. It is said (1 Cor. xiv. 34),
     "Let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is not
     permitted unto them to speak." This injunction, taken out of its
     connection, forbids singing also; interpreted by its context,
     woman is merely told not to talk unless she does teach. On the
     same principle, one who has the gift of tongues is told not to
     use it in the Church, unless there is an interpreter. The rule
     enforced from the beginning to the end of the chapter is, "Let
     all things be done unto edifying." Their women, who had not been
     previously instructed like the men, were very naturally guilty of
     asking questions which did not edify the assembly. It was better
     that they should wait till they got home for the desired
     information, rather than put an individual good before the good
     of the Church. Nothing else is forbidden. There is not a word
     here against woman's teaching. The apostle says to the whole
     Church, woman included, "Ye may all prophesy, one by one."

     In 1 Tim. ii. 12, the writer forbids woman's teaching over man,
     or usurping authority over him; that is, he prohibits
     dogmatizing, tutoring, teaching in a dictatorial spirit. This is
     prohibited both in public and private; but a proper kind of
     teaching is not prohibited. Verse 14--a reference to Eve, who,
     though created last, sinned first, is merely such a suggestion as
     we would make to a daughter whose mother had been in fault. The
     daughters are not blamed for the mother's sin, merely warned by
     it; and cautioned against self-confidence, which could make them
     presume to teach over man. The Bible tells us of many
     prophetesses approved of God. The Bible is truly democratic. Do
     as you would be done by, is its golden commandment, recognizing
     neither male nor female in Christ Jesus.

     ERNESTINE L. ROSE: If the able theologian who has just spoken had
     been in Indiana when the Constitution was revised, she might have
     had a chance to give her definitions on the Bible argument to
     some effect. At that Convention Robert Dale Owen introduced a
     clause to give a married woman the right to her property. The
     clause had passed, but by the influence of a minister was
     recalled; and by his appealing to the superstition of the
     members, and bringing the whole force of Bible argument to bear
     against the right of woman to her property, it was lost. Had Miss
     Brown been there, she might have beaten him with his own weapons.
     For my part, I see no need to appeal to any written authority,
     particularly when it is so obscure and indefinite as to admit of
     different interpretations. When the inhabitants of Boston
     converted their harbor into a teapot rather than submit to unjust
     taxes, they did not go to the Bible for their authority; for if
     they had, they would have been told from the same authority to
     "give unto Caesar what belonged to Caesar." Had the people, when
     they rose in the might of their right to throw off the British
     yoke, appealed to the Bible for authority, it would have
     answered them, "Submit to the powers that be, for they are from
     God." No! on Human Rights and Freedom, on a subject that is as
     self-evident as that two and two make four, there is no need of
     any written authority. But this is not what I intended to speak
     upon. I wish to introduce a resolution, and leave it to the
     action of the Convention:

     _Resolved_, That we ask not for our rights as a gift of charity,
     but as an act of justice. For it is in accordance with the
     principles of republicanism that, as woman has to pay taxes to
     maintain government, she has a right to participate in the
     formation and administration of it. That as she is amenable to
     the laws of her country, she is entitled to a voice in their
     enactment, and to all the protective advantages they can bestow;
     and as she is as liable as man to all the vicissitudes of life,
     she ought to enjoy the same social rights and privileges. And any
     difference, therefore, in political, civil, and social rights, on
     account of sex, is in direct violation of the principles of
     justice and humanity, and as such ought to be held up to the
     contempt and derision of every lover of human freedom.

     ... But we call upon the law-makers and law-breakers of the
     nation, to defend themselves for violating the fundamental
     principles of the Republic, or disprove their validity. Yes! they
     stand arrayed before the bar, not only of injured womanhood, but
     before the bar of moral consistency; for this question is
     awakening an interest abroad, as well as at home. Whatever human
     rights are claimed for man, moral consistency points to the equal
     rights of woman; but statesmen dare not openly face the subject;
     knowing well they can not confute it, and they have not moral
     courage enough to admit it; and hence, all they can do is to
     shelter themselves under a subterfuge which, though solidified by
     age, ignorance, and prejudice, is transparent enough for the most
     benighted vision to penetrate. A strong evidence of this, is
     given in a reply of Mr. Roebuck, member of Parliament, at a
     meeting of electors in Sheffield, England. Mr. R., who advocated
     the extension of the franchise to the occupants of five-pound
     tenements, was asked whether he would favor the extension of the
     same to women who pay an equal amount of rent? That was a simple,
     straight-forward question of justice; one worthy to be asked even
     in our republican legislative halls. But what was the honorable
     gentleman's reply? Did he meet it openly and fairly? Oh, no! but
     hear him, and I hope the ladies will pay particular attention,
     for the greater part of the reply contains the draught poor,
     deluded woman has been accustomed to swallow--Flattery:

     "There is no man who owes more than I do to woman. My education
     was formed by one whose very recollections at this moment make me
     tremble. There is nothing which, for the honor of the sex, I
     would not do; the happiness of my life is bound up with it;
     mother, wife, daughter, woman, to me have been the oasis of the
     desert of life, and, I have to ask myself, would it conduce to
     the happiness of society to bring woman more distinctly than she
     now is brought, into the arena of politics? Honestly I confess to
     you I believe not. I will tell you why. All their influences, if
     I may so term it, are gentle influences. In the rude battle and
     business of life, we come home to find a nook and shelter of
     quiet comfort after the hard and severe, and, I may say, the
     sharp ire and the disputes of the House of Commons. I hie me
     home, knowing that I shall there find personal solicitude and
     anxiety. My head rests upon a bosom throbbing with emotion for
     me and our child; and I feel a more hearty man in the cause of my
     country, the next day, because of the perfect, soothing, gentle
     peace which a mind sullied by politics is unable to feel. Oh! I
     can not rob myself of that inexpressible benefit, and therefore I
     say, No."

     Well, this is certainly a nice little romantic bit of
     parliamentary declamation. What a pity that he should give up all
     these enjoyments to give woman a vote! Poor man! his happiness
     must be balanced on the very verge of a precipice, when the
     simple act of depositing a vote by the hand of woman, would
     overthrow and destroy it forever. I don't doubt the honorable
     gentleman meant what he said, particularly the last part of it,
     for such are the views of the unthinking, unreflecting mass of
     the public, here as well as there. But like a true politician, he
     commenced very patriotically, for the happiness of society, and
     finished by describing his own individual interests. His reply is
     a curious mixture of truth, political sophistry, false
     assumption, and blind selfishness. But he was placed in a
     dilemma, and got himself out as he could. In advocating the
     franchise to five-pound tenement-holders, it did not occur to him
     that woman may possess the same qualification that man has, and
     in justice, therefore, ought to have the same rights; and when
     the simple question was put to him (simple questions are very
     troublesome to statesmen), having too much sense not to see the
     justness of it, and too little moral courage to admit it, he
     entered into quite an interesting account of what a delightful
     little creature woman is, provided only she is kept quietly at
     home, waiting for the arrival of her lord and master, ready to
     administer a dose of purification, "which his politically sullied
     mind is unable to feel." Well! I have no desire to dispute the
     necessity of it, nor that he owes to woman all that makes life
     desirable--comforts, happiness, aye, and common sense too, for
     it's a well-known fact that smart mothers always have smart sons,
     unless they take after their father. But what of that? Are the
     benefits woman is capable of bestowing on man, reasons why she
     must pay the same amount of rent and taxes, without enjoying the
     same rights that man does?

     But the justice of the case was not considered. The honorable
     gentleman was only concerned about the "happiness of society."
     Society! what does the term mean? As a foreigner, I understand by
     it a collection or union of human beings--men, women, and
     children, under one general government, and for mutual interest.
     But Mr. Roebuck, being a native Briton and a member of
     Parliament, gave us a parliamentary definition, namely; society
     means the male sex only; for in his solicitude to consult "the
     happiness of society," he enumerated the benefits man enjoys from
     keeping woman from her rights, without even dreaming that woman
     was at all considered in it; and this is the true parliamentary
     definition, for statesmen never include woman in their solicitude
     for the happiness of society. Oh, no! she is not yet recognized
     as belonging to the honorable body, unless taxes are required for
     its benefit, or the penalties of the law have to be enforced for
     its security.

     Thus, being either unwilling or afraid to do woman justice, he
     first flattered her, then, in his ignorance of her true nature,
     he assumed that if she has her rights equal with man, she would
     cease to be woman--forsake the partner of her existence, the
     child of her bosom, dry up her sympathies, stifle her affections,
     turn recreant to her own nature. Then his blind selfishness took
     the alarm, lest, if woman were more independent, she might not be
     willing to be the obedient, servile tool, implicitly to obey and
     minister to the passions and follies of man; "and as he could not
     rob himself of these inexpressible benefits, therefore he said,
     No."

The speech of Antoinette Brown, and the resolution she presented
opened the question of authority as against individual judgment, and
roused a prolonged and somewhat bitter discussion, to which Mrs.
Stanton's letter,[111] read in a most emphatic manner by Susan B.
Anthony, added intensity. It continued at intervals for two days,
calling out great diversity of sentiment. Rev. Junius Hatch, a
Congregational minister from Massachusetts, questioned the officers of
the Convention as to their belief in the paramount authority of the
Bible, saying the impression had gone abroad that the Convention was
infidel in character. The President ruled that question not before the
Convention.

Thomas McClintock[112] said, to go back to a particular era for a
standard of religion and morality, is to adopt an imperfect standard
and impede the progress of truth. The best minds of to-day surely
understand the vital issues of this hour better than those possibly
could who have slumbered in their graves for centuries. Mrs. Nichols,
whom the city press spoke of as wielding a trenchant blade, announced
herself as having been a member of a Baptist church since the age of
eight years, thus sufficiently proving her orthodoxy. Mrs. Rose,
expressing the conviction that belief does not depend upon voluntary
inclination, deemed it right to interpret the Bible as he or she
thought best, but objected to any such interpretation going forth as
the doctrine of the Convention, as, at best, it was but mere opinion
and not authority.

The debate upon Miss Brown's resolution was renewed in the afternoon,
during which the Rev. Junius Hatch made so coarse a speech that the
President was obliged to call him to order.[113] Paying no heed to
this reprimand he continued in a strain so derogatory to his own
dignity and so insulting to the Convention, that the audience called
out, "Sit down! Sit down! Shut up!" forcing the Reverend gentleman to
his seat. The discussion still continued between the members of the
Convention; Miss Brown sustaining her resolution, Mrs. Rose opposing
it.

     Mrs. MOTT, vacating the chair, spoke in opposition to the
     resolution, and related her anti-slavery experience upon the
     Bible question; one party taking great pains to show that the
     Bible was opposed to slavery, while the other side quoted texts
     to prove it of divine origin, thus wasting their time by bandying
     Scripture texts, and interfering with the business of their
     meetings. The advocates of emancipation soon learned to adhere to
     their own great work--that of declaring the inherent right of man
     to himself and his earnings--and that self-evident truths needed
     no argument or outward authority. We already see the disadvantage
     of such discussions here. It is not to be supposed that all the
     advice given by the apostles to the women of their day is
     applicable to our more intelligent age; nor is there any passage
     of Scripture making those texts binding upon us.

     A GENTLEMAN said: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,
     and profitable, etc." Does not this apply to the latest period?

     LUCRETIA MOTT: If the speaker will turn to the passage he will
     find that the word "_is_," being in italics, was inserted by the
     translators. She accepted it as in the original, "All Scriptures
     _given_ by inspiration of God, is profitable, etc." She was
     somewhat familiar with the Scriptures, and at a suitable time
     would have no objection to discuss the question. She concluded by
     moving that the resolution be laid on the table, which was
     unanimously carried.

On the morning of the last day the President stated that the subject
of organizing a National Society was to be discussed, and at her
suggestion Mr. May read a long and interesting letter from Angelina
Grimke Weld, from which we give the salient points:

     "Organization is two-fold--natural and artificial, divine and
     human. Natural organizations are based on the principle of
     progression; the eternal law of change. But human or artificial
     organizations are built upon the principle of crystallization;
     they _fix_ the conditions of society; they seek to daguerreotype
     themselves, not on the present age only, but on future
     generations; hence, they fetter and distort the expanding mind.
     Organizations do not protect the sacredness of the individual;
     their tendency is to sink the individual in the mass, to
     sacrifice his rights, and immolate him on the altar of some
     fancied good.

     It is not to organization that I object, but to an _artificial
     society_ that must prove a burden, a clog, an incumbrance, rather
     than a help. Such an organization as now actually exists among
     the women of America I hail with heartfelt joy. We are bound
     together by the natural ties of spiritual affinity; we are drawn
     to each other because we are attracted toward one common
     center--the good of humanity. We need no external bonds to bind
     us together, no cumbrous machinery to keep our minds and hearts
     in unity of purpose and effort we are not the lifeless staves of
     a barrel which can be held together only by the iron hoops of an
     artificial organization.

     The present aspect of organizations, whether in Church, or State,
     or society at large, foretokens dissolution. The wrinkles and
     totterings of age are on them. The power of organization has been
     deemed necessary only because the power of Truth has not been
     appreciated, and just in proportion as we reverence the
     individual, and trust the unaided potency of Truth, we shall find
     it useless. What organization in the world's history has not
     encumbered the unfettered action of those who created it? Indeed,
     has not been used as an engine of oppression.

     The importance of this question can hardly be duly magnified. How
     few organizations have ever had the power which this is destined
     to wield! The prayers and sympathies of the ripest and richest
     minds will be ours. Vast is the influence which true-hearted
     women will exert in the coming age. It is a beautiful
     coincidence, that just as the old epochs of despotism and
     slavery, Priestcraft and Political intrigue are dying out, just
     as the spiritual part of man is rising into the ascendency,
     Woman's Rights are being canvassed and conceded, so that when she
     becomes his partner in office, higher and holier principles of
     action will form the basis of Governmental administration.

                                             ANGELINA GRIMKE WELD.

The reading of Mrs. Weld's letter was followed by a spirited
discussion, resulting in the continuance of the Central Committee,
composed of representative men and women of the several States, which
was the only form of National Organization until after the war.

     MARY SPRINGSTEAD moved that the Convention proceed to organize a
     National Woman's Rights Society.

     Mrs. SMITH and Mrs. DAVIS did not like to be bound by a
     Constitution longer than during the sessions of the Convention.
     Both recommended the formation of State Societies.

     Dr. HARRIOT K. HUNT spoke as a physician in deeming spontaneity
     as a law of nature.

     ERNESTINE L. ROSE declared organizations to be like Chinese
     bandages. In political, moral, and religious bodies they hindered
     the growth of men; they were incubi; she herself had cut loose
     from an organization into which she had been born[114]; she knew
     what it had cost her, and having bought that little freedom for
     what was dearer to her than life itself, she prized it too highly
     to ever put herself in the same shackles again.

     LUCY STONE said, that like a burnt child that dreads the fire,
     they had all been in permanent organizations, and therefore dread
     them. She herself had had enough of thumb-screws and soul screws
     ever to wish to be placed under them again. The present duty is
     agitation.

     Rev. SAMUEL J. MAY deemed a system of action and co-operation all
     that was needed. There is probably not one woman in a thousand,
     not one in ten thousand who has well considered the disabilities,
     literary, pecuniary, social, political, under which she labors.
     Ample provision must be made for woman's education, as liberal
     and thorough as that provided for the other sex.

     Mrs. C. I. H. NICHOLS favored organization as a means to collect
     and render operative the fragmentary elements now favoring the
     cause.

     Rev. ABRAM PRYNE, in an able speech, favored National and State
     organization.

The discussion was closed by the adoption of the following resolution,
introduced by Paulina Wright Davis:

     _Resolved_, That this National Convention earnestly recommends to
     those who are members of it from several States, and to those
     persons in any or all of our States, who are interested in this
     great reform, that they call meetings of the States or the
     counties in which they live, certainly as often as once a year,
     to consider the principles of this reform, and devise measures
     for their promulgation, and thus co-operate with all throughout
     the nation and the world, for the elevation of woman to a proper
     place in the mental, moral, social, religious, and political
     world.

It is impossible to more than give the spirit of the Convention,
though glimpses of it and its participants may be caught in the brief
sketch of its proceedings. In accordance with the call, woman's
social, civil, and religious rights were all discussed. Lucy Stone
made a brilliant closing address, the doxology was sung to "Old
Hundred," and the Convention adjourned.

The character and influence of this Convention can best be shown by
the reports of the city press.[115]

                   _The Standard, September 13, 1852_.

     The WOMAN'S RIGHTS CONVENTION was in session during three days of
     last week in this city, and was attended by a large number of
     persons, not less, probably, than 2,000. Such a Convention, even
     in this city of conventions, was something new under the sun....
     The discussions were characterized by a degree of ability that
     would do credit to any deliberative body in the country.... Some
     able letters were read to the Convention. Among the most
     noteworthy was that of Mrs. Stanton.... Mrs. Mott presided over
     the Convention with much dignity and ability.... If any of the
     natural rights belonging to women are withheld from them by the
     laws and customs of society, it is due to them that a remedy
     should be applied;.... those among them who are aggrieved should
     have an opportunity to give free expression to their opinions.
     This will hurt nobody, and those who profess to be alarmed at the
     result, should dismiss their fears.

            _The Daily Journal_ (_Whig_), _September 13, 1852_.

     THE NATIONAL WOMAN'S RIGHTS CONVENTION--After a duration of three
     mortal days this August Convention came to a "happy and peaceful
     end" Friday evening.... All who attended any portion of the
     Convention, or the whole, will unite with us in pronouncing it
     the most dignified, orderly, and interesting deliberative body
     ever convened in this city. The officers, and most especially
     the distinguished woman who occupied the president's chair,
     evinced a thorough acquaintance with the duties of their station,
     and performed them in an admirable manner.... No person
     acquainted with the doings of the assembly and capable of passing
     judgment in the matter, will deny there was a greater amount of
     talent in the Woman's Rights Convention than has characterized
     any public gathering in this State during ten years past, and
     probably a longer period, if ever.... For compact logic, eloquent
     and correct expression, and the making of plain and frequent
     points, we have never met the equal of two or three of the
     number. The appearance of all before the audience was modest and
     unassuming, though prompt, energetic, and confident.

     Business was brought forward, calmly deliberated upon, and
     discussed with unanimity, and in a spirit becoming true woman,
     and which would add an unknown dignity and consequent influence
     to the transactions of public associations of the "lords."....
     The appearance of the platform was pleasing and really imposing
     in the extreme. The galaxy of bold women--for they were really
     bold, indeed they are daring women--presented a spectacle the
     like of which we never before witnessed. A glance at the "good
     old lady" who presided with so much dignity and propriety, and
     through the list to the youngest engaged in the cause, was enough
     to impress the unprejudiced beholder with the idea that there
     must be something in the movement.... The audience was large and
     more impressive than has marked any convention ever held here....
     We feel in a mood to dip lightly into a discussion of the Woman's
     Rights question.... Our sober second thought dictates that a
     three days' enlightenment at the intellectual feast spread by
     Beauty and Genius, may have turned our brains, and consequently
     we desist.

The discussions of this Convention did not end with its adjournment;
its _sine die_ had effect only upon the assembled body; for months
afterward controversies and discussions, both public and private, took
place. Clergymen of Syracuse and adjoining cities kept the interest
glowing by their efforts to destroy the influence of the Convention by
the cry of "infidel." A clergyman of Auburn not only preached against
the Convention as "infidel," but as one holding authority over the
consciences of his flock, boldly asserted that "no member of his
congregation was tainted with the unholy doctrine of woman's rights."

Rev. Byron Sunderland, pastor of the Plymouth Congregational Church of
Syracuse (since Chaplain of the United States Senate), characterized
it in his sermon[116] as a "Bloomer Convention," taking for his text
Deut. xxii. 5:

     The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto man; neither
     shall a man put on a woman's garment; for all that do so are an
     abomination to the Lord thy God.

Mrs. Gage's reply, in the absence of the editor, appeared in _The
Star_, in whose columns Rev. Mr. Sunderland's sermon had been given
the public, calling forth the following letter:

                                   WASHINGTON, _Nov. 20, 1852_.

     The readers of _The Star_ are aware that the editor does not
     sanction the ridiculous stuff which appeared in the issues of the
     17th and 18th insts. over the signature of "M" upon the subject
     of "Woman's Rights," nor does he approve of its admission in the
     columns of the paper, and hereby disclaims having authorized the
     publication of any such emanations from the pit during his
     absence from home. When at his post he sometimes gives publicity
     to such communications for the purpose of showing up the fallacy
     of the positions taken, but never does he intend, so long as he
     has control of its columns, to allow _The Star_ to become the
     medium of disseminating corrupt and unwholesome doctrines. Such
     doctrines have found and will continue to find means enough with
     which to do their duty in Syracuse without the aid of a
     _reputable_ newspaper in their behalf; and the editor indeed is
     greatly surprised that those who temporarily fill his place,
     should lend _The Star_ to so base purposes. We trust that these
     words (if discretion does not) will prevent further encroachment
     upon our good nature.

_The Carson League_, quoting the above editorial, says:

     It is the first paragraph of the above letter that is noticeable.
     _The Star_ is the organ of a certain class of ministers. Messrs.
     Sunderland and Ashley and _The Star_ nestle in a common sympathy.
     It is significant of the character of their published sermons,
     that _The Star_ stands alone in their defence. More significant
     still that _The Star_ negates all replies to them, even by a
     lady. "_Put out the light_," says the thief. "_Put out the
     light_," says the assassin. "_Put out the light_," says _The
     Star_; and verily if these gentlemen had their way, the light
     would go out in Egyptian darkness. It is wholesome doctrine, in
     the opinion of _The Star_, to deny woman's rights and <DW64>'s
     rights and the right of free discussion, to maintain them is to
     countenance "corrupt and unwholesome doctrines."

     The subject of woman's rights somehow is attracting general
     attention. Rev. Mr. Sunderland, of this city, in a published
     sermon, sought to bring the whole matter into contempt under
     cover of the ridicule of the Bloomer dress. His position is, that
     if God made man a little lower than the angels, He made woman a
     little lower still. His sermon we gave last week. This week we
     give a woman's reply to it. Nobly has she shown him up. We like
     her review. She treats his argument gravely, and answers it
     logically. She has touched the tender in him. He will begin to
     think women are somebody after all. We think he should have
     measured his _calibre_ before making such a tilt.... Regarding
     his condition as rather awkward, and finding it difficult to be
     quiet, he appears in the Friday _Star_ with the following
     equivocal communication:

     _The Woman's Rights Question._--Mr. Editor: The last two numbers
     of _The Star_ contain an article purporting to review my Sermon
     from Deut. xxii. 5, but the author does not appear. The article
     in question contains inaccuracies which should be noticed for the
     author's future benefit. If the author should turn out to be a
     man, I should have no objection to point out those inaccuracies
     through your columns. But if the writer is a lady, why, I really
     don't know yet what I shall do. If I thought she would consent to
     a personal interview, I should like to see her.

                                        Very truly,
                                                     B. SUNDERLAND.
     _Syracuse, Nov. 18_.

Some other person, under the head of "A Reader," addressed the
following to _The Star_, which, in the editor's absence, was
published:

     How is this, Mr. Editor? A few days since I read in your papers a
     sermon, on woman's rights by Rev. Byron Sunderland. In your
     numbers of Wednesday and Thursday I found an able and respectful
     Review of that discourse--a Review which, in some points, is
     unanswerable, especially in the matter of Scripture and female
     dress. The dominie appealed to Scripture, and the reviewer "has
     him fast." I have heard it more than once intimated that the
     writer of this able, and in some instances most eloquent, review,
     is a lady of this city. Are we to understand that it is an
     article in the code of anti-progressive ethics, that the same
     article written by a man, will be answered by Mr. Sunderland, but
     if written by a woman, will not be answered? I may have
     misunderstood Mr. Sunderland's note in this morning's _Star_, but
     I so understood it. If correctly understood no comment is
     necessary.
                                                         A READER.
     _November 19, 1852._

Upon the expression of Mr. Sunderland's desire to meet the reviewer of
his sermon, if a lady, and his willingness to continue the
controversy, _The Star_ finally opened its columns to Mrs. Gage,
although delaying the publication of her articles, sometimes for
weeks, to suit the dominie's convenience, and allowing his reply to
appear in the same issue of the paper with her answer to his preceding
article. Mr. Sunderland's reply to "A Reader" was characteristic of
the spirit of the clergy, not only of their intolerance, but of their
patronizing and insulting manner toward all persons who presumed to
question either their authority or learning.

     The impertinence of "A Reader" is quite characteristic. That
     individual probably knows as much about the Bible as a wild ass'
     colt, and is requested at this time to keep a proper distance.
     When a body is trying to find out and pay attention to a lady, it
     is not good manners for "A Reader" to be thrust in between us.

Rev. Mr. Ashley, rector of St. Paul's, the first Episcopal Church of
Syracuse, also preached a sermon against woman, which was published in
pamphlet form, and scattered over the State. This sermon was reviewed
by a committee of ladies appointed by the Ladies' Lyceum. It was an
able and lengthy document from the pen of the chairman of the
committee, a member of the Episcopal Church, and was a significant
sign of woman's growing independence of clerical authority. This
sermon and its reply was also published by the city press; the
Church, the press, and the fireside all aiding in the continued
dissemination of the woman's rights discussion.

The publication of the proceedings of the Convention in pamphlet form
gave _The Star_ occasion for a new fulmination which not only farther
showed the base character of this sheet, but which shocked all devout
minds by its patronizing tone toward the Deity. Both in the Convention
and its following debate, Syracuse well maintained its character for
radicalism.


MOB CONVENTION IN NEW YORK.

BROADWAY TABERNACLE, _Sept. 6 and 7, 1853_.

This week as already stated was one of unusual excitement in the city
of New York, as representatives of all the unpopular reforms were
holding their several conventions. The fact that the Anti-Slavery
Society held a meeting on Sunday morning, and Antoinette Brown
preached to five thousand people the same evening, called out the
denunciations of the religious press, which intensified the mob
spirit, culminating at last in the Woman's Rights Convention. That
portion of the secular press which had shown the most bitter
opposition to the anti-slavery cause, now manifested the same spirit
toward the enfranchisement of woman.

The leading papers in the United States were _The Tribune_, _The
Herald_, _The Times_, _The Evening Post_, and _The Express_, which
gave tone to the entire press of the country. All these journals were
edited by men of marked ability, each representing a different class
of thought in the community. _The Tribune_ was independent, and
fearless in the expression of opinions on unpopular reforms; its
editor, Horace Greeley, ever ready for the consideration of new ideas,
was on many points the leader of liberal thought.

_The Herald_ was recognized by reformers as at the head of the
opposition, and its diatribes were considered "Satanic." Its editor,
James Gordon Bennett, pandered to the lowest tastes in the community,
not merely deriding reforms, but holding their advocates up to the
ridicule of a class too degraded to understand the meaning of reform.

_The Times_ held a middle position; established at a much later date,
its influence was not so great nor extended as either _The Tribune_ or
_The Herald_. It represented that large conservative class that fears
all change, and accepts the conditions of its own day and generation,
knowing that in all upheavals the wealthy class is the first and
greatest loser. From this source the mob spirit draws its
inspiration. Violence being the outgrowth of superstition and
despotism; the false morality and philosophy taught by the press and
the pulpit are illustrated by the lower orders in hisses, groans, and
brick-bats. Although far below Horace Greeley in sagacity,
intelligence, and conscience, Henry J. Raymond claimed for his paper a
position superior in respectability. Having originated the present
system of reporting, and thereby acquired his first reputation, Mr.
Raymond prided himself upon reportorial sharpness, even at the expense
of veracity and common self-respect. That woman so long degraded
should dare to speak of injustice, so long defrauded of her social,
civil, and political rights, should dare to demand some restitution,
was to Mr. Raymond so fit a subject for ridicule that he could not
refrain from making even such women as Lucretia Mott and Ernestine L.
Rose targets for his irony.

_The Empress_, an organ of the Democratic party, was in its debasement
on a par with _The Herald_ and _Times_, though each had different
styles, more or less refined, of doing the same thing. Encouraged by
these three papers, the mob element held high carnival through that
eventful week. Starting in the anti-slavery and temperance meetings,
they assembled at every session in the Woman's Rights Convention.
Gentlemen and ladies alike who attempted to speak were interrupted by
shouts, hisses, stamping, and cheers, rude remarks, and all manner of
noisy demonstrations. The clergy, the press, and the rowdies combined
to make those September days a disgrace to the metropolis, days never
to be forgotten by those who endured the ridicule and persecution.

Although the Mayor with a large police force at his command made no
show even of protecting the right of free speech, the editor of _The
Tribune_ sent forth his grand fulminations against bigotry, hypocrisy,
and vulgarity in every issue of his journal. William Cullen Bryant,
editor of _The Post_, one of the purest men that ever stood at the
head of a daily paper, also spoke out grandly against mob law, and for
the rights of woman. We have made this brief episode on the press,
that our readers may see how characteristic are the comments of each
paper that we give here and there in this chapter.

This Convention, interrupted throughout by the mob, has an unique and
historic value of its own. It was the first overt exhibition of that
public sentiment woman was then combating. The mob represented more
than itself; it evidenced that general masculine opinion of woman,
which condensed into law, forges the chains which enslave her. Owing
to the turmoil we have no fair report of the proceedings; it was
impossible for the representatives of the press to catch what was
said, hence their reports, as well as the one issued by our Central
Committee, are alike fragmentary. And yet with such a brilliant array
of speakers of both men and women, it should have been one of our most
interesting and successful Conventions. The Tabernacle, holding three
thousand persons, was packed long before the hour announced. At ten
o'clock Lucy Stone called the Convention to order, and presented a
list of officers[117] nominated at a preliminary meeting, which was
adopted. In this list we find England, Germany, and eleven States
represented. The Rev. William Henry Channing opened the meeting with
prayer. After which Mrs. Mott made a few appropriate remarks. Lucy
Stone read a series of resolutions[118] which were accepted and laid
on the table for discussion.

Charles Burleigh and Lydia A. Jenkins spoke briefly on the many
grounds of opposition to this movement, which in all respects commends
itself as one of the greatest reforms of the age.

     Mr. GARRISON said: The first pertinent question is, what has
     brought us together? Why have we come from the East and from the
     West, and from the North? I was about to add, and from the South;
     but the South, alas! is so cursed by the spirit of slavery, that
     there seems to be no vitality left there in regard to any
     enterprise, however good; hence the South is not represented on
     an occasion like this. It is because justice is outraged. We have
     met to protest against proud, rapacious, inexorable usurpation.
     What is this usurpation? What is this oppression of which we
     complain? Is it local? Does it pertain to the city of New York,
     or to the Empire State? No! It is universal--broader than the
     Empire State--broader than our national domains--wide as the
     whole world, weighing on the entire human race. How old is the
     oppression which we have met to look in the face? Is it of
     to-day? Is it young in years, or is it as old as the world
     itself? In all ages men have regarded women as inferior to
     themselves, and have robbed them of their co-equal rights. We
     are, therefore, contesting hoary tyranny--universal tyranny. And
     what follows, as a natural result?

     That the land is beginning to be convulsed. The opposition to the
     movement is assuming a malignant, desperate, and satanic
     character; every missile of wickedness that can be hurled against
     it is used. The pulpit is excited, the press is aroused; Church
     and State are in arms to put down a movement on behalf of justice
     to one-half of the whole human race. (Laughter and cheers). The
     Bible, revered in our land as the inspired Word of God, is, by
     pulpit interpreters, made directly hostile to what we are
     endeavoring to obtain as a measure of right and justice; and the
     cry of infidelity is heard on the right hand and on the left, in
     order to combine public opinion so as to extinguish the movement.

     Now, beloved, let us not imagine that any strange thing has
     happened to us. We are but passing through one of the world's
     great crises; we, too, in our day, are permitted to contend with
     spiritual wickedness in high places--with principalities and
     powers. What reform was ever yet begun and carried on with any
     reputation in the day thereof? What reform, however glorious and
     divine, was ever advocated at the outset with rejoicing? And if
     they have called the Master of the house Beelzebub, how much more
     them of his household? (Cheers and stamping).

     I have been derisively called a "_Woman's Rights Man_." I know no
     such distinction. I claim to be a HUMAN RIGHTS MAN, and wherever
     there is a human being, I see God-given rights inherent in that
     being whatever may be the sex or complexion.

     To the excellence of the movement God has given witnesses in
     abundance, on the right hand and on the left. Show me a cause
     anathematized by the chief priests, the scribes, and the
     pharisees; which politicians and demagogues endeavor to crush,
     which reptiles and serpents in human flesh try to spread their
     slime over, and hiss down, and I will show you a cause which God
     loves, and angels contemplate with admiration. Such is our
     movement. Do you want the compliments of the satanic press, _The
     New York Times_, _Express_, and _Herald_? (Roars of laughter). If
     you want the compliments of such journals, you will be bad enough
     to take a place among the very vilest and lowest of the human
     race. They are animated by a brutal, cowardly, and devilish
     spirit. Let us rejoice at the manifestation! Not for the
     wickedness, but at the evidence thus afforded by God, that our
     cause is of Heaven, and therefore has on its side all the power
     and might of God, and in due season is destined to have a
     glorious triumph!

     CHARLES C. BURLEIGH said: There is a feeling to-day that woman
     has some rights, that she has some reason to complain of the
     present relation in which she is placed. In this country we
     congratulate ourselves that woman occupies a higher position than
     elsewhere, although some think it would be a calamity to improve
     her condition still further, and mere fanaticism to raise her
     still higher.

     The cry is--"unnatural!" The aspiration of woman for a better
     lot, say her oppressors, is not natural, it is abnormal! So they
     say; but why not hear her on the matter? Is she, the most
     interested party, to have no voice in the solution of a question
     which is to her of such overwhelming interest? I ask, did God
     give woman aspirations which it is a sin for her to gratify?
     Abnormal! No, it is to be found everywhere. The man whose soul
     is so callous that he can hold his fellow-man as a slave, cries
     out (as in excuse) that the slave is contented. The autocrat
     exclaims that it is only a turbulent Kossuth or a factious
     Mazzini who feels that uneasy discontent which preys not on the
     hearts of his millions of legal slaves. Will that be, to us, an
     argument that the tyrant is in the right? No! the aspirations to
     liberty and justice are universal, and ever though the volcanic
     blaze breaks into the air only through the loftiest mountain
     peaks, the volcano is in itself an index to the ocean of molten
     fire that boils inaudibly beneath it. And so the deep discontent
     of humble millions breaks through the mountain-minds of their
     great leaders. Woman is a part of the human commonwealth; why
     deprive her of a voice in its government? Woman herself, a
     component part of the community, must be called into the councils
     which direct it, else a wrong is done her, the responsibility of
     which lies heavily on those who do it. We ask rights for woman,
     because she has a human nature, and it is not only ungenerous and
     unmanly, but in the highest degree unjust to banish her from the
     discussion of questions which so nearly and dearly concern her,
     and in which nature, reason, and God have announced that she
     should have a voice.

     Either there is a distinction between the sphere of man and that
     of woman, or there is not. If there is, it is unfair to have one
     determine both; if there is not, why does tyrannous custom
     separate her? The dilemma is clear, and can not be escaped. Both
     should be called into counsel, every note in the scale of harmony
     should be sounded; and to say that hers, because an octave
     higher, should not be heard, is downright nonsense. (Rousing
     cheers and laughter). We claim for woman simply the right to
     decide her own sphere, or, in conjunction with man, to determine
     what should be the relative position of both.

     W. H. CHANNING said: When I was returning from the first Woman's
     Rights Meeting at Worcester, a friend said to me, "I intend
     getting up a Man's Rights Society; you misunderstand the matter;
     all the efforts of society are for the elevation of woman, and
     man has to perform the drudgery. The consequence is, the women
     are far better educated than the men." The answer was obvious.
     "If women are, according to your admission, fitted for the higher
     plane, why keep them on the lower?" My friend then went on to
     say, that the whole of this scheme was considered to be of the
     most morally visionary character, and the proof of this feeling
     was the slight opposition it met, "for," said he "if it were
     looked on by society as serious, it would be at once, and
     forcibly, opposed in the church, by the press, in all public
     assemblies and private circles." Now, the object of this, and all
     such conventions, is to prove that we have made up our minds as
     regards operation and method; that we have looked clearly into
     the future; and that we have at heart this movement, as we have
     no other of the day, believing that out of this central agitation
     of society will come healthful issues of life. The inhabitants of
     Eastern India speak of a process for gaining immortality, namely,
     churning together the sea and the earth. They say the gods had
     the serpent by the head, and the devils had it by the tail, and
     out of the churning of the foam came the waters of immortality.
     The movement we are engaged in, may be typified by the Indian
     allegory; and out of the commotion we make shall be drawn a new
     principle which shall be one of immortal growth to all society.
     (Stamping, cheers, and laughter).

     As regards the differences between men and women, we say that out
     of them grows union, not separation. Every organ of the body is
     double; in the pulsations of the heart a double machinery is
     used, there is a double auricle and a double ventricle. It is so
     in the inspirations which flow from God to society; they must
     pass twice, once through the heart of man, once through the heart
     of woman; they must stream through the reforming and through the
     conservative organ; and thus, out of the very difference which
     exists between man and woman, arises the necessity for their
     co-operation. It has never been asserted that man and woman are
     alike; if they were, where would be the necessity for urging the
     claims of the one? No; they differ, and for that very reason it
     is, that only through the action of both, can the fullness of
     their being find development and expression. We know that woman
     exerts an influence on man, as man does on woman, to call forth
     his latent resources. In the difference, we find a call for
     union. And to this union we perceive no limit; on the contrary,
     whatever necessity there is for the combination in the private,
     there is the same necessity for it in the public sphere. (Long
     continued stamping and cheers).

     And now I will meet the two great objections made. It is not
     objectionable, it is said, that woman, in some spheres of life,
     should give an expression of her intellect; but, on the platform,
     she loses her character of woman, and becomes incidentally
     masculine. Just observe the practical absurdities of which
     society is guilty. The largest assemblies greet with clamors
     Jenny Lind, when she enchains the ear and exalts the soul with
     the sublime strain, "I know that my Redeemer liveth"; but when
     Mrs. Mott or Miss Brown stands with a simple voice, and in the
     spirit of truth, to make manifest the honor due to our Redeemer,
     rowdies hiss, and respectable Christians veil their faces! So,
     woman can sing, but not speak, that "our Redeemer liveth." Again,
     the great men of our land do not consider it unworthy of their
     character to take from Fanny Ellsler what she makes by the
     movement of her limbs, by a mere mechanical action,[119] to aid
     in erecting a column to commemorate our struggles for liberty.
     The dollars are received and built into the column; but when Mrs.
     Rose or Mrs. Foster, who feels the spirit of justice within her,
     and who has felt the injustice of the laws, stands up to show
     truth and justice, and build a spiritual column, she is out of
     her sphere! and the honorable men turn aside, and leave her to be
     the victim of rowdyism, disorder, and lawlessness! It is not out
     of character that Fanny Kemble should read Shakespeare on the
     stage, to large circles. The exercise of the voice on the stage
     is womanly, while she gives out the thoughts of another; but
     suppose (and it is not unsupposable) a living female Shakespeare
     to appear on a platform, and utter her inspirations, delicacy is
     shocked, decency is outraged, and society turns away in disgust!
     Such are the consistencies of the nineteenth century! (Great
     uproar).

     This is simply and merely prejudice, and it reminds me of the
     proverb, "If you would behold the stars aright, blow out your own
     taper." I say there is a special reason why woman should come
     forward as a speaker; because she has a power of eloquence which
     man has not, arising from the fineness of her organization and
     the intuitive power of her soul; and I charge any man with
     arrogance, if he pretend to match himself in this respect with
     many women here, and thousands throughout our country. (Hissing).
     I take it, the hissing comes from men who never had a mother to
     love and honor, a sister to protect, and who never knew the worth
     of a wife. Woman's power to cut to the quick and touch the
     conscience, is beautifully accompanied by her unmatched
     adaptation to pour balm into the wound; and though the flame she
     applies may burn into the soul, it also affords a light to the
     conscience which never can be dimmed.

     There is an exquisite picture by Retsch, which represents angels
     showering roses on devils; to the angels they are roses, but the
     devils writhe under them as under fire. On sinful souls the words
     of women fall as coals from the altar of God. And here let me
     offer my humble gratitude to the women who have borne the brunt
     of the test with the calm courage which women alone can exhibit;
     to the women who have taught us that, as daughters of God, they
     are the equals of His children everywhere on earth. (Cheers and
     stamping).

     Let me add another word upon this interference, or, rather,
     entrance of woman into the sphere of politics. As a spiritual
     being, her duties are like those of man; but, inasmuch as she is
     different from man, man can not discharge them; and if there be
     any truth in holding (as our institutions do), that the voice of
     the whole is the nearest approach we can make to eternal truth,
     we, of course, can not arrive at it till woman, as well as man,
     is heard in the search for it. God, not man, nor herself, made
     her woman; there is nothing arbitrary in the distinction; and let
     the true woman go where she may, she will retain her womanhood.
     We wish to see her enter into politics, not to degrade herself,
     but to bring them up to her own level of simple-heartedness and
     purity of soul. Can man ever raise them to that lofty height?
     Never! woman alone can do it; it is a work reserved for her, and
     by her and her alone will it be done. (Roars of laughter).

     Whose exploits leave the brightest lines of moral courage on the
     historic page? Those of woman! When the French had broken through
     the barriers, the maid of Saragossa rushed to the breach. The
     demand of the invader came to Palafox, and he trembled; but what
     the heart of man was unequal to, the courage of woman could
     perform, and the answer of the heroic maiden was, "War to the
     knife!" And so, always when man has faltered, woman, earnest and
     simple-hearted, has answered, War to the knife with evil! (A
     frightful yell from the gallery.) I perceive my friend is anxious
     to hear a woman speak to him as only a woman can. I will soon
     give way and let him be gratified; but, first, I will tell him an
     anecdote. A woman once told me she never saw a horse so wild that
     she could not tame him. I asked her how, and she answered,
     "Simply by whispering in his ear." Our wild friend in the
     gallery will probably receive some benefit listening to the
     voice of a woman, if his ears be only long enough to hear her.
     (Prolonged cheers).

     ANTOINETTE BROWN said: Our cause is progressing triumphantly; and
     yet it is not without some to oppose it. Who are they? Persons
     utterly ignorant of the claims which its advocates advance,
     ignorant alike of the wrongs existing and of the remedy proposed.
     They suppose that a few mad-cap reformers are endeavoring to
     overthrow dame Nature, to invert society, to play the part of
     merciless innovators to imperil religion, to place all civil and
     religious freedom in jeopardy; that if our ends were accomplished
     all the public and private virtues would be melted as in a
     crucible and thrown upon the ground, thence to cry aloud to
     heaven like the blood of righteous Abel. Were it not that
     curiosity is largely developed in this class, they would go down
     to their graves wholly uninformed of our true principles,
     motives, and aims. They look upon us as black beetles or
     death's-heads, to be turned away from with horror; but their
     curiosity overcomes their repugnance, and they would investigate
     some of our properties, as a naturalist does those of a noxious
     animal. (Cheers and laughter).

     There is another class, that of genuine bigots, with hearts so
     ossified that no room can be found for one noble and expansive
     principle within those little stony cells. Many of this class may
     be persons of excellent intentions; they would do us good if they
     could, but they approach us with somewhat of the feeling with
     which Miss Ophelia regarded Topsy, the abhorrence that is
     experienced on drawing near a large black spider. They try to
     show us our errors, but if we attempt to justify by argument the
     ground we have taken, they cry aloud that we are obstinate and
     unreasonable, especially when we quote text for text, as Christ
     did when talking with a certain person of old.

     But the most hopeless and spiteful of our opponents is that large
     class of women whose merits are not their own; who have acquired
     some influence in society, not by any noble thoughts they have
     framed and uttered, not by any great deed they have done, but by
     the accident of having fathers, brothers, or husbands whose
     wealth elevates them to the highest wave of fashion, and there
     enables them to roll in luxurious and indolent pomp, like Venus
     newly risen from the ocean. They feel how much easier it is to
     receive the incense of honor and respect (however insincerely
     paid to them) without any effort of their own, than to undergo
     the patient toil after excellence which wrings from the heart of
     all that homage of true honor which can not be denied to it.
     They, unused to any noble labor (as all labor is), either
     physical or mental, will be careful, to a degree of splenetic
     antagonism, how they will allow the introduction, into the
     acknowledged rights and duties of their sex, of a new element
     which may establish the necessity of their being themselves
     energetic and efficient. We need never hope to find any of this
     class change, until compelled to do so by public sentiment. The
     opposition here is really rabid. Intellectual women! oh, they are
     monsters! As soon allow wild beasts to roam at large as these to
     be let loose on society. Like lions and tigers, keep them in
     their menagerie; perhaps they needn't be actually chained, but
     see that they are well secured in their cages! (Stamping, groans,
     and laughter).

     These are far more bitterly hostile than the men of small
     proportions, who are willing to have a great woman tower above
     them from time to time--as a Madame de Stael. Such a case,
     however, they would rank as an exception, not admit as a rule. To
     allow women to stand every day in the foremost lines of intellect
     and ability, is a thought altogether too expansive to be
     entertained by them.

     Such are the oppositions we meet; but they are all melting down
     like frost-work before the morning sun. The day is dawning when
     the intellect of woman shall be recognized as well as that of
     man, and when her rights shall meet an equal and cordial
     acknowledgment. The greatest wrong and injustice ever done to
     woman is that done to her intellectual nature. This, like Goliath
     among the Philistines, overtops all the rest. Drones are but the
     robbers of the hive; ladies educated to no purpose are but
     surfeited to a dronish condition on the sweets of literature.
     Such minds are not developed, but molded in a fashionable
     pattern.

     LUCY STONE said: It has been stated that we women were not fit
     for anything but to stay in the house! I look over the events of
     the last five years, and almost smile at the confutation of this
     statement which they supply. Let it not be supposed that I wish
     to depreciate the value of house-duties, or the worth of the
     woman who fitly discharges them. No! I think that any woman who
     stands on the throne of her own house, dispensing there the
     virtues of love, charity, and peace, and sends out of it into the
     world good men, who may help to make the world better, occupies a
     higher position than any crowned head. However, we said women
     could do more; they could enter the professions, and there serve
     society and do themselves honor. We said that women could be
     doctors of medicine. Well, we can now prove the statement by
     fact. Harriot K. Hunt is among us to-day, who, by recognized
     attainment and successful practice, has shown that women can be
     physicians, and good ones. You have in your city two women who
     are good physicians; there are female medical colleges, with
     their classes, as well ordered, and showing as good a proficiency
     as any classes of men. Thus that point is gained. It was said
     women could not be merchants. We thought they could; we saw
     nothing to prevent women from using the power of calculation, the
     knowledge of goods, and the industry necessary to make a
     successful trader. Here, again, we have abundant examples. Many
     women could be pointed to whose energy and ability for business
     have repaired the losses of their less competent husbands, I will
     mention a particular case. Mrs. Tyndal, of Lowell, Mass., has for
     years carried on business in a quiet way; she has made herself
     rich by conducting a ladies' shoe store in Lowell. She said to
     herself: "What is to hinder me from going into this business? I
     should know ladies' shoes, whether they were good or bad, and
     what price they can bring. The ladies should support me." And so
     they did, and that woman has given a proof that her sex does not
     incapacitate for successful mercanti  le operations.

     It is said women could not be ministers of religion. Last Sunday,
     at Metropolitan Hall, Antoinette L. Brown conducted divine
     service, and was joined in it by the largest congregation
     assembled within the walls of any building in this city.
     (Hisses). Some men hiss who had no mothers to teach them better.
     But I tell you that some men in New York, knowing that they can
     hear the word of God from a woman, as well as from a man, have
     called her to be their pastor, and she is to be ordained in this
     month. Some of you reporters said she was a Unitarian, but it is
     not so; she is among the most orthodox, and so is her church.

     We have caused woman's right to address an audience to be more
     fully recognized than before. I once addressed an assemblage of
     men, and did so without giving previous notice, because I feared
     the opposition of prejudice. A lady who was among the audience
     said to me afterward, "How could you do it? My blood ran cold
     when I saw you up there among those men!" "Why," I asked, "are
     they bad men?" "Oh, no! my own husband is one of them; but to see
     a woman mixing among men in promiscuous meetings, it was
     horrible!" That was six or seven years ago last fall; and that
     self-same woman, in Columbus, Ohio, was chosen to preside over a
     temperance meeting of men and women; yes, and she took the chair
     without the least objection! In Chicago, a woman is cashier of a
     bank; and the men gave her a majority of three hundred votes over
     her man-competitor. In another State, a woman is register of
     deeds. Women can be editors; two sit behind me, Paulina W. Davis
     and Mrs. Nichols. Thus we have an accumulation of _facts_ to
     support our claims and our arguments.

                        _Daily Tribune, Sept. 7, 1853._

     The Woman's Rights Convention was somewhat disturbed last evening
     by persons whose ideas of the rights of free speech are these:
     two thousand people assemble to hear a given public question
     discussed under distinct announcement that certain persons whose
     general views are well known, are to speak throughout the
     evening. At least nineteen-twentieths come to hear those
     announced speakers, and will be bitterly disappointed if the
     opportunity be not afforded them. But one-twentieth have bought
     tickets and taken seats on purpose to prevent the hearing of
     those speakers, by hissing, yelling, and stamping, and all manner
     of unseemly interruptions. Under such circumstances, which should
     prevail; the right of the speakers to be heard and the great body
     of the audience to hear them according to the announcement, or
     the will of the disturbers who choose to say that nineteen out of
     twenty shall not have what they have paid for, and what the
     promised speakers are most willing to give them?

     To state the case exactly as it is, precludes the necessity of
     arguing it. We rejoice to say that the will of the great majority
     prevailed, and that the discussion which was marked in its
     earlier days by occasional tumult was closed in good order, and
     amid hushed and gratified attention. We ought, perhaps, to return
     thanks to the disturbers for so stirring the souls of the
     speakers that their words came gushing forth from their lips with
     exceeding fluency and power. We certainly never before heard
     Antoinette Brown, Mrs. Rose, and Lucy Stone speak with such power
     and unction as _last night_. It was never before so transparent
     that a hiss or a blackguard yell was the only answer that the
     case admitted of, and when Lucy Stone closed the discussion with
     some pungent, yet pathetic remarks on the sort of opposition
     that had been manifest, it was evident that if any of the rowdies
     had an ant-hole in the bottom of his boot, he would inevitably
     have sunk through it and disappeared forever.


                          _Herald, Sept. 7, 1853._

      THE LAST VAGARY OF THE GREELEY CLIQUE--THE WOMEN, THEIR RIGHTS,
                            AND THEIR CHAMPIONS.

     The assemblage of rampant women which convened at the Tabernacle
     yesterday was an interesting phase in the comic history of the
     nineteenth century.

     We saw, in broad daylight, in a public hall in the city of New
     York, a gathering of unsexed women--unsexed in mind all of them,
     and many in habiliments--publicly propounding the doctrine that
     they should be allowed to step out of their appropriate sphere,
     and mingle in the busy walks of every-day life, to the neglect of
     those duties which both human and divine law have assigned to
     them. We do not stop to argue against so ridiculous a set of
     ideas. We will only inquire who are to perform those duties which
     we and our fathers before us have imagined belonged solely to
     women. Is the world to be depopulated? Are there to be no more
     children? Or are we to adopt the French mode, which is too well
     known to need explanation?

     Another reason why we will not answer the logic which is poured
     out from the lips of such persons as Lucy Stone, Mrs. Mott, Mrs.
     Amelia Bloomer, and their male coadjutors, Greeley, Garrison,
     Oliver, Johnson, Burleigh, and others, is because they themselves
     do not believe in the truth or feasibility of the doctrines they
     utter. In some cases eccentricity is a harmless disease; but the
     idiosyncrasies of these people spring from another source. They
     admit the principle that fame and infamy are synonymous terms.
     Disappointed in their struggle for the first, they grasp the
     last, and at the same time pocket all the money they can wring
     from the "barren fools" who can be found in any community eager
     to grasp at any doctrine which is novel, no matter how outrageous
     it may be. They are continually advertising from their platforms
     some "Thrilling Narrative," or "Account of the Adventures of a
     Fugitive," which may be had at the low price of one shilling
     each, or eight dollars per hundred. Recently they have discovered
     that the great body of their audiences came only to be amused,
     and they have therefore imposed an admission fee. Lucy Stone, who
     is a shrewd Yankee, has gone a step further, and in her
     management of the business of the "Woman's Rights Convention,"
     has provided for season tickets, to be had at "the extremely low
     price of two shillings."

     It is almost needless for us to say that these women are entirely
     devoid of personal attractions. They are generally thin maiden
     ladies, or women who perhaps have been disappointed in their
     endeavors to appropriate the breeches and the rights of their
     unlucky lords; the first class having found it utterly impossible
     to induce any young or old man into the matrimonial noose, have
     turned out upon the world, and are now endeavoring to revenge
     themselves upon the sex who have slighted them. The second,
     having been dethroned from their empire over the hearts of their
     husbands, for reasons which may easily be imagined, go
     vagabondizing over the country, boring unfortunate audiences with
     long essays lacking point or meaning, and amusing only from the
     impudence displayed by the speakers in putting them forth in a
     civilized country. They violate the rules of decency and taste by
     attiring themselves in eccentric habiliments, which hang loosely
     and inelegantly upon their forms, making that which we have been
     educated to respect, to love, and to admire, only an object of
     aversion and disgust. A few of these unfortunate women have awoke
     from their momentary trance, and quickly returned to the dress of
     decent society; but we saw yesterday many disciples of the
     Bloomer school at the Tabernacle. There was yesterday, and there
     will be to-day, a wide field for all such at the Tabernacle.

     The "compliments" showered upon _The Herald_ by the wretched
     Garrison yesterday afternoon, at the Woman's Wrong Convention,
     fully show that he and his coadjutors, Greeley and the rest, are
     beginning to feel the truth of our remarks during the time they
     have been amusing our citizens. His insane attack shows that our
     course has been the true one.

To the credit of Mr. Greeley, he made an effort to suppress the
disturbance. Raymond, of _The Times_, gave the following report:

                       _Times, September 8, 1853._

              (Evening of the first day, Mrs. Rose speaking).

     Mr. Greeley was among the audience, and in passing through the
     gallery, it was supposed he remonstrated with the sibillating
     gentlemen, and a great rumpus was raised. Some cheered the
     peace-maker, others hissed, the rush collected about the scene of
     the disturbance, and all proceedings were interrupted. Mrs. Rose
     suspended her remarks for a few moments, but presently said:
     "Friends, be seated, and I will continue." The audience would not
     listen, however. The uproar still continued. Cries of "Order,"
     "Mrs. President," "Put him out," "Hurrah!" hisses, groans, and
     cheers. Mr. Greeley and a policeman presently succeeded in
     stilling the tumult, the officer collaring several men and
     compelling them to keep quiet. Mrs. Rose resumed and continued
     her remarks.

                SECOND DAY, MORNING SESSION, Opened at 10 A.M.

     Mrs. MOTT: The uproar and confusion which attended the close of
     our proceedings of last night, although much to be regretted, as
     indicating an unreasonable and unreasoning disposition on the
     part of some, to close their ears against the truth, or rather,
     to drown its voice by vulgar clamor, yet, when viewed aright, and
     in some phases, present to us matter of congratulation. I do
     suppose that never, at any meeting, was public propriety more
     outraged, than at ours of last evening. I suppose no transactions
     of a body assembled to deliberate, were ever more outrageously
     invaded by an attempt to turn them into a mere tumult; yet,
     though voices were loud and angry, and the evil passions
     exhibited themselves with much of that quality to affright, which
     usually, if not always, attends their exhibition, not a scream
     was heard from any woman, nor did any of the "weaker sex" exhibit
     the slightest terror, or even alarm at the violent manifestations
     which invaded the peace of our assemblage.

     I felicitate the women on this exhibition of fortitude; of calm
     moral courage. Should not our opponents, if they have any reason
     among them, reflect that these exhibitions are, in reality, some
     of the strongest arguments that can be offered to support the
     claims which we stand here to advocate? Do they not show, on the
     one hand, that men, by whom such an overpowering superiority is
     arrogated, can betimes demean themselves in such a way as to show
     that they are wholly unfit for the lofty functions which they
     demand as their exclusive right? And, on the other hand, do they
     not conclusively show, that women are possessed of, at least,
     some of those qualities which assist in calmness of deliberation
     during times of excitement and even danger? I think it was really
     a beautiful sight to see how calm the women remained during last
     evening's excitement; their self-possession I consider something
     truly admirable. I know that in the tumult and noise it would
     have been vain for any woman to raise her voice in an attempt to
     check it. Indeed, I am satisfied the outrage was predetermined,
     and I regret that the aid of the police had to be called in to
     quell it. Had there been here a company of women who were taught
     to rely upon others, they would, doubtless, have felt bound to
     scream for "their protectors"; but the self-reliance displayed,
     which must have its basis in a consciousness of the truth and
     justice of our cause, and which kept the members of the
     Convention unmoved, amid all the prevailing confusion, gives us
     matter of real congratulation. Let us rejoice in this, my
     friends; and let us remember, that when we have a true
     cause--while our cause rests on the basis of right--we have
     nothing to fear, but may go on unmoved by all these petty
     circumstances, by which we may be surrounded.

     Mr. BURLEIGH said: A request was made last night by some person,
     I don't know who, or rather a challenge was offered, that three
     good reasons should be given why women should vote. Perhaps, had
     the person making this demand had this question put to him,
     namely: "What reasons are there why men should vote?" he would
     have considered them so self-evident as to make any answer
     superfluous. Yet it would be found difficult, I apprehend, to
     assign any reason why men should vote, which would not be found
     to be an equally good one for extending the elective franchise to
     women. He asked, however, why women should be allowed to take a
     part in the civil government of the country. This question will,
     I doubt not, be answered to-day by some one more able than
     myself; and if the person who asked it be present, and open to
     conviction, he will hear reasons sufficient to convince him.

     Why should women vote? She should vote, first, because she has to
     bear her portion of the burdens imposed by the government which
     the voting makes. Is not this one reason amply sufficient for any
     honest-minded man? Taxation and representation go hand in hand,
     says a principle of our body politic. Is woman represented? No.
     Is woman taxed? Yes. How is that? Is it consistent with the
     profession; and, if there were no profession, is it right, is it
     just? The burden falls equally on woman and her brother; but he
     has all the power of applying it; she must bear it to the end of
     the journey, and then know nothing, say nothing, as to how it is
     to be disposed of. What kind of justice is that? Were woman
     exempted from those burdens, why, then, the exemption would so
     far be an argument on the other side; although even that would
     fail on investigation, because other equally immutable principles
     show that neither exemption nor representation is the condition
     in which any portion of the political body should be allowed to
     remain. But where there is no exemption, but a full apportionment
     of the burden, and, at the same time, no representation, the
     absurdity of injustice has reached its climax. (Laughter and
     cheers).

     In the second place, woman should vote, because she ought to be a
     sharer in those benefits which government is formed to confer
     upon the governed. She has property which the government must
     protect, a person which it must defend, and rights which it is
     bound to secure. Were the millennium arrived, were there no such
     thing as selfishness on earth; were simple truth and justice the
     prominent elements in all men's minds, and the guiding spirit of
     all men's actions, then indeed might woman confide herself to
     man; then might she rely on him to secure those governmental
     benefits which are her due, as a portion of the general
     community. But is this the state of things? Alas! not yet; and,
     until it is, the horrible injustice of the laws which exclude
     woman from a share in making them, while they are her only
     security for the advantages she ought to enjoy, will never cease
     crying aloud to all men for purification. One of the great aims
     of all government, one of the strong considerations which alone
     makes its restrictions endurable, is the assurance which it gives
     the governed, that the sum of their happiness, and even of their
     liberty, shall, by individual restraints, become greater on the
     whole. It holds out a bonus to society, or rather, to its
     individual members, "Give me this little, and I will give you in
     exchange this much." Thus each individual puts a stake into the
     common fund, has an interest in the common weal, which demands
     careful watching. Can woman watch the large, the all-absorbing
     interest she has at stake? She, above all, the most tender, the
     most sensitive of beings, the most keenly alive to wrong, to
     insult, to oppression, to aught that bruises her womanly nature,
     can she give a careful eye to the disposal of those important
     questions which touch the very core of her heart? Why, when
     reduced to these, its naked dimensions, the injustice seems so
     horrible, as not to be credible, and did we not know the facts,
     we would find it hard to believe that man, made in the image of
     his Maker, could violate justice so barbarously. Surely woman
     lies under no moral obligation to any laws which, wanting her
     assent, yet assume to control her every action, word, and even
     thought. Her property, her person, all her rights, her most
     sacred affections, come within the province of those enactments;
     yet she can have no voice, no weight in determining what those
     enactments shall be. (Stamping and groans).

     In the third place, woman is entitled to vote, because she is
     liable to all the penalties imposed by government. Not only is it
     that she confides, or rather, that government compels her to
     confide to it, the custody of person, property, rights, and all
     dearest interests, but it goes a step further, and thus adds
     another link (though quite a superfluous one) to the adamantine
     chain of argument which it supplies to bind down its own
     injustice. It stands not merely in a passive or receiving
     relation to woman, it becomes the active arbiter of her doom; it
     declares itself competent to lay hands on her, to shut her up in
     prison, to take away her life, the life of one who has made with
     it no compact--giving such awful power--the life of one who never
     consented to the laws which assert over her so terrible a
     supremacy! All the principles already applied come in here with
     perhaps renewed force, as being the arbiters of a question which
     may be regarded by some as of a still more absorbing interest,
     although to woman it may not be so, for when did she value life
     more highly than tenderness, domestic confidence, and affection?
     (Prolonged laughter).

     Dr. H. K. ROOT, of New York, rose in his place among the audience
     and declared his intention of arguing against the principles and
     demands of the Convention. Being requested to take the rostrum,
     he did so, and spoke thus:

     Mrs. President and Ladies: I do not come here with the slightest
     intention of offering to the ladies any opposition for mere
     opposition's sake. If they are proved to have more knowledge and
     intelligence than men, let them govern! My purpose, ladies, is to
     try and attain truth, which, I think, will not be found favorable
     to the views you express. I come, rather, as a matter of
     intelligence than opposition. I do not come here for the purpose
     of opposing the ladies too much; but as the question was not only
     open yesterday, but still is for discussion, I maintain that if
     the ladies have more intelligence, and more energy, and science
     than the male sex, they should rule. I think I can give three
     reasons why men should vote, and one why woman should not vote.
     (Cheers).

     My first reason is, because there was an original command from
     God that man should rule. It may be supposed that we are in the
     garden of Eden now, as in the days of Adam and Eve. Now, it will
     be remembered, when Adam and Eve fell, Adam, because Eve tempted
     him, was placed in the garden as its keeper, and it was necessary
     in those days, as it is now, that woman should be a helpmeet for
     him; but you recollect that by the eating of the forbidden fruit,
     original sin came into the world. What was the expression of God
     to Adam? He says in the third chapter of Genesis, 17th verse:
     "Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast
     eaten of the tree of which I commanded thee, saying, thou shalt
     not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt
     thou eat of it all the days of thy life." Now, permit us to be in
     the relation that Adam and Eve were originally. It behooves the
     male sex to answer the objections of the female sex--not that we
     wish to combat them in public; but it behooves us, as a matter of
     justice, to put the question on a right foundation. It may be
     necessary, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, that the ladies
     should be here, but in the hundredth it may be necessary that man
     should say, "Thus far shalt thou go, and no farther." You see the
     original cause of sin was because man, being placed in the
     garden, gave way to woman, and the curse fell upon him; the
     original cause of sin was because man gave up his judgment to
     woman; and it may be, if we now give up our rights to woman, some
     great calamity may fall upon us. Had woman only sinned, perhaps
     we might still have been in Eden. (Great applause).

     My second reason why man should vote is the law of physical force
     over the woman--because man's strength is greater than woman's.

     The third reason is, because if women enter the field of
     competition with men, it may lead not only to domestic
     unhappiness, but a great many other ill feelings. And I will give
     another reason why men should be dictators. If woman says she
     shall vote, and man says she sha'n't, he is in duty bound to
     maintain what he says. If he says she sha'n't, that is reason
     enough why she should not." (Cheers and laughter).

     ALEXANDER PARKER, of Philadelphia, rose in his place, and on
     being invited to the platform, spoke thus:

     Adam was the first gardener in the world; he belonged to my
     business, for I am a gardener--a business I took up myself, so I
     should have something to say about the garden of Eden. Well, I
     have often thought about the fall, and I have often pictured it
     in this manner: the very moment the charge was given not to do
     such a thing, that was just the time they wanted to do it.
     (Prolonged cheers).

     It is often said that woman has a great deal of curiosity, and no
     doubt it was whispered into her ear, that the moment she ate of
     the forbidden fruit she should become a god. Now, I have seen
     more reason this morning why women should vote than I have ever
     seen before. In Pennsylvania a man has got but one vote, while a
     woman has three--her husband's and her two sons'. Eve tried to
     get over the temptation, but she could not; and so, after many
     efforts, she clutched the apple she looked at so, and so, and she
     reached out to it; afraid at first, but at last she laid hold of
     it, and, seeing that her fear was over, she kissed its lovely
     cheek. Then she ran to Adam, and said it was good, and he ate of
     it. Then his eyes were opened and he saw he was naked, and ran
     and hid himself. He tried to hide himself among the bushes, but
     he could not deny the eating of it, because the core was sticking
     in his throat, and it is sticking there still; but woman has not
     got the core sticking in her throat. Well, Adam pretended to be
     innocent, like all the rest of mankind, and said it was not he,
     but the woman that did it. No, no; it was not his fault, it was
     the woman who gave it to him. Oh, yes! he was not to blame, no
     more than any lord of creation. Well, then, there was a curse
     upon him; but there was a promise to woman that her seed should
     bruise the head of the serpent with her heel. (Shouts of
     laughter).

     Mrs. NICHOLS: As to the text which says that woman must obey her
     husband, surely that is no reason why she should obey all the
     bachelors and other women's husbands in the community. My husband
     would have me advocate the claims I do, therefore by the logic of
     our cause my husband wishes me to vote, and, according to the
     Scripture, the gentleman must, even in his own reasoning, allow
     me the right to vote. In one place the gentleman said that woman
     had already turned the world over; and that man must be cautious
     not to allow her to do so again. Perhaps, if he reconsidered
     these statements he might be willing to retract the latter;
     because, if she turned the world over once and put the wrong side
     up, he ought now to allow her to turn it back, that she may bring
     the right side up again.

     Mrs. ROSE said: As to the personal property, after all debts and
     liabilities are discharged, the widow receives one-half of it;
     and, in addition, the law kindly allows her her own wearing
     apparel, her own ornaments, proper to her station, one bed, with
     appurtenances for the same; a stove, the Bible, family pictures,
     and all the school-books; also, all spinning-wheels and
     weaving-looms, one table, six chairs, tea cups and saucers, one
     tea-pot, one sugar dish, and six spoons. (Much laughter). But the
     law does not inform us whether they are to be tea or table
     spoons; nor does the law make any provision for kettles,
     sauce-pans, and all such necessary things. But the presumption
     seems to be that the spoons meant are teaspoons; for, as ladies
     are generally considered very delicate, the law presumed that a
     widow might live on tea only; but spinning-wheels and
     weaving-looms are very necessary articles for ladies nowadays.
     (Hissing and great confusion). Why, you need not hiss, for I am
     expounding the law. These wise law-makers, who seem to have lived
     somewhere about the time of the flood, did not dream of spinning
     and weaving by steam-power. When our great-great-grandmothers had
     to weave every article of apparel worn by the family, it was, no
     doubt, considered a very good law to allow the widow the
     possession of the spinning-wheels and the weaving-looms. But,
     unfortunately for some laws, man is a progressive being; his
     belief, opinions, habits, manners, and customs change, and so do
     spinning-wheels and weaving-looms; and, with men and things, law
     must change too, for what is the value of a law when man has
     outgrown it? As well might you bring him to the use of his baby
     clothes, because they once fitted him, as to keep him to such a
     law. No. Laws, when man has outgrown them, are fit only to be
     cast aside among the things that were.

     But I must not forget, the law allows the widow something more.
     She is allowed one cow, all sheep to the number of ten, with the
     fleeces and the cloth from the same, two swine, and the pork
     therefrom. (Great laughter). My friends, do not say that I stand
     here to make these laws ridiculous. No; if you laugh, it is at
     their own inherent ludicrousness; for I state them simply and
     truly as they are; for they are so ridiculous in themselves, that
     it is impossible to make them more so.

     Mrs. NICHOLS said: As widow, too, the law bears heavily on woman.
     If her children have property, she is adjudged unworthy of their
     guardianship; and although the decree of God has made her the
     true and natural guardian of her children, she is obliged to pay
     from her scanty means to be constituted so by law.

     I have conversed with judges and legislators, and tried to learn
     a reason for these things, but failed to find it. A noble man
     once gave me what he probably thought was a good one. "Women," he
     said to me, "can not earn as much as men!" We say they should be
     allowed to earn as much. They have the ability, and the means
     should not be shut out from them. I have heard of another man who
     held woman's industrial ability at a low rate. "His wife," he
     said, "had never been able to do anything but attend to her
     children." "How many have you?" he was asked; and the answer was,
     "Nine." Nine children to attend to! nine children cared for! and
     she could do nothing more, the wife of this most reasonable man.
     Now, which is of more importance to the community, the property
     which that reasonable husband made, or the nine children whom
     that mother brought, with affectionate and tender toil, through
     the perils of infancy and youth, until they were men and women?
     Which was of more importance to this land, the property which the
     father of George Washington amassed, or the George Washington
     whom a noble mother gave to his country? The name of Washington,
     his glorious deeds, and the enduring benefits he secured for us,
     still remain, and will long after the estates of Washington have
     passed from his name forever!

     In the State of Vermont, a wife sought a divorce from her husband
     on the ground of his intemperance. They were persons moving among
     our highest circles--wealthy people; and the wife knew that she
     could, through the aid of her friends and relations, with the
     influence and sympathy of the community, obtain a divorce and a
     support for her children. That father carried away into Canada
     one child, a little girl, and paid three hundred dollars to a
     low, vile Frenchman, that he might keep her from her mother and
     friends. Three times her almost heart-broken mother went in
     search of her; twice in vain, but the third time she was found.
     So badly had the poor child been treated in the vile hands in
     which her father had placed her, that, when recovered, she was
     almost insensible; and when, by her mother's nursing care, her
     intelligence was at length restored, her joy at seeing her mother
     was so violent, that it was feared its excess might prove fatal.
     The case came into court, and the judge decided that the two
     daughters should be given to their mother, but that the custody
     of the son should be given to the father. She was acquitted of
     the least impropriety or indiscretion; yet, though the obscenity
     and profanity of her husband in his own family was shocking, and
     it was in the last degree painful to that high-minded woman to
     see her son brought up under the charge of such a man, the law
     decided that the unworthy father was the more proper guardian for
     the boy!

     In the Green Mountain State a great many sermons have lately been
     preached on the text, "Wives, submit yourselves to your
     husbands." The remaining words, "in the Lord," are generally
     omitted; so that the text is made to appear like an injunction
     that the wives should submit to their husbands, whether they were
     in the Lord or in the devil. And the best of all is, that we are
     told that if we would be submissive, we could change our husbands
     from devils into angels.

     Mrs. MOTT: I now introduce to the Convention Frances Dana Gage,
     of St. Louis, Mo., better known as "Aunt Fanny," the poet.

     Mrs. GAGE said: This morning, when I was leaving my
     boarding-house, some one said to me, "So you are ready armed and
     equipped to go and fight the men." I was sorry, truly sorry, to
     hear the words--they fell heavily on my heart. I have no fight
     with men. I am a daughter, a sister, a wife, and a mother, and in
     all these relations I live in harmony with man. Neither I, nor
     any of the sisters with whom I am united in this movement, have
     any quarrel with men. What is it that we oppose? What do we seek
     to overturn? The bad laws and customs of society. These are our
     only enemies, and against these alone is our hostility directed;
     although they be "hallowed by time," we seek to eradicate them,
     because the day for which they were suited, if such ever existed,
     is long since gone by. The men, we may suppose, are above and
     beyond the laws, and we assail the laws only.

     There is one law which I do not remember having heard any of my
     sisters touch upon, that is the Law of Wills, as far as it
     relates to married women, and as far as it allows a husband
     (which it fully does), along with his power to determine the lot
     of his wife while he is alive, also to control her when he is
     dead. Would any gentleman like to have that law reversed? Let me
     read to you a will after that odd fashion. It will fall on your
     ears, gentlemen, with as loud a tone of injustice as it does on
     mine:

     WILL OF BRIDGET SMITH.--In the name of God, amen. I, Bridget
     Smith, being weak in body, though sound in mind, blessed be God
     for the same, do make and declare this my last will and
     testament. Item first: I give my soul to God, and my body to the
     earth, from which it came. Item second: I give to my beloved
     husband, John Smith, Sen., my Bible, and forty acres of wild land
     which I own in Bear Marsh, Ill, for the term of his natural life,
     when it shall descend to our son, John Smith, Jr. Item third: I
     give and bequeath to my daughter, Tabitha, my farm, house,
     outhouse, barns, and all the stock on said farm, situated in
     Pleasant Valley, and which said farm consists of 160 acres. I
     also give to my said daughter Tabitha, the wagons, carriages,
     harnesses, carts, plows, and all other property that shall be on
     said farm at the time of my death. Item fourth: I give to my son,
     John Smith, Jr., my family horse, my buggy, harness, and saddle,
     and also eighty acres of wild land which I own in the State of
     Iowa, for which I have a patent. Item fifth: I give to my beloved
     husband, John Smith, Sen., the use of the house in which we live,
     together with my bed, so long as he shall live, or remain my
     widower; but in case he shall die, or get married, then it is my
     will that my house and bed shall descend to my said daughter,
     Tabitha. Recommending my said husband to her care, whom I make
     the sole executrix of this my last will and testament, hereby
     revoking all others.

     Signed, sealed, and proclaimed this ---- day of ----, 1853, in
     the presence of John Doe and Richard Roe.

                                             BRIDGET SMITH.

     Would any of you like such power as that to be placed in our
     hands? Yet, is it not as fair that married women should dispose
     of their property, as that married men should dispose of theirs?
     It is true, the power thus given to husbands is not always used
     to the detriment of women, and this is frequently urged in
     support of the law. But I reply, that law is made for extreme
     cases; and while any such statutes remain on the books, no good
     man will cease to exert himself for their removal. I ask the
     right to vote, not because it would create antagonism, but
     because it would create harmony. I want to do away with
     antagonism by removing oppression, for where oppression exists,
     there antagonism must exist also.

     ERNESTINE L. ROSE: In allusion to the law respecting wills, I
     wish to say that, according to the Revised Statutes of our State,
     a married woman has not a right to make a will. The law says that
     wills may be made by all persons, except idiots, persons of
     unsound mind, married women, and infants. Mark well, all but
     idiots, lunatics, married women, and infants. Male infants ought
     to consider it quite an insult to be placed in the same category
     with married women. No, a married woman has no right to bequeath
     a dollar of the property, no matter how much she may have brought
     into the marriage, or accumulated in it. Not a dollar to a
     friend, a relative, or even to her own child, to keep him from
     starving. And this is the law in the nineteenth century, in the
     enlightened United States, under a Republic that declares all men
     to be free and equal.

     LUCY STONE: Just one word. I think Mrs. Rose is a little
     mistaken; I wish to correct her by saying that of some States
     in--

     Mrs. ROSE: I did not say this was the universal law; I said it
     was the law in the State of New York.

     LUCY STONE: I was not paying close attention, and must have been
     mistaken. In Massachusetts the law makes a married woman's will
     valid in two cases: the first is, where the consent of her
     husband is written on the will; the second, where she wills all
     she has to her husband, in which case his written consent is not
     deemed requisite.

     Dr. HARRIOT K. HUNT spoke on the fruitful theme of taxation
     without representation! and read her annual protest[120] to the
     authorities of Boston against being compelled to submit to that
     injustice. She said: I wish to vote, that women may have, by law,
     an equal right with men in property. In October, 1851, I went to
     pay my taxes in Boston. Going into the Assessor's office, I saw a
     tall, thin, weak, stupid-looking Irish boy. It was near election
     time, and I looked at him scrutinizingly. He held in his hand a
     document, which, I found on inquiry, was one of naturalization;
     and this hopeful son of Erin was made a citizen of the United
     States, and he could have a voice in determining the destinies of
     this mighty nation, while thousands of intellectual women,
     daughters of the soil, no matter how intelligent, how
     respectable, or what amount of taxes they paid, were forced to be
     dumb!

     Now, I am glad to pay my taxes, am glad that my profession
     enables me to pay them; but I would like very much to have a
     voice in directing what is to be done with the money I pay. I
     meditated on what I had seen, and, in 1852, when paying my taxes,
     I took to the Treasurer's office my protest.

The case of the Hon. Mrs. Norton before the English courts, then
attracting much attention, was a fair exemplification of the injustice
of the law to married women.

     LUCY STONE said: I have before me, in a newspaper, a case which
     shows strongly the necessity for woman's legislating for herself.
     I mean the case of the Hon. Mrs. Norton, which lately transpired
     in a court in London, and which fully proves that it is never
     right for one class to legislate for another. There are,
     probably, few here who have not been made better and wiser by the
     beautiful things which have fallen from the pen of that lady. In
     1836 her husband obtained a separation from her on the charge of
     infidelity. Eighteen years of a blameless life since, and the
     conviction every pure mind must feel, that nothing impure could
     ever dwell in a mind such as her productions show hers to be,
     will fully relieve her of any suspicion that she ever was guilty
     of acts justifying that charge. She was a woman of transcendent
     abilities; and her works brought her in L1,000 a year--sometimes
     more, sometimes less. This her husband procured to be paid over
     to himself, by securing the profits of her copyrights; and this
     husband allowed her only L400 a year! and, at last, refused to
     pay her even this sum; so that, for her necessary expenses, she
     was obliged to go into debt, and her debtors brought a suit
     against her husband, which was taken into court. In the court she
     stood before her husband's lawyer, and said to him: "If you are
     afraid of what I may say, beware how you ask me questions!"
     Wealth and power were against her, and the lawyer _did_ ask
     questions which wrung from her what she had concealed for
     seventeen long years, and the world at last knew how her husband
     had kept the money she earned by her pen. She stood in court, and
     said: "I do not ask for rights; I have no rights, I have only
     wrongs. I will go abroad, and live with my son." Her husband had
     proposed to take her children from her, but she said: "I would
     rather starve than give them up." And for a time she did starve.
     I will read for you her poem of "Twilight," and you will all see
     what kind of woman has been so wronged, and has so suffered.

     That woman, gifted, noble, and wealthy, with such great yearnings
     in her soul, whose heart was so bound up in her children, was
     thus robbed not only of her own rights, but also of theirs. Men!
     we can not trust you! You have deceived us too long! Since this
     movement began, _some_ laws have been passed, securing to woman
     her personal property, but they are as nothing in the great
     reform that is needed. I can tell you a case. A woman married a
     man, whom she did not love, because he had a fortune. He died,
     and she married the man whom she loved before her first marriage.
     He died, too, and the fortune which was hers through her first
     husband was seized on by the relatives of the second, and she was
     left penniless in the wide world. Here, as in England, women earn
     large sums by their literary fame and talents; and I know a _man_
     who watches the post-office, and, because the Law gives him the
     power, secures the letters which contain the wages of his wife's
     intellectual toil, and pockets them for his own use.

     I will conclude by reading a letter from an esteemed friend, Mr.
     Higginson. It proposes certain questions which I should wish to
     hear our enemies answer.

                                        WORCESTER, _Sept. 4, 1853_.

     DEAR FRIEND:--You are aware that domestic duties alone prevent my
     prolonging my stay in New York during the session of the Woman's
     Rights Convention. But you know, also, that all my sympathies are
     there. I hope you will have a large representation of the friends
     of the great movement--the most important of the century; and
     that you will also assemble a good many of the opposition during
     the discussion. Perhaps from such opponents I might obtain
     answers to certain questions which have harassed my mind, and are
     the following:

     If there be a woman's sphere, as a man's sphere, why has not
     woman an equal voice in fixing the limits? If it be unwomanly for
     a girl to have a whole education, why is it not unwomanly for her
     to have even a half one? Should she not be left where the Turkish
     women are left? If women have sufficient political influence
     through their husbands and brothers, how is it that the worst
     laws are confessedly those relating to female property? If
     politics are necessarily corrupting, ought not good men, as well
     as good women, to be exhorted to quit voting?

     If, however, man's theory be correct--that none should be
     appointed jurors but those whose occupations fit them to
     understand the matters in dispute--where is the propriety of
     empanneling a jury of men to decide on the right of a divorced
     mother to her child? If it be proper for a woman to open her lips
     in jubilee to sing nonsense, how can it be improper for her to
     open them and speak sense? These afford a sample of the questions
     to which I have been trying in vain to find an answer. If the
     reasonings of men on this subject are a fair specimen of the
     masculine intellect of the nineteenth century, I think it is
     certainly quite time to call in women to do the thinking.

                              Yours, respectfully and cordially,
                                                  T. W. HIGGINSON.
     MISS LUCY STONE.

     MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE cited the Convention to a case recently tried
     before the Court of Common Pleas of New York, as illustrating the
     husband's ownership of the wife, the Court deciding that the
     friends of a woman who had "harbored" and detained her from her
     husband, though with her own consent and desire, should pay him
     $10,000. He recovered this sum on the principle of ownership; the
     wife's services were due him, and he recovered their value.

     Mrs. Gage also commented on the divorce laws, which she declared
     were less just in Christian than in Mohammedan countries. In
     those countries if the husband sues for a divorce he is obliged
     to restore the dower, but in Christian America the husband not
     only retains all the property in case he sues for a divorce, but
     where the wife, being the innocent party, sues, she even then
     receives neither property nor children, unless by an express
     decree of the court. She is alike punished, whether innocent or
     guilty. Mrs. Gage also discussed the question so often put, "What
     has woman to do with politics?" She said the country must look to
     women for its salvation.

Sojourner Truth, a tall <DW52> woman, well known in anti-slavery
circles, and called the Lybian Sybil, made her appearance on the
platform. This was the signal for a fresh outburst from the mob; for
at every session every man of them was promptly in his place, at
twenty-five cents a head. And this was the one redeeming feature of
this mob--it paid all expenses, and left a surplus in the treasury.
Sojourner combined in herself, as an individual, the two most hated
elements of humanity. She was black, and she was a woman, and all the
insults that could be cast upon color and sex were together hurled at
her; but there she stood, calm and dignified, a grand, wise woman, who
could neither read nor write, and yet with deep insight could
penetrate the very soul of the universe about her. As soon as the
terrible turmoil was in a measure quelled

     SHE SAID: Is it not good for me to come and draw forth a spirit,
     to see what kind of spirit people are of? I see that some of you
     have got the spirit of a goose, and some have got the spirit of a
     snake. I feel at home here. I come to you, citizens of New York,
     as I suppose you ought to be. I am a citizen of the State of New
     York; I was born in it, and I was a slave in the State of New
     York; and now I am a good citizen of this State. I was born here,
     and I can tell you I feel at home here. I've been lookin' round
     and watchin' things, and I know a little mite 'bout Woman's
     Rights, too. I come forth to speak 'bout Woman's Rights, and want
     to throw in my little mite, to keep the scales a-movin'. I know
     that it feels a kind o' hissin' and ticklin' like to see a
     <DW52> woman get up and tell you about things, and Woman's
     Rights. We have all been thrown down so low that nobody thought
     we'd ever get up again; but we have been long enough trodden now;
     we will come up again, and now I am here.

     I was a-thinkin', when I see women contendin' for their rights, I
     was a-thinkin' what a difference there is now, and what there was
     in old times. I have only a few minutes to speak; but in the old
     times the kings of the earth would hear a woman. There was a
     king in the Scriptures; and then it was the kings of the earth
     would kill a woman if she come into their presence; but Queen
     Esther come forth, for she was oppressed, and felt there was a
     great wrong, and she said I will die or I will bring my complaint
     before the king. Should the king of the United States be greater,
     or more crueler, or more harder? But the king, he raised up his
     sceptre and said: "Thy request shall be granted unto thee--to the
     half of my kingdom will I grant it to thee!" Then he said he
     would hang Haman on the gallows he had made up high. But that is
     not what women come forward to contend. The women want their
     rights as Esther. She only wanted to explain her rights. And he
     was so liberal that he said, "the half of my kingdom shall be
     granted to thee," and he did not wait for her to ask, he was so
     liberal with her.

     Now, women do not ask half of a kingdom, but their rights, and
     they don't get 'em. When she comes to demand 'em, don't you hear
     how sons hiss their mothers like snakes, because they ask for
     their rights; and can they ask for anything less? The king
     ordered Haman to be hung on the gallows which he prepared to hang
     others; but I do not want any man to be killed, but I am sorry to
     see them so short-minded. But we'll have our rights; see if we
     don't; and you can't stop us from them; see if you can. You may
     hiss as much as you like, but it is comin'. Women don't get half
     as much rights as they ought to; we want more, and we will have
     it. Jesus says: "What I say to one, I say to all--watch!" I'm
     a-watehin'. God says: "Honor your father and your mother." Sons
     and daughters ought to behave themselves before their mothers,
     but they do not. I can see them a-laughin', and pointin' at their
     mothers up here on the stage. They hiss when an aged woman comes
     forth. If they'd been brought up proper they'd have known better
     than hissing like snakes and geese. I'm 'round watchin' these
     things, and I wanted to come up and say these few things to you,
     and I'm glad of the hearin' you give me. I wanted to tell you a
     mite about Woman's Rights, and so I came out and said so. I am
     sittin' among you to watch; and every once and awhile I will come
     out and tell you what time of night it is.

_The Times_ next day commented as follows:

                _The New York Times, Sept. 9, 1853._

     THE ROW OF YESTERDAY.--Row No. 3 was a very jolly affair, a
     regular break-down, at the Woman's Convention. The women had
     their rights, and more beside. The cause was simply that the
     rowdyish diathesis is just now prevalent. True, a <DW52> woman
     made a speech, but there was nothing in that to excite a
     multitude; she did not speak too low to be heard; she did not
     insult them with improper language; nor did the audience respond
     at all insultingly. They did not curse, they only called for
     "half a dozen on the shell." They did not swear, they only
     "hurried up that stew." They did wrong, however.

     If we had our own way every rascally rowdy among them should have
     Bloomers of all colors preaching at them by the year--a year for
     every naughty word they uttered, a score of them for every hiss.
     Out upon the villains who go to any meeting to disturb it. Let
     anybody who can hire a house and pay for it have his way, and let
     none be disturbed; the opposers can stay away. But for us, let us
     be thankful that in such hot weather there is something to amuse
     us, something to season our insipid dishes, something to spice
     our dull days with. _Mem._ It was cooler in the evening.

            *       *       *       *       *

     CAROLINE M. SEVERANCE, of Ohio, presented an argument and appeal
     based upon the following propositions: That as the manifest
     dissimilarities which cause the _nations_ of the earth to differ,
     physically, and in degree of mental and moral development and
     cultivation, are not found justly to invalidate their claim to a
     place in the vast brotherhood of man--to fullness of family
     communion and rights; so there are no radical differences of _the
     sexes_ in these respects, which can at all impair the integrity
     of an equal humanity--no sufficient basis for a distinction in so
     comprehensive a classification.

     The fundamental facts and faculties--the higher and more
     essential attributes which make up the accepted definition of
     humanity in our day, are identical in both--are no more confined
     or unduly allotted to one sex than to one nation.

     On the broad basis of this philosophy, on the ground of woman's
     undeniable and equal humanity, proven by the possession of
     identical human faculties, and equal human needs, we claim for
     her the recognition of that humanity and its rights--for the
     freedom, protection, development, and use of those faculties, and
     the supply of those needs. And we maintain that no accident of
     sex, no prejudged or proven dissimilarity _in degree_ of
     physical, mental, or moral endowment, or development, can at all
     stand in the way of the admission of such just claim; and no
     denial of such claim but must necessarily be fraught with evil,
     as subversive of the Creator's economy and design. [Shouts and
     laughter.]

     Rev. JOHN PIERPONT, who, for the first time, took part in a
     Woman's Rights Convention, said: Ladies and gentlemen, a woman,
     at this hour, occupies the throne of the mightiest kingdom of the
     globe. Under her sway there are some hundred and fifty millions
     of the human race. Has she a right to sit there? [Several voices,
     "No!"] The vote here is--no; but a hundred and fifty millions
     vote the contrary. If a woman can thus have the highest right
     conceded to her, why should not woman have a lower? Therefore,
     some women have some rights. Is not the question a fair one,--how
     many women have any rights? And, also, how many rights has any
     woman? Are not these fair subjects for discussion? I do not come
     here to advocate any specific right for women; I come merely for
     the consideration of the question, what right she has. What are
     the rights which can not rightfully be denied her? Surely, some
     belong to the sex at large, as part of the great family of man.
     We lay it, down as the foundation of our civil theory, that man,
     as man, has, and by nature is endowed with certain natural,
     inviolable, indefeasible rights; not that men who have attained
     the age of majority alone possess those rights; not that the
     older, the young, the fair, or the dark, are alone endowed with
     them; but that they belong to _all_. The rights are not of man's
     giving; God gave them; and if you deny or withhold them, you
     place yourself in antagonism with your Creator. The more humble
     and despised is the human being claiming those rights, the more
     prompt should be the feeling of every manly bosom to stand by
     that humble creature of God, and see that its right is not
     withheld from it! Is it a new thing in this country to allow
     civil rights to a woman?

Susan B. Anthony, who had been a teacher for fifteen years, gave an
amusing description of her recent experience in attempting to speak at
a teachers' convention. Paulina Wright Davis offered the following
resolution:

     _Resolved_, That inasmuch as this great movement is intended to
     meet the wants, not of America only, but of the whole world, a
     committee be appointed to prepare an address from this Convention
     to the women of Great Britain and the continent of Europe,
     setting forth our objects, and inviting their co-operation in the
     same.[121]

     WM. LLOYD GARRISON: I second the resolution, because it shows the
     universality of our enterprise. I second it heartily, for it
     manifests the grandeur of the object we are pursuing. There never
     yet was a struggle for liberty which was not universal, though,
     for the time, it might have appeared to be no more than local. If
     the women of this country have to obtain rights which have been
     denied them, the women of England, of France, of the world, have
     to obtain the same; and I regard this as a struggle for the race,
     sublime as the world itself. It is right that this Convention
     should address the women of the whole world, in order that they
     should announce precisely how they regard their own position in
     the universe of God. What rights they claim are God-given; what
     rights they possess, and what rights they have still to achieve.
     It is time that the women of America should ask the women beyond
     the Atlantic to consider their own condition, and to co-operate
     with them in the same glorious struggle. There is not an argument
     that God ever permitted a human being to frame, that can be
     brought against this cause. This is a free Convention, and we are
     willing that any man or woman who has aught against its
     principles, should come here and freely urge it. And yet, with a
     free platform, where is the human being who cares to argue the
     question? Where is the man who presents himself decently, and
     proffers a word of reasonable argument against our cause? I have
     yet to see that man. Instead, we have blackguardism, defamation,
     rowdyism, profanity; we have all the indications that hell from
     beneath is stirred up against this divine Convention, for it is
     divine--it takes hold of heaven and the throne of God! (Hisses).
     Hiss, ye serpents! ye have nothing else to offer. There is not
     one of you to whom God has given a brain to fashion an argument.
     But it goes on record, and all the journals of this city will
     themselves bear testimony, that no one takes the platform, like
     an honest and honorable man, to argue this cause down. Therefore,
     the whole ground is won, and we stand, as we have stood from the
     beginning, on the rock of victory.

It was rather singular that in this Convention, so entirely under the
control of a mob, that there should be found one man who dared to
stand upon the platform and announce that he had been an opponent for
ten years, and was connected with a journal which had initiated this
mob; and now he desired to give in his adhesion, and to confess his
conversion. This was one of the remarkable incidents of the occasion.

     ISAAC C. PRAY said: Until within two years I have been an
     incessant opponent of the persons on this platform, in a leading
     journal in this city, which gives the cue to the hisses in that
     gallery. I have myself given--(applause). Pray spare your
     plaudits; I do not wish for them. In November, 1851, I retired
     from that journal, and I have since applied myself to study. This
     movement, among others, has come under my notice, and I have
     given it much attention. The result is, that I have entirely
     changed my opinion with regard to it. I know, not only that my
     former opinion was wrong, but that this movement is one which you
     can not stop; it emanates from the Deity himself, whose influence
     urges man forward on the path of progress. I say to the clergy,
     if they ignore this movement, they ignore that accountability to
     the Almighty which they preach. I do not mean to enter into any
     argument on this subject, but merely wish to say, as each one is
     accountable for his energies to God, you must go on in this good
     and holy cause; also, I wish to show that there is such a thing
     as a man's changing his opinion. This cause has been the butt of
     all the ridicule I could command. I scoffed at it, in season and
     out of season. There is not a lady on this platform whom my pen
     has not assailed; and now I come to make all the reparation in my
     power, by thus raising my voice on behalf of them and the cause
     committed to their hands. (Cheers and stamping).

As it was inconsistent with Mrs. Mott's Quaker principles to call upon
the police for the forcible suppression of the mob, she vacated the
chair, inviting Ernestine L. Rose to take her place. The last evening
session opened with a song by G. W. Clark; but the music did not
soothe the mob soul; he was greeted with screeches, which his voice
only at brief intervals could drown.

The President then introduced a German lady, Madame Mathilde Francesca
Anneke, editor of a liberal woman's rights newspaper which had been
suppressed in Germany. She had but recently landed in our country, and
hastened to the Convention to enjoy the blessings of free speech in a
republic. She had heard so much of freedom in America, that she could
hardly express her astonishment at what she witnessed. After many
attempts, and with great difficulty, owing to the tumult and
interruption by impertinent noises, she spoke as follows, in German,
Mrs. Rose translating her remarks into English:

     I wish to say only a few words. On the other side of the Atlantic
     there is no freedom of any kind, and we have not even the right
     to claim freedom of speech. But can it be that here, too, there
     are tyrants who violate the individual right to express opinions
     on any subject? And do you call yourselves republicans? No; there
     is no republic without freedom of speech. (The tumult showing no
     signs of abatement),

     WENDELL PHILLIPS came forward, and said: Allow me to say one
     word, purely as a matter of the self-respect which you owe to
     yourselves. We are citizens of a great country, which, from Maine
     to Georgia, has ex tended a welcome to Kossuth, and this New York
     audience is now looking upon a noble woman who stood by his side
     in the battle-fields of Hungary; one who has faced the cannon of
     Francis Joseph of Austria, for the rights of the people. Is this
     the welcome you give her to the shores of republican America? A
     woman who has proved her gallantry and attachment to principles,
     wishes to say five words to you of the feelings with which she is
     impressed toward this cause. I know, fellow-citizens, that you
     will hear her.

The audience showing a better disposition to hear Madame Anneke, she
proceeded thus:

     I saw this morning, in a paper, that the women of America have
     met in convention to claim their rights. I rejoiced when I saw
     that they recognized their equality; and I rejoiced when I saw
     that they have not forgotten their sisters in Germany. I wished
     to be here with my American sisters, to tell them that I
     sympathize in their efforts; but I was too sick to come, and
     would probably not have been here but that another German woman,
     a friend of this movement, came to Newark and took me out of my
     sick bed. But it was the want of a knowledge of the English
     language which kept me away, more than sickness.

     Before I came here, I knew the tyranny and oppression of kings; I
     felt it in my own person, and friends, and country; and when I
     came here I expected to find that freedom which is denied us at
     home. Our sisters in Germany have long desired freedom, but there
     the desire is repressed as well in man as in woman. There is no
     freedom there, even to claim human rights. Here they expect to
     find freedom of speech; here, for if we can not claim it here,
     where should we go for it? Here, at least, we ought to be able to
     express our opinions on all subjects; and yet, it would appear,
     there is no freedom even here to claim human rights, although the
     only hope in our country for freedom of speech and action, is
     directed to this country for illustration and example. That
     freedom I claim. The women of my country look to this for
     encouragement and sympathy; and they, also, sympathize with this
     cause. We hope it will go on and prosper; and many hearts across
     the ocean in Germany are beating in unison with those here.

Madame Anneke retired amid a great uproar, which increased when Mr.
Phillips presented himself again. He persisted against frequent
clamorous interruptions in his purpose to speak, and addressed the
meeting as follows:

     Mr. PHILLIPS: I am not surprised at the reception I meet.
     (Interruption).

     Mrs. ROSE: As presiding officer for this evening, I call upon the
     police. The mayor, too, promised to see that our meetings should
     not be disturbed, and I now call upon him to preserve order. As
     citizens of New York, we have a right to this protection, for we
     pay our money for it. My friends, keep order, and then we shall
     know who the disturbers are.

     Mr. PHILLIPS: You are making a better speech than I can, by your
     conduct. This is proof positive of the necessity of this
     Convention. The time has been when other Conventions have been
     met like this--with hisses. (Renewed hisses). Go on with your
     hisses; geese have hissed before now. If it be your pleasure to
     argue the question for us, by proving that the men here, at
     least, are not fit for exercising political rights. (Great
     uproar).

     Mrs. ROSE: I regret that I have again to call upon the police to
     keep order; and if they are not able to do it, I call upon the
     meeting to help them.

     Mr. PHILLIPS: You prove one thing to-night, that the men of New
     York do not understand the meaning of civil liberty and free
     discussion.

Antoinette Brown made an attempt to speak, but soon ceased amidst the
most indescribable uproar. Mr. Elliott then jumped upon the platform,
and harangued the audience as a representative of the rowdies, though
he claimed for himself great fairness and respectability. He said:

     If taxation without representation be robbery, then robbery is
     right, and I am willing to be robbed. For twelve years I have
     paid taxes; and here and in other countries I have, in return,
     got protection. Robbery is, to take away property forcibly
     without giving an equivalent for it; but a good equivalent is
     given for taxation. In this and other countries, the property of
     individuals is taken from them, as when an owner of land is
     deprived of it by the State to make a railroad through it; that
     is no robbery; an equivalent is given, and the owner is fairly
     dealt by. We have heard many instances of the tyranny inflicted
     on women; but is that a reason that they should vote? If it be,
     minors, who are under a double tyranny, that of father and  mother--

Here the audience seemed to have lost all patience, and Mr. Elliott's
voice was completely drowned in the uproar. He retired, repeating that
he had proved the rowdies were not all on one side. The confusion now
reached its climax. A terrific uproar, shouting, yelling, screaming,
bellowing, laughing, stamping, cries of "Burleigh," "Root," "Truth,"
"Shut up," "Take a drink," "Greedey," etc., prevented anything orderly
being heard, and the Convention, on the motion of Mrs. Rose, was
adjourned _sine die_; the following resolution having first been read
by Dr. Harriot K. Hunt, and passed without dissent:

     _Resolved_, That the members of this Convention, and the audience
     assembled, tender their thanks to Lucretia Mott for the grace,
     firmness, ability, and courtesy with which she has discharged her
     important and often arduous duties.


                       _Daily Tribune, Sept. 8, 1853._

           WOMAN'S RIGHTS CONVENTION:--MEETING AT THE TABERNACLE.

     _Evening Session_.--Tremendous uproar--close of the Convention.
     Yesterday evening being the last sitting of this Convention, the
     approach to the Tabernacle was thronged long before the hour for
     opening the doors, and considerable excitement seemed to prevail.
     At about seven o'clock the Tabernacle doors were thrown open, and
     the rush for tickets and admission to the anxious throng could
     only be equalled by that of a Jenny Lind night. The building,
     capable of holding some 2,000 persons, was immediately filled to
     excess, and the principal promoters of the movement took their
     places on the platform.... Mr. George W. Clark, who had been
     requested to sing a song on "Freedom of Thought," did so in a
     style apparently not much approved by the audience, who at a very
     early stage began to give vent to all kinds of groans and
     ironical cheers.

     Mrs. MARTIN, of this State, was then introduced, and with
     considerable difficulty began her address.

     (Cries--"No! no!" and tremendous yells and laughter). "Time's
     up," "That'll do." (Loud hisses, groans, laughter, tigers, and
     demoniac sounds from the galleries). Cries of "Phillips!
     Phillips." (Hisses and yells).


                         _Tribune, Sept. 9, 1853._

     We do not know whether any of the _gentlemen_ who have succeeded
     in breaking up the Woman's Rights Convention, or of the other
     _gentlemen_ who have succeeded in three sessions at Metropolitan
     Hall in silencing a regularly appointed and admitted delegate,
     will ever be ashamed of their passion and hostility, but we have
     little doubt that some of them will live to understand their own
     folly. At any rate, they have accomplished a very different thing
     from what they now suppose. For if it had been their earnest
     desire to strengthen the cause of Woman's Rights, they could not
     have done the work half so effectively. Nothing is so good for a
     weak and unpopular movement as this sort of opposition. Had
     Antoinette Brown been allowed to speak at Metropolitan Hall, her
     observations would certainly have occupied but a fraction of the
     time now wasted, and would have had just the weight proper to
     their sense and appropriateness, and no more. But instead of this
     the World's Convention was disturbed and its orators silenced.
     The consequences will be the mass of people throughout the
     country who might otherwise not know of its existence, will have
     their attention called and their sympathies enlisted in its
     behalf. So, too, when Antoinette Brown is put down by Rev. John
     Chambers and his colleagues, and denied what is her clear right
     as a member of the Temperance Convention by a vociferous mob,
     composed, we are sorry to say, very largely of clergymen, every
     impartial person sees that she is surrounded with a prestige and
     importance which, whatever her talents as a speaker, she could
     hardly hope to have attained. Many who question the propriety of
     woman's appearing in public, will revolt at the gagging of one
     who had a right to speak and claimed simply to use it on a proper
     occasion. There is in the public mind of this country an
     intuitive love of fair play and free speech, and those who
     outrage it for any purpose of their own merely reinforce their
     opponents, and bestow a mighty power on the ideas they hate and
     fain would suppress.


                        _Tribune, Sept. 12, 1853._

     Arguments _pro_ and _con_. The meetings at the Tabernacle Tuesday
     and Wednesday last, exhibited some features not often paralleled
     in the progress of any public agitation for the redress of
     grievances, or the vindication of rights. The advocates of an
     enlargement of the allotted sphere of woman, had hired the house,
     paid the advertising and other expenses, gathered at their own
     expense from their distant homes, and taken all the
     responsibilities of the outlay, yet they offered and desired
     throughout to surrender their own platform for one-half of the
     time, to any respectable and capable antagonists who should see
     fit to appear and attempt to show why their demands were not just
     and their grievances real. Consequently, though they are engaged
     in a struggle, not only against numbers and power, and fashion
     and immemorial custom, but with the Pulpit and the Press actively
     and bitterly leading and spurring on their antagonists, and with
     no access to the public ear but from the public platform, we
     consider this proposition more than liberal--it was chivalric and
     generous. We listened with interest to some of the arguments
     _pro_ and _con_, and propose here to recapitulate their
     substance, that our readers may see at a glance the present
     position and bearing of the controversy. We will begin with the
     first speech we heard, that of

     Rev. WM. H. CHANNING: They say the public platform is not in
     woman's sphere; but let us understand why. Jenny Lind stands on
     that platform before thousands of men and women, and sings, "I
     know that my Redeemer liveth," with all hearts approving, all
     voices applauding, and nobody lisps a word that she is out of her
     sphere. Well, Antoinette Brown believes the sentiment so sang to
     be the hope of a lost world, and feels herself called to bear
     witness in behalf of that religion, and to commend His salvation
     to the understanding and hearts of all who will hear her. Why may
     she not obey this impulse, and bear the tidings of a world's
     salvation to those perishing in darkness and sin? What is there
     unfeminine or revolting in her preaching the truth which Jenny
     Lind may sing without objection and amid universal applause?

     Answer by things "in male costumes." Hiss-s-s.

     Mrs. ERNESTINE L. ROSE: The law declares husband and wife one;
     and such we all feel that they should be, and must be when the
     marriage is a true one. Now, why should that same law base their
     union or oneness on inequality or subjugation? The wife dies and
     the husband inherits all her property, as is right; but let the
     husband die, and the greater part of the property is taken from
     the wife and given to others, even though all that property was
     earned or inherited by the wife. She may be turned out of the
     house she was born in and which was hers until marriage, and see
     it given to her husband's brothers or other kindred who are
     strangers to her. I insist that the wife should own and inherit
     the property of the husband just to the same extent that the
     husband inherits that of the wife--why not?

     Answer to the aforesaid--Hiss-s-s-s! Bow-ow-ow!

     HARRIOT K. HUNT: I plant myself on the basis of the Declaration
     of Independence and insist, with our Revolutionary sires, that
     taxation without representation is tyranny. Well; here am I, an
     independent American woman, educated for and living by the
     practice of medicine. I own property, and pay taxes on that
     property. I demand of the Government that taxes me that it should
     allow me an equal voice with the other tax-payers in the disposal
     of the public money. I am certainly not less intelligent than
     thousands who, though scarcely able to read their ballots, are
     entitled to vote. I am allowed to vote in any bank or insurance
     company when I choose to be a stockholder; why ought I not to
     vote in the disposition of public money raised by tax, as well as
     those men who do not pay taxes, or those who do either?

     Answer of the aforesaid--Yah! wow! Hiss-s-s-s!

     LUCY STONE: I plead for the right of woman to the control of her
     own person as a moral, intelligent, accountable being. I know a
     wife who has not set foot outside of her husband's house for
     three years, because her husband forbids her doing so when he is
     present, and locks her up when he is absent. That wife is gray
     with sorrow and despair though now in middle life, but there is
     no redress for her wrongs because the law makes her husband her
     master, and there is no proof that he beats or bruises her; there
     is nothing in his treatment of her that the law does not allow. I
     protest against such a law and demand its overthrow; and I
     protest against any law which limits the sphere of woman, as a
     bar to her intellectual development. You say she _can not_ do
     this and that, but if so, what need of a law to prevent her? You
     say her intellectual achievements have not equaled those of man;
     but I answer, that she has had no motive, no opportunity for such
     achievement. Close all the avenues, take away all the incitement
     for man's ambition, and he would do no more than woman does.
     Grant her freedom, education, and opportunity, and she will do
     what God intended she should do, no less, no more. Men! you
     dwarf, you wrong yourselves in restraining and fettering the
     intellectual development of woman! I ask for her liberty to do
     whatever moral and useful deed she proves able to do--why should
     I ask in vain?

     Answer by time-serving Press: Men, Women, and Bloomers! Faugh!
     Bah!

     ANTOINETTE BROWN: I plead that the mother may not be legally
     robbed of her children. I know a mother who was left a widow
     with three young children. She was able, and most willing to
     support them in humble independence; but her husband before he
     died, had secretly given two of them to his relatives, and the
     law tore them from the mother's bosom, and left her but the
     youngest, who was soon taken from her by death. That, mother
     lived to see her two surviving children, grow up, the one to be a
     drunkard and the other a felon, all through neglect and the want
     of that care and guardianship which none so well as a parent can
     be relied on to afford. I plead for woman as a mother, that her
     right to her children be recognized as at least equal to that of
     the father, and that he, being dead, no other can have a right to
     their guardianship paramount or even equal to hers.

     Pantalooned mob as aforesaid: Oh, dry up! Bow-ow! Waugh!
     Hiss-s-s! Get out!

     The case is still on.


[Illustration: SUSAN B. ANTHONY (with autograph).]


WOMAN'S RIGHTS STATE CONVENTION,

ROCHESTER, N. Y., NOVEMBER 30 AND DECEMBER 1, 1853.

As William Henry Channing resided at Rochester, and felt that the time
had come for some more active measures, he was invited to prepare the
call and resolutions for the Convention. The following was issued and
extensively circulated, and signed by many of the leading men and
women of the State:

                    THE JUST AND EQUAL RIGHTS OF WOMEN.

     _To the Men and Women of New York:_

     The "Woman's Rights" Movement is a practical one, demanding
     prompt and efficient action for the relief of oppressive wrongs;
     and, as the Conventions held for several years past in different
     States, have answered their end of arousing earnest public
     attention, the time has come for calling upon the people to
     reform the evils from which women suffer, by their
     Representatives in Legislative Assemblies.

     The wise and humane of all classes in society, however much they
     may differ upon speculative points as to woman's nature and
     function, agree that there are actual abuses of women, tolerated
     by custom and authorized by law, which are condemned alike by the
     genius of republican institutions and the spirit of the Christian
     religion. Conscience and common sense, then, unite to sanction
     their immediate redress. Thousands of the best men and women, in
     all our communities, are asking such questions as these:

     1. Why should not woman's work be paid for according to the
     quality of the work done, and not the sex of the worker?

     2. How shall we open for woman's energies new spheres of well
     remunerated industry?

     3. Why should not wives, equally with husbands, be entitled to
     their own earnings?

     4. Why should not widows, equally with widowers, become by law
     the legal guardians, as they certainly are by nature the natural
     guardians, of their own children?

     5. On what just ground do the laws make a distinction between men
     and women, in regard to the ownership of property, inheritance,
     and the administration of estates?

     6. Why should women, any more than men, be taxed without
     representation?

     7. Why may not women claim to be tried by a jury of their peers,
     with exactly the same right as men claim to be and actually are?

     8. If women need the protection of the laws, and are subject to
     the penalties of the laws equally with men, why should they not
     have an equal influence in making the laws, and appointing
     Legislatures, the Judiciary, and Executive?

     And, finally, if governments--according to our National
     Declaration of Independence--"derive their just powers from the
     consent of the governed," why should women, any more than men, be
     governed without their own consent; and why, therefore, is not
     woman's right to suffrage precisely equal to man's?

     For the end of finding out practical answers to these and similar
     questions, and making suitable arrangements to bring the existing
     wrongs of women, in the State of New York, before the Legislature
     at its next session, we, the undersigned, do urgently request the
     men and women of the Commonwealth to assemble in Convention, in
     the city of Rochester, on Wednesday, November 30th, and Thursday,
     December 1, 1853.[122]

The Convention assembled at Corinthian Hall at 10 o'clock. Rev. Samuel
J. May, of Syracuse, in the chair.[123] After thanking the Convention
for the honor conferred, he ran the parallel between the laws for
married women and the slaves on the Southern plantation, and then
introduced Ernestine L. Rose, to paint in more vivid colors the
picture he had outlined.

     Mrs. ROSE said: The remarks of the president have impressed us to
     do our duty with all the earnestness in our power. This is termed
     a woman's rights movement. Alas! that the painful necessity
     should exist, for woman's calling a Convention to claim her
     rights from those who have been created to go hand in hand, and
     heart in heart with her; whose interests can not be divided from
     hers. Why does she claim them? Because every human being has a
     right to all the advantages society has to bestow, if his having
     them does not injure the rights of others. Life is valueless
     without liberty, and shall we not claim that which is dearer than
     life? In savage life, liberty is synonymous with aggression. In
     civilized countries it is founded on equality of rights.
     Oppression always produces suffering through the whole of the
     society where it exists; this movement ought, therefore, to be
     called a human rights movement. The wrongs of woman are so many
     (indeed there is scarcely anything else but wrongs) that there is
     not time to mention them all in one convention. She would speak
     at present of legal wrongs, and leave it to her hearers, if all
     are not--men, perhaps, more than women--sufferers by these
     wrongs. How can woman have a right to her children when the right
     to herself is taken away? At the marriage altar the husband says
     in effect, "All this is mine, all mine is my own." She ceases to
     exist legally, except when she violates the laws; then she
     assumes her identity just long enough to receive the penalty.
     When the husband dies poor, leaving the widow with small children
     (here the speaker pictured thrillingly the suffering of a poor,
     weak-minded, helpless woman, with small children dependent on
     her), she is then acknowledged the guardian of her children. But
     any property left them takes away her right of control. If there
     is property the law steps in as guardian of it and therefore of
     the children. The widowed mother is their guardian, only on
     condition that the husband has made her so by will. Can any human
     being be benefited by such gross violations of humanity?

     MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE said: The legal disabilities of woman are
     many, as not only known to those who bear them, but they are
     acknowledged by Kent, Story, and many other legal authorities. A
     wife has no management in the joint earnings of herself and her
     husband; they are entirely under control of the husband, who is
     obliged to furnish the wife merely the common necessaries of
     life; all that she receives beyond these is looked upon by the
     law as a favor, and not held as her right. A mother is denied the
     custody of her own child; a most barbarous and unjust law, which
     robs her of the child placed in her care by the great Creator
     himself. A widow is allowed the use merely of one-third of the
     real estate left at the husband's death; and when her minor
     children have grown up she must surrender the personal property,
     even to the family Bible, and the pictures of her dear children.
     In view of such laws the women engaged in this movement ask that
     the wife shall be made heir to the husband to the same extent
     that he is now her heir.

     Taxation without representation is another of the wrongs that
     woman endures. In this she is held below the <DW64> in the
     political scale; for the black man, when not possessing property
     to the extent of two hundred and fifty dollars, is not allowed to
     vote, but neither is he taxed. The present law of divorce is very
     unjust; the husband, whether the innocent or the guilty party,
     retaining all the wife's property, as also the control of the
     children unless by special decree of the court they are assigned
     to the mother.

     Rev. ANTOINETTE BROWN said: The wife owes service and labor to
     her husband as much and as absolutely as the slave does to his
     master. This grates harshly upon the ears of Christendom; but it
     is made palpably and practically true all through our statute
     books, despite the poetic fancy which views woman as elevated in
     the social estate; but a little lower than the angels.

Letters were read from Paulina Wright Davis, Dr. Trail, Mary C.
Vaughan, and Hon. William Hay. A series of fourteen resolutions were
presented by Mr. Channing, and discussed, which suggested the
appointment of various committees. One to prepare an address to the
Legislature, and to ask a special hearing before a joint committee to
consider the whole subject of the just and equal rights of woman;
another to prepare an address to the capitalists and industrialists of
New York on the best modes of employing and remunerating women.

     _Resolved_, That the movement, now in progress throughout the
     United States, for securing the just and equal rights of women,
     in education, industry, law, politics, religion, and social life,
     is timely, wise, and practical; that it is authorized by all the
     essential principles of Republican institutions, and sanctioned
     by the spirit of the Christian religion; and finally that it is
     but a carrying on to completeness of a reform, already begun, by
     legal provisions, in the most advanced States of the Union.

     _Resolved_, That the design of all true legislation should be the
     elevation of every member of the community--and that the
     violation of this legitimate design, in depriving woman of her
     just and equal rights, is not only highly injurious to her, but
     by reason of the equilibrium which pervades all existence, that
     man, too, is impeded in his progress by the very chains which
     bind woman to the lifeless skeleton of feudal civilization.

     _Resolved_, That we do not ask for woman's political, civil,
     industrial, and social equality with man, in the spirit of
     antagonism, or with a wish to produce separate and conflicting
     interests between the sexes, but because the onward progress of
     society and the highest aspirations of the human race, demand
     that woman should everywhere be recognized as the co-equal and
     co-sovereign of man.

     _Resolved_, That women justly claim an equally free access with
     men, to the highest means of mental, moral, and physical culture,
     provided in seminaries, colleges, professional and industrial
     schools; and that we call upon all friends of progress and upon
     the Legislature of New York, in establishing and endowing
     institutions, to favor pre-eminently those which seek to place
     males and females on a level of equal advantages in their system
     of education.

     _Resolved_, That, inasmuch as universal experience proves the
     inseparable connection between dependence and degradation--while
     it is plain to every candid observer of society that women are
     kept poor, by being crowded together, to compete with and
     undersell one another in a few branches of labor, and that from
     this very poverty of women, spring many of the most terrible
     wrongs and evils, which corrupt and endanger society: therefore
     do we invite the earnest attention of capitalists, merchants,
     traders, manufacturers, and mechanics, to the urgent need, which
     everywhere exists, of opening to women new avenues of honest and
     honorable employment, and we do hereby call upon all manly men to
     make room for their sisters to earn an independent livelihood.

     _Resolved_, That, whereas, the custom of making small
     remuneration for woman's work, in all departments of industry,
     has sprung from her dependence, which dependence is prolonged and
     increased by this most irrational and unjust habit of half pay;
     therefore do we demand, in the name of common sense and common
     conscience, that women equally with men, should be paid for their
     services according to the quality and quantity of the work done,
     and not the sex of the worker.

     _Resolved_, That, whereas, the State of New York, in the acts of
     1848 and 1849, has honorably and justly placed married women on
     the footing of equality with unmarried women, in regard to the
     receiving, holding, conveying, and devising of all property, real
     and personal, we call upon the Legislature of the State to take
     the next step--so plainly justified by its own precedents--of
     providing that husbands and wives shall be joint owners of their
     joint earnings--the community estate passing to the survivor at
     the death of either party.

     _Resolved_, That, whereas, the evident intent of the Legislature
     of the State of New York has for many years been progressively to
     do away with the legal disabilities of women, which existed under
     the savage usages of the old common law, therefore we do urgently
     call upon the Legislature of this State, at its next session, to
     appoint a joint committee to examine and revise the statutes, and
     to propose remedies for the redress of all legal grievances from
     which women now suffer, and suitable measures for the full
     establishment of women's legal equality with men.

     _Resolved_, That, whereas, under the common law, the father is
     regarded as the guardian, by nature, of his children, having the
     entire control of their persons and education, while only upon
     the death of the father, does the mother become the guardian by
     nature; and, whereas, by the revised statutes of New York, it is
     provided, that where an estate in lands shall become vested in an
     infant, the guardianship of such infant, with the rights, powers,
     and duties of a guardian in soccage, shall belong to the father,
     and only in case of the father's death, to the mother; and,
     whereas, finally and chiefly, by the revised statutes of New
     York, it is provided, that every father may, by his deed or last
     will, duly executed, dispose of the custody and tuition of his
     children, during their minority, "to any person or persons in
     possession or remainder"; therefore, do we solemnly protest
     against the utter violation of every mother's rights, authorized
     by existing laws, in regard to the guardianship of infants, and
     demand, in the name of common humanity, that the Legislature of
     New York so amend the statutes, as to place fathers and mothers
     on equal footing in regard to the guardianship of their children.
     Especially do we invite the Legislature instantly to pass laws,
     entitling mothers to become their children's guardians, in all
     cases where, by habitual drunkenness, immorality, or
     improvidence, fathers are incompetent to the sacred trust.

     _Resolved_, That, whereas, according to the amendments of the
     Constitution of the United States, it is provided that "in all
     criminal cases, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and
     public trial, by an impartial jury," and that "in suits at common
     law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars,
     the right of trial by jury shall be preserved"; and, whereas,
     according to the revised statutes of New York, it is provided,
     that "no member of this State can be disfranchised or deprived of
     any of the rights or privileges, secured to any citizen thereof,
     unless by the law of the land, or the judgment of his peers";
     therefore, do we demand, that women, as "members" and "citizens"
     of this State, equally with men, should be entitled to claim a
     trial by "an impartial jury of their peers." And especially do we
     remonstrate against the partial, mean, and utterly inequitable
     custom, everywhere prevalent, that in questions of divorce, men,
     and men alone, should be regarded as "an impartial jury."

     _Resolved_, That, whereas, in the Declaration of Independence of
     the United States, one of the "injuries and usurpation"
     complained of is Taxation without the consent of the persons
     taxed; and, whereas, it is provided in the revised statutes of
     New York, that "no tax, duty, aid or imposition whatever--except
     such as may be laid by a law of the United States--can be taken
     or levied within this State, without the grant and assent of the
     people of this State; by their representatives in Senate and
     Assembly"; and that "no citizen of this State can be compelled to
     contribute to any gift, loan, tax, or other like charge, not laid
     or imposed by a law of the United States, or by the Legislature
     of the State"; therefore do we proclaim, that it is a gross act
     of tyranny and usurpation, to tax women without their consent,
     and we demand, either that women be represented by their own
     appointed representatives, or that they be freed from the
     imposition of taxes.

     _Resolved_, That inasmuch as it is the fundamental principle of
     the Nation and of every State in this Union, that all
     "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the
     governed"--it is a manifest violation of the Supreme Law of the
     land for males to govern females without their consent; and
     therefore do we demand, of the people of New York, such a change
     in the Constitution of the State, as will secure to women the
     right of suffrage which is now so unjustly monopolized by men.

     _Resolved_, That Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Samuel J. May, Ernestine
     L. Rose, William Hay, Susan B. Anthony, Burroughs Phillips,
     Antoinette L. Brown, W. H. Channing, and Lydia A. Jenkins, be a
     committee to prepare and to present an address to the Legislature
     of New York, at its next session, stating, as specifically as
     they shall see fit, the legal disabilities of women, and to ask a
     hearing before a joint committee, specially appointed to consider
     the whole subject of the just and equal rights of women.

     _Resolved_, That Horace Greeley, Mary C. Vaughan, Abram Pryne,
     Sarah Pellet, and Matilda Joslyn Gage be a committee to prepare
     an address to capitalists and industrialists of New York, on the
     best modes of employing and remunerating the industry of women.

The President invited any one who saw errors or fallacies in the
arguments brought forward, to make them apparent.

     Mr. PRYNE, of Cazenovia, editor of the _Progressive Christian_,
     said: If women desire to enter the ordinary avocations of men,
     they must be brave enough to become shopkeepers and mechanics.
     There is no law to prevent it, neither is there to woman's
     voting. The men have made an arrangement by which their votes are
     not counted, but still they might provide ballot-boxes, and
     decide upon whom they would prefer as magistrates and
     legislators. A man who was thus voted to stay at home, by an
     overwhelming majority of women, even if elected by the men, would
     find himself in an uncomfortable position.

     Mr. CHANNING said he understood that in a town in Ohio the women
     did so, and cast sixty votes.

     Mr. PRYNE was glad to hear that there were practical women in
     Ohio. Man is where he is because he is what he is, and when woman
     gets the same elements of moral and physical power she will have
     no more wrongs to complain of.

     Mrs. ROSE said it was a true maxim that he who would be free,
     himself must strike the blow. But woman could not, as things
     were, help herself. As well might the slaveholder say that the
     slave was fit for no other condition while he consents to occupy
     that position. To a certain extent this is true, and the same
     principles apply to both classes. But all human beings are not
     martyrs; the majority accept the conditions in which they find
     themselves, rather than make their lives one long struggle for
     freedom. Woman must be educated to take the stand which Mr. Pryne
     invites her to assume. The only object for which woman is now
     reared is to be married; and is she fitted even for that; to
     become a companion, an assistant, an aid, a comforter to man; and
     above all, a mother? That alone; to fit a woman for that sphere;
     she must possess all the extended education which would fit her
     to take any position in life to which man aspires.

     MARY F. LOVE said there might be hindrances in the way of woman
     too great for her to surmount. Men in their straggles for liberty
     have sometimes met insuperable obstacles; there have been
     unsuccessful revolutions at all stages of human development.

     FREDERICK DOUGLASS, in discussing the injustice to woman in the
     world of work, said: Some one whispers in my ear that as teachers
     women get one-fourth the pay men do, while a girl's tuition is
     the same as a boy's.

     The PRESIDENT observed, that the girl gets twice as much
     education, being uniformly more studious and attentive.

     E. A. HOPKINS, a lawyer of Rochester, spoke to the eighth
     resolution, which asks fora committee to examine the whole
     subject; he said: I believe if this question was properly
     presented to the Legislature, we might have well grounded hope
     for the relief of women from their legal disabilities, and
     indicated the amendments which ought to be made in the present
     laws regulating the relations of the married state. He argued
     against making the man and wife joint owners of property, execpt
     in certain specific cases.

     Rev. Mr. CHANNING said that in Louisiana and California this
     joint ownership was recognized by the laws.

     Mr. HOPKINS was not aware of that; and he did not see why labor,
     worth in the market no more than one or two dollars per week,
     should be paid for at the rate of, it may be, $200 per week. He
     thought the law should be altered so that the widow may have
     control of property while her children are minors. The right to
     vote, which was claimed under the idea that representation should
     go before taxation, he discussed with ability, taking ground
     against women voting. The arguments used by the other side were
     shown to be fallacious, or at least partaking of the aristocratic
     element. Women are already tried by "their peers," though not by
     those of their own sex. As to women holding office, this movement
     had proved the position of Dr. Channing, in his discussion with
     Miss Martineau, that "influence was good, and office bad." Women
     should be content to exercise influence, without seeking for the
     spoils and risking the temptations of office. He argued upon the
     maxim that "governments derive their just powers from the consent
     of the governed," contending that it was not true; those powers
     are derived from the majority who are brave enough to set up and
     sustain the government.[124]

Frederick Douglass, in the course of his remarks, said he had seen two
young women assistants in the County Clerk's office, also young women
going into printing-offices to set type; and he might have added the
following, which we clip from the _The Una_ of the same date:

     Female compositors have been employed in the offices of the three
     Cincinnati daily papers which stood out against the demands of
     the Printer's Union. The Pittsburg _Daily Dispatch_ is also set
     up entirely by females. The experiment was commenced on that
     paper two months ago, and the proprietors now announce its entire
     success. The Louisville _Courier_ announces its intentions to try
     the experiment in the spring.

     Wherever the change has been made it seems to be completely
     successful.--_Courier and Enquirer_.

     Mr. MAY said: If a woman should not leave her family to go to the
     Legislature, neither should a man. The obligation is mutual: and
     while children require the care of both parents, both should
     share the duty, and not leave them from ambitious motives. It is
     only those who have well discharged their duties to their
     families who are fit to become legislators. We are now giving the
     nation into the hands of boys and half-grown men. Had we such
     women as Lucretia Mott and Angelina Grimke in the Legislature,
     there would be more wisdom there than we have to-day. When I
     look through the nation and see the shameful mismanagement, I am
     convinced that it is the result, in part, of the absence of the
     feminine element in high stations; it is because the maternal
     influence is wanting that we run riot as we do. The State is in a
     condition of half orphanage, and needs the care and guidance of a
     mother.

     E. A. HOPKINS, Esq.: Thought the movement was not entirely
     timely, wise, and practicable, though parts of it might be. He
     took Up and answered each of the questions appended to the call
     for the Convention. His speech was characteristic of the lawyer,
     and the frequent recurrence of the idea, _it is right because it
     is customary_, will illustrate its moral character. He stated
     three several points where he thought woman was aggrieved and
     should have legislative redress. Office was a temptation, and he
     thought woman was better off without it.

     Miss BROWN proposed that the men, for a while, be relieved from
     this great evil, and excused from the burdens of office. If this
     necessary duty was so burdensome, woman should be a helper and
     share its burdens with him. We are taught to be grateful for
     small favors. Our friend has been giving you milk, but to me it
     seems, even at that, diluted with water. There is one law, "All
     things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even
     so to them." When our brothers are ready to be paid a dollar a
     week for keeping house and nursing the children, let them dictate
     this also to us. We women now offer to take the burden and
     responsibility of government upon ourselves. We would be willing
     to save our friends for a time from temptation and care, as they
     have so generously done by us; if we are to be satisfied with
     things as they are, so should the slave be. He should be grateful
     for the care of his master, for according to the established
     price paid for labor, he does not earn enough to take care of
     himself. We should be satisfied with our present license laws;
     they are right, just, and good, judged by our friend's reasoning.
     If our offer to rule alone is not liked, we are ready, then, to
     co-operate with man in this according to the original design and
     arrangement of the Creator.

     Mr. HOPKINS opposed with several objections, one of which was,
     that private stations demand as high qualifications, and more
     surely command a just recompense, than public offices; woman has
     yet taken few lucrative private employments; why, then, till
     these are taken, should she seek for public office?

     FREDERICK DOUGLASS again raised the inquiry, in the investment of
     money or the use of property, where there is joint ownership, and
     in regard to which there may be disagreement between husband and
     wife, how shall the matter be settled between them? Law is not a
     necessity of human nature; if love ruled, statutes would be
     obsolete; genuine marriages and harmonious co-operations would
     prevent any such necessity.

     Miss BROWN proposed to reply in a word: Law must regulate
     differences where there is not true union, and as a business
     copartnership, if the matter could not be adjusted between
     themselves to mutual satisfaction, let it be referred to a third
     person; where it is a property transaction, let the usual
     business custom be observed; but if there be a difficulty of a
     different nature, so serious that the parties, bound to each
     other for life, can not enjoy existence together if they can not
     make each other happy, but are to each other a mutual source of
     discomfort, why, let them separate; let them not be divorced, but
     let them each be content to live alone for the good of society.

     Mrs. LOVE, of Randolph, read an address, flowery in style, but
     full of truth, upon the discord that pervades social life. Homes
     should be reformed; from domestic uncongeniality spring the chief
     evils of society. She advised men and women to beware of
     inharmonious alliances, and made a touching appeal in behalf of
     the fallen of her sex.

     Mr. CHANNING said: Whenever he heard a woman, in face of existing
     prejudices, speak the simple truth in regard to the social wrongs
     of her sisters, as Mrs. Love had done, asking no leave of the
     Convention, and making no apology for her sincere words, however
     they might startle false delicacy, he felt bound as a man, and in
     the name of man, to offer her the tribute of his hearty respect.

Mr. Channing presented two forms of petitions--one for property
rights, the other for suffrage--which were adopted. Rev. Lydia A.
Jenkins read a carefully prepared address. Emma R. Coe made a full
review of the laws, which, at that early day, was the burden of
almost every speech. At the close of the sixth session, the audiences
having grown larger and larger, until the spacious and beautiful
Corinthian Hall was packed to its utmost, the Convention adjourned, to
begin its real work in canvassing the State with lectures and
petitions, preparing an address to the Legislature, securing a
hearing, and holding a Convention at Albany during the coming session
of that body.

An appeal[125] to the women of the State was at once issued, and all
editors requested to publish it with the forms of petitions. The
responses came back in the form of 13,000 signatures in two months,
gathered in thirty out of the sixty counties of the Empire State. The
lecturers were: Susan B. Anthony, Mary F. Love, Sarah Pellet, Lydia A.
Jenkins, and Matilda Joslyn Gage. Over sixty women were engaged in the
work of circulating the petitions.

Horace Greeley, chairman of the Committee on Industry, published in
_The New York Tribune_ the following report:

                             WOMAN AND WORK.

     Whether women should or should not be permitted to vote, to hold
     office, to serve on juries, and to officiate as lawyers, doctors,
     or divines, are questions about which a diversity of opinions is
     likely long to exist. But that the current rates of remuneration
     for woman's work are entirely, unjustly inadequate, is a
     proposition which needs only to be considered to insure its
     hearty acceptance by every intelligent, justice-loving human
     being. Consider a few facts:

     Every able-bodied man inured to labor, though of the rudest sort,
     who steps on shore in America from Europe, is worth a dollar per
     day, and can readily command it. Though he only knows how to
     wield such rude, clumsy implements as the pick and spade, there
     are dozens of places where his services are in request at a
     dollar per day the year through, and he can even be transported
     hence to the place where his services are wanted, on the strength
     of his contract to work and the credit of his future earnings. We
     do not say this is the case every day in the year, for it may not
     be at this most inclement and forbidding season; but it is the
     general fact, as every one knows. And any careful, intelligent,
     resolute male laborer is morally certain to rise out of the
     condition of a mere shoveler, into a position where the work is
     lighter and the pay better after a year or two of faithful
     service.

     But the sister of this same faithful worker, equally careful,
     intelligent, and willing to do anything honest and reputable for
     a living, finds no such chances proffered her. No agent meets
     her on the dock to persuade her to accept a passage to Illinois
     or Upper Canada, there to be employed on fair work at a dollar
     per day and expectations. On the contrary, she may think herself
     fortunate if a week's search opens to her a place where by the
     devotion of all her waking hours she can earn five to six dollars
     per month, with a chance of its increase, after several years'
     faithful service, to seven or eight dollars at most.

     The brother is in many respects the equal of his employer; may
     sit down beside him at the hotel where they both stop for dinner;
     their votes may balance each other at any election; the laborer
     lives with those whose company suits him, and needs no character
     from his last place to secure him employment or a new job when he
     gets tired of the old one. But the sister never passes out of the
     atmosphere of caste--of conscious and galling inferiority to
     those with whom her days must be spent. There is no election day
     in her year, and but the ghost of a Fourth of July. She must live
     not with those she likes, but with those who want her; she is not
     always safe from libertine insult in what serves her for a home;
     she knows no ten-hour rule, and would not dare to claim its
     protection if one were enacted. Though not a slave by law, she is
     too often as near it in practice as one legally free can be.

     Now this disparity between the rewards of man's and woman's labor
     at the base of the social edifice, is carried up to its very
     pinnacle. Of a brother and sister equally qualified and effective
     as teachers, the brother will receive twice as much compensation
     as the sister. The mistress who conducts the rural district
     school in summer, usually receives less than half the monthly
     stipend that her brother does for teaching that same school in
     winter, when time and work are far less valuable; and here there
     can be no pretence of a disparity in capacity justifying that in
     wages. Between male and female workers in the factories and
     mills, the same difference is enforced.

     Who does not feel that this is intrinsically wrong? that the
     sister ought to have equal (not necessarily identical)
     opportunities with the brother--should be as well taught,
     industrially as well as intellectually, and her compensation made
     to correspond with her capacity, upon a clear understanding of
     the fact that, though her muscular power is less than his, yet
     her dexterity and celerity of manipulation are greater?

     Where does the wrong originate? Suppose that, by some inexorable
     law in the spirit of Hindoo caste, it were settled that <DW64>s,
     regardless of personal capacity, could do nothing for a living
     but black boots, and that red-haired men were allowed to engage
     in no avocation except horse-currying; who does not perceive
     that, though boot-blacking and horse-currying might be well and
     cheaply done, black-skinned and also red-haired men would have
     but a sorry chance for making a living? Who does not see that
     their wages, social standing, and means of securing independence,
     would be far inferior to those they now enjoy?

     The one great cause, therefore, of the inadequate compensation
     and inferior position of woman, is the unjust apportionment of
     avocation. Man has taken the lion's share to himself, and
     allotted the residue to woman, telling her to take that and be
     content with it, if she don't want to be regarded as a forward,
     indelicate, presuming, unwomanly creature, who is evidently no
     better than she should be. And woman has come for the most part
     to accept the lot thus assigned her, with thankfulness, or,
     rather, without thought, just as the Mussulman's wife rejoices in
     her sense of propriety which will not permit her to show her face
     in the street, and the Brahmin widow immolates herself on the
     funeral pyre of her husband.

     What is the appropriate remedy?

     Primarily and mainly, a more rational and healthful public
     sentiment with regard to woman's work; a sentiment which shall
     welcome her to every employment wherein she may be useful and
     efficient without necessarily compromising her purity or
     overtasking her strength. Let her be encouraged to open a store,
     to work a garden, plant and tend an orchard, to learn any of the
     lighter mechanical trades, to study for a profession, whenever
     her circumstances and her tastes shall render any of these
     desirable. Let woman, and the advocates of justice to women,
     encourage and patronize her in whatever laudable pursuits she may
     thus undertake; let them give a preference to dry-goods stores
     wherein the clerks are mainly women; and so as to hotels where
     they wait at table, mechanics' shops in which they are
     extensively employed and fairly paid. Let the ablest of the sex
     be called to the lecture-room, to the temperance rostrum, etc.;
     and whenever a post-office falls vacant and a deserving woman is
     competent to fill and willing to take it, let her be appointed,
     as a very few have already been. There will always be some widow
     of a poor clergyman, doctor, lawyer, or other citizens
     prematurely cut off, who will be found qualified for and glad to
     accept such a post if others will suggest her name and procure
     her appointment. Thus abstracting more and more of the competent
     and energetic from the restricted sphere wherein they now
     struggle with their sister for a meager and precarious
     subsistence, the greater mass of self-subsisting women will find
     the demand for their labor gradually increasing and its
     recompense proportionally enhancing. With a larger field and more
     decided usefulness will come a truer and deeper respect; and
     woman, no longer constrained to marry for a position, may always
     wait to marry worthily and in obedience to the dictates of
     sincere affection. Hence constancy, purity, mutual respect, a
     just independence and a little of happiness, may be reasonably
     anticipated.

          HORACE GREELEY, MARY VAUGHAN, ABRAHAM PRYNE,
                                    SARAH PELLET, MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE.


ALBANY CONVENTION.

FEBRUARY 14 AND 15, 1854.

Although the weather was inclement, a large audience assembled in
Association Hall on the morning of the 14th, representing the
different portions of the State. Susan B. Anthony called the
Convention to order and read the call, which had been written by Rev.
Wm. Henry Channing, and published in all the leading papers of the
State.

      JUSTICE TO WOMEN--CONVENTION AT ALBANY, FEB. 14 AND 15, 1854.

     The petition asking for such amendments in the Statutes and
     Constitution of New York as will secure to the women of the State
     legal equality with the men, and to females equally with the
     males a right to suffrage, will be presented to the Legislature
     about the middle of February. We, the Committee appointed at the
     Convention held at Rochester in December--by whose authority
     these petitions were issued--do hereby invite all
     fellow-citizens, of either sex, who are in favor of these
     measures, to assemble in Convention, at Albany, on Tuesday and
     Wednesday, February 14th and 15th.

     The so-called "Woman's Rights Movement" has been so much
     misrepresented, that it is desirable to make the appeal for
     justice earnest, imposing, and effective, by showing how
     eminently equitable are its principles, how wise and practical
     are its measures. Let the serious-minded, generous, hopeful men
     and women of New York then gather in council, to determine
     whether there is anything irrational or revolutionary in the
     proposal that fathers, brothers, husbands, sons, should treat
     their daughters, sisters, wives, and mothers as their peers. This
     reform is designed, by its originators, to make woman womanly in
     the highest sense of that term--to exalt, not to degrade--to
     perfect, not to impair her refining influence in every sphere.
     The demand is made only to take off burdens, to remove
     hindrances, to leave women free as men are free, to follow
     conscience and judgment in all scenes of duty. On what
     ground--except the right of might--do men, claiming to be
     Republicans and Christians, deny to woman privileges which they
     would die to gain and keep for themselves? What evil--what but
     good can come from enlarging woman's power of usefulness? How can
     society be otherwise than a gainer by the increased moral and
     mental influence of one-half of its members? Let these and
     similar questions be fairly, candidly, thoroughly discussed in
     the hearing of the Legislature of New York.

     Come then, fellow-citizens, to this Convention prepared to speak,
     to hear, to act. Lucy Stone, Wendell Phillips, Mrs. C. I. H.
     Nichols, and other earnest friends of the cause from New England
     and the West, as well as from our own State, are to be with us.
     And may the spirit of Truth preside over all.

          ELIZABETH C. STANTON, SAMUEL J. MAY, ERNESTINE L. ROSE,
            ANTOINETTE L. BROWN, WILLIAM HENRY CHANNING, WM. HAY,
            BURROUGHS PHILLIPS, LYDIA ANN JENKINS, SUSAN B. ANTHONY.

     Those having petitions in their hands will please send them to
     Susan B. Anthony, Rochester, until the first of February, after
     which they should be forwarded to Lydia Mott, Albany.

     N. B.--Editors please copy.
     _January 23, 1854._

The officers[126] of the Convention being reported, Mrs. Elizabeth
Cady Stanton (President) took the chair, and after returning her
acknowledgments for the honor conferred, introduced Rev. Antoinette L.
Brown, who read a series of resolutions:

     1. _Resolved_, That the men who claim to be Christian
     Republicans, and yet class their mothers, sisters, wives, and
     daughters among aliens, criminals, idiots, and minors, unfit to
     be their coequal citizens, are guilty of absurd inconsistency and
     presumption; that for males to govern females, without consent
     asked or granted, is to perpetuate an aristocracy, utterly
     hostile to the principles and spirit of free institutions; and
     that it is time for the people of the United States and every
     State in the Union to put away forever that remnant of despotism
     and feudal oligarchy, the caste of sex.

     2. _Resolved_, That women are human beings whose rights
     correspond with their duties; that they are endowed with
     conscience, reason, affection, and energy, for the use of which
     they are individually responsible; that like men they are bound
     to advance the cause of truth, justice, and universal good in the
     society and nation of which they are members; that in these
     United States women constitute one-half the people; men
     constitute the other half; that women are no more free in honor
     than men are to withhold their influence and example from
     patriotic and philanthropic movements, and that men who deny
     women to be their peers, and who shut them out from exercising a
     fair share of power in the body politic, are arrogant usurpers,
     whose only apology is to be found in prejudices transmitted from
     half-civilized and half-christianized ages.

     WHEREAS, The family is the nursery of the State and the
     Church--the God-appointed seminary of the human race. Therefore

     3. _Resolved_, That the family, by men as well as women, should
     be held more sacred than all other institutions; that it may not,
     without sin, be abandoned or neglected by fathers any more than
     by mothers, for the sake of any of the institutions devised by
     men--for the government of the State or the Nation any more than
     for the voluntary association of social reformers.

     4. _Resolved_, That women's duties and rights as daughters,
     sisters, wives, and mothers, are not bounded within the circle of
     home; that in view of the sacredness of their relations, they are
     not free to desert their fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons
     amidst scenes of business, politics, and pleasure, and to leave
     them alone in their struggles and temptations, but that as
     members of the human family, for the sake of human advancement,
     women are bound as widely as possible to give to men the
     influence of their aid and presence; and finally, that universal
     experience attests that those nations and societies are most
     orderly, high-toned, and rich in varied prosperity, where women
     most freely intermingle with men in all spheres of active life.

     5. _Resolved_, That the fundamental error of the whole structure
     of legislation and custom, whereby women are practically
     sustained, even in this republic, is the preposterous fiction of
     law, that in the eye of the law the husband and wife are one
     person, that person being the husband; that this falsehood
     itself, the deposit of barbarism, tends perpetually to brutalize
     the marriage relation by subjecting wives as irresponsible tools
     to the capricious authority of husbands; that this degradation of
     married women re-acts inevitably to depress the condition of
     single women, by impairing their own self-respect and man's
     respect for them; and that the final result is that system of
     tutelage miscalled protection, by which the industry of women is
     kept on half-pay, their affections trifled with, their energies
     crippled, and even their noblest aspirations wasted away in vain
     efforts, ennui, and regret.

     6. _Resolved_, That in consistency with the spirit and intent of
     the Statutes of New York, enacted in 1848 and 1849, the design of
     which was to secure to married women the entire control of their
     property, it is the duty of the Legislature to make such
     amendments in the laws of the State as will enable married women
     to conduct business, to form contracts, to sue and be sued in
     their own names--to receive and hold the gains of their industry,
     and be liable for their own debts so far as their interests are
     separate from those of their husbands--to become joint owners in
     the joint earnings of the partnership, so far as these interests
     are identified--to bear witness for or against their husbands,
     and generally to be held responsible for their own deeds.

     7. _Resolved_, That as acquiring property by all just and
     laudable means, and the holding and devising of the same is a
     human right, women married and single are entitled to this right,
     and all the usages or laws which withhold it from them are
     manifestly unjust.

     8. _Resolved_, That every argument in favor of universal suffrage
     for males is equally in favor of universal suffrage for females,
     and therefore if men may claim the right of suffrage as necessary
     to the protection of all their rights in any Government, so may
     women for the same reason.

     9. _Resolved_, That if man as man, has any peculiar claim to a
     representation in the government, for himself, woman as woman,
     has a paramount claim to an equal representation for herself.

     10. _Resolved_, Therefore, that whether you regard woman as like
     or unlike man, she is in either case entitled to an equal joint
     participation with him in all civil rights and duties.

     11. _Resolved_, That although men should grant us every specific
     claim, we should hold them all by favor rather than right, unless
     they also concede, and we exercise, the right of protecting
     ourselves by the elective franchise.

     12. _Resolved_, That if the essence of a trial by an "impartial
     jury" be a trial by one's own equals, then has never a woman
     enjoyed that privilege in the hour of her need as a culprit. We,
     therefore, respectfully demand of our Legislature that, at least,
     the right of such trial by jury be accorded to women equally with
     men--that women be eligible to the jury-box, whenever one of
     their own sex is arraigned at the bar.

     13. _Resolved_, That could the women of the State be heard on
     this question, we should find the mass with us; as the mother's
     reluctance to give up the guardianship of her children; the
     wife's unwillingness to submit to the abuse of a drunken husband,
     the general sentiment in favor of equal property rights, and the
     thousands of names in favor of our petition, raised with so
     little effort, conclusively prove.

     WHEREAS, The right of petition is guaranteed to every member of
     this republic; therefore

     14. _Resolved_, That it is the highest duty of legislators
     impartially to investigate all claims for the redress of wrong,
     and alter and amend such laws as prevent the administration of
     justice and equal rights to all.

     _Resolved_, That all true-hearted men and women pledge themselves
     never to relinquish their unceasing efforts in behalf of the full
     and equal rights of women, until we have effaced the stigma
     resting on this republic, that while it theoretically proclaims
     that all men are created equal, deprives one-half of its members
     of the enjoyment of the rights and privileges possessed by the
     other.

The salient points of the question as embodied in the resolutions and
the address were ably presented by William Henry Channing, Samuel J.
May, Mrs. Nichols, Mrs. Rose, Mrs. Love, Miss Brown, Miss Anthony,
Mrs. Jenkins, Hon. William Hay, and Giles B. Stebbins. At the evening
session Mrs. Stanton read her address prepared for the Legislature,
which Miss Anthony had stereotyped and published. A copy was laid on
the desk of every legislator, and twenty thousand scattered like
snow-flakes over the State.

                          MRS. STANTON'S ADDRESS.

     _To the Legislature of the State of New York_:

     "The thinking minds of all nations call for change. There is a
     deep-lying struggle in the whole fabric of society; a boundless,
     grinding collision of the New with the Old."

     The tyrant, Custom, has been summoned before the bar of
     Common-Sense. His majesty no longer awes the multitude--his
     sceptre is broken--his crown is trampled in the dust--the
     sentence of death is pronounced upon him. All nations, ranks, and
     classes have, in turn, questioned and repudiated his authority;
     and now, that the monster is chained and caged, timid woman, on
     tiptoe, comes to look him in the face, and to demand of her brave
     sires and sons, who have struck stout blows for liberty, if, in
     this change of dynasty, she, too, shall find relief. Yes,
     gentlemen, in republican America, in the nineteenth century, we,
     the daughters of the revolutionary heroes of '76, demand at your
     hands the redress of our grievances--a revision of your State
     Constitution--a new code of laws. Permit us then, as briefly as
     possible, to call your attention to the legal disabilities under
     which we labor.

     1st. Look at the position of woman as woman. It is not enough for
     us that, by your laws we are permitted to live and breathe, to
     claim the necessaries of life from our legal protectors--to pay
     the penalty of our crimes; we demand the full recognition of all
     our rights as citizens of the Empire State. We are persons;
     native, free-born citizens; property-holders, tax-payers; yet are
     we denied the exercise of our right to the elective franchise. We
     support ourselves, and, in part, your schools, colleges,
     churches, your poor-houses, jails, prisons, the army, the navy,
     the whole machinery of government, and yet we have no voice in
     your councils. We have every qualification required by the
     Constitution, necessary to the legal voter, but the one of sex.
     We are moral, virtuous, and intelligent, and in all respects
     quite equal to the proud white man himself, and yet by your laws
     we are classed with idiots, lunatics, and <DW64>s; and though we
     do not feel honored by the place assigned us, yet, in fact, our
     legal position is lower than that of either; for the <DW64> can be
     raised to the dignity of a voter if he possess himself of $250;
     the lunatic can vote in his moments of sanity, and the idiot,
     too, if he be a male one, and not more than nine-tenths a fool;
     but we, who have guided great movements of charity, established
     missions, edited journals, published works on history, economy,
     and statistics; who have governed nations, led armies, filled the
     professor's chair, taught philosophy and mathematics to the
     savants of our age, discovered planets, piloted ships across the
     sea, are denied the most sacred rights of citizens, because,
     forsooth, we came not into this republic crowned with the dignity
     of manhood! Woman is theoretically absolved from all allegiance
     to the laws of the State. Sec. 1, Bill of Rights, 2 R. S., 301,
     says that no authority can, on any pretence whatever, be
     exercised over the citizens of this State but such as is or shall
     be derived from, and granted by the people of this State.

     Now, gentlemen, we would fain know by what authority you have
     disfranchised one-half the people of this State? You who have so
     boldly taken possession of the bulwarks of this republic, show us
     your credentials, and thus prove your exclusive right to govern,
     not only yourselves, but us. Judge Hurlburt, who has long
     occupied a high place at the bar in this State, and who recently
     retired with honor from the bench of the Supreme Court, in his
     profound work on Human Rights, has pronounced your present
     position rank usurpation. Can it be that here, where we
     acknowledge no royal blood, no apostolic descent, that you, who
     have declared that all men were created equal--that governments
     derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, would
     willingly build up an aristocracy that places the ignorant and
     vulgar above the educated and refined--the alien and the
     ditch-digger above the authors and poets of the day--an
     aristocracy that would raise the sons above the mothers that bore
     them? Would that the men who can sanction a Constitution so
     opposed to the genius of this government, who can enact and
     execute laws so degrading to womankind, had sprung, Minerva-like,
     from the brains of their fathers, that the matrons of this
     republic need not blush to own their sons!

     Woman's position, under our free institutions, is much lower than
     under the monarchy of England. "In England the idea of woman
     holding official station is not so strange as in the United
     States. The Countess of Pembroke, Dorset, and Montgomery held the
     office of hereditary sheriff of Westmoreland, and exercised it in
     person. At the assizes at Appleby, she sat with the judges on the
     bench. In a reported case, it is stated by counsel, and
     substantially assented to by the court, that a woman is capable
     of serving in almost all the offices of the kingdom, such as
     those of queen, marshal, great chamberlain and constable of
     England, the champion of England, commissioner of sewers,
     governor of work-house, sexton, keeper of the prison, of the
     gate-house of the dean and chapter of Westminster, returning
     officer for members of Parliament, and constable, the latter of
     which is in some respects judicial. The office of jailor is
     frequently exercised by a woman.

     "In the United States a woman may administer on the effects of
     her deceased husband, and she has occasionally held a subordinate
     place in the post-office department. She has therefore a sort of
     post mortem, post-mistress notoriety; but with the exception of
     handling letters of administration and letters mailed, she is the
     submissive creature of the old common law." True, the unmarried
     woman has a right to the property she inherits and the money she
     earns, but she is taxed without representation. And here again
     you place the <DW64>, so unjustly degraded by you, in a superior
     position to your own wives and mothers; for  males, if
     possessed of a certain amount of property and certain other
     qualifications, can vote, but if they do not have these
     qualifications they are not subject to direct taxation; wherein
     they have the advantage of woman, she being subject to taxation
     for whatever amount she may possess. (Constitution of New York,
     Article 2, Sec. 2). But, say you, are not all women sufficiently
     represented by their fathers, husbands, and brothers? Let your
     statute books answer the question.

     Again we demand in criminal cases that most sacred of all rights,
     trial by a jury of our own peers. The establishment of trial by
     jury is of so early a date that its beginning is lost in
     antiquity; but the right of trial by a jury of one's own peers is
     a great progressive step of advanced civilization. No rank of men
     have ever been satisfied with being tried by jurors higher or
     lower in the civil or political scale than themselves; for
     jealousy on the one hand, and contempt on the other, has ever
     effectually blinded the eyes of justice. Hence, all along the
     pages of history, we find the king, the noble, the peasant, the
     cardinal, the priest, the layman, each in turn protesting against
     the authority of the tribunal before which they were summoned to
     appear. Charles the First refused to recognize the competency of
     the tribunal which condemned him: For how, said he, can subjects
     judge a king? The stern descendants of our Pilgrim Fathers
     refused to answer for their crimes before an English Parliament.
     For how, said they, can a king judge rebels? And shall woman here
     consent to be tried by her liege lord, who has dubbed himself
     law-maker, judge, juror, and sheriff too?--whose power, though
     sanctioned by Church and State, has no foundation in justice and
     equity, and is a bold assumption of our inalienable rights. In
     England a Parliament-lord could challenge a jury where a knight
     was not empanneled; an alien could demand a jury composed half of
     his own countrymen; or, in some special cases, juries were even
     constituted entirely of women. Having seen that man fails to do
     justice to woman in her best estate, to the virtuous, the noble,
     the true of our sex, should we trust to his tender mercies the
     weak, the ignorant, the morally insane? It is not to be denied
     that the interests of man and woman in the present undeveloped
     state of the race, and under the existing social arrangements,
     are and must be antagonistic. The nobleman can not make just laws
     for the peasant; the slaveholder for the slave; neither can man
     make and execute just laws for woman, because in each case, the
     one in power fails to apply the immutable principles of right to
     any grade but his own.

     Shall an erring woman be dragged before a bar of grim-visaged
     judges, lawyers, and jurors, there to be grossly questioned in
     public on subjects which women scarce breathe in secret to one
     another? Shall the most sacred relations of life be called up and
     rudely scanned by men who, by their own admission, are so coarse
     that women could not meet them even at the polls without
     contamination? and yet shall she find there no woman's face or
     voice to pity and defend? Shall the frenzied mother, who, to save
     herself and child from exposure and disgrace, ended the life
     that had but just begun, be dragged before such a tribunal to
     answer for her crime? How can man enter into the feelings of that
     mother? How can he judge of the agonies of soul that impelled her
     to such an outrage of maternal instincts? How can he weigh the
     mountain of sorrow that crushed that mother's heart when she
     wildly tossed her helpless babe into the cold waters of the
     midnight sea? Where is he who by false vows thus blasted this
     trusting woman? Had that helpless child no claims on his
     protection? Ah, he is freely abroad in the dignity of manhood, in
     the pulpit, on the bench, in the professor's chair. The
     imprisonment of his victim and the death of his child, detract
     not a tithe from his standing and complacency. His peers made the
     law, and shall law-makers lay nets for those of their own rank?
     Shall laws which come from the logical brain of man take
     cognizance of violence done to the moral and affectional nature
     which predominates, as is said, in woman?

     Statesmen of New York, whose daughters, guarded by your
     affection, and lapped amidst luxuries which your indulgence
     spreads, care more for their nodding plumes and velvet trains
     than for the statute laws by which their persons and properties
     are held--who, blinded by custom and prejudice to the degraded
     position which they and their sisters occupy in the civil scale,
     haughtily claim that they already have all the rights they want,
     how, think ye, you would feel to see a daughter summoned for such
     a crime--and remember these daughters are but human--before such
     a tribunal? Would it not, in that hour, be some consolation to
     see that she was surrounded by the wise and virtuous of her own
     sex; by those who had known the depth of a mother's love and the
     misery of a lover's falsehood; to know that to these she could
     make her confession, and from them receive her sentence? If so,
     then listen to our just demands and make such a change in your
     laws as will secure to every woman tried in your courts, an
     impartial jury. At this moment among the hundreds of women who
     are shut up in prisons in this State, not one has enjoyed that
     most sacred of all rights--that right which you would die to
     defend for yourselves--trial by a jury of one's peers.

     2d. Look at the position of woman as wife. Your laws relating to
     marriage--founded as they are on the old common law of England, a
     compound of barbarous usages, but partially modified by
     progressive civilization--are in open violation of our
     enlightened ideas of justice, and of the holiest feelings of our
     nature. If you take the highest view of marriage, as a Divine
     relation, which love alone can constitute and sanctify, then of
     course human legislation can only recognize it. Men can neither
     bind nor loose its ties, for that prerogative belongs to God
     alone, who makes man and woman, and the laws of attraction by
     which they are united. But if you regard marriage as a civil
     contract, then let it be subject to the same laws which control
     all other contracts. Do not make it a kind of half-human,
     half-divine institution, which you may build up, but can not
     regulate. Do not, by your special legislation for this one kind
     of contract, involve yourselves in the grossest absurdities and
     contradictions.

     So long as by your laws no man can make a contract for a horse or
     piece of land until he is twenty-one years of age, and by which
     contract he is not bound if any deception has been practiced, or
     if the party contracting has not fulfilled his part of the
     agreement--so long as the parties in all mere civil contracts
     retain their identity and all the power and independence they had
     before contracting, with the full right to dissolve all
     partnerships and contracts for any reason, at the will and option
     of the parties themselves, upon what principle of civil
     jurisprudence do you permit the boy of fourteen and the girl of
     twelve, in violation of every natural law, to make a contract
     more momentous in importance than any other, and then hold them
     to it, come what may, the whole of their natural lives, in spite
     of disappointment, deception, and misery? Then, too, the signing
     of this contract is instant civil death to one of the parties.
     The woman who but yesterday was sued on bended knee, who stood so
     high in the scale of being as to make an agreement on equal terms
     with a proud Saxon man, to-day has no civil existence, no social
     freedom. The wife who inherits no property holds about the same
     legal position that does the slave on the Southern plantation.
     She can own nothing, sell nothing. She has no right even to the
     wages she earns; her person, her time, her services are the
     property of another. She can not testify, in many cases, against
     her husband. She can get no redress for wrongs in her own name in
     any court of justice. She can neither sue nor be sued. She is not
     held morally responsible for any crime committed in the presence
     of her husband, so completely is her very existence supposed by
     the law to be merged in that of another. Think of it; your wives
     may be thieves, libelers, burglars, incendiaries, and for crimes
     like these they are not held amenable to the laws of the land, if
     they but commit them in your dread presence. For them, alas!
     there is no higher law than the will of man. Herein behold the
     bloated conceit of these Petruchios of the law, who seem to say:

          "Nay, look not big, nor stamp, nor stare, nor fret,
          I will be master of what is mine own;
          She is my goods, my chattels; she is my house,
          My household stuff, my field, my barn,
          My horse, my ox, my ass, my anything;
          And here she stands, touch her whoever dare;
          I'll bring my action on the proudest he,
          That stops my way, in Padua."

     How could man ever look thus on woman? She, at whose feet
     Socrates learned wisdom--she, who gave to the world a Saviour,
     and witnessed alike the adoration of the Magi and the agonies of
     the cross. How could such a being, so blessed and honored, ever
     become the ignoble, servile, cringing slave, with whom the fear
     of man could be paramount to the sacred dictates of conscience
     and the holy love of Heaven? By the common law of England, the
     spirit of which has been but too faithfully incorporated into our
     statute law, a husband has a right to whip his wife with a rod
     not larger than his thumb, to shut her up in a room, and
     administer whatever moderate chastisement he may deem necessary
     to insure obedience to his wishes, and for her healthful moral
     development! He can forbid all persons harboring or trusting her
     on his account. He can deprive her of all social intercourse with
     her nearest and dearest friends. If by great economy she
     accumulates a small sum, which for future need she deposit,
     little by little, in a savings bank, the husband has a right to
     draw it out, at his option, to use it as he may see fit.

     "Husband is entitled to wife's credit or business talents
     (whenever their inter-marriage may have occurred); and goods
     purchased by her on her own credit, with his consent, while
     cohabiting with him, can be seized and sold in execution against
     him for his own debts, and this, though she carry on business in
     her own name."--7 _Howard's Practice Reports, 105, Lovett agt.
     Robinson and Whitbeck, sheriff, etc_.

     "No letters of administration shall be granted to a person
     convicted of infamous crime; nor to any one incapable by law of
     making a contract; nor to a person not a citizen of the United
     States, unless such person reside within this State; nor to any
     one who is under twenty-one years of age; nor to any person who
     shall be adjudged incompetent by the surrogate to execute duties
     of such trust, by reason of drunkenness, improvidence, or want of
     understanding, nor to any married woman; but where a married
     woman is entitled to administration, the same may be granted to
     her husband in her right and behalf."

     There is nothing that an unruly wife might do against which the
     husband has not sufficient protection in the law. But not so with
     the wife. If she have a worthless husband, a confirmed drunkard,
     a villain, or a vagrant, he has still all the rights of a man, a
     husband, and a father. Though the whole support of the family be
     thrown upon the wife, if the wages she earns be paid to her by
     her employer, the husband can receive them again. If, by
     unwearied industry and perseverance, she can earn for herself and
     children a patch of ground and a shed to cover them, the husband
     can strip her of all her hard earnings, turn her and her little
     ones out in the cold northern blast, take the clothes from their
     backs, the bread from their mouths; all this by your laws may he
     do, and has he done, oft and again, to satisfy the rapacity of
     that monster in human form, the rum-seller.

     But the wife who is so fortunate as to have inherited property,
     has, by the new law in this State, been redeemed from her lost
     condition. She is no longer a legal nonentity. This property law,
     if fairly construed, will overturn the whole code relating to
     woman and property. The right to property implies the right to
     buy and sell, to will and bequeath, and herein is the dawning of
     a civil existence for woman, for now the "femme covert" must have
     the right to make contracts. So, get ready, gentlemen; the
     "little justice" will be coming to you one day, deed in hand, for
     your acknowledgment. When he asks you "if you sign without fear
     or compulsion," say yes, boldly, as we do. Then, too, the right
     to will is ours. Now what becomes of the "tenant for life"? Shall
     he, the happy husband of a millionaire, who has lived in yonder
     princely mansion in the midst of plenty and elegance, be cut down
     in a day to the use of one-third of this estate and a few hundred
     a year, as long he remains her widower? And should he, in spite
     of this bounty on celibacy, impelled by his affections, marry
     again, choosing for a wife a woman as poor as himself, shall he
     be thrown penniless on the cold world--this child of fortune,
     enervated by ease and luxury, henceforth to be dependent wholly
     on his own resources? Poor man! He would be rich, though, in the
     sympathies of many women who have passed through just such an
     ordeal. But what is property without the right to protect that
     property by law? It is mockery to say a certain estate is mine,
     if, without my consent, you have the right to tax me when and how
     you please, while I have no voice in making the tax-gatherer,
     the legislator, or the law. The right to property will, of
     necessity, compel us in due time to the exercise of our right to
     the elective franchise, and then naturally follows the right to
     hold office.

     3d. Look at the position of woman as widow. Whenever we attempt
     to point out the wrongs of the wife, those who would have us
     believe that the laws can not be improved, point us to the
     privileges, powers, and claims of the widow. Let us look into
     these a little. Behold in yonder humble house a married pair,
     who, for long years, have lived together, childless and alone.
     Those few acres of well-tilled land, with the small, white house
     that looks so cheerful through its vines and flowers, attest the
     honest thrift and simple taste of its owners. This man and woman,
     by their hard days' labor, have made this home their own. Here
     they live in peace and plenty, happy in the hope that they may
     dwell together securely under their own vine and fig-tree for the
     few years that remain to them, and that under the shadow of these
     trees, planted by their own hands, and in the midst of their
     household gods, so loved and familiar, they may take their last
     farewell of earth. But, alas for human hopes! the husband dies,
     and without a will, and the stricken widow, at one fell blow,
     loses the companion of her youth, her house and home, and half
     the little sum she had in bank. For the law, which takes no
     cognizance of widows left with twelve children and not one cent,
     instantly spies out this widow, takes account of her effects, and
     announces to her the startling intelligence that but one-third of
     the house and lot, and one-half the personal property, are hers.
     The law has other favorites with whom she must share the
     hard-earned savings of years. In this dark hour of grief, the
     coarse minions of the law gather round the widow's hearth-stone,
     and, in the name of justice, outrage all natural sense of right;
     mock at the sacredness of human love, and with cold familiarity
     proceed to place a moneyed value on the old arm-chair, in which,
     but a few brief hours since, she closed the eyes that had ever
     beamed on her with kindness and affection; on the solemn clock in
     the corner, that told the hour he passed away; on every garment
     with which his form and presence were associated, and on every
     article of comfort and convenience that the house contained, even
     down to the knives and forks and spoons--and the widow saw it
     all--and when the work was done, she gathered up what the law
     allowed her and went forth to seek another home! This is the
     much-talked-of widow's dower. Behold the magnanimity of the law
     in allowing the widow to retain a life interest in one-third the
     landed estate, and one-half the personal property of her husband,
     and taking the lion's share to itself! Had she died first, the
     house and land would all have been the husband's still. No one
     would have dared to intrude upon the privacy of his home, or to
     molest him in his sacred retreat of sorrow. How, I ask you, can
     that be called justice, which makes such a distinction as this
     between man and woman?

     By management, economy, and industry, our widow is able, in a few
     years, to redeem her house and home. But the law never loses
     sight of the purse, no matter how low in the scale of being its
     owner may be. It sends its officers round every year to gather in
     the harvest for the public crib, and no widow who owns a piece of
     land two feet square ever escapes this reckoning. Our widow, too,
     who has now twice earned her home, has her annual tax to pay
     also--a tribute of gratitude that she is permitted to breathe the
     free air of this republic, where "taxation without
     representation," by such worthies as John Hancock and Samuel
     Adams, has been declared "intolerable tyranny." Having glanced at
     the magnanimity of the law in its dealings with the widow, let us
     see how the individual man, under the influence of such laws,
     doles out justice to his helpmate. The husband has the absolute
     right to will away his property as he may see fit. If he has
     children, he can divide his property among them, leaving his wife
     her third only of the landed estate, thus making her a dependent
     on the bounty of her own children. A man with thirty thousand
     dollars in personal property, may leave his wife but a few
     hundred a year, as long as she remains his widow.

     The cases are without number where women, who have lived in ease
     and elegance, at the death of their husbands have, by will, been
     reduced to the bare necessaries of life. The man who leaves his
     wife the sole guardian of his property and children is an
     exception to the general rule. Man has ever manifested a wish
     that the world should indeed be a blank to the companion whom he
     leaves behind him. The Hindoo makes that wish a law, and burns
     the widow on the funeral pyre of her husband; but the civilized
     man, impressed with a different view of the sacredness of life,
     takes a less summary mode of drawing his beloved partner after
     him; he does it by the deprivation and starvation of the flesh,
     and the humiliation and mortification of the spirit. In
     bequeathing to the wife just enough to keep soul and body
     together, man seems to lose sight of the fact that woman, like
     himself, takes great pleasure in acts of benevolence and charity.
     It is but just, therefore, that she should have it in her power
     to give during her life, and to will away at her death, as her
     benevolence or obligations might prompt her to do.

     4th. Look at the position of woman as mother. There is no human
     love so strong and steadfast as that of the mother for her child;
     yet behold how ruthless are your laws touching this most sacred
     relation. Nature has clearly made the mother the guardian of the
     child; but man, in his inordinate love of power, does continually
     set nature and nature's laws at open defiance. The father may
     apprentice his child, bind him out to a trade, without the
     mother's consent--yea, in direct opposition to her most earnest
     entreaties, prayers and tears.

     He may apprentice his son to a gamester or rum-seller, and thus
     cancel his debts of _honor_. By the abuse of this absolute power,
     he may bind his daughter to the owner of a brothel, and, by the
     degradation of his child, supply his daily wants: and such
     things, gentlemen, have been done in our very midst. Moreover,
     the father, about to die, may bind out all his children wherever
     and to whomsoever he may see fit, and thus, in fact, will away
     the guardianship of all his children from the mother. The Revised
     Statutes of New York provide that "every father, whether of full
     age or a minor, of a child to be born, or of any living child
     under the age of twenty-one years, and unmarried, may by his deed
     or last will, duly executed, dispose of the custody and tuition
     of such child during its minority, or for any less time, to any
     person or persons, in possession or remainder." 2 R. S., page
     150, sec. 1. Thus, by your laws, the child is the absolute
     property of the father, wholly at his disposal in life or at
     death.

     In case of separation, the law gives the children to the father;
     no matter what his character or condition. At this very time we
     can point you to noble, virtuous, well-educated mothers in this
     State, who have abandoned their husbands for their profligacy and
     confirmed drunkenness. All these have been robbed of their
     children, who are in the custody of the husband, under the care
     of his relatives, whilst the mothers are permitted to see them
     but at stated intervals. But, said one of these mothers, with a
     grandeur of attitude and manner worthy the noble Roman matron in
     the palmiest days of that republic, I would rather never see my
     child again, than be the medium to hand down the low animal
     nature of its father, to stamp degradation on the brow of another
     innocent being. It is enough that one child of his shall call me
     mother.

     If you are far-sighted statesmen, and do wisely judge of the
     interests of this commonwealth, you will so shape your future
     laws as to encourage woman to take the high moral ground that the
     father of her children must be great and good. Instead of your
     present laws, which make the mother and her children the victims
     of vice and license, you might rather pass laws prohibiting to
     all drunkards, libertines, and fools, the rights of husbands and
     fathers. Do not the hundreds of laughing idiots that are crowding
     into our asylums, appeal to the wisdom of our statesmen for some
     new laws on marriage--to the mothers of this day for a higher,
     purer morality?

     Again, as the condition of the child always follows that of the
     mother, and as by the sanction of your laws the father may beat
     the mother, so may he the child. What mother can not bear me
     witness to untold sufferings which cruel, vindictive fathers have
     visited upon their helpless children? Who ever saw a human being
     that would not abuse unlimited power? Base and ignoble must that
     man be who, let the provocation be what it may, would strike a
     woman; but he who would lacerate a trembling child is unworthy
     the name of man. A mother's love can be no protection to a child;
     she can not appeal to you to save it from a father's cruelty, for
     the laws take no cognizance of the mother's most grievous wrongs.
     Neither at home nor abroad can a mother protect her son. Look at
     the temptations that surround the paths of our youth at every
     step; look at the gambling and drinking saloons, the club rooms,
     the dens of infamy and abomination that infest all our villages
     and cities--slowly but surely sapping the very foundations of all
     virtue and strength.

     By your laws, all these abominable resorts are permitted. It is
     folly to talk of a mother moulding the character of her son, when
     all mankind, backed up by law and public sentiment, conspire to
     destroy her influence. But when woman's moral power shall speak
     through the ballot-box, then shall her influence be seen and
     felt; then, in our legislative debates, such questions as the
     canal tolls on salt, the improvement of rivers and harbors, and
     the claims of Mr. Smith for damages against the State, would be
     secondary to the consideration of the legal existence of all
     these public resorts, which lure our youth on to excessive
     indulgence and destruction.

     Many times and oft it has been asked us, with, unaffected
     seriousness, "What do you women want? What are you aiming at?"
     Many have manifested a laudable curiosity to know what the wives
     and daughters could complain of in republican America, where
     their sires and sons have so bravely fought for freedom and
     gloriously secured their independence, trampling all tyranny,
     bigotry, and caste in the dust, and declaring to a waiting world
     the divine truth that all men are created equal. What can woman
     want under such a government? Admit a radical difference in sex,
     and you demand different spheres--water for fish, and air for
     birds.

     It is impossible to make the Southern planter believe that his
     slave feels and reasons just as he does--that injustice and
     subjection are as galling as to him--that the degradation of
     living by the will of another, the mere dependent on his caprice,
     at the mercy of his passions, is as keenly felt by him as his
     master. If you can force on his unwilling vision a vivid picture
     of the <DW64>'s wrongs, and for a moment touch his soul, his logic
     brings him instant consolation. He says, the slave does not feel
     this as I would. Here, gentlemen, is our difficulty: When we
     plead our cause before the law-makers and savants of the
     republic, they can not take in the idea that men and women are
     alike; and so long as the mass rest in this delusion, the public
     mind will not be so much startled by the revelations made of the
     injustice and degradation of woman's position as by the fact that
     she should at length wake up to a sense of it.

     If you, too, are thus deluded, what avails it that we show by
     your statute books that your laws are unjust--that woman is the
     victim of avarice and power? What avails it that we point out the
     wrongs of woman in social life; the victim of passion and lust?
     You scorn the thought that she has any natural love of freedom
     burning in her breast, any clear perception of justice urging her
     on to demand her rights.

     Would to God you could know the burning indignation that fills
     woman's soul when she turns over the pages of your statute books,
     and sees there how like feudal barons you freemen hold your
     women. Would that you could know the humiliation she feels for
     sex, when she thinks of all the beardless boys in your law
     offices, learning these ideas of one-sided justice--taking their
     first lessons in contempt for all womankind--being indoctrinated
     into the incapacities of their mothers, and the lordly, absolute
     rights of man over all women, children, and property, and to know
     that these are to be our future presidents, judges, husbands, and
     fathers; in sorrow we exclaim, alas! for that nation whose sons
     bow not in loyalty to woman. The mother is the first object of
     the child's veneration and love, and they who root out this holy
     sentiment, dream not of the blighting effect it has on the boy
     and the man. The impression left on law students, fresh from your
     statute books, is most unfavorable to woman's influence; hence
     you see but few lawyers chivalrous and high-toned in their
     sentiments toward woman. They can not escape the legal view
     which, by constant reading, has become familiarized to their
     minds: "_Femme covert_," "dower," "widow's claims," "protection,"
     "incapacities," "incumbrance," is written on the brow of every
     woman they meet.

     But if, gentlemen, you take the ground that the sexes are alike,
     and, therefore, you are our faithful representatives--then why
     all these special laws for woman? Would not one code answer for
     all of like needs and wants? Christ's golden rule is better than
     all the special legislation that the ingenuity of man can devise:
     "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." This, men
     and brethren, is all we ask at your hands. We ask no better laws
     than those you have made for yourselves. We need no other
     protection than that which your present laws secure to you.

     In conclusion, then, let us say, in behalf of the women of this
     State, we ask for all that you have asked for yourselves in the
     progress of your development, since the _Mayflower_ cast anchor
     beside Plymouth rock; and simply on the ground that the rights of
     every human being are the same and identical. You may say that
     the mass of the women of this State do not make the demand; it
     comes from a few sour, disappointed old maids and childless
     women.

     You are mistaken; the mass speak through us. A very large
     majority of the women of this State support themselves and their
     children, and many their husbands too. Go into any village you
     please, of three or four thousand inhabitants, and you will find
     as many as fifty men or more, whose only business is to discuss
     religion and politics, as they watch the trains come and go at
     the depot, or the passage of a canal boat through a lock; to
     laugh at the vagaries of some drunken brother, or the capers of a
     monkey dancing to the music of his master's organ. All these are
     supported by their mothers, wives, or sisters.

     Now, do you candidly think these wives do not wish to control the
     wages they earn--to own the land they buy--the houses they build?
     to have at their disposal their own children, without being
     subject to the constant interference and tyranny of an idle,
     worthless profligate? Do you suppose that any woman is such a
     pattern of devotion and submission that she willingly stitches
     all day for the small sum of fifty cents, that she may enjoy the
     unspeakable privilege, in obedience to your laws, of paying for
     her husband's tobacco and rum? Think you the wife of the
     confirmed, beastly drunkard would consent to share with him her
     home and bed, if law and public sentiment would release her from
     such gross companionship? Verily, no! Think you the wife with
     whom endurance has ceased to be a virtue, who, through much
     suffering, has lost all faith in the justice of both heaven and
     earth, takes the law in her own hand, severs the unholy bond, and
     turns her back forever upon him whom she once called husband,
     consents to the law that in such an hour tears her child from
     her--all that she has left on earth to love and cherish? The
     drunkards' wives speak through us, and they number 50,000. Think
     you that the woman who has worked hard all her days in helping
     her husband to accumulate a large property, consents to the law
     that places this wholly at his disposal? Would not the mother
     whose only child is bound out for a term of years against her
     expressed wish, deprive the father of this absolute power if she
     could?

     For all these, then, we speak. If to this long list you add the
     laboring women who are loudly demanding remuneration for their
     unending toil; those women who teach in our seminaries,
     academies, and public schools for a miserable pittance; the
     widows who are taxed without mercy; the unfortunate ones in our
     work-houses, poor-houses, and prisons; who are they that we do
     not now represent? But a small class of the fashionable
     butterflies, who, through the short summer days, seek the
     sunshine and the flowers; but the cool breezes of autumn and the
     hoary frosts of winter will soon chase all these away; then they,
     too, will need and seek protection, and through other lips demand
     in their turn justice and equity at your hands.

The friends of woman suffrage may be said to have fairly held a
protracted meeting during the two following weeks in Albany, with
hearings before both branches of the Legislature, and lectures evening
after evening in Association Hall, by Mrs. Rose, Mr. Channing, Mr.
Phillips, and Miss Brown, culminating in a discussion by the entire
press of the city and State; for all the journals had something to say
on one side or the other, Mrs. Rose, Mr. Channing, Miss Brown, and
several anonymous writers taking part in the newspaper debate. As this
was the first Convention held at the Capitol, it roused considerable
agitation on every phase of the question, not only among the
legislators on the bills before them, but among the people throughout
the State.

     _The Albany Transcript_ thus sums up the WOMAN'S RIGHTS
     CONVENTION.--The meeting last evening was attended by the largest
     and most brilliant audience of the series. A large number of
     members of the Legislature were there, and a full representation
     of our most influential citizens. Indeed they could not have
     asked for a more numerous or talented body of hearers. Mrs. Rose
     was the sole speaker, owing to the necessity which had called the
     others away.... She was listened to with the most profound
     attention, and encouraged by frequent and prolonged applause.

     Thus has ended the first Convention of women designed to
     influence political action. On Monday the 6,000 petitions will be
     presented in the Legislature, and the address be placed on the
     members' tables. Whatever may be the final disposition of the
     matter, it is well to make a note of this _first effort_ to
     influence the Legislature. It was originated by Miss Susan B.
     Anthony, and has been managed financially by her. Though a
     stranger amongst us, she has made the contracts for the room,
     advertised in the papers, employed the speakers, published the
     address, and performed much other arduous labor.

     Mrs. Nichols, one of the speakers, has long been connected with
     the press, and is a woman of no mean ability. Her mild, beaming
     countenance and the affectionate tones of her voice, disprove
     that she is any less a woman than those who do not "speak in
     public on the stage." Mrs. Love is a new caterer to public favor,
     and promises well. Some have remarked that she is well named,
     being a "Love of a woman." Mrs. Jenkins is a fluent and agreeable
     speaker, and has a good degree of power in swaying an audience.
     But Mrs. Rose is the queen of the company. On the educational
     question in particular, she rises to a high standard of
     oratorical power. When speaking of Hungary and her own crushed
     Poland, she is full of eloquence and pathos, and she has as great
     a power to chain an audience as any of our best male speakers.

     _The Evening Journal_ (Thurlow Weed, editor): WOMAN'S
     RIGHTS.--Mr. Channing and Mrs. Rose pleaded the cause of woman's
     rights before the Senate Committee of bachelors yesterday. The
     only effect produced was a determination more fixed than ever in
     the minds of the committee, to _remain_ bachelors in the event of
     the success of the movement. And who would blame them?

     The same champions, with others probably, will speak to the House
     Committee in the Assembly Chamber this afternoon; and Mr.
     Channing and Mrs. Rose make addresses in Association Hall this
     evening. Price twenty-five cents.

     _The Albany Register_: WOMEN IN THE SENATE CHAMBER.--The Senate
     was alarmed yesterday afternoon. It surrendered to progress. The
     Select Committee to whom the women's rights petitions had been
     referred, took their seats on the president's platform, looking
     as grave as possible. Never had Senators Robertson, Yost, and
     Field been in such responsible circumstances. They were calm, but
     evidently felt themselves in great peril.

     In the circle of the Senate, ranged in invincible row, sat seven
     ladies, from quite pretty to quite plain.

Ernestine L. Rose and Rev. William Henry Channing presented the
arguments and appeals to the Committee, and Mrs. Rose invited them to
ask questions. _The Register_ concludes:

     The Honorable Senators quailed beneath the trial. There was a
     terrible silence, and the audience eager to hear what the other
     ladies had to say, were wretched when they found that the
     Committee had silently dissolved--surrendered. Oh, what a fall
     was there, my countrymen!

     _The Albany Argus_ of March 4th, says: THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN
     DEFINED BY THEMSELVES.--Miss Anthony and Mrs. Rose before the
     House Committee, March 3d. The Committee took their seats in the
     clerk's desk, and the ladies took possession of the members'
     seats, filling the chamber, many members of the Legislature being
     present. Miss Anthony presented a paper prepared by Judge William
     Hay, of Saratoga, asking that husband and wife should be tenants
     in common of property without survivorship, but with a partition
     on the death of one; that a wife shall be competent to discharge
     trusts and powers the same as a single woman; that the statute in
     respect to a married woman's property descend as though she had
     been unmarried; that married women shall be entitled to execute
     letters testamentary, and of administration; that married women
     shall have power to make contracts and transact business as
     though unmarried; that they shall be entitled to their own
     earnings, subject to their proportionable liability for support
     of children; that post-nuptial acquisitions shall belong equally
     to husband and wife; that married women shall stand on the same
     footing with single women, as parties or witnesses in legal
     proceedings; that they shall be sole guardians of their minor
     children; that the homestead shall be inviolable and inalienable
     for widows and children; that the laws in relation to divorce
     shall be revised, and drunkenness made cause for absolute
     divorce; that better care shall be taken of single women's
     property, that their rights may not be lost through ignorance,
     that the preference of males in descent of real estate shall be
     abolished; that women shall exercise "the right of suffrage," and
     be eligible to all offices, occupations, and professions;
     entitled to act as jurors; eligible to all public offices; that
     courts of conciliation shall be organized as peace-makers; that a
     law shall be enacted extending the masculine designation in all
     statutes of the State to females.

     Mrs. Rose then addressed the Committee, saying: The right of
     petition is of no avail unless the reform demanded be candidly
     considered by the legislators. We judge of the intellectual
     inferiority of our fellow-men by the amount of resistance they
     oppose to oppression, and to some extent we judge correctly by
     this test. The same rule holds good for women; while they tamely
     submit to the many inequalities under which they labor, they
     scarcely deserve to be freed from them.... These are not the
     demands of the moment or the few; they are the demands of the
     age; of the second half of the nineteenth century. The world will
     endure after us, and future generations may look back to this
     meeting to acknowledge that a great onward step was here taken
     in the cause of human progress.

     Mrs. Rose took her seat amidst great applause from the galleries
     and lobbies. The Committee adjourned.

       *       *       *       *       *

     _Albany Register_, March 7: WOMAN'S RIGHTS IN THE
     LEGISLATURE.--While the feminine propagandists of women's rights
     confined themselves to the exhibition of short petticoats and
     long-legged boots, and to the holding of Conventions, and
     speech-making in concert-rooms, the people were disposed to be
     amused by them, as they are by the wit of the clown in the
     circus, or the performances of Punch and Judy on fair days, or
     the minstrelsy of gentlemen with blackened faces, on banjos, the
     tambourine, and bones. But the joke is becoming stale. People are
     getting cloyed with these performances, and are looking for some
     healthier and more intellectual amusement. The ludicrous is
     wearing away, and disgust is taking the place of pleasurable
     sensations, arising from the novelty of this new phase of
     hypocrisy and infidel fanaticism. People are beginning to inquire
     how far public sentiment should sanction or tolerate these
     unsexed women, who make a scoff of religion, who repudiate the
     Bible and blaspheme God; who would step out from the true sphere
     of the mother, the wife, and the daughter, and taking upon
     themselves the duties and the business of men, stalk into the
     public gaze, and by engaging in the politics, the rough
     controversies, and trafficking of the world, upheave existing
     institutions, and overturn all the social relations of life.

     It is a melancholy reflection, that among our American women who
     have been educated to better things, there should be found any
     who are willing to follow the lead of such foreign propagandists
     as the ringleted, glove-handed exotic, Ernestine L. Rose. We can
     understand how such men as the Rev. Mr. May, or the sleek-headed
     Dr. Channing may be deluded by her to becoming her disciples.
     They are not the first instances of infatuation that may overtake
     weak-minded men, if they are honest in their devotion to her and
     her doctrines. Nor would they be the first examples of a low
     ambition that seeks notoriety as a substitute for true fame, if
     they are dishonest. Such men there are always, and honest or
     dishonest, their true position is that of being tied to the
     apron-strings of some "strong-minded woman," and to be exhibited
     as rare specimens of human wickedness, or human weakness and
     folly. But, that one educated American woman should become her
     disciple and follow her infidel and insane teachings, is a
     marvel.

     Ernestine L. Rose came to this country, as she says, from Poland,
     whence she was compelled to fly in pursuit of freedom. Seeing her
     course here, we can well imagine this to be true. In no other
     country in the world, save possibly one, would her infidel
     propagandism and preachings in regard to the social relations of
     life be tolerated. She would be prohibited by the powers of
     government from her efforts to obliterate from the world the
     religion of the Cross--to banish the Bible as a text-book of
     faith, and to overturn social institutions that have existed
     through all political and governmental revolutions from the
     remotest time. The strong hand of the law would be laid upon
     her, and she would be compelled back to her woman's sphere. But
     in this country, such is the freedom of our institutions, and we
     rejoice that it should be so, that she, and such as she, can give
     their genius for intrigue full sway. They can exhibit their
     flowing ringlets and beautiful hands, their winning smiles and
     charming stage attitudes to admiring audiences, who, while they
     are willing to be amused, are in the main safe from their
     corrupting theories and demoralizing propagandism.

     The laws and the theory of our government suppose that the people
     are capable of taking care of themselves, and hence need no
     protection against the wiles of domestic or foreign mountebanks,
     whether in petticoats or in breeches and boots. But it never was
     contemplated that these exotic agitators would come up to our
     legislators and ask for the passage of laws upholding and
     sanctioning their wild and foolish doctrines. That was a stretch
     of folly, a flight of impudence which was hardly regarded as
     possible. It was to be imagined, of course, that they would
     enlist as their followers, here and there one among the restless
     old maids and visionary wives who chanced to be unevenly
     tempered, as well as unevenly yoked. It was also to be assumed,
     as within the range of possibility, that they might bring within
     the sphere of their attractions, weak-minded, restless men, who
     think in their vanity that they have been marked out for great
     things, and failed to be appreciated by the world, men who comb
     their hair smoothly back, and with fingers locked across their
     stomachs, speak in a soft voice, and with upturned eyes. But no
     man supposed they would abandon their "private theatricals" and
     walk up to the Capitol, and insist that the performances shall be
     held in legislative halls. And yet so it is.

     This Mrs. Ernestine L. Rose, with a train of followers, like a
     great kite with a very long tail, has, for a week, been amusing
     Senatorial and Assembly Committees, with her woman's rights
     performances, free of charge, unless the waste of time that might
     be better employed in the necessary and legitimate business of
     legislation, may be regarded as a charge. Those committees have
     sat for hours, grave and solemn as owls, listening to the
     outpourings of fanaticism and folly of this Polish propagandist,
     Mrs. Ernestine L. Rose, and her followers in pantalets and short
     gowns. The people outside, and especially those interested in the
     progress of legislation, are beginning to ask one another how
     long this farce is to continue. How long this most egregious and
     ridiculous humbug is to be permitted to obstruct the progress of
     business before the Committees and the Houses, and whether Mrs.
     Ernestine L. Rose and her followers ought not to be satisfied
     with the notoriety they have already attained. The great body of
     the people regard Mrs. Rose and her followers as making
     themselves simply ridiculous, and there is some danger that these
     legislative committees will make themselves so too.

     LECTURE OF THE REV. ANTOINETTE L. BROWN.--It will be seen the
     Rev. Antoinette L. Brown delivers a lecture at Association Hall
     to-morrow evening. It has been said that we have done the women's
     rights people injustice in charging upon them the infidelity of
     Mrs. Ernestine L. Rose. If we have done them injustice in this
     matter it is but right that we should make amends by calling
     attention to the lecture of Miss Brown, which, as we understand,
     will embrace the Bible argument in favor of the measures which
     they advocate. Miss Brown is a talented woman, and we have no
     doubt an exemplary Christian.


                   _For the Albany Daily State Register._

                             WOMAN'S RIGHTS.

     Mr. EDITOR:--In your paper of Monday the 6th inst., I perceive
     you pass judgment upon the woman's rights cause, upon those
     engaged in it, and particularly upon myself--how justly, I leave
     to your conscience to decide.

     Every one who ever advanced a new idea, no matter how great and
     noble, has been subjected to criticism, and therefore we too must
     expect it. And, in accordance with the spirit of the critic, will
     be the criticism. Whether dictated by the spirit of justice,
     kindness, gentleness, and charity, or by injustice, malice,
     rudeness, and intolerance, it is still an index of the man. But
     it is quite certain that no true soul will ever be deterred from
     the performance of a duty by any criticism.

     But there is one thing which I think even editors have no right
     to do, namely: to state a positive falsehood, or even to imply
     one, for the purpose of injuring another. And, as the spirit of
     charity induces me to believe that in your case it was done more
     from a misunderstanding than positive malice, therefore I claim
     at your hands the justice to give this letter a place in your
     paper.

     In the article alluded to, you say: "Ernestine L. Rose came to
     this country, as she says, from Poland, whence she was compelled
     to fly in pursuit of freedom." It is true that I came from
     Poland; but it is false that I was compelled to fly from my
     country, except by the compulsion, or dictates of the same spirit
     of "propagandism," that induced so many of my noble countrymen to
     shed their blood in the defence of the rights of this country,
     and the rights of man, wherever he struggles for freedom. But I
     have no desire to claim martyrdom which does not belong to me. I
     left my country, not flying, but deliberately. I chose to make
     this country my home, in preference to any other, because if you
     carried out the theories you profess, it would indeed be the
     noblest country on earth. And as my countrymen so nobly aided in
     the physical struggle for Freedom and Independence, I felt, and
     still feel it equally my duty to use my humble abilities to the
     uttermost in my power, to aid in the great moral struggle for
     human rights and human freedom.

     Hoping that you will acede to my (I think) just claim to give
     this a place in your paper,

                                 I am, very respectfully,
                                                      ERNESTINE L. ROSE.
     NEW YORK, _Mar. 7, 1854_.

WILLIAM HENRY CHANNING asks the following questions in the _Albany
Evening Journal_:

                              WOMAN'S RIGHTS.

     A lady actively and prominently connected with, the movement
     which is expected to secure "justice to woman," personally
     requested us to publish the following communication. It is
     proper to state that it is written in reply to an article of one
     of our morning contemporaries, published a day or two ago:

     "Let us take it for granted that your pop-gun of pleasantry has
     killed off the six thousand 'strong-minded' women and
     'weak-minded' men who signed the petitions to the Legislature for
     Justice to Woman. And thus having disposed of personalities, will
     you be pleased to pass on to a discussion of the following
     questions:

     "1. Are women, in New York, persons, people, citizens, members of
     the State? If they are not, then why are they numbered in the
     census, taxed by assessors, and subjected to legal penalties? If
     they are, then why is authority exercised over them without their
     consent asked or granted?

     "2. If among the male half of the people, only criminals, aliens,
     and minors are excluded from the right of suffrage are all women
     excluded from exercising this right, on the ground of
     criminality, idiocy, foreign associations, or infantile
     imbecility?

     "3. If the mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters of New York are
     the peers and equals of their fathers, brothers, husbands, and
     sons, why should they not enjoy all civil and political rights
     equally with them? If they are, on the contrary, an inferior
     caste, how can a jury of men thus avowedly superior, be regarded
     as peers and equals of any woman whom they are summoned to try?

     "4. Would the editor of _The Register_ consider himself justly
     treated if he would some day find himself governed by women,
     without his consent, taxed by women without power of voting for
     his representative, tried by a jury of women under laws made and
     administered by women?

     "5. If prosecuted under the law of libel before a court of women
     for his late remarks, does he think he would get his deserts?

                                                  "FAIR PLAY."

     _Knickerbocker_, Albany, March 8, 1854: GOING IT BLIND.--The
     editor of _The State Register_ is going it blind on woman's
     rights matters. He was out on Monday with a half column leader
     that touched everything except the matter in dispute. We quote a
     paragraph:

     "People are beginning to inquire how far public sentiment should
     sanction or tolerate these unsexed women, who make a scoff at
     religion, who repudiate the Bible, and blaspheme God; who would
     step out from the true sphere of the mother, the wife, and the
     daughter, and take upon themselves the duties and the business of
     men; stalk into the public gaze, and by engaging in the politics,
     the rough controversies, and trafficking of the world, upheave
     existing institutions, and overturn all the social relations of
     life."

     _The Register_ either misunderstands matters, or else willfully
     misrepresents them. The leading women connected with this new
     movement do not scoff at religion, repudiate the Bible, nor
     blaspheme God. Mrs. Stanton and Miss Brown are no more opposed to
     God and religion than the editor of _The Register_ is. They are
     educated, Christian women, and would no sooner "overturn society"
     than they would bear false witness against their neighbors.
     Before _The Register_ again attacks the reforms proposed by the
     Woman's Rights Conventions, it should become acquainted with
     them. "Going it blind," not only exposes one's prejudices, but
     ignorance. Many of the innovations proposed by Mrs. Stanton are
     such as every common-sense man would or should vote for. We mean
     those improvements which she would have made in the rights of
     property and the care of children. There are other propositions
     in her platform which we should dissent from. _The State
     Register_ may do the same. All the "Woman's Rights" women claim
     is fair play and truthful criticism. They object, however, to any
     misstatements. They are willing to fall before truth, but not
     before detraction. _The State Register_ will please notice and
     act accordingly.

Mrs. Stanton's address to the Legislature was laid upon the members'
desks Monday morning, Feb. 20, 1854. When the order of petitions was
reached, Mr. D. P. Wood, of Onondaga, presented in the Assembly a
petition signed by 5,931 men and women, praying for the just and equal
rights of women, which, after a spicy debate, was referred to the
following Select Committee: James L. Angle, of Monroe Co.; George W.
Thorn, of Washington Co.; Derrick L. Boardman, of Oneida Co.; George
H. Richards, of New York; James M. Munro, of Onondaga; Wesley Gleason,
of Fulton; Alexander P. Sharpe, of New York.

In the Senate, on the same day, Mr. Richards, or Warren County,
presented a petition signed by 4,164 men and women, praying for the
extension of the right of suffrage to women, and on his motion it was
referred to the following Select Committee: George Yost, of Montgomery
Co.; Ben. Field, of Orleans Co.; W. H. Robertson, of Westchester Co.

We give the report of the presentation and discussion of the petitions
from _The Albany Evening Journal_ of Feb. 20, 1854:

                              WOMAN'S RIGHTS.

                              ASSEMBLY, Monday, _February 20, 1854_.

     Mr. D. P. WOOD: I am requested by a Committee of the Woman's
     Rights Convention recently assembled in this city, to present to
     this body their address, together with a petition signed by 5,931
     men and women, asking that certain withheld rights shall be
     granted to the women of the State. I ask the reference of these
     two documents to a Select Committee of seven; and in making this
     motion, I wish the Speaker to waive the courtesy which would
     require him, under ordinary circumstances, to place me at the
     head of this Committee. I am already on several Committees which
     are pressed with business, and I would not, in my present state
     of health, be able to give the subject that careful consideration
     which the importance requires. I am satisfied, sir, that these
     ladies are entitled to some relief. They think so, and they say
     so, in language equally eloquent and impressive.

     Mr. BURNETT: I hope the House will not act at all on this subject
     without due consideration. I hope before even this motion is put,
     gentlemen will be allowed to reflect upon the important question
     whether these individuals deserve any consideration at the hands
     of the Legislature. Whatever may be their pretensions or their
     sincerity, they do not appear to be satisfied with having unsexed
     themselves, but they desire to unsex every female in the land,
     and to set the whole community ablaze with unhallowed fire. I
     trust, sir, the House may deliberate before we suffer them to
     cast this firebrand into our midst. (Here was heard a "hiss" from
     some part of the chamber). True, as yet, there is nothing
     officially before us, but it is well known that the object of
     these unsexed women is to overthrow the most sacred of our
     institutions, to set at defiance the Divine law which declares
     man and wife to be one, and establish on its ruins what will be
     in fact and in principle but a species of legalized adultery.
     That this is their real object, however they may attempt to
     disguise it, is well known to every one who has looked, not
     perhaps at the intentions of all who take part in it, but at the
     practical and inevitable result of the movement.

     It is, therefore, a matter of duty, a duty to ourselves, to our
     consciences, to our constituents, and to God, who is the source
     of all law and of all obligations, to reflect long and
     deliberatively before we shall even seem to countenance a
     movement so unholy as this. The Spartan mothers asked no such
     immunities as are asked for by these women. The Roman mothers
     were content to occupy their legitimate spheres; and our own
     mothers, who possessed more than Spartan or Roman virtue, asked
     for no repudiation of the duties, obligations, or sacred
     relations of the marital rite.

     Are we, sir, to give the least countenance to claims so
     preposterous, disgraceful, and criminal as are embodied in this
     address? Are we to put the stamp of truth upon the libel here set
     forth, that men and women, in the matrimonial relation, are to be
     equal? We know that God created man as the representative of the
     race; that after his creation, his Creator took from his side the
     material for woman's creation; and that, by the institution of
     matrimony, woman was restored to the side of man, and became one
     flesh and one being, he being the head. But this law of God and
     creation is spurned by these women who present themselves here as
     the exponents of the wishes of our mothers, wives, and daughters.
     They ask no such exponents, and they repel their sacrilegious
     doctrines.

     But again, sir, our old views of matrimony were, that it was a
     holy rite, having holy relations based on mutual love and
     confidence; and that while woman gave herself up to man, to his
     care, protection, and love, man also surrendered something in
     exchange for this confidence and love. He placed his happiness
     and his honor, all that belongs to him of human hopes and of
     human happiness, in the keeping of the being he received in the
     sacred relationship of wife. I say, sir, that this ordinance,
     sought to be practically overthrown by these persons, was
     established by God Himself; and was based on the mutual love and
     confidence of husband and wife. But we are now asked to have this
     ordinance based on jealousy and distrust; and, as in Italy, so in
     this country, should this mischievous scheme be carried out to
     its legitimate results, we, instead of reposing safe confidence
     against assaults upon our honor in the love and affection of our
     wives, shall find ourselves obliged to close the approaches to
     those assaults by the padlock. (The "hiss" was here repeated).

     Mr. LOZIER: Mr. Speaker, twice I have heard a hiss from the
     lobby. I protest against the toleration of such an insult to any
     member of this House, and call for proper action in view of it.

     The SPEAKER: The chair observed the interruption, and was
     endeavoring to discover its source, but has been unable to do so.
     If, however, its author can be recognized, the chair will
     immediately order the person to the bar of the House.

     Mr. BURNETT: I have nothing further. The leading features of this
     address are well known; and I do not wish at present to further
     enter upon the argument of its character. I merely wish that
     members be afforded time for consideration. I therefore move to
     lay the pending motion on the table.

     D. P. WOOD: I am surprised that the gentleman from Essex, who
     professes to desire light, and to afford members time for
     examination, should make a motion which, if carried, will
     preclude light and prevent examination. The gentleman sees fit to
     regard the memorial of these 6,000 men and women as a firebrand.
     I do not believe the ladies who presented it intended it as such;
     and they will be surprised to learn that a gentleman of his age
     and experience should have taken fire from it. Their requests are
     simple. They ask for "justice and equal rights," and this simple
     request is made the excuse for an attack upon them as unheard of
     as it is unjust. They ask only for "justice and equal rights." If
     the House does not see fit to grant them what they ask, let my
     motion be voted down, and send the memorial to the Judiciary
     Committee, of which the gentleman from Essex is chairman. Let
     such a disposition be made of it, and there will then be no
     danger that any one will be fired up by it, for it will then be
     sure to sleep the sleep of death.

     Sir, when a petition like this comes before the Legislature, it
     should not only be respectfully received, but courteously
     considered; particularly when it asks, as this petition does, a
     review of the entire code of our statute laws. It should not be
     sent to a Committee adverse to its request. That would be
     unparliamentary and the end of it. If sent to such a Committee it
     would be smothered. The House, I am sure, is not prepared for any
     such disposition of the matter, but is willing to look candidly
     at the alleged grievances, and, if consistent with public policy,
     redress them, although in doing so we may infringe upon
     time-honored notions and usages.

     Mr. PETERS: I am not surprised at the direction which the
     gentleman from Essex seeks to give this memorial. Any gentleman
     who would assail these ladies as he has done, would be prepared
     to make any disrespectful disposition of their rights. I may
     regret that he has sought to deny a hearing to these petitioners,
     but I am not surprised that he has done so. I trust that no other
     member on this floor will refuse, practically, to receive this
     petition--refuse to our mothers, wives, and sisters, what we
     every day grant to our fathers, brothers, and sons. These women
     come here with a respectful petition, and we should give them a
     candid and respectful hearing. If it be true, and true it is,
     that there are real grievances complained of, I hope they may be
     redressed after careful and candid consideration.

     The time has gone by, sir, when we may say progress must stop. It
     is well known that in many particulars the laws are glaringly
     unjust in regard to the female sex. The education of the sex is
     defective; and this fact unfolds the secret germ of this
     movement. We should review the structure of our institutions of
     learning, and see whether there be not there room for reform. I
     do not believe it to be a part of the duty of women to sit in the
     jury-box, to vote, or to participate in all the tumultuous
     strifes of life; but I do believe that those who differ from me
     in opinion should have respectful hearing. Nor, because women are
     not allowed to vote, do I admit that they are precluded from all
     agency in the direction of national affairs. They, more than
     their husbands, have power over the future history of the
     country, by imparting a correct fireside education to their sons.
     But there are legal disabilities imposed upon women which I would
     be willing to see removed, in regard to property, etc. Whether
     those disabilities are of a character to justify affirmative
     action on the part of this House or not, is not now the question.
     The question simply is, shall this petition be received? I trust
     that it may be, and that it may afterward be sent to a select
     committee.

     Mr. BENEDICT: The gentleman from Onondaga asks that this petition
     shall be sent to a select committee of seven, although he admits
     that the Judiciary Committee would be more appropriate, if it
     would not be sure, if sent to that Committee, to sleep the sleep
     of death. Sir, I am one of that Committee, and protest against
     any such imputation upon it. I will not only not vote to reject
     any petition offered the House, but I will give every petition
     sent to any committee of which I am a member a respectful
     hearing. This is a petition signed by some 6,000 men and women.
     They ask "justice" and relief. What kind of relief they may
     desire is no matter. It is enough for me to know that they ask to
     be heard. I shall vote to give them a hearing; and I can assure
     the gentleman from Onondaga that if sent to the Judiciary
     Committee it will sleep no sleep of death, but will be
     respectfully considered. A contrary intimation is an unjust
     reflection on that Committee.

     Mr. WOOD: My remark was not intended to reflect upon that
     Committee. I referred merely to the great amount of business
     before it.

     Mr. BENEDICT: There the gentleman is equally at fault. That
     Committee is a working Committee, and disposed of all the
     business before it on Friday last. I am, however, in favor of the
     motion for a select committee, and desire that the petition
     should receive legitimate and careful consideration, not only
     because the petition is largely signed, but because every
     petition from any portion of the people on any subject, should
     receive a respectful hearing from the people's representatives. I
     I hope, therefore, that not a single member may vote against the
     reception of this petition, whatever his views may be in regard
     to granting its prayer. I am in favor of the right of petition.

     Mr. BURNETT: It was not my wish in the motion I made to have this
     petition rejected. Had I intended any such thing I should have
     said so; for I always go directly at what I want to accomplish,
     and never fail to call things by their right names. I merely
     wished, before any disposition was made of the petition, that the
     members should have time to examine the address, which is the key
     of the whole subject. This is all I desire; and it was simply an
     expression of this desire that has awakened all this windy gust
     of passion. After members shall examine the address which
     accompanies this petition, they can make such disposition of the
     petition itself as they shall deem wise and proper. This is the
     length and breadth of my object and desire.

     Mr. WOOD: I think the House understands the subject sufficiently
     to justify action upon my motion of reference.

The motion for the Select Committee prevailed, ayes, 84; the Committee
appointed, and Mr. Wood excused from serving.

                     REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE.

                              IN ASSEMBLY, MONDAY, _March 27, 1854_.

     The Select Committee, to whom was referred the various petitions
     requesting "the Senate and Assembly of the State of New York to
     appoint a joint committee to revise the Statutes of New York, and
     to propose such amendments as will fully establish the legal
     equality of women with men," report: That they have examined the
     said petition, and have heard and considered the suggestions of
     persons who have appeared before them on behalf of the
     petitioners.

     Your Committee are well aware that the matters submitted to them
     have been, and still are, the subject of ridicule and jest; but
     they are also aware that ridicule and jest never yet effectually
     put down either truth or error; and that the development of our
     times and the progression of our age is such, that many thoughts
     laughed at to-day as wild vagaries, are to-morrow recorded as
     developed principles or embodied as experimental facts.

     A higher power than that from which emanates legislative
     enactments has given forth the mandate that man and woman shall
     not be equal; that there shall be inequalities by which each in
     their own appropriate sphere shall have precedence to the other;
     and each alike shall be superior or inferior as they well or ill
     act the part assigned them. Both alike are the subjects of
     Government, equally entitled to its protection; and civil power
     must, in its enactments, recognize this inequality. We can not
     obliterate it if we would, and legal inequalities must follow.

     The education of woman has not been the result of statutes, but
     of civilization and Christianity; and her elevation, great as it
     has been, has only corresponded with that of man under the same
     influences. She owes no more to these causes than he does. The
     true elevation of the sexes will always correspond. But
     elevation, instead of destroying, show? more palpably those
     inherent inequalities, and makes more apparent the harmony and
     happiness which the Creator designed to accomplish by them.

     Your Committee will not attempt to prescribe, or, rather, they
     will not attempt to define the province and peculiar sphere which
     a power that we can not overrule has prescribed for the different
     sexes. Every well-regulated home and household in the land
     affords an example illustrative of what is woman's proper sphere,
     as also that of man. Government has its miniature as well as its
     foundation in the homes of our country; and as in governments
     there must be some recognized head to control and direct, so must
     there also be a controlling and directing power in every smaller
     association; there must be some one to act and to be acted with
     as the embodiment of the persons associated. In the formation of
     governments, the manner in which the common interest shall be
     embodied and represented is a matter of conventional arrangement;
     but in the family an influence more potent than that of contracts
     and conventionalities, and which everywhere underlies humanity,
     has indicated that the husband shall fill the necessity which
     exists for a head. Dissension and distraction quickly arise when
     this necessity is not answered. The harmony of life, the real
     interest of both husband and wife, and of all dependent upon
     them, require it. In obedience to that requirement and necessity,
     the husband is the head--the representative of the family.

     It was strongly urged upon your Committee that women, inasmuch as
     their property was liable to taxation, should be entitled to
     representation. The member of this House who considers himself
     the representative only of those whose ballots were cast for him,
     or even of all the voters in his district, has, in the opinion of
     your Committee, quite too limited an idea of his position on this
     floor. In their opinion he is the representative of the
     inhabitants of his district, whether they be voters or not,
     whether they be men or women, old or young; and he who does not
     alike watch over the interests of all, fails in his duty and is
     false to his trust.

     Your Committee can not regard marriage as a _mere contract_, but
     as something above and beyond; something more binding than
     records, more solemn than specialties; and the person who reasons
     as to the relations of husband and wife as upon an ordinary
     contract, in their opinion commits a fatal error at the outset;
     and your Committee can not recommend any action based on such a
     theory.

     As society progresses new wants are felt, new facts and
     combinations are presented which constantly call for more or less
     of addition to the body of our laws, and often for innovations
     upon customs so old that "the memory of man runneth not to the
     contrary thereof." The marriage relation, in common with
     everything else, has felt the effects of this progress, and from
     time to time been the subject of legislative action. And while
     your Committee report adversely to the prayer of the petitions
     referred to them, they believe that the time has come when
     certain alterations and amendments are, by common consent,
     admitted as proper and necessary.

     Your Committee recommend that the assent of the mother, if she be
     living, be made necessary to the validity of any disposition
     which the father may make of her child by the way of the
     appointment of guardian or of apprenticeship. The consent of the
     wife is now necessary to a deed of real estate in order to bar
     her contingent interest therein; and there are certainly far more
     powerful reasons why her consent should be necessary to the
     conveyance or transfer of her own offspring to the care,
     teaching, and control of another.

     When the husband from any cause neglects to provide for the
     support and education of his family, the wife should have the
     right to collect and receive her own earnings and the earnings of
     her minor children, and apply them to the support and education
     of the family free from the control of the husband, or any person
     claiming the same through him.

     There are many other rules of law applicable to the relation of
     husband and wife which, in occasional cases, bear hard upon the
     one or the other, but your Committee do not deem it wise that a
     new arrangement of our laws of domestic relations should be
     attempted to obviate such cases; they always have and always will
     arise out of every subject of legal regulation.

     There is much of wisdom (which may well be applied to this and
     many other subjects) in the quaint remark of an English lawyer,
     philosopher, and statesman, that "it were well that men in their
     innovations would follow the example of time, which innovateth
     greatly but quietly, and by degrees scarcely to be perceived. It
     is good also in states not to try experiments, except the
     necessity be urgent and the utility evident; and well to beware
     that it be the reformation that draweth on the change, and not
     the desire of change that pretendeth the reformation."

     In conclusion, your Committee recommend that the prayer of the
     petitioners be denied; and they ask leave to introduce a
     bill[127] corresponding with the suggestions hereinbefore
     contained.

The report was signed by James L. Angle and all the members of the
Committee except Mr. Richards.

Of the report on the petitions, Mr. Weed says:

     Mr. Angle, from the Select Committee of the Assembly, to which
     the woman's rights petitions were referred, made a report last
     evening, which we publish elsewhere to-day. It is a compact,
     lucid, and ably drawn document, highly creditable to its author,
     and becomingly respectful to the petitioners. The Committee
     report adversely to the petitions, but recommend one or two
     changes in our existing law, which will, we think, commend
     themselves as well to the opponents, as to the advocates of
     woman's rights.

The work in the State of New York was now thoroughly systematized.
Susan B. Anthony was appointed General Agent, and it was decided to
hold a series of Conventions in all the counties and chief cities of
the State, in order to roll up mammoth petitions with which to bombard
the Legislature at every annual session. Two appeals[128] were issued
to the women of the State, one in June, prepared by Mr. Channing, and
one in December, by Mrs. Stanton. A number of able speakers[129]
joined in the work, and the State was thoroughly canvassed every year
until the war, and petitions presented by the thousands until the bill
securing the civil rights of married women was passed in March, 1860.

Lest our readers should think that there was no variety to our lives
in these early days, that we did nothing but resolve, complain,
petition, protest, hold conventions, and besiege Legislatures, we
record now and then some cheerful item from the Metropolitan papers
concerning some of our leading women.

                                   NEW YORK, _March 14, 1854_.

     ANNIVERSARY OF THE 83D BIRTHDAY OF ROBERT OWEN AT 600 BROADWAY.

     When the reporter entered the room he found the ladies and
     gentlemen assembled there tripping the light fantastic toe to the
     music of a harp, piano, and violin. Ernestine L. Rose was
     president of the occasion, and gave a very interesting sketch of
     the life and labors of this noble man. After which they had a
     grand supper, and Lucy Stone replied to the toast, "Woman,
     coequal with man." The ladies not only danced and made speeches,
     but they partook of the supper. They did not sit in the
     galleries, as the custom then was, to look at the gentlemen eat,
     and listen to their after-dinner speeches, but enjoyed an equal
     share in the whole entertainment. Mrs. Rose and Miss Stone seemed
     to feel as much at home on this festive occasion, as amid the
     more important proceedings of a convention.

As the agitation was kept up from year to year with frequent
conventions, ever and anon some prominent person who had hitherto
been silent, would concede a modicum of what we claimed, so timidly,
however, and with so many popular provisos, that the concessions were
almost buried in the objections. It was after this manner that Henry
Ward Beecher, then in the zenith of his popularity, vouchsafed an
opinion. He believed in woman's right to vote and speak in public.
There was no logical argument against either, but he would not like to
see his wife or mother go to the polls or mount the platform. This
utterance called out the following letter from Gerrit Smith in _The
Boston Liberator_:

                                   PETERBORO, N. Y., _Nov. 19, 1854_.

     DEAR GARRISON:--I am very glad to see in your paper that Henry
     Ward Beecher avows himself a convert to the doctrine of woman's
     voting. But I regret that this strong man is nevertheless not
     strong enough to emancipate himself entirely from the dominion of
     superstition. Mr. Beecher would not have his wife and sister
     speak in public. Of course he means that he would not, however
     competent they might be for such an exercise. I will suppose that
     they all remove to Peterboro, and that a very important, nay, an
     entirely vital question springs up in our community, and
     profoundly agitates it; and I will further suppose that the wife
     and sister of Mr. Beecher are more capable than any other persons
     of taking the platform and shedding light upon the subject. Are
     we not entitled to their superior light? Certainly. And certainly
     therefore are they bound to afford it to us. Nevertheless Mr.
     Beecher would have them withhold it from us. Pray what is it but
     superstition that could prompt him to such violation of
     benevolence and common-sense? Will Mr. Beecher go to the Bible
     for his justification? That blessed book is to be read in the
     life of Jesus Christ; and in that life is the fullness of
     benevolence and common-sense, and no superstition at all. Will
     Mr. Beecher limit his wife and sisters in the given case to their
     pens?[130] Such limitation would he then be bound in consistency
     to impose upon himself. Would he impose it? Again, it takes lips
     as well as pens to carry instruction to the utmost.

                                             Your friend,
                                                    GERRIT SMITH.


SARATOGA CONVENTIONS,

August, 1854-'55.

Seeing calls for two national conventions, by the friends of
Temperance, and the Anti-Nebraska movement, to be held in Saratoga the
third week of August, the State Woman Suffrage Committee decided to
embrace that opportunity to hold a convention there at the same
time.[131] As it was at the height of the fashionable season it was
thought much good might be accomplished by getting the ear of a new
class of hearers.

But after the arrangements were all made, and Miss Anthony on the
ground, she received messages from one after another of the speakers
on whom she depended, that none of them could be present. Accordingly,
encouraged by the Hon. William Hay, she decided to go through alone.
Happily, Matilda Joslyn Gage and Sarah Pellet being in Saratoga, came
forward and volunteered their services, and thus was the Convention
carried successfully through.[132] The meeting was held in St.
Nicholas Hall, which was well filled throughout, three-hundred dollars
being taken at the door. The following _resume_ of this occasion is
from the pen of Judge William Hay, in a letter to _The North Star_ of
Rochester (Frederick Douglass, editor):


                           THE SARATOGA CONVENTION.

     Miss Sarah Pellet addressed an audience of six hundred persons in
     the afternoon, most of whom returned with others to St. Nicholas
     Hall in the evening, thus manifesting their satisfaction with
     what they had heard and their interest in the cause, which was
     farther discussed by Mrs. Gage, whose address was an elaborate
     argument for the removal of woman's legal and social
     disabilities. Among other authorities she quoted with judgment,
     was the following from Wm. W. Story: "In respect to the powers
     and rights of married women, the law is by no means abreast the
     spirit of the age. Here are seen the old fossil prints of
     _feudalism_. The law relating to woman tends to make every family
     a barony, a monarchy, or a despotism, of which the husband is
     the baron, king, or despot, and the wife the dependent, the serf,
     or slave. That this is not always the fact, is not due to the
     law, but to the enlarged humanity which spurns the narrow limits
     of its rules; for if the husband choose, he has his wife as
     firmly in his grasp and dominion, as the _hawk_ has the _dove_
     upon whom he has pounced. This age is ahead of the law. Public
     opinion is a check to legal rules on this subject, but the rules
     are feudal and stern. It can not, however, be concealed that the
     position of woman is always the criterion of the freedom of a
     people or an age, and when man shall despise that right which is
     founded only on might, woman will be free to stand on an equal
     level with him--a friend and not a dependent."

     Mrs. Gage also, and with like effect, cited from the same learned
     jurist, laws, which, had her lecture been a sermon, might have
     been prefixed as a text. Such opinions, although but seldom known
     to any but lawyers, and not appreciated by many of them, have
     frequently been printed in books, which, however, being
     professional, are perused by few persons only. Mrs. Gage[133]
     concluded her excellent discourse with Bryant's celebrated
     stanza, relative to truth and error.

     Miss Anthony's situation had become embarrassing, if not
     critical. At a late hour of a summer night, she was to follow
     Mrs. Gage on the same subject, and before a fastidious audience,
     almost surfeited during three days with public addresses in
     several different conventions, and many of whom desired to
     contrast her expected effort with the splendid platform eloquence
     of Henry J. Raymond, Wm. H. Burleigh, and "their like,"
     fearlessly advocating the redress of wrongs and the promotion of
     human rights. Miss Anthony, who had conciliated her audience by
     lady-like conduct and courtesy, in providing seats for the
     accommodation of those standing, commenced with an appropriate
     apology for unavoidable repetition, when it was her lot to follow
     Mrs. Gage. Sufficient here to say that she acquitted herself
     admirably. The simplicity and repose of her manner, the dignity
     of her deportment, the distinctiveness of her enunciation, her
     emphatic earnestness, the pathos of her appeals, and completeness
     of her arguments, convinced the understanding and persuaded all
     hearts.

     The gossip of mustached dandies, and the half-suppressed giggle
     of bedizened beauty, soon settled down into respectful attention,
     if not appreciation. Indeed many of the most intelligent hearers
     before retiring, audibly confessed that they came to find fault,
     but had seen nothing to censure. So some who came to scoff
     remained to applaud. With such advocates there can be no
     retrogression of Woman's Rights. Equality is their motto, and
     onward their destiny.
                                                       WM. HAY.

This Convention was so successful in point of numbers and receipts,
and the sale of woman suffrage literature, that it was decided to
repeat the experiment the next year; accordingly the following call
was issued early in the season:

                       SARATOGA CONVENTION, 1855.

     A Convention will be held at Saratoga Springs on the 15th and
     16th of August next, to discuss woman's right to suffrage.

     In the progress of human events, woman now demands the
     recognition of her civil existence, her legal rights, her social
     equality with man.

     How her claims can be the most easily and speedily established on
     a firm, enduring basis, will be the subject of deliberation at
     the coming Convention.

     The friends of the movement, and the public generally, are most
     respectfully invited to attend.

     Many of the advocates of the cause are expected to be in
     attendance.

          ELIZABETH CADY STANTON,          LYDIA MOTT,
          ERNESTINE L. ROSE,               ANTOINETTE L. BROWN,
          SAMUEL J. MAY,                   SUSAN B. ANTHONY.

This Convention also was held in St. Nicholas Hall, and a large
audience greeted the speakers of the occasion as they appeared upon
the platform.

A brief report of the secretaries in _The Una_ of September, 1855,
says: A large audience assembled on the morning of August 15th at St.
Nicholas Hall. Susan B. Anthony called the meeting to order, and
presented a list of officers[134] nominated at a preliminary
gathering, which was accepted. Martha C. Wright, on taking the chair,
made a brief statement of the object of the Convention, and invited
all those who were opposed to our demands to come to the platform and
state their objections.

During the absence of the Business Committee, Ernestine L. Rose
briefly reviewed the rise and progress of the woman's rights movement.
Antoinette Brown reported a series of resolutions, on which she
commented at some length, when the Rev. Samuel J. May was introduced.
Although he spoke to the entire edification of the platform, yet he
was constantly interrupted by the audience. It was a novelty to hear
women speak, and the audience having assembled for that purpose,
preferred to listen to woman's pathetic statements of her wrongs, than
to the most gifted orators that men could boast. It was not until
after repeated requests for order from the president, and assurances
from several of the ladies that they would not speak until Mr. May had
finished his remarks, that quiet was restored.

It was at this Convention that Mary L. Booth[135] made her first
appearance on our platform, as one of the secretaries. One feature of
these meetings was the freedom and warm sympathy between the audience
and the platform. At the close of almost every speech, some one on the
floor asked questions, or stated some objections which were quickly
answered and refuted by the speakers in the most pleasant
conversational manner.

Mrs. Rose presented the wrongs of woman in her most happy manner,
demanding the ballot as the underlying power to protect all other
rights. Thomas Wentworth Higginson made an address especially adapted
to the fashionable audience. Many of the thoughtless ones whom idle
curiosity had led to the hall, must have felt like the woman of
Samaria (John iv. 29) at the well, when she reported that she had seen
a man who told her all the things that ever she had done, so nearly
did Mr. Higginson picture to them their thoughts and feelings, the
ennui of their daily lives. Lucy Stone, whom the papers now call Mrs.
Blackwell, arriving in the midst of the convention, was greeted with
long and repeated cheers, and spoke with her wonted simplicity and
earnestness. The resolutions covering all the different phases of the
movement were duly discussed through two entire days.

Antoinette Brown was called on as usual to meet the Bible argument. A
clergyman accused her of misapplying texts. He said Genesis iv. 7 did
not allude to Cain and Abel, and that the language in Genesis iii. 16,
as applied to Eve, did not mean the same thing. Miss Brown maintained
her position that the texts were the same in letter and spirit; and
that authority to all men over all women could be no more logically
inferred from the one, than authority to all elder brothers over the
younger could be from the other; and that there was no divine
authority granted in either case.

Miss Anthony announced that woman's rights tracts and papers were for
sale at the door, and urged all who had become interested in the
subject to procure them not only for their own benefit, but to
circulate among their neighbors. If they would be intelligent as to
the real claims of the movement, they must take _The Una_, a paper
owned and edited by one of its leaders. No one would expect to get
temperance truths from Bennett's _Herald_, nor anti-slavery facts from
_The New York Observer_, or _Christian Advocate_; no more can we look
to any of the popular newspapers, political or religious, for reliable
information on the woman's rights movement.

She also presented the claims of _The Woman's Advocate_, a paper just
started in Philadelphia by Anna E. McDowell, devoted chiefly to
woman's right to work--equal pay for equal service (she was sorry that
it did not see that the right of suffrage underlies the work problem);
nevertheless the existence of a paper owned, edited, published, and
printed all by women, was a living woman's rights fact, and she hoped
every one would give it encouragement and support. She then gave a
brief report of the work done in the State during the past year,[136]
and closed by presenting the form of petition that had just been
adopted.[137]

Mr. May moved the appointment of a committee of five[138] to engage
lecturing agents and raise funds for their compensation. The president
thanked the people for the respect and attention manifested during the
several sessions, and adjourned the Convention.[139]

The Saratoga papers were specially complimentary in their notices of
Ernestine L. Rose and Lucy Stone, pronouncing them logical and
eloquent, and Miss Anthony was highly praised for her skill in getting
contributions and distributing documents. She sold over twenty
thousand pamphlets that year. As there were many Southern people
always at Saratoga, this was considered a grand opportunity through
tracts to sow the seeds of rebellion all through the Southern States.
This Convention afforded a new theme for conversation at the hotels,
and was discussed for many days after with levity or seriousness, to
be laughed over and thought over by the women at their leisure.[140]

                        LETTERS TO THE CONVENTION.

                                              BOSTON, _June 23, 1855_.

     SUSAN B. ANTHONY.

     DEAR MADAM:--Your note of the 20th has just come to hand. I am
     sorry to say that my engagements are such that it will not be
     possible for me to be present at the Woman's Rights Convention at
     Saratoga, which I should very much rejoice to attend.

                         Heartily and hastily yours,
                                                  THEODORE PARKER.


                                            SYRACUSE, _June 13, 1855_.

     DEAR FRIEND:--I like your call to the Convention at Saratoga, and
     I shall endeavor to be there on my return from Massachusetts,
     where I deliver an oration on education on the 8th of August. By
     all means put Judge Hay's name on the Central Committee. Invite
     Theodore Parker without delay.

                         In great haste, but very truly yours,
                                                     SAMUEL J. MAY


                                  PHILADELPHIA, _Sixth Mo., 11, 1855_.

     MY DEAR SUSAN B. ANTHONY:--Returning home, I hasten to answer thy
     letter forwarded to me a week ago by sister M. C. Wright. It is
     always with regret that I have to answer any letter of the kind
     in the negative. But the time fixed for the Saratoga Convention
     renders it impracticable for me to be present. My husband and I
     hope to attend the National Convention at Cincinnati in October.
     Thy active interest and exertions in this cause are greatly
     cheering. We are doing little hereaway. Pennsylvania is always
     slow in every reformatory movement. We have circulated many of
     the pamphlets.

     Wishing you all success at the convention, and sure of thy "great
     recompense and reward,"

                         I am thine affectionately,
                                                    LUCRETIA MOTT.


                                               BOSTON, _June 6, 1855_.

     DEAR FRIEND:--I have kept your letter by me, and omitted to
     reply, hoping, and indeed expecting, that though I give up all
     but two or three routine and neighboring engagements in the
     summer. I might plan so as to accept yours. But I find I can not
     come as you ask. My summer months must be devoted otherwise. I
     hope you will not nickname me _No_, for my so constantly using
     that monosyllable to you. Indeed, I will try to oblige you next
     winter.

                         With much regard, yours truly,
                                                 WENDELL PHILLIPS.


                         HIGH ROCK, LYNN, MASS., _August 4, 1855_.

     EARNEST FRIEND:--We have just received your hearty invitation to
     the Convention at Saratoga. Nothing would give us more pleasure
     than to be with you on that occasion. We are all interested in
     Woman's Rights, and in liberty for all humanity.

     Long submission has smothered the hope and extinguished the
     desire in many for any change of condition. But the light of the
     nineteenth century should awake all to earnest battle for their
     God-given rights. We will consult together, and if we can make up
     a quartette we will try and be with you to sing once more our
     songs[141] of freedom for another struggling class. With much
     esteem

                         I remain yours truly,
                                               JOHN W. HUTCHINSON,
                                                      (for the family).

Following the Convention the usual attacks were made by the press,
accusing the members of "infidelity and free love," which Miss Brown
refuted through _The New York Tribune_. In this way, with conventions
being continually held at the fashionable watering places[142] in the
summer, and at the center of legislative assemblies in the winter, New
York was compelled to give some attention to the question. A Woman's
Eights meeting and a hearing were of annual occurrence as regular as
the convening of the Legislature.


ALBANY CONVENTION, 1855.

The second Convention at Albany was held in the Green Street
Universalist Church, February 13 and 14, 1855. Martha C. Wright
presided; the usual speakers[143] were present, and letters of
sympathy were received from Wendell Phillips, T. W. Higginson,
Elizabeth Oakes Smith, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, expressing regret at
not being able to attend.


                         LETTER FROM HORACE GREELEY.

                                         NEW YORK, _February 8, 1855_.

     SUSAN B. ANTHONY.

     DEAR FRIEND:--I can not be in Albany next week, because I some
     time since promised to speak on Wednesday in Maine, and must keep
     my engagement. Nor, indeed, can I deem it of any consequence that
     I should attend your Convention. You know, already, that I am
     thoroughly committed to the principle that _woman shall decide
     for herself_ whether she shall have a voice and a vote in
     legislation, or shall continue to be represented and legislated
     for exclusively by man.

     My own judgment is that woman's presence in the arena of politics
     would be useful and beneficent; but I do not assume to judge for
     her. She must consider, determine, and act for herself. Whenever
     she shall in earnest have resolved that her own welfare and that
     of the race will be promoted by her claiming a voice in the
     direction of civil government, as I think she ultimately will do,
     then the day of her emancipation will be near. That day I will
     hope yet to see.
                                        Yours,
                                                   HORACE GREELEY.

Of the hearings before the Legislature which followed this Convention,
we give the report from

                  _The Albany Register, February 17, 1855._

      JUST AND EQUAL RIGHTS--HEARING BEFORE THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE.

     The select Committee of the Assembly, to which was referred the
     petition for Woman's Rights, granted a bearing to the petitioners
     in the Assembly Chamber on Saturday evening, Ernestine L. Rose,
     Antoinette Brown, and Susan B. Anthony represented the
     petitioners. The arguments were able, and well received. Members
     of the 'Committee and others sent up a number of questions which
     the ladies promptly answered, with a due sprinkling of wit,
     logic, and sarcasm, greatly to the entertainment of the audience,
     which did not disperse until after eleven o'clock.

     Mr. Rickerson, from the Select Committee, to whom was referred
     "The Petition for the Right of Suffrage," stated that "after
     mature consideration the Committee unanimously report adversely
     to the prayer of the petitioners." Mr. Rickerson, from the same
     Committee to whom was referred--the petition for the just and
     equal civil rights of woman, said: "The Committee have given the
     petition that examination which time and circumstances would
     allow, and report favorably thereon, as embraced in the bill,"
     which they introduced.[144]

The petitions of 1856 were referred to the Judiciary Committee, Samuel
A. Foote, Chairman. Mr. Foote was at one time a member of the bar of
New York, associating with some of the first families in the State--a
son, a husband, a father--and yet in his maturer years he had so
little respect for himself, his mother, wife, and daughters as to
present in a dignified legislative assembly the following report on a
grave question of human rights--a piece of buffoonery worthy only a
mountebank in a circus:

                    LEGISLATIVE REPORT ON WOMEN'S RIGHTS.

                   _The Register_, ALBANY, _March, 1856_.

     Mr. Foote, from the Judiciary Committee, made a report on Women's
     Rights that set the whole House in roars of laughter:

     "The Committee is composed of married and single gentlemen. The
     bachelors on the Committee, with becoming diffidence, have left
     the subject pretty much to the married gentlemen. They have
     considered it with the aid of the light they have before them and
     the experience married life has given them. Thus aided, they are
     enabled to state that the ladies always have the best place and
     choicest titbit at the table. They have the best seat in the
     cars, carriages, and sleighs; the warmest place in the winter,
     and the coolest place in the summer. They have their choice on
     which side of the bed they will lie, front or back. A lady's
     dress costs three times as much as that of a gentleman; and, at
     the present time, with the prevailing fashion, one lady occupies
     three times as much space in the world as a gentleman.

     "It has thus appeared to the married gentlemen of your Committee,
     being a majority (the bachelors being silent for the reason
     mentioned, and also probably for the further reason that they are
     still suitors for the favors of the gentler sex), that, if there
     is any inequality or oppression in the case, the gentlemen are
     the sufferers. They, however, have presented no petitions for
     redress; having, doubtless, made up their minds to yield to an
     inevitable destiny.

     "On the whole, the Committee have concluded to recommend no
     measure, except that as they have observed several instances in
     which husband and wife have both signed the same petition. In
     such case, they would recommend the parties to apply for a law
     authorizing them to change dresses, so that the husband may wear
     petticoats, and the wife the breeches, and thus indicate to their
     neighbors and the public the true relation in which they stand to
     each other."


                        ASSEMBLY--WOMEN'S RIGHTS.

     Mr. PRENDERGAST presented several petitions asking for an
     extension of Women's Rights. Mr. P. stated that undoubtedly the
     Judiciary was the proper Committee to receive these petitions;
     but the petitioners had signified to him that, from a recent
     manifestation on the part of the Chairman of that Committee
     (Judge Foote), they would prefer that the petition should be
     referred to some other Committee. He therefore moved their
     reference to the Committee on Claims.

     Mr. NORTHUP seconded the motion.

     Mr. FOOTE remarked, that if there was any other Committee of this
     House that would or could unsex the female sex, he had no
     objection to the reference moved.

     The motion prevailed.

Lydia Mott, in a letter to Susan B. Anthony, under date of Albany,
March 15, 1856, says:

     I mail a paper to you, containing the Hon. Samuel A. Foote's
     report on our petitions. I hardly expected any report this
     winter. I am glad he made one; am only sorry it was verbal. There
     ought to have been a large number printed for circulation. I hope
     you won't get discouraged; remember the good work goes bravely
     on, the Honorable Legislature to the contrary notwithstanding. We
     shall get all we demand one of these days. Our reform is so
     comprehensive, we must not expect a sudden change in public
     opinion. Only see how long we have been laboring to convert
     people to the one self-evident truth that a man has a right to
     himself; and where are we now after a quarter of a century? No;
     we must not be disheartened. Our labor has not been in vain. I
     see its good effects every day, and they will continue to
     multiply.

     Only think, here in our midst we have a constant testimony borne
     to good audiences every Sunday. I don't know whether I wrote you
     what a true man we have in the Unitarian Church, and what a treat
     his sermons are to me. You remember A. D. Mayo, who has written
     letters to our Conventions; he doesn't come as an Unitarian, but
     as an Independent. It can not be otherwise than that he will do a
     world of good. He gave to day one of the boldest as well as
     finest sermons I have ever heard--full of noble thoughts. He
     always recognizes woman in every department. It amuses me to see
     the effect on Rome of the women as he portrays woman side by side
     with man, always making her his equal in every position. Mr. Mayo
     is the first minister who has filled the church, and the only one
     that has not seemed afraid of his own shadow. Mr. Garrison heard
     him when here; said he could not wish to change one word or to
     add one to his sermon. That from Garrison is saying a great deal.

The Hon. Wm. Hay, who always aided us and watched the Legislature very
closely in its action upon our question, in a letter to Miss Anthony,
dated March 20, 1856, said:

     I write this in the Assembly Chamber which has so recently been
     disgraced by an old fogy--Sam. A. Foote. He can not, however,
     prevent the agitation as to Woman's Rights. That of Suffrage has
     been discussed several times this week, incidentally, in both
     Houses, and will be up here again to-morrow directly....

     March 21st, he says: The petition from Milton, Ulster County, was
     presented yesterday, and referred to the Committee on Claims,
     instead of the Judiciary or a Select Committee. It is thus
     manifest that the cause is not to be put down or even passed by
     with contemptuous silence, vulgar abuse, or conservative scorn.
     Foote squealed out his angry opposition, in the old stupid slang
     (of Shakespeare perverted from "Macbeth"), about unsexing woman
     with the right of suffrage, and endeavored to contrast it with
     property-claims; as if the revolutionary maxim concerning
     taxation and representation going together is not a property
     rule. I suspect, too, that personal rights, secured by the right
     preservative of all rights, are more important than mere property
     rights. But they need not be distinguished in that respect. The
     proceeding is (even if without any present beneficial result) a
     triumph; because it proves to Judge Foote and others that the
     Woman's Rights petitions (or rather demands) must receive
     suitable consideration and, at least, a respectful report.

     Next winter we may hope to be more successful--if not then,
     success is merely postponed. It has become a question of time
     only, and perhaps of place--probably Nebraska!


THE SEVENTH NATIONAL WOMAN'S EIGHTS CONTENTION.

Pursuant to a call issued by the Central Committee, the Seventh
National Woman's Rights Convention was held in New York, at the
Broadway Tabernacle, November 25 and 26, 1856.

The Convention was called to order by Martha C. Wright, President of
the last Convention.

The officers were duly appointed.[145]

     LUCY STONE, on taking the chair, said: I am sure that all present
     will agree with me that this is a day of congratulation. It is
     our Seventh Annual National Woman's Rights Convention. Our first
     effort was made in a small room in Boston, where a few women were
     gathered, who had learned woman's rights by woman's wrongs. There
     had been only one meeting in Ohio, and two in New York. The laws
     were yet against us, custom was against us, prejudice was against
     us, and more than all, women were against us. We were strong only
     "in the might of our right"--and, now, when this seventh year has
     brought us together again, we can say as did a laborer in the
     Republican party, though all is not gained, "we are without a
     wound in our faith, without a wound in our hope, and stronger
     than when we began." Never before has any reformatory movement
     gained so much in so short a time. When we began, the statute
     books were covered with laws against women, which an eminent
     jurist (Judge Walker) said would be a disgrace to the statute
     books of any heathen nation.

     Now almost every Northern State has more or less modified its
     laws. The Legislature of Maine, after having granted nearly all
     other property rights to wives, found a bill before it asking
     that a wife should be entitled to what she earns, but a certain
     member grew fearful that wives would bring in bills for their
     daily service, and, by an eloquent appeal to pockets, the measure
     was lost for the time, but that which has secured other rights
     will secure this. In Massachusetts, by the old laws, a wife owned
     nothing but the fee simple in her real estate. And even for that,
     she could not make a will without the written endorsement of her
     husband, permitting her to do so. Two years ago the law was so
     changed that she now holds the absolute right to her entire
     property, earnings included. Vermont, New Hampshire, and Rhode
     Island have also very much amended their statutes. New York, the
     proud Empire State, has, by the direct effort of this movement,
     secured to wives every property right except earnings. During two
     years a bill has been before the Legislature, which provides that
     if a husband be a drunkard, a profligate, or has abandoned his
     wife, she may have a right to her own earnings. It has not
     passed. Two hundred years hence that bill will be quoted as a
     proof of the barbarism of the times; now it is a proof of
     progress.

     Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana have also very materially modified
     their laws. And Wisconsin--God bless these young States--has
     granted almost all that has been asked except the right of
     suffrage. And even this, Senator Sholes,[146] in an able minority
     report on the subject, said, "is only a question of time, and as
     sure to triumph as God is just." It proposed that the Convention
     which meets in two years to amend the Constitution of the State
     should consider the subject. In Michigan, too, it has been moved
     that women should have a right to their own babies, which none of
     you, ladies, have here in New York. The motion caused much
     discussion in the Legislature, and it would probably have been
     carried had not a disciple of Brigham Young's, a Mormon member,
     defeated the bill. In Nebraska everything is bright for our
     cause. Mrs. Bloomer is there, and she has circulated petitions,
     claiming for women the right to vote. A bill to that effect
     passed the House of Representatives, and was lost in the Senate,
     only because of the too early closing of the session. That act of
     justice to woman would be gained in Nebraska first, and scores
     of women would go there that they might be made citizens, and be
     no longer subjects.

     In addition to these great legal changes, achieved so directly by
     this reform, we find also that women have entered upon many new
     and more remunerative industrial pursuits; thus being enabled to
     save themselves from the bitterness of dependent positions, or
     from lives of infamy. Our demand that Harvard and Yale Colleges
     should admit women, though not yielded, only waits for a little
     more time. And while they wait, numerous petty "female colleges"
     have sprung into being, indicative of the justice of our claim
     that a college education should be granted to women. Not one of
     these female colleges (which are all second or third rate, and
     their whole course of study only about equal to what completes
     the sophomore year in our best colleges) meets the demand of the
     age, and so will eventually perish. Oberlin and Antioch Colleges
     in Ohio, and Lima College in New York, admit women on terms
     nearly equal with men.

     In England, too, the claims of women are making progress. The
     most influential papers in London have urged the propriety of
     women physicians. Also a petition was sent to Parliament last
     year, signed by the Brownings, the Howitts, Harriet Martineau,
     Mrs. Gaskell, and Mrs. Jameson, asking for just such rights as we
     claim here. It was presented by Lord Brougham, and was
     respectfully received by Parliament. The ballot has not yet been
     yielded; but it can not be far off when, as in the last
     Presidential contest,[147] women were urged to attend political
     meetings, and a woman's name was made one of the rallying cries
     of the party of progress. The enthusiasm which everywhere greeted
     the name of Jessie[148] was so far a recognition of woman's right
     to participate in politics. Encouraged by the success of these
     seven years of effort, let us continue with unfailing fidelity to
     labor for the practical recognition of the great truth, that all
     human rights inhere in each human being. We welcome to this
     platform man and women irrespective of creed, country, or color;
     those who dissent from us as freely as those who agree with us.

     ERNESTINE L. ROSE, from the Business Committee, reported a series
     of resolutions.[149]

The President stated that several letters had been received, one from
Francis Jackson, of Boston, one of the noblest of the noble men of the
age, inclosing $50, which, he says, he gives "to help this righteous
cause along." Also a letter from the Rev. Samuel Johnson, of Salem,
Massachusetts, which would be read by Mr. Higginson.

     Rev. T. W. HIGGINSON said he was much more willing to be called
     upon to read the words of others at this time, than to utter poor
     words of his own. There were many who came into a Woman's Rights
     Convention and started to find men on the platform. He could only
     say, that in these times, and with the present light, there was
     no place where a man could redeem his manhood better than on the
     Woman's Rights Platform. Gentlemen in distant seats were perhaps
     trembling to think that they had actually got that far into this
     dangerous place. They might think themselves well off--no, badly
     off--if the maelstrom did not draw them nearer and nearer and
     nearer in, as it did him. He began, like them, hesitating and
     smiling on the back seats; they saw what he had got to now, and
     he hoped they, too, might get into such noble company before
     long. He was prouder to train in this band than to be at the head
     of the play-soldiers who were marching through the streets
     to-day, and immortalizing themselves by not failing, so utterly
     as some of their companions, to hit some easy target. Those were
     play-soldiers; these were soldiers in earnest.

     Men talk a great deal of nonsense about the woman's rights
     movement. He never knew a husband who was demolished in an
     argument by his wife, or a young gentleman who found his
     resources of reason entirely used up by a young lady, who did not
     fall back at last when there was no retreat, and say: "It's no
     use; you can't reason with a woman." Well, so it would seem in
     their case. Others shelter themselves behind the general
     statement, that they don't wish to marry a woman's rights woman.
     I have no doubt the woman's rights women reciprocate the wish.
     These appear to have some anxiety about dinner--that seems to be
     the trouble. Jean Paul, the German, wanted to have a wife who
     could cook him something good; and Mrs. Frederica Bremer, the
     novelist, remarked, that a wife can always conciliate her husband
     by having something to stop his mouth. In a conversation in
     Philadelphia the other day, a young lawyer, when told that Mrs.
     Emma R. Coe was studying law with the intention of practicing,
     remarked, that he should never see her in Court, but she would
     remind him of mince pies; to which the gentleman he was in
     conversation with, observed that he had better not get her as his
     antagonist in trying a suit, or she would remind him of minced
     meat. Having given two or three examples of the nonsense of men
     upon this subject, he would now read them some sense. The letter
     was from one of the most eloquent and learned of the younger
     clergy of New England; a man possessed of powers of genius and
     practical wisdom which would yet make him heard in a larger
     sphere than that which he now occupied. It was not the old
     English Sam. Johnson who said that "there never was a lawsuit or
     a quarrel where a woman was not at the bottom of it." This was
     Sam. Johnson Americanized, and of course he was a woman's rights
     man.


                     LETTER FROM REV. SAMUEL JOHNSON.

                                             SALEM, _October 4, 1856_.

     DEAR FRIEND:--In complying with your desire that I should send a
     few words to the Woman's Rights Convention, I am quite aware that
     in this matter infinitely more depends upon what women do than
     upon what men say; nevertheless, if my confession of faith will
     be of the least service, it shall not be wanting.

     I regard this movement as no less than the sum and crown of all
     our moral enterprises; as a proclamation of entire social
     freedom, never practicable until now. I welcome it, not merely
     because it aims at delivering half the human race from
     constraints that degrade and demoralize the whole, but also
     because it is opening a new spiritual hemisphere, destined to put
     a new heart into our semi-barbarian theology, politics, manners,
     literature, and law. And especially do I rejoice, that having
     defrauded the feminine element of its due share in practical
     affairs for so many ages, and found ourselves, as a natural
     consequence, drifting toward barbarism with all our wealth and
     wisdom, we are compelled at last to learn that justice to woman
     is simply mercy to ourselves.

     Doubtless the main obstacles to this work come from her own sex.
     Strange if it were not so; if the meagre hope doled out to women
     hitherto should have unfitted them to believe that such a
     function awaits them. Strange if they did not fear a thousand
     perils in the untried way of freedom. But the unwise distrust
     will have to be abandoned; and so will the conventional flippancy
     and contempt. I think the grand duty of every honorable man
     toward this effort at emancipation is simply _not to stand in its
     way_. For how much is really covered by that duty? It means that
     he must wash his hands of every law or prejudice that dooms woman
     to an inferior position, and makes her the victim of miserable
     wages and fatal competitions with herself. It means that he must
     clear himself of this senseless twaddle about "woman's sphere," a
     matter surely no more for his legislation, than his "sphere" is
     for hers; and one upon which, at this stage of their experience,
     it is unbecoming in either to dogmatize; and it means that as a
     simple act of justice, he must resign to her the control of her
     own earnings, secure her fair and full culture, and welcome her
     to the pulpit, the bar, the medical profession, and to whatever
     other posts of public usefulness she may prepare herself to fill.
     As long as he fails of doing this, he is unjustly interfering
     with her sacred rights; and _after_ he has done this, he may
     safely leave the rest to her.

     It is humiliating indeed that numbers of well-disposed persons
     should not recognize so plain a duty. I have no patience to argue
     it. The moral logic of this movement is as patent as the simplest
     rule in arithmetic. Every argument brought against it resolves
     itself into a sneer at woman's capacity, or an anxiety lest the
     distinction God has established between the sexes will not bear
     testing; or, what is more common still, though covered up in a
     thousand ways, the brutish assertion that "might makes right."
     There is but one answer to these impertinences, and that is the
     success of individual women in the work they set about. The
     current ridicule at "doing justice to women" will pass for the
     sheer vulgarity it is, when so many women shall do justice to
     themselves, that they can not be taken as exceptions to prove the
     rule. And this success depends on their own wills. The noble use
     of God's gifts shall make its mark in this world. As sure as God
     lives, it shall compel a becoming respect. For more and more of
     these lessons in true honor do we pray; for the very name of
     manhood must make us blush, so long as it is identified with
     these airs of patronage and control, these insulting obeisances,
     these flatterers of what is childish in women, these sarcasms
     upon what is noblest; worse than all, this willingness to derive
     gain from the degradation and suffering of the sex it professes
     to adore. And words are poor to express the gratitude that shall
     be forever due to those women whose moral energy shall rebuke
     this littleness, and stir true manliness in man.

                    With sincere respect, I am truly your friend,
                                                   SAMUEL JOHNSON.


     ERNESTINE L. ROSE remarked, that in the letter read by Mr.
     Higginson there was one sentence that struck her with great
     force, viz: that it is of far greater importance what woman does
     than what man thinks; and, she would add, what woman thinks. The
     influence of what she had done was felt not only in this country,
     but throughout the entire continent of Europe.

     The author of that letter had expressed another sentiment to
     which she wished briefly to advert. He said that where ten men
     could be convinced of the truth of Woman's Rights, hardly one
     woman could be gained. At first sight it might so appear. But it
     should be borne in mind, that men were more accustomed to think
     and reflect and argue upon everything connected with the legal
     and political rights of men, at least, and, therefore, they were
     more easily convinced. Nevertheless, the subject, whenever
     presented to the mind of woman in its proper light, would not
     fail to find an echo in her heart. Whenever the subject was
     broached to a woman hitherto unacquainted with it, it first
     caused a smile, and, perchance, a sneer; but, put to her a few
     common-sense questions, and the smile disappeared, and her
     countenance assumed a serious expression. Ask her if she is not
     entitled to self-government, to the full development of her
     mental powers, to the free choice of her industrial avocations,
     to proper remuneration for her labor, to equal control of her
     offspring with that of her husband, to the possession and control
     of her own property, and to a voice in making the laws that
     impose taxes upon property that she may hold--ask her a few
     simple, straight-forward questions like these, and see if an
     immediate, hearty, and warm assent is not elicited.

In spite of a violent storm a large number assembled in the evening.
The speakers announced were Mrs. Elizabeth Jones and Wendell Phillips.
Mrs. Jones' address was a clear and logical statement of the whole
claim of woman. By her own request, it was not published.

     WENDELL PHILLIPS:--Ladies and gentlemen. I am told that the
     _Times_ of to-day warns the women of this Convention that if they
     proceed in their crusade they will forfeit the protection of the
     men. Perhaps, before it is offered, the question had better be
     asked whether it is needed. I do not think that I should run the
     risk of much difference of opinion if I claimed, that nine men
     out of ten would not be able to defend their right to vote as
     logically as the lady who has just addressed us has defended her
     right to vote. I question whether one-quarter of what we call the
     men educated by the colleges, and in active life--the better
     education of the two--would be able, arrogating to themselves as
     they do a far greater political and civil capacity, to state the
     grounds of civil rights and responsibilities, to mark out the
     limits, to vindicate the advantages, and to analyze the bases on
     which these rest, as we have just had it done. If participation
     in civil rights is based on mind--as in this country we claim it
     to be--then certainly to-night we have no right to deny that the
     cause is gained, for the friend who has preceded me has left very
     little for any one to say; she has covered the whole ground.

     In fact this question is a question of civilization, nothing
     less. The position of woman anywhere is the test of civilization.
     You need not ask for the statistics of education, of national
     wealth, or of crime; tell me the position of woman, and you
     answer the question of the nation's progress. Utah is barbarism;
     we need no evidence; we read it in the single custom that lowers
     the female sex. Wherever you go in history this is true. Step by
     step as woman ascends, civilization ripens. I warn the anxious
     and terrified that their first efforts should be to conquer their
     fears, for the triumph of this crusade is written as certain on
     the next leaf that turns in the great history of the race, as
     that the twentieth century will open.

     The time was when a Greek dared not let his wife go out of doors,
     and in the old comic play of Athens, one of the characters says,
     "Where is your wife?" "She has gone out." "Death and furies! what
     does she do out?" Doubtless, if any "fanatic" had claimed the
     right of woman to walk out of doors, he would have been deemed
     crazy in Athens; had he claimed the right of a modest married
     woman to be seen out of doors it would have been considered
     fanaticism, and I do not know but that the _Herald_ of that day
     would have branded him as an infidel. But spite of the anchored
     conservatism of others, women got out of doors and the country
     grew, and the world turned round, and so modern Europe has
     progressed. Now the pendulum swung one way, and now another, but
     woman has gained right after right until with us, to the
     astonishment of the Greek, could he see it--of the Turk, when he
     hears it--she stands almost side by side with man in her civil
     rights. The Saxon race has led the van. I trample underfoot
     contemptuously the Jewish--yes, the Jewish--ridicule which laughs
     at such a Convention as this; for we are the Saxon blood, and the
     first line of record that is left to the Saxon race is that line
     of Tacitus, "On all grave questions they consult their women."
     When the cycle of Saxondom is complete, when the Saxon element
     culminates in modern civilization, another Tacitus will record in
     the valley of the Mississippi, as he did in the valley of the
     Rhine, "On all grave questions they consult their women." The
     fact is, there is no use of blinking the issue. It is Paul
     against the Saxon blood; it is a religious prejudice against the
     blood of the race. The blood of the race accords to woman
     equality; it is a religious superstition which stands in the way
     and balks the effort.

     Europe has known three phases. The first was the dominion of
     force; the second the dominion of money; the third is
     beginning--the dominion of brains. When it comes, woman will step
     out on the platform side by side with her brother. The old Hindoo
     dreamed that he saw the human race led out to its varied fortune,
     and first he saw a man bitted and curbed, and the reins went back
     to an iron hand. Then he saw a man led on and on, under various
     changes, until, at last, he saw the man led by threads that came
     from the brain and went back to an invisible hand. The first was
     the type of despotism--the reign of force, the upper classes
     keeping down the under. The last is ours--the dominion of brains.
     We live in a government where _The New York Herald_ and _New York
     Tribune_, thank God, are more really the government than Franklin
     Pierce and Caleb Cushing. Ideas reign. I know some men do not
     appreciate this fact; they are overawed by the iron arm, by the
     marble capitol, by the walls of granite--palpable power, felt,
     seen. I have seen the palace of the Caesars, built of masses that
     seemed as if giants alone could have laid them together, to last
     for eternity, as if nothing that did not part the solid globe
     could move them. But the tiny roots of the weeds of Italian
     summers had inserted themselves between them, and the palace of
     the Caesars lies a shapeless ruin. So it is with your government.
     It may be iron, it may be marble, but the pulses of right and
     wrong push it aside; only give them time. I hail the government
     of ideas.

     There is another thing I claim. You laugh at Woman's Rights
     Conventions; you ridicule socialism (I do not accept that); you
     dislike the anti-slavery movement. The only discussion of the
     grave social questions of the age, the questions of right and
     wrong that lie at the basis of society--the only voices that have
     stirred them and kept those questions alive have been those of
     these three reforms. Smothered with gold--smothered with material
     prosperity, the vast masses of our countrymen were living the
     lives of mere getters of money; but the ideas of this half of the
     nineteenth century have been bruited by despised reformers, kept
     alive by three radical movements, and whoever in the next
     generation shall seek for the sources of mental and intellectual
     change will find it here; and in a progressive people like ours
     that claim is a most vital and significant one....

     I contend that woman, broadly considered, makes half the money
     that is made. Go the world over, take either Europe or America,
     the first source of money is intelligence and thrift; it is not
     speculation.... Out of the twenty millions of American people
     that make money, woman does more than half of the work that
     insures the reward. I claim for that half of the race whose
     qualities garner up wealth, the right to dispose of it, and to
     control it by law.

     Again, take thought. I know our sister has modestly told us how
     utterly they are deprived of what are called the institutions of
     education; but we know very well that book learning is a
     miserably poor thing, and that the best education in the world is
     what we clutch in the streets; and of that education, by hook or
     by crook, woman has so far gained enough, that, Europe and
     America through, where is the man presumptuous enough to doubt
     that the hand of woman is not felt as much on the helm of public
     opinion as that of man? To be sure, she does not have an outside
     ambitious distinction; but at home, in the molding hours, in
     youth, in the soft moments when the very balance-wheel of
     character is touched, we all know that woman, though she may not
     consciously enunciate ideas, does as much to form public opinion
     as man. The time has been--and every man who has ever analyzed
     history knows it--when in France, the mother to Europe of all
     social ideas; France that has lifted up Germany from mysticism,
     and told England what she means and what she wants: France that
     has construed England to herself, and interpreted to her what she
     was blindly reaching out for; when in that very France, at the
     fountain-head of that eighteenth century of civil progress, it
     was in the saloons of woman that man did his thinking, and it was
     under the brilliant inspiration of her society that that mighty
     revolution in the knowledge and science of civil affairs was
     wrought. In this country, too, at this hour, woman does as much
     to give the impulse to public opinion as man does.

     Wherever I find silent power I want recognition of the
     responsibility. I am not in favor of a power behind the throne. I
     do not want half the race concealed behind the curtain and
     controlling without being responsible. Drag them to the light,
     hold them up as you do men to the utmost study of public
     questions, and to a personal responsibility for their public
     settlement. Corruption--it often takes the very form of the
     passions of woman. In Paris, to-day, we are told, when the
     government approaches a man, the way is, not to give him wealth
     for his own enjoyment, but to dower his daughter. It is the pride
     of woman through which they reach him. Drag that woman forward on
     the platform of public life; give to her manifest ability a fair
     field, let her win wealth by her own exertions, not by the
     surrender of principle in the person of her husband; and although
     my friend doubts it, I believe, when you put the two sexes
     harmoniously in civil life, you will secure a higher state of
     civilization--not because woman is better, not because she is
     more merciful, or more just, or more pure than man, as man
     naturally, but because God meant that a perfect human being
     should be made up of man and woman allied, and it is only when
     the two march side by side on the pathway of civilization that
     the harmonious development of the race begins.

     Then, again, you can not educate woman, in the sense that we use
     education. She has no motive. As my friend said, when she
     marries, education ceases. At that age the education of man
     commences: he has wealth, ambition, social position, as his
     stimulus: he knows that by keeping his mind on the alert he earns
     them all. You furnish a woman with books--you give her no motive
     to open them. You open to her the door of science: why should she
     enter? She can gain nothing except in individual and exceptional
     cases; public opinion drives her back, places a stigma upon her
     of blue-stocking, and the consequence is, the very motive for
     education is taken away. Now, I believe, a privileged class, an
     aristocracy, a set of slaveholders, does just as much harm to
     itself as it does to the victimized class. When man undertakes to
     place woman behind him, to assume the reins of government and to
     govern for her, he is an aristocrat; and all aristocracies are
     not only unjust, but they are harmful to the progress of society.

     I welcome this movement, because it shows that we have got a
     great amount of civilization. Every other movement to redress a
     wrong in the past generations of the world has been yielded to
     only from fear. Bentham says truly, the governing race never
     yielded a right unless they were bullied out of it. That is true
     historically; but we have come to a time--and this movement shows
     it--when civilization has rendered man capable of yielding to
     something different from fear. This movement has only been eight
     years on foot, and during that time, we who have watched the
     statute-book are aware to admiration of the rapid changes that
     have taken place in public opinion, and in legislation, all over
     the States. Within the last four years, in different localities,
     woman has been allowed the right to protect her earnings, and to
     make a will--two of the great points of property. Aye, and one
     little star of light begins to twinkle in the darkness of the
     political atmosphere: Kentucky allows her to vote. Yes, from the
     land where on one question they are so obstinate, the white race
     have remembered justice to their white co-equals. In her
     nobly-planned school system, Kentucky divides her State into
     districts; the trustees are annually chosen for the State funds;
     and it is expressly provided, that besides the usual voters in
     the election of trustees for the school fund, which is coveted by
     millions, there shall be allowed to vote, every widow who has a
     child betwixt six and eighteen years old, and she shall go to the
     ballot-box in person or by proxy. Kentucky repudiates the
     doctrine that to go to the ballot-box forfeits the delicacy of
     the sex; for she provides, in express terms, that she shall go to
     the ballot-box in person, or by proxy, as she pleases. It is the
     first drop of the coming storm--it is the first ray of light in
     the rising sun.

     Civilization can not defend itself, on American principles,
     against this claim. My friend of Brooklyn claims the right to
     make political speeches, as well as sermons, because he is a
     citizen. Well, woman is a citizen too: and if a minister can
     preach politics because he is a citizen, woman can meddle in
     politics and vote, because she is a citizen too. When Mr. Beecher
     based his right, not on the intellect which flashes from Maine to
     Georgia, not on the strength of that nervous right arm, but
     solely on his citizenship, he dragged to the platform twelve
     millions of American women to stand at his side. But the
     difficulty is, no man can defend his own right to vote, without
     granting it to woman. The only reason why the demand sounds
     strange, is because man never analyzed his own right. The moment
     he begins to analyze it, he can not defend it without admitting
     her. Our fathers proclaimed, sixty years ago, that government was
     co-equal with the right to take money and to punish for crime.
     Now, all that I wish to say to the American people on this
     question is, let woman go free from the penal statute--let her
     property be exempt from taxation, until you admit her to the
     ballot-box--or seal up the history of the Revolution, make
     Bancroft and Hildreth prohibited books, banish the argument of
     '76, and let Mr. Simms have his own way with the history of all
     the States, as well as South Carolina. Yes, the fact is, women
     make opinion for us; and the only thing we shut them out from is
     the ballot-box.

     I would have it constantly kept before the public, that we do not
     seek to prop up woman; we only ask for her space to let her grow.
     Governments are not made; they grow. They are not buildings like
     this, with dome and pillars; they are oaks, with roots and
     branches, and they grow, by God's blessing, in the soil He gives
     to them. Now man has been allowed to grow, and when Pharaoh tied
     him down with bars of iron, when Europe tied him down with
     privilege and superstition, he burst the bonds and grew strong.
     We ask the same for woman. Goeethe said that if you plant an oak
     in a flower-pot, one of two things was sure to happen: either the
     oak will be dwarfed, or the flower-pot will break. So we have
     planted woman in a flower-pot, hemmed her in by restrictions, and
     when we move to enlarge her sphere, society cries out, "Oh!
     you'll break the flower-pot!" Well, I say, let it break. Man made
     it, and the sooner it goes to pieces the better. Let us see how
     broadly the branches will throw themselves, and how beautiful
     will be the shape, and how glorious against the moonlit sky, or
     glowing sunset, the foliage shall appear.

[Illustration: MARTHA C. WRIGHT (with autograph).]

     I say the very first claim, the middle and last claim of all our
     Conventions should be the ballot. Everywhere, in each State, we
     should claim it; not for any intrinsic value in the ballot, but
     because it throws upon woman herself the responsibility of her
     position. Man never grew to his stature until he was provoked to
     it by the pressure and weight of responsibility; and I take it
     woman will grow up the same way.

The first three resolutions on the Presidential election were brought
up for discussion and adopted. Those persons in the audience who
desired to speak were urged to do so.

     Mrs. ROSE said: In reference to this last election, though it was
     not my good fortune to be here during the time of that great
     excitement, being then on the continent of Europe; yet, even at
     that great distance, the fire of freedom that was kindled here
     spread itself across the Atlantic. The liberal, intelligent, and
     reformatory portion of the people of Europe, as well as in
     England, have most warmly, most heartily sympathized with us in
     the last struggle of freedom against slavery. It is a most
     glorious epoch. I will not enter into a political or anti-slavery
     lecture, but simply state this fact--the time has come when the
     political parties are entirely annihilated. They have ceased to
     exist. There is no longer Whig and no longer Democrat--there is
     Freedom or Slavery. We have here an equally great purpose to
     achieve. This, too, is not woman's rights or man's rights, but it
     is human rights. It is based on precisely the same fundamental
     truths with the other question. In the last election the general
     feeling prevailed that woman ought to take more interest in
     political affairs, and with the noble work she did during the
     campaign, it seems to me most extraordinary that the men who have
     worked thus nobly for the freedom of one class, should yet refuse
     freedom to the other class.

     PHILLIP D. MOORE rose in the body of the building and said:
     During this last Presidential canvass I heard more than once the
     oldest member of Congress declare that Freedom was based upon the
     law of God, which was declared in our Bill of Rights--our
     Declaration of Independence--that it was the inalienable right of
     all mankind to life, to liberty, and to the pursuit of happiness.
     He placed this last Presidential struggle upon that right higher
     than all human law; and upon that it seems this contest in
     behalf of human rights is based. I think that we should adopt
     these resolutions, and also appeal to the legislative bodies,
     where, I believe, there are men who will hear and heed the voice
     of justice.

     Rev. T. W. HIGGINSON took the floor, and expressed his hope that
     they would have more speaking from the floor and less from the
     platform. As a Republican voter, he would take his stand in
     support of these resolutions; and he would declare that it was
     true that the close of the Presidential election was the time for
     a woman's Convention to be held. It was true that the Republican
     party was pledged, if it had any manliness in it, to support the
     cause of women, to whom it had applied to support its cause every
     day; and it was positively true that, if there were such a thing
     in the land as a Democratic party, that party was the party of
     the women also. As a further illustration of the idea expressed
     by the gentleman who had preceded him, he would state the fact
     that, when he was invited to Vermont to address the Legislature
     in favor of the appropriation of $20,000 for Kansas,[150] the
     meeting was postponed, on the ground that the shortness of the
     notice would not allow time for procuring the attendance of the
     women of the village to fill the galleries, and by their sympathy
     to influence the determination of the members of the Legislature
     who might be present. Accordingly they waited a little longer,
     gave sufficient notice, got the gallery full of ladies, and
     ultimately got the $20,000 appropriation, too. But always when
     the women had given their sympathy and began to demand some in
     return, it was found out that they were very "dependent"
     creatures, and that, if they persisted in it, they would forfeit
     the "protection" of the men; and this in the face of the fact,
     that when politicians wanted votes and clergymen wanted money,
     their invariable practice was to appeal to the women!

     The last time he had considered woman's rights he was in a place
     where man's rights needed to be defended--it was in Kansas. No
     man could go to Kansas and see what woman had done there, and
     come back and see the little men who squeak and shout on
     platforms in behalf of Kansas, and then turn to deride and
     despise women, without a feeling of disgust. He would like to
     place some of these parlor orators and dainty platform speakers
     where the women of Kansas had stood, and suffered, and acted. He
     saw, while in Kansas, a New York woman[151]--whose story they
     might remember in the newspapers--how she hospitably prepared, in
     one day, three dinners for the marauders who were hovering around
     her house, and in their starvation became respectful at last, and
     asked her for the hospitality they did not then quite dare to
     enforce; and how they ate her dinner and abused her husband,
     until the good woman could stand it no longer, and at last opened
     her lips and gave them a piece of her mind. He saw that woman.
     She had lived for weeks together in the second story of a log
     hut, with the windows of the lower story boarded up, so that the
     inmates had to climb in by a ladder. She was surrounded by
     pro-slavery camps; and while her husband was in the army, she was
     left alone. The house had been visited again and again, and
     plundered. The wretches would come at night, discharge their
     rifles, and howl like demons. Her little girl, a nervous child,
     had sickened and died from sheer fright. But still, after the
     death of that child, the mother lived on, and still gave
     hospitality to free-soil men, and still defended the property of
     her husband by her presence. At last the marauders burned her
     house over her head, and she retreated for a time. The speaker
     saw her when she was on her way back to that homestead, to
     rebuild the house which she had seen once reduced to ashes by the
     enemy; and she said that if her husband was killed there in
     Kansas, she should preempt that claim, and defend the property
     for her children.

     He saw another woman, a girl of twenty. He visited a mill which
     had been burnt by Missourians, where piles of sawdust were still
     in flames before his eyes, and there he met her; and when he
     asked to whom that house belonged, she said to her father. And
     when he inquired about her adventures in connection with that
     burning house, this was the story. Twenty-eight hundred
     Missourians were encamped around that house the morning after
     they had burned it. The girl had fled with her mother a mile off,
     but had come back to see if she could save any of the property.
     She walked into the midst of the crowd, and found a man she had
     previously known seated upon her favorite horse. Said she, "That
     is my horse; get off." He laughed at her. She repeated her
     demand. He loaded her with curses and insults. She turned to the
     bystanders--the herd of ruffians who had burned her father's
     house--and said: "This is my horse; make that man get off." Those
     fellows obeyed her; they shrank before that heroic girl, and made
     their companion dismount. She mounted the horse and rode off.
     When she had gone about half a mile, she heard a trampling of
     horses' hoofs behind her. The thief, mounted on a fleeter horse,
     was riding after her. He overtook her, and reining his horse in
     front of her, he seized hers by the bridle, and commanded her to
     let go. She held on. Said he, "Let go, or it will be the worse
     for you." She still held on. He took out his bowie-knife, and
     drew it across her hand, so that she could feel the sharpness of
     the edge. Said he, "If you don't let go, I will cut your hand
     off." Said she, "Cut if you dare." He cut the rope close to her
     hand, and took the bridle from her. It was useless to resist any
     longer, so she slipped off and walked away. But it was not ten
     minutes before she again heard trampling behind, and as she
     looked around, she saw two companions of this miscreant--two men
     less utterly villainous than he--bringing back her horse. Moved
     by her heroism, they had compelled him again to give up the
     horse, had brought it back to her, and she owns it now.

     That was what great emergencies made out of woman. That girl had
     splendid physical proportions, and though some accident had
     deprived her of her left arm, she had a right arm, however, which
     was worth a good many. She had one arm, and the editor of _The
     New York Times_, he supposed, had two. He was not much
     accustomed to seeking defence of anybody, but he must say that,
     if he ever did get into difficulty as a Woman's Rights man, and
     had to choose between the protection of the one arm of that girl
     in Kansas, and the two of the New York editor, he thought his
     first choice would not be the Lieutenant-Governor. Seeing the
     heroism of the women of Kansas, he told the men of Lawrence, that
     when the time came for them to assert their rights, he hoped they
     would not imitate the border ruffians of the Eastern States, who
     asserted rights for man, and denied them to woman.

Mr. Higginson then reported the following resolution from the Business
Committee:

     _Resolved_, That the warm sympathies of this Convention are
     respectfully offered to those noble women in England, who are
     struggling against wrongs even greater than those of American
     women, but the same in kind; and we trust that they will follow
     on their demands in logical consistency, until they comprise the
     full claim for the equality of the sexes before the law.

     This resolution referred, as some of them knew, to the recent
     action of some of the noblest women in England, in behalf of
     juster rights of property and a larger construction of human
     rights than had hitherto prevailed there. The list included a few
     of the very noblest of the women who had helped to make England's
     name glorious by their deeds in literature and in art. It
     included Mrs. Norton, to whom Wendell Phillips had referred, as a
     living proof of the intellectual greatness of woman; she had a
     husband who, after blasting her life by an infamous charge
     against her, which he confessed to his counsel he did not
     believe, now lived on the earnings of the brains of his wife. It
     included, also, Mrs. Somerville, a woman who had forever
     vindicated the scientific genius of her sex, by labors that
     caused the wonder and admiration of scientific men; a woman of
     whom it is said, that she is in all respects true to her sex,
     because while studying the motions of the heavenly bodies, she
     does not forget the motion of the tea-cups around her own table,
     and is as exquisite a housekeeper, as she is wise and
     accomplished as a student. It included also Harriet Martineau,
     that woman who, perhaps more than any other person in this age,
     had contributed to place the last half century in Europe in a
     clear light, by her admirable History, and shown in her treatise
     on Political Economy, a grasp and clearness which few men attain.
     It included also the name of Elizabeth Barrett Browning, that
     woman of rarest genius, of whom her husband, himself the greatest
     of England's living poets, had said that his wife's heart, which
     few knew, was greater than her intellect, which everybody knew; a
     woman whose inspiration had drawn from that husband, in the
     closing poem of his latest volume, the very highest strain which
     modern English poetry had struck, and the noblest utterance of
     emotion that ever man produced toward woman, in the speaker's
     judgment, since the world began. It also included Mary Howitt,
     whose beautiful union with her husband is a proof of what true
     marriage will be, when man and woman are equals, and whose genius
     had brought forth the wonderful powers of another woman whom we
     may fearlessly claim as a co-laborer, Frederica Bremer. These
     were the women of England to whom the resolution referred; women
     who had taken the first step in that movement, of which the full
     enfranchisement of woman will be the last.

     He could not quite accept the opinion by Mrs. Jones in her
     admirable essay in regard to the superior education of the women
     of England. The women of England, as he took it, did not equal
     the women of America in their average education, although they
     did surpass them in that physical vigor of constitution which, in
     the end, gave greater power of action and thought. Whilst the
     English woman was, by the necessity of the case, taught more of
     the modern languages, she was not so commonly taught either the
     ancient languages or the mathematics, and had not, therefore, the
     same amount of mental training. In England, too, this Woman's
     Rights movement was met by more serious obstacles. It had to
     encounter all the thunders of _The Thunderer_--all the terrors of
     _The Times_--whilst here it had to undergo the very diluted
     thunders of _The Times the Little_. A recent traveler has
     remarked that he could distinguish the Massachusetts women from
     the women of any other State--not because they spoke through
     their nose, or sung psalms, but because they had "views." Every
     woman had her "views" upon every subject. It was true that the
     English women had superb frames, grand muscles, fine energies,
     that they spoke two or three languages, but then they usually
     didn't have any "views"; and he thanked God that he lived in a
     State where women had them.

     He had spoken for woman and to woman, because he was a man. He
     did not dare, as a Republican voter, to throw his vote with one
     hand, without doing something for Woman's Rights with the other.
     Men and women were one before God, and this union can not be
     perfect until their equality be recognized. So long as woman is
     cut off from education, man is deprived of his just education. So
     long as woman is crushed into a slave, so long will man be
     narrowed into a despot. Without this movement, the political
     conventions of the present day would only prove to posterity that
     the nation was half civilized; but now future historians will
     record that in 1856, New York had not only her caucuses and her
     ballot-boxes, but her Woman's Rights Convention also.

     Mrs. Rose wished to remark, in reference to the resolution
     offered by Mr. Higginson, that English women, to her knowledge,
     were very active in forwarding the Woman's Rights movement
     throughout Great Britain. And not only English women, but young
     and noble English girls--girls, who were too timid to take part
     publicly in the movement, but who were untiring and indefatigable
     in making converts and enlisting aid. There was Miss Smith, Miss
     Fox, the daughter of the celebrated W. J. Fox, the eloquent
     lecturer and member of Parliament for Oldham, Miss Parkes, and
     others. They had devoted themselves to the great work, which was
     more difficult in that country than this. They had no declaration
     of independence to appeal to, declaring that all men were created
     equal, and endowed with the incalculable right to life, liberty,
     and the pursuit of happiness. They had no such standard to appeal
     to there, because men there were not recognized as free. Banking
     interests, manufacturing interests, land monopolies, and
     monopolies of every other kind were represented in England, but
     not men. The principle of universal suffrage had not yet obtained
     in England, and hence the greater difficulties that woman had to
     encounter there.

     Another obstacle was the division of the people into classes and
     castes. No movement could make headway in England unless it was
     commenced among what are termed the higher classes. Every
     petition to Parliament must first have some names that have a
     title attached to them before it can obtain other signatures.
     The thinking portion of the middle classes were kept silent to a
     great extent, because of their utter inability to do anything
     unless it was taken up and supported by the higher classes. But
     this state of things would not continue long; there was "a good
     time coming" there as well as here. Signatures by thousands had
     been obtained to the Woman's Petition, and she presumed by the
     time it was presented to Parliament it would contain tens of
     thousands of names.

     Mrs. ROSE then offered the following resolution from the
     Committee:

          _Resolved_, That we also present our assurances of respect
          and sympathy to the supporters of the cause of women in
          Paris, the worthy successors of Pauline Roland and Jeanne
          Deroine, who, in the face of imperial despotism, dare to
          tell the truth.

     In commenting on this resolution, Mrs. Rose remarked that if the
     difficulties surrounding English women who advocated an
     amelioration of woman's condition were great, how much greater
     were those which surrounded the French women, owing to the blight
     of despotism in that country. They could write their thoughts,
     but their writings could not be published in France. They had to
     send them to the one State in Italy which was not crushed by dark
     and bitter despotism. That bright spot is Sardinia. The works of
     the noble French women had to be sent to Turin, printed there,
     and sent back to Paris for private, secret distribution. And when
     these women met in consultation, they had to watch the doors and
     windows, to see that all was secure. She knew many of them, but
     dared not mention their names, for fear they might be borne
     across the Atlantic, and lead to their oppression and
     proscription. The noblest thoughts that had ever been uttered in
     France were by women, not only before the Revolution, but down to
     the present day. Madame Roland was imprisoned for uttering the
     truth, in consequence of which imprisonment she lost her arm.
     Jeanne Deroine was exiled, and now resides in London, where she
     supports herself, two daughters and son. She was teaching them
     herself, because she had no means to pay for their education. She
     filled their minds with noble thoughts and feelings, even to the
     very sacrifice of themselves for the benefit of the race, and
     more especially for the elevation of woman, without which she
     feels convinced that the elevation of man can never be
     accomplished.

     But while the names of a few such noble women were made public,
     hundreds, nay, thousands, who had done as much, and even more
     than these, were in obscurity. They were constantly watching to
     find what was done in America. And there was one thing which
     characterized these French women, and that was, the entire
     absence of jealousy and envy of the talents and virtues of
     others. Wherever they see a man or woman of intellect or virtue,
     they recognize them as a brother or sister; and they never ask
     from whom a great thought or a virtuous action comes, but, is it
     good, is it noble? It seemed to her that the character of the
     French women was the very essence of human nobility. They are
     ready to welcome, with heart and hand, every reformer, without
     stopping to inquire whether he is English, American, German, or
     Turk. But poor France was oppressed as she never was before. The
     usurper that now disgraces the throne, as well as the name he
     bears, does not allow the free utterance of a single free
     thought. Men and women are taken up privately and imprisoned, and
     no newspaper dares to publish any account of it.

When Mrs. Rose had concluded, a young gentleman in the rear of the
hall rose from his seat, and desired to make a few remarks. We
subsequently understood he was from Virginia, and that his name was
Leftwich, a theological student. He asked whether the claims of woman,
which had been stated and advocated in the Convention, were founded on
Nature or Revelation? He wished Mr. Higginson would enlighten him and
several of his friends on that subject.

     Rev. Mr. HIGGINSON said that he was very glad that it was not a
     place for theological discussion. He was requested to answer the
     query whether the claims of woman, as stated in this Convention,
     were founded in Nature or Revelation. To define either what
     Nature or Revelation was, would involve metaphysical argument and
     abstract considerations that would take up the entire day. The
     basis of the movement was not due to this or that creed. Every
     Woman's Rights man or woman does his or her own thinking. He (the
     speaker) did his own. Included in the movement were men and women
     of all sects. There was Wendell Phillips, who thought himself a
     strict Calvinist; there were on the other hand professed atheists
     among them, and there were, he believed, Roman Catholics, so that
     it would be, in the highest degree, presumptuous for any one man
     to speak on that peculiar topic. Antoinette L. Brown had formed
     her idea of Woman's Rights from the Bible, and some of her
     friends thought that she was wasting her time in writing a
     treatise on Woman's Rights, deduced from Scripture. She was an
     orthodox Congregational minister, ordained in a Methodist
     meeting-house, while a Baptist minister preached the ordination
     sermon. There were some of the Woman's Rights friends who
     believed that we could get support from the Bible, and some who
     believed we could not, and who did not care whether we can or
     not. There were, also, those who simply believed that God made
     man and woman, and knew what He was about when He made
     them--giving them rights founded on the eternal laws of nature.
     It was upon these laws of nature that he (Mr. H.) founded his
     Woman's Rights doctrines. If there was any book or teacher in the
     world which contradicted them, he was sorry for that book and for
     that teacher. Was the gentleman answered?

     THE GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA rose, in his place, in the rear of
     the building, and replied that he was not answered. Although
     earnestly invited to come upon the platform and address the
     audience, he declined to do so. His remarks, in consequence, were
     inaudible to about one-half the audience. He said it seemed to
     him that there was an inconsistency and an antagonism between
     theology and Mr. Higginson's views, as expressed by himself. The
     gentleman had contradicted himself. He refused to treat the
     question on the ground of revelation, and then declared that the
     claim of Woman's Rights was founded on the fundamental laws of
     God and nature. Here he took issue with Mr. H. The test of the
     naturalness of a claim was its universality. The principles upon
     which it was based must be found wherever man was found, and must
     have existed through all time and under every condition of life.
     What was found everywhere under all circumstances was natural.
     This Woman's Rights claim was not found everywhere even in this
     country, let alone others. He knew many enlightened and refined
     districts which had never heard the principles of this society,
     much less felt them. They were not popular anywhere in the age in
     which they were inaugurated. Therefore they were not founded in
     nature, and the claim of naturalism must fall to the ground. The
     taste for the beautiful, and the love of right, were innate
     faculties of the mind, because they existed everywhere; not so
     with the recognition of the claim of Woman's Rights. Again, the
     claim was not based on revelation, which he would prove in this
     way: Revelation is never inconsistent with itself. The claim for
     woman of the right to vote, inasmuch as she would of necessity
     vote as she pleased, and therefore sometimes contrary to her
     husband, involved a disobedience of her husband, which was
     directly antagonistic to the injunction of the Scriptures
     requiring wives to obey their husbands.

     AN ELDERLY QUAKER LADY in the body of the audience rose, and told
     the gentleman from the Old Dominion that if he wished to do any
     good he must come on the platform where he could be heard. The
     gentleman declined.

     LUCY STONE said that men had rights as well as women, and she
     would not insist on the gentleman coming to the platform if he
     chose to remain where he was, but it would be more convenient if
     he would come.

     THE GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA still declined, and proceeded to
     quote Scripture against the Woman's Rights movement.

     THE QUAKER LADY again started up, and told him he had got hold of
     the letter of the Bible, but not the spirit.

     LUCY STONE desired that each speaker would take his or her turn,
     "in due order, so that all might be edified."

     THE GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA proceeded. Referring to a remark of
     Mr. Phillips on the preceding evening, in connection with a
     quotation from Tacitus, "that this movement was Paul against the
     Anglo-Saxon blood," he stood by the apostle to the Gentiles, and
     Mr. Phillips might stand by the corrupted Saxon blood.

     A GENTLEMAN rose and requested him to go upon the platform, as
     half the audience were breaking their necks by trying to listen
     to him. Still the gentleman declined.

     THE VIRGINIAN argued that woman was not fitted for the pulpit,
     the rostrum, or the law court, because her voice was not powerful
     enough. God gave her a mild, sweet voice, fitted for the parlor
     and the chamber, for the places for which He had designed her.
     God has not given her a constitution to sustain fatigue, to
     endure as man endures, to brave the dangers which man can brave.
     She was too frail, too slender--too delicate a flower for rough
     blasts and tempests. In her whole physical organization there was
     proof that she was not capable of what man was capable. Hers was
     a more beautiful mission than man's--a pure atmosphere was hers
     to breathe. Surrounded by all gentle influences, let her be
     content with the holy and beautiful position assigned to her by
     her Maker. He did not rise to make a speech. He was urged into it
     by the desultory, erratic, shallow, superficial reasonings of the
     gentleman who in one breath invited them to free discussion, and
     in the next defamed and scandalized the editor of _The Times_,
     because he took the liberty to discuss this question freely in
     his paper.

     Mr. HIGGINSON came forward promptly to reply. He thanked the
     gentleman for his speech. Such speeches were just what the
     Convention wanted. He was glad to hear from the applause which
     followed the gentleman's remarks, that there was a large number
     of persons present who were opposed to the views of the
     Convention. It was of little use talking to friends who already
     agreed with you, but it was always of advantage to talk to
     opponents, whom you might hope to convert. He was glad that those
     who differed with them were there, because it showed that the
     question was one of interest, and was beginning to excite those
     who probably had bestowed but little thought on it before. He did
     not think the gentleman could have meant what he said when he
     accused him of slander. He did not mean to slander anybody. And
     he did not think he quite meant what he said about his erratic
     and shallow reasonings. He would appeal to all if he had not
     treated the gentleman with courtesy. He thought he had answered
     the gentleman's inquiry, when in reply to the question whether he
     founded this claim on nature or on revelation, he said that he
     personally founded it on nature. If there was in the compass of
     the English language any simpler way of answering the question
     than that he did not know it. The gentleman, from the scope of
     his remarks, evinced a considerable love for metaphysical
     theology. His reasoning appeared to be a little dim; perhaps it
     was for want of comprehension on his part. He liked to plant
     himself on the fundamental principles of human nature, and work
     out his opinions from them.

     In reply to the gentleman's reasoning about the universality of a
     thing being a test of its naturalness, he could say that there
     were a good many races who did not know that two and two make
     four. According to the gentleman's idea of natural laws,
     therefore, it was not natural that two and two should make four.
     But it had always been a question among metaphysicians, which was
     really the most natural condition for man--the savage or the
     civilized state? His own opinion was that the state of highest
     cultivation was the most natural state of man. He tried to
     develop his own nature in that way, and one of the consequences
     of that development was the conviction that two and two made
     four; while another was the conviction that his wife had as much
     right to determine her sphere in life for herself as he had for
     himself. And having come to that conviction, he should endeavor
     to carry it out, and he hoped by the time the young gentleman
     came to have a wife, he would be converted to that principle.

     In reference to his attack on the editor of _The Daily Times_ for
     the article on the Woman's Convention, which had appeared in the
     edition of the previous day, he remarked that he had read that
     article without any particular reverence for its author. He knew
     the quarter from which it came. There was not a man in New York
     who better understood on which side his bread is buttered than
     the editor of _The Daily Times_. That gentleman always wished
     people to understand that his journal was _The Times_, and was
     not _The Tribune_, and never failed to avail himself of the
     Woman's Rights movement as giving him such an opportunity. Have
     you ever seen a little boy running along the street, and
     carefully dodging between two big boys? If you have, that was the
     editor of _The Times_ between Greeley and Bennett. _The Times_
     seeks to be a journal and nothing else. I will always say of it,
     continued the speaker, that the _reports_ in _The Times_ are
     very perfect and very excellent. I do not mean any disrespect to
     the other reporters present when I say that the report of
     yesterday's proceedings of this Convention, published in this
     morning's _Times_, was fuller and far more perfect than the
     report of any other paper. And so it always is with the reports
     of _The Times_. They are as full, as its criticisms on moral
     subjects are empty.

     LUCY STONE vacated the chair to address the meeting. She was more
     than glad, for the sake of the cause, that this discussion had
     arisen. She was glad that the question had been asked, whether
     this claim was based on nature or on revelation. Many were asking
     the same question, and it was proper that it should be answered.
     If we were living in New Zealand where there is no revelation and
     nobody has ever heard of one, there would yet be an everlasting
     truth or falsehood on this question of woman's rights, and the
     inhabitants of that island would settle it in some way, without
     revelation. The true test of every question is its own merits.
     What is true will remain. What is false will perish like the
     leaves of autumn when they have served their turn.

     But in regard to this question of Nature and Revelation, we found
     our claim on both. By Revelation I suppose the gentleman means
     Scripture. I find it there, "He who spake as never man spake"
     held up before us all radiant with God's own sunlight the great
     truth, "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you,
     do ye even so to them"; and that revelation I take as the
     foundation of our claim, and tell the gentleman who takes issue
     with us, that if he would not take the position of woman, denied
     right of access to our colleges, deprived of the right of
     property, compelled to pay taxes, to obey laws that he never had
     a voice in making, and be defrauded of the children of his love,
     then, according to the revelation which he believes in, he must
     not be thus unjust to me.

     The gentleman says he believes in Paul. So do I. When Paul
     declares that there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor
     free, male nor female in Christ, I believe he meant what he said.
     The gentleman says he believes in Paul more than in the
     Anglo-Saxon blood. I believe in both. But when Paul tells us to
     "submit ourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake,"
     and to "fear God and honor the king," the heavy tread of the
     Anglo-Saxon blood walks over the head of Paul and sweeps away
     from this republic the possibility of a king. And the gentleman
     himself, I presume, would not assent to the sway of a crowned
     monarch, Paul to the contrary, notwithstanding. Just as the
     people have outgrown the injunction of Paul in regard to a king,
     so have the wives his direction to submit themselves to their
     husbands. The gentleman intimates that wives have no right to
     vote against their husbands, because the Scriptures command
     submission, and he fears that it would cause trouble at home if
     they were to do so. Let me give him the reply of an old lady,
     gray with the years which bring experience and wisdom. She said
     that when men wanted to get their fellow-men to vote in the way
     they desire, they take especial pains to please them, they smile
     upon them, ask if their wives and children are well, and are
     exceedingly kind. They do not expect to win their vote by
     quarreling with them--that would be absurd. In the same way, if a
     man wanted his wife to vote for his candidate he will be sure to
     employ conciliatory means.

     The golden rule settles this whole question. We claim it as ours,
     and whatever is found in the Bible contradictory to it, never
     came from God. If men quote other texts in conflict with this, it
     is their business, not mine, to make them harmonize. I did not
     quite understand the gentleman's definition of what is natural.
     But this I do know, that when God made the human soul and gave it
     certain capacities, He meant these capacities should be
     exercised. The wing of the bird indicates its right to fly; and
     the fin of the fish the right to swim. So in human beings, the
     existence of a power, presupposes the right to its use, subject
     to the law of benevolence. The gentleman says the voice of woman
     can not be heard. I am not aware that the audience finds any
     difficulty in hearing us from this platform. All Europe and
     America have listened to the voice of Madam Rachel and Jenny
     Lind. The capacity to speak indicates the right to do so, and the
     noblest, highest, and best thing that any one can accomplish, is
     what that person ought to do, and what God holds him or her
     accountable for doing, nor should we be deterred by the senseless
     cry, "It is not our proper sphere."

     As regards woman's voting, I read a letter from a lady traveling
     in the British provinces, who says that by a provincial law of
     Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, women were actually voters for
     members of Parliament; and still the seasons come and go,
     children are born, and fish flock to that shore. The voting there
     is _viva voce_. In Canada it is well known that women vote on the
     question of schools. A friend told me when the law was first
     passed giving women who owned a certain amount of property, or
     who paid a given rental, a right to vote, he went trembling to
     the polls to see the result. The first woman who came was a large
     property holder in Toronto; with marked respect the crowd gave
     way as she advanced. She spoke her vote and walked quietly away,
     sheltered by her womanhood. It was all the protection she needed.
     In face of all the arguments in favor of the incapacity of woman
     to be associated in government, stood the fact that women had sat
     on thrones and governed as successfully as men. England owes more
     to Queen Elizabeth than to any other sovereign except Alfred the
     Great. We must not always be looking for precedents. New ideas
     are born and old ones die. Ideas that have prevailed a thousand
     years have been at last exploded. Every new truth has its
     birth-place in a manger, lives thirty years, is crucified, and
     then deified. Columbus argued through long years that there must
     be a western world. All Europe laughed at him. Five crowned heads
     rejected him, and it was a woman at last who sold her jewels and
     fitted out his ships. So, too, the first idea of applying steam
     to machinery was met with the world's derision. But its triumphs
     are recognized now. What we need is to open our minds wide and
     give hospitality to every new thought, and prove its truth.

     I want to say a word upon the resolutions. The present time, just
     after a presidential election, is most appropriate to consider
     woman's demand for suffrage. The Republican party claims
     especially to represent the principles of freedom, and during the
     last campaign has been calling upon women for help. One of the
     leaders of that party went to Elizabeth Cady Stanton and said he
     wanted her help in this campaign; and before she told me what
     answer she made, she asked me how I would have felt if the same
     had been asked of me. I told her I should have felt as Samson did
     when the Philistines put out his eyes, and then asked that he
     should make merriment for them. The Republican party are a part
     of those who compel us to obey laws we never had a voice in
     making--to pay taxes without our consent; and when we ask for our
     political and legal rights, it laughs in our face, and only says:
     "Help _us_ to places of power and emolument, and _we_ will rule
     over you." I know there are men in the Republican party who, like
     our friend Mr. Higginson, take a higher stand, and are ready to
     recognize woman as a co-sovereign; but they are the exceptions.
     There is but one party--that of Gerrit Smith--that makes the same
     claim for woman that it does for man. But while the Republican
     and Democratic parties deny our political existence, they must
     not expect that we shall respond to their calls for aid.

     Madame de Stael said to Bonaparte, when asked why she meddled
     with politics: "Sire, when women have their heads cut off, it is
     but just they should know the reason." Whatever political
     influence springs into being, woman is affected by it. We have
     the same rights to guard that men have; we shall therefore insist
     upon our claims. We shall go to your meetings, and by and by we
     shall meet with the same success that the Roman women did, who
     claimed the repeal of the Appian law. War had emptied the
     treasury, and it was still necessary to carry it on; women were
     required to give up their jewels, their carriages, etc. But by
     and by, when the war was over, they wished to resume their old
     privileges. They got up a petition for the repeal of the law; and
     when the senators went to their places, they found every avenue
     to the forum thronged by women, who said to them as they passed,
     "Do us justice." And notwithstanding Cato, the Censor, was
     against them, affirming that men must have failed in their duty
     or women would not be clamorous for their rights, yet the
     obnoxious law was repealed.

     In that story of Mr. Higginson's, of the heroic woman in Kansas
     whose left arm was cut off, there is a lesson for us to learn. I
     tell you, ladies, though we have our left hand cut off by unjust
     laws and customs, we have yet the right hand left; and when we
     once demand the ballot with as much firmness as that Kansas
     daughter did her horse, believe me, it will not be in the power
     of men to withhold it--even the border ruffians among them will
     hasten to restore it. After all, the fault is our own. We have
     sat to

          "Suckle fools, and chronicle small beer;"

     and, in inglorious ease, have forgotten that we are integral
     parts in the fabric of human society--that all that interests the
     race, interests us. We have never once, as a body, claimed the
     practical application of the principles of our government. It is
     our own fault. Let it be so no longer. Let us say to men:
     "Government is just only when it obtains the consent of the
     governed": we are governed, _surrender to us our ballot_. If they
     deride, still answer: Surrender our ballot! _and they will give
     it up_. "It is not in our stars that we are underlings, but in
     ourselves." Woman has sat, like Mordecai at the king's gate,
     hoping that her silent presence would bring justice; but justice
     has not come. The world has talked of universal suffrage; but it
     has made it universal only to man. It is time we spoke and acted.
     It is time we gave man faith in woman--and, still more, woman
     faith in herself. It is time both men and women knew that
     whatever has been achieved by woman in the realm of mind or
     matter, has been achieved by right womanly women. Let us then
     work, and continue to work, until the world shall assent to our
     right to do whatever the capacities God has given us enable us to
     do.

     SUSAN B. ANTHONY rose and said that several gentlemen had handed
     her contributions, one $40, another $25. She trusted that all New
     York men and women would find they had something more to do than
     listen to speeches.


                        LETTER FROM HORACE GREELEY.

                                        NEW YORK, _November 22, 1856_.

     MY FRIEND:--You are promised to be present and speak at the
     approaching "Woman's Rights Convention." I, too, mean to attend
     its deliberations, or some portion thereof, but not to take part
     in them. For I find this evil apparently inseparable from all
     Radical gatherings: a very large and influential portion of the
     press, including, I grieve to say, religious as well as secular
     journals, are prone and eager to expose to odium those whom they
     would undermine and destroy, by attributing to them, not the
     sentiments they have personally expressed, but those of others
     with whom they are or have been associated in some reformatory
     movement. He, then, who appears as a speaker at a Woman's Rights
     Convention is made responsible for whatever may be uttered at
     such Convention--no matter by whom--which is most likely to
     excite popular prejudice and arouse popular hostility. I have
     borne a good share of this unfairly exalted and unjust odium,
     with regard to the dietetic, anti-slavery, and social reforms
     suggested in our day, and shall bear on as patiently as I may;
     but I grow older, and do not confront the world on a fresh issue
     with so light a heart, so careless a defiance, as I might have
     done twenty years ago. Allow me, then, through you, to say what I
     think of the woman's rights movement, its objects, incitements,
     and limitations. If I may thus attain perspicuity, I can bear the
     imputation of egotism.

     1. I deem the intellectual, like the physical capacities of women
     unequal in the average to those of men; but I perceive no reason
     in this natural diversity for a factitious and superinduced legal
     inequality. On the contrary, it seems to me that the fact of a
     natural and marked discrepancy in the average mental as well as
     muscular powers of men and women ought to allay any apprehensions
     that the latter, in the absence of legal interdicts and
     circumscriptions, would usurp the functions and privileges of the
     former.

     2. I believe the range of employment for woman, in our age and
     country, far too restricted, and the average recompense of her
     labor, consequently far less than it should be. In saying this, I
     do not intimate a doubt that the best possible employment for
     most women is to be found in the care and management of their own
     households respectively, with the rearing and training of their
     children. But many women, including some of the most noble and
     estimable, are never called to preside over households; while
     some of the called are impelled to decline the invitation. In
     point of fact, then, there is and always will be a large
     proportion of the gentler sex who are, at least temporarily,
     required to earn their own subsistence, and vindicate their own
     usefulness in some other capacity than that of the loved and
     honored wife and mother. The maiden or widow, blessed with
     opulence, ought to be insured against the worse calamities of a
     reverse of fortune, by the mastery of some handicraft or
     industrial avocation; she ought to lead a life of persistent and
     efficient industry, as the fulfillment of a universal duty; while
     her unportioned sister must do this or grovel in degrading
     idleness and dependence on a father's or brother's overtaxed
     energies, looking to marriage as her only chance of escape
     therefrom. For man's sake, no less than woman's, it is eminently
     desirable that that large portion of our women, who are not
     absorbed in domestic cares, should be attracted and stimulated to
     industry by a wider range of pursuits, and a consequent increase
     of recompense. I deem it at once unjust and--like all
     injustice--impolitic, that a brother and sister, hired by the
     same farmer, the one to aid him in his own round of labor, the
     other to assist his wife in hers, should be paid, the one twelve
     to twenty, the other but four to six dollars per month. The
     difference in their wages should be no greater than in their
     physical and mental ability. Still more glaring is this
     discrepancy, when the two are employed as teachers, and, though
     of equal efficiency, the one is paid five hundred dollars per
     annum, the other but two, or in that proportion, merely because
     the former is a man and the latter a woman. While such
     disparities exist, right here in this metropolis of American
     civilization and Christianity, it is in vain that Conservatism
     stops its ears and raises its eyebrows at the announcement of a
     Woman's Rights Convention.

     3. Regarding marriage as the most important, most sacred, and
     tender of human relations, and deeming it irrevocable, save by
     death, it seems to me essential that woman should be proffered
     such a range of employments, with such adequate recompense, as to
     enable her at all times to support herself in honored and
     virtuous independence, so that marriage shall be accepted by her
     at the dictates of love, and not of hunger. Much might be urged
     on this point, but I choose simply to commend it to the
     consideration of others.

     4. As to woman's voting or holding office, I defer implicitly to
     herself. If the women of this or any other country believe their
     rights would be better secured and their happiness promoted by
     the assumption on their part of the political franchises and
     responsibilities of men, I, a Republican in principle from
     conviction, shall certainly interpose no objection. I perceive
     what seem to be serious practical difficulties in the way of
     realizing such assumption; but these are difficulties, not for
     me, but for them. I deem it unjust that men should be so
     constantly and unqualifiedly impeached as denying rights to woman
     which the great majority of women seem quite as reluctant to
     claim as men are to concede. I apprehend that whenever women
     shall generally and earnestly desire an equality of political
     franchises with men, they will meet with little impediment from
     the latter.

     5. I can not share at all in the apprehensions of those who are
     alarmed at the Woman's Rights agitation, lest it should result in
     the unsexing of woman, or her general deflection from her proper
     sphere. On the contrary, I feel sure that the freest inquiry and
     discussion will only result in a clearer and truer appreciation
     of woman's proper position, and a more general and rigid
     adherence thereto. "Let there be light!" for this is an
     indispensable condition of all true and healthy growth. Let all
     convictions find free utterance--all grievances be stated and
     considered. In the range of my observation, I have found those
     women who were conscious of defects in the present legal and
     social position of their sex among the most zealous, faithful,
     and efficient in the discharge of their household and parental
     duties. I feel confident that a general discussion of the subject
     of Woman's Rights will result in a more general recognition and
     cheerful performance of woman's appropriate duties.

                                   Very truly yours,
                                                   HORACE GREELEY.
     Rev. SAMUEL J. MAY.


            LETTER FROM HON. WILLIAM HAY, OF SARATOGA SPRINGS.

     I acknowledge, with much pleasure, the receipt of a printed
     circular, calling for the Seventh Woman's Rights Annual
     Convention. I also acknowledge, with increased pleasure, and
     perhaps with more pride than becomes me, the accompanying
     invitation to attend that Convention, and take part in its
     proceedings. I like this word, because it implies progress.

     Pre-engagement will prevent my personal attendance at the
     Broadway Tabernacle, but, be assured, my heart shall be there,
     with all its desires and hopes for the future of humanity;
     because I am convinced that until the individual and social
     rights of our whole race, without distinction of caste or sex,
     shall have been universally recognized, the tyrannies of earth
     will not cease from oppressing it.

     I wish that every woman in the United States could be at New
     York, throughout the continuance of your Convention, where each
     might see for herself, in Mrs. Lucretia Mott, what woman may be,
     and should be, and must be, before her sex can attain,
     individually and socially, "that equal station to which the laws
     of Nature and of Nature's God entitle" her. For physical and
     mental improvement of man's condition, according to his
     birthright and educational capacity, there must be, in America,
     more Marys, the mothers of Washingtons.

     The great political and legal reform announced in your circular,
     contemplating complete development of the entire human race, is
     already operating, sympathetically and auspiciously, in Europe,
     upon preeminent minds, like that of Lord Brougham, and may
     favorably react, in practical adoption here, of Jefferson's
     elementary truth (almost a self-evident proposition, and yet
     treated as theory), that government derives its just powers from
     suffrage-consent of all (not half) of the governed. Partial
     consent (especially by and to a moiety of mankind, arrogantly
     claiming, like Louis XIV., to be the State) can confer only
     unjust power, which Heaven's higher law of liberty, equality, and
     justice never sanctioned.

     Your Convention is most opportune, for this Continent is
     threatened with permanent and peculiar danger, produced by the
     feudal condition of women. I allude to the increasing curse of
     Mormonism, a consequence of woman's legalized inferiority or
     nonentity. With power from your local situation and undoubted
     sphere, to influence, for all time, the destiny of every
     civilized country, the members of your Convention, conscious of
     their duty, will never flinch from the responsibility of their
     position. It requires an unequivocal and uncompromising claim for
     perfect equality of rights in every department of manual and
     machine labor, of thought, of speech, of government, of society,
     and of life itself. Indeed, testamentary provision for assertion
     of that claim, by those few fortunate women who have, like Mrs.
     Blandina Dudley[152], wealth to bestow, should become a ruling
     principle, instead of that passion, so strong in death, for
     posthumous pulpit and newspaper applause, which Protestantism has
     sagaciously substituted in lieu of the saving ordinances of the
     Roman Catholic Church.

                                   Respectfully yours,
                                                      WILLIAM HAY.


                        LETTER FROM FRANCES D. GAGE

                                       ST. LOUIS, _November 19, 1856_.

     DEAR LUCY STONE:--Most earnestly did I desire to attend this
     Seventh National Convention, more especially as I felt that I
     should be the only representative from the west side of the great
     Father of Waters. But it is impossible for me to remove the
     barriers just now opposed to so long a journey and absence from
     home. There is much thought in the free States of the great
     West--much less of conservatism and rigid adherence to the
     old-time customs of law and theology among the masses, than in
     the East. Thousands are becoming ready to be baptized into a new
     faith, a broader and holier recognition of the rights of
     humanity. The harvest-fields are ripening for the reapers.

          The gloomy night is breaking--
            E'en now the sunbeams rest
          With a bright and cheering radiance
            On the hill-tops of the West;
          The mists are slowly rising
            From the valley and the plain,
          And a spirit is awaking
            That shall never sleep again.

     But since I can not meet you in your councils, I will endeavor to
     allay the disappointment by striving to reach with my pen some of
     the sunset homes in the far West, and endeavor to arouse woman
     there to her duties and responsibilities, that she may sympathize
     more fully with her Eastern sisters, who caught the first glow of
     the sunrise hour of our great reform movement. With sincere and
     earnest wishes for your advancement in right and truth,

                         I am respectfully yours,
                                                  FRANCES D. GAGE.

     Mr. HIGGINSON was then introduced. Mrs. President, and Ladies and
     Gentlemen: I think, as perhaps some of you do, that a
     disproportionately large portion of the time of the meeting
     to-day has been taken up by the speeches of men; therefore I do
     not intend that this man's speech shall be a very long one. I
     remember a certain sermon, of which it was said it had nothing
     good in it except its subject and its shortness. My speech is
     going to be like that sermon. But there is one great advantage
     which men, enjoy in speaking on a Woman's Rights platform: they
     can not help doing good to the movement, no matter how they
     speak; for if a man speaks well, of course he helps it by his
     speech; and if he speaks ill on the subject, he still helps it,
     because there are women about him who won't speak ill, and the
     comparison is useful.

     I wish to take up a point which, as a man, I am entitled to claim
     should have more prominence given it than has yet been the case;
     a point touched upon by me previously, in something I said
     yesterday, which some of you thought was not correct; and a point
     touched upon by Wendell Phillips this afternoon. I mean the claim
     of the Woman's Rights movement on woman; the wrong done by woman
     to that movement; and the injustice of the charge against man,
     that he especially resists it. And yet I can not fully accept the
     position taken by Rev. Mr. Johnson and Horace Greeley, that man's
     duty is only to stand aside and let woman take her rights. Not
     so. It is not so easy as that, let me tell you, gentlemen, to get
     rid of the responsibility of years of wrong. We men have been
     standing for years with our hands crushing down the shoulders of
     woman, so that she should not attain her true altitude; and it is
     not so easy, after we have cramped, dwarfed, and crippled her, to
     get rid of our responsibility by standing back at last, and
     saying, "There, we will let you go; stand up for yourself." If it
     is true, as these women say, that we have wronged them for
     centuries, we have got to do something more than mere negative
     duty. By as much as we have helped to wrong them, we have got to
     help to right them; by as much as we have discouraged them
     heretofore, we have got to encourage them hereafter; and that is
     why I wish to speak to women to-night of their duties, as these
     women have spoken to us of ours. I want to remind them that the
     time has come when men must appeal to them; for be assured that
     when women are ready to claim their rights, men will be ready to
     grant them.

     There are three special obstacles, Mrs. President, to the
     willingness of woman to do her simple duty to the Woman's Rights
     movement. The first is the obstacle of folly--sheer,
     unadulterated folly--the folly in which women are trained, and in
     which we men help to train them, and for which we then denounce
     them. The reason why many women don't like the Woman's Rights
     movement, is because they have too little real thought in them to
     appreciate it at all. They have been brought up as fashionable
     society brings up woman on one side, or as mere household
     drudgery brings them up on the other--in each case, without power
     to appreciate a great principle--without power to appreciate a
     sublime purpose--without power to appreciate anything but a "good
     match," and the way to obtain it. On their entrance into life,
     their choice lies, for social position, for enjoyment, for
     occupation, for usefulness, in this narrow alternative--between a
     husband and nothing; and that, as Theodore Parker once said, is
     very often a choice between two nothings. These women may have
     literary culture and social polish; but, for want of an idea to
     light up their eyes and strengthen their souls, these things are
     only glitter and worthlessness.

     A certain celebrated French woman in the last century (Mlle. de
     Launay), who made mathematical science her study, at last had a
     lover; whereupon she partially forgot her mathematics, and only
     remembered enough of it for practical purposes. And, in her
     Memoirs, she mentions the fact that her lover at length began to
     be less attentive to her; so much so, that she observed that
     whereas in walking home with her in the evening, he used to take
     pains to go round the two sides of the public square, in order to
     make the walk as long as possible, he now cut it short by always
     striking across the center; "so that his love for me," she
     observes, "must have decreased in the inverse ratio between the
     diagonal of a rectangular parallelogram and the sum of two
     adjacent sides." Who shall say that mathematics are wasted on a
     woman after that? Now, that is the sum of the science that is
     taught in half our institutions of education, in more than half
     our fashionable boarding-schools, in nearly all the most
     cultivated social circles in the land. How can you expect, from
     such women, any nobleness or appreciation of nobleness? How can
     you expect any from such a woman's husband, when all his thoughts
     of woman have been crushed down, by sad experience, to the level
     of his wife's capacities? When I find a man who is obstinate
     against Woman's Rights, I try to find out either what sort of a
     mother or what sort of a wife that man has, and there I find the
     key to his position; for how can you expect any man to have a
     noble and equal idea of woman, when his mother knows nothing in
     the universe beyond a cooking-stove, and his wife has not much
     experimental acquaintance even with that?

     No; the first obstacle to this Woman's Rights movement is the
     feminine, that builds all its hopes upon the wretched adulation
     and flattery of men--that thinks "the gentlemen admire weakness
     in a woman." Well, so they do admire to flatter it and to laugh
     at it! Those are the women who have called out from gifted men,
     age after age, those terrible denunciations of which literature
     is full. Women who are here, who think men admire weakness in a
     woman, let me tell you that if you want to know what men really
     think of women, you must go beyond the flatteries of the
     ball-room; you must go beyond the compliments of the public
     speaker. You must follow your young admirer from the ball-room
     into the bar-room, where he ridicules you among his companions,
     and laughs at the folly he has been flattering. You must pass
     from the public meeting into the office or study, to learn how
     the man who flatters woman most may despise her in his heart.

     Think what great men of the world have said of woman. Voltaire
     said: "Ideas are like beards--women and young men have none."
     Lessing, the German, says: "The woman who thinks is like a man
     who puts on rouge--ridiculous." Dr. Maginn, that accomplished
     literary man, says: "We like to hear a few words of wit from a
     woman, just as we like to hear a few words of sense from a
     parrot--because they are so unexpected." These things were never
     said to women, but they were said of them. In the presence of
     female intellect, men are very often like that Englishman who was
     reproached by the judge in the police-court, because he, being a
     very large, athletic man, allowed his wife, who was a very
     delicate, puny woman, occasionally, to beat him. Said the judge:
     "How can you allow it? you have ten times her strength." "Oh,"
     said the giant, drawing himself up to his full stature, "it is no
     great matter; it pleases her, and it don't hurt me." That is the
     way men deal with female intellect--they like to amuse themselves
     with it, to flatter it as an entertaining trifle. But when it
     comes in earnest, and shows itself, then it is that these men
     stand apart from the new spectacle of a woman transformed into a
     thinker and worker; while true men rejoice to see nobleness in a
     woman. There is not a man here who does not, in his own highest
     moments, reverence in woman the same qualities he admires in
     himself, if he thinks he claims them. Power of clear thought and
     of heroic action--every man admires these in woman in the best
     moments of his life. It is when he lowers himself to the level of
     the public meeting, or of the fashionable drawing-room, that he
     is changed into a flatterer, and he who flatters always despises
     the object of his flattery.

     Another source of opposition to this movement among women is
     founded in Fear. It does not require much courage for a man to
     stand on a Woman's Rights platform. I do not say that it does not
     require more than a good many men have, for it would be difficult
     to find a thing so easy as not to do that. He, of course, has to
     run the gauntlet of the old nonsense of "strong-minded women and
     weak-minded men." Well, I am willing to be accounted weak-minded
     in the presence of strength of mind and heart, with which it has
     been my privilege to be associated in this movement. That is a
     small thing, and it is the experience of every man who has
     entered into this reform, that if he had a fiber of manhood in
     him heretofore, that fiber had been doubled, trebled, and
     quadrupled before he had been in it a year. Instead of requiring
     courage for a man to enter into this movement, it rather requires
     courage to keep out of it, if he is a logical, clear-headed man.
     But with a woman it is different. She needs much courage. A woman
     who, for instance, has been engaged in some literary avocation,
     and obtained some position, does not wish to risk her reputation
     by connecting herself with those who advocate the right of woman,
     not merely to write and to speak, but to vote also; hence, while
     admitting, secretly admitting, the justice of the claim, she will
     shrink back from avowing it for fear of "losing her position."
     How can any brave man honor such a recreant woman as that, who,
     having gained all she wants to herself, under cover of the bolder
     efforts of these nobler spirits, then settles back upon the ease
     and comfort of that position, and turns her small artillery on
     her own sisters? I feel a sense of shame for American literature,
     when I think how our literary women shrink, and cringe, and
     apologize, and dodge to avoid being taken for "strong-minded
     women." Oh, there's no danger. I don't wonder that their literary
     efforts are stricken with the palsy of weakness from the
     beginning. I don't wonder that our magazines are filled with
     diluted stories, in which sentimental heroines sigh, cry, and die
     through whole pages of weary flatness, and not a single noble
     thought relieves that Sahara of emptiness and barrenness. It is a
     retribution on them. A man or woman can not put in a book more
     than they have in themselves, and if woman is not noble enough to
     appreciate a great thought, she is not noble enough to write one.
     I don't wonder that their fame does not keep the promise of its
     dawn, when that dawn is so dastardly.

     The time will come, let me tell you, ladies, when the first
     question asked about any woman in this age who is worth
     remembering will be, "Did that woman comprehend her whole sphere?
     Did she stand beside her sisters who were laboring for the right?
     If she did not this, it is no matter what she did." It is thus we
     already begin to judge the American women of the past. The time
     will come, when of all Mrs. Adams' letters, the passage best
     remembered will be that, where she points out to her great
     husband, that while emancipating the world, he still believes in
     giving men the absolute control over women. So the time will come
     when Harriet Beecher Stowe will be less honored, even as the
     authoress of "Uncle Tom's Cabin," than as the woman who in _The
     New York Independent_, that repository of religious thought,
     dared to place it among her religious thoughts, that Antoinette
     Brown had a right to stand in the pulpit. I wish Mrs. Stowe were
     yet more consistent; I wish she were not satisfied with merely
     wishing that others would attend Woman's Rights Conventions, and
     support Woman's Rights Lectures, but would join and take part in
     these things herself, as I believe she will when her brave spirit
     has gone a little further. Her heroic brother, Henry Ward
     Beecher, is with us already in the public advocacy of the right
     of suffrage for women.

     The third obstacle that sets woman against this movement is
     _prejudice_. It is the honest feeling of multitudes of women that
     their "natural sphere," their domestic duties, will be interfered
     with by any other career. Let me tell you that so judging, you
     have only learned half the story we have to tell. We encourage
     these domestic duties most fully and amply. There is not a woman
     here who is not proud to claim them. Of all the women who have
     stood or spoken on this platform since this Convention began,
     there is only one who is not a married woman; there are very few
     who are not mothers; and among them all there is not one who does
     not give, by the nobleness of her domestic life, a proof of the
     consistency of that with the rest of the claims she makes for her
     sex. Some there are who doubt this; some there are who do not see
     how the elective franchise is any way connected with home duties
     and cares. I tell you there is the closest connection. If any one
     thing caps the sum of the argument for the rights of woman, it is
     the fact of those domestic duties which some idly array against
     it. What has a man at stake in society? What has he to risk by
     his ballot? Ask him at the ballot-box, and you will hear his
     statement. You will hear it in a thousand ways, and in a thousand
     voices. His own personal interest. A man invests _himself_ in
     society; woman invests infinitely more, for she throws in _her
     child_. The man can run away to California with his interests,
     and from his duties; the woman is anchored to her home. It is
     important to him, you say, whether the community provides, by its
     statutes, schools or dram-shops. Then how vast, how unspeakable
     the importance to her! Deprive every man in the nation of the
     ballot, if you will, but demand, oh, demand its protection for
     the wife and the mother!

     See the unjust workings of the present system. I knew in a town
     in Massachusetts a widow woman, who paid the highest tax bill in
     the town; nay, for every dollar that any man paid in the town,
     she paid two, and yet that woman had not the right to the ballot,
     which belonged to the most ignorant Irishman in her employ. She
     hadn't the right to protect her child from the misappropriation
     of his property; and if she had owned the whole town, and there
     had not been any other person to pay a property tax except that
     solitary woman, the case would have been the same, and not the
     slightest power of protection would have been in her hands,
     against the most outrageous misappropriation.

     In another town of Massachusetts there is a story told of a man,
     a member of the Society of Friends. He was once sending his wife
     on a long journey. As she was about to set forth in the stage,
     "My dear," said she, "thee has forgotten to give me any money for
     my journey." "Why," said the Quaker, "thee knows very well that I
     paid thy fare in the stage." "But thee knows," said she, "that I
     am going to be away for some weeks, and perhaps it may be well
     for me to have some little money, in case I should have any
     expenses." "Rachel," said the astonished husband, "where is that
     ninepence I gave thee day before yesterday?" That man had gained
     all the money he had in the world through that wife. He obtained
     her property by marriage; he invested that property in real
     estate, and had grown richer and richer, until he grew rich
     enough to spare a ninepence for Rachel the day before yesterday.
     It is such marriages as that, that we wish to avert, by placing
     woman in an honorable position, by substituting an equal union in
     marriage; such a union as is shown in the lives of those who
     stand behind me now.

     The movement which these women urge is sweeping on with
     resistless power. Within the last seven years, every legislature,
     every school, every industrial avocation has been reached by it.
     This is preliminary work. The final Malakoff, the right of
     suffrage, is yet to be gained. Already it has been partially
     conceded, in communities differing in all else, in Canada and in
     Kentucky. We have only to press on. Strange to say, the reform is
     reversing the ordinary weapons of the sexes, for the women have
     all the logic, and the men only gossip and slander. But it finds
     its answering echo in the very hostility it creates. It has a
     million hearts. Silence every woman on this platform, and the
     movement still goes on. Elevate woman at any point, and you lead
     directly to this. The thousand schools of New York are educating
     a Woman's Rights advocate in every house.

During the latter part of Mr. Higginson's remarks, a frequent
disturbance was made by some of the occupants of the galleries, who
were evidently curious to hear the female speakers.

The President then introduced Ernestine L. Rose, who said she wished
to say to all self-respecting men, that this is the last place in
which they should create a disturbance, especially in a matter which
concerns their sisters, their wives, and their mothers.

     Mrs. ROSE: This morning a young man made some remarks in
     opposition to our claims. We were glad to hear him, because he
     gave evidence of an earnest, sincere spirit of inquiry, which is
     always welcome in every true reform movement. And as we believe
     our cause to be based on truth, we know it can bear the test of
     reason, and, like gold doubly refined, will come out purer and
     brighter from the fiery ordeal. The young man, who, I hope, is
     present, based his principal argument against us, "Because," said
     he, "you can bring no authority from revelation or from nature."
     I will not enter into an inquiry as to what he meant by these
     terms, but I will show him the revelation from which we derive
     our authority, and the nature in which it is written in living
     characters. It is true we do not go to revelations written in
     books; but ours is older than all books, and whatever of good
     there is in any written revelations, must necessarily agree with
     ours, or it is not true, for ours only is the true revelation,
     based in nature and in life. That revelation is no less than the
     living, breathing, thinking, feeling, acting revelation
     manifested in the nature of woman. In her manifold powers,
     capacities, needs, hopes, and aspirations, lies her title-deed,
     and whether that revelation was written by nature or nature's
     God, matters not, for here it is. No one can disprove it. No one
     can bring an older, broader, higher, and more sacred basis for
     human rights. Do you tell me that the Bible is against our
     rights? Then I say that our claims do not rest upon a book
     written no one knows when, or by whom. Do you tell me what Paul
     or Peter says on the subject? Then again I reply that our claims
     do not rest on the opinions of any one, not even on those of Paul
     and Peter, for they are older than they. Books and opinions, no
     matter from whom they came, if they are in opposition to human
     rights, are nothing but dead letters. I have shown you that we
     derive our claims from humanity, from revelation, from nature,
     and from your Declaration of Independence; all proclaim our right
     to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and having life,
     which fact I presume you do not question, then we demand all the
     rights and privileges society is capable of bestowing, to make
     life useful, virtuous, honorable, and happy.

     But I am told that woman needs not as extensive an education as
     man, as her place is only the domestic sphere; _only_ the
     domestic sphere! Oh, how utterly ignorant is society of the true
     import of that term! Go to your legislative halls, and your
     Congress; behold those you have sent there to govern you, and as
     you find them high or low, great or small, noble or base, you can
     trace it directly or indirectly to the domestic sphere.

     The wisest in all ages have acknowledged that the most important
     period in human education is in childhood--that period when the
     plastic mind may be moulded into such exquisite beauty, that no
     unfavorable influences shall be able entirely to destroy it--or
     into such hideous deformity, that it shall cling to it like a
     thick rust eaten into a highly polished surface, which no
     after-scouring shall ever be able entirely to efface. This most
     important part of education is left entirely in the hands of the
     mother. She prepares the soil for future culture; she lays the
     foundation upon which a superstructure shall be erected that
     shall stand as firm as a rock, or shall pass away like the
     baseless fabric of a vision, and leave not a wreck behind. But
     the mother can not give what she does not possess; weakness can
     not impart strength.

     Sisters, you have a duty to perform--and duty, like charity,
     begins at home. In the name of your poor, vicious, outcast,
     down-trodden sister! in the name of her who once was as innocent
     and as pure as you are! in the name of her who has been made the
     victim of wrong, injustice, and oppression! in the name of man!
     in the name of all, I ask you, I entreat you, if you have an hour
     to spare, a dollar to give, or a word to utter--spare it, give
     it, and utter it, for the elevation of woman! And when your
     minister asks you for money for missionary purposes, tell him
     there are higher, and holier, and nobler missions to be
     performed at home. When he asks for colleges to educate
     ministers, tell him you must educate woman, that she may do away
     with the necessity of ministers, so that they may be able to go
     to some useful employment. If he asks you to give to the churches
     (which means to himself) then ask him what he has done for the
     salvation of woman. When he speaks to you of leading a virtuous
     life, ask him whether he understands the causes that have
     prevented so many of your sisters from being virtuous, and have
     driven them to degradation, sin, and wretchedness. When he speaks
     to you of a hereafter, tell him to help to educate woman, to
     enable her to live a life of intelligence, independence, virtue,
     and happiness here, as the best preparatory step for any other
     life. And if he has not told you from the pulpit of all these
     things; if he does not know them; it is high time you inform him,
     and teach him his duty here in this life.

     This subject is deep and vast enough for the wisest heads and
     purest hearts of the race; it underlies our whole social system.
     Look to your criminal records--look to your records of mortality,
     to your cemeteries, peopled by mothers before the age of thirty
     or forty, and children under the age of five; earnestly and
     impartially investigate the cause, and you can trace it directly
     or indirectly to woman's inefficient education; her helpless,
     dependent position; her inexperience; her want of confidence in
     her own noble nature, in her own principles and powers, and her
     blind reliance in man. We ask, then, for woman, an education that
     shall cultivate her powers, develop, elevate, and ennoble her
     being, physically, mentally, and morally; to enable her to take
     care of herself, and she will be taken care of; to protect
     herself, and she will be protected. But to give woman as full and
     extensive an education as man, we must give her the same motives.
     No one gathers keys without a prospect of having doors to unlock.
     Man does not acquire knowledge without the hope to make it useful
     and productive; the highest motives only can call out the
     greatest exertion. There is a vast field of action open to man,
     and therefore, he is prepared to enter it; widen the sphere of
     action for woman, throw open to her all the avenues of industry,
     emolument, usefulness, moral ambition, and true greatness, and
     you will give her the same noble motives, the same incentives for
     exertion, application, and perseverance that man possesses--and
     this can be done only by giving her her legal and political
     rights--pronounce her the equal of man in all the rights and
     advantages society can bestow, and she will be prepared to
     receive and use them, and not before. It would be folly to
     cultivate her intellect like that of man without giving her the
     same chances to use it--to give her an industrial avocation
     without giving her the right to the proceeds of her industry, or
     to give her the right to the proceeds of her industry without
     giving her the power to protect the property she may acquire; she
     must therefore have the legal and political rights, or she has
     nothing. The ballot-box is the focus of all other rights, it is
     the pivot upon which all others hang; the legal rights are
     embraced in it, for if once possessed of the right to the
     ballot-box, to self-representation, she will see to it that the
     laws shall be just, and protect her person and her property, as
     well as that of man. Until she has political rights she is not
     secure in any she may possess. One legislature may alter some
     oppressive law, and give her some right, and the next legislature
     may take it away, for as yet it is only given as an act of
     generosity, as a charity on the part of man, and not as her
     right, and therefore it can not be lasting, nor productive of
     good.

     Mothers, women of America! when you hear the subject of Woman's
     Rights broached, laugh at it and us, ridicule it as much as you
     please; but never forget, that by the laws of your country, you
     have no right to your children--the law gives the father as
     uncontrolled power over the child as it gives the husband over
     the wife; only the child, when it comes to maturity, the father's
     control ceases, while the wife never comes to maturity. The
     father may bequeath, bestow, or sell the child without the
     consent of the mother. But methinks I hear you say that no man
     deserving the name of man, or the title of husband and father,
     could commit such an outrage against the dearest principles of
     humanity; well, if there are no such men, then the law ought to
     be annulled, a law against which nature, justice, and humanity
     revolt, ought to be wiped off from the statute book as a
     disgrace; and if there are such--which unhappily we all know
     there are--then there is still greater reason why the laws ought
     to be changed, for bad laws encourage bad men and make them
     worse; good men can not be benefited by the existence of bad
     laws; bad men ought not to be; laws are not made for him who is a
     law unto himself, but for the lawless. The legitimate object of
     law is to protect the innocent and inexperienced against the
     designing and the guilty; we therefore ask every one present to
     demand of the Legislatures of every State to alter these unjust
     laws; give the wife an equal right with the husband in the
     property acquired after marriage; give the mother an equal right
     with the father in the control of the children; let the wife at
     the death of the husband remain his heir to the same extent that
     he would be hers, at her death; let the laws be alike for both,
     and they are sure to be right; but to have them so, woman must
     help to make them.

     We hear a great deal about the heroism of the battle-field. What
     is it? Compare it with the heroism of the woman who stands up for
     the right, and it sinks into utter insignificance. To stand
     before the cannon's mouth, with death before him and disgrace
     behind, excited to frenzy by physical fear, encouraged by his
     leader, stimulated by the sound of the trumpet, and sustained by
     the _still emptier sound of glory_, requires no great heroism;
     the merest coward could be a hero in such a position; but to face
     the fire of an unjust and prejudiced public opinion, to attack
     the adamantine walls of long-usurped power, to brave not only the
     enemy abroad, but often that severest of all enemies, your own
     friends at home, requires a heroism that the world has never yet
     recognized, that the battle-field can not supply, but which woman
     possesses.

     When the Allied Powers endeavored to take Sebastopol they found
     that every incision and inroad they made in the fortress during
     the day was filled up by the enemy during the night; and even
     now, after the terrible sacrifice of life to break it down, they
     are not safe, but the enemy may build it up again. But in a moral
     warfare, no matter how thick and impenetrable the fortress of
     prejudice may be, if you once make an inroad in it, that space
     can never be filled up again; every stone you remove is removed
     for aye and for good; and the very effort to replace it tends
     only to loosen every other stone, until the whole foundation is
     undermined, and the superstructure crumbles at our feet.

     The PRESIDENT: Before this Convention closes, I want to say a
     word to the women who hear me. This work lies chiefly in our
     hands. We have undertaken no child's play. It is nothing less
     than a change in customs hoary with age--in laws which have
     existed through long years--in mistaken religious interpretations
     and views of duty, which have received the sanction and
     veneration of antiquity. It is to place woman where she may make
     herself fit for life's duties, in whatever department she may
     find herself, whether as woman, daughter, wife, or mother. Every
     influence around us to-day tends to the reverse. The young girl
     stands beside her brother in the world's wide arena, and looks
     out to see what it shall assign her. To him, everything that
     power can win is open, while the world cheers him, by so much as
     he grasps and conquers. To her is presented, what kind of a life?
     There is not a man in the world, who, if such a life were offered
     him, would not sooner lie down peacefully in his grave, than in a
     paltry cage fret away a life that ought to have been broad and
     grand, as God who gave it intended it should be.

     Horace Greeley says he thinks the intellect of woman is not equal
     to that of man. Horace Greeley was a poor boy, and had to make
     his way up in the world. He has reached a position that is
     attained by few. When he speaks the nation listens. Suppose that
     he had been told by his mother, as she placed her hand upon his
     little head, with all the tenderness that gushes from a mother's
     heart, "My son, here is your brother; he shall grow up in the
     world of society, and no school or college shall be closed
     against him; the great school of life shall be free to him; he
     shall have a voice in making the laws he is to obey; he shall pay
     taxes, and he shall direct the use of the tax; but for you, alas!
     none of these places will be open; you must therefore rest
     satisfied with helping your brother. He will win power and
     wealth, but none of it shall be your own; if you seek to enter
     into the same position that he is in, the world will scorn and
     deride you." And if when he came into life he had found all that
     his mother told him was true, what think you would have been the
     success of Horace Greeley, with all this mountain-weight upon
     him? Would he have taken the place he has now? I am glad he was
     not hindered; I am only sorry that woman is. It is too early for
     him or us to say what the intellect of woman is, till she has had
     the freedom to try its powers. I am reminded of what Frederick
     Douglass said of the <DW64>s: "You shut us out of the schools and
     colleges, you put your foot on us, and then say, Why don't you
     know something?" That is just what is said to us.

     Let us teach men who talk of the wrongs perpetrated in Kansas,
     that they are doing the very same thing to us here. One need not
     go to Kansas to find border ruffians, or bogus legislation, for
     they can all be found here; and when the future historian shall
     record that in Kansas, Missourians deprived free State men of the
     franchise, and that New York men deprived the women of the same,
     it will be said that the border ruffians of Missouri and the
     border ruffians of New York were very much alike--one came with
     the gloved hand, and smiled and bowed, saying, I can't let you
     vote; while the other said, If you do I will blow out your
     brains. The result is the same.

     I look in the faces of men and marvel that they can meet us in
     the way they do, when they have made such laws against us.
     Clear-headed and far-sighted, they do not appear to realize that
     the outrages they condemn in Kansas, they are themselves all the
     while inflicting upon us. John Randolph, when the women of
     Virginia were making garments for the Greeks, pointed to long
     gangs of slaves, and said, "Ladies, the Greeks are at your
     doors."

In addition to the annual canvass of the State, lectures from the most
popular orators were secured in the large cities. In the winter of
1856, by invitation of Miss Anthony, Theodore Parker, William Lloyd
Garrison, Wendell Phillips, Ralph Waldo Emerson, lectured in
Corinthian Hall, Rochester, to good audiences. In the spring of 1858,
Miss Emily Howland managed a course of lectures in Mozart Hall, New
York, in aid of "The Shirt-sewers' and Seamstresses' Union," viz:
George Wm. Curtis, "Fair Play for Women"; Lucy Stone, "Woman and the
Elective Franchise"; Hon. Eli Thayer, "Benefit to Women of Organized
Emigration"; and Rev. E. H. Chapin, "Woman and her Work." In the
autumn of the same year, through the enterprise of Elizabeth M.
Powell, Henry Ward Beecher, James T. Brady, Solon Robinson, and others
addressed a large audience in Dr. Chapin's church, Mayor Tieman
presiding, to aid in the establishment of a "Free Library for Working
Women."

In January, 1859, Antoinette L. Brown gave a series of Sunday sermons
in Rochester, and in 1860 she preached in Hope Chapel, New York, for
six months. In Rochester during the winter of 1859, Miss Anthony had a
series of lectures by George William Curtis, Wendell Phillips,
Antoinette Brown, Ernestine L. Rose, and others. The following letter
will show that Thomas Starr King was in full sympathy with our
movement:

                                              BOSTON, _Sep. 20, 1858_.

     SUSAN B. ANTHONY.

     DEAR MADAM:--It would afford me great satisfaction to be able to
     serve you as you request. I am compelled to say, however, that it
     is entirely out of my power. I have already engaged for so much
     work beyond my regular duties, that I shall have no leisure even
     to prepare a new Lyceum address. Not having any lecture upon the
     position of woman that is full enough, and adequate in any way to
     the present state of the discussion, I must reluctantly decline
     the opportunity you offer.

                         With sincere thanks, I remain truly yours,
                                                       T. S. KING.

In the autumn of 1858, Francis Jackson, of Boston, placed $5,000 in
the hands of Wendell Phillips for woman's enfranchisement, as will be
seen by the following letter:

                                               BOSTON, _Nov. 6, 1858_.

     DEAR FRIENDS:--I have had given me five thousand dollars, to be
     used for the Woman's Rights cause; to procure tracts on that
     subject, publish and circulate them, pay for lectures, and secure
     such other agitation of the question as we deem fit and best to
     obtain equal civil and social position for woman.

     The name of the giver of this generous fund I am not allowed to
     tell you; the only condition of the gift is, that the fund is to
     remain invested in my keeping. In other respects, we three are a
     Committee of Trustees to spend it wisely and efficiently.

     Let me ask you to write me what plan strikes you as best to begin
     with. I think some agitation specially directed to the
     Legislature very important. It is wished that we should begin our
     efforts at once.

                              Yours truly,
                                                 WENDELL PHILLIPS,

     Miss SUSAN B. ANTHONY.
     Mrs. LUCY STONE.

It was in the year 1859 that Charles F. Hovey of Boston left by
will,[153] a sum of $50,000 to be expended annually in the promotion
of various reforms. Woman's Rights among them.

MOZART HALL,

NEW YORK, MAY 13, 14, 1858.

The year 1857 seems to have passed without a National Convention,
although the work was still vigorously prosecuted in the State of New
York, but in the spring of 1858, the ninth National Convention was
called in New York during the week of the anniversaries when crowds
were always attracted to attend the various religious and reformatory
meetings. Henceforward, for many years, a Woman's Rights Convention
was a marked feature of this period in the month of May. There were
several persons at this Convention who had not before honored our
platform.[154] These, with the usual familiar speakers,[155] filled
the platform with quite a striking group of ladies and gentlemen. The
morning session was occupied with the usual preliminary business
matters, choosing officers, presenting resolutions, and planning new
aggressive steps for the coming year. Susan B. Anthony was President
on this occasion, and fulfilled her duties to the general
satisfaction. During the evening session the hall was crowded, all the
available space for either sitting or standing was occupied, the
platform and steps were densely packed, and this at twenty-five cents
admission.

Mr. Phillips, Mrs. Mott, Mrs. Rose, Mr. Garrison, Mr. Higginson, Miss
Brown, and Lucy Stone all spoke with their usual effect. Mrs. Eliza
Woodson Farnham, the author of "Woman and her Era," spoke at length on
the "Superiority of Woman."

     She presented a series of resolutions, recognizing the right of
     man in the primary era in his physical and cerebral structure, to
     be the conqueror, the mechanic, the inventor, the clearer of
     forests, the pioneer of civilization, but she looked to the
     dawning of a higher era, when woman should assume her true
     position in harmony with her superior organism, her delicacy of
     structure, her beauty of person, her great powers of endurance,
     and thus prove herself not only man's equal in influence and
     power, but his superior in many of the noblest virtues. In
     woman's creative power during maternity, she recognized her as
     second only to God himself. Woman should recognize man as a John
     the Baptist, going before to prepare the world for her coming, he
     recognizing her greater divinity as equal in the Godhead, as
     heavenly mother as well as father.

Mrs. Farnham[156] enforced her theory of woman's superiority in a long
speech, which was received with apparent satisfaction by the audience,
though several on the platform dissented from the claim of
superiority, thinking it would be a sufficient triumph over the
tyrannies of the past, if popular thought could be educated to the
idea of the equality of the sexes.

Mrs. Sarah Hallock read an extract from the Statutes of New York,
giving the items set aside by law for use of the wife and minor
children, in case the husband died without a will.

                 (Extract from the Statutes of New York).

      ARTICLES INVENTORIED, BUT NOT APPROVED, BELONGING TO THE WIDOW
                             AND MINOR CHILDREN.

     1st. All spinning-wheels, weaving-looms, or stoves put up for
     use.

     2d. The family Bible, family pictures, school-books, and books
     not exceeding in value fifty dollars.

     [Mrs. Hallock here interjected, husbands had better give their
     wives cheap books].

     3d. Ten sheep and their fleeces, and the yarn and cloth
     manufactured from the same; one cow, two swine, and the pork of
     such swine. [Laughter],

     4th. All necessary wearing apparel, beds, bedsteads, and bedding;
     the clothing of the widow and her ornaments proper to her station
     (as to ornaments, tastes differ as to those proper to her
     station), one table, six chairs (suppose there were seven or ten
     children, what then? queried Mrs. Hallock [Laughter],) six knives
     and forks, six tea-cups and saucers, one sugar-dish, one
     milk-pot, one tea-pot, and six spoons. "So great a favorite is
     the female sex of the laws of England and America," says
     Blackstone.

     Mrs. ROSE protested against _one_ tea-pot; the law didn't mention
     tea-pot at all. [Great laughter].

     Mrs. HALLOCK: Oh, yes! but not a coffee-pot. [Renewed laughter].

     Mrs. GAGE: In Ohio they give twelve spoons. [Convulsive
     laughter].

     Mrs. HALLOCK: We'll get up a delegation to Ohio, then.

     Mrs. FARNHAM: I would say that I will give up all these things if
     the State will only give us in return one of our children.
     [Applause and laughter].

     Mrs. HALLOCK: Isn't it a pity that our laws--are they ours?

     Mrs. ROSE: No.

     Mrs. HALLOCK: Well, then, your laws. It is a pity that those
     statutes should not be revised so as to give a widow a carpet and
     other smaller articles of luxury. [Great laughter].

And such was the boasted "protection" secured to the wives and mothers
by the laws of the most civilized nations on the globe, and such the
law-makers in whose hands woman's interests were supposed to be
secure, when we began our battle for equality. Class laws, class
legislation, legalized robbery from the unborn child, down to the
commonest necessaries of life, has been the "protection" woman has
complained of from fathers, husbands, brothers, and sons. Those just
awaking to an interest in this reform, see but the smoke of the former
battles; they can not appreciate all the tyranny from which this
agitation has freed them. Step by step, custom by custom, law by law,
a partial victory has been wrested, and a public opinion slowly
created that promises other victories in the near future.

Those who have not been through the conflict will never realize how
dark the prospect was in starting. Denied education, and a place in
the world of work, denied the rights of property, whether of her own
earnings, or her inheritance, with the press and the pulpit, custom,
and public opinion sustaining the law, was there ever a struggle
entered upon, which at its beginning seemed more hopeless than this
for woman? But these constant presentations of the laws, with the
comments and arguments in our Conventions, gradually appealed to the
understanding of sensible men and women, and opened the eyes of the
community to the wrongs of woman, perpetrated under the specious name
of justice.

All the sessions of this Convention were interrupted by the rowdyism
of a number of men occupying the rear part of the hall.

     PARKER PILLSBURY said he had attended three of these Conventions,
     but had not spoken in one before. He thought the ladies
     encroached a little on the men's rights, as in the first and
     second, the Methodists gave the ladies the use of their church in
     a city of the West, on condition that Parker Pillsbury should not
     be allowed to speak. [Applause and laughter]. Now that the door
     was open, and he had ventured in, he did not know what to say.
     [Laughter and cries of "Go on"]. He would recommend the women to
     hold their next Convention at the ballot-box, as that would do
     more good than a hundred such as these. If their votes were
     refused, let them look the tax collectors in the face and defy
     them to come for taxes, as long as they were not allowed a voice
     in the Government. And carry the war into the Church, too, demand
     equality there as well as in the State.

     He knew an orthodox church, consisting of twelve members. One was
     a man and a deacon, the remainder were women. A vote had to be
     taken for changing the day for the prayer-meeting, but some
     difficulty arose between the minister and the deacon, and the
     only way it could be settled was by the votes of the women. So
     the deacon went round on tip-toe, and put his head under each
     bonnet, and held a little private caucus meeting with one after
     another, and then returned to the altar and reported to the
     minister that the vote was unanimous. If women had any proper
     self-respect, they would scorn to remain one hour in any church
     in which they were not considered and recognized as equals.

     OLIVER JOHNSON said there was a new church formed called
     "Progressive Friends," in which men and women stood on perfect
     equality. He said there was another church (Henry Ward Beecher's)
     in Brooklyn, where women were expected to vote on all questions
     connected with the business affairs of the congregation. Another
     church in this city (Rev. Dr. Cheever's) had a difficulty in
     which the capitalists tried to dismiss the pastor, because he
     maintained the right of the slave to freedom, and of the woman to
     the elective franchise. He agreed with Mr. Pillsbury that it was
     woman's duty to test her equality in the Church as well as the
     State.

     AARON M. POWELL took the same ground. As women made the large
     majority in the churches, they could easily secure equal rights
     there if united in an effort to do so. Why, said he, are there no
     young women sitting at the reporters' desks, taking note of the
     proceedings of this Convention? He advocated the elective
     franchise, saying that no class could be protected in all its
     rights without a voice in the laws.

     A Mr. WARREN said he had no objection to woman's claiming
     equality, but when they declared their superiority, they injured
     themselves and the rising generation in teaching the young to
     disrespect the men of the household. (Great laughter and hisses).
     Woman might be the savior of man, but was not God, and had no
     place in the Godhead. (Laughter and cheers). He spoke from
     experience when he said men had already suffered much from the
     tyrannical usurpations of women. Let woman be the true helpmate
     of man, religiously, politically, morally, socially; but, oh!
     said he, in a sorrowful tone, it will be a sad day for the race
     when woman takes command, and man is pushed aside. (Convulsive
     laughter, and cries of "Give us your experience.")

     Mrs. FARNHAM was glad the subject of woman's superiority had been
     broached, and only regretted that as a scientific fact it could
     not be more seriously discussed.

     A gentleman deprecated the fact that Mr. Warren had not been more
     fully heard.

     THE PRESIDENT said it was the audience and not the platform that
     laughed. Loud calls were made for

     DOUGLASS, to which he responded, claiming woman's right to
     freedom and equality on the same grounds he based his own.

     WILLIAM LLOYD GARRISON maintained woman's right to sit in
     Congress and the legislatures--that there should be the same
     number of women as men in all the national councils. He said
     respect for his sainted mother, love for his noble wife, and for
     the only daughter of his house and heart (my own Fanny), compel
     me to defend the rights of all women. Those who have inaugurated
     this movement are worthy to be ranked with the army of martyrs
     and confessors in the days of old. Blessings on them! They should
     triumph, and every opposition be removed, that peace and love,
     justice and liberty, might prevail throughout the world.

     A Mr. TYLER remarked that a fear had been expressed that in
     coming to the polls, woman would be compelled to meet men who
     drink and smoke. Do women encounter no such evils in their homes?
     Whisky and tobacco are much greater obstacles at the marriage
     altar than at the polls--in the relation of wife than in that of
     citizen.

GEORGE WILLIAM CURTIS, then in the height of his reputation (as
Howadji), spoke at length in favor of suffrage for woman, but amid
constant interruptions. With a short speech from Mrs. Rose, the
Convention adjourned amid great confusion.


NINTH NATIONAL CONVENTION.

In accordance with a call issued by the Central Committee, the Ninth
National Woman's Rights Convention was held in the City of New York on
Thursday, May 12, 1859.

The sessions commenced with a business meeting, on the afternoon of
that day, in Mozart Hall. The meeting was called to order by SUSAN B.
ANTHONY, of Rochester, New York, who made a few introductory remarks,
after which, the question of the expediency of memorializing the
Legislatures of the different States, on the subject of granting equal
rights to Woman, was discussed at some length. At the close of the
debate, a resolution was adopted, that it was expedient so to
memorialize the several Legislatures, and a committee[157] was
appointed for that purpose, and a series of resolutions[158] offered
by Caroline H. Dall.

These resolutions were discussed by Mrs. Dall, Mrs. Hallock, Mrs.
Elizabeth Neal Gay, Lucretia Mott, A. M. Powell, Charles C. Burleigh,
and others.


EVENING SESSION.

At an early hour, Mozart Hall was crowded to overflowing, every seat
being occupied, and crowds standing in the aisle, and the rear of the
hall.

LUCRETIA MOTT had been chosen to preside, but was not able, on account
of the crowd, to reach the platform at the hour appointed. The
Convention was therefore called to order by Susan B. Anthony.

Mrs. CAROLINE H. DALL, of Boston, was the first speaker. She desired
to commemorate the century which had just closed since the death of
Mary Woolstonecraft, and to show that what she did in the old world,
Margaret Fuller had done in the new; but the noise and restlessness
among the audience were so great (much of which, we charitably hope,
was attributable rather to the discomfort of their position than to
any want of respect for the speaker, or for the cause which the
Convention represented), that she yielded to the wish of the presiding
officer, and sat down without speaking of Margaret Fuller.

Short speeches were made by Lucretia Mott, Antoinette Brown Blackwell,
and Ernestine L. Rose; but as it proved to be another turbulent
meeting, Wendell Phillips, who understood from long experience how to
play with and lash a mob, and thrust what he wished to say into their
long ears, all with one consent yielded the platform to him, and for
nearly two hours he held that mocking crowd in the hollow of his hand.
In closing he said:

     I will not attempt to detain you longer. ["Go on"--"Go on."] I
     have neither the disposition nor the strength to trespass any
     longer upon your attention. The subject is so large that it might
     well fill days, instead of hours. It covers the whole surface of
     American society. It touches religion, purity, political economy,
     wages, the safety of cities, the growth of ideas, the very
     success of our experiment. I gave to-night a character to the
     city of Washington which some men hissed. You know it is true. If
     this experiment of self-government is to succeed, it is to
     succeed by some saving element introduced into the politics of
     the present day. You know this: Your Websters, your Clays, your
     Calhouns, your Douglases, however intellectually able they may
     have been, have never dared or cared to touch that moral element
     of our national life. Either the shallow and heartless trade of
     politics had eaten out their own moral being, or they feared to
     enter the unknown land of lofty right and wrong.

     Neither of these great names has linked its fame with one great
     moral question of the day. They deal with money questions, with
     tariffs, with parties, with State law, and if by chance they
     touch the slave question, it is only like Jewish hucksters
     trading in the relics of Saints. The reformers--the fanatics, as
     we are called--are the only ones who have launched social and
     moral questions. I risk nothing when I say, that the anti-slavery
     discussion of the last twenty years has been the salt of this
     nation; it has actually kept it alive and wholesome. Without it,
     our politics would have sunk beyond even contempt. So with this
     question. It stirs the deepest sympathy; it appeals to the
     highest moral sense; it enwraps within itself the greatest moral
     issues. Judge it, then, candidly, carefully, as Americans, and
     let us show ourselves worthy of the high place to which God has
     called us in human affairs. (Applause).


                                 MEMORIAL.

     To the Honorable the Legislature of the State of ----

     The National Woman's Rights Convention, held in New York City,
     May 12, 1859, appointed your memorialists a Committee to call
     your attention to the anomalous position of one-half the people
     of this Republic.

     All republican constitutions set forth the great truth that every
     human being is endowed with certain inalienable rights--such as
     life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--and as a
     consequence, a right to the use of all those means necessary to
     secure these grand results.

     1st.--A citizen can not be said to have a right to life, who may
     be deprived of it for the violation of laws to which she has
     never consented--who is denied the right of trial by a jury of
     her peers--who has no voice in the election of judges who are to
     decide her fate.

     2d.--A citizen can not be said to have a right to liberty, when
     the custody of her person belongs to another; when she has no
     civil or political rights--no right even to the wages she earns;
     when she can make no contracts--neither buy nor sell, sue or be
     sued--and yet can be taxed without representation.

     3d.--A citizen can not be said to have a right to happiness, when
     denied the right to person, property, children, and home; when
     the code of laws under which she is compelled to live is far more
     unjust and tyrannical than that which our fathers repudiated at
     the mouth of the cannon nearly one century ago.

     Now, we would ask on what principle of republicanism, justice, or
     common humanity, a minority of the people of this Republic have
     monopolized to themselves all the rights of the whole? Where,
     under our Declaration of Independence, does the white Saxon man
     get his power to deprive all women and <DW64>s of their
     inalienable rights?

     The mothers of the Revolution bravely shared all dangers,
     persecutions, and death; and their daughters now claim an equal
     share in all the glories and triumphs of your success. Shall they
     stand before a body of American legislators and ask in vain for
     their right of suffrage--their right of property--their right to
     the wages they earn--their right to their children and their
     homes--their sacred right to personal liberty--to a trial by a
     jury of their peers?

     In view of these high considerations, we demand, then, that you
     shall, by your future legislation, secure to women all those
     rights and privileges and immunities which in equity belong to
     every citizen of a republic.

     And we demand that whenever you shall remodel the Constitution of
     the State in which you live, the word "male" shall be expurgated,
     and that henceforth you shall legislate for all citizens. There
     can be no privileged classes in a truly democratic government.

               ELIZABETH CADY STANTON,     MARTHA C. WEIGHT,
               WENDELL PHILLIPS,           CAROLINE M. SEVERANCE,
               CAROLINE H. DALL,           THOMAS W. HIGGINSON,
               ERNESTINE L. ROSE,          SUSAN B. ANTHONY,
                       ANTOINETTE BROWN BLACKWELL,        _Committee_.

The above memorial was extensively circulated and sent to the
Legislature of every State in the nation, but, owing to the John Brown
raid and the general unrest and forebodings of the people on the eve
of our civil war, it commanded but little attention.


     FORM OF APPEAL AND PETITION CIRCULATED IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                   DURING THE SUMMER AND AUTUMN OF 1859.

     _To the Women of the Empire State:_

     It is the desire and purpose of those interested in the Woman's
     Rights movement, to send up to our next Legislature an
     overwhelming petition, for the civil and political rights of
     woman. These rights must be secured just as soon as the majority
     of the women of the State make the demand. To this end, we have
     decided thoroughly to canvass our State before the close of the
     present year. We shall hold conventions in every county,
     distribute tracts and circulate petitions, in order, if possible,
     to arouse a proper self-respect in woman.

     The want of funds has heretofore crippled all our efforts, but as
     large bequests have been made to our cause during the past year,
     we are now able to send out agents and to commence anew our work,
     which shall never end, until, in Church and State, and at the
     fireside, the equality of woman shall be fully recognized.

     We hope much from our Republican legislators. Their well-known
     professions encourage us to believe that our task is by no means
     a hard one. We shall look for their hearty co-operation in every
     effort for the elevation of humanity. We have had bills before
     the Legislature for several years, on some of which, from time to
     time, have had most favorable reports. The property bill of '48
     was passed by a large majority. The various bills of rights, to
     wages, children, suffrage, etc., have been respectfully
     considered. The bill presented at the last session, giving to
     married women their rights to make contracts, and to their wages,
     passed the House with only three dissenting votes, but owing to
     the pressure of business at the close of the session, it was
     never brought before the Senate.

     Whilst man, by his legislation and generous donations, declares
     our cause righteous and just--whilst the very best men of the
     nation, those who stand first in Church and State, in literature,
     commerce, and the arts, are speaking for us such noble words and
     performing such God-like deeds--shall woman, herself, be
     indifferent to her own wrongs, insensible to all the
     responsibilities of her high and holy calling? No! No!! I Let the
     women of the Empire State now speak out in deep and earnest tones
     that can not be misunderstood, demanding all those rights which
     are at the very foundation of Republicanism--a full and equal
     representation with man in the administration of our State and
     National Government.

     Do you know, women of New York! that under our present laws
     married women have no right to the wages they earn? Think of the
     40,000 drunkards' wives in this State--of the wives of men who
     are licentious--of gamblers--of the long line of those who do
     nothing; and is it no light matter that all these women who
     support themselves, their husbands and families, too, shall have
     no right to the disposition of their own earnings? Roll up, then,
     your petitions[159] on this point, if no other, and secure to
     laboring women their wages at the coming session!

     Now is the golden time to work! Before another Constitutional
     Convention be called, see to it that the public sentiment of this
     State shall demand suffrage for woman! Remember, "they who would
     be free, themselves must strike the blow!"

                                         E. CADY STANTON,
                                   _Chairman Central Committee._

Of the canvass of 1859 and '60, we find the following letter in _The
New York Tribune_, February, 1860.

     _To the Editor of The Tribune:_

     SIR:--The readers of _The Tribune_ who have perused its columns
     closely for the last six months will have noticed repeated
     announcements of County Conventions in different parts of the
     State to be addressed by certain ladies engaged in advocating
     equal rights for woman. It may not be uninteresting to them to
     know that every one of those appointments was filled by said
     ladies. Over fifty counties of the State have been thus visited,
     and petitions presented to the people for their signatures,
     praying for equal property rights, and for steps to be taken to
     so amend the Constitution as to secure to woman the right of
     suffrage, which have been numerously signed and duly presented to
     the Legislature. In the rural districts the success has been
     wonderful, considering the unpopularity of the subject; our most
     violent opposers being demagogical Democrats who frankly
     acknowledge that if our doctrines prevail, anti-slavery,
     temperance, moral reform, and Republicanism will conquer.

     Large bequests have been made in the East for the furtherance of
     this movement, and under the direction of a committee appointed
     for that purpose, these ladies have gone forth to proclaim the
     doctrine of civil and political equality for woman. No laggards
     are they in their work. In the language of Mr. Greeley, they have
     found a work to be done, and have gone at it with ready and
     resolute will; they have not been able to answer all the calls
     made upon their time and talent. One of them (I can speak but for
     one) between the 11th of November and the 31st of January, has
     given sixty-eight lectures, not missing one appointment, resting
     only through the holidays and on Sundays. The others have
     doubtless done as well. In most instances all have been able to
     pay their own expenses, and in some cases their own salaries.

     These ladies are not disappointed old maids, desolate widows, or
     unhappy wives, though there is one widow and one who has passed
     what is called the sunny side of twenty-five. Miss Susan B.
     Anthony, the general agent, resides at Rochester, and is
     unmarried. Mrs. Ernestine L. Rose, of New York City, is too
     widely known to need comment. The same may be said of Antoinette
     Brown Blackwell, the eloquent minister, accomplished scholar,
     and amiable wife and mother. Mrs. J. Elizabeth Jones, of Ohio, is
     a lady in the ripeness of womanhood, to whom, equally with the
     above, all these adjectives apply. Mrs. Hannah Tracy Cutler, of
     Illinois, has been twice married, and has superintended two
     families of children satisfactorily; she has been teacher in a
     high school in Columbus, Ohio, and matron of a deaf and dumb
     asylum, has taken premiums on sorghum sugar made by her own
     hands, and is also a physician among the poor of her
     neighborhood. Mrs. Lucy N. Colman, of New York, is a widow, and
     has fought life's battle bravely and well for herself and
     children. Mrs. Frances D. Gage, of Missouri, formerly of Ohio,
     might claim the nomination for President under the authority of
     Henry Ward Beecher, "having brought up six unruly boys," whose
     aggregate height would form a column of thirty-six feet in honor
     of their mother, who will all vote the Republican ticket in 1860
     but one, and he is not old enough; and no one of them smokes or
     chews, or stimulates the inner man with intoxicating beverages.
     She is also the mother of two daughters.

     Two years ago Mr. Greeley said to one of the ladies, "Why don't
     you ladies go to work?" They have gone to work; and with the help
     of such men as Garrison, Phillips, Parker, Giddings, Curtis,
     Beecher, Chapin, Brady, and a host of others whom the world
     delights to honor, their cause will surely triumph. It is a
     question of time only; not of fact. God speed the day.

The State Convention of 1860 was held in Association Hall, Albany,
February 3d and 4th, with fine audiences throughout, and the usual
force of speakers. As the outpourings of Miss Anthony's love element
all flowed into the suffrage movement, she was sorely tried with the
imperative cares that the domestic experiments of most of her
coadjutors so constantly involved. Her urgent missives coming ever and
anon to arouse us to higher duties, are quite inspiring even at this
date. In a letter to Martha C. Wright, she says:

     Mr. Bingham, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, will bring
     in a radical report in favor of all our claims, but previous to
     his doing so he wishes our strongest arguments made before the
     Committee, and he says Mrs. Stanton must come. I write her this
     mail, but I wish you would step over there and make her feel that
     the salvation of the Empire State, at least the women in it,
     depends upon her bending all her powers to moving the hearts of
     our law-makers at this time. Mr. Bingham says our Convention here
     has wrought wondrous changes with a large number of the members
     who attended, and so says Mr. Mayo, of the Albanians; indeed our
     claims are so patent they need only to be known to be approved.
     Mrs. Stanton must move heaven and earth now to secure this bill,
     and she can, if she will only try. I should go there myself this
     very night, but I must watch and encourage friends here. The
     Earnings Bill has passed the House, and is in Committee of the
     Whole in the Senate. Then a Guardianship Bill must be drafted and
     put through if possible. I returned from New York last evening;
     have taken the "Cooper Union," for our National Convention in
     May. Saw Miss Howland; she said Mr. Beecher's lecture is to be in
     this week's _Independent_. Only think how many priestly eyes will
     be compelled to look at its defiled page. Theodore Tilton told me
     that Mr. Beecher had had a severe battle to get into _The
     Independent_.

Mrs. Stanton, in answering Miss Anthony's appeal, says:

     I am willing to do the appointed work at Albany. If Napoleon says
     cross the Alps, they are crossed. I can not, my dear friend,
     "move heaven and earth," but I will do what I can with pen and
     brain. You must come here and start me on the right train of
     thought, as your practical knowledge of just what is wanted is
     everything in getting up the right document. Kind regards to the
     anti-slavery host now with you. I did not think that the easy
     arm-chair I occupied on the Auburn platform was to bring me so
     much glory. Did you know the resolutions of that meeting were
     read on the floor of Congress?--that pleased me greatly. I am
     very proud to stand maternal sponsor for the whole string. I wish
     our Albany resolutions had more snap in them. The Garrison clique
     are the only men in this nation that know how to write a
     resolution.

On the 18th of February Mrs. Stanton addressed the Legislature on
woman's right of suffrage and the bill then pending in the Senate. A
magnificent audience greeted her in the Capitol. She occupied the
Speaker's desk, and was introduced by Senator Hammond, and spoke as
follows:

     GENTLEMEN OF THE JUDICIARY:--There are certain natural rights as
     inalienable to civilization as are the rights of air and motion
     to the savage in the wilderness. The natural rights of the
     civilized man and woman are government, property, the harmonious
     development of all their powers, and the gratification of their
     desires. There are a few people we now and then meet who, like
     Jeremy Bentham, scout the idea of natural rights in civilization,
     and pronounce them mere metaphors, declaring that there are no
     rights aside from those the law confers. If the law made man too,
     that might do, for then he could be made to order to fit the
     particular niche he was designed to fill. But inasmuch as God
     made man in His own image, with capacities and powers as
     boundless as the universe, whose exigencies no mere human law can
     meet, it is evident that the man must ever stand first; the law
     but the creature of his wants; the law giver but the mouthpiece
     of humanity. If, then, the nature of a being decides its rights,
     every individual comes into this world with rights that are not
     transferable. He does not bring them like a pack on his back,
     that may be stolen from him, but they are a component part of
     himself, the laws which insure his growth and development. The
     individual may be put in the stocks, body and soul, he may be
     dwarfed, crippled, killed, but his rights no man can get; they
     live and die with him.

     Though the atmosphere is forty miles deep all round the globe, no
     man can do more than fill his own lungs. No man can see, hear, or
     smell but just so far; and though hundreds are deprived of these
     senses, his are not the more acute. Though rights have been
     abundantly supplied by the good Father, no man can appropriate to
     himself those that belong to another. A citizen can have but one
     vote, fill but one office, though thousands are not permitted to
     do either. These axioms prove that woman's poverty does not add
     to man's wealth, and if, in the plenitude of his power, he should
     secure to her the exercise of all her God-given rights, her
     wealth could not bring poverty to him. There is a kind of nervous
     unrest always manifested by those in power, whenever new claims
     are started by those out of their own immediate class. The
     philosophy of this is very plain. They imagine that if the rights
     of this new class be granted, they must, of necessity, sacrifice
     something of what they already possess. They can not divest
     themselves of the idea that rights are very much like lands,
     stocks, bonds, and mortgages, and that if every new claimant be
     satisfied, the supply of human rights must in time run low. You
     might as well carp at the birth of every child, lest there should
     not be enough air left to inflate your lungs; at the success of
     every scholar, for fear that your draughts at the fountain of
     knowledge could not be so long and deep; at the glory of every
     hero, lest there be no glory left for you....

     If the object of government is to protect the weak against the
     strong, how unwise to place the power wholly in the hands of the
     strong. Yet that is the history of all governments, even the
     model republic of these United States. You who have read the
     history of nations, from Moses down to our last election, where
     have you ever seen one class looking after the interests of
     another? Any of you can readily see the defects in other
     governments, and pronounce sentence against those who have
     sacrificed the masses to themselves; but when we come to our own
     case, we are blinded by custom and self-interest. Some of you who
     have no capital can see the injustice which the laborer suffers;
     some of you who have no slaves, can see the cruelty of his
     oppression; but who of you appreciate the galling humiliation,
     the refinements of degradation, to which women (the mothers,
     wives, sisters, and daughters of freemen) are subject, in this
     the last half of the nineteenth century? How many of you have
     ever read even the laws concerning them that now disgrace your
     statute-books? In cruelty and tyranny, they are not surpassed by
     any slaveholding code in the Southern States; in fact they are
     worse, by just so far as woman, from her social position,
     refinement, and education, is on a more equal ground with the
     oppressor.

     Allow me just here to call the attention of that party now so
     much interested in the slave of the Carolinas, to the similarity
     in his condition and that of the mothers, wives, and daughters of
     the Empire State. The <DW64> has no name. He is Cuffy Douglas or
     Cuffy Brooks, just whose Cuffy he may chance to be. The woman has
     no name. She is Mrs. Richard Roe or Mrs. John Doe, just whose
     Mrs. she may chance to be. Cuffy has no right to his earnings; he
     can not buy or sell, or lay up anything that he can call his own.
     Mrs. Roe has no right to her earnings she can neither buy nor
     sell, make contracts, nor lay up anything that she can call her
     own. Cuffy has no right to his children; they can be sold from
     him at any time. Mrs. Roe has no right to her children; they may
     be bound out to cancel a father's debts of honor. The unborn
     child, even by the last will of the father, may be placed under
     the guardianship of a stranger and a foreigner. Cuffy has no
     legal existence; he is subject to restraint and moderate
     chastisement. Mrs. Roe has no legal existence; she has not the
     best right to her own person. The husband has the power to
     restrain, and administer moderate chastisement.

     Blackstone declares that the husband and wife are one, and
     learned commentators have decided that that one is the husband.
     In all civil codes, you will find them classified as one. Certain
     rights and immunities, such and such privileges are to be secured
     to white male citizens. What have women and <DW64>s to do with
     rights? What know they of government, war, or glory?

     The prejudice against color, of which we hear so much, is no
     stronger than that against sex. It is produced by the same cause,
     and manifested very much in the same way. The <DW64>'s skin and
     the woman's sex are both _prima facie_ evidence that they were
     intended to be in subjection to the white Saxon man. The few
     social privileges which the man gives the woman, he makes up to
     the <DW64> in civil rights. The woman may sit at the same table
     and eat with the white man; the free <DW64> may hold property and
     vote. The woman may sit in the same pew with the white man in
     church; the free <DW64> may enter the pulpit and preach. Now, with
     the black man's right to suffrage, the right unquestioned, even
     by Paul, to minister at the altar, it is evident that the
     prejudice against sex is more deeply rooted and more unreasonably
     maintained than that against color. As citizens of a republic,
     which should we most highly prize, social privileges or civil
     rights? The latter, most certainly.

     To those who do not feel the injustice and degradation of the
     condition, there is something inexpressibly comical in man's
     "citizen woman." It reminds me of those monsters I used to see in
     the old world, head and shoulders woman, and the rest of the body
     sometimes fish and sometimes beast. I used to think, What a
     strange conceit! but now I see how perfectly it represents man's
     idea! Look over all his laws concerning us, and you will see just
     enough of woman to tell of her existence; all the rest is
     submerged, or made to crawl upon the earth. Just imagine an
     inhabitant of another planet entertaining himself some pleasant
     evening in searching over our great national compact, our
     Declaration of Independence, our Constitutions, or some of our
     statute-books; what would he think of those "women and <DW64>s"
     that must be so fenced in, so guarded against? Why, he would
     certainly suppose we were monsters, like those fabulous giants or
     Brobdignagians of olden times, so dangerous to civilized man,
     from our size, ferocity, and power. Then let him take up our
     poets, from Pope down to Dana; let him listen to our Fourth of
     July toasts, and some of the sentimental adulations of social
     life, and no logic could convince him that this creature of the
     law, and this angel of the family altar, could be one and the
     same being. Man is in such a labyrinth of contradictions with his
     marital and property rights; he is so befogged on the whole
     question of maidens, wives, and mothers, that from pure
     benevolence we should relieve him from this troublesome branch of
     legislation. We should vote, and make laws for ourselves. Do not
     be alarmed, dear ladies! You need spend no time reading Grotius,
     Coke, Puffendorf, Blackstone, Bentham, Kent, and Story to find
     out what you need. We may safely trust the shrewd selfishness of
     the white man, and consent to live under the same broad code
     where he has so comfortably ensconced himself. Any legislation
     that will do for man, we may abide by most cheerfully....

     But, say you, we would not have woman exposed to the grossness
     and vulgarity of public life, or encounter what she must at the
     polls. When you talk, gentlemen, of sheltering woman from the
     rough winds and revolting scenes of real life, you must be either
     talking for effect, or wholly ignorant of what the facts of life
     are. The man, whatever he is, is known to the woman. She is the
     companion, not only of the accomplished statesman, the orator,
     and the scholar; but the vile, vulgar, brutal man has his mother,
     his wife, his sister, his daughter. Yes, delicate, refined,
     educated women are in daily life with the drunkard, the gambler,
     the licentious man, the rogue, and the villain; and if man shows
     out what he is anywhere, it is at his own hearthstone. There are
     over forty thousand drunkards in this State. All these are bound
     by the ties of family to some woman. Allow but a mother and a
     wife to each, and you have over eighty thousand women. All these
     have seen their fathers, brothers, husbands, sons, in the lowest
     and most debased stages of obscenity and degradation. In your own
     circle of friends, do you not know refined women, whose whole
     lives are darkened and saddened by gross and brutal associations?
     Now, gentlemen, do you talk to woman of a rude jest or jostle at
     the polls, where noble, virtuous men stand ready to protect her
     person and her rights, when, alone in the darkness and solitude
     and gloom of night, she has trembled on her own threshold,
     awaiting the return of a husband from his midnight revels?--when,
     stepping from her chamber, she has beheld her royal monarch, her
     lord and master--her legal representative--the protector of her
     property, her home, her children, and her person, down on his
     hands and knees slowly crawling up the stairs? Behold him in her
     chamber--in her bed! The fairy tale of "Beauty and the Beast" is
     far too often realized in life. Gentlemen, such scenes as woman
     has witnessed at her own fireside, where no eye save Omnipotence
     could pity, no strong arm could help, can never be realized at
     the polls, never equaled elsewhere, this side the bottomless pit.
     No, woman has not hitherto lived in the clouds, surrounded by an
     atmosphere of purity and peace--but she has been the companion of
     man in health, in sickness, and in death, in his highest and in
     his lowest moments. She has worshiped him as a saint and an
     orator, and pitied him as madman or a fool. In Paradise, man and
     woman were placed together, and so they must ever be. They must
     sink or rise together. If man is low and wretched and vile, woman
     can not escape the contagion, and any atmosphere that is unfit
     for woman to breathe is not fit for man. Verily, the sins of the
     fathers shall be visited upon the children to the third and
     fourth generation. You, by your unwise legislation, have crippled
     and dwarfed womanhood, by closing to her all honorable and
     lucrative means of employment, have driven her into the garrets
     and dens of our cities, where she now revenges herself on your
     innocent sons, sapping the very foundations of national virtue
     and strength. Alas! for the young men just coming on the stage of
     action, who soon shall fill your vacant places--our future
     Senators, our Presidents, the expounders of our constitutional
     law! Terrible are the penalties we are now suffering for the ages
     of injustice done to woman.

     Again, it is said that the majority of women do not ask for any
     change in the laws; that it is time enough to give them the
     elective franchise when they, as a class, demand it.

     Wise statesmen legislate for the best interests of the nation;
     the State, for the highest good of its citizens; the Christian,
     for the conversion of the world. Where would have been our
     railroads, our telegraphs, our ocean steamers, our canals and
     harbors, our arts and sciences, if government had withheld the
     means from the far-seeing minority? This State established our
     present system of common schools, fully believing that educated
     men and women would make better citizens than ignorant ones. In
     making this provision for the education of its children, had they
     waited for a majority of the urchins of this State to petition
     for schools, how many, think you, would have asked to be
     transplanted from the street to the school-house? Does the State
     wait for the criminal to ask for his prison-house? the insane,
     the idiot, the deaf and dumb for his asylum? Does the Christian,
     in his love to all mankind, wait for the majority of the
     benighted heathen to ask him for the gospel? No; unasked and
     unwelcomed, he crosses the trackless ocean, rolls off the
     mountain of superstition that oppresses the human mind, proclaims
     the immortality of the soul, the dignity of manhood, the right of
     all to be free and happy.

     No, gentlemen, if there is but one woman in this State who feels
     the injustice of her position, she should not be denied her
     inalienable rights, because the common household drudge and the
     silly butterfly of fashion are ignorant of all laws, both human
     and Divine. Because they know nothing of governments, or rights,
     and therefore ask nothing, shall my petitions be unheard? I stand
     before you the rightful representative of woman, claiming a share
     in the halo of glory that has gathered round her in the ages, and
     by the wisdom of her past words and works, her peerless heroism
     and self-sacrifice, I challenge your admiration; and, moreover,
     claiming, as I do, a share in all her outrages and sufferings, in
     the cruel injustice, contempt, and ridicule now heaped upon her,
     in her deep degradation, hopeless wretchedness, by all that is
     helpless in her present condition, that is false in law and
     public sentiment, I urge your generous consideration; for as my
     heart swells with pride to behold woman in the highest walks of
     literature and art, it grows big enough to take in those who are
     bleeding in the dust.

     Now do not think, gentlemen, we wish you to do a great many
     troublesome things for us. We do not ask our legislators to spend
     a whole session in fixing up a code of laws to satisfy a class of
     most unreasonable women. We ask no more than the poor devils in
     the Scripture asked, "Let us alone." In mercy, let us take care
     of ourselves, our property, our children, and our homes. True, we
     are not so strong, so wise, so crafty as you are, but if any kind
     friend leaves us a little money, or we can by great industry earn
     fifty cents a day, we would rather buy bread and clothes for our
     children than cigars and champagne for our legal protectors.
     There has been a great deal written and said about protection.
     We, as a class, are tired of one kind of protection, that which
     leaves us everything to do, to dare, and to suffer, and strips us
     of all means for its accomplishment. We would not tax man to take
     care of us. No, the Great Father has endowed all his creatures
     with the necessary powers for self-support, self-defense, and
     protection. We do not ask man to represent us; it is hard enough
     in times like these for man to carry backbone enough to represent
     himself. So long as the mass of men spend most of their time on
     the fence, not knowing which way to jump, they are surely in no
     condition to tell us where we had better stand. In pity for man,
     we would no longer hang like a millstone round his neck. Undo
     what man did for us in the dark ages, and strike out all special
     legislation for us; strike the words "white male" from all your
     constitutions, and then, with fair sailing, let us sink or swim,
     live or die, survive or perish together.

     At Athens, an ancient apologue tells us, on the completion of the
     temple of Minerva, a statue of the goddess was wanted to occupy
     the crowning point of the edifice. Two of the greatest artists
     produced what each deemed his masterpiece. One of these figures
     was the size of life, admirably designed, exquisitely finished,
     softly rounded, and beautifully refined. The other was of
     Amazonian stature, and so boldly chiselled that it looked more
     like masonry than sculpture. The eyes of all were attracted by
     the first, and turned away in contempt from the second. That,
     therefore, was adopted, and the other rejected, almost with
     resentment, as though an insult had been offered to a discerning
     public. The favored statue was accordingly borne in triumph to
     the place for which it was designed, in the presence of
     applauding thousands, but as it receded from their upturned eyes,
     all, all at once agaze upon it, the thunders of applause
     unaccountably died away--a general misgiving ran through every
     bosom--the mob themselves stood like statues, as silent and as
     petrified, for as it slowly went up, and up the soft expression
     of those chiselled features, the delicate curves and outlines of
     the limbs and figure, became gradually fainter and fainter, and
     when at last it readied the place for which it was intended, it
     was a shapeless ball, enveloped in mist. Of course, the idol of
     the hour was now clamored down as rationally as it had been cried
     up, and its dishonored rival, with no good will and no good looks
     on the part of the chagrined populace, was reared in its stead.
     As it ascended, the sharp angles faded away, the rough points
     became smooth, the features full of expression, the whole figure
     radiant with majesty and beauty. The rude hewn mass, that before
     had scarcely appeared to bear even the human form, assumed at
     once the divinity which it represented, being so perfectly
     proportioned to the dimensions of the building, and to the
     elevation on which it stood, that it seemed as though Pallas
     herself had alighted upon the pinnacle of the temple in person,
     to receive the homage of her worshippers.

     The woman of the nineteenth century is the shapeless ball in the
     lofty position which she was designed fully and nobly to fill.
     The place is not too high, too large, too sacred for woman, but
     the type that you have chosen is far too small for it. The woman
     we declare unto you is the rude, misshapen, unpolished object of
     the successful artist. From your stand-point, you are absorbed
     with the defects alone. The true artist sees the harmony between
     the object and its destination. Man, the sculptor, has carved out
     his ideal, and applauding thousands welcome his success. He has
     made a woman that from his low stand-point looks fair and
     beautiful, a being without rights, or hopes, or fears but in
     him--neither noble, virtuous, nor independent. Where do we see,
     in Church or State, in school-house or at the fireside, the much
     talked-of moral power of woman? Like those Athenians, we have
     bowed down and worshiped in woman, beauty, grace, the exquisite
     proportions, the soft and beautifully rounded outline, her
     delicacy, refinement, and silent helplessness--all well when she
     is viewed simply as an object of sight, never to rise one foot
     above the dust from which she sprung. But if she is to be raised
     up to adorn a temple, or represent a divinity--if she is to fill
     the niche of wife and counsellor to true and noble men, if she is
     to be the mother, the educator of a race of heroes or martyrs, of
     a Napoleon, or a Jesus--then must the type of womanhood be on a
     larger scale than that yet carved by man.

     In vain would the rejected artist have reasoned with the
     Athenians as to the superiority of his production; nothing short
     of the experiment they made could have satisfied them. And what
     of your experiment, what of your wives, your homes? Alas! for the
     folly and vacancy that meet you there! But for your club-houses
     and newspapers, what would social life be to you? Where are your
     beautiful women? your frail ones, taught to lean lovingly and
     confidingly on man? Where are the crowds of educated
     dependents--where the long line of pensioners on man's bounty?
     Where all the young girls, taught to believe that marriage is the
     only legitimate object of a woman's pursuit--they who stand
     listlessly on life's shores, waiting, year after year, like the
     sick man at the pool of Bethesda, for some one to come and put
     them in? These are they who by their ignorance and folly curse
     almost every fireside with some human specimen of deformity or
     imbecility. These are they who fill the gloomy abodes of poverty
     and vice in our vast metropolis. These are they who patrol the
     streets of our cities, to give our sons their first lessons in
     infamy. These are they who fill our asylums, and make night
     hideous with their cries and groans.

     The women who are called masculine, who are brave, courageous,
     self-reliant and independent, are they who in the face of adverse
     winds have kept one steady course upward and onward in the paths
     of virtue and peace--they who have taken their gauge of womanhood
     from their own native strength and dignity--they who have learned
     for themselves the will of God concerning them. This is our type
     of womanhood. Will you help us raise it up, that you too may see
     its beautiful proportions--that you may behold the outline of the
     goddess who is yet to adorn your temple of Freedom? We are
     building a model republic; our edifice will one day need a
     crowning glory. Let the artists be wisely chosen. Let them begin
     their work. Here is a temple to Liberty, to human rights, on
     whose portals behold the glorious declaration, "All men are
     created equal." The sun has never yet shone upon any of man's
     creations that can compare with this. The artist who can mold a
     statue worthy to crown magnificence like this, must be godlike in
     his conceptions, grand in his comprehensions, sublimely beautiful
     in his power of execution. The woman--the crowning glory of the
     model republic among the nations of the earth--what must she not
     be? (Loud applause).[160]


AN ACT CONCERNING THE RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF HUSBAND AND WIFE.

The Act of 1860[161] was offered by Andrew J. Colvin in the Senate as
a substitute for a bill from the Assembly, which was simply an
amendment of the law of 1848. Senators Hammond, Ramsey, and Colvin
constituted the Judiciary Committee, to whom the bill was referred.
Mr. Colvin objected to it for want of breadth in giving to married
women the rights to which he thought them entitled, and urged that a
much more liberal measure was demanded by the spirit of the times. In
one of Miss Anthony's interviews with Mr. Colvin, she handed him a
very radical bill just introduced in the Massachusetts Legislature,
which after due examination and the addition of two or three more
liberal clauses, was accepted by the Committee, reported to the Senate
by Mr. Colvin, and adopted by that body February 28, 1860[162]. The
bill was concurred in by the Assembly, and signed by the Governor,
Edwin D. Morgan. It is quite remarkable that the bill in its transit
did not receive a single alteration, modification, or amendment from
the time it left Mr. Colvin's hands until it took its place on the
statute-book. The women of the State who labored so persistently for
this measure, felt that the victory at last was due in no small degree
to the deep interest and patient skill of Andrew J. Colvin. Hon. Anson
Bingham, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who did good service in
the Assembly at this time, should be gratefully remembered by the
women of New York. Mr. Bingham acted in concert with Mr. Colvin, both
earnestly putting their shoulders to the wheel, one in the Assembly
and one in the Senate, and with the women pulling all the wires they
could outside, together they pushed the grand measure through.

Judge Bingham served our cause also by articles on all phases of the
question over the signature of "Senex," published in many journals
throughout the State. And this, too, at an early day, when every word
in favor of woman's rights was of immense value in breaking down the
prejudice of the ages.

In addition to this, another act of great benefit to a large number of
housekeepers, called the "Boarding House Law," was secured by the same
members. Miss Emily Howland, Mrs. Margaret Murray, Mrs. Manning, and
Mrs. Griffith Satterlee spent some weeks in Albany using their
influence in favor of this measure.

In February, 1860, Emily Howland arranged a course of lectures on
Woman's Rights, to be given in Cooper Institute, New York. Henry Ward
Beecher delivered his first lecture on the question in this course,
receiving his fee of $100 in advance, as it was said he considered no
engagement of that sort imperative without previous payment. Mr.
Beecher's speech was published in full in _The New York Independent_,
of which he was then editor-in-chief. The State Committee purchased a
large number, which Lydia Mott, of Albany, laid on the desk of every
member of both Houses. At the time we felt the speech worth to our
cause all it cost.


TENTH NATIONAL WOMAN'S RIGHTS CONVENTION.

COOPER INSTITUTE, NEW YORK, MAY 10-11, 1860.

A large audience assembled in Cooper Institute at 10-1/2 o'clock,
Thursday morning. Susan B. Anthony called the Convention to order, and
submitted a list of officers,[163] nominated at a preliminary meeting,
which was adopted without dissent.

The President, Martha C. Wright, of Auburn, on taking the Chair,
addressed the Convention as follows:

     I have only to thank you for the honor you have conferred by
     electing me to preside over the deliberations of this Convention.
     I shall leave it to others to speak of the purposes of this great
     movement and of the successes which have already been achieved.

     There are those in our movement who ask, "What is the use of
     these Conventions? What is the use of this constant iteration of
     the same things?" When we see what has been already achieved, we
     learn the use of this "foolishness of preaching:" and after all
     that we demand has been granted, as it will be soon, _The New
     York Observer_ will piously fold its hands and roll up its eyes,
     and say, "This beneficent movement we have always advocated," and
     the pulpits will say "Amen!" (Laughter and applause). Then will
     come forward women who have gained courage from the efforts and
     sacrifices of others, and the great world will say, "Here come
     the women who are going to do something, and not talk."

     There are those, too, who find fault with the freedom of our
     platform, who stand aloof and criticise, fearful of being
     involved in something that they can not fully endorse. Forgetting
     that, as Macaulay says, "Liberty alone can cure the evils of
     liberty," they fear to trust on the platform all who have a word
     to say. But we have invited all to come forward and speak, and
     not to stand aside and afterward criticise what has been said. We
     trust that those present who have an opinion, who have a word to
     say, whether they have ever spoken before or not, will speak now.
     If they disapprove of our resolutions, if they disapprove of
     anything that is said on this platform, let them oppose if they
     can not unite with us. (Applause.)

Susan B. Anthony was then introduced, and read the following report:

     For our encouragement in laboring for the elevation of woman, it
     is well ever and anon to review the advancing steps. Each year we
     hail with pleasure new accessions to our faith. Strong words of
     cheer have come to us on every breeze. Brave men and true, from
     the higher walks of literature and art, from the bar, the bench,
     the pulpit, and legislative halls, are ready now to help woman
     wherever she claims to stand. The Press, too, has changed its
     tone. Instead of ridicule, we now have grave debate. And still
     more substantial praises of gold and silver have come to us. A
     gift of $5,000 from unknown hands; a rich legacy from the coffers
     of a Boston merchant prince--the late Charles F. Hovey; and, but
     a few days ago, $400,000 from Mr. Vassar, of Poughkeepsie, to
     found a college for girls, equal in all respects to Yale and
     Harvard.

     We had in New York a legislative act passed at the last session,
     securing to married women their rights to their earnings and
     their children. Other States have taken onward steps. And, from
     what is being done on all sides, we have reason to believe that,
     as the Northern States shall one by one remodel their
     Constitutions, the right of suffrage will be granted to women.
     Six years hence New York proposes to revise her Constitution.
     These should be years of effort with all those who believe that
     it is the right and the duty of every citizen of a State to have
     a voice in the laws that govern them.

     Woman is being so educated that she will feel herself capable of
     assuming grave responsibilities as lawgiver and administrator.
     She is crowding into higher avocations and new branches of
     industry. She already occupies the highest places in literature
     and art. The more liberal lyceums are open to her, and she is
     herself the subject of the most popular lectures now before the
     public. The young women of our academies and high schools are
     asserting their right to the discipline of declamation and
     discussion, and the departments of science and mathematics.
     Pewholders, of the most orthodox sects, are taking their right to
     a voice in the government of the church, and in the face of
     priests, crying "let your women keep silence in the churches,"
     yes, at the very horns of the altar, calmly, deliberately, and
     persistently casting their votes in the choice of church officers
     and pastors.[164] Mass-meetings to sympathize with the "strikers"
     of Massachusetts are being called in this metropolis by women.
     Women are ordained ministers, and licensed physicians. Elizabeth
     Blackwell has founded a hospital in this city, where she proposes
     a thorough medical education, both theoretical and practical, for
     young women. And this Institute in which we are now assembled,
     with its school of design, its library and reading-room, where
     the arts and sciences are freely taught to women, and this hall,
     so cheerfully granted to our Convention, shows the magnanimity of
     its founder, Peter Cooper. All these are the results of our
     twenty years of agitation. And it matters not to us, though the
     men and the women who echo back our thought do fail to recognize
     the source of power, and while they rejoice in each onward step
     achieved in the face of ridicule and persecution, ostracise those
     who have done the work. Who of our literary women has yet
     ventured one word of praise or recognition of the heroic
     enunciators of the great idea of woman's equality--of Mary
     Woolstonecraft, Frances Wright, Ernestine L. Rose, Lucretia Mott,
     Elizabeth Cady Stanton? It matters not to those who live for the
     race, and not for self alone, who has the praise, so that justice
     be done to woman in Church, in State, and at the fireside--an
     equal everywhere with man--they will not complain, though even
     _The New York Observer_ itself does claim to have done for them
     the work.

     During the past six years this State has been thoroughly
     canvassed, and every county that has been visited by our
     lecturers and tracts has rolled up petitions by the hundreds and
     thousands asking for woman's right to vote and hold office--her
     right to her person, her wages, her children, and her home. Again
     and again have we held Conventions at the capital, and addressed
     our Legislature, demanding the exercise of all our rights as
     citizens of the Empire State. During the past year, we have had
     six women[165] lecturing in New York for several months each.
     Conventions have been held in forty counties, one or more
     lectures delivered in one hundred and fifty towns and villages,
     our petitions circulated, and our tracts and documents sold and
     gratuitously distributed throughout the entire length and breadth
     of the State.

     A State Convention was held at Albany early in February. Large
     numbers of the members of the Legislature listened respectfully
     and attentively to the discussions of its several sessions, and
     expressed themselves converts to the claims for woman. The bills
     for woman's right to her property, her earnings, and the
     guardianship of her children passed both branches of the
     Legislature with scarce a dissenting voice, and received the
     prompt signature of the Governor.

     Our Legislature passed yet another bill that brings great relief
     to a large class of women. It was called the Boarding-House Bill.
     It provides that the keepers of private boarding-houses shall
     have the right of lien on the property of boarders, precisely the
     same as do hotel-keepers. We closed our work by a joint hearing
     before the Committees of the Judiciary at the Capitol on the 19th
     of March. Elizabeth Cady Stanton addressed them. The Assembly
     Chamber was densely packed, and she was listened to with marked
     attention and respect. The Judiciary Committees of neither House
     reported on our petition for the right of suffrage, though the
     Chairman, with a large minority of the House Committee and a
     majority of the Senate Committee, favored the claim. The Hon. A.
     J. Colvin, of the Senate Committee, in a letter to me, says:

     "The subject was presented at so late a day as to preclude
     action. While a majority of the Senate Committee I think were
     favorable, a majority of the House Committee, so far as I could
     learn, were opposed. So many progressive measures had passed both
     Houses that I felt apprehensive we might perhaps be running too
     great a risk by urging this question of justice and reform at
     this session. I did not therefore press it. Should I remain in
     the Senate, I may take occasion at an early day in the next
     session to bring up the subject and present my views at length.
     The more reflection I give, the more my mind becomes convinced
     that in a Republican Government, we have no right to deny to
     woman the privileges she claims. Besides, the moral element which
     those privileges would bring into existence would, in my
     judgment, have a powerful influence in perpetuating our form of
     government. It may be deemed best, at the next session, to urge
     an early Constitutional Convention. In case one should be called,
     your friends should be prepared to meet the emergency. Is the
     public mind sufficiently enlightened to accept a constitution
     recognizing the right of women to vote and hold office? You
     should consider this."

     The entire expense of the New York State work during the past
     year is nearly four thousand dollars. The present year we
     propose to expend our funds and efforts mostly in Ohio, to
     obtain, if possible, for the women of that State, the liberal
     laws we have secured for ourselves. Ohio, too, is soon to revise
     her Constitution, and we trust she will not be far behind New
     York in recognizing the full equality of woman. We who have
     grasped the idea of woman's destiny, her power and influence, the
     trinity of her existence as woman, wife, and mother, can most
     earnestly work for her elevation to that high position that it is
     the will of God she should ever fill. Though we have not yet
     realized the fullness of our hopes, let us rest in the belief
     that in all these years of struggle, no earnest thought, or word,
     or prayer has been breathed in vain. The influence has gone
     forth, the great ocean has been moved, and those who watch, e'en
     now may see the mighty waves of truth slowly swelling on the
     shores of time.

          "One accent of the Holy Ghost,
          A heedless word hath never lost."

     ERNESTINE L. ROSE being introduced, said: Frances Wright was the
     first woman in this country who spoke on the equality of the
     sexes. She had indeed a hard task before her. The elements were
     entirely unprepared. She had to break up the time-hardened soil
     of conservatism, and her reward was sure--the same reward that is
     always bestowed upon those who are in the vanguard of any great
     movement. She was subjected to public odium, slander, and
     persecution. But these were not the only things that she
     received. Oh, she had her reward!--that reward of which no
     enemies could deprive her, which no slanders could make less
     precious--the eternal reward of knowing that she had done her
     duty; the reward springing from the consciousness of right, of
     endeavoring to benefit unborn generations. How delightful to see
     the molding of the minds around you, the infusing of your
     thoughts and aspirations into others, until one by one they stand
     by your side, without knowing how they came there! That reward
     she had. It has been her glory, it is the glory of her memory;
     and the time will come when society will have outgrown its old
     prejudices, and stepped with one foot, at least, upon the
     elevated platform on which she took her position. But owing to
     the fact that the elements were unprepared, she naturally could
     not succeed to any great extent.

     After her, in 1837, the subject of woman's rights was again taken
     hold of--aye, taken hold of by woman; and the soil having been
     already somewhat prepared, she began to sow the seeds for the
     future growth, the fruits of which we now begin to enjoy.
     Petitions were circulated and sent to our Legislature, and who
     can tell the hardships that then met those who undertook that
     great work! I went from house to house with a petition for
     signatures simply asking our Legislature to allow married women
     to hold real estate in their own name. What did I meet with? Why,
     the very name exposed one to ridicule, if not to worse treatment.
     The women said: "We have rights enough; we want no more"; and the
     men, as a matter of course, echoed it, and said: "You have
     rights' enough; nay, you have too many already." (Laughter). But
     by perseverance in sending petitions to the Legislature, and, at
     the same time, enlightening the public mind on the subject, we
     at last accomplished our purpose. We had to adopt the method
     which physicians sometimes use, when they are called to a patient
     who is so hopelessly sick that he is unconscious of his pain and
     suffering. We had to describe to women their own position, to
     explain to them the burdens that rested so heavily upon them, and
     through these means, as a wholesome irritant, we roused public
     opinion on the subject, and through public opinion, we acted upon
     the Legislature, and in 1848-49, they gave us the great boon for
     which we asked, by enacting that a woman who possessed property
     previous to marriage, or obtained it after marriage, should be
     allowed to hold it in her own name. Thus far, thus good; but it
     was only a beginning, and we went on. In 1848 we had the first
     Woman's Rights Convention, and then some of our papers thought it
     only a very small affair, called together by a few "strong-minded
     women," and would pass away like a nine-days' wonder. They little
     knew woman! They little knew that if woman takes anything
     earnestly in her hands, she will not lay it aside unaccomplished.
     (Applause). We have continued our Conventions ever since. A few
     years ago, when we sent a petition to our Legislature, we
     obtained, with but very little effort, upward of thirteen
     thousand signatures. What a contrast between this number and the
     five signatures attached to the first petition, in 1837! Since
     then, we might have had hundreds of thousands of signatures, but
     it is no longer necessary. Public opinion is too well known to
     require a long array of names.

     We have been often asked. "What is the use of Conventions? Why
     talk? Why not go to work?" Just as if the thought did not precede
     the act! Those who act without previously thinking, are not good
     for much. Thought is first required, then the expression of it,
     and that leads to action; and action based upon thought never
     needs to be reversed; it is lasting and profitable, and produces
     the desired effect. I know that there are many who take advantage
     of this movement, and then say: "You are doing nothing; only
     talking." Yes, doing nothing! We have only broken up the ground
     and sowed the seed; they are reaping the benefit, and yet they
     tell us we have done nothing! Mrs. Swisshelm, who has proclaimed
     herself to be "no woman's rights, woman," has accepted a position
     as inspector of logs and lumber. (Laughter). Well, I have no
     objection to her having that avocation, if she have a taste and
     capacity for it--far from it. But she has accepted still more,
     and I doubt not with a great deal more zest and satisfaction--the
     five hundred dollars salary; and I hope she will enjoy it. Then,
     having accepted both the office and the salary, she folds her
     arms, and says: "I am none of your strong-minded women; I don't
     go for woman's rights." Well, she is still welcome to it. I have
     not the slightest objection that those who proclaim themselves
     not strong-minded, should still reap the benefit of a strong mind
     (applause and laughter); it is for them we work. So there are
     some ladies who think a great deal can be done in the Legislature
     without petitions, without conventions, without lectures, without
     public claim, in fact, without anything, but a little lobbying.
     Well, if they have a, taste for it, they are welcome to engage in
     it; I have not the slightest objection. Yes, I have. I, as a
     woman, being conscious of the evil that is done by these lobby
     loafers in our Legislature and in the halls of Congress, object
     to it. (Loud cheers). I will wait five years longer to have a
     right given to me legitimately, from a sense of justice, rather
     than buy it in an underhand way by lobbying. Whatever my
     sentiments may be, good, bad, or indifferent, I express them, and
     they are known. Nevertheless, if any desire it, let them do that
     work. But what has induced them, what has enabled them, to do
     that work? The Woman's Rights movement, although they are afraid
     or ashamed even of the name "woman's rights."

     You have been told, and much more might be said on the subject,
     that already the Woman's Rights platform has upon it lawyers,
     ministers, and statesmen--men who are among the highest in the
     nation. I need not mention Wm. Lloyd Garrison, or Wendell
     Phillips; but there are others, those even who are afraid of the
     name of reformer, who have stood upon our platform. Brady! Who
     would ever have expected it? Chapin! Beecher! Think of it for a
     moment! A minister advocating the rights of woman, even her right
     at the ballot-box! What has done it? Our agitation has purified
     the atmosphere, and enabled them to see the injustice that is
     done to woman.

     Mrs. ELIZABETH JONES, of Ohio, was the next speaker. She said: I
     wish to preface my remarks with this resolution:

          _Resolved_, That woman's sphere can not be bounded. Its
          prescribed orbit is the largest place that in her highest
          development she can fill. The laws of mind are as immutable
          as are those of the planetary world, and the true woman most
          ever revolve around the great moral sun of light and truth.

     As a general proposition, we say that capacity determines the
     true sphere of action, and indicates the kind of labor to be
     performed. I often hear women discussing this subject, much more
     in earnest than in jest, though they profess to be simply amusing
     themselves. One says: "If I were a man, I should be a mechanic";
     another says: "I should be a merchant." One says: "I am sure I
     should be rich"; another, in the excess of her humor, thinks she
     should be distinguished. Why do women talk thus? Because one
     feels that she has mechanical genius; the power to construct, to
     perfect. Another understands the secrets of trade, and would like
     to incur the heavy responsibilities it involves. A third is
     conscious that she was born a financier; while a fourth has an
     intuitive perception of the elements of success.

     Many women are beginning to judge for themselves the proper
     sphere of action, and are not only jesting about what they should
     do under other circumstances, but are already entering upon such
     paths as their taste and capacity indicate. Some will doubtless
     make mistakes, which experience will rectify, and others will
     perhaps persist in striving to do that which it will be very
     evident they have no ability to perform. This is the case with
     men who have had freedom in every sphere. Look at the American
     pulpit, for instance. Go through the country, and listen to those
     who claim to be the messengers of God, and if you do not say that
     many are destitute of capacity to fill the sphere they have
     chosen, we shall regard it as an act of obedience on your part to
     the command which says: "Judge not, lest ye be judged."
     (Laughter). Let adaptation be the rule for pulpit occupancy, and
     while it would eject some who are now no honor to the station,
     and no benefit to the people, it would open the place to many an
     Anna and Miriam and Deborah to fulfill the mission which God has
     clearly indicated by the talents He has bestowed.

     The world says now, man is God's minister, and woman is not fit
     to call sinners to repentance; but let it say: "Those who have
     faith in the principles of eternal right, and have power to give
     it utterance; those who have the clearest perceptions of moral
     truth; those who understand the wants of the people, are the
     proper persons, whether they be men or women, to dispense to the
     needy multitude the bread of life." This would elevate the
     standard of pulpit qualifications, and bring into the field a far
     greater amount of talent to choose from, and thus would the
     intellectual and spiritual needs of the people be more fully
     answered. What is true of this profession will apply with equal
     force to others. Should I be told that the American bar needs no
     more talent, I would reply that it needs decency, and a
     well-founded self-respect. When you enter a court-room, and
     listen to a cross-examination of a delicate nature, one where
     woman is concerned, and she would rather die a hundred deaths, if
     she could, than to have the case dragged before the public, you
     will see it treated in the coarsest way, as if her holiest
     affections and her most sacred functions were fitting themes for
     brutish men to jeer at. And even in the most ordinary cases,
     gentlemen who would spurn the imputation of incivility in social
     life, will so browbeat and badger a witness, that the most
     disgusting bear-baiting would become by comparison a refined
     amusement. If the young aspirants for legal honors should meet
     among the advocates and judges sensible, dignified, and highly
     cultivated women, they would, if I am not much mistaken, get the
     benefit of certain lessons, upon manners and morals, that it is
     essential for all young men to learn. (Applause). It appears to
     me that by association of men and women in this profession, the
     bar might be purged of this indecorum, and possess the humanity,
     the wisdom, and the dignity that should ever characterize a Court
     of Justice.

     You need not tell me that the profession would be overstocked, if
     women should enter it, for, like men, they must stand on their
     merits. Let there be no proscription on account of sex. Let
     talent be brought fairly into competition, and although many a
     young man, as well as young woman, would sit down forever
     briefless, having neither the capacity nor the acquirements to
     bring or retain clients, yet their loss would be for the public
     good, and for the honor and respectability of the profession. Let
     the talents of women be fully developed, and no man will lose any
     place that he is qualified to fill in consequence, and no woman
     will obtain that place who has not peculiar fitness. All these
     matters will find their own level, ultimately. I can point you to
     localities now where the people prefer women for teachers. A
     Union School in Northern Ohio, which is made up of ten
     departments, employs women for teachers, and a woman as
     superintendent of the whole. The people reason this way: We
     prefer women, because they bring us the best talent. Not that
     they have better talents than men, but with the latter, teaching
     is generally a stepping-stone to a profession. Woman accepts it
     as her highest post, and brings her best energies. With man, it
     is often a subordinate interest, and his best talents will be
     exercised upon what he regards as something higher and better. As
     in this, so in other things. The time will come when talent or
     capacity will govern the choice and not sex. It is so now in Art,
     to a great extent. I think there is not much known of sex there.
     The world does not care who wrote "Aurora Leigh." It does not
     recognize it as the production of a woman, but as the work of
     genius. Let the artists say what they please, the world does not
     care who chisels Zenobia, so that Zenobia be well chiseled. It
     does not care whether Landseer or Rosa Bonheur paints animals, so
     that animals are well painted. No one says this or that is well
     done for a woman, but he says, this is the work of an artist,
     that has no merit; not because a woman did it, not because a man
     did it, but because the author was destitute of capacity to
     embody the idea.

     Again, read the little village newspapers, got out by little
     editors, and you will find, in many cases, an utter want of
     ability to fill the place that has been chosen. I hope young
     women will not make such mistakes as these young men have done,
     who might have been supposed to know something, if they had only
     kept still. (Laughter). If these papers, to which I have
     referred, were all in the hands of women, and so destitute of
     editorial pith and point as they now are, I should counsel
     against any further efforts for the elevation of the sex,
     believing the case to be hopeless. (Applause). If I mistake not,
     women have a peculiar fitness for trade. Mrs. Dall says, in her
     second lecture, that on the Island of Nantucket, women have
     engaged in commerce very successfully. They did it in the war,
     and afterward, when destitution drove the men to the whale
     fisheries, and again when they went to California. They have had
     much experience; and Eliza Barney tells of seventy women who
     engaged in trade, and retired with a competence, and besides
     brought up and educated large families of children. She says,
     also, that failures were very uncommon when women managed the
     business, and some of the largest and safest fortunes in Boston
     were founded by women. Whenever, therefore, one shows any ability
     for trade, that is her license for engaging in it--a license
     granted under the higher law, and therefore valid. I went into a
     bonnet store the other day, and saw a man-milliner holding up a
     bonnet on his soft white hand to a lady customer, and expatiating
     upon the beauties of the article with an earnestness, if not the
     eloquence, of an orator. She tried it on, and he went into
     ecstacies. (Laughter). It was so becoming! It was so charming! He
     complimented her, and he complimented the bonnet, and had she not
     been a strong-minded woman, I do not know how much of the
     flattery she would have taken for truth. I thought that man was
     out of his sphere: and not only that, but he had crowded some
     woman out of her appropriate place, out of the realm of taste and
     fashion. (Applause). When I passed out on the street, the harsh,
     discordant tone of a fish-woman fell upon my ear. I saw that she
     bore a heavy tub upon her head, evidently seeking by this branch
     of merchandise to procure a living for herself and family. So few
     were the avenues open to her, as she thought, and so much had men
     monopolized the places she could fill, that she was compelled to
     carry fish on her head, until she could raise money enough to
     procure a better conveyance.

     Again, I see young men selling artificial flowers, and laces and
     embroidery, crinolines and balmorals, and I think to myself they
     had better be out digging coal or making brick. When I go back
     home to the West, I could take a car-load with me, and set them
     to work, and I would greatly benefit their condition, while the
     places they vacate here might be filled by the girls who are now
     starving in your garrets. (Applause). At a shoe-store, instead of
     finding a sprightly miss, to select and fit the ladies gaiters,
     you often see a strong, healthy man, kneeling before the customer
     with a gallantry that would be admirable in a drawing-room, and
     worth infinitely more than the price of the article he is
     selling; and he fusses over the gaiters and over the lady's foot,
     until you wonder if she is not tempted to propel him into a more
     appropriate sphere. (Laughter). Whatever possessed men to imagine
     that God designed them to fit ladies' gaiters, is more than I can
     imagine. (Applause). I am unable to realize how they obtained the
     revelation that for a woman to thus officiate would take her out
     of her appropriate sphere. Shall I be held to my principles here,
     and told that these men succeed in business, and success being
     the test of sphere, therefore they are in their place? It remains
     to be proved that they have succeeded. A man may jump Jim Crow
     from morning till night, or make a fool of himself in any other
     way, and succeed admirably in pleasing auditors and gathering
     pennies; but when you take into consideration his high and
     heavenly origin, and the noble purposes for which he was made,
     you can hardly call it a success. Neither should I think a woman
     was in suitable business, even if it were ever so lucrative and
     well done, unless that business developed her talents; made her
     stronger, more self-reliant, and better fitted her for life and
     its duties. These stores would be a good discipline for young
     girls, but not for men.

     This whole question lies in a small compass. Our reform would
     leave woman just where God placed her--a moral, accountable
     being, endowed with talents whose scope and character indicate
     the work she is to do; and who is responsible primarily to her
     Creator for the use she makes of those talents. He says to every
     man and to every woman, Go work in my vineyard! That vineyard I
     understand to be the world, embracing all the varied
     responsibilities of life. Whether man shall pursue science,
     literature, or art, whether he shall engage in agriculture,
     manufactures, or mechanics, is for _him_ to determine, and
     whether woman shall engage in any of these things is for _her_ to
     determine. Nothing but an internal consciousness of power to
     perform certain work, and that it will be for her own good, can
     aid her in her choice. If a woman can write vigorous verse, then
     let her write verse. If she can build ships, then let her be a
     ship-builder. I know no reason why. If she can keep house, and
     that takes as much brains as any other occupation, let her be a
     housekeeper. They tell us that "eternal vigilance is the price of
     liberty"; eternal vigilance is the price of a well-ordered home,
     and every woman before me knows it. (Applause). I know that the
     conservative, in his fear, says, Surely you would not have woman
     till the soil, sail the seas, run up the rigging of a ship like a
     monkey (I use the language of one of your most distinguished
     men), go to war, engage in political brawls? No! I would not have
     her do anything. She must be her own judge. In relation to
     tilling the soil, the last census of the United Kingdom reports
     128,418 women employed in agriculture. Examples are by no means
     rare where a woman carries on a farm which her deceased husband
     has left, and I have, seen much skill evinced in the management.
     "In Media, Pa., two girls named Miller carry on a farm of 300
     acres, raising hay and grain, hiring labor, but working mostly
     themselves." I have been on a farm in your own State where I saw,
     not Tennyson's six mighty daughters of the plow, but I saw
     three[166] who plowed, and not only that, but they plowed well.
     Doubtless, some of our fastidious young ladies would be greatly
     shocked at such an exhibition, and I must acknowledge that it was
     to me a novel sight; but the more I considered it, the more I
     thought that I would rather see a young woman holding the plow,
     than to see her leading such an aimless, silly life as many a
     young lady leads. I would rather see a young woman holding the
     plow, than to see her decked out in her finery, and sitting idle
     in the parlor, waiting for an offer of marriage. (Applause). I
     hope women will not copy the vices of men. I hope they will not
     go to war; I wish men would not. I hope they will not be
     contentious politicians; I am sorry that men are. I hope they
     will not regard their freedom as a license to do wrong; I am
     ashamed to acknowledge that men do. But we need not fear. We may
     safely trust the judgment of those who tell us that politics and
     morals, and every department into which woman may enter, will be
     elevated and refined by her influence.

     So far as navigation is concerned, I think many women would not
     be attracted to that life. There might be now and then a Betsy
     Miller, who could walk the quarter-deck in a gale, and that
     certainly would indicate constitutional ability to become a
     sailor. I do not suppose so much violence would be done to her
     nature by navigating the seas, as by helping a drunken husband to
     navigate the streets habitually. (Applause). In relation to
     running up the rigging like a monkey, or in regard to any other
     monkey performance, I do not believe that women will ever enter
     into competition with men in these things, because the latter
     have shown such remarkable aptitude for that business. (Laughter
     and applause). But after all that may be said on this subject, we
     fail to reach one class in the community who have spare time,
     spare energies, abundance of power for work. I mean young ladies
     of wealth and rank. The world shows a degree of toleration now
     toward any young woman who from necessity has engaged in any
     industrial avocation to which women have not heretofore applied
     themselves. But there is no such toleration for the rich. Many of
     these are now striving to kill time with fancy-work and fiction,
     with flirtation and flaunting. Some are destitute of aspiration
     for anything better. These could be moved only by some convulsion
     in the social system, like the earthquake, or like the volcano
     that opens the ground at our feet and shows us our danger. But
     there are others whose convictions lead them to desire something
     better; who feel that they are living to no purpose; who know
     that their own powers, good as any God ever created, are lying in
     inglorious repose. Some of the advocates of our cause have said
     that for these there is no profession but marriage. If they are
     not literary, artistic, or philanthropic, what can they do? They
     are held by a cable, made up of home influence, of fashion, and
     of perverted Scripture, which binds them down to an insipid
     existence. Hence, they suppress all desire for a fuller, larger
     life; they smile graciously upon their fetters; they profess to
     be the happiest of all happy women, and thus they glide along
     through the thoroughfares of society with a lying tongue and an
     aching heart.

     I wish these had enough vitality of soul and enough energy of
     character to rise superior to the circumstances around them, and
     make some approach to their own ideal. I know this is asking them
     to martyrize themselves. But could they see the beauty and the
     glory that will invest the future woman, when she shall have her
     proper place among the children of the Father; when she shall
     infuse her love, her moral perceptions, her sense of justice,
     into the ethics and governments of the earth; when she shall be
     united to man in a Divine harmony, and her children shall go
     forth to bless all coming generations, they would regard
     martyrdom but dust in the balance compared with such blessing.
     And when the world shall see the moral grandeur, the sublime
     position of a race redeemed by the sanctifying influences of this
     Divine harmony, it will weave for them a brighter chaplet than it
     has ever woven for any of its martyrs who have suffered at the
     stake. (Loud applause).

       *       *       *       *       *

     Rev. BERIAH GREEN, of Whitesboro', N. Y., was next introduced,
     and said:

     It is not, I suppose, at all the design of this platform in any
     way to abolish what the grammarians call "the distinction of
     sex"; and when we speak of "woman's rights," we admit, in the
     very language which is thus employed, that she is a "woman"--that
     that is appropriately her character--that under this name she is
     fitly described. Now, a comprehensive description of all the
     rights which any member of the human family, whoever and whatever
     and wherever he may be, is entitled to challenge and maintain, we
     have in the brief and simple expression, the right to be himself;
     the right to be true to the nature which he has inherited; the
     right to the free and full development of the powers with which
     he is endowed; the right to lay out those resources of which he
     is constructed happily, effectively, properly; the right to rise
     to the highest position in excellence and in blessedness to which
     his capacities and powers may elevate him. This is a
     comprehensive description of man's rights, a comprehensive
     description of woman's rights, and a comprehensive description of
     human rights, under every form and phase of application of which
     human rights may be supposed capable.

     Now, I regard it as a repulsive feature of the age, that one sex
     should feel itself constrained to come forward and defend itself
     from the other sex; to demand a redress of the wrongs to which it
     may be exposed, and a vindication of the rights to which it may
     be entitled; for, look you! most obviously and clearly, the
     relation between the sexes is naturally most intimate. The one
     lives in and through the other. They do not make two distinct
     classes, most obviously and certainly. They do not in nature;
     they do not according to the Divine arrangement; and it always
     seems to me to be most absurd, and in the highest degree
     ungrateful, to present the subject with which we are now
     occupied, under any such aspect. Mankind are divided,
     doubtless--divided now by accident, and now by arrangement--into
     different classes; but to make the women one class, and the men
     another class, seems to me to be essentially and flagrantly
     absurd. (Applause). Manifestly, the grand right of man (employing
     the term man here not generally, but specifically), in his
     relations to woman, as well as in all his other relations, is to
     be grandly, vigorously beautiful; in every way a man; in all the
     relations of life to be true to whatever may be characteristic of
     his nature, and to whatever may be distinctive in his sex. And
     what may be affirmed of him in this respect may be affirmed of
     his mother, of his wife, of his sister.

     It is a general law of our humanity, an all-comprehensive and all
     controlling principle, that we belong, as human beings, to each
     other. Every man belongs to the whole human family, and the whole
     human family belongs to every one of its members. We are
     mutually, as a matter of course, under the controlling influence
     of this great law; we are mutually to contribute, as effectively
     and wisely as we may, to each other's improvement and welfare.
     This is the great general law which lies at the very basis of our
     being; this is the law which asserts its majesty in the depths of
     our consciousness. This law has manifestly a specific and
     beneficent application to the relation which binds man to woman,
     and unites woman to man. In a natural state of things, where the
     ordinances of our true Father were regarded, where the principles
     of our existence were reverently heeded, as a matter of course,
     individually and generally, man would devote himself, as man,
     generously, magnanimously, his entire self, whatever belongs to
     his manhood, in every department of his being--he would devote
     himself, as man, to woman; and woman, on the other hand, would
     just as characteristically, just as nobly, just as cheerfully,
     just as gratefully, just as effectively, devote herself to the
     improvement and welfare of man; and according to the nature of
     the relation which unites them, the one would supply whatever
     might seem to be demanded in the construction of the other. A man
     is never completely himself until he is united to woman, and a
     woman is never completely herself until she is united to man; and
     thus they become a beautiful unit, playing continually into each
     other's hands, their hearts beating in delightful harmony with
     each other. This is the great fundamental law of our social
     existence. The very germ of the social is to be found in the
     sexual relations which bind men and women together, and society,
     in all its forms and phases, is nothing under heaven but the
     development, the fit, symmetrical, and full development of the
     germ to which I have thus referred.

     As has already been intimated in the beautiful thoughts which
     have been expressed by those who have preceded me, the great law,
     which was, perhaps, as intelligibly and impressively presented by
     Napoleon as by any other man, giving liberty to every man to use
     the tools who is qualified to use them--"The tools to him who can
     use them!"--or, in better language still, as it fell from the
     lips of the Great Teacher, "Every man according to his
     ability"--this great law applies with equal force to woman as to
     man. There have been women greatly distinguished for physical
     power. You remember the old story of Kate Guardinier. A
     distinguished wrestler, who came to lay hold of her brother, her
     muscular and gigantic brother, and measure strength with him,
     found that he was absent. "Well," says Kate, "I will wrestle with
     you, and if I throw you, you need not wait the return of my
     brother." And so she did, and he went away, fully satisfied that
     there was no occasion for him, to wait for any more vigorous arm
     than Kate Guardinier wielded. Now, wherever there is a strong
     arm, adapt its task to its powers--that is the will of High
     Heaven. Wherever there are well-trained powers, let these be
     recognized powers, and of course the general results can not be
     otherwise than happy.

     In regard to the great question who shall take the lead in the
     family or the community, let me say, that I do not care through
     what medium wisdom may reach me, through what medium I may secure
     the benefit of healthful guidance. What I want is wisdom. Wisdom,
     goodness, and power are the soul of all government. Wherever
     these are combined, there you have the results of wisdom,
     goodness, and power. Now, then, if the mother in a household, or
     even if a daughter in a household, is more distinguished for
     these high qualities, for these grand attainments, than any other
     member of that family, why, it is nothing but rebellion against
     God, it is nothing but gibbering madness, that would make any
     member of that family hesitate to avail himself of the guidance
     thus offered, of the light of the wisdom which may thus be poured
     around him. In God's name, give me wisdom, give me genuine power,
     give me magnanimity!--as to the incidents of the matter, I do not
     insist upon them. Whether it be through my father or my mother
     that true guidance is afforded, whether it be by my wife or my
     daughter that good counsel is offered, very clearly, to reject
     these is to spurn the kindness of benignant Heaven.

       *       *       *       *       *

     WENDELL PHILLIPS said:--We are here to enforce, on the
     consideration of the civil state, those elements of power which
     have already made the social state. You do not find it necessary
     to-day to say to a husband, "Your wife has a right to read"; or
     necessary to say to Dickens, "You have as many women over your
     pages as men." You do not find it necessary to say to the male
     members of a church that the women members have a right to change
     their creed. All that is settled; nobody contests it. If a man
     stood up here and said, "I am a Calvinist, and therefore my wife
     is bound to be one," you would send him to a lunatic asylum. You
     would say, "Poor man! don't judge him by what he says; he don't
     mean it." But law is halting back just where that old
     civilization was; we want to change it.

     We are not doing anything new. There is no fanaticism about it.
     We are merely extending the area of liberty--nothing else. We
     have made great progress. The law passed at the last session of
     the New York Legislature grants, in fact, the whole question. The
     moment you grant us anything, we have gained the whole. You can
     not stop with an inconsistent statute-book. A man is uneasy who
     is inconsistent. As Thomas Fuller says, "You can not make one
     side of the face laugh, and the other cry!" You can not have
     one-half your statute-book Jewish, and the other Christian;
     one-half of the statute-book Oriental, the other Saxon. You have
     granted that woman may be hung, therefore you must grant that
     woman may vote. You have granted that she may be taxed,
     therefore, on republican principles, you must grant that she
     ought to have a voice in fixing the laws of taxation--and this
     is, in fact, all that we claim--the whole of it.

     Now, I want to consider some of the objections that are made to
     this claim. Men say, "Woman is not fit to vote; she does not know
     enough; she has not sense enough to vote." I take this idea of
     the ballot as the Gibraltar of our claim, for this reason,
     because I am speaking in a democracy; I am speaking under
     republican institutions. The rule of despotism is that one class
     is made to protect the other; that the rich, the noble, the
     educated are a sort of probate court, to take care of the poor,
     the ignorant, and the common classes. Our fathers got rid of all
     that. They knocked it on the head by the simple principle, that
     no class is safe, unless government is so arranged that each
     class has in its own hands the means of protecting itself. That
     is the idea of republics. The Briton says to the poor man, "Be
     content; I am worth five millions, and I will protect you." And
     America says, "Thank you, sir; I had rather take care of
     myself!"--and that is the essence of democracy. (Applause). It is
     the corner-stone of progress, also; because, the moment you have
     admitted that poor ignorant heart as an element of the
     government, able to mold your institutions, those five millions
     of dollars, feeling that their cradle is not safe and their life
     is in peril, unless that heart is bulwarked with education and
     informed with morality, selfishness dictates that wealth and
     education should do its utmost to educate poverty and hold up
     weakness--and that is the philosophy of democratic institutions.
     (Applause). I am speaking in a republic which admits the
     principle that the poor are not to be protected by the rich, but
     to have the means of protecting themselves. So, too, the
     ignorant; so, too, races. The Irish are not to trust to the sense
     of justice in the Saxon; the German is not to trust to the
     native-born citizen; the Catholic is not to trust to the
     Protestant; but all sects, all classes, are to hold in their own
     hands the scepter--the American scepter--of the ballot, which
     protects each class. We claim it, therefore, for woman. The reply
     is, that woman has not got sense enough. If she has not, so much
     the more shame for your public-schools--educate her! For you will
     not say that woman naturally has not mind enough. If God did not
     give her mind enough, then you are brutes, for you say to her:
     "Madam, you have sense enough to earn your own living--don't come
     to us!" You make her earn her own bread, and, if she has sense
     enough to do that, she has enough to say whether Fernando Wood or
     Governor Morgan shall take one cent out of every hundred to pay
     for fireworks. When you hold her up in both hands, and say, "Let
     me work for you! Don't move one of your dainty fingers! We will
     pour wealth into your lap, and be ye clothed in satin and velvet,
     every daughter of Eve!"--then you will be consistent in saying
     that woman has not sense enough to vote. But if she has sense
     enough to work, to depend for her bread on her work, she has
     sense enough to vote....

     But men say it would be very indelicate for woman to go to the
     ballot-box or sit in the Legislature. Well, what would she see
     there? Why, she would see men. (Laughter). She sees men now. In
     "Cranford Village," that sweet little sketch by Mrs. Gaskill, one
     of the characters says, "I know these men--my father was a man."
     (Laughter). I think every woman can say the same. She meets men
     now; she could meet nothing but men at the ballot-box, or, if she
     meets brutes, they ought not to be there. (Applause). Indelicate
     for her to go to the ballot-box!--but you may walk up and down
     Broadway any time from nine o'clock in the morning until nine at
     night, and you will find about equal numbers of men and women
     crowding that thoroughfare, which is never still. You may get
     into an omnibus--women are there, crowding us out, sometimes.
     (Laughter). You can not go into a theater without being crowded
     to death by two women to one man. If you go to the lyceum, woman
     is there. I have stood on this very platform, and seen as many
     women as men before me, and one time, at least, when they could
     not have met any worse men at the ballot-box than they met in
     this hall. (Laughter and applause). You may go to church, and you
     will find her facing men of all classes--ignorant and wise,
     saints and sinners. I do not know anywhere that woman is not. It
     is too late now to say that she can not go to the ballot-box. Go
     back to Turkey, and shut her up in a harem; go back to Greece,
     and shut her up in the private apartments of women; go back to
     the old Oriental phases of civilization, that never allowed
     woman's eyes to light a man's pathway, unless he owned her, and
     you are consistent; but you see, we have broken down the bulwark,
     centuries ago. You know they used to let a man be hung in public,
     and said that it was for the sake of the example. They got
     ashamed of it, and banished the gallows to the jail-yard, and
     allowed only twelve men to witness an execution. It is too late
     to say that you hang men for the example, because the example you
     are ashamed to have public can not be a wholesome example. So it
     is with this question of woman. You have granted so much, that
     you have left yourselves no ground to stand on. My dear, delicate
     friend, you are out of your sphere; you ought to be in Turkey. My
     dear, religiously, scrupulously fashionable, exquisitely anxious
     hearer, fearful lest your wife, or daughter, or sister shall be
     sullied by looking into your neighbors' faces at the ballot-box,
     you do not belong to the century that has ballot-boxes. You
     belong to the century of Tamerlane and Timour the Tartar; you
     belong to China, where the women have no feet, because it is not
     meant that they shall walk. You belong anywhere but in America;
     and if you want an answer, walk down Broadway, and meet a hundred
     thousand petticoats, and they are a hundred thousand answers; for
     if woman can walk the streets, she can go to the ballot-box, and
     any reason of indelicacy that forbids the one covers the other.

     Men say, "Why do you come here? What good are you going to do?
     You do nothing but talk." Oh, yes, we have done a great deal
     besides talk! But suppose we had done nothing but talk? I saw a
     poor man the other day, and said he (speaking of a certain period
     in his life), "I felt very friendless and alone--I had only God
     with me"; and he seemed to think that was not much. And so thirty
     millions of thinking, reading people are constantly throwing it
     in the teeth of reformers that they rely upon talk! What is talk?
     Why, it is the representative of brains. And what is the
     characteristic glory of the nineteenth century? That it is ruled
     by brains, and not by muscle; that rifles are gone by, and ideas
     have come in; and, of course, in such an era, talk is the
     fountain-head of all things. But we have done a great deal. In
     the first place, you will meet dozens of men who say, "Oh,
     woman's right to property, the right of the wife to her own
     earnings, we grant that; we always thought that; we have had that
     idea for a dozen years." I met a man the other day in the cars,
     and we read the statute of your New York Legislature. "Why," said
     he, "that is nothing; I have assented to that for these fifteen
     years." All I could say to that was this: "This agitation has
     either given you the idea, or it has given you the courage to
     utter it, for nobody ever heard it from you until to-day." ...

     What do we toil for? Why, my friends, I do not care much whether
     a woman actually goes to the ballot-box and votes--that is a
     slight matter; and I shall not wait, either, to know whether
     every woman in this audience wants to vote. Some of you were
     saying to-day, in these very seats, coming here out of mere
     curiosity, to see what certain fanatics could find to say, "Why,
     I don't want any more rights; I have got rights enough." Many a
     lady, whose husband is what he ought to be, whose father is what
     fathers ought to be, feeling no want unsupplied, is ready to say,
     "I have all the rights I want." So the daughter of Louis
     Sixteenth, in the troublous time of 1791, when somebody told her
     that the people were starving in the streets of Paris, exclaimed,
     "What fools! I would eat bread first!" Thus wealth, comfort, and
     ease say, "I have rights enough." Nobody doubted it, madam! But
     the question is not of you; the question is of some houseless
     wife of a drunkard; the question is of some ground-down daughter
     of toil, whose earnings are filched from her by the rum debts of
     a selfishness which the law makes to have a right over her, in
     the person of a husband. The question is not of you, it is of
     some friendless woman of twenty, standing at the door of the
     world, educated, capable, desirous of serving her time and her
     race, and saying, "Where shall I use these talents? How shall I
     earn bread?" And orthodox society, cabined and cribbed in St.
     Paul, cries out, "Go sew, jade! We have no other channel for you.
     Go to the needle, or wear yourself to death as a
     school-mistress." We come here to endeavor to convince you, and
     so to shape our institutions that public opinion, following in
     the wake, shall be willing to open channels for the agreeable and
     profitable occupation of women as much as for men. People blame
     the shirt-makers and tailors because they pay two cents where
     they ought to pay fifty. It is not their fault. They are nothing
     but the weathercocks, and society is the wind. Trade does not
     grow out of the Sermon on the Mount; merchants never have any
     hearts, they have only ledgers; two per cent. a month is their
     Sermon on the Mount, and a balance on the wrong side of the
     ledger is their demonstration. (Laughter). Nobody finds fault
     with them for it. Everything according to the law of its life. A
     man pays as much for making shirts or coats as it is necessary to
     pay, and he would be a fool and a bankrupt if he paid any more.
     He needs only a hundred workwomen; there are a thousand women
     standing at his door saying, "Give us work; and if it is worth
     ten cents to do it, we will do it for two"; and a hundred get the
     work, and nine hundred are turned into the street, to drag down
     this city into the pit that it deserves. (Loud applause).

     Now, what is the remedy? To take that tailor by the throat, and
     gibbet him in _The New York Tribune_? Not at all; it does the
     women no good, and he does not deserve it. I will tell you what
     is to be done. Behind the door at which those women stand asking
     for work, on one side stands an orthodox disciple of St. Paul,
     and on the other a dainty exquisite; and the one says, it is not
     religious, and the other says, it is not fashionable, for woman
     to be anything but a drudge. Now, strangle the one in his own
     creed, and smother the other in his own perfumes, and give to
     those thousand women freedom to toil. Let public opinion only
     grant that, like their thousand brothers, those thousand women
     may go out, and wherever they find work to do, do it, without a
     stigma being set upon them. Let the educated girl of twenty have
     the same liberty to use the pen, to practice law, to write
     books, to attend the telegraph, to go into the artist's studio,
     to serve in a library, to tend in a gallery of art, to do
     anything that her brother can do. St. Paul is dead and rotten,
     and ought to be forgotten--(Applause, laughter, and a few
     hisses)--so far as this doctrine goes, mark you! for his is the
     noblest figure in all history, except that of Christ, the
     broadest and most masterly intellect of any age; but he was a Jew
     and not a Christian; he lived under Jewish civilization and not
     ours, and was speaking by his own light, and not by inspiration
     of God.

     This is all we claim; and we claim the ballot for this reason;
     the moment you give woman power, that moment men will see to it
     that she has the way cleared for her. There are two sources of
     power: one is civil, the ballot; the other is physical, the
     rifle. I do not believe that the upper classes--education,
     wealth, aristocracy, conservatism--the men that are in--ever
     yielded, except to fear. I think the history of the race shows
     that the upper classes never granted a privilege to the lower out
     of love. As Jeremy Bentham says, "The upper classes never yielded
     a privilege without being bullied out of it." When man rises in
     revolution, with the sword in his right hand, trembling wealth
     and conservatism say, "What do you want? Take it; but grant me my
     life." The Duke of Tuscany, Elizabeth Barrett Browning has told
     us, swore to a dozen constitutions when the Tuscans stood armed
     in the streets of Florence, and he forgot them when the Austrians
     came in and took the rifles out of the Tuscans' hands. You must
     force the upper classes to do justice by physical or some other
     power. The age of physical power is gone, and we want to put
     ballots into the hands of women....

     Political economy puts in every man's hand, by the labor of half
     a day, money enough to be drunk a week. There is one temptation,
     dragging down the possibility of self-government into the pit of
     imbruted humanity; and on the other side, is that hideous problem
     of modern civilized life--prostitution--born of orthodox scruples
     and aristocratic fastidiousness--born of that fastidious denial
     of the right of woman to choose her own work, and, like her
     brother, to satiate her ambition, her love of luxury, her love of
     material gratifications, by fair wages for fair work. As long as
     you deny it, as long as the pulpit covers with its fastidious
     orthodoxy this question from the consideration of the public, it
     is but a concealed brothel, although it calls itself an orthodox
     pulpit. (Applause and hisses). I know what I say; your hisses can
     not change it. Go, clean out the Gehenna of New York! (Applause).
     Go, sweep the Augean stable that makes New York the lazar-house
     of corruption! You know that on one side or the other of these
     temptations lies very much of the evil of modern civilized life.
     You know that before them, statesmanship folds its hands in
     despair. Here is a method by which to take care of at least one.
     Give men fair wages, and ninety-nine out of a hundred will
     disdain to steal. The way to prevent dishonesty is to let every
     man have a field for his work, and honest wages; the way to
     prevent licentiousness is to give to woman's capacity free play.
     Give to the higher powers activity, and they will choke down the
     animal. The man who loves thinking, disdains to be the victim of
     appetite. It is a law of our nature. Give a hundred women honest
     wages for capacity and toil, and ninety-nine out of the hundred
     will disdain to win it by vice. _That_ is a cure for
     licentiousness. (Applause).

     I wish to put into our civil life the element of woman's right to
     shape the laws, for all our social life copies largely from the
     statute-book. Let woman dictate at the capital, let her say to
     Wall Street, "My votes on finance are to make stocks rise and
     fall," and Wall Street will say to Columbia College, "Open your
     classes to woman; it needs be that she should learn." The moment
     you give her the ballot, you take bonds of wealth and fashion and
     conservatism, that they will educate this power, which is holding
     their interest in its right hand. I want to spike the gun of
     selfishness; or rather, I want to double-shot the cannon of
     selfishness. Let Wall Street say, "Look you! whether the New York
     Central stock shall have a toll placed upon it, whether my
     million shares shall be worth sixty cents in the market or
     eighty, depends upon whether certain women up there at Albany
     know the laws of trade and the secrets of political economy"--and
     Wall Street will say, "Get out of the way, Dr. Adams!--absent
     yourself, Dr. Spring!--we don't care for Jewish prejudices; these
     women must have education!" (Loud applause). Show me the
     necessity in civil life, and I will find you forty thousand
     pulpits that will say St. Paul meant just that. (Renewed
     applause). Now, I am orthodox; I believe in the Bible; I
     reverence St. Paul; I believe his was the most masterly intellect
     that God ever gave to the race; I believe he was the connecting
     link, the bridge, by which the Asiatic and European mind were
     joined; I believe that Plato ministers at his feet; but, after
     all, he was a man, and not God. (Applause). He was limited, and
     made mistakes. You can not anchor this western continent to the
     Jewish footstool of St. Paul; and, after all, that is the
     difficulty--religious prejudice. It is not fashion--we shall beat
     it; it is not the fastidiousness of the exquisite--we shall
     smother it; it is the religious prejudice, borrowed from a
     mistaken interpretation of the New Testament. That is the real
     Gibraltar with which we are to grapple, and my argument with that
     is simply this: You left it when you founded a republic; you left
     it when you inaugurated Western civilization; we must grow out of
     one root.

     Let me, in closing, show you, by one single anecdote, how mean a
     thing a man can be. You have heard of Mrs. Norton, "the woman
     Byron," as critics call her--the granddaughter of Sheridan, and
     the one on whose shoulders his mantle has rested--a genius by
     right of inheritance and by God's own gift. Perhaps you may
     remember that when the Tories wanted to break down the reform
     administration of Lord Melbourne, they brought her husband to
     feign to believe his wife unfaithful, and to sue her before a
     jury. He did so, brought an action, and an English jury said she
     was innocent; and his own counsel has since admitted, in writing,
     under his own signature, that during the time he prosecuted that
     trial, the Honorable Mr. Norton (for so he is in the Herald's
     Book) confessed all the time that he did not believe a word
     against his wife, and knew she was innocent. She is a writer. The
     profits of her books, by the law of England, belong to her
     husband. She has not lived with him--of course not, for she is a
     woman!--since that trial; but the brute goes every six months to
     John Murray, and eats the profits of the brain of the wife whom
     he tried to disgrace. (Loud cries of "shame," "shame"). And the
     law of England says it is right; the orthodox pulpit says, "If
     you change it, it will be the pulling down of the stars and St.
     Paul." I do not believe that the Honorable Mr. Norton is half as
     near to the mind of St. Paul as the Honorable Mrs. Norton. I go,
     therefore, for woman having her right to her brain, to her hands,
     to her toil, to her ballot. "The tools to him that can use
     them"--and let God settle the rest. If He made it just that we
     should have democratic institutions, then He made it just that
     everybody who is to suffer under the law should have a voice in
     making it; and if it is indelicate for woman to vote, then let
     Him stop making women (applause and laughter), because
     republicanism and such women are not consistent. I say it
     reverently; and I only say it to show you the absurdity. Why, my
     dear man and woman, we are not to help God govern the world by
     telling lies! He can take care of it Himself. If He made it just,
     you may be certain that He saw to it that it should be delicate;
     and you need not insert your little tiny roots of fastidious
     delicacy into the great giant rifts of God's world--they are only
     in the way. (Applause).

The first evening session was called to order at 7-1/2 o'clock. The
President in the chair. The audience was very large, the hall being
uncomfortably full, and the attention unremitting and profound. The
most excellent order was preserved; the meeting, in this respect,
furnishing a marked and gratifying contrast with the evening sessions
of the last two years at Mozart Hall.

Mrs. Rose, from the Business Committee, presented a series of
resolutions[167], which were read by Miss Anthony. Elizabeth Cady
Stanton was the first speaker of the evening. By particular request
she gave the same address recently delivered before the Legislature at
Albany, and was followed by Ernestine L. Rose with one of her logical
and convincing arguments.

Susan B. Anthony then read the following letters:

                     LETTER FROM HON. GERRIT SMITH.

                                             PETERBORO, _May 3, 1860_.

     ELIZABETH CADY STANTON:

     MY VERY DEAR COUSIN:--It is proper that one of the first letters
     which I write in my new life, should be to the cousin whose views
     are most in harmony with my own. I call it my new life, because I
     have come up into it from the gates of death. May it prove a new
     life also, in being a far better and nobler one than that which I
     had hitherto lived!

     I wake up with joy to see my old fellow-laborers still in their
     work of honoring God, in benefiting and blessing man. Your own
     zeal for truth is unabated. I see that you are still laboring to
     free the slave from his chains, and woman from her social, civil,
     and political disabilities; and to preserve both man and woman
     from defiling and debasing themselves with intoxicating liquors
     and tobacco. Precious reforms are these which have enlisted your
     powers! It is true that they do not cover the whole ground of
     religious duty. But it is also true that the religion, which,
     like the current one, opposes or ignores them all, is spurious;
     and so, too, that the religion which opposes or ignores any one
     of them is always sadly defective, if not always spurious.

     Please add the inclosed draft for $25 to the fund for serving the
     cause of woman's rights. To no better cause can money, time, or
     talents be appropriated. I am in high, health, compared with any
     I have enjoyed since the succession of my frightful diseases,
     begun two and a half years ago. My nerves, however, are still
     weak, and most of the year 1859 is still full of confusion and
     darkness to me.

                         Your friend and cousin,
                                                     GERRIT SMITH.


                    LETTER FROM FRANCIS JACKSON, ESQ.

                                                BOSTON, _May 6, 1860_.

     LUCY STONE:

     DEAR FRIEND:--I intend to be at the annual meeting of the
     American Anti-Slavery Society, but my engagements are such that I
     shall not stop long enough in New York to attend your meeting of
     Woman's Rights. I herewith inclose you $20 to help the cause
     along.
                                                  FRANCIS JACKSON.

Hon. Erastus D. Culver, of Brooklyn, New York, being present among
that portion of the audience seated upon the platform, was recognized
and loudly called for, and came forward in response to the call, and
spoke as follows:

     Mrs. PRESIDENT, LADIES, AND GENTLEMEN:--They used to have, in old
     times, in the country where I was brought up, a minister, who,
     after delivering his sermon, would call upon some brother to get
     up and make the application. Now, I want to give you an
     application of what I have heard to-night, and there seems to be
     a sort of providence in it. This very day, since I opened my
     court this morning, three cases have come in review before me,
     each one of them directly connected with the subject matter of
     this evening's deliberations, and with the law which has been
     alluded to to-night. The first was the case of a woman who had
     brought a suit, in conjunction with her husband (as she had to
     do, as the law was) against the city of Brooklyn, for personal
     injuries, received by falling into a hole; and on the first
     trial, it was found very difficult to make out the case, because
     we were obliged to exclude the woman as a witness. If her husband
     had fallen into that hole, and hurt his side, making him a
     <DW36> for life, he might have brought a suit, and he would have
     been by law a competent witness: but his wife was not; and as he
     was not with her at the time of the accident, of course he could
     not testify. To-day the case came on again, and they were making
     a very poor show at proving the accident, when the lawyer for the
     lady said, "I will offer the lady as a witness." The other lawyer
     started up (he is an old fogy, who does not keep up with the
     times) and said, "She is a party out of sight in law; in law, she
     is one of the invisibles"; when, to my great surprise and joy
     (for I had lost track of it myself) the lady's lawyer pulled out
     from his pocket a slip from a newspaper, which contained the
     noble law of the 20th of March, 1860, and that law says that "any
     married woman may bring and maintain an action in her own name
     for damages against any person or body corporate for any injury
     to her person or character." That obviated the difficulty. The
     law was handed to the opposite lawyer, and when he had read it
     through, with a frown on his face, he said, ill-naturedly, "If
     your honor please, it is so; they have emancipated the women from
     all obligations to their husbands." Now, just look at that old
     presumption of the law, that a married woman could not tell the
     truth, even in a matter about which she knew better than any one
     else, on the ground that she was a _feme covert_, and was
     _nil_--nothing!

     That was one case. Another was that of a woman who made a bitter
     complaint against her husband, saying that he had become a
     drunkard, and was squandering her estate, and threatened to take
     their two children away. I signed the writ, and the husband and
     two children were brought in. He addressed the Court in his own
     defence, and I have not heard such eloquence in court for many a
     year. He told how he loved his wife, how devoted he was, and
     that it would ruin him for ever to be separated from her. He said
     to his lawyer, "Do you keep still; I can talk better than you
     can." "Now," said he to the Court, "I adjure you, by the feelings
     of a father and a man, restore to me my wife and children! Do not
     disgrace me in this way!" All present were deeply affected, and
     it seemed as if he had carried the people with him, whether he
     had the Court or not. His speech sounded admirably; but I am
     sorry to say, that when his wife's turn came, she had not spoken
     five minutes before she had taken the wind entirely out of his
     sails. "I was married," she said, "eleven years ago, and not a
     fortnight after, he beat me, and left his bruises upon me. He has
     pawned all my clothes, everything I have in the house has been
     pledged, and I am left destitute; and here, your honor, are the
     wounds upon my head, here are the bruises that he has left. I can
     not live with him any longer; I can not be reconciled, until he
     abjures rum and comes home resolved to live a sober life."
     "Well," said the husband's lawyer, "we claim our paramount
     rights--that the father shall have the custody of the children."
     Then came up this very law again, and this lawyer was as much
     surprised as the one to whom I first referred. There is a clause
     in that law which declares that, from this time forward, there
     shall be no such thing as "paramount rights." It is declared in
     that statute that from this day "every married woman is
     constituted and declared to be the joint guardian of her
     children, with equal powers, rights, and duties in regard to
     them, with her husband." In view of that law, I said, "I can not
     take the children away from the mother; she has just as much
     right to them as her husband, and if she says she must have them,
     I will let her have them." (Loud applause).

     Now, ladies and gentlemen, I have never been identified with this
     Woman's Rights movement, but I tell you what it is, we have got
     to admit some things. We have got to admit that these
     indefatigable laborers, amid obloquy and reproach, in Church and
     State, by buffoons and by men, have at last set the under-current
     in motion. The statute-book is their vindication to-night. The
     last measure passed has relieved woman, to a great extent, from
     the disabilities under which she was placed. I am one who
     believes that she may go forward. There will come a time,
     friends, when we shall see the ballot-box open, and one
     particular department (as we have at the post-office) where the
     ladies will all march up and vote. (Applause, and a few hisses).
     Now, you men that hiss, you would like to have them help you
     elect your candidate this year, wouldn't you? I wish most
     sincerely that they could help elect our Republican candidate.
     (Applause). There is to be a still further advance in this
     matter. I do not think it at all degrading to say, that there
     will come a time when ladies will sit in the jury-box, to pass
     upon certain cases that come particularly within their sphere;
     and I will say (now that I am off the bench) that they would make
     better judges than some who are on the benches now. (Laughter and
     applause).

     Mrs. ROSE added: I have been most happy to hear the remarks of
     Judge Culver. Who can doubt of our success, when judges, and
     noble ones, too--for it is only noble ones who are ready to
     identify themselves with this cause before it becomes fully
     successful--come forward to endorse our movement! All we now have
     to do is, to continue in the good cause, and, depend upon it, the
     time will come when we shall look back to this last spring's
     enactment of the Legislature, as the commencement of the real
     "good time coming." But we have yet some duties to perform. What
     we have gained, has not been gained without labor. Freedom, my
     friends, does not come from the clouds, like a meteor; it does
     not bloom in one night; it does not come without great efforts
     and great sacrifices; all who love liberty, have to labor for it.
     We expect that from this hour, you will all help us to work out
     that glorious problem, whether or not woman can govern herself
     quite as well as man can govern her. Give us the elective
     franchise, and we ask for no more. When we have obtained that, it
     shall be our fault if we do not take all the rights we now claim.
     (Applause).

     ELIZABETH JONES said: The adoption of the plans now proposed
     would place woman above the necessity of any mercenary marriages.
     She could leave her father's home if she didn't like it, and
     engage in business and support herself. Who cared for the husband
     of Jenny Lind, or of Mrs. Norton? It was not necessary for
     Florence Nightingale, Harriet Hosmer, or Elizabeth Blackwell to
     marry to secure the world's consideration. The wife should have
     equal and joint proprietorship with her husband. Two brothers,
     John and Henry, go to California and form a partnership; John
     cooks while Henry digs. Henry finds one day a lump of gold worth
     a hundred dollars. Will he pay John fifty cents for cooking, and
     take the rest himself? Of course not; he will divide with him. So
     the husband should regard the property that he accumulates as
     owned by his wife jointly and equally with himself. Woman would
     have her rights, let man do what he might. She asked no rights
     from man, for man had none to give her--none to spare from
     himself. Satan promised Jesus all the kingdoms of the world, and
     the glory of them, if He would fall down and worship him; but it
     was well known that the poor devil had not a foot to give. And so
     man could give no rights to woman. She was born with rights, and
     only wanted man to recognize them. Her purpose was to demand them
     persistently, or, if need be, like the Prince of Orange, die in
     the last ditch before she surrendered them. (Applause).

Rev. Samuel Longfellow, of Brooklyn, N. Y., brother of the poet, was
next introduced, and spoke as follows:

     Mrs. PRESIDENT:--It might seem, that on a platform like this,
     when a woman speaks, her presence is not merely a plea and an
     argument, but also a proof. When a woman speaks, and speaks well,
     speaks so as to interest and move and persuade men, there is no
     need of any argument back of that to prove that she has the
     liberty and the right, and that it is a part of her sphere to do
     it. She has done it; and that of itself is the whole
     argument--both premise and conclusion in one. And I think if
     there were none but men present here, it would be better that
     only women should speak; for there is a subtle power which God
     implanted from the first in woman over man, so that the thought
     of her mind and the tone of her voice are more powerful over us
     than almost any man, be he eloquent as he may; but not only men
     are here, but women, also; and as our friend who has just spoken
     has addressed herself to men, I will address myself to women.

     I have often thought that the obstacle in the way of a full
     allowance and recognition of woman's right to stand side by side
     with man in all the departments of life, and to add her feminine
     influence and fiber twined in with man's influence and fiber, in
     all things that are thought and done, that the obstacle lay more
     in woman than in man. I have often thought that men were more
     willing to accept these ideas and grant these claims than women
     were even to make the claims for themselves; and I have no doubt
     that those women who have labored, through so much difficulty,
     through so much scorn and obloquy, in behalf of these simple
     rights, will tell you that they have often found the greatest
     opposition among their own sex.

     The simple proposition which, it seems to me, includes the whole
     of this matter, is, what I should call a self-evident
     truth--that, in all departments of life, men and women, made from
     the first to be co-mates and partners, should stand side by side,
     and work hand to hand. Not because men and women are identical,
     not because they are not different, but because they are
     different; because each has a special quality running through the
     whole organization of the man and the woman, which quality is
     needed to make a complete manhood and womanhood. And then there
     is another proposition, which is this: that whatever any human
     being can do well, that being has a right to do, and the ability
     of any person marks the sphere of that person. ("Hear"--"hear").
     This, I say, I count to be strictly a self-evident proposition.
     (Applause). If you want to know what the level of water is at any
     particular spot upon the face of the earth, you do not force the
     water up with a force-pump, you do not build a great reservoir
     with high stone walls, to hold it, you simply leave it alone, and
     it finds its level. So, if you want to know what is the true
     sphere of man or woman, just leave the man or the woman alone,
     and the natural law, and the divine law, which can not be broken,
     and which are as sure in the moral and human world as they are in
     the external world, will settle the matter. If you want to know,
     really and sincerely, what woman's sphere is, leave her
     unhampered and untrammeled, and her own powers will find that
     sphere. She may make mistakes, and try, as man often does, to do
     things which she can not, but the experiment will settle the
     matter; and nothing can be more absurd than for man, especially,
     _a priori_, to establish the limits which shall bound woman's
     sphere, or for woman, as a mere matter of speculation, to debate
     what her sphere shall be, since the natural laws are revealed,
     not to speculation, but to action.

     The obstacle to the progress of the simple ideas which underlie
     this movement and to their being carried out into practice, I
     take to be nothing else than this--the _vis inertiae_ of
     prejudice, the dead-weight of the customary and familiar--that
     which has been; and that is simply the dead-weight which hangs
     upon the wheels of every movement of reform. A thing has not not
     been, it is not customary, it is strange, it disturbs our
     ordinary modes of thought, and we will have nothing to do with
     it. When you are driving with your carriage along the track of
     the horse-railroad, your wheels run very smoothly; but if you are
     obliged to turn out, it wrenches the wheels and jars your
     carriage; and the deeper the ruts, the more disturbance and
     trouble will you have if you are obliged to move out of them. We
     all move in the ruts of habit and custom; and it disturbs and
     troubles us to be asked to move out of them--to do or think
     anything unusual. This _vis inertiae_ is what stands in the way,
     first and most of all, of the success of this movement, of the
     reception of these ideas, as of every other movement of reform.
     And this dead-weight of prejudice, this _vis inertiae_ of old and
     traditional thought, is concentrated in this phrase, uttered with
     tones of indifference or with tones of self-satisfaction and
     pride, "I think, for my part, that woman's sphere is home." This
     phrase you hear everywhere--in the parlors, in the streets, in
     conventions, and in pulpits, and read in books--"Woman's sphere
     is home!" (Applause). "Well, is it not?" some one asks among you,
     perhaps. Now, I have no desire to deny that the home is for
     woman, as for man, the most noble sphere of life. I am sure that
     there is not one who will stand upon this platform, or speak or
     write in this cause, who will deny that; not one but will declare
     that they count home a sacred and noble sphere for woman, as for
     man--a sphere for grand and high influence, for noble
     consecration and devoted work; whether it be the simple duties of
     housekeeping, which a high and cultivated soul can make beautiful
     by the spirit in which they are done--or whether it be the care
     of children and the training up of the youthful mind into noble
     thought and preparation for noble action, which is a sphere so
     high, that none of us, perhaps, know how high it is--or whether
     it be as the friend and comforter, encourager and inspirer, to
     all things noble in thought and grand in action, of man. But if
     home be the sphere of woman--as none of us deny or doubt for a
     moment--if it be a sphere for woman high and noble, and to some
     altogether sufficient to bound their capacities and bound their
     desires, it is also a sphere for man--a sphere which he
     altogether too much neglects, not knowing how high and noble it
     is, and that his duty lies at home, however much he ignores it,
     with his wife and with his children. But when it is said that
     home is woman's only sphere--and that is what is meant--it is
     simply a mistake; it is simply a narrow statement. Take the very
     woman who says this. As she passes along the street, she sees a
     placard for a Woman's Rights meeting, and with scornful lip she
     says, "I think woman's sphere is home"--and goes promenading up
     and down the street to meet acquaintances, and spends all the
     morning in shopping--because woman's sphere is home! (Applause
     and laughter). And after dinner, she says to her husband, "Where
     shall we go this evening?" "I think we will go to the opera," he
     says; and so she leaves the children with the servant, and spends
     half the night at the opera, because woman's sphere is home!
     (Laughter). On Sunday she goes to church morning and evening,
     because woman's sphere is home! and during the week goes to
     concerts and lectures and balls, perhaps, because woman's sphere
     is home! This is the answer to be given to all those who claim
     that woman can do nothing but attend to household affairs, or to
     those duties which are called especially the duties of home. No
     woman attends to these utterly. No woman need neglect the duties
     of home in order to fulfill duties in a wider sphere. It takes as
     much time to sit and hear a lecture as to stand and deliver it;
     to sit and hear a concert as to stand before the audience and
     sing. There is time enough, and if one has a talent for either,
     that is the sphere for him or her.

     But when this claim is made that woman's sphere is at home, it is
     quite forgotten how many women there are who have not imposed
     upon them the cares of a home; what numbers there are who are not
     at the head of families; what numbers there are who have not
     these domestic ties to call upon them for effort; and it is also
     forgotten how many there are who can not possibly always remain
     at home, because upon their going forth depends the getting of
     the money that shall provide for the wants of the home--that
     shall bring the clothing and the bread that are to supply the
     home's outward wants. To do this, these women must go from their
     homes; and oh! hundreds and thousands of working-women in this
     city are women whose sphere can not be home alone. It is upon
     this ground that there is pressed home upon us the consideration
     of the demands for a wider sphere of work for woman, that she
     shall not be cut off from this and that means of getting a
     living, which are freely opened to man, but from which woman is
     excluded, through prejudices and fears. Let the wide sphere of
     work be opened to woman, that she may select from it, just as man
     does, whatever her strength and skill are sufficient for her to
     accomplish. She is not to be shut up, it is claimed, and justly,
     to a few poor, small, and wretchedly-paid employments, by which
     she can, with her own hands and skill, gain a living, but is to
     be allowed and encouraged to open to herself every variety of
     employment wherein she shall be paid an equal sum with that which
     man is paid for doing the same work; a claim which has been too
     long ignored and set aside, but which will press itself until its
     manifest justice shall compel its admission. The woman who has
     not the care of a family is to be encouraged to expand her
     powers, her talents, and genius, and to apply them to the purpose
     of securing a livelihood, without any obstacle whatever being put
     in the way; for when we talk of man's sphere and woman's sphere,
     it is all a farce. There is no one sphere fitted for all men, any
     more than for all women. Some men can not make good business men,
     and must fail if they try; and some men can not possibly write
     books, or preach, or speak in public, and must fail if they try.
     They do not try, because they have wisdom enough to know that
     they could not succeed. So it will be with women. People commonly
     think, that if you grant this claim of woman's right to make her
     own sphere, that all women will immediately rush into public
     speaking, and be crowding to the platform, or into the pulpit, or
     writing books, or carving statues, or painting pictures. There is
     not the slightest danger of that. Of course, if either of these
     is the true sphere of any woman, she ought to go there; but those
     who have not a talent for these things will not try them.

     If the right to vote was granted to woman--from which I do not
     see how we can escape--I do not suppose that all women would go
     to the polls, for I know that many men do not, although they have
     much to say about the great privilege which every man enjoys, of
     having a voice in the government, and the responsibility of a
     voter. Things would remain much as now if to-morrow every
     obstacle were removed from woman's path. Only gradually would the
     change occur, as individual after individual found larger room
     for action than that in which she is now pent. As this discussion
     has been going on, woman after woman has been enlarging the
     sphere allowed her. Women write admirable books, paint admirable
     pictures, chisel admirable statues, make most excellent and
     well-instructed physicians. Women are doing everything which it
     is now claimed they have the right to do, except voting, which
     they are not yet permitted to do; and I am not sure, in regard to
     that, that the best plan would not be, as our Platonic friend in
     New England once said, for the women to go quietly and vote,
     without waiting to be asked or told that they would be permitted
     to do so. To be sure, he said, their votes could not be counted,
     but there they would be, and they would have their force. He
     thought that the moral influence of those votes would go a great
     ways, and it is quite possible that they would have that effect.
     But I hope, whether in that way or some other--perhaps before
     that step is taken--men will be led to see, that in the sphere of
     politics, as well as in the sphere of literature and art, woman's
     influence is needed; and all the objections that are made to
     woman's voting are of the most trivial character, that would not
     stand a day before any serious desire that she should have her
     simple right in this matter, so far as she chooses to claim it.
     And her right lies simply in these old propositions, so dear to
     our fathers--upon which they stood and fought an eight years'
     war--"Taxation without representation is tyranny," and that "all
     just powers of government are derived from the consent of the
     governed." And there is nothing in these two propositions which
     confines their application to man; there is nothing in them which
     does not demand that woman should be included as well as man.
     Wherever woman is taxed, she has a right to vote, by this
     fundamental principle of our government; and wherever she is
     legislated for and governed, she is entitled to a voice in that
     legislation and government.

     This is a very simple matter. To-day, it is only a question of
     time, when, from a matter of speculation, it will become a matter
     of fact, the details of which can be managed as well as anything
     in the world. Women will not be obliged to enter into a scramble
     with dirty and fighting men at the polls--though it is possible,
     if she went where such men are, they would be put on their good
     manners, and be as well-behaved as anybody; but she could have a
     separate place to vote, and go to the polls as quietly, and with
     as little loss of time, as she now goes to the post-office, or
     walks the streets, where rough, rude men congregate, but where
     she has enough room to go and purchase her silks and satins and
     laces in Broadway. (Applause). I congratulate those who, taking
     an interest in this cause, espoused it when it was a great cross
     to bear--who took it up with the simple courage of woman, the
     patient perseverance of woman, and have carried it through as far
     as it has gone now--upon the advances which it has made, upon the
     opening and enlightenment of the public mind, and upon its
     favorable reception, spite of all the obstacles that still
     remain. I bid them be of good cheer, and remember that the great
     law of progress is a law of steps; so that we must needs all be
     patient, while we must also all needs be persevering. It is but a
     question of time and of steps. The great psalm of human progress
     is (to borrow a phrase from the Hebrew Bible) a psalm of degrees.
     By patient steps man rises out of falsehood into truth, out of
     wrongs into rights. So it is with woman, as a part of humanity.
     Let every woman be true to this as her mission; let no woman dare
     to place any obstacle or coldness in the way of this movement;
     but let all calmly consider it, hear the arguments that are made,
     and allow them to have their full weight; look at the simple
     facts, and decide. Then we may, perhaps, all of us live to see
     the day when, throughout all the spheres of his life, and all
     the departments of his action, side by side with man and the
     manly quality, there shall be woman and the womanly quality, and
     a new Eden begin on earth. (Applause).

The President said:--Before introducing the next speaker, I want to
express the gratitude which we women feel to Mr. Longfellow and the
other gentlemen who have identified themselves with an unpopular and
ridiculed cause. Permit me to say one word in relation to this matter
of woman's sphere. There is a lady in my neighborhood, who was
speaking to me not long since, in the most enthusiastic terms, of this
recent law that has passed through our Legislature, and of gratitude
toward Susan B. Anthony, through whose untiring exertions and
executive ability, aided by two or three other women, this law has
been secured. After she had expatiated for a while on this subject,
her husband said, "Miss Anthony had a great deal better have been at
home, taking care of her husband and children." Thank Heaven! there is
one woman who has leisure to care for others as well as herself.
(Applause).

Elizabeth Cady Stanton then presented a series of resolutions,[168] in
support of which she addressed the Convention as follows:

     Mrs. PRESIDENT:--In our common law, in our whole system of
     jurisprudence, we find man's highest idea of right. The object of
     law is to secure justice. But inasmuch as fallible man is the
     maker and administrator of law, we must look for many and gross
     blunders in the application of its general principles to
     individual cases.

     The science of theology, of civil, political, moral, and social
     life, all teach the common idea, that man ever has been, and ever
     must be, sacrificed to the highest good of society; the one to
     the many--the poor to the rich--the weak to the powerful--and all
     to the institutions of his own creation. Look, what thunderbolts
     of power man has forged in the ages for his own destruction!--at
     the organizations to enslave himself! And through those times of
     darkness, those generations of superstition, behold all along the
     relics of his power and skill, that stand like mile-stones, here
     and there, to show how far back man was great and glorious! Who
     can stand in those vast cathedrals of the old world, as the
     deep-toned organ reverberates from arch to arch, and not feel the
     grandeur of humanity? These are the workmanship of him, beneath
     whose stately dome the architect himself now bows in fear and
     doubt, knows not himself, and knows not God--a mere slave to
     symbols--and with holy water signs the Cross, whilst He who died
     thereon declared man God.

     I repudiate the popular idea of man's degradation and total
     depravity. I place man above all governments, all
     institutions--ecclesiastical and civil--all constitutions and
     laws. (Applause). It is a mistaken idea, that the same law that
     oppresses the individual can promote the highest good of society.
     The best interests of a community never can require the sacrifice
     of one innocent being--of one sacred right. In the settlement,
     then, of any question, we must simply consider the highest good
     of the individual. It is the inalienable right of all to be
     happy. It is the highest duty of all to seek those conditions in
     life, those surroundings, which may develop what is noblest and
     best, remembering that the lessons of these passing hours are not
     for time alone, but for the ages of eternity. They tell us, in
     that future home--the heavenly paradise--that the human family
     shall be sifted out, and the good and pure shall dwell together
     in peace. If that be the heavenly order, is it not our duty to
     render earth as near like heaven as we may?

     For years, there has been before the Legislature of this State a
     variety of bills, asking for divorce in cases of drunkenness,
     insanity, desertion, cruel and brutal treatment, endangering
     life. My attention was called to this question very early in
     life, by the sufferings of a friend of my girlhood, a victim of
     one of those unfortunate unions, called marriage. What my great
     love for that young girl, and my holy intuitions, then decided to
     be right, has not been changed by years of experience,
     observation, and reason. I have pondered well these things in my
     heart, and ever felt the deepest interest in all that has been
     written and said upon the subject, and the most profound respect
     and loving sympathy for those heroic women, who, in the face of
     law and public sentiment, have dared to sunder the unholy ties of
     a joyless, loveless union.

     If marriage is a human institution, about which man may
     legislate, it seems but just that he should treat this branch of
     his legislation with the same common-sense that he applies to all
     others. If it is a mere legal contract, then should it be subject
     to the restraints and privileges of all other contracts. A
     contract, to be valid in law, must be formed between parties of
     mature age, with an honest intention in said parties to do what
     they agree. The least concealment, fraud, or deception, if
     proved, annuls the contract. A boy can not contract for an acre
     of land, or a horse, until he is twenty-one, but he may contract
     for a wife at fourteen. If a man sell a horse, and the purchaser
     find in him great incompatibility of temper--a disposition to
     stand still when the owner is in haste to go--the sale is null
     and void, and the man and his horse part company. But in
     marriage, no matter how much fraud and deception are practiced,
     nor how cruelly one or both parties have been misled; no matter
     how young, inexperienced, or thoughtless the parties, nor how
     unequal their condition and position in life, the contract can
     not be annulled. Think of a husband telling a young and trusting
     girl, but one short month his wife, that he married her for her
     money; that those letters so precious to her, that she had read
     and re-read, and kissed and cherished, were written by another;
     that their splendid home, of which, on their wedding-day, her
     father gave him the deed, is already in the hands of his
     creditors; that she must give up the elegance and luxury that now
     surround her, unless she can draw fresh supplies of money to meet
     their wants! When she told the story of her wrongs to me--the
     abuse to which she was subject, and the dread in which she
     lived--I impulsively urged her to fly from such a monster and
     villain, as she would before the hot breath of a ferocious beast
     of the wilderness. (Applause). And she did fly; and it was well
     with her. Many times since, as I have felt her throbbing heart
     against my own, she has said, "Oh, but for your love and
     sympathy, your encouragement, I should never have escaped from
     that bondage. Before I could, of myself, have found courage to
     break those chains my heart would have broken in the effort."

     Marriage, as it now exists, must seem to all of you a mere human
     institution. Look through the universe of matter and mind--all
     God's arrangements are perfect, harmonious, and complete! There
     is no discord, friction, or failure in His eternal plans.
     Immutability, perfection, beauty, are stamped on all His laws.
     Love is the vital essence that pervades and permeates, from the
     center to the circumference, the graduating circles of all
     thought and action. Love is the talisman of human weal and
     woe--the open sesame to every human soul. Where two beings are
     drawn together, by the natural laws of likeness and affinity,
     union and happiness are the result. Such marriages might be
     Divine. But how is it now? You all know our marriage is, in many
     cases, a mere outward tie, impelled by custom, policy, interest,
     necessity; founded not even in friendship, to say nothing of
     love; with every possible inequality of condition and
     development. In these heterogeneous unions, we find youth and old
     age, beauty and deformity, refinement and vulgarity, virtue and
     vice, the educated and the ignorant, angels of grace and
     goodness, with devils of malice and malignity: and the sum of all
     this is human wretchedness and despair; cold fathers, sad
     mothers, and hapless children, who shiver at the hearthstone,
     where the fires of love have all gone out. The wide world, and
     the stranger's unsympathizing gaze, are not more to be dreaded
     for young hearts than homes like these. Now, who shall say that
     it is right to take two beings, so unlike, and anchor them right
     side by side, fast bound--to stay all time, until God shall
     summon one away?

     Do wise, Christian legislators need any arguments to convince
     them that the sacredness of the family relation should be
     protected at all hazards? The family, that great conservator of
     national virtue and strength, how can you hope to build it up in
     the midst of violence, debauchery, and excess? Can there be
     anything sacred at that family altar, where the chief-priest who
     ministers makes sacrifice of human beings, of the weak and the
     innocent? where the incense offered up is not to the God of
     justice and mercy, but to those heathen divinities, who best may
     represent the lost man in all his grossness and deformity? Call
     that sacred, where woman, the mother of the race--of a Jesus of
     Nazareth--unconscious of the true dignity of her nature, of her
     high and holy destiny, consents to live in legalized
     prostitution!--her whole soul revolting at such gross
     association!--her flesh shivering at the cold contamination of
     that embrace, held there by no tie but the iron chain of the law,
     and a false and most unnatural public sentiment? Call that
     sacred, where innocent children, trembling with fear, fly to the
     corners and dark places of the house, to hide themselves from the
     wrath of drunken, brutal fathers, but, forgetting their past
     sufferings, rush out again at their mother's frantic screams,
     "Help, oh help"? Behold the agonies of those young hearts, as
     they see the only being on earth they love, dragged about the
     room by the hair of the head, kicked and pounded, and left half
     dead and bleeding on the floor! Call that sacred, where fathers
     like these have the power and legal right to hand down their
     natures to other beings, to curse other generations with such
     moral deformity and death?

     Men and brethren, look into your asylums for the blind, the deaf
     and dumb, the idiot, the imbecile, the deformed, the insane; go
     out into the by-lanes and dens of this vast metropolis, and
     contemplate that reeking mass of depravity; pause before the
     terrible revelations made by statistics, of the rapid increase of
     all this moral and physical impotency, and learn how fearful a
     thing it is to violate the immutable laws of the beneficent Ruler
     of the universe; and there behold the terrible retributions of
     your violence on woman! Learn how false and cruel are those
     institutions, which, with a coarse materialism, set aside those
     holy instincts of the woman to bear no children but those of
     love! In the best condition of marriage, as we now have it, to
     woman comes all the penalties and sacrifices. A man, in the full
     tide of business or pleasure, can marry and not change his life
     one iota; he can be husband, father, and everything beside; but
     in marriage, woman gives up all. Home is her sphere, her realm.
     Well, be it so. If here you will make us all-supreme, take to
     yourselves the universe beside; explore the North Pole; and, in
     your airy car, all space; in your Northern homes and cloud-capt
     towers, go feast on walrus flesh and air, and lay you down to
     sleep your six months' night away, and leave us to make these
     laws that govern the inner sanctuary of our own homes, and
     faithful satellites we will ever be to the dinner-pot, the
     cradle, and the old arm-chair. (Applause).

     Fathers, do you say, let your daughters pay a life-long penalty
     for one unfortunate step? How could they, on the threshold of
     life, full of joy and hope, believing all things to be as they
     seemed on the surface, judge of the dark windings of the human
     soul? How could they foresee that the young man, to-day so noble,
     so generous, would in a few short years be transformed into a
     cowardly, mean tyrant, or a foul-mouthed, bloated drunkard? What
     father could rest at his home by night, knowing that his lovely
     daughter was at the mercy of a strong man drunk with wine and
     passion, and that, do what he might, he was backed up by law and
     public sentiment? The best interests of the individual, the
     family, the State, the nation, cry out against these legalized
     marriages of force and endurance. There can be no heaven without
     love, and nothing is sacred in the family and home, but just so
     far as it is built up and anchored in love. Our newspapers teem
     with startling accounts of husbands and wives having shot or
     poisoned each other, or committed suicide, choosing death rather
     than the indissoluble tie; and, still worse, the living death of
     faithless wives and daughters, from the first families in this
     State, dragged from the privacy of home into the public prints
     and courts, with all the painful details of sad, false lives.
     What say you to facts like these? Now, do you believe, men and
     women, that all these wretched matches are made in heaven? that
     all these sad, miserable people are bound together by God? I know
     Horace Greeley has been most eloquent, for weeks past, on the
     holy sacrament of ill-assorted marriages; but let us hope that
     all wisdom does not live, and will not die with Horace Greeley. I
     think, if he had been married to _The New York Herald_, instead
     of the Republican party, he would have found out some Scriptural
     arguments against life-long unions, where great incompatibility
     of temper existed between the parties. (Laughter and applause).

     Our law-makers have dug a pit, and the innocent have fallen into
     it; and now will you coolly cover them over with statute laws,
     _Tribunes_, and Weeds,[169] and tell them to stay there and pay
     the life-long penalty of having fallen in? Nero was thought the
     chief of tyrants, because he made laws and hung them up so high
     that his subjects could not read them, and then punished them for
     every act of disobedience. What better are our Republican
     legislators? The mass of the women of this nation know nothing
     about the laws, yet all their specially barbarous legislation is
     for woman. Where have they made any provision for her to learn
     the laws? Where is the Law School for our daughters? where the
     law office, the bar, or the bench, now urging them to take part
     in the jurisprudence of the nation?

[Illustration: ELIZABETH CADY STANTON (with autograph).]

     But, say you, does not separation cover all these difficulties?
     No one objects to separation when the parties are so disposed.
     But, to separation there are two very serious objections. First,
     so long as you insist on marriage as a divine institution, as an
     indissoluble tie, so long as you maintain your present laws
     against divorce, you make separation, even, so odious, that the
     most noble, virtuous, and sensitive men and women choose a life
     of concealed misery, rather than a partial, disgraceful release.
     Secondly, those who, in their impetuosity and despair, do, in
     spite of public sentiment, separate, find themselves in their new
     position beset with many temptations to lead a false, unreal
     life. This isolation bears especially hard on woman. Marriage is
     not all of life to man. His resources for amusement and
     occupation are boundless. He has the whole world for his home.
     His business, his politics, his club, his friendships with either
     sex, can help to fill up the void made by an unfortunate union or
     separation. But to woman, marriage is all and everything; her
     sole object in life--that for which she is educated--the subject
     of all her sleeping and her waking dreams. Now, if a noble,
     generous girl of eighteen marries, and is unfortunate, because
     the cruelty of her husband compels separation, in her dreary
     isolation, would you drive her to a nunnery; and shall she be a
     nun indeed? Her solitude is nothing less, as, in the present
     undeveloped condition of woman, it is only through our fathers,
     brothers, husbands, sons, that we feel the pulsations of the
     great outer world.

     One unhappy, discordant man or woman in a neighborhood, may mar
     the happiness of all the rest. You can not shut up discord, any
     more than you can small-pox. There can be no morality where there
     is a settled discontent. A very wise father once remarked, that
     in the government of his children, he forbade as few things as
     possible; a wise legislation would do the same. It is folly to
     make laws on subjects beyond human prerogative, knowing that in
     the very nature of things they must be set aside. To make laws
     that man can not and will not obey, serves to bring all law into
     contempt. It is very important in a republic, that the people
     should respect the laws, for if we throw them to the winds, what
     becomes of civil government? What do our present divorce laws
     amount to? Those who wish to evade them have only to go into
     another State to accomplish what they desire. If any of our
     citizens can not secure their inalienable rights in New York
     State, they may in Connecticut and Indiana. Why is it that all
     agreements, covenants, partnerships, are left wholly at the
     discretion of the parties, except the contract, which of all
     others is considered most holy and important, both for the
     individual and the race? This question of divorce, they tell us,
     is hedged about with difficulties; that it can not be approached
     with the ordinary rules of logic and common-sense. It is too
     holy, too sacred to be discussed, and few seem disposed to touch
     it. From man's standpoint, this may be all true, as to him they
     say belong reason, and the power of ratiocination. Fortunately, I
     belong to that class endowed with mere intuitions, a kind of
     moral instinct, by which we feel out right and wrong. In
     presenting to you, therefore, my views of divorce, you will of
     course give them the weight only of the woman's intuitions. But
     inasmuch as that is all God saw fit to give us, it is evident we
     need nothing more. Hence, what we do perceive of truth must be as
     reliable as what man grinds out by the longer process of reason,
     authority, and speculation.

     Horace Greeley, in his recent discussion with Robert Dale Owen,
     said, this whole question has been tried, in all its varieties
     and conditions, from indissoluble monogamic marriage down to free
     love; that the ground has been all gone over and explored. Let me
     assure him that but just one-half of the ground has been
     surveyed, and that half but by one of the parties, and that party
     certainly not the most interested in the matter. Moreover, there
     is one kind of marriage that has not been tried, and that is, a
     contract made by equal parties to live an equal life, with equal
     restraints and privileges on either side. Thus far, we have had
     the man marriage, and nothing more. From the beginning, man has
     had the sole and whole regulation of the matter. He has spoken in
     Scripture, he has spoken in law. As an individual, he has decided
     the time and cause for putting away a wife, and as a judge and
     legislator, he still holds the entire control. In all history,
     sacred and profane, the woman is regarded and spoken of simply as
     the toy of man--made for his special use--to meet his most gross
     and sensuous desires. She is taken or put away, given or
     received, bought or sold, just as the interest of the parties
     might dictate. But the woman has been no more recognized in all
     these transactions, through all the different periods and
     conditions of the race, than if she had had no part nor lot in
     the whole matter. The right of woman to put away a husband, be he
     ever so impure, is never hinted at in sacred history. Even Jesus
     himself failed to recognize the sacred rights of the holy mother
     of the race. We can not take our gauge of womanhood from the
     past, but from the solemn convictions of our own souls, in the
     higher development of the race. No parchments, however venerable
     with the mould of ages, no human institutions, can bound the
     immortal wants of the royal sons and daughters of the great I
     Am,--rightful heirs of the joys of time, and joint heirs of the
     glories of eternity.

     If in marriage either party claims the right to stand supreme, to
     woman, the mother of the race, belongs the scepter and the crown.
     Her life is one long sacrifice for man. You tell us that among
     all womankind there is no Moses, Christ, or Paul,--no Michael
     Angelo, Beethoven, or Shakspeare,--no Columbus, or Galileo,--no
     Locke or Bacon. Behold those mighty minds attuned to music and
     the arts, so great, so grand, so comprehensive,--these are our
     great works of which we boast! Into you, O sons of earth, go all
     of us that is immortal. In you center our very life-thoughts, our
     hopes, our intensest love. For you we gladly pour out our heart's
     blood and die, knowing that from our suffering comes forth a new
     and more glorious resurrection of thought and life. (Loud
     applause).

Rev. Antoinette Brown Blackwell followed, and prefaced her remarks by
saying: "Ours has always been a free platform. We have believed in the
fullest freedom of thought and in the free expression of individual
opinion. I propose to speak upon the subject discussed by our friend,
Mrs. Stanton. It is often said that there are two sides to every
question; but there are three sides, many sides, to every question.
Let Mrs. Stanton take hers; let Horace Greeley take his; I only ask
the privilege of stating mine. (Applause). I have embodied my thought,
hastily, in a series of resolutions,[170] and my remarks following
them will be very brief."

Mrs. Blackwell continued:

     I believe that the highest laws of life are those which we find
     written within our being; that the first moral laws which we are
     to obey are the laws which God's own finger has traced upon our
     own souls. Therefore, our first duty is to ourselves, and we may
     never, under any circumstances, yield this to any other. I say we
     are first responsible to ourselves, and to the God who has laid
     the obligation upon us, to make ourselves the grandest we may.
     Marriage grows out of the relations of parties. The law of our
     development comes wholly from within; but the relation of
     marriage supposes two persons as being united to each other, and
     from this relation originates the law. Mrs. Stanton calls
     marriage a "tie." No, marriage is a _relation_; and, once formed,
     that relation continues as long as the parties continue with the
     natures which they now essentially have. Let, then, the two
     parties deliberately, voluntarily consent to enter into this
     relation. It is one which, from its very nature, must be
     permanent. Can the mother ever destroy the relation which exists
     between herself and her child? Can the father annul the relation
     which exists between himself and his child? Then, can the father
     and mother annul the relation which exists between themselves,
     the parents of the child? It can not be. The interests of
     marriage are such that they can not be destroyed, and the only
     question must be, "Has there been a marriage in this case or
     not?" If there has, then the social law, the obligations growing
     out of the relation, must be life-long.

     But I assert that every woman, in the present state of society,
     is bound to maintain her own independence and her own integrity
     of character; to assert herself, earnestly and firmly, as the
     equal of man, who is only her peer. This is her first right, her
     first duty; and if she lives in a country where the law supposes
     that she is to be subjected to her husband, and she consents to
     this subjection, I do insist that she consents to degradation;
     that this is sin, and it is impossible to make it other than sin.
     True, in this State, and in nearly all the States, the idea of
     marriage is that of subjection, in all respects, of the wife to
     the husband--personal subjection, subjection in the rights over
     their children and over their property; but this is a false
     relation. Marriage is a union of equals--equal interests being
     involved, equal duties at stake; and if any woman has been
     married to a man who chooses to take advantage of the laws as
     they now stand, who chooses to subject her, ignobly, to his will,
     against her own, to take from her the earnings which belong to
     the family, and to take from her the children which belong to the
     family, I hold that that woman, if she can not, by her influence,
     change this state of things, is solemnly obligated to go to some
     State where she can be legally divorced; and then she would be as
     solemnly bound to return again, and, standing for herself and her
     children, regard herself, in the sight of God, as being bound
     still to the father of those children, to work for his best
     interests, while she still maintains her own sovereignty. Of
     course, she must be governed by the circumstances of the case.
     She may be obliged, for the protection of the family, to live on
     one continent while her husband is on the other: but she is never
     to forget that in the sight of God and her own soul, she is his
     wife, and that she owes to him the wife's loyalty; that to work
     for his redemption is her highest social obligation, and that to
     teach her children to do the same is her first motherly duty.
     Legal divorce may be necessary for personal and family
     protection; if so, let every woman obtain it. This, God helping
     me, is what I would certainly do, for under no circumstances will
     I ever give my consent to be subjected to the will of another, in
     any relation, for God has bidden me not to do it. But the idea of
     most women is, that they must be timid, weak, helpless, and full
     of ignoble submission. Only last week, a lady who has just been
     divorced from her husband said to me--"I used to be required to
     go into the field and do the hardest laborer's work, when I was
     not able to do it; and my husband would declare, that if I would
     not thus labor, I should not be allowed to eat, and I was obliged
     to submit." I say the fault was as much with the woman as with
     the man; she should never have submitted.

     Our trouble is not with marriage as a relation between two; it is
     all individual. We have few men or women fit to be married. They
     neither fully respect themselves and their own rights and duties,
     nor yet those of another. They have no idea how noble, how
     godlike is the relation which ought to exist between the husband
     and wife.

     Tell me, is marriage to be merely a contract--something entered
     into for a time, and then broken again--or is the true marriage
     permanent? One resolution read by Mrs. Stanton said that, as men
     are incompetent to select partners in business, teachers for
     their children, ministers of their religion, or makers,
     adjudicators, or administrators of their laws, and as the same
     weakness and blindness must attend in the selection of
     matrimonial partners, the latter and most important contract
     should no more be perpetual than either or all of the former. I
     do not believe that, rightly understood, she quite holds to that
     position herself. Marriage must be either permanent, or capable
     of being any time dissolved. Which ground shall we take? I insist
     that, from the nature of things, marriage must be as permanent
     and indissoluble as the relation of parent and child. If so, let
     us legislate toward the right. Though evils must sometimes
     result, we are still to seek the highest law of the relation.

     Self-devotion is always sublimely beautiful, but the law has no
     right to require either a woman to be sacrificed to any man, or a
     man to be sacrificed to any woman, or either to the good of
     society; but if either chooses to devote himself to the good of
     the other, no matter how low that other may have fallen, no
     matter how degraded he may be, let the willing partner strive to
     lift him up, not by going down and sitting side by side with
     him--that is wrong--but by steadily trying to win him back to the
     right: keeping his own sovereignty, but trying to redeem the
     fallen one as long as life shall endure. I do not wish to go to
     the other state of being, and state what shall be our duty there,
     but I do say, that where there is sin and suffering in this
     universe of ours, we may none of us sit still until we have
     overcome that sin and suffering. Then if my husband was wretched
     and degraded in this life, I believe God would give me strength
     to work for him while life lasted. I would do that for the lowest
     drunkard in the street, and certainly I would do as much for my
     husband. I believe that the greatest boon of existence is the
     privilege of working for those who are oppressed and fallen; and
     those who have oppressed their own natures are those who need the
     most help. My great hope is, that I may be able to lift them
     upwards. The great responsibility that has been laid upon me is
     the responsibility never to sit down and sing to myself psalms of
     happiness and content while anybody suffers. (Applause). Then, if
     I find a wretched man in the gutter, and feel that, as a human
     sister, I must go and lift him up, and that I can never enjoy
     peace or rest until I have thus redeemed him and brought him out
     of his sins, shall I, if the man whom I solemnly swore to love,
     to associate with in all the interests of home and its holiest
     relations--shall I, if he falls into sin, turn him off, and go on
     enjoying life, while he is sunk in wretchedness and sin? I will
     not do it. To me there is a higher idea of life. If, as an
     intelligent human being, I promised to co-work with him in all
     the higher interests of life, and if he proves false, I will not
     turn from him, but I must seek first to regenerate him, the
     nearest and dearest to me, as I would work, secondly, to save my
     children, who are next, and then my brothers, my sisters, and the
     whole human family. (Applause).

     Mrs. Stanton asks, "Would you send a young girl into a nunnery,
     when she has made a mistake?" Does Mrs. Stanton not know that
     nunneries belong to a past age, that people who had nothing to do
     might go there and try to expiate their own sins? I would teach
     the young girl a higher way. I do not say to her, "If you have
     foolishly united yourself to another" (not "if you have been tied
     by the law"; for, remember, it was not the law that tied her; she
     said, "I will do it," and the law said, "So let it be!")--"sunder
     the bond"; but I say to her, that her duty is to reflect, "Now
     that I see my mistake, I will commence being true to myself; I
     will become a true unit, strong and noble in myself; and if I can
     never make our union a true one, I will work toward that good
     result, I will live for this great work--for truth and all its
     interests." Let me tell you, if she is not great enough to do
     this, she is not great enough to enter into any union!

     Look at those who believe in thus easily dissolving the marriage
     obligation! In very many cases they can not be truly married, or
     truly happy in this relation, because there is something
     incompatible with it in their own natures. It is not always so;
     but when one feels that it is a relation easily to be dissolved,
     of course, incompatibility at once seems to arise in the other,
     and every difficulty that occurs, instead of being overlooked, as
     it ought to be, in a spirit of forgiveness, is magnified, and the
     evil naturally increased. We purchase a house, the deed is put
     into our hands, and we take possession. We feel at once that it
     is really very convenient. It suits us, and we are surprised that
     we like it so much better than we supposed. The secret is, that
     it is our house, and until we are ready to part with it, we make
     ourselves content with it as it is. We go to live in some country
     town. At first we do not like it; it is not like the home we came
     from; but soon we begin to be reconciled, and feel that, as Dr.
     Holmes said of Boston, our town is the hub of the universe. So,
     when we are content to allow our relations to remain as they are,
     we adapt ourselves to them, and they adapt themselves to us, and
     we constantly, unconsciously (because God made us so) work toward
     the perfecting of all the interests arising from those
     relations. But the moment we wish to sell a house, or remove from
     a town, how many defects we discover! The place has not the same
     appearance to us at all; we wish we could get out of it; we feel
     all the time more and more dissatisfied. So, let any married
     person take the idea that he may dissolve this relation, and
     enter into a new one, and how many faults he may discover that
     otherwise never would have been noticed! The marriage will become
     intolerable. The theory will work that result; it is in the
     nature of things, and that to me is everything.

     Of course, I would not have man or woman sacrificed--by no means.
     First of all, let every human being maintain his own position as
     a self-protecting human being. At all hazards, let him never sin,
     or consent to be sacrificed to the hurt of himself or of another;
     and when he has taken this stand, let him act in harmony with it.
     Would I say to any woman, "You are bound, because you are legally
     married to one who is debased to the level of the brute, to be
     the mother of his children?" I say to her, "No! while the law of
     God continues, you are bound never to make one whom you do not
     honor and respect, as well as love, the father of any child of
     yours. It is your first and highest duty to be true to yourself,
     true to posterity, and true to society." (Applause). Thus, let
     each decide for himself and for herself what is right. But, I
     repeat, either marriage is in its very nature a relation which,
     once formed, never can be dissolved, and either the essential
     obligations growing out of it exist forever, or the relation may
     at any time be dissolved, and at any time those obligations be
     annulled. And what are those obligations? Two persons, if I
     understand marriage, covenant to work together, to uphold each
     other in all excellence, and to mutually blend their lives and
     interests into a common harmony. I believe that God has so made
     man and woman, that it is not good for them to be alone, that
     they each need a co-worker. There is no work on God's footstool
     which man can do alone and do well, and there is no work which
     woman can do alone and do well. (Applause). We need that the two
     should stand side by side everywhere. All over the world, we need
     this co-operation of the two classes--not because they are alike,
     but because they are unlike--in trying to make the whole world
     better. Then we need something more than these class workers. Two
     persons need to stand side by side, to stay up each other's
     hands, to take an interest in each other's welfare, to build up a
     family, to cluster about it all the beauties and excellencies of
     home life; in short, to be to each other what only one man and
     one woman can be to each other in all God's earth.

     No grown-up human being ought to rush blindly into this most
     intimate, most important, most enduring of human relations; and
     will you let a young man, at the age of fourteen, contract
     marriage, or a young maiden either? If the law undertakes to
     regulate the matter at all, let it regulate it upon principles of
     common-sense. But this is a matter which must be very much
     regulated by public opinion, by our teachers. What do you, the
     guides of our youth, say? You say to the young girl, "You ought
     to expect to be married before you are twenty, or about that
     time; you should intend to be; and from the time you are fifteen,
     it should be made your one life purpose; and in all human
     probability, you may expect to spend the next ten or twenty years
     in the nursery, and at forty or fifty, you will be an old woman,
     your life will be well-nigh worn out." I stand here to say that
     this is all false. Let the young girl be instructed that, above
     her personal interests, her home, and social life, she is to have
     a great life purpose, as broad as the rights and interests of
     humanity. I say, let every young girl feel this, as much as every
     young man does. We have no right, we, who expect to live forever,
     to play about here as if we were mere flies, enjoying ourselves
     in the sunshine. We ought to have an earnest purpose outside of
     home, outside of our family relations. Then let the young girl
     fit herself for this. Let her be taught that she ought not to be
     married in her teens. Let her wait, as a young man does, if he is
     sensible, until she is twenty-five or thirty. (Applause). She
     will then know how to choose properly, and probably she will not
     be deceived in her estimate of character; she will have had a
     certain life-discipline, which will enable her to control her
     household matters with wise judgment, so that, while she is
     looking after her family, she may still keep her great life
     purpose, for which she was educated, and to which she has given
     her best energies, steadily in view. She need not absorb herself
     in her home, and God never intended that she should; and then, if
     she has lived according to the laws of physiology, and according
     to the laws of common-sense, she ought to be, at the age of fifty
     years, just where man is, just where our great men are, in the
     very prime of life! When her young children have gone out of her
     home, then let her enter in earnest upon the great work of life
     outside of home and its relations. (Applause).

     It is a shame for our women to have no steady purpose or pursuit,
     and to make the mere fact of womanhood a valid plea for
     indolence; it is a greater shame that they should be instructed
     thus to throw all the responsibility of working for the general
     good upon the other sex. God has not intended it. But as long as
     you make women helpless, inefficient beings, who never expect to
     earn a farthing in their lives, who never expect to do anything
     outside of the family, but to be cared for and protected by
     others throughout life, you can not have true marriages; and if
     you try to break up the old ones, you will do it against the
     woman and in favor of the man. Last week I went back to a town
     where I used to live, and was told that a woman, whose husband
     was notoriously the most miserable man in the town, had in
     despair taken her own life. I asked what had become of the
     husband, and the answer was, "Married again." And yet everybody
     there knows that he is the vilest and most contemptible man in
     the whole neighborhood. Any man, no matter how wretched he maybe,
     will find plenty of women to accept him, while they are rendered
     so helpless and weak by their whole education that they must be
     supported or starve. The advantage, if this theory of marriage is
     adopted, will not be on the side of woman, but altogether on the
     side of man. The cure for the evils that now exist is not in
     dissolving marriage, but it is in giving to the married woman her
     own natural independence and self-sovereignty, by which she can
     maintain herself.

     Yes, our women and our men are both degenerate; they are weak
     and ignoble. "Dear me!" said a pretty, indolent young lady, "I
     had a great deal rather my husband would take care of me, than to
     be obliged to do it for myself." "Of course you would," said a
     blunt old lady who was present; "and your brother would a great
     deal rather marry an heiress, and lie upon a sofa eating
     lollypops, bought with her money, than to do anything manly or
     noble. The only difference is, that as heiresses are not very
     plenty, he may probably have to marry a poor girl, and then
     society will insist that he shall exert himself to earn a living
     for the family; but you, poor thing, will only have to open your
     mouth, all your life long, like a clam, and eat." (Applause and
     laughter). So long as society is constituted in such a way that
     woman is expected to do nothing if she have a father, brother, or
     husband able to support her, there is no salvation for her, in or
     out of marriage. When you tie up your arm, it will become weak
     and feeble; and when you tie up woman, she will become weak and
     helpless. Give her, then, some earnest purpose in life, hold up
     to her the true ideal of marriage, and it is enough--I am
     content! (Loud applause).

     ERNESTINE L. ROSE said:--Mrs. President--The question of a
     Divorce law seems to me one of the greatest importance to all
     parties, but I presume that the very advocacy of divorce will be
     called "Free Love." For my part (and I wish distinctly to define
     my position), I do not know what others understand by that term;
     to me, in its truest significance, love must be free, or it
     ceases to be love. In its low and degrading sense, it is not love
     at all, and I have as little to do with its name as its reality.

     The Rev. Mrs. Blackwell gave us quite a sermon on what woman
     ought to be, what she ought to do, and what marriage ought to be;
     an excellent sermon in its proper place, but not when the
     important question of a Divorce law is under consideration. She
     treats woman as some ethereal being. It is very well to be
     ethereal to some extent, but I tell you, my friends, it is quite
     requisite to be a little material, also. At all events, we are
     so, and, being so, it proves a law of our nature. (Applause).

     It were indeed well if woman could be what she ought to be, man
     what he ought to be, and marriage what it ought to be; and it is
     to be hoped that through the Woman's Rights movement--the
     equalizing of the laws, making them more just, and making woman
     more independent--we will hasten the coming of the millennium,
     when marriage shall indeed be a bond of union and affection. But,
     alas! it is not yet; and I fear that sermons, however well meant,
     will not produce that desirable end; and as long as the evil is
     here, we must look it in the face without shrinking, grapple with
     it manfully, and the more complicated it is, the more
     courageously must it be analyzed, combated, and destroyed.
     (Applause).

     Mrs. Blackwell told us that, marriage being based on the perfect
     equality of husband and wife, it can not be destroyed. But is it
     so? Where? Where and when have the sexes yet been equal in
     physical or mental education, in position, or in law? When and
     where have they yet been recognized by society, or by themselves,
     as equals? "Equal in rights," says Mrs. B. But are they equal in
     rights? If they were, we would need no conventions to claim our
     rights. "She can assert her equality." Yes, she can assert it,
     but does that assertion constitute a true marriage? And when the
     husband holds the iron heel of legal oppression on the
     subjugated neck of the wife until every spark of womanhood is
     crushed out, will it heal the wounded heart, the lacerated
     spirit, the destroyed hope, to assert her equality? And shall she
     still continue the wife? Is that a marriage which must not be
     dissolved? (Applause).

     According to Mr. Greeley's definition, viz., that there is no
     marriage unless the ceremony is performed by a minister and in a
     church, the tens of thousands married according to the laws of
     this and most of the other States, by a lawyer or justice of the
     peace, a mayor or an alderman, are not married at all. According
     to the definition of our reverend sister, no one has ever yet
     been married, as woman has never yet been perfectly equal with
     man. I say to both, take your position, and abide by the
     consequences. If the few only, or no one, is really married, why
     do you object to a law that shall acknowledge the fact? You
     certainly ought not to force people to live together who are not
     married. (Applause).

     Mr. Greeley tells us, that, marriage being a Divine institution,
     nothing but death should ever separate the parties; but when he
     was asked, "Would you have a being who, innocent and
     inexperienced, in the youth and ardor of affection, in the fond
     hope that the sentiment was reciprocated, united herself to one
     she loved and cherished, and then found (no matter from what
     cause) that his profession was false, his heart hollow, his acts
     cruel, that she was degraded by his vice, despised for his
     crimes, cursed by his very presence, and treated with every
     conceivable ignominy--would you have her drag out a miserable
     existence as his wife?" "No, no," says he; "in that case, they
     ought to separate." Separate? But what becomes of the union
     divinely instituted, which death only should part? (Applause).

     The papers have of late been filled with the heart-sickening
     accounts of wife-poisoning. Whence come these terrible crimes?
     From the want of a Divorce law. Could the Hardings be legally
     separated, they would not be driven to the commission of murder
     to be free from each other; and which is preferable, a Divorce
     law, to dissolve an unholy union, which all parties agree is no
     true marriage, or a murder of one, and an execution (legal
     murder) of the other party? But had the unfortunate woman, just
     before the poisoned cup was presented to her lips, pleaded for a
     divorce, Mrs. Blackwell would have read her a sermon equal to St.
     Paul's "Wives, be obedient to your husbands," only she would have
     added, "You must assert your equality," but "you must keep with
     your husband and work for his redemption, as I would do for my
     husband"; and Mr. Greeley would say, "As you chose to marry him,
     it is your own fault; you must abide the consequences, for it is
     a 'divine institution, a union for life, which nothing but death
     can end.'" (Applause). The Tribune had recently a long sermon,
     almost equal to the one we had this morning from our reverend
     sister, on "Fast Women." The evils it spoke of were terrible
     indeed, but, like all other sermons, it was one-sided. Not one
     single word was said about fast men, except that the "poor victim
     had to spend so much money." The writer forgot that it is the
     demand which calls the supply into existence. But what was the
     primary cause of that tragic end? Echo answers, "what?" Ask the
     lifeless form of the murdered woman, and she may disclose the
     terrible secret, and show you that, could she have been legally
     divorced, she might not have been driven to the watery grave of a
     "fast woman." (Applause).

     But what is marriage? A human institution, called out by the
     needs of social, affectional human nature, for human purposes,
     its objects are, first, the happiness of the parties immediately
     concerned, and, secondly, the welfare of society. Define it as
     you please, these are only its objects; and therefore if, from
     well-ascertained facts, it is demonstrated that the real objects
     are frustrated, that instead of union and happiness, there are
     only discord and misery to themselves, and vice and crime to
     society, I ask, in the name of individual happiness and social
     morality and well-being, why such a marriage should be binding
     for life?--why one human being should be chained for life to the
     dead body of another? "But they may separate and still remain
     married." What a perversion of the very term! Is that the union
     which "death only should part"? It may be according to the
     definition of the Rev. Mrs. Blackwell's theology and Mr.
     Greeley's dictionary, but it certainly is not according to
     common-sense or the dictates of morality. No, no! "It is not well
     for man to be alone," before nor after marriage. (Applause).

     I therefore ask for a Divorce law. Divorce is now granted for
     some crimes; I ask it for others also. It is granted for a
     State's prison offense. I ask that personal cruelty to a wife,
     whom he swore to "love, cherish, and protect," may be made a
     heinous crime--a perjury and a State's prison offense, for which
     divorce shall be granted. Willful desertion for one year should
     be a sufficient cause for divorce, for the willful deserter
     forfeits the sacred title of husband or wife. Habitual
     intemperance, or any other vice which makes the husband or wife
     intolerable and abhorrent to the other, ought to be sufficient
     cause for divorce. I ask for a law of Divorce, so as to secure
     the real objects and blessings of married life, to prevent the
     crimes and immoralities now practiced, to prevent "Free Love," in
     its most hideous form, such as is now carried on but too often
     under the very name of marriage, where hypocrisy is added to the
     crime of legalized prostitution. "Free Love," in its degraded
     sense, asks for no Divorce law. It acknowledges no marriage, and
     therefore requires no divorce. I believe in true marriages, and
     therefore I ask for a law to free men and women from false ones.
     (Applause).

     But it is said that if divorce were easily granted, "men and
     women would marry to-day and unmarry to-morrow." Those who say
     that, only prove that they have no confidence in themselves, and
     therefore can have no confidence in others. But the assertion is
     false; it is a libel on human nature. It is the indissoluble
     chain that corrodes the flesh. Remove the indissolubility, and
     there would be less separation than now, for it would place the
     parties on their good behavior, the same as during courtship.
     Human nature is not quite so changeable; give it more freedom,
     and it will be less so. We are a good deal the creatures of
     habit, but we will not be forced. We live (I speak from
     experience) in uncomfortable houses for years, rather than move,
     though we have the privilege to do so every year; but force any
     one to live for life in one house, and he would run away from it,
     though it were a palace.

     But Mr. Greeley asks, "How could the mother look the child in the
     face, if she married a second time?" With infinitely better grace
     and better conscience than to live as some do now, and show their
     children the degrading example, how utterly father and mother
     despise and hate each other, and still live together as husband
     and wife. She could say to her child, "As, unfortunately, your
     father proved himself unworthy, your mother could not be so
     unworthy as to continue to live with him. As he failed to be a
     true father to you, I have endeavored to supply his place with
     one, who, though not entitled to the name, will, I hope, prove
     himself one in the performance of a father's duties." (Applause).

     Finally, educate woman, to enable her to promote her
     independence, and she will not be obliged to marry for a home and
     a subsistence. Give the wife an equal right with the husband in
     the property acquired after marriage, and it will be a bond of
     union between them. Diamond cement, applied on both sides of a
     fractured vase, re-unites the parts, and prevents them from
     falling asunder. A gold band is more efficacious than an iron
     law. Until now, the gold has all been on one side, and the iron
     law on the other. Remove it; place the golden band of justice and
     mutual interest around both husband and wife, and it will hide
     the little fractures which may have occurred, even from their own
     perception, and allow them effectually to re-unite. A union of
     interest helps to preserve a union of hearts. (Loud applause).

     WENDELL PHILLIPS then said: I object to entering these
     resolutions upon the journal of this Convention. (Applause). I
     would move to lay them on the table; but my conviction that they
     are out of order is so emphatic, that I wish to go further than
     that, and move that they do not appear on the journals of this
     Convention. If the resolutions were merely the expressions of
     individual sentiments, then they ought not to appear in the form
     of resolutions, but as speeches, because a resolution has a
     certain emphasis and authority. It is assumed to give the voice
     of an assembly, and is not taken as an individual expression,
     which a speech is.

     Of course, every person must be interested in the question of
     marriage, and the branch that grows out of it, the question of
     divorce; and no one could deny, who has listened for an hour,
     that we have been favored with an exceedingly able discussion of
     those questions. But here we have nothing to do with them, any
     more than with the question of intemperance, or Kansas, in my
     opinion. This Convention is no Marriage Convention--if it were,
     the subject would be in order; but this Convention, if I
     understand it, assembles to discuss the laws that rest unequally
     upon women, not those that rest equally upon men and women. It is
     the laws that make distinctions between the sexes. Now, whether a
     man and a woman are married for a year or a life is a question
     which affects the man just as much as the woman. At the end of a
     month, the man is without a wife exactly as much as the woman is
     without a husband. The question whether, having entered into a
     contract, you shall be bound to an unworthy partner, affects the
     man as much as the woman. Certainly, there are cases where men
     are bound to women carcasses as well as where women are bound to
     men carcasses. (Laughter and applause). We have nothing to do
     with a question which affects both sexes equally. Therefore, it
     seems to me we have nothing to do with the theory of marriage,
     which is the basis, as Mrs. Rose has very clearly shown, of
     divorce. One question grows out of the other; and therefore the
     question of the permanence of marriage, and the laws relating to
     marriage, in the essential meaning of that word, are not for our
     consideration. Of course I know, as everybody else does, that the
     results of marriage, in the present condition of society, are
     often more disastrous to woman than to men. Intemperance, for
     instance, burdens a wife worse than a husband, owing to the
     present state of society. It is not the fault of the
     statute-book, and no change in the duration of marriage would
     alter that inequality.

     The reason why I object so emphatically to the introduction of
     the question here is because it is a question which admits of so
     many theories, physiological and religious, and what is
     technically called "free-love," that it is large enough for a
     movement of its own. Our question is only unnecessarily burdened
     with it. It can not be kept within the convenient limits of this
     enterprise; for this Woman's Rights Convention is not Man's
     Convention, and I hold that I, as a man, have an exactly equal
     interest in the essential question of marriage as woman has. I
     move, then, that these series of resolutions do not appear at all
     upon the journal of the Convention. If the speeches are reported,
     of course the resolutions will go with them. Most journals will
     report them as adopted. But I say to those who use this platform
     to make speeches on this question, that they do far worse than
     take more than their fair share of the time; they open a gulf
     into which our distinctive movement will be plunged, and its
     success postponed two years for every one that it need
     necessarily be.

     Of course, in these remarks, I intend no reflection upon those
     whose views differ from mine in regard to introducing this
     subject before the Convention; but we had an experience two years
     ago on this point, and it seems to me that we might have learned
     by that lesson. No question--Anti-Slavery, Temperance, Woman's
     Rights--can move forward efficiently, unless it keeps its
     platform separate and unmixed with extraneous issues, unmixed
     with discussions which carry us into endless realms of debate. We
     have now, under our present civilization, to deal with the simple
     question which we propose--how to make that statute-book look
     upon woman exactly as it does upon man. Under the law of Divorce,
     one stands exactly like the other. All we have asked in regard to
     the law of property has been, that the statute-book of New York
     shall make the wife exactly like the husband; we do not go
     another step, and state what that right shall be. We do not ask
     law-makers whether there shall be rights of dower and
     courtesy--rights to equal shares--rights to this or that interest
     in property. That is not our business. All we say is, "Gentlemen
     law-makers, we represent woman; make what laws you please about
     marriage and property, but let woman stand under them exactly as
     man does; let sex deprive her of no right, let sex confer no
     special right; and that is all we claim." (Applause). Society has
     done that as to marriage and divorce, and we have nothing more to
     ask of it on this question, as a Woman's Rights body.

     ABBY HOPPER GIBBONS, of New York City, seconded the motion of Mr.
     Phillips, and said that she wished the whole subject of marriage
     and divorce might be swept from that platform, as it was
     manifestly not the place for it.

     Mr. GARRISON said he fully concurred in opinion with his friend,
     Mr. Phillips, that they had not come together to settle
     definitely the question of marriage, as such, on that platform;
     still, he should be sorry to have the motion adopted, as against
     the resolutions of Mrs. Stanton, because they were a part of her
     speech, and her speech was an elucidation of her resolutions,
     which were offered on her own responsibility, not on behalf of
     the Business Committee, and which did not, therefore, make the
     Convention responsible for them. It seemed to him that, in the
     liberty usually taken on that platform, both by way of argument
     and illustration, to show the various methods by which woman was
     unjustly, yet legally, subjected to the absolute control of man,
     she ought to be permitted to present her own sentiments. It was
     not the specific object of an Anti-Slavery Convention--for
     example--to discuss the conduct of Rev. Nehemiah Adams, or the
     position of Stephen A. Douglas, or the course of _The York
     Herald_; yet they did, incidentally, discuss all these, and many
     other matters closely related to the great struggle for the
     freedom of the slave. So this question of marriage came in as at
     least incidental to the main question of the equal rights of
     woman.

     Mrs. BLACKWELL: I should like to say a few words in explanation.
     I do not understand whether our friend Wendell Phillips objects
     to both series of resolutions on the subject of divorce, or
     merely to mine.

     Mr. PHILLIPS: To both.

     Mrs. BLACKWELL: I wish simply to say, that I did not come to the
     Convention proposing to speak on this subject, but on another;
     but finding that these resolutions were to be introduced, and
     believing the subject legitimate; I said, "I will take my own
     position." So I prepared the resolutions, as they enabled me at
     the moment better to express my thought than I could do by merely
     extemporizing.

     Now does this question grow legitimately out of the great
     question of woman's equality? The world says, marriage is not an
     alliance between equals in human rights. My whole argument was
     based on the position that it is. If this question is not
     legitimate, what is? Then do we not ask for laws which are not
     equal between man and woman? What have we been doing here in New
     York State? I spent three months asking the State to allow the
     drunkard's wife her own earnings. Do I believe that the wife
     ought to take her own earnings, as her own earnings? No; I do not
     believe it. I believe that in a true marriage, the husband and
     wife earn for the family, and that the property is the
     family's--belongs jointly to the husband and wife. But if the law
     says that the property is the husband's, if it says that he may
     take the wages of his wife, just as the master does those of the
     slave, and she has no right to them, we must seek a temporary
     redress. We must take the first step, by compelling legislators,
     who will not look at great principles, to protect the wife of the
     drunkard, by giving her her own earnings to expend upon herself
     and her children, and not allow them to be wasted by the husband.
     I say that it is legitimate for us to ask for a law which we
     believe is merely a temporary expedient, not based upon the great
     principle of human and marriage equality. Just so with this
     question of marriage. It must come upon this platform, for at
     present it is a relation which legally and socially bears
     unequally upon woman. We must have temporary redress for the
     wife. The whole subject must be incidentally opened for
     discussion. The only question is one of present fitness. Was it
     best, under all the circumstances, to introduce it now? I have
     not taken the responsibility of answering in the affirmative.
     But it must come here and be settled, sooner or later, because
     its interests are everywhere, and all human relations center in
     this one marriage relation. (Applause).

     SUSAN B. ANTHONY: I hope Mr. Phillips will withdraw his motion
     that these resolutions shall not appear on the records of the
     Convention. I am very sure that it would be contrary to all
     parliamentary usage to say, that when the speeches which enforced
     and advocated the resolutions are reported and published in the
     proceedings, the resolutions shall not be placed there. And as to
     the point that this question does not belong to this
     platform,--from that I totally dissent. Marriage has ever been a
     one-sided matter, resting most unequally upon the sexes. By it,
     man gains all--woman loses all; tyrant law and lust reign supreme
     with him--meek submission and ready obedience alone befit her.
     Woman has never been consulted; her wish has never been taken
     into consideration as regards the terms of the marriage compact.
     By law, public sentiment and religion, from the time of Moses
     down to the present day, woman has never been thought of other
     than as a piece of property, to be disposed of at the will and
     pleasure of man. And this very hour, by our statute-books, by our
     (so called) enlightened Christian civilization, she has no voice
     whatever in saying what shall be the basis of the relation. She
     must accept marriage as man proffers it, or not at all.

     And then again, on Mr. Phillips' own ground, the discussion is
     perfectly in order, since nearly all the wrongs of which we
     complain grow out of the inequality, the injustice of the
     marriage laws, that rob the wife of the right to herself and her
     children--that make her the slave of the man she marries.

     I hope, therefore, the resolutions will be allowed to go out to
     the public, that there may be a fair report of the ideas which
     have actually been presented here, that they may not be left to
     the mercy of the secular press. I trust the Convention will not
     vote to forbid the publication of those resolutions with the
     proceedings.

     Rev. WM. HOISINGTON, the blind preacher: Publish all that you
     have said and done here, and let the public know it.

     The question was then put on the motion of Mr. Phillips, and it
     was lost.

     After which, the resolutions reported by the Business Committee
     were adopted without dissent.

     Miss MARY GREW, of Philadelphia, said: Friends, we are about to
     separate. This convention was called for the consideration of one
     of the most important questions before the American people. The
     press may ridicule your movement, the pulpit denounce it, but, as
     time rolls on, it will be seen--the press and pulpit will
     see--that it is one of the most important questions that has ever
     agitated the community. It is well that those who are engaged in
     this movement should go forth deeply impressed with the
     importance of the work that is before them. It is well that you
     who have assembled from curiosity, to listen to what these
     "fanatics" have to say, should take home with you to your souls
     one thought which is sufficient to settle this whole question.
     All the arguments that have been adduced against us, and against
     granting to woman all her rights, come to us in one form or
     another of prejudice or expediency. Talk with whom you will about
     it,--the priest, politician, merchant, farmer, mechanic, and one
     after another says, (you have heard them, I have heard them, we
     all hear them,) to every right which woman claims, "I grant you
     that, in the abstract, you are right; but it is not expedient,
     nor wise, nor safe for woman nor man, nor good for the world."
     Let me tell you, that the man who grants that the position we
     assume is, in the abstract, right, has granted all we want; and
     if he is not ready to take that step of abstract right, he only
     assumes to be wiser than He who made the world.

     Mrs. President, I hear every day of my life, almost, the
     assertion that it is fanaticism to say that it is always safe and
     right to follow abstract right. This principle does not belong to
     any one belief; it is the living soul of God's universe, that the
     absolute right is safe. If woman has the same right as man to
     read, to vote, to rule, to learn, to teach, there is nothing
     further to be said about it; and I never care to argue with the
     man who says it is right, but for some reason or other, it ought
     not to be granted, for he has granted everything, and has no
     ground left to stand upon.

     Is it fanaticism to believe that God is wiser than man; that He,
     "who stretched out the heavens and laid the foundations of the
     earth," who "commanded the morning, and caused the day-spring to
     know its place," is wise enough to give laws to the universe
     which it shall be safe for you and me to obey? (Applause). Into
     this fanaticism this world is to be educated, if it is to be
     saved from going down to moral ruin and death. Remember, then, O
     man! father, husband, brother, clergyman, and
     politician--remember, when these words slip so easily from your
     tongues, as they often do, "I grant you have the same abstract
     right to do this that man has," you grant all that woman claims;
     and remember, as you stand reverently in the presence of God,
     that if you assert that that is not safe which He has pronounced
     to be right, you claim to be wiser, not than these women or these
     men who stand on the platform of the "Woman's Rights Convention,"
     but you claim to be wiser than the Creator of man and woman.
     (Applause).

     Allusion was made here this morning--well and wisely made--to the
     charge that when woman walks out into the avenues of public life,
     there to gain a living for herself and her children, or to help
     guide the nation, she ceases to be domestic, and faithful to the
     cares and shrine of home. We heard something well said this
     morning on the sphere of woman being the home, and we are told
     that this objection to our movement was altogether dishonest,
     contemptible, and ridiculous. It is not always such. Good men and
     true, and sometimes wise men, also, really in their souls believe
     that if a woman touches a ballot, her hand will be unfit for
     domestic duties; that if she teaches in the public congregation,
     she can not act well her part in the family circle. As I listened
     to what was said here, the words called to my mind the image of a
     woman of America, known as a religious and moral teacher, who
     bears a name of which this nation will one day be proud, but now
     slandered by a venal press, scorned by an arrogant pulpit,
     little appreciated by the mass of men and women, for whom the
     bearer of it is laboring night and day. The image of that woman
     rose before me. The world regards her as a public woman, as out
     of her sphere, and infers that she is neglectful of the cares and
     insensible to the loveliness of domestic life; and as I
     remembered her, I felt as I ever feel, that there is not a woman
     who, as a representative of my own sex, I would sooner show to
     the world as the embodiment of all domestic beauty and wifely
     care and motherly fidelity. I only wish that they and you might
     know her as I know her. I only wish that you might see in her, as
     I see in her, the very best possible illustration of the power of
     guiding and guarding all the sanctity of home, of blessing
     husband and children and grandchildren, and exerting in the
     guidance of her household an intellectual power which would be
     the glory of this or any other platform. Not only do husband and
     children "rise up and call her blessed," but in the time to come,
     the children and children's children of those who now scorn her
     name--of priests who have despised it, editors who have ridiculed
     and slandered it, and heaped upon it all of the ignominy of their
     souls--will thank God, as they reap the benefit of her exertions
     and her beautiful life, for the name of LUCRETIA MOTT.
     (Applause).

     The word I would impress upon you all, as you go hence, is
     this--it is always safe to do right. Carry away with you from
     this Convention, my friends, this one thought--God is wiser than
     man. What He has made right, He has also made safe. His paths are
     paths of pleasantness, and all His ways are peace. And to those
     who go forward, bearing this great cause in their hands, to work
     for themselves, for their sisters, for their mothers--to them I
     would say, "Be not discouraged at any obstacles that may lie in
     your way! Forget, for a little while, the sneers of the press and
     the pulpit, the laugh of the fashionable lady, who calls you
     unladylike, and the scorn of arrogant men, who appreciate not
     your labors! You need not pay back the laughter and the scorn
     with scorn. Your work is too great, too high, too holy. Forgive
     them, and pass on! Rejoice to think that, in a few years, they,
     too, will rise up and thank you for it. Those who work for
     mankind must be content not to receive their reward in the
     appreciation of their services as they pass through life. It is
     of little consequence. The only thing is to be sure we are doing
     right, and living for some great purpose; for, of all the
     afflictions that can befall a man or woman, there is none so
     great as to pass through life without effecting anything--to die
     and leave the world no better than we found it, never being
     missed in consequence of any useful work we have done.
     (Applause). No good cause can go backward. No good cause
     declines. Nothing can put us down if we are right. All that we
     need to sustain and strengthen us in any great work is to be
     quite satisfied with the smile of God, and to have faith and hope
     that man shall at last be wholly and utterly redeemed and saved."
     (Applause).

     The Convention then adjourned _sine die_.


                     _From The New York Tribune of May 80_.

                              MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.

     _To the Editor of The New York Tribune_:

     SIR:--At our recent National Woman's Rights Convention many were
     surprised to hear Wendell Phillips object to the question of
     Marriage and Divorce, as irrelevant to our platform. He said: "We
     had no right to discuss there any laws or customs but those where
     inequality existed in the sexes; that the laws on Marriage and
     Divorce rested equally on man and woman; that he suffered, as
     much as she possibly could, the wrongs and abuses of an
     ill-assorted marriage."

     Now, it must strike every careful thinker, that an immense
     difference rests in the fact, that man has made the laws,
     cunningly and selfishly, for his own purpose. From Coke down to
     Kent, who can cite one clause of the marriage contract where
     woman has the advantage? When man suffers from false legislation,
     he has his remedy in his own hands. Shall woman be denied the
     right of protest against laws in which she has had no voice--laws
     which outrage the holiest affections of her nature--laws which
     transcend the limits of human legislation--in a Convention called
     for the express purpose of considering her wrongs? He might as
     well object to a protest against the injustice of hanging a
     woman, because capital punishment bears equally on man and woman.

     The contract of marriage is by no means equal. The law permits
     the girl to marry at twelve years of age, while it requires
     several years more of experience on the part of the boy. In
     entering this compact, the man gives up nothing that he before
     possessed--he is a man still; while the legal existence of the
     woman is suspended during marriage, and henceforth she is known
     but in and through the husband. She is nameless, purseless,
     childless--though a woman, an heiress, and a mother.

     Blackstone says: "The husband and wife are one, and that one is
     the husband." Kent says: "The legal effects of marriage are
     generally deducible from the principle of the common law, by
     which the husband and wife are regarded as one person, and her
     legal existence and authority lost or suspended during the
     continuance of the matrimonial union."--Vol. 2, p. 109. Kent
     refers to Coke on Littleton, 112, a. 187, B. Litt. sec. 168, 291.

     The wife is regarded by all legal authorities as a
     "_feme-covert_," placed wholly _sub potestate viri_. Her moral
     responsibility, even, is merged in the husband. The law takes it
     for granted that the wife lives in fear of her husband; that his
     command is her highest law: hence a wife is not punishable for
     theft committed in presence of her husband.--Kent, vol. 2, p.
     127. An unmarried woman can make contracts, sue and be sued,
     enjoy the rights of property, to her inheritance--to her
     wages--to her person--to her children; but, in marriage, she is
     robbed by law of all and every natural and civil right. "The
     disability of the wife to contract, so as to bind herself, arises
     not from want of discretion, but because she has entered into an
     indissoluble connection, by which she is placed under the power
     and protection of her husband."--Kent, vol. 2, p. 127. She is
     possessed of certain rights until she is married; then all are
     suspended, to revive again the moment the breath goes out of the
     husband's body.--See "Cowen's Treatise," vol. 2, p. 709.

     If the contract be equal, whence come the terms "marital
     power"--"marital rights"--"obedience and restraint"--"dominion
     and control"--"power and protection," etc., etc.? Many cases are
     stated, showing the exercise of a most questionable power over
     the wife, sustained by the courts.--See Bishop on Divorce, p.
     489.

     The laws on Divorce are quite as unequal as those on Marriage;
     yes, far more so. The advantages seem to be all on one side, and
     the penalties on the other. In case of divorce, if the husband be
     the guilty party, he still retains the greater part of the
     property. If the wife be the guilty party, she goes out of the
     partnership penniless.--Kent, vol. 2, p. 33; Bishop on Divorce,
     p. 492.

     In New York and some other States, the wife of the guilty husband
     can now sue for a divorce in her own name, and the costs come out
     of the husband's estate; but, in the majority of the States, she
     is still compelled to sue in the name of another, as she has no
     means of paying costs, even though she may have brought her
     thousands into the partnership. "The allowance to the innocent
     wife of _ad interim_ alimony and money to sustain the suit, is
     not regarded as strict right in her, but of sound discretion in
     the court."--Bishop on Divorce, p. 581.

     "Many jurists," says Kent, vol. 2, p. 88, "are of opinion that
     the adultery of the husband ought not to be noticed or made
     subject to the same animadversions as that of the wife, because
     it is not evidence of such entire depravity, nor equally
     injurious in its effects upon the morals, good order, and
     happiness of domestic life. Montesquieu, Pothier, and Dr. Taylor
     all insist that the cases of husband and wife ought to be
     distinguished, and that the violation of the marriage vow, on the
     part of the wife, is the most mischievous, and the prosecution
     ought to be confined to the offense on her part.--"Esprit des
     Loix," tom. 3, 186; "Traite du Contrat de Mariage," No. 516;
     "Elements of Civil Law," p. 254.

     Say you, "These are but the opinions of men"? On what else, I
     ask, are the hundreds of women depending, who this hour demand in
     our courts a release from burdensome contracts? Are not these
     delicate matters left wholly to the discretion of courts? Are not
     young women from the first families dragged into the public
     courts--into assemblies of men exclusively--the judges all men,
     the jurors all men?--no true woman there to shield them by her
     presence from gross and impertinent questionings, to pity their
     misfortunes, or to protest against their wrongs?

     The administration of justice depends far more on the opinions of
     eminent jurists, than on law alone, for law is powerless when at
     variance with public sentiment.

     Do not the above citations clearly prove inequality? Are not the
     very letter and spirit of the marriage contract based on the idea
     of the supremacy of man as the keeper of woman's virtue--her sole
     protector and support? Out of marriage, woman asks nothing at
     this hour but the elective franchise. It is only in marriage that
     she must demand her rights to person, children, property, wages,
     life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. How can we discuss
     all the laws and conditions of marriage, without perceiving its
     essential essence, end, and aim? Now, whether the institution of
     marriage be human or divine, whether regarded as indissoluble by
     ecclesiastical courts, or dissoluble by civil courts, woman,
     finding herself equally degraded in each and every phase of it,
     always the victim of the institution, it is her right and her
     duty to sift the relation and the compact through and through,
     until she finds out the true cause of her false position. How can
     we go before the Legislatures of our respective States, and
     demand new laws, or no laws, on divorce, until we have some idea
     of what the true relation is?

     We decide the whole question of slavery by settling the sacred
     rights of the individual. We assert that man can not hold
     property in man, and reject the whole code of laws that conflicts
     with the self-evident truth of that assertion.

     Again I ask, is it possible to discuss all the laws of a
     relation, and not touch the relation itself?

                         Yours respectfully,
                                           ELIZABETH CADY STANTON.


           HORACE GREELEY in _The New York Tribune_, May 14, 1860.

     _One Thousand Persons Present, seven-eighths of them Women, and a
     fair Proportion Young and Good-looking_.--Whether the Woman's
     Rights Convention will finally succeed or not in enlarging the
     sphere of woman, they have certainly been very successful in
     enlarging that of their platform. Having introduced easy Divorce
     as one of the reforms which the new order of things demands, we
     can see no good reason why the platform should not be altogether
     replanked. We respectfully suggest that with this change of
     purpose there shall also be a change in name, and that hereafter
     these meetings shall be called not by name of Woman, but in the
     name of Wives Discontented. Hitherto we have supposed that the
     aim of this movement related to wrongs which woman suffered as
     woman, political and social inequalities, and disabilities with
     which she was mightily burdened. A settlement of the marriage
     relation, we conceive, does not come within this category. As
     there can be no wives without husbands, the subject concerns the
     latter quite as much as it does the former. One of the wrongs
     which it is charged woman suffers from man, is that he legislates
     for her when she is not represented. We acknowledge the justice
     of that plea, and, for that very reason, complain that she, under
     the name of Woman's Rights, should attempt to settle a question
     of such vital importance to him where he is supposed to be
     admitted only on suffrance. We believe in woman's rights; we have
     some conclusions(?) on the rights of husbands and wives; we are
     not yet, we confess, up to that advanced state which enables us
     to consider the rights of wives as something apart from that of
     husbands.

     On the subject of marriage and divorce we have some very positive
     opinions, and what they are is pretty generally known. But even
     were they less positive and fixed, we should none the less
     protest against the sweeping character of the resolutions
     introduced at the Woman's Rights Convention on Friday by Mrs.
     Elizabeth Cady Stanton. We can not look upon the marriage
     relation as of no more binding force than that which a man may
     make with a purchaser for the sale of dry-goods, or an engagement
     he may contract with a schoolmaster or governess. Such doctrine
     seems to us simply shocking.

     The intimate relation existing between one man and one woman,
     sanctified by, at least, the memory of an early and sincere
     affection, rendered more sacred by the present bond of dependent
     children, the fruit of that love, hallowed by many joys and many
     sorrows, though they be only remembered joys and sorrows, with
     other interests that can be broken in upon only to be
     destroyed--such a relation, we are very sure, has elements of
     quite another nature than those which belong to the shop or the
     counting-house. In our judgment, the balance of duty can not be
     struck like the balance of a mercantile statement of profit and
     loss, or measured with the calculations we bestow on an account
     current. Such a doctrine we regard as pernicious and debasing. We
     can conceive of nothing that would more utterly sap the
     foundations of sound morality, or give a looser rein to the most
     licentious and depraved appetites of the vilest men and women.
     Upon the physiological and psychological laws which govern
     generation, we do not care here to enter, even if Mrs. Stanton
     leads the way; but we believe that the progress of the world,
     springing out of connections formed under such a dispensation of
     humanity as is here indicated, with so little of duty or
     conscience, with so little hope or expectation of abiding
     affection, with so little intention of permanency as must
     necessarily belong to them, would be more monstrous than the
     world has ever dreamed of. For such a rule of married life
     contemplates no married life at all, and no parental relation. It
     destroys the family; it renders the dearest word in the Saxon
     tongue (home) a vague and unmeaning term; it multiplies a
     thousand-fold and renders universal all the evils which in the
     imperfections of human nature are now occasional under the
     binding force of a moral sense, the duty of continency, and the
     remnant of nothing else is left of love.

     There are some other things besides in these resolutions to which
     we might object on the score of truth, some things which we
     rather marvel, modest women should say, and that modest women, in
     a mixed assembly, should listen to with patience. But these are
     secondary matters. The thought--more than them all--that the
     marriage tie is of the same nature as a mere business relation,
     is so objectionable, so dangerous, that we do not care to draw
     attention from that one point.

In asserting that marriage is an equal relation for husbands and
wives, Mr. Greeley, like Mr. Phillips, begs the whole question. If it
is legitimate to discuss all laws that bear unequally on man and woman
in woman's rights conventions, surely those that grow out of marriage,
which are the most oppressive and degrading on the statute-book,
should command our first consideration. There could be no slaveholders
without slaves; the one relation involves the other, and yet it would
be absurd to say that slaves might not hold a convention to discuss
the inequality of the laws sustaining that relation, and incidentally
the whole institution itself, because the slaveholder shared in the
evils resulting from it. There never has been a woman's convention
held in which the injustice suffered by wives and mothers has not been
a topic for discussion, and legitimately so. And if the only way of
escape from the infamous laws by which all power is placed in the
hands of man, is through divorce, then that is the hospitable door to
open for those who wish to escape. No proposition contained in Mrs.
Stanton's speech on divorce, viewed in any light, can be a tenth part
so shocking as the laws on the statute-books, or the opinions
expressed by many of the authorities in the English and American
systems of jurisprudence.

It is difficult to comprehend that the release of the miserable from
false relations, would necessarily seduce the contented from happy
ones, or that the dearest word in the Saxon tongue (home) should have
no significance, after drunkards and villains were denied the right to
enter it. It is a pleasant reflection, in view of the dolorous results
Mr. Greeley foresees from the passage of a divorce law, that the love
of men and women for each other and their children in no way depends
on the Statutes of New York. In the State of Indiana, where the laws
have been very liberal for many years, family life is as beautiful and
permanent as in South Carolina and New York, where the tie can be
dissolved for one cause only. When we consider how little protection
the State throws round the young and thoughtless in entering this
relation, stringent laws against all escape are cruel and despotic,
especially to woman, for if home life, which is everything to her, is
discordant, where can she look for happiness?

                      APPEAL TO THE WOMEN OF NEW YORK.

     WOMEN OF NEW YORK:--Once more we appeal to you to make renewed
     efforts for the elevation of our sex. In our marital laws we are
     now in advance of every State in the Union. Twelve years ago New
     York took the initiative step, and secured to married women their
     property, received by gift or inheritance. Our last Legislature
     passed a most liberal act, giving to married women their rights,
     to sue for damages of person or property, to their separate
     earnings and their children; and to the widow, the possession and
     control of the entire estate during the minority of the youngest
     child. Women of New York! You can no longer be insulted in the
     first days of your widowed grief by the coarse minions of the law
     at your fireside, coolly taking an inventory of your household
     goods, or robbing your children of their natural guardian.

     While we rejoice in this progress made in our laws, we see also a
     change in the employment of women. They are coming down from the
     garrets and up from the cellars to occupy more profitable posts
     in every department of industry, literature, science, and art. In
     the church, too, behold the spirit of freedom at work. Within the
     past year, the very altar has been the scene of well-fought
     battles; women claiming and exercising their right to vote in
     church matters, in defiance of precedent, priest, or Paul.

     Another evidence of the importance of our cause is seen in the
     deep interest men of wealth are manifesting in it. Three great
     bequests have been given to us in the past year. Five thousand
     dollars from an unknown hand,[171] a share in the munificent fund
     left by that noble man of Boston, Charles F. Hovey, and four
     hundred thousand dollars by Mr. Vassar, of Poughkeepsie, to found
     a college for girls, equal in all respects to Yale and Harvard.
     Is it not strange that women of wealth are constantly giving
     large sums of money to endow professorships and colleges for boys
     exclusively--to churches and to the education of the ministry,
     and yet give no thought to their own sex--crushed in ignorance,
     poverty, and prostitution--the hopeless victims of custom, law,
     and Gospel, with few to offer a helping hand, while the whole
     world combine to aid the boy and glorify the man?

     Our movement is already felt in the Old World. The nobility of
     England, with Lord Brougham at their head, have recently formed a
     "Society for Promoting the Employments of Women."

     All this is the result of the agitation, technically called
     "Woman's Rights," through conventions, lectures, circulation of
     tracts and petitions, and by the faithful word uttered in the
     privacy of home. The few who stand forth to meet the world's cold
     gaze, its ridicule, its contumely, and its scorn, are urged
     onward by the prayers and tears, crushed hopes and withered
     hearts of the sad daughters of the race. The wretched will not
     let them falter; and they who seem to do the work, ever and anon
     draw fresh courage and inspiration from the noblest women of the
     age, who, from behind the scene, send forth good words of cheer
     and heartfelt thanks.

     Six years hence, the men of New York purpose to revise our State
     Constitution. Among other changes demanded, is the right of
     suffrage for women--which right will surely be granted, if
     through all the intervening years every woman does her duty.
     Again do we appeal to each and all--to every class and
     condition--to inform themselves on this question, that woman may
     no longer publish her degradation by declaring herself satisfied
     in her present position, nor her ignorance by asserting that she
     has "all the rights she wants."

     Any person who ponders the startling fact that there are four
     millions of African slaves in this republic, will instantly put
     the question to himself, "Why do these people submit to the cruel
     tyranny that our government exercises over them?" The answer is
     apparent--"simply because they are ignorant of their power."
     Should they rise _en masse_, assert and demand their rights,
     their freedom would be secure. It is the same with woman. Why is
     it that one-half the people of this nation are held in abject
     dependence--civilly, politically, socially, the slaves of man?
     Simply because woman knows not her power. To find out her natural
     rights, she must travel through such labyrinths of falsehood,
     that most minds stand appalled before the dark mysteries of
     life--the seeming contradictions in all laws, both human and
     divine. But, because woman can not solve the whole problem to her
     satisfaction, because she can not prove to a demonstration the
     rottenness and falsehood of our present customs, shall she,
     without protest, supinely endure evils she can not at once
     redress? The silkworm, in its many wrappings, knows not it yet
     shall fly. The woman, in her ignorance, her drapery, and her
     chains, knows not that in advancing civilization, she too must
     soon be free, to counsel with her conscience and her God.

     The religion of our day teaches that in the most sacred relations
     of the race, the woman must ever be subject to the man; that in
     the husband centers all power and learning; that the difference
     in position between husband and wife is as vast as that between
     Christ and the church; and woman struggles to hold the noble
     impulses of her nature in abeyance to opinions uttered by a
     Jewish teacher, which, alas! the mass believe to be the will of
     God. Woman turns from what she is taught to believe are God's
     laws to the laws of man; and in his written codes she finds
     herself still a slave. No girl of fifteen could read the laws,
     concerning woman, made, executed, and defended by those who are
     bound to her by every tie of affection, without a burst of
     righteous indignation. Few have ever read or heard of the
     barbarous laws that govern the mothers of this Christian
     republic, and fewer still care, until misfortune brings them into
     the iron grip of the law. It is the imperative duty of educated
     women to study the Constitution and statutes under which they
     live, that when they shall have a voice in the government, they
     may bring wisdom and not folly into its councils.

     We now demand the ballot, trial by jury of our peers, and an
     equal right to the joint earnings of the marriage copartnership.
     And, until the Constitution be so changed as to give us a voice
     in the government, we demand that man shall make all his laws on
     property, marriage, and divorce, to bear equally on man and
     woman.

                                    { E. CADY STANTON, _President_.
                                    { LYDIA MOTT,[172] _Sec. and Treas_.
     _New York State Woman's Rights { ERNESTINE L. ROSE.
      Committee_.                   { MARTHA C. WRIGHT.
                                    { SUSAN B. ANTHONY.
     _November, 1860._

     N. B.--Let every friend commence to get signatures to the
     petition without delay, and send up to Albany early in January,
     either to your representative or to Lydia Mott.

     How can any wife or mother, who to-day rejoices in her legal
     right to the earnings of her hands, and the children of her love,
     withhold the small pittance of a few hours or days in getting
     signatures to the petition, or a few shillings or dollars to
     carry the work onward and upward, to a final glorious
     consummation.


CONVENTION IN ALBANY AND HEARING BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IN THE
ASSEMBLY CHAMBER.

FEBRUARY 7TH AND 8TH, 1861.

The last Convention before the War was held in Albany. Ernestine L.
Rose, Lucretia Mott, William Lloyd Garrison, Rev. Beriah Green, Aaron
M. Powell, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony were the
speakers. They had a hearing also before the Judiciary Committee on
the bill then pending asking divorce for various causes.[173] The
interest in the question was intense at this time, owing to several
very aggravated cases among leading families, both in this country and
England. The very liberal bill pending in the Legislature had drawn
special attention to it in the Empire State, which not only made the
whole question of marriage and divorce a topic of conversation at
every fireside, but of many editorial debates in our leading journals.
Among others, Horace Greeley, in _The New York Tribune_, had a
prolonged discussion with the Hon. Robert Dale Owen,[174] in which it
was generally thought that the weight of argument rested with Mr.
Owen; but it was evident that Mr. Greeley did not think so, as he
afterward republished the whole controversy at his own expense. _The
Albany Evening Journal_ also took strong grounds against the bill. But
the opponents invariably discussed the question on the basis that
marriage was an _equal_ relation, in which man suffered as much as
woman, ignoring the fact that _man_ had made the laws governing it,
and all to his own advantage.

From the following letter of Lucretia Mott, we see how clear she was
as to the merits of the position we had taken in the discussion of
this vital question:

                      ROADSIDE, near Philadelphia, 4th Mo., 30th, '61.

     MY DEAR LYDIA MOTT:--I have wished ever since parting with thee
     and our other dear friends in Albany to send thee a line, and
     have only waited in the hope of contributing a little
     "substantial aid" toward your neat and valuable "depository." The
     twenty dollars enclosed is from our Female Anti-Slavery Society.

     I see the annual meeting in New York is not to be held this
     spring. Sister Martha is here, and was expecting to attend both
     anniversaries. But we now think the Woman's Rights meeting had
     better not be attempted, and she has written Elizabeth C. Stanton
     to this effect.

     I was well satisfied with being at the Albany meeting. I have
     since met with the following from a speech of Lord Brougham's,
     which pleased me, as being as radical as mine in your stately
     Hall of Representatives:

     "Before woman can have any justice by the laws of England, there
     must be a total reconstruction of the whole system; for any
     attempt to amend it would prove useless. The great charter, in
     establishing the supremacy of law over prerogative, provides only
     for justice between man and man; for woman nothing is left but
     common-law, accumulations and modifications of original Gothic
     and Roman heathenism, which no amount of filtration through
     ecclesiastical courts could change into Christian laws. They are
     declared unworthy a Christian people by great jurists; still they
     remain unchanged."

     So Elizabeth Stanton will see that I have authority for going to
     the root of the evil.

     We had a delightful golden-wedding on the 10th inst. All our
     children and children's children were present, and a number of
     our friends hereaway. Our sister Mary W. Hicks and her grand
     daughter May were all of James's relatives from New York. Brother
     Richard and daughter Cannie could not feel like coming. Brother
     Silas and Sarah Cornell could not come.

                                   Love to all,
                                                    LUCRETIA MOTT.

In 1861 came "the war of the rebellion," the great conflict between
the North and the South, the final struggle between freedom and
slavery. The women who had so perseveringly labored for their own
enfranchisement now gave all their time and thought to the nation's
life; their patriotism was alike spontaneous and enduring. In the
sanitary movement, in the hospitals, on the battle-field, gathering in
the harvests on the far-off prairies--all that heroic women dared and
suffered through those long dark years of anxiety and death, should
have made "justice to woman" the spontaneous cry on the lips of our
rulers, as we welcomed the return of the first glad days of peace. All
specific work for her own rights she willingly thrust aside. No
Conventions were held for five years; no petitions circulated for her
civil and political rights; the action of State Legislatures was
wholly forgotten. In their stead, Loyal Leagues were formed, and
petitions by the hundred thousand for the emancipation of the slaves
rolled up and sent to Congress--a measure which with speech and pen
they pressed on the nation's heart, seeing clearly as they did that
this was the pivotal point of the great conflict.

Thus left unwatched, the Legislature of New York amended the law of
1860, taking from the mother the lately guaranteed right to the equal
guardianship of her children, replacing it by a species of veto power,
which did not allow the father to bind out or will away a child
without the mother's consent in writing. The law guaranteeing the
widow the control of the property, which the husband should leave at
death, for the care and protection of minor children, was also
repealed. This cowardly act of the Legislature of 1862[175] is the
strongest possible proof of woman's need of the ballot in her own
hand for protection. Had she possessed the power to make and unmake
legislators, no State Assembly would have dared thus to rob the mother
of her natural rights. But without the suffrage she was helpless.
While, in her loyalty to the Government and her love to humanity, she
was encouraging the "boys in blue" to fight for the freedom of the
black mothers of the South, these dastardly law-makers, filled with
the spirit of slaveholders, were stealing the children and the
property of the white mothers in the Empire State!

When Susan B. Anthony heard of the repeal of 1862, she was filled with
astonishment, and wrote thus to Miss Lydia Mott:

     DEAR LYDIA:--Your startling letter is before me. I knew some
     weeks ago that that abominable thing was on the calendar, with
     some six or eight hundred bills _before it_, and hence felt sure
     it would not come up this winter, and that in the meantime we
     should sound the alarm. Well, well; while the old guard sleep the
     young "devils" are wide-awake, and we deserve to suffer for our
     confidence in "man's sense of justice," and to have all we have
     gained thus snatched from us. But nothing short of this can rouse
     our women again to action. All our reformers seem suddenly to
     have grown politic. All alike say, "Have no conventions at this
     crisis"! Garrison, Phillips, Mrs. Mott, Mrs. Wright Mrs. Stanton,
     etc., say, "Wait until the war excitement abates"; which is to
     say, "Ask our opponents if they think we had better speak, or,
     rather, if they do not think we had better remain silent." I am
     sick at heart, but I can not carry the world against the wish and
     the will of our best friends. But what can we do now, when even
     the motion to retain the mother's joint guardianship is voted,
     down? Twenty thousand petitions rolled up for that--a hard year's
     work!--the law secured!--the echoes of our words of gratitude in
     the capitol have scarce died away, and now all is lost!

And, worse still, in 1871,[176] after the black man was not only
emancipated, but enfranchised, by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth
Amendments, which, overriding State Constitution and statute law,
abolished the property qualification for  voters in the State
of New York, another step of retrogressive legislation was taken
against woman, in the repeal of section nine[177] of the Act of 1860,
re-enacting the spirit and letter of the old common law, which holds
that the children born in legal wedlock belong to the father alone.
Had woman held the ballot--that weapon of protection--in her hand to
punish legislators, by withholding her vote from those thus derelict
to duty, no repeal of the law of 1860 could have possibly taken place.

                                              ALBANY, _April 8, 1881_.

     DEAR MISS ANTHONY:--Your esteemed favor of the 6th duly received.

     The Statute of 1862, Laws of 1862, chapter 90, page 157, repealed
     the grandest and crowning section of the Statute of 1860, viz:
     Sections 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 11, copies of which sections I
     herewith inclose you. Had these sections remained, wives in this
     State would have possessed equal rights with their husbands, save
     simply the right of voting. It was a great mistake and wrong to
     repeal them. Had I been a member of the Senate at that time, as I
     was not, I don't think it would have been done.

     I do not know who was the author of the repeal bill, nor did I
     know of its existence until I saw it in the statute-book. I think
     Judge Charles J. Folger, now Chief-Justice of the Court of
     Appeals, was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the
     bill of 1862 must therefore have passed through the hands of that
     Committee, in which it originated, or through which it was
     reported, and by the influence of which it must have been
     adopted.

     Strange that you women, so watchful and so regardful of your
     rights, should have allowed the repeal of those important
     sections, without strenuous opposition.

                                   Very sincerely yours,
                                                 ANDREW J. COLVIN.

We were busily engaged rolling up petitions for the Thirteenth
Amendment to the Federal Constitution, our hearts and hands full of
work for the Government in the midst of the war, supposing all was
safe at Albany. But how comes it that the author of the bill of 1860,
residing at the capital, never heard of its repeal? If the bill was so
slyly passed that Mr. Colvin himself did not know of it until he saw
it in the statute-book, it is not remarkable that it escaped our
notice in time to prevent it.

                                      GENENA, N. Y., _April 12, 1881_.

     MISS ANTHONY, DEAR MADAM:--I was chairman of the Judiciary
     Committee of the New York Senate in 1862-'3-'4-'5-'6-'7-'8-'9.
     Judge John Willard, of Saratoga County, was a member of the State
     Senate in that year, and a member of that Committee. He was the
     author of the Act of 1862. His object, as I have always
     understood it, was to simplify, make clear, consistent, and
     practical some of the legislation in regard to married women. I
     think, with deference I say it, that you are not strictly
     accurate in calling the legislation of 1862 a repealing one. The
     first section of the Act of 1862 (chap. 172, p. 343) _amends_ the
     third section of the Act of 1860 (chap. 90, p. 157), by striking
     out the provision requiring the assent of the husband, and giving
     the wife the right (or privilege) to contract and convey as a
     _feme sole_, and to covenant for title, etc., etc. That amendment
     rendered unnecessary the fourth, fifth, and sixth sections of the
     Act of 1860. They would have fallen of themselves, that is, have
     been repealed by implication, as inconsistent with the greater
     power and freedom attained by married women by the amendment of
     1862 to the Act of 1860. But _ex abundanti cautela_, as Judge
     Willard would have said, there was an express repeal of them. The
     tenth and eleventh sections of the Act of 1860 were also repealed
     expressly; but not to the sole detriment of married women. The
     tenth section gave to married men and married women a life estate
     in certain cases in one-third of all the real estate of which the
     wife or husband died seized. The wife had before the Act of 1860,
     and has now, that estate. The tenth section gave her nothing. The
     repeal of it took nothing from her. The eleventh section, so far
     as it gave a life estate, is the same as the tenth. So far as it
     gave the use of all the real estate of the intestate for the
     minority of the youngest child, it was an addition to the
     property rights of the wife, but it was also an addition to the
     property rights of the husband. I am not able from memory to say
     why it was repealed; and it is remembrance and not reasoning that
     you ask for. The third section of the Act of 1862 amends the
     seventh of the Act of 1860 by striking out the phrase, "_except
     her husband_," thus enabling a married woman to protect the
     property given to her by the husband, in which the Act of 1860
     was lame, and in other ways gave more freedom and power to
     married women. The fourth section of the Act of 1862 amends the
     eighth section of the Act of 1860, but only in its verbiage. The
     fifth section of the Act of 1862 does not impair the Act of 1860;
     it simply puts the woman before the courts, and the law as an
     entity able to go alone. The sixth section of the Act of 1862
     increases the powers of a married woman, by giving her a veto on
     some acts of her husband. The seventh section is like the fifth.
     In no other respect than those I have named did the Act of 1862
     affect the Act of 1860. In but one thing did it repeal, in the
     sense of taking away any right or power or privilege or freedom
     that the Act of 1860 gave. On the contrary, in some respects, it
     gave more or greater.

     I am glad that you wrote to me. I am glad that I have the
     opportunity to defend the memory of a good man, Judge John
     Willard. I make bold to ask you to turn to the thirty-seventh
     volume of Barbour's Supreme Court Reports, Appendix, pp. 670 et
     seq., and read the words spoken of him by his peers. I am glad
     also to have the opportunity to speak a word for my Judiciary
     Committee.

     And I will not close this lengthened answer, without suggesting a
     suspicion, that those who have taken the notion that the Act of
     1862 was a retrograde step, have done so without comparing for
     themselves the two acts.

     For myself, I have the distinction of being one of less than
     half-a-dozen Senators who voted that women have the right to vote
     for delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1866; and one
     of about a dozen and a half members of that Convention who voted
     to erase from the suffrage article the word "male." I have never
     been convinced of the expediency of giving to females the
     privilege of suffrage; but I have never been able to see the
     argument by which they were not as much entitled to the _right_
     as males.

     Trusting that you will forgive the length of this epistle,

                         I am with respect, yours, etc., etc.,
                                                CHARLES J. FOLGER.
     MISS SUSAN B. ANTHONY.

As will be seen by the above letters, both Mr. Colvin and Mr. Folger
make mistakes in regard to the effect of these bills. In speaking of
the complete equality of husbands and wives under the law of 1860, Mr.
Colvin said, "All the wife then had to ask was the right of suffrage,"
quite forgetting that the wife has never had an equal right to the
joint earnings of the copartnership, as no valuation has ever been
placed on her labor in the household, to which she gives all her time,
thought, and strength, the absolute sacrifice of herself, mind and
body, all possibility of self-development and self-improvement being
in most cases out of the question. Mr. Folger in saying the repeal of
section eleven affected man as much as woman, falls into the same
mistake, assuming that the joint earnings belong to man. We say that
the wife who surrenders herself wholly to domestic life, foregoing all
opportunities for pecuniary independence and personal distinction in
the world of work, or the higher walks of literature and art, in order
to make it possible for the husband to have home and family ties, and
at the same time, his worldly successes and ambitions, richly earns
the place of an equal partner. In their joint accumulations, her labor
and economy should be taken into account.

This is _the vital point_ of interest to the vast majority of married
women, since it is only the _few_ who ever possess anything through
separate earnings or inheritance. A law securing to the wife the
absolute right to one-half the joint earnings, and at the death of the
husband, the same control of property and children that he has when
she dies, might make some show of justice; but it is a provision not
yet on the statute-books of any civilized nation on the globe.

The seeming sophistry of Judge Folger may be traced to the universal
fact that man does not appreciate the arduous and unremitting labors
of the wife in the household, or her settled dissatisfaction in having
no pecuniary recompense for her labors. No man with cultured brain and
skilled hands would consider himself recompensed for a life of toil in
being provided with shelter, food, and clothes while his employer was
living, to be cut down in his old age to a mere pittance; yet such is
the fate of the majority of wives and widows under the most beneficent
provisions of our statutes in this favored republic. True, the law
says "the husband shall maintain the wife in accordance with his
circumstances"; he being judge, jury, executive. Though she may toil
incessantly, and her duties be far more exhaustive than his, yet he is
supposed to maintain her, and the joint property is always disposed of
on that basis. Legislation for woman proceeds on the assumption, that
all she needs is a bare support; and that she is destitute of the
natural human desire to accumulate, possess, and control the results
of her own labor.


[Illustration: MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE (with autograph).]


FOOTNOTES:

[89] Jerry McHenry was an athletic mulatto, a cooper by trade, who had
been living in Syracuse for many years, since his escape from slavery.
On the 13th of October, 1850, there was an attempt to kidnap him, but
the Abolitionists, with such men as Samuel J. May and Gerrit Smith at
their head, succeeded in rescuing him by a _coup d'etat_, from the
officers of the law, which involved several trials in Auburn,
Canandaigua, Buffalo, and Albany. As this occurred soon after the
passage of the Fugitive Slave Law, the leading Abolitionists were
determined to test its constitutionality in the courts. It was so
systematically and universally violated, that it soon became a dead
letter.

[90] A HEROIC WOMAN.--Mrs. Margaret Freeland, of Syracuse, was
recently arrested upon a warrant issued on complaint of Emanuel
Rosendale, a rum-seller, charging her with forcing an entrance to his
house, and with stones and clubs smashing his doors and windows,
breaking his tumblers and bottles, and turning over his whisky barrels
and spilling their contents. Great excitement was produced by this
novel case. It seems that the husband of Mrs. Freeland was a
drunkard--that he was in the habit of abusing his wife, turning her
out of doors, etc., and this was carried so far that the police
frequently found it necessary to interfere to put a stop to his
ill-treatment of his family. Rosendale, the complainant, furnished
Freeland with the liquor which turned him into a demon. Mrs. Freeland
had frequently told him of her sufferings and besought him to refrain
from giving her husband the poison. But alas! she appealed to a heart
of stone. He disregarded her entreaties and spurned her from his door.
Driven to desperation she armed herself, broke into the house, drove
out the base-hearted landlord and proceeded upon the work of
destruction.

She was brought before the court and demanded a trial. The citizens
employed Charles B. Sedgwick, Esq., as her counsel, and prepared to
justify her assault upon legal grounds. Rosendale, being at once
arrested on complaint of Thomas L. Carson for selling liquor
unlawfully, and feeling the force of the storm that was gathering over
his head, appeared before the Justice, withdrew his complaint against
Mrs. Freeland, paid the costs, and gave bail on the complaint of Mr.
Carson, to appear at the General Sessions, and answer to an indictment
should there be one found.

Mrs. Freeland is said to be "the pious mother of a fine family of
children, and a highly respectable member of the Episcopal Church."

The _Carson League_ commenting on this affair says:

"The rum-seller cowered in the face of public feeling. This case shows
that public feeling will justify a woman whose person or family is
outraged by a rum-seller, for entering his grocery or tavern and
destroying his liquor. If the law lets loose a tiger upon her, she may
destroy it. She has no other resort but force to save herself and her
children. Were the women of this city to proceed in a body and destroy
all the liquor of all the taverns and groceries, they would be
justified by law and public opinion. Women should take this war into
their hands, when men take side with the murderers of their peace.

"A tavern or grocery which makes the neighbors drunken and insane is a
public nuisance, and may be pulled down and destroyed by the neighbors
who are injured by it. It is worse than the plague. And if men will
not put hands on it, then should the women do it. Tell us not it is
property. It ceases to be property when it is employed to destroy the
people. If a man lights his torch and sets about putting fire to the
houses about him, any person may seize the torch and destroy it. So if
a man takes a pistol and passes through the streets shooting the
people, the pistol ceases to be property and may be taken from him by
force and destroyed by any person who can do it. We sincerely hope
that the women of the State will profit by this example, and go to
destroying the liquor vessels; and their contents." To all of which we
respond AMEN.

                                             _The Lily_, June, 1853.

[91] Mrs. Thompson, of Albany; Mrs. Cushman, of New York,
_Vice-Presidents_. Mrs. Fowler and Miss Anthony, _Secretaries_. Lydia
Mott, of Albany; Phebe Hoag Jones, of Troy; Eliza Hoxie Shove, of
Easton; and Elizabeth Van Alstine, of Canajoharie, _Business
Committee_.

[92] The following citizens of Rochester concur in the above call:
Samuel Richardson, Rev. Wm. H. Goodwin, Samuel Chipman, Geo. A. Avery,
James P. Fogg, J. O. Bloss, Wm. K. Hallowell, James Vick, Jr., E. C.
Williams, Daniel Anthony.

[93] _Vice-Presidents_.--Mary C. Vaughan, Olivia Fraser, Frances
Stanton Avery, Rhoda De Garmo, Sarah D. Fish, and Mrs. D. C. Ailing.

_Secretaries_.--Amelia Bloomer and Susan B. Anthony.

_Resolutions_.--Amy Post, Elizabeth Monroe, Rachel Van Lew.

_Finance_.--Susan B. Anthony, Mary H. Hallowell, H. Attilia Albro.

[94] See Appendix.

[95] See Appendix.

[96] _Vice-Presidents_--Mrs. Gerrit Smith, Peterboro; Mrs. E. C.
Delevan, Ballston Spa; Mrs. D. C. Alling, Rochester; Lydia F. Fowler,
Mrs. J. T. Coachman, Mary S. Rich, New York; Julia Clark Lewis,
Oswego; Olivia Fraser, Elmira; Emily Clark, Le Roy; Mrs. A. N. Cole,
Belfast; Betsy Hawks, Bethany Centre; Antoinette L. Brown, Henrietta.

_Recording Secretaries_--Susan B. Anthony, Rochester; Mary C. Vaughan,
Oswego.

_Corresponding Secretary_--Amelia Bloomer, Seneca Falls.

_Treasurer_--Elvira Marsh, Rochester.

_Executive Committee_--Sarah T. Gould, Mary H. Hallowell, and Mrs.
Samuel Richardson, Rochester.

[97] _The Lily_ was a temperance paper started in Seneca Falls, N. Y.,
in 1849. It was owned and edited by Mrs. Amelia Bloomer. Though
starting as the organ of a society, it soon became her individual
property. She carried it successfully six years, her subscription list
reaching 4,000. It was as pronounced on woman's rights as temperance,
and did good service in both reforms. We are indebted to _The Lily_
for most of our facts on the temperance movement in New York.

[98] _Nomination_--Lemira Kedzie, Lydia F. Fowler, Amy Post, Mary H.
Hallowell, Frederick Douglass, Lydia Jenkins.

_Business Committee_--Emily Clark, W. H. Channing, Mary H. Hallowell,
Rev. S. J. May, Mrs. Robie, Mrs. C. I. H. Nichols.

_Finance_--Susan B. Anthony, Mrs. Bloomer, H. Attilia Albro. Also, on
motion, the President was added to the Business Committee.

[99] Throughout this protracted, disgraceful assault on American
womanhood, the clergy baptized each new insult and act of injustice in
the name of the Christian religion, and uniformly asked God's blessing
on proceedings that would have put to shame an assembly of Hottentots.

[100] _Vice-Presidents_--Dr. Harriot K. Hunt, Mass.; Charles C.
Burliegh, Ct.; Edward M. Davis, Pa.; Frances Dana Gage, Mo.; Ashby
Pierce, Oregon; Rowland T. Robinson, Vt.; Melissa J. Driggs, Ind.;
Thomas Garrett, Del.; Angelina Grimke Weld, N. J.; Hannah Tracy
Cutler, Ill.

[101] See page 152--Cleveland Convention--for the full description of
this mob by Miss Brown herself.

[102] _The Binghamton Daily Republican_ said: Miss Anthony vindicated
her resolutions with great eloquence, spirit, and dignity, and showed
herself a match, at least, in debate, for any member of the
Convention. She was _equal_ if not _identical_. Whatever may be
thought of her notions, or sense of propriety in her bold and
conspicuous positions, personally, intellectually, and socially
speaking, there can be but one opinion as to her superior ability,
energy, and moral courage; and she may well be regarded as an evangel
and heroine by her sex; especially by the "Strong Minded" portion of
them.

[103] _The Daily Standard_, Sept. 8th, 1852, said: The Woman's Rights
Convention will assemble at the City Hall this morning. Some of the
most able women of the country will be present, and the discussion can
not fail to be particularly interesting.

_The Daily Star_, a pro-slavery paper of the most pronounced and
reckless character, said: The women are coming! They flock in upon us
from every quarter, all to hear and talk about Woman's Rights. The
blue stockings are as thick as grasshoppers in hay-time, and mighty
will be the force of "jaw-logic" and "broom-stick ethics" preached by
the females of both sexes.

[104] THE NATIONAL WOMAN'S RIGHTS CONVENTION.

The friends of equality, justice, and truth are earnestly invited to
meet in Syracuse, N. Y., Sept. 8th, 9th, and 10th, 1852, to discuss
the important question of "Woman's Rights." We propose to review not
only the past and consider the present, but to mark out new and
broader paths for the future.

The time has come for the discussion of woman's social, civil, and
religious rights, and also for a thorough and efficient organization;
a well-digested plan of operation whereby these social rights, for
which our fathers fought, bled, and died, may be secured by us. Let
woman no longer supinely endure the evils she may escape, but with her
own right hand carve out for herself a higher, nobler destiny than has
heretofore been hers. Inasmuch as through the folly and imbecility of
woman, the race is what it is, dwarfed in mind and body; and as
through her alone it can yet be redeemed, all are equally interested
in the objects of this Convention.

We therefore solemnly urge those men and women who desire the
elevation of humanity, to be present at the coming Convention, and aid
us by their wisdom. Our platform will be free to all who are capable
of discussing the subject with candor and truth. On behalf of the
Central Committee,

                                             ELIZABETH CADY STANTON,
                                             PAULINA WRIGHT DAVIS,
                                             WILLIAM HENRY CHANNING,
                                             LUCY STONE,
                                             SAMUEL J. MAY.

[105] _President._--Lucretia Mott, Philadelphia.

_Vice-Presidents._--Paulina Wright Davis, Rhode Island; Caroline M.
Severance, Ohio; Elizabeth Oakes Smith, New York; Clarina I. H.
Nichols, Vermont; Gerrit Smith, Peterboro; Sarah L. Miller,
Pennsylvania.

_Secretaries._--Susan B. Anthony, Martha C. Wright, Samuel J. May,
Lydia F. Fowler.

_Business Committee._--Elizabeth Oakes Smith, Lucy Stone, Caroline M.
Severance, Harriot K. Hunt, Jane Elizabeth Jones, James Mott,
Ernestine L. Rose, Elizabeth W. Phillips, Pliny Sexton, Benjamin S.
Jones.

_Committee on Finance._--Rosa Smith, Joseph Savage, Caroline M.
Severance.

Many earnest friends beside the officers were present and took part in
the discussions; among them Amy Post, Mary and Sarah Hallowell,
Catharine A. F. Stebbins, Thomas and Mary Ann McClintock, Elizabeth
Smith Miller, Rev. Lydia Ann Jenkins, Rev. Antoinette L. Brown, Lydia
Mott, Phebe H. Jones, Mary A. Springstead, Abby H. Price, Rev. Abraham
Pryne, Eliza A. Aldrich, editor _Genius of Liberty_; Dr. Cutcheon, of
McGrawville College; Matilda Joslyn Gage, Lydia P. Savage, Sarah
Hallock, Griffith M. Cooper.

[106] See Appendix.

[107] See Pennsylvania Chapter, page 360.

[108] _The Syracuse Journal_ said: "Miss Anthony has a capital voice
and deserves to be made clerk of the Assembly."

[109] When Gerrit Smith was in Congress, elected on account of his
anti-slavery principles, his power to make friends even among foes was
fully illustrated. At his elegant dinners distinguished Southerners
were frequent guests. Hence it was said of him that he dined with
slaveholders, and would have wined with them but for his temperance
principles.

[110] See Appendix.

[111] See Appendix.

[112] This noble man was among the first to append his name to the
declaration of rights issued at Seneca Falls, and he did not withdraw
it when the press began to ridicule the proceedings of the Convention.

[113] Rev. Mr. Hatch gave his idea of female loveliness. It consisted
in that shrinking delicacy which, like the modest violet, hid itself
until sought; that modesty which led women to blush, to cast down
their eyes when meeting men, or walking up the aisle of a church to
drop the veil; to wear long skirts, instead of imitating the
sun-flower, which lifted up its head, seeming to say: "Come and admire
me." He repeated the remarks made near the door on some of the
speakers. The President hoped he would keep in order, and not relate
the vulgar conversation of his associates. He went on in a similar
strain until the indignation of the audience became universal, when he
was summarily stopped.

In the midst of his remarks Miss Anthony suggested that the Reverend
gentleman doubtless belonged to the pin-cushion ministry, educated by
women's sowing societies! which, on inquiry, proved true. It was
almost always the case that the "poor but pious" young man, who had
studied his profession at the expense of women, proved most narrow and
bigoted in his teachings.

[114] The Jewish.

[115] See Appendix for comments of _Syracuse Star_ and _New York
Herald_.

[116] This sermon was reviewed by Matilda Joslyn Gage, and a newspaper
controversy between Mr. Sunderland, Mrs. Gage, and others inaugurated.
For several months the press of the city was enlivened by these
supplementary debates.

[117] _President._--Lucretia Mott.

_Vice-Presidents._--Ernestine L. Rose, New York; Paulina W. Davis,
Rhode Island; Clarina I. H. Nichols, Vermont; Mary Jackson, England;
Caroline M. Severance, Ohio; S. M. Booth, Wisconsin; Wm. Lloyd
Garrison, Massachusetts; Mrs. J. B. Chapman, Indiana; Charlotte
Hubbard, Illinois; Ruth Dugdale, Pennsylvania; C. C. Burleigh,
Connecticut; Angelina G. Weld, New Jersey; Mathilde Franceska Anneke,
Germany.

_Secretaries._--Lydia F. Fowler, Sidney Peirce, Oliver Johnson.

_Business Committee._--Lucy Stone, Antoinette L. Brown, James Mott,
Harriot K. Hunt, Mariana Johnson, Lydia Mott, Wendell Phillips, Sarah
Hallock, Wm. H. Channing, Ruth Dugdale, Martha J. Tilden, Ernestine L.
Rose, Elizabeth Oakes Smith.

_Finance Committee._--Susan B. Anthony, Lydia A. Jenkins, Edward A.
Stansbury.

[118] See Appendix.

[119] Fanny Ellsler danced for the Bunker Hill monument.

[120] See p. 259.

[121] The Committee were: Lueretia Mott, Ernestine L. Rose, Marion C.
Houghton, Lucy Stone, Caroline H. Dall, Paulina Wright Davis, Dr.
Harriot K. Hunt, Mathilde Franceska Anneke, Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell.

[122]
  Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Seneca Falls; James M'Cune Smith, New York;
  Mary Cheney Greeley, New York;        S. G. Love, Randolph;
  Ernestine L. Rose, New York;          Mary F. Love, Randolph;
  Samuel J. May, Syracuse;              C. M. Crowley, Randolph;
  George W. Jonson, Buffalo;            R. T. Trail, New York;
  Antoinette L. Brown, South Butler;    Emily S. Trail, New York;
  Frederick Douglass, Rochester;        Oliver Johnson, New York;
  Hiram Corliss, Greenwich;             Mariana W. Johnson, New York;
  Lydia A. Jenkins, Geneva;             Sydney Howard Gay, New York:
  William H. Channing, Rochester;       Catharine E. Welling, Elmira;
  William Hay, Saratoga Springs;        Mrs. Holbrook, Elmira;
  Amy Post, Rochester;                  H. A. Zoller, Little Falls;
  Mary H. Hallowell, Rochester;         Stephen Haight, Dutchess County;
  Susan B; Anthony, Rochester;          Sarah A. Burtis, Rochester;
  William R. Hallowell, Rochester;      Lydia P. Savage, Syracuse;
  Isaac Post, Rochester;                Lydia Mott, Albany;
  Mary B. F. Curtis, Rochester;         J. B. Sands, Canandaigua;
  Lemira Kedzie, Rochester;             Catharine H. Sands, Canandaigua.

[123] _Vice-Presidents._--Ernestine L. Rose, New York; S. C. Cuyler,
Wayne; Amy Post, Rochester; Mary F. Love, Randolph; Amelia Bloomer,
Seneca Falls; Caroline Keese, Cayuga; Griffith M. Cooper, Wayne.; Rev.
Antoinette L. Brown, South Butler; Matilda Joslyn Gage, Manlius; Rev.
J. W. Loguin, Syracuse; Sarah A. Burtis, Rochester; Emma R. Coe,
Buffalo.

_Secretaries._--Susan B. Anthony, Sarah Pellet, Wm. J. Watkins, and
Sarah Willis.

_Finance Committee._--Mary S. Anthony, Mary H. Hallowell, E. J.
Jenkins, Lucy Colman, and Mary Cooper.

_Business Committee._--Ernestine L. Rose, William Henry Channing,
Antoinette L. Brown, Frederick Douglass, Amy Post, and Samuel J. Love.

[124] Mr. Hopkins further stated that, tenancy by the courtesy
operates in favor of the husband, not of the wife. It is the husband's
right during his life to the use of the wife's real estate from her
death, in case of a child or children born of the marriage. It is
defeasible now by the wife's will.--Cow. Rep. 74, 2 K. S., 4th Ed.
331. Tenancy by right of dower is the wife's right during her life to
the use of one-third of the husband's real estate from his death. It
operates in favor of the wife and not in favor of the husband, and is
indefeasible by the husband's will or the husband's acts while living,
and does not depend upon the birth of a child by the marriage.

The order of distribution of the husband's personal property on his
death is as follows, viz.: 1st, the widow of a family takes articles
exempt from execution as hers, also $150 worth of property besides.
2d, she has one-third of the personal property, absolutely--if there
be no children, one-half, and if there be no parent or descendant, she
is entitled, of the residue, to $2,000, and if also no brother,
sister, nephew, or niece, all the residue. This order may be varied or
defeated by his will.

The order of distribution of the wife's personal property on her death
without will is as follows: It goes, after paying her debts, to her
husband, if living; if not, then 1st, to her children, 2d to her
father, 3d to her mother, 4th to her collateral relatives. This order
may be varied or defeated by her will. She may devise it as she may
please.

His property before marriage continues his after marriage, subject to
her inchoate rights of dower.

Her property before marriage continues hers absolutely.

Upon marriage he is liable to support her, and may be compelled to do
it if he prove refractory.

She is not liable to support him, however wealthy she may be, or poor
he may be.

He is liable to support the children. She is not so liable, though
possessed of millions.

The husband is the guardian of the wife, as against third persons.
(Page 488). But he has no power to preserve, retain, or regain the
custody of her against her will. (Page 47).

He may maintain his action against third persons for enticing her away
or harboring her. But this harboring, to be actionable, must be more
than a mere permission to her to stay with such third person. (4 Barb.
225).

If the husband seek to take away his wife by force, it is an assault
and battery upon her. If a third person, resists such force at her
request he is not liable to any action. (Barb. 156).

The wife is not the husband's guardian, but if he will desert her he
may be put under bonds for her support and the support of her children
by him. (2 Rev. Stat., 4th Ed., pp. 53, 54).

The husband is liable for the debts of the wife contracted before
marriage, but only now to the extent of her property received by him.
(7 W. R. 237, 1st Chitty Pl., 66 to 68, laws of 1853). And he is
liable for her debts contracted during marriage, if permitted by him,
or if for necessaries which he neglected to provide.

The wife is not liable for her husband's debts contracted at any time.

The law casts the custody of the minor children upon the father and
not upon the mother. But if this custody is abused, it is by the Court
to the mother.

The father may appoint a guardian for his infant children. (2 Rev.
Stat. 33.) But the Court will not allow such guardian to take the
children out of the State against the mother's will, much less to
separate them unjustly from the mother even though the father's will
command it. (5, page 596).

During the separation of husband and wife, it is for the court now to
decide, under the circumstances of each case, whether father or mother
has such custody. (2 R. S. 330, 332).

When both seek such custody, and both are equally qualified for it,
that of daughters and young children is usually given to the mother,
and that of the sons to the father, but this is in the discretion of
the Court.

The earnings of the husband are his. The earnings of the wife are his,
if she live with him and he support her.

But he can not compel her to work for him. And if she separate from
him for cause, he may be restrained for intermeddling with her
earnings.

The husband's abandonment and his refusal or neglect to provide for
her, are good causes of separation. (2 R. S. 329, sec. 53, sub. 3).

For the husband's torts the wife is not liable. For the wife's torts,
committed by her before marriage or during marriage the husband is
liable jointly with the wife. If committed by the wife and husband, or
committed by the wife in his presence and without objecting, the
husband is liable alone. (1 Chitty Pl., 105, 7th American edition).
Nay, even felonies (excepting murder, manslaughter, treason, and
robbery), are excusable in the wife if committed in the husband's
presence and by his coercion--and such coercion is presumed from his
presence. For this he must suffer and she must be spared. (Barb. Crim.
Law, 247 and 348, and cases there cited).

In actions or lawsuits between men and women, the law in theory claims
to be impartial, but in practice it has not been impartial. Before a
Court of male judges or a jury of men the bias is in favor of the
woman; and if she is pleasing, in person and manners, such bias is
sometimes pretty strong.

If the man and woman between whom litigation arises are husband and
wife, the Court may accord an allowance to be advanced by her husband,
to enable her to defray the expenses of the litigation.

[125] WOMAN'S RIGHTS.--_Circulate the Petitions_.--The design of the
Convention held last week in Rochester, was to bring the subject of
Woman's legal and civil disabilities, in a dignified form, before the
Legislature of New York. Convinced, as the friends of the movement
are, that in consistency with the principles of Republicanism,
females, equally with males, are entitled to Freedom, Representation,
and Suffrage, and confident as they are that woman's influence will be
found to be as refining and elevating in public as all experience
proves it to be in private, they claim that one-half of the people and
citizens of New York should no longer be governed by the other half,
without consent asked and given. Encouraged by reforms already made,
in the barbarous usages of common law, by the statutes of New York,
the advocates of woman's just and equal rights demand that this work
of reform be carried on, until every vestige of partiality is removed.
It is proposed, in a carefully prepared address to specify the
remaining legal disabilities from which the women of this State
suffer; and a hearing is asked before a joint committee of both
Houses, specially empowered to revise and amend the statutes. Now is
this movement right in principle? Is it wise in policy? Should the
females of New York be placed on a level of equality with males before
the law? If so, let us petition for impartial justice to Women. In
order to ensure this equal justice should the females of New York,
like the males, have a voice in appointing the law-makers and
law-administrators? If so let us petition for Woman's right to
Suffrage. Finally, what candid man will be opposed to a reference of
the whole subject to the Representatives of New York, whom the men of
New York themselves elected. Let us then petition for a hearing before
the Legislature. A word more, as to the petitions, given below. They
are two in number; one for the Just and Equal Rights of Woman; one for
Woman's Right to Suffrage. It is designed that they should be signed
by men and women, of lawful age--that is, of twenty-one years and
upwards. The following directions are suggested: 1. Let persons, ready
and willing, sign each of the petitions; but let not those, who desire
to secure Woman's Just and Equal Rights, hesitate to sign that
petition because they have doubts as to the right or expediency of
women's voting. The petitions will be kept separate, and offered
separately. All fair-minded persons, of either sex, ought to sign the
first petition. We trust that many thousands are prepared to sign the
second also. 2. In obtaining signatures, let men sign in one column,
and women in another parallel column. 3. Let the name of the town and
county, together with the number of signatures, be distinctly entered
on the petitions before they are returned. 4. Let every person, man or
woman, interested in this movement, instantly and energetically
circulate the petitions in their respective neighborhoods. We must
send in the name of every person in the State, who desires full
justice to woman, so far as it is possible. Up then, friends, and be
doing, to-day. 5. Let no person sign either petition but once. As many
persons will circulate petitions in the same town and county, it is
important to guard against this possible abuse. 6. Finally, let every
petition be returned to Rochester, directed to the Secretary of the
Convention, Susan B. Anthony, on the first of February, without fail.
In behalf of the Business Committee.

                                           WILLIAM HENRY CHANNING.
ROCHESTER, _Dec. 8, 1853_.

PETITION FOR THE JUST AND EQUAL RIGHTS OF WOMEN.--The Legislature of
the State of New York have, by the Acts of 1848 and 1849, testified
the purpose of the people of this State to place married women on an
equality with married men, in regard to the holding, conveying, and
devising of real and personal property. We, therefore, the undersigned
petitioners, inhabitants of the State of New York, male and female,
having attained to the legal majority, believing that women, alike
married and single, do still suffer under many and grievous legal
disabilities, do earnestly request the Senate and Assembly of the
State of New York to appoint a Joint Committee of both Houses, to
revise the Statutes of New York, and to propose such amendments as
will fully establish the legal equality of women with men; and we
hereby ask a hearing before such Committee by our accredited
Representatives.

PETITION FOR WOMAN'S RIGHT TO SUFFRAGE.--Whereas, according to the
Declaration of our National Independence, governments derive their
just powers from the consent of the governed, we earnestly request the
Legislature of New York to propose to the people of the State such
amendments of the Constitution of the State as will secure to females
an equal right to the Elective Franchise with males; and we hereby ask
a hearing before the Legislature by our accredited Representatives.

N. B.--Editors throughout the State in favor of this movement are
respectfully requested to publish this address and the petitions.

[126] _President_.--Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

_Vice-Presidents_.--Rev. S. J. May, Ernestine L. Rose, New York; Hon.
William Hay Saratoga; William H. Topp, Albany; Lydia A. Jenkins,
Geneva; Lydia Mott, Albany; Mary F. Love, Randolph.

_Business Committee_.--Rev. Antoinette L. Brown, South Butler; W. H.
Channing, Rochester; Mrs. Catherine A. F. Stebbins, Mrs. Phebe H.
Jones, Troy.

_Secretaries_.--Susan B. Anthony, Sarah Pellet.

_Finance Committee_.--Mary S. Anthony, Rochester; Anna W. Anthony,
Cayuga.

[127] AN ACT RELATIVE TO THE RIGHTS OF MARRIED WOMEN:--_The People of
the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as
follows_:

1. Any married woman whose husband, from drunkenness, profligacy, or
any other cause, shall neglect and refuse to provide for her support
and education, or the support and education of her children, and any
married woman who may be deserted by her husband, shall have the
right, by her own name, to receive and collect her own earnings, and
apply the same for her own support, and the support and education of
her children, free from the control and interference of her husband,
or from any person claiming to be released from the same by and
through her husband.

2. Hereafter it shall be necessary to the validity of any indenture of
apprenticeship executed by the father, that the mother of such child,
if she be living, shall, in writing, consent to such indentures; nor
shall any appointment of a general guardian of the person of a child
by the father be valid, unless the mother of such child, if she be
living, shall, in writing, consent to such appointment.

[128] See Appendix.

[129] Ernestine L. Rose, Francis D. Gage, Hannah Tracy Cutler, Lucy N.
Coleman, Antoinette L. Brown, Matilda Joslyn Gage, Marietta Richmond,
Sarah Pellet, Carrie D. Filkins, Lydia A. Jenkins, Susan B. Anthony,
dividing their time and forces, held conventions in nearly every
county of the State, traversing some new section each year. In 1859,
Miss Anthony and Miss Brown made a successful tour of the fashionable
resorts and the northern counties. All this work the State Committee
assigned to its General Agent, giving her all honor and power, without
providing one dollar. But Miss Anthony with rare executive ability,
accomplished the work and paid all expenses.--E. C. S.

[130] It is pleasant to record that a few years later Mr. Beecher's
vision was clear on the whole question, and he was often found on the
woman's rights platform, not only speaking himself, but his sister,
Mrs. Isabella Beecher Hooker, also. On one occasion he conducted Miss
Kate Field to the platform in Plymouth Church as gracefully as he ever
handed a lady out to dinner, introduced her to the audience, and
presided during her address. Sitting there he seemed to feel as much
at his ease as if Col. Robert G. Ingersoll had been the speaker.

[131] As this meeting was hastily decided upon, there was no call
issued; it was merely noticed in the county papers. _The Saratoga
Whig_, August 18, 1854, says:

WOMEN'S RIGHTS.--The series of conventions that have been holding
sessions in the village during the week, will close this day with a
meeting for the discussion of the social, legal, and political rights
of women, at which Miss Susan B. Anthony, Mrs. Matilda Joslyn Gage,
and Miss Sarah Pellet will appear. The meetings will be held at St.
Nicholas Hall this afternoon at 3 and a half o'clock, and in the
evening at 8 o'clock.

[132] Any one but the indomitable Susan B. Anthony would have
abandoned all idea of a meeting, but, as it was advertised, she felt
bound to make it a fact. This decision may seem the more remarkable in
view of other facts, that Miss Anthony had but little experience as a
speaker, and was fully aware of her deficiencies in that line; her
forte lay in planning conventions, raising money, marshalling the
forces, and smoothing the paths for others to go forward, make the
speeches, and get the glory. Having listened in St. Nicholas Hall for
several days to some of the finest orators in the country, it was with
great trepidation that she resolved to attempt to hold such audiences
as had crowded all the meetings during the week, and would no doubt
continue to do so. However, she had one written speech, which she
decided to divide, giving the industrial disabilities of women in the
afternoon, and their political rights in the evening, supplementing
each with whatever extemporaneous observations might strike her mind
as she proceeded. With Mrs. Gage to speak at one session and Miss
Pellet at the other, Miss Anthony rounded out both meetings to the
general satisfaction. It was thus she always stood ready for every
emergency; when nobody else would or could speak she did; when
everybody wished to speak she was silent.--E. C. S.

[133] _The Daily Saratogian_. August 19th, said: Mrs. Matilda Joslyn
Gage, a medium-sized, lady-like looking woman, dressed in a tasty
plum- silk with two flounces, made the first address upon some
of the defects in the marriage laws, quoting Story, Kent, and
Blackstone. She closed by speaking of Mrs. Marcet, an able writer on
political economy, her book much used in schools. She referred to Miss
Pinckney, of South Carolina, who in nullification times, wrote
powerfully on that subject. It was said that party was consolidated by
the nib of a lady's pen. She was the first woman in the United States
who was honored with a public funeral.

[134] _President_.--Martha C. Wright, of Auburn.

_Vice-Presidents_.--Rev. Samuel J. May, Syracuse; Lydia Mott, Albany;
Ernestine L. Rose, New York; Antoinette L. Brown, New York; Susan B.
Anthony, Rochester; Augusta A. Wiggins, Saratoga Springs.

_Secretaries_.--Emily Jaques, Nassau; Aaron M. Powell, Ghent; Mary L.
Booth, Williamsburgh.

_Finance Committee_.--Susan B. Anthony, Marietta Richmond, Mary S.
Anthony, Phebe H. Jones.

_Business Committee_.--Antoinette L. Brown, Ernestine L. Rose, T. W.
Higginson, Charles F. Hovey, of Boston; Phebe Merritt, of Michigan;
Hon. William Hay, of Saratoga Springs.

[135] Now the successful editor of _Harper's Bazar_.

[136] This year Miss Anthony canvassed the State, holding conventions
in fifty-four counties, organizing societies, getting signatures to
petitions, and subscribers to _The Una_. At some of these meetings
Mrs. Rose, Miss Brown, and Miss Filkins assisted by turn, but the
chief part she carried through alone. She had posters for the entire
State printed in Rochester, her father, brother Merritt, and Mary
Luther folding and superscribing to all the postmasters and the
sheriff of every county. The sheriffs, with but few exceptions, opened
the Court Houses for the meetings, posted the bills, and attended to
the advertising. Miss Anthony entered on this work without the pledge
of a dollar. But with free meetings and collections in the afternoon,
and a shilling admission in the evening, she managed to cover the
entire expenses of the campaign.

[137] WOMEN'S RIGHTS PETITION.

_To the Honorable, the Senate and Assembly of the State of New York_:

WHEREAS, the women of the State of New York are recognized as citizens
by the Constitution, and yet are disfranchised on account of sex; we
do respectfully demand the right of suffrage; a right which involves
all other rights of citizenship, and which can not be justly withheld,
when we consider the admitted principles of popular government, among
which are the following:

1st. That all men are born free and equal.

2d. That government derives its just powers from the consent of the
governed.

3d. That taxation and representation should go together.

4th. That those held amenable to laws should have a share in framing
them.

We do, therefore, petition that you will take the necessary steps so
to revise the Constitution of our State, as that all her citizens may
enjoy equal political privileges.

[138] The committee were Susan B. Anthony, Ernestine L. Rose,
Antoinette L. Brown, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Martha C. Wright, Lydia
Mott.

[139] At the close of this Convention, Charles F. Hovey, as was his
usual custom, planned an excursion for those who had taken part in the
meetings. He invited them to take a drive to the lake, a few miles out
of Saratoga, gave them a bountiful repast, and together they spent a
day rich in pleasant memories. Listening day after day to the wrongs
perpetrated on woman by law and Gospel of man's creation, Mr. Hovey
always seemed to feel that he was in duty bound to throw what sunshine
and happiness he could into the lives of women, and thus in a measure
atone for the injustice of his sex, and most royally he did this
whenever an opportunity offered, not only while he lived, but by
bequests at his death.

[140] Twenty years after this Mrs. Stanton met a lady in Texas, who
told her about this Saratoga Convention. She said her attention was
first called to the subject of woman's rights by some tracts a friend
of hers, then living in Georgia, brought home at that time, and that
we could form but little idea of the intense interest with which they
were read and discussed by quite a circle of ladies, who plied her
aunt with innumerable questions about the Convention and the
appearance and manners of the ladies who led the movement.

[141] It is now over forty years that the various branches of the
Hutchinson family have been singing the liberal ideas of their day on
the anti-slavery, temperance, and Woman's Rights platforms, and they
are singing still (1881) with the infusion of some new blood in the
second and third generation. Only one year ago traveling in Kansas, on
a dreary night train, with no sleeping car attached, I had worried
through the weary hours until three o'clock in the morning, when the
cars stopped at Fort Scott. I was slowly pacing up and down the aisle,
when in came Asa Hutchinson, violin in hand, and a troop of boys and
girls behind him. There we stood face to face, both well on the shady
side of sixty-five, our locks as white as snow, each thinking the
other was too old for such hard journeys, he still singing, I still
preaching "equal rights to all." "Well," said I, "Asa, this is a very
unchristian hour for you to be skylarking over the prairies of
Kansas." "Ah!" said he, dolorously, "this is no skylarking; we sung
last night until near eleven o'clock, shook hands, and talked until
twelve; arose about two, waited an hour at a cold depot, and we all
feel as cross as bears." "I can sympathize with you," I replied; "I
spent the hours until twelve as you did, entertaining my countrymen
and women, and have been trying to rest ever since." In talking over
old times until the day dawned we forgot our fatigue, and as I left
the cars they gave me a parting salute with the "good time coming."
How well I remember the power of the young Hutchinsons in the old mob
days; four brothers and one sister standing side by side on the
platform in Faneuil Hall, Boston. So hated were the Abolitionists and
their doctrines, that not even Wendell Phillips or Abby Kelly could
get a hearing, but when the sweet singers from the old Granite State
came forward silence reigned, to be broken, however, the moment the
last notes of harmony died upon their lips. E. C. S.

[142] Saratoga, Niagara, and Trenton Falls; Clifton, Avon, Sharon, and
Ballston Springs, Lake George, etc. In making the tour In 1859, Miss
Brown and Miss Anthony had some recherche out-door meetings in the
groves of Clifton and Trenton that were highly praised by the press
and the people, and in the long summer days most charming to
themselves.

[143] The speakers were Samuel J. May, Ernestine L. Rose, Antoinette
L. Brown, Carrie D. Filkins, Lydia A. Jenkins, Aaron M. Powell, Hon.
Wm. Hay, Susan B. Anthony.

[144] If the intestate be a married man living, and having lived with
his wife daring marriage, or if the intestate be a married woman
living or having lived with her husband during marriage, and shall die
without lawful descendants, born or to be born of such marriage, or a
prior marriage, the inheritance shall descend to the surviving husband
or wife, as the case may be, during his or her natural life, whether
the inheritance came to the intestate on the part of the mother or
father or otherwise.

[145] _President_.--Lucy Stone.

_Vice-Presidents_.--Lucretia Mott, of Pennsylvania; Elizabeth Jones,
of Ohio; Rev. T. W. Higginson, of Massachusetts; Cornelia Moore, of
New Jersey; A. Bronson Alcott, of New Hampshire; Sarah H. Hallock, of
New York.

_Secretaries_.--Martha C. Wright, of New York; Oliver Johnson, of New
York; Henrietta Johnson, of New Jersey.

_Business Committee_.--Ernestine L. Rose, Susan B. Anthony, Wendell
Phillips, James Mott, Mariana Johnson, T. W. Higginson, William Green,
Jr.

_Treasurer_.--Wendell Phillips.

_Finance_.--Susan B. Anthony.

[146] At the close of chapter on Indiana, p. 315.

[147] John C. Fremont's campaign.

[148] Mrs. Jessie Benton Fremont.

[149] 1. _Resolved_, That the close of a Presidential election affords
a peculiarly appropriate occasion to renew the demands of woman for a
consistent application of Democratic principles.

2. _Resolved_, That the Republican Party, appealing constantly,
through its orators, to female sympathy, and using for its most
popular rallying cry a female name, is peculiarly pledged by
consistency, to do justice hereafter in those States where it holds
control.

3. _Resolved_, That the Democratic Party must be utterly false to its
name and professed principles, or else must extend their application
to both halves of the human race.

4. _Resolved_, That the present uncertain and inconsistent position of
woman in our community, not fully recognized either as a slave or as
an equal, taxed but not represented, authorized to earn property but
not free to control it, permitted to prepare papers for scientific
bodies but not to read them, urged to form political opinions but not
allowed to vote upon them, all marks a transitional period in human
history which can not long endure.

5. _Resolved_, That the main power of the woman's rights movement lies
in this: that while always demanding for woman better education,
better employment, and better laws, it has kept steadily in view the
one cardinal demand for the right of suffrage; in a democracy the
symbol and guarantee of all other rights.

6. _Resolved_, That the monopoly of the elective franchise, and
thereby all the powers of legislative government by man, solely on the
ground of sex, is a usurpation, condemned alike by reason and
common-sense, subversive of all the principles of justice, oppressive
and demoralizing in its operation, and insulting to the dignity of
human nature.

7. _Resolved_, That while the constant progress of law, education, and
industry prove that our efforts for women in these respects are not
wasted, we yet proclaim ourselves unsatisfied, and are only encouraged
to renewed efforts, until the whole be gained.

[150] During the struggle to extend slavery into that free State.

[151] Jeannette Brown Heath, daughter of Nathan Brown, of Montgomery
County, New York. She traveled with Abby Kelly at one time as a
companion. Jeannette was a famous horsewoman; the young ladies of the
county thought themselves well off when they could purchase a steed
that she had trained for the saddle. I remember many an escapade in my
youth on a full-blooded black horse from Jeannette's equery, as I
lived in her neighborhood; she is now residing with two sons and one
daughter in Rochester, N. Y., enjoying the needed rest after such an
eventful life.--E. C. S.

[152] She gave $100,000 to the Observatory in Albany.

[153] EXTRACTS FROM THE WILL OF THE LATE CHARLES F. HOVEY, ESQ.

ARTICLE 16. After setting aside sufficient funds to pay all legacies
and bequests herein made, I direct my said Trustees to hold all the
rest and residue of my estate, real, personal and mixed, in special
trust for the following purposes, namely; to pay over, out of the
Interest and principal of said special trust, a sum of not less than
eight thousand dollars annually, until the same be all exhausted, to
said Wendell Phillips, William Lloyd Garrison, Stephen S. Foster, Abby
K. Foster, Parker Pillsbury, Henry C. Wright, Francis Jackson and
Charles K. Whipple, and their survivors and survivor, for them to use
and expend, at their discretion, without any responsibility to any
one, for promotion of the Anti-Slavery cause and other reforms, such
as Woman's Rights, Non-Resistance, Free Trade and Temperance, at their
discretion; and I request said Wendell Phillips and his said
associates to expend not less than eight thousand dollars annually, by
the preparation and circulation of books, newspapers, employing
agents, and the delivery of lectures that will, in their judgment,
change public opinion, and secure the abolition of Slavery in the
United States, and promote said other reforms. Believing that the
chain upon four millions of slaves, with tyrants at one end and
hypocrites at the other, has become the strongest bond of the Union of
the States, I desire said Phillips and his associates to expend said
bequest by employing such agents as believe and practice the doctrine,
of "No union with slaveholders, religiously or politically"; and by
circulating such publications as tend to destroy every pro-slavery
institution.

ARTICLE 17. In case chattel slavery should be abolished in the United
States before the expenditure of the said residue of my estate, as
stated in said sixteenth article of this Will; then, in that case, I
desire that the unexpended part of said residue be applied by said
Phillips and his associates, in equal proportions, for the promotion
of Non-Resistance, Woman's Rights and Free Trade; requesting that no
agents be employed by them for the promotion of said causes, except
such as believe it wrong to have any voluntary connection with any
government of violence, and such as believe that the natural rights of
men and women are equal. Whether slavery be abolished or not, I desire
that a part of the said residue of my estate may be applied to the
promotion of the kindred causes of Temperance, Woman's Rights,
Non-Resistance and Free Trade, at the discretion of the said Phillips
and his associates.

ARTICLE 22. I particularly request that no prayers be solicited from
any person, and that no priest be invited to perform any ceremony
whatever, over or after my body. The Priesthood are an order of men,
as I believe, falsely assuming to be reverend and divine, pretending
to be called of God; the great body of them in all countries have been
on the side of power and oppression; the world has been too long
cheated by them; the sooner they are unmasked, the better for
humanity. As I have heretofore borne my testimony against slavery,
intemperance, war, tariffs and all indirect taxation, banks and all
monopolies, I desire to leave on record my abhorrence of them all. The
fear of being buried before I am dead is slight, nevertheless it is
greater than the fear of death itself. I therefore request my
executors not to bury my body until at least three days after my
decease. In witness whereof, I have hereto set my hand and seal, this
twenty-eighth day of March, in the year eighteen hundred and
fifty-nine.

                                             CHARLES F. HOVEY.

Signed, sealed, published and declared by the said Testator to be his
last Will and Testament, in presence of us, who, at his request, and
in his presence, and in the presence of each other, have hereto
subscribed our names as witnesses.

                                             GEORGE L. LOVETT.
                                             THOMAS MACK.
                                             WILLIAM W. HOWE.

I do prove, approve and allow the same, and order it to be recorded.
Given under my hand and seal of office, the day and year above
written.

                                   ISAAC AMES,
     _May 30, 1859_. _Judge of Probate and Insolvency._

[154] George William Curtis, Mrs. Eliza W. Farnham, Parker Pillsbury,
Sarah Hallock, Mrs. Sidney Howard Gay, Sarah M. Grimke, Charles Lenox
Remond, Lucy A. Coleman, Sarah P. Remond, and the Hutchinson family,
consisting of Jessie, his wife, and two children, and Abby, who sung
among many other sweet ballads, "The Good Time Coming."

[155] Frederick Douglas, Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Ernestine L.
Rose, Lucretia Mott, Frances Dana Gage, Wendell Phillips, Wm. Lloyd
Garrison, Oliver Johnson, Susan B. Anthony, Caroline H. Dall, Lucy
Stone, Antoinette Brown, Aaron M. Powell.

[156] Eliza Farnham was in many respects a remarkable woman. As matron
of the Sing Sing prison at one time, she introduced many humane
improvements in the occupation and discipline of the women under her
charge. She had a piano in the corridor, and with sweet music touched
the tender chords in their souls. Instead of tracts on hell-fire and
an angry God, she read aloud to them from Dickens' most touching
stories. In every way, assisted by Mariana Johnson and Georgiana
Bruce, she treated them as women, and not as criminals.

[157] Wendell Phillips, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Caroline H. Dall,
Caroline M. Severance, Ernestine L. Rose, Antoinette Brown Blackwell,
Thomas W. Higginson, Susan B. Anthony.

[158] _Resolved_, That while every newspaper in the land carries on
its face the record of woman's dishonor, the women who seek to elevate
their sex are bound to inquire into its causes and save from its
paralysis.

_Resolved_, That while we have no daughters too tender and pure, no
sons too innocent, to escape from the influence of such tragedies as
those at North Adams and Washington, the true modesty of every mother,
the true dignity of every wife, should forbid her to put aside the
questions they involve.

_Resolved_, That the dishonor of single women proceeds in great
measure from destitution, and the dishonor of married women as much
from their own want of education and utter absence of purpose in life
as from the inability of their husbands to inspire them with true
respect and help them to true living: therefore,

_Resolved_, That it is our bounden duty to open, in every possible
way, new vocations to women, to raise their wages by every advisable
means, and to secure to them an education which shall be less a
decoration to their persons than a tool to their hands.

_Resolved_, That while courts adjourn in honor of a man like Philip
Barton Key, while the whole Bar of the District of Columbia pass
resolutions in his honor, and vote to attend his funeral, as a mark of
respect, while the public opinion of a whole community sustains a man
who could not defend his murderous indignation by the witness of an
unspotted life, it is our duty to rate public opinion as a corrupting
power, and to bring up our children in the knowledge and sanction of a
higher law.

[159] FORM OF PETITION.

_To the Senate and Assembly of the Slate of New York:_

The undersigned, citizens of ----, New York, respectfully ask that you
will take measures to submit to the people an amendment of the
Constitution, allowing women to vote and hold office. And that you
will enact laws securing to married women the full and entire control
of all property originally belonging to them, and of their earnings
during marriage; and making the rights of the wife over the children
the same as a husband enjoys, and the rights of a widow, as to her
children, and as to the property left by her husband, the same that a
husband has in the property and over the children of his deceased
wife.

[160] Lydia Mott, in writing to a friend, says: "I have heard but one
opinion about the merits of the address and the manner of its
delivery, and the press is very complimentary. It was better that one
like Mrs. Stanton should speak on the occasion than two, unless the
other might have been Wendell Phillips. Mr. Mayo expressed himself
thoroughly satisfied; the whole effect was grand. Even old Father
Woolworth stood the whole time, and very often he would nod assent at
certain points. The House was packed, but so still that not one word
was lost. It was worth as much to our cause as our whole Convention,
though we could not have spared either."

[161] AN ACT CONCERNING THE RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF HUSBAND AND
WIFE.

Passed March 20, 1860.

_The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and
Assembly, do enact as follows:_

SECTION 1. The property, both real and personal, which any married
woman now owns, as her sole and separate property; that which comes to
her by descent, devise, bequest, gift, or grant; that which she
acquires by her trade, business, labor, or services, carried on or
performed on her sole or separate account; that which a woman married
in this State owns at the time of her marriage, and the rents, issues,
and proceeds of all such property, shall notwithstanding her marriage,
be and remain her sole and separate property, and may be used,
collected, and invested by her in her own name, and shall not be
subject to the interference or control of her husband, or liable for
his debts, except such debts as may have been contracted for the
support of herself or her children, by her as his agent.

Sec. 2. A married woman may bargain, sell, assign, and transfer her
separate personal property, and carry on any trade or business, and
perform any labor or services on her sole and separate account, and
the earnings of any married woman from her trade, business, labor, or
services shall be her sole and separate property, and may be used or
invested by her in her own name.

Sec. 3. Any married woman possessed of real estate as her separate
property may bargain, sell, and convey such property, and enter into
any contract in reference to the same; but no such conveyance or
contract shall be valid without the assent, in writing, of her
husband, except as hereinafter provided.

Sec. 4. In case any married woman possessed of separate real property, as
aforesaid, may desire to sell or convey the same, or to make any
contract in relation thereto, and shall be unable to procure the
assent of her husband as in the preceding section provided, in
consequence of his refusal, absence, insanity, or other disability,
such married woman may apply to the County Court in the county where
she shall at the time reside, for leave to make such sale, conveyance,
or contract, without the assent of her husband.

Sec. 5. Such application may be made by petition, verified by her, and
setting forth the grounds of such application. If the husband be a
resident of the county and not under disability from insanity or other
cause, a copy of said petition shall be served upon him, with a notice
of the time when the same will be presented to the said court, at
least ten days before such application. In all other cases, the County
Court to which such application shall be made, shall, in its
discretion, determine whether any notice shall be given, and if any,
the mode and manner of giving it.

Sec. 6. If it shall satisfactorily appear to such court, upon
application, that the husband of such applicant has willfully
abandoned his said wife, and lives separate and apart from her, or
that he is insane, or imprisoned as a convict in any state prison, or
that he is an habitual drunkard, or that he is in any way disabled
from making a contract, or that he refuses to give his consent without
good cause therefor, then such court shall cause an order to be
entered upon its records, authorizing such married woman to sell and
convey her real estate, or contract in regard thereto without the
assent of her husband, with the same effect as though such conveyance
or contract had been made with his assent.

Sec. 7. Any married woman may, while married, sue and be sued in all
matters having relation to her property, which may be her sole and
separate property, or which may hereafter come to her by descent,
devise, bequest, or the gift of any person except her husband, in the
same manner as if she were sole. And any married woman may bring and
maintain an action in her own name, for damages against any person or
body corporate, for any injury to her person or character, the same as
if she were sole; and the money received upon the settlement of any
such action, or recovered upon a judgment, shall be her sole and
separate property.

Sec. 8. No bargain or contract made by any married woman, in respect to
her sole and separate property, or any property which may hereafter
come to her by descent, devise, bequest, or gift of any person except
her husband, and no bargain or contract entered into by any married
woman in or about the carrying on of any trade or business under the
statutes of this State, shall be binding upon her husband, or render
him or his property in any way liable therefor.

Sec. 9. Every married woman is hereby constituted and declared to be the
joint guardian of her children, with her husband, with equal powers,
rights, and duties in regard to them, with the husband.

Sec. 10. At the decease of husband or wife, leaving no minor child or
children, the survivor shall hold, possess, and enjoy a life estate in
one-third of all the real estate of which the husband or wife died
seized.

Sec. 11. At the decease of the husband or wife intestate, leaving minor
child or children, the survivor shall hold, possess, and enjoy all the
real estate of which the husband or wife died seized, and all the
rents, issues, and profits thereof during the minority of the youngest
child, and one-third thereof during his or her natural life.

[162] On the final passage of the bill the following Senators, as _The
Journal_ shows, voted in favor of the measure, viz: Senators Abell,
Bell, Colvin, Conally, Fiero, Goss, Hillhouse, Kelly, Lapham,
Sessions, Manierre, Montgomery, Munroe, P. P. Murphy, Truman, Prosser,
Ramsey, Robertson, Rotch, Warner, Williams--21.

[163] _President._--Martha Wright, of Auburn, New York.

_Vice-Presidents._--Abby Hopper Gibbons, of New York; Asa Fairbanks,
of Rhode Island; Rev. Antoinette Brown Blackwell, of New Jersey;
Thomas Garrett, of Delaware; Wendell Phillips, of Massachusetts;
Robert Purvis, of Pennsylvania; J. Elizabeth Jones, of Ohio; Giles B.
Stebbins, of Michigan.

_Secretaries._--Ellen Wright and Mary L. Booth.

_Finance Committee._--Susan B. Anthony, Lucy N. Colman, and Marietta
Richmond.

_Business Committee._--Ernestine L. Rose, A. L. B. Blackwell, Wm.
Lloyd Garrison, E. Cady Stanton, Mary Grew, and Wendell Phillips.

[164] In the Scotch Presbyterian Church at Johnstown, N. Y., there was
great excitement at one time on the question of temperance, the pastor
being a very active friend to that movement. The opposition were
determined to get rid of him, and called a church meeting for that
purpose. To the surprise of the leading men of the congregation, the
women came in force, armed with ballots, to defeat their proposed
measures. When the time came to vote, according to arrangement, my
mother headed the line marching up to the altar, where stood the
deacon, hat in hand, to receive the ballots. As soon as he saw the
women coming, he retreated behind the railing in the altar, closing
the little door after him, which the women deliberately opened, and
soon filled the space, completely surrounding the _inspector of
election_, and, whichever way he turned, the ballots were thrown into
the hat; and, when all had voted, my mother put her hand into the hat
and stirred them up with the men's votes, so that it would be
impossible to separate them. The pastor, representing the interests of
temperance, had a large majority for his retention. But the men
declared the election void because of the illegal voting, and,
barricading the women out, with closed doors, voted their own measures
the next day. Rev. Jeremiah Wood presided on the occasion, and whilst
the women were contending for their rights under the very shadow of
the altar, he recited various Scriptural texts on woman's sphere, to
which these rebellious ones paid not the slightest attention. One
dignified Scotch matron, looking him steadily in the face, indignant,
at the behavior of the men, said with sternness and emphasis: "I
protest against such high-handed proceedings." The result of this
outbreak, was a decree by the Judicature of the Church, "that the
women of the congregation should have the right to vote in all
business matters," which they have most judiciously done ever since.
E. C. S.

[165] Frances D. Gage, Hannah Tracy Cutler, J. Elizabeth Jones,
Antoinette Brown Blackwell, Lucy N. Colman, and Susan B. Anthony.

[166] Mrs. Roberts and her daughters in Niagara County.

[167] _Resolved_, That inasmuch as man, in the progress of his
development, found that at each advancing step new wants demanded new
rights, and naturally walked out of those places, customs, creeds, and
laws that in any way crippled and trammeled his freedom of thought,
word, or action, it is his duty to stand aside and leave to woman the
same rights--to grow up into whatever the laws of her being demand.

_Resolved_, That inasmuch as on woman are imposed by her Creator the
duties of self-support and self-defense, and by government the
responsibilities of taxation and penalties of violated law, she should
be protected in her natural, inalienable rights, and secured in all
the privileges of citizenship.

_Resolved_, That we demand a full recognition of our equal rights,
civil and political--no special legislation can satisfy us--the
enjoyment of a right to-day is no security that it will be continued
to-morrow, so long as it is granted to us by a privileged class, and
not secured to us as a sacred right.

WHEREAS, the essence of republican liberty is the principle that no
class shall depend for its rights on the mercy or justice of any other
class, therefore,

_Resolved_, That woman demands her right to the jury-box and the
ballot, that she may have, as man has, the means of her own protection
in her own hands.

_Resolved_, That woman, in consenting to remain in any organization or
church where she has no voice in the choice of officers, trustees, or
pastor--no right of protest against false doctrines or action--is
wanting in a proper self-respect, in that dignity which, as a
philanthropist and a Christian, she should ever manifest.

_Resolved_, That we from this platform instruct our legal
representatives to make no more appropriations to colleges for boys
exclusively. Now that we are large property holders and tax-payers, we
protest against the injustice of being compelled to build and endow
colleges into which we are forbidden to enter.

_Resolved_, That we advise women to apply to the trustees and heads of
public libraries, galleries of art, and similar institutions, for
employment as clerks and attendants, thus securing to themselves, when
admitted, a more liberal means of support, and furnishing a
stepping-stone to other occupations.

_Resolved_, That we return thanks to the Legislature of New York for
its acts of justice to woman during the last session. But the work is
not yet done. We still claim the ballot, the right of trial by a jury
of our own peers, the control and custody of our persons in marriage,
and an equal right to the joint earnings of the co-partnership. The
geographical position and political power of New York make her example
supreme; hence we feel assured that when she is right on this
question, our work is done.

[168] 1. _Resolved_, That, in the language (slightly varied) of John
Milton, "Those who marry intend as little to conspire their own ruin,
as those who swear allegiance, and as a whole people is to an ill
government, so is one man or woman to an ill marriage. If a whole
people, against any authority, covenant, or statute, may, by the
sovereign edict of charity, save not only their lives, but honest
liberties, from unworthy bondage, as well may a married party, against
any private covenant, which he or she never entered, to his or her
mischief, be redeemed from unsupportable disturbances, to honest peace
and just contentment."

2. _Resolved_, That all men are created equal, and all women, in their
natural rights, are the equals of men, and endowed by their Creator
with the same inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness.

3. _Resolved_, That any constitution, compact, or covenant between
human beings, that failed to produce or promote human happiness, could
not, in the nature of things, be of any force or authority; and it
would be not only a right, but a duty, to abolish it.

4. _Resolved_, That though marriage be in itself divinely founded, and
is fortified as an institution by innumerable analogies in the whole
kingdom of universal nature, still, a true marriage is only known by
its results; and, like the fountain, if pure, will reveal only pure
manifestations. Nor need it ever be said, "What God hath joined
together, let no man put asunder," for man could not put it asunder;
nor can he any more unite what God and nature have not joined
together.

5. _Resolved_, That of all insulting mockeries of heavenly truth and
holy law, none can be greater than that physical impotency is cause
sufficient for divorce, while no amount of mental or moral or
spiritual imbecility is ever to be pleaded in support of such a
demand.

6. _Resolved_, That such a law was worthy those dark periods when
marriage was held by the greatest doctors and priests of the Church to
be a work of the flesh only, and almost, if not altogether, a
defilement; denied wholly to the clergy, and a second time, forbidden
to all.

7. _Resolved_, That an unfortunate or ill-assorted marriage is ever a
calamity, but not ever, perhaps never, a crime--and when society or
government, by its laws or customs, compels its continuance, always to
the grief of one of the parties, and the actual loss and damage of
both, it usurps an authority never delegated to man, nor exercised by
God himself.

8. _Resolved_, That observation and experience daily show how
incompetent are men, as individuals, or as governments, to select
partners in business, teachers for their children, ministers of their
religion, or makers, adjudicators, or administrators of their laws;
and as the same weakness and blindness must attend in the selection of
matrimonial partners, the dictates of humanity and common sense alike
show that the latter and most important contract should no more be
perpetual than either or all of the former.

9. _Resolved_, That children born in these unhappy and unhallowed
connections are, in the most solemn sense, of unlawful birth--the
fruit of lust, but not of love--and so not of God, divinely descended,
but from beneath, whence proceed all manner of evil and uncleanliness.

10. _Resolved_, That next to the calamity of such a birth to the
child, is the misfortune of being trained in the atmosphere of a
household where love is not the law, but where discord and bitterness
abound; stamping their demoniac features on the moral nature, with all
their odious peculiarities--thus continuing the race in a weakness and
depravity that must be a sure precursor of its ruin, as a just penalty
of long-violated law.

[169] Thurlow Weed, editor of _The Albany Evening Journal_, opposed
the passage of the Divorce Bill before the New York Legislature in
1860.

[170] _Resolved_, That marriage is the voluntary alliance of two
persons of opposite sexes into one family, and that such an alliance,
with its possible incidents of children, its common interests, etc.,
must be, from the nature of things, as permanent as the life of the
parties.

_Resolved_, That if human law attempts to regulate marriage at all, it
should aim to regulate it according to the fundamental principles of
marriage; and that as the institution is inherently as continuous as
the life of the parties, so all laws should look to its control and
preservation as such.

_Resolved_, That as a parent can never annul his obligations towards
even a profligate child, because of the inseparable relationship of
the parties, so the married partner can not annul his obligations
towards the other, while both live, no matter how profligate that
other's conduct may be, because of their still closer and alike
permanent relationship; and, therefore, that all divorce is naturally
and morally impossible, even though we should succeed in annulling all
legalities.

_Resolved_, That gross fraud and want of good faith in one of the
parties contracting this alliance, such as would invalidate any other
voluntary relation, are the only causes which can invalidate this, and
this, too, solely upon the ground that the relation never virtually
existed, and that there are, therefore, no resulting moral
obligations.

_Resolved_, however, That both men and women have a first and
inviolable right to themselves, physically, mentally, and morally, and
that it can never be the duty of either to surrender his personal
freedom in any direction to his own hurt.

_Resolved_, That the great duty of every human being is to secure his
own highest moral development, and that he can not owe to society, or
to an individual, any obligation which shall be degrading to himself.

_Resolved_, That self-devotion to the good of another, and especially
to the good of the sinful and guilty, like all disinterestedness, must
redound to the highest good of its author, and that the husband or
wife who thus seeks the best interests of the other, is obedient to
the highest law of benevolence.

_Resolved_, That this is a very different thing from the culpable
weakness which allows itself to be immolated by the selfishness of
another, to the hurt of both; and that the miserable practice, now so
common among wives, of allowing themselves, their children and family
interests, to be sacrificed to a degraded husband and father, is most
reprehensible.

_Resolved_, That human law is imperatively obligated to give either
party ample protection to himself, to their offspring, and to all
other family interests, against wrong, injustice, and usurpation on
the part of the other, and that, if it be necessary to this, it should
grant a legal separation; and yet, that even such separation can not
invalidate any real marriage obligation.

_Resolved_, That every married person is imperatively obligated to do
his utmost thus to protect himself and all family interests against
injustice and wrong, let it arise from what source it may.

_Resolved_, That every woman is morally obligated to maintain her
equality in human rights in all her relations in life, and that if she
consents to her own subjugation, either in the family, Church or
State, she is as guilty as the slave is in consenting to be a slave.

_Resolved_, That a perfect union can not be expected to exist until we
first have perfect units, and that every marriage of finite beings
must be gradually perfected through the growth and assimilation of the
parties.

_Resolved_, That the permanence and indissolubility of marriage tend
more directly than anything else toward this result.

[171] Francis Jackson. This fund was drawn upon by several of the
States. $1,993.66 was expended in the campaigns in New York, the
publication of 60,000 tracts, and the appropriation of several hundred
to a series of sermons by the Rev. Antoinette Brown Blackwell,
delivered in Hope Chapel, New York; $1,000 was expended in the Ohio
canvass of 1860, and tracts in large numbers were also sent there.
Both money and tracts were contributed to the Kansas campaign of 1859.
Lucy Stone had $1,500 to expend in Kansas in 1867, and thus in various
ways the fund was finally expended, Lucy Stone drawing out the last
$1,000 in 1871. So careful had been the management of this fund, that
the accumulation of the interest had greatly increased the original
sum.

[172] Lydia Mott was one of the quiet workers who kept all things
pertaining to the woman's rights reform in motion at the capital.
Living in Albany, she planned conventions and hearings before the
Legislature. She knew a large number of the members and men of
influence, who all felt a profound respect for that dignified,
judicious Quaker woman. Her home was not only one of the depots of the
underground railroad, where slaves escaping to Canada were warmed and
fed, but it was the hospitable resort for all reformers. Everything
about the house was clean and orderly, and the table always bountiful,
and the food appetizing. As such men as Seward and Marcy, leaders from
opposite political parties, Gerrit Smith, Garrison, Phillips,
Pillsbury, Remond, Foster, Douglass, representing all the reforms, met
in turn at Miss Mott's dinner-table, she had the advantage of hearing
popular questions discussed from every standpoint. And Miss Mott was
not merely hostess at her table, but on all occasions took a leading
part in the conversation. All of us who enjoyed her friendship and
hospitality deeply feel her loss in that conservative city.

[173] [Introduced, on notice, by Mr. Ramsey; read twice, and referred
to the Committee on the Judiciary; reported from said Committee for
the consideration of the Senate, and committed to the Committee of the
Whole].

AN ACT IN REGARD TO DIVORCES DISSOLVING THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT.

_The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and
Assembly, do enact as follows:_

SECTION 1. In addition to the cases in which a divorce, dissolving the
marriage contract, may now be decreed by the Supreme Court, such a
divorce may be decreed by said court in either of the cases following:

1. Where either party to the marriage shall, for the period of three
years next preceding the application for such divorce, have willfully
deserted the other party to the marriage, and neglected to perform to
such party the duties imposed by their relation.

2. Where there is and shall have been for the period of one year next
preceding the application for such divorce, continuous and repeated
instances of cruel and inhuman treatment by either party, so as
greatly to impair the health or endanger the life of the other party,
thereby rendering it unsafe to live with the party guilty of such
cruelty or inhumanity.

Sec.2. The foregoing sections shall not apply to any person who shall
not have been an actual resident of this State for the period of five
years next preceding such application for such divorce.

Sec.3. Specifications one, two, and three of original section
thirty-eight, of article three, of title one, of chapter eight, of
part two of the Revised Statutes, shall apply to these causes for
divorce as they now apply to the cause of adultery.

Sec.4. The other provisions of the Revised Statutes relating to the
granting of divorces for adultery, and regulating the form and manner
of proceedings and decrees, and the effects thereof, and the
restrictions and defences to the application thereof, shall be
applicable to the granting of divorces for causes hereinabove
specified, and all proceedings therefor and therein, so far and in
such manner as the same may be capable of such application.

Sec.5. This act shall take effect immediately.

[174] Published at the close of Mr. Greeley's "Recollections of a Busy
Life."

[175] Passed April 10, 1862.

SECT. 3. Any married woman, possessed of real estate as her separate
property, may bargain, sell, and convey such property, and enter into
any contract in reference to the same, with the like effect in all
respects as if she were unmarried; and she may in like manner enter
into such covenant or covenants for title as are usual in conveyances
of real estate, which covenants shall be obligatory to bind her
separate property, in case the same or any of them be broken.

Sec.2. The fourth, fifth, sixth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh sections
of the said Act are hereby repealed.

7th. Any married woman may, while married, sue and be sued, in all
matters having relation to her sole and separate property, or which
may hereafter come to her by descent, devise, bequest, purchase, or
the gift or grant of any person, in the same manner as if she were
sole; and any married woman may bring and maintain an action in her
own name, for damages, against any person or body corporate, for any
injury to her person or character, the same as if she were sole; and
the money received upon the settlement of any such action, or
recovered upon a judgment, shall be her sole and separate property. In
case it shall be necessary in the prosecution or defense of any action
brought by or against a married woman, to enter into any bond or
undertaking, such bond or undertaking may be executed by such married
woman, with the same effect in all respects as if she were sole; and
in case the said bond or undertaking shall become broken or forfeited,
the same may be enforced against her separate estate.

8th. No bargain or contract made by any married woman, in respect to
her sole and separate property, or any property which may hereafter
come to her by descent, devise, bequest, purchase, or the gift or
grant of any person (except her husband), and no bargain or contract
entered into by any married woman, in or about the carrying on of any
trade or business, under any statute of this State, shall be binding
upon her husband, or render him or his property in any way liable
therefor.

5th. In an action brought or defended by any married woman in her
name, her husband shall not, neither shall his property, be liable for
the costs thereof, or the recovery therein. In an action brought by
her for an injury to her person, character, or property, if judgment
shall pass against her for costs, the court in which the action is
pending shall have jurisdiction to enforce payment of such judgment
out of her separate estate, though the sum recovered be less than one
hundred dollars.

6th. No man shall bind his child to apprenticeship or service, or part
with the control of such child or create any testamentary guardian
therefor, unless the mother, if living, shall in writing signify her
assent thereto.

7th. A married woman may be sued in any of the courts of this State,
and whenever a judgment shall be recovered against a married woman,
the same may be enforced by execution against her sole and separate
estate in the same manner as if she were sole.

[176] THE GUARDIANSHIP LAW, PASSED APRIL 25, 1871.

6th. The Surrogate, to whom application may be made under either of
the preceding sections, shall have the same power to allow and appoint
guardians as is possessed by the Supreme Court, and may appoint a
guardian for a minor whose father is living, upon personal service of
notice of the application for such appointment upon such father, at
least ten days prior thereto; and in all cases the Surrogate shall
inquire into the circumstances of the minor and ascertain the amount
of his personal property, and the value of the rents and profits of
his real estate, and for that purpose may compel any person to appear
before him and testify in relation thereto.

[177] See law of 1860.




CHAPTER XV.

WOMAN, CHURCH, AND STATE.

BY MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE.


     Woman under old religions--Woman took part in offices of early
     Christian Church Councils--Original sin--Celibacy of the
     clergy--Their degrading sensuality--Feudalism--Marriage--Debasing
     externals and debasing ideas--Witchcraft--Three striking points
     for consideration--Burning of Witches--Witchcraft in New
     England--Marriage with devils--Woman's Right of property not
     recognized--Wife ownership--Women legislated for as
     slaves--Marriage under the Greek Church--The Salic
     law--Cromwellian era--The Reformation--Woman under monastic rules
     in the Protestant home--Polygamy taught by Luther and other
     Protestant Divines--The Mormon doctrine regarding woman its
     logical result--Milton responsible for many existing views in
     regard to woman--Woman's subordination taught to-day--The See
     trial--Right Rev. Dr. Cox--Rev. Knox-Little--Pan-Presbyterians--
     Quakers not as liberal as they have been considered--Restrictive
     action of the Methodist Church--Offensive debate upon
     ordaining Miss Oliver--The Episcopal Church and its
     restrictions--Sunday-school teachings--Week-day-school
     teachings--Sermon upon woman's subordination by the President
     of a Baptist Theological Seminary--Professor Christlieb of
     Germany--"Dear, will you bring me my shawl?"--Female sex looked
     upon as a degradation--A sacrilegious child--Secretary Evarts,
     in the Beecher-Tilton trial, upon woman's subordination--Women
     degraded in science and literature--Large-hearted men upon
     woman's degradation--Wives still sold in the market-place as
     "mares," led by a halter around their necks--Degrading servile
     labor performed by woman in Christian countries--A lower
     degradation--"Queen's women"--"Government women"--Interpolations
     in the Bible--Letter from Howard Crosby, D.D., LL.D--What is
     Truth?

Woman is told that her present position in society is entirely due to
Christianity, and this assertion is then made the basis of opposition
to her demands for exact equality with man in all the relations of
life. Knowing that the position of every human being keeps pace with
the religion and civilization of his country, and that in many ancient
nations woman had secured a good degree of respect and power, as
compared even with that she has in the present era, it has been
decided to present this subject from a historical standpoint, and to
show woman's position under the Christian Church for the last 1,500
years.

If in so doing we shall help to show man's unwarranted usurpation over
woman's religious and civil rights, and the very great difference
between true religion and theology, this chapter will not have been
written in vain, as it will prove that the most grievous wound ever
inflicted upon woman has been in the teaching that she was not created
equal with man, and the consequent denial of her rightful place and
position in Church and State.

Woman had acquired great liberty under the old civilizations. In Rome
she had not only secured remarkable personal and property rights,[178]
but she officiated as priestess in the most holy offices of religion.
Not only as Vestal Virgin did she guard the Sacred Fire, upon whose
preservation the welfare of Rome was held to depend, but at the end of
every consular period women officiated in private worship and
sacrifice to the _Bono Dea_, with mystic ceremonies which no man's
presence was suffered to profane. The Eleusinian mysteries were
attributed to Ceres herself, and but few men had the courage to dare
initiation into their most secret rites. In ancient Egypt, woman
bought and sold in the markets, was physician, colleges for her
instruction in medicine existing 1,200 years before Christ; she
founded its literature, the "Sacred Songs" of Isis being deemed by
Plato literally 10,000 years old; as priestess she performed the most
holy offices of religion, holding the Sacred Sistrum and offering
sacrifices to the gods; she sat upon its throne and directed the
civilization of this country at the most brilliant period of its
history; while in the marriage relation she held more than equality;
the husband at the ceremony promising obedience to the wife in all
things, a rule which according to Wilkinson, wrought no harm, but, on
the contrary, was productive of lasting fidelity and regard, the
husband and wife sitting together upon the same double chair in life,
and lying together in the same tomb after death. Crimes against women
were rare in olden Egypt, and were punished in the most severe manner.
In Persia, woman was one of the founders of the ancient Parsee
religion, which taught the existence of but a single God, thus
introducing monotheism into that rare old kingdom. The Germans endowed
their wives upon marriage with a horse, bridle, and spear, emblematic
of equality, and they held themselves bound to chastity in the marital
relation. The women of Scandinavia were regarded with respect, and
marriage was held as sacred by both men and women. These old
Berserkers reverenced their Alruna, or Holy Women, on earth, and
worshiped goddesses in heaven.

All Pagandom recognized a female priesthood, some making their
national safety to depend upon them, like Rome; sybils wrote the Books
of Fate, and oracles where women presided were consulted by many
nations. The proof of woman's also taking part in the offices of the
Christian Church at an early date is to be found in the very
restrictions which were at a later period placed upon her. The Council
of Laodicea, A.D. 365, in its eleventh canon[179] forbade the
ordination of women to the ministry, and by its forty-fourth canon
prohibited them from entering into the altar.

The Council of Orleans, A.D. 511, consisting of twenty-six bishops and
priests, promulgated a canon declaring that on account of their
frailty, women must be excluded from the deaconship.

Nearly five hundred years later than the Council of Laodicea, we find
the Council of Paris (A.D. 824) bitterly complaining that women serve
at the altar, and even give to the people the body and blood of Jesus
Christ. The Council of Aix-la-Chapelle, only eight years previously,
had forbidden abbesses from taking upon themselves any priestly
function. Through these canons we have the negative proof that for
many hundred years women preached, baptized,[180] administered the
sacrament, and filled various offices of the Church, and that men took
it upon themselves to forbid them from such functions through
prohibitory canons.

A curious old black-letter volume published in London in 1632,
entitled "The Lawes and Resolutions of Women's Rights," says, "the
reason why women have no control in Parliament, why they make no laws,
consent to none, abrogate none, is their Original Sin."

This doctrine of her original sin lies at the base of the religious
and political disqualifications of woman. Christianity, through this
doctrine, has been interpreted as sustaining man's rights alone. The
offices held by her during the apostolic age, she has been gradually
deprived of through ecclesiastical enactments. To Augustine, whose
early life was spent in company with the most degraded of woman-kind,
is Christianity indebted for the full development of the doctrine of
Original Sin, which, although to be found in the religious systems of
several ancient nations, was not a primitive one of the Christian
Church.[181] Taught as one of the most sacred mysteries of religion,
which to doubt or to question was to hazard eternal damnation, it at
once exerted a most powerful and repressing influence upon woman,
fastening upon her a bondage which the civilization of the nineteenth
century has not been able to cast off.

To this doctrine of woman's created inferiority we can trace those
irregularities which for many centuries filled the Church with shame,
for practices more obscene than the orgies of Babylon or Corinth, and
which dragged Christendom to a darkness blacker than the night of
heathendom in pagan countries--a darkness upon which the most
searching efforts of historians cast scarcely one ray of light--a
darkness so profound that from the seventh to the eleventh century no
individual thought can be traced. All was sunk in superstition; men
were bound by Church dogmas, and looked only to aggrandizement through
her. The priesthood, which alone possessed a knowledge of letters,
prostituted their learning to the basest uses; the nobility spent
their lives in warring upon each other; the peasantry were the sport
and victim by turns of priest and noble, while woman was the prey of
all; her person and her rights possessing no consideration only as
they could be made to advance the interest or serve the pleasure of
noble, husband, father, or priest--some man-god to whose lightest
desire all her wishes were made to bend. The most pronounced doctrine
of the Church during this period was, that through woman sin had been
introduced into the world; that woman's whole tendency was toward
evil, and that had it not been for the unfortunate oversight of her
creation, man would be dwelling in the paradisical innocence and
happiness of Eden blessed with immortality. The Church looking upon
woman as under a curse, considered man as God's divinely appointed
agent for its enforcement, and that the restrictions she suffered
under Christianity were but parts of a just punishment for having
caused the fall of man. Christian theology thus at once struck a blow
at these old beliefs in woman's equality, broadly inculcating the
doctrine that woman was created for man, was subordinate to him and
under obedience to him. It bade woman stand aside from sacerdotal
offices, forbidding her to speak in the church, commanding her to ask
her husband at home for all she wished to know, at once repressing all
tendency toward her freedom among those who adopted the new religion,
and by various decretals taught her defilement through the physical
peculiarities of her being. It placed the legality of marriage under
priestly control, secured to husbands a right of divorce for causes
not freeing the wife, and so far set its ban upon this relation as to
hold single women above the wife and mother in holiness. After having
forbidden woman the priestly office, it forbade her certain benefits
to be derived therefrom, thus unjustly punishing her for an
ineligibility of its own creation; offices in the Church, learning,
and property rights, freedom of thought and action, all were held as
improper for a being secondary to man, who came into the world, not as
part of the great original plan, but as an afterthought of the
Creator.

While it took many hundred years to totally exclude woman from the
priesthood, the strict celibacy of the male clergy was during the same
period the constant effort of the Church. At first its restrictions
were confined to a single marriage with a woman who had never before
entered that relation. A Council of A.D. 347, consisting of twenty-one
bishops, forbade the ordination of those priests who had been twice
married, or who had married a widow. A Council of A.D. 395, ruled that
a bishop who had children after ordination, should be excluded from
the major orders. The Council of A.D. 444, deposed Chelidonius, Bishop
of Besancon, for having married a widow; while the Council of Orleans,
A.D. 511, consisting of thirty-two bishops, decided that any monk who
married should be expelled from the ecclesiastical order.

In the sixth century a Council was held at Macon (585), consisting of
forty-three bishops with sees, sixteen bishops without sees, and
fifteen envoys. At this Council the celebrated discussion took place
of which it has often been said, the question was whether woman had a
soul. It arose in this wise. A certain bishop insisted that woman
should not be called "<DW25>"; but the contrary was argued by others
from the two facts that the Scriptures say that God created man, male
and female, and that Jesus Christ, son of a woman, is called the son
of man. Woman was, therefore, allowed to remain a human being in the
eyes of the clergy, even though considered a very weak and bad one.

The Church held two entirely opposing views of marriage. Inasmuch as
it taught that the fall came through marriage, this relation was
regarded by many priests with holy horror as a continuance of the evil
which first brought sin into the world. It was declared that God would
have found some method of populating the world outside of marriage,
and that condition was looked upon as one of peculiar temptation and
trial. Another class taught its necessity, though in it woman was
under complete subordination to man. These views can be traced to the
early fathers; through clerical contempt of marriage, the conditions
of celibacy and virginity were regarded as those of highest virtue.
Jerome respected marriage as chiefly valuable in that it gave virgins
to the Church, while Augustine, although he admitted the possibility
of salvation to the married, yet spoke of a mother and daughter in
heaven, the mother shining as a dim star, the daughter as one of the
first magnitude.

In the "Apostolic Constitutions," held by the Episcopal Church as
regulations established by the apostles themselves, and which are
believed by many to be among the earliest Christian records, there are
elaborate directions for the places of all who attend church, the
unmarried being most honored. The virgins and widows and elder women
stood, or sat first of all. The Emperor Honorius banished Jovinius for
asserting the possibility of a man being saved who lived with his
wife, even though he obeyed all the ordinances of the Church and lived
a good life.

St. Chrysostom, whose prayer is repeated at every Sunday morning
service of the Episcopal church, described woman as "a necessary evil,
a natural temptation, a desirable calamity, a domestic peril, a deadly
fascination, and a painted ill." The doctrine of priestly celibacy
which was early taught, though not thoroughly enforced until the
eleventh century, and the general tenor of the Church against
marriage, together with its teaching woman's greater sinfulness, were
the great causes of undermining the morals of the Christian world for
fifteen hundred years. With these doctrines was also taught the duty
of woman to sacrifice herself in every way to man. The loss of
chastity in a woman was held as a light sin in comparison to the
degradation that marriage would bring upon the priesthood, and young
girls ruined by some candidate or priest, considered themselves as
doing God service by refusing a marriage that would cause the
expulsion of their lovers from this order. With woman's so-called
divine self-sacrifice, Heloise chose to remain Abelard's mistress
rather than destroy his prospects of advancement in the Church.[182]

To the more strict enforcement of priestly celibacy, the barons were
permitted to make slaves of the wives and children of married priests.
While by common law children were held as following the condition of
their fathers, under Church legislation they were held to follow the
condition of their mothers. Serf mothers have thus borne serf children
to free-born fathers, and slave mothers have borne slave children to
their masters; while unmarried mothers still bear bastard children to
unknown fathers, the Church thus throwing the taint of illegitimacy
upon the innocent. The relations of man and woman to each other, the
sinfulness of marriage, and the license of illicit relations employed
most of the thought of the Church.[183] The duty of woman to obey, not
only her husband, but all men by virtue of their sex, was sedulously
inculcated. She was trained to hold her own desires and even her own
thoughts in complete abeyance to those of man; father, husband,
brother, son, priest, alike held themselves as her rightful masters,
and every holy principle of her nature was subverted in this most
degrading assumption. A great many important effects followed the full
establishment of priestly celibacy. The doctrine of woman's inherent
wickedness took new strength; a formal prohibition of the Scriptures
to the laity was promulgated from Toulouse in the twelfth century; the
canon law gained control of the civil law; the absolute sinfulness of
divorce, which had been maintained in councils, yet allowed by the
civil law, was established; the Inquisition arose; the persecution of
woman for witchcraft took on a new phase, and a tendency to suicide
was developed. The wives of priests rendered homeless, and with their
children suddenly ranked among the vilest of the earth, were powerless
and despairing, and not a few of them shortened their agony by death
at their own hands. For all these crimes the Church was directly
responsible.

Priestly celibacy did not cause priestly purity of life,[184] but
looking upon themselves as especially sanctified and set apart by
virtue of that celibacy, priests made their holy office the cover of
the most degrading sensuality.[185] Methods were taken to debauch the
minds of women as well as their bodies. As late as the seventeenth
century it was taught that a priest could commit no sin. This was an
old doctrine, but received new strength from the Illumines. It was
said that "The devout, having offered up and annihilated their own
selves, exist no longer but in God. Thenceforth they can do no wrong.
The better part of them is so divine that it no longer knows what the
other is doing." The doctrine of some Protestant sects, "Once in
grace, always in grace," is of the same character. The very
incarnation was used as a means of weakening woman's virtue. An
enforcement of the duty of an utter surrender of the soul and the will
was taught by the example of the Virgin, "who obeyed the angel Gabriel
and conceived, without risk of evil, for impurity could not come of a
spirit."[186] Another lesson, of which the present century has some
glimpse, was "that sin could be killed by sin, as the better way of
becoming innocent again." The result of this doctrine was seen in the
mistresses of the priests, known as "The Hallowed Ones."

Under such religious teaching as to woman, naught could be expected
but that the laity would closely imitate the priesthood. Although
Church and State may not be legally united, it is impossible for any
religious opinion to become widely prevalent without its influencing
legislation. Among the Anglo-Saxons, the priesthood possessed great
influence; but after the Norman Conquest, ecclesiasticism gained
greater control in England. Previous to this, a man was compelled by
law to leave his wife one-third of his property, and could leave her
as much, more as he pleased. Under ecclesiastical law he was not
permitted to will her more than one-third, and could leave her as much
less as he pleased. Glanville laid it down as a law of the kingdom
that no one was compelled to leave another person any portion of his
property, and that the part usually devised to wives was left them at
the dictate of affection and not of law.

Women were not permitted to testify in court unless on some question
especially concerning themselves. It is but twenty years since this
law was annulled in Scotland, and but three years since, that by the
influence of Signor Morelli,[187] the Parliament of Italy repealed the
old restriction upon woman's testimony.

Sisters were not allowed to inherit with brothers, the property,
according to old ecclesiastical language, going "to the worthiest of
blood." Blackstone acknowledges that this distinction between brothers
and sisters reflects shame upon England, and was no part of the old
Roman law, where the children of a family inherited equally without
distinction of sex. It is but two years since the old law of
inheritance of sons alone was repealed in one of the Swiss Cantons.
Even in this enlightened age its repeal met much opposition, men
piteously complaining that they would be ruined by this act of justice
done their sisters.

The minds of people having been corrupted through centuries by Church
doctrines regarding woman, it was an easy step for the State to aid in
her degradation. The system of Feudalism rising from the theory of
warfare as the normal condition of man, still further oppressed woman
by bringing into power a class of men accustomed to deeds of violence,
and finding their chief pleasure in the sufferings of others. To be a
woman, appealed to no instinct of tenderness in this class. To be a
woman was not to be protected even, unless she held power in her own
right, or was acting in place of some feudal lord. The whole body of
villeins and serfs were under absolute dominion of the Feudal Lords.
They were held as possessing no rights of their own: the Priest had
control of their souls, the Lord of their bodies. But it was not upon
the male serfs that the greatest oppression fell.

Although the tillage of the soil, the care of swine and cattle was
theirs, the masters claiming the half or more of everything even to
one-half the wool shorn from the flock,[188] and all exactions upon
them were great while their sense of security was slight, it was upon
their wives and daughters that the greatest outrages were inflicted.
It was a pastime of the castle retainers to fall upon peaceful
villages to the consternation of its women, who were struck, tortured,
were great, while their sense of security was slight, it was upon and
made the sport of the ribald soldiery, "Serfs of the Body," they had
no protection. The vilest outrages were perpetrated by the Feudal
Lords under the name of Rights. Women were taught by Church and State
alike, that the Feudal Lord or Seigneur had a right to them, not only
as against themselves, but as against any claim of husband or father.
The law known as _Marchetta_, or Marquette, compelled newly-married
women to a most dishonorable servitude. They were regarded as the
rightful prey of the Feudal Lord from one to three days after their
marriage, and from this custom, the oldest son of the serf was held as
the son of the lord, "as perchance it was he who begat him." From this
nefarious degradation of woman, the custom of Borough-English arose,
in which the youngest son became the heir. The original signification
of the word borough being to make secure, the peasant through
Borough-English made secure the right of his own son to what
inheritance he might leave, thus cutting off the claim of the possible
son of his hated lord. France, Germany, Prussia, England, Scotland,
and all Christian countries where feudalism existed, held to the
enforcement of Marquette. The lord deemed this right as fully his as
he did the claim to half the crops of the land, or to the half of the
wool sheared from the sheep. More than one reign of terror arose in
France from the enforcement of this law, and the uprisings of the
peasantry over Europe during the twelfth century, and the fierce
Jacquerie, or Peasant War, of the fourteenth century in France owed
their origin, among other causes, to the enforcement of these claims
by the lords upon the newly-married wife. The Edicts of Marly securing
the Seigneural Tenure in Lower Canada, transplanted that claim to
America when Canada was under the control of France.

To persons not conversant with the history of feudalism, and of the
Church for the first fifteen hundred years of its existence, it will
seem impossible that such foulness could ever have been part of
Christian civilization. That the crimes they have been trained to
consider the worst forms of heathendom could have existed in Christian
Europe, upheld by both Church and State for more than a thousand five
hundred years, will strike most people with incredulity. Such,
however, is the truth; we can but admit well-attested facts of history
how severe a blow soever they strike our preconceived beliefs.

Marquette was claimed by the Lords Spiritual[189] as well as by the
Lords Temporal. The Church, indeed, was the bulwark of this base
feudal claim. With the power of penance and excommunication in its
grasp, this feudal demand could neither have originated nor been
sustained unless sanctioned by the Church.

In Scotland, Margaret, wife of Malcolm Conmore, generally known, from
her goodness, as St. Margaret,[190] exerted her royal influence in
1057, against this degradation of her sex, but despite the royal
prohibition and the substitution of the payment of a merk in money
instead, the custom had such a foothold and appealed so strongly to
man's licentious appetite it still continued, remaining in existence
nearly seven hundred years after the royal edict against its practice.
These customs of feudalism were the customs of Christianity during
many centuries.[191] These infamous outrages upon woman were enforced
under Christian law by both Church and State.[192]

The degradation of the husband at this infringement of the lord
spiritual and temporal upon his marital right, has been pictured by
many writers, but history has been quite silent upon the despair and
shame of the wife. No hope appeared for woman anywhere. The Church,
which should have been the great conserver of morals, dragged her to
the lowest depths, through the vileness of its priestly customs. The
State, which should have defended her civil rights, followed the
example of the Church in crushing her to the earth. God Himself
seemed to have forsaken woman. Freedom for the peasants was found
alone at night. Known as the Birds of the Night, Foxes and Birds of
Prey, it was only at these night assemblages they enjoyed the least
happiness or security. Here, with wives and daughters, they met
together to talk, of their gross outrages. Out of these foul wrongs
grew the sacrifice of the "Black Mass," with woman as officiating
priestess, in which the rites of the Church were travestied in solemn
mockery, and defiance cast at that heaven which seemed to permit the
priest and lord alike to trample upon all the sacred rights of
womanhood in the names of religion and law.

During this mocking service a true sacrifice of wheat was offered to
the Spirit of the Earth who made wheat to grow, and loosened birds
bore aloft to the God of Freedom the sighs and prayers of the serfs
asking that their descendants might be free. We can not do otherwise
than regard this sacrifice as the most acceptable offering made in
that day of moral degradation, a sacrifice and prayer more holy than
all the ceremonials of the Church. This service, where woman, by
virtue of her greater despair, acted both as altar and priest, opened
by the following address and prayer: "I will come before Thine altar,
but save me, O Lord, from the faithless and violent man!" (from the
priest and the baron).[193] From these assemblages, known as "Sabbat,"
or "the Sabbath," from the old Pagan Midsummer-day sacrifice to
"Bacchus Sabiesa," rose the belief in the "Witches' Sabbath," which
for several hundred years formed a new source of accusation against
women, and sent tens of thousands of them to the most horrible death.

Not until canon or Church law had become quite engrafted upon the
civil law, did the full persecutions for witchcraft arise. A witch was
held to be a woman who had deliberately sold her soul to the Evil One,
who delighted in injuring others, and who chose the Sabbath day for
the enactment of her impious rites, and who was especially connected
with black animals; the black cat being held as her familiar in many
countries.

In looking at the history of witchcraft, we see three striking points
for consideration:

_First._ That women were chiefly accused, a wizard being seldom
mentioned.

_Second._ That man, believing in woman's inherent wickedness, and
understanding neither the mental nor the physical peculiarities of her
being, ascribed all her idiosyncrasies to witchcraft.

_Third._ That the clergy inculcated the idea that woman was in league
with the devil, and that strong intellect, remarkable beauty, or
unusual sickness, were in themselves a proof of that league.

Catholic and Protestant countries alike agreed in holding woman as the
chief accessory of the devil. Luther said, "I would have no compassion
for a witch; I would burn them all." As late as 1768, John Wesley
declared the giving up of witchcraft to be in effect giving up the
Bible. James I., on his accession to the throne, ordered the learned
work of Reginald Scot against witchcraft, to be burned in compliance
with the act of Parliament of 1603, which ratified a belief in
witchcraft over the three kingdoms. Under Henry VIII., from whose
reign the Protestant Reformation in England dates, an act of
Parliament made witchcraft felony; this act was again confirmed under
Elizabeth. To doubt witchcraft was as heretical under Protestantism as
under Catholicism.

Even the widely extolled Pilgrim Fathers brought this belief with them
when they stepped ashore at Plymouth Rock. With the "Ducking-Stool"
and the "Scarlet Letter" of shame for woman, while her companion in
sin went free, they also brought with them a belief in witches.
Richard Baxter, the "greatest of the Puritans," condemned those who
disbelieved in witchcraft as "wicked Sadducees," his work against it
adding intensity to the persecution. Cotton Mather was active in
fomenting a belief in this doctrine.

So convinced were those in power of the tendency of woman to diabolism
that the learned Sir Matthew Hale condemned two women without even
summing up the evidence. Old women, for no other reason than that they
were old, were held as most susceptible to the assaults of the devil,
and most especially endowed with supernatural powers for evil, to
doubt which was equivalent to doubting the Bible. We see a reason for
this hatred of old women, in the fact that woman was chiefly viewed
from a sensual stand-point, and when by reason of age or debility, she
no longer attracted the physical admiration of man, he looked upon her
as of no farther use to the world, and as possessing no right to life.
At one period it was very unusual for an old woman in the north of
Europe to die peaceably in her bed. The persecution against them raged
with special virulence in Scotland, where upon the act of the British
Parliament in 17--, abolishing the burning and hanging of witches, the
assembly of the Calvinistic Church of Scotland "confessed" this act of
Parliament "as a great national sin." Looked upon as a sin rather than
a crime, the Church sought its control, and when coming under its
power, witchcraft was punished with much greater severity than when
falling under lay tribunals. It proved a source of great emolument to
the Church, which was even accused of fostering it for purposes of
gain. A system of "witch finders" or "witch persecutors" arose.
Cardan, a famous Italian physician, said of them: "In order to obtain
forfeit property, the same persons acted as accusers and judges, and
invented a thousand stories as proof."

Witchcraft was as a sin almost confined to woman; a wizard was rare,
one writer saying: to every 100 witches, we find but one wizard. In
the time of Louis XIII. this proportion was greatly increased; "to one
wizard, 10,000 witches," another person declared there were 100,000
witches in France alone. Sprenger, the great Inquisitor, author of
"The Witch Hammer,"[194] through whose persecutions many countries
were flooded with victims, said, "Heresy of witches, not of wizards,
must we call it, for these latter are of very small account." No class
or condition escaped Sprenger; we read of witches of fifteen years,
and two "infernally beautiful"[195] of seventeen years.

The Parliament of Toulouse burned 400 witches at one time. Four
hundred women at one hour on the public square, dying the horrid death
of fire, for a crime which never existed save in the imagination of
those persecutors, and which grew in their imagination from a false
belief in woman's extraordinary wickedness, based upon a false theory
as to original sin. Not a Christian country but was full of the
horrors of witch persecution and violent death. Remy, Judge of Nancy,
acknowledged to having himself burnt 800 in sixteen years. Many women
were driven to suicide in fear of the torture in store for them. In
1595 sixteen of those accused by Remy, destroyed themselves rather
than fall into his terrible hands. Six hundred were burnt in one small
bishopric in one year; 900 during the same period in another. Seven
thousand lost their lives at Treves; 1,000 in the province of Como in
Italy in a single year; 500 were executed at Geneva in a single month.
Under the reign of Francis I. more than 100,000 witches are said to
have been put to death, and for hundreds of years this superstition
controlled the Church. In Scotland the most atrocious tortures were
invented, and women died "shrieking to heaven for that mercy denied
them by Christian men." One writer casually mentions seeing nine
burning in a single day's journey.

When for "witches" we read "women," we shall gain a more direct idea
of the cruelties inflicted by the Church upon woman. Friends were
encouraged to cast accusations upon friends, and rewards were offered
for conviction. From the pulpit people were exhorted to bring the
witch to justice. Husbands who had ceased to care for their wives, or
in any way found them a burden, or who for any reason wished to
dissolve the marriage tie, now found an easy method. They had but to
accuse them of witchcraft, and the marriage was dissolved by the death
of the wife at the stake. Mention is made of wives dragged by their
husbands before the arch-Inquisitor, Sprenger, by ropes around their
necks. In Protestant, as in Catholic countries, the person accused was
virtually dead. She was excommunicated from humanity; designated and
denounced as one whom all must shun, with whom none must buy or sell,
to whom no one must give food or lodging or speech or shelter; life
was not worth the living.

Besides those committing suicide, others brought to trial, tired of
life amid so many horrors, falsely accused themselves, preferring a
death by the torture of fire to a life of endless isolation and
persecution. An English woman on her way to the stake, with a
greatness of soul all must admire, freed her judges from
responsibility by saying to the people, "Do not blame my judges, I
wished to put an end to my own self. My parents kept aloof from me; my
husband had denied me. I could not live on without disgrace. I longed
for death, and so I told a lie."

Of Sir George Mackenzie, the eminent Scotch advocate, it was said:

     He went to examine some women who had confessed,[196] and one of
     them told him "under secrecie" that she had not confessed
     because she was guilty, but being a poor wretch who wrought for
     her meat, and being defined for a witch, she knew she would
     starve, for no person thereafter would give her either meat or
     lodging, and that all men would beat her and hound dogs at her,
     and therefore she desired to be out of the world, whereupon she
     wept most bitterly, and upon her knees called upon God to witness
     what she said.

The death these poor women chose to suffer rather than accept a chance
of life with the name of witch clinging to them,[197] was one of the
most painful of which we can conceive,[198] although in the diversity
of torture inflicted upon "the witch," it is scarcely possible to say
which was the least agonizing.

Not only was the persecution for witchcraft brought to New England by
the Puritans, but it has been considered and treated as a capital
offense by the laws of both Pennsylvania and New York. Trials took
place in both colonies not long before the Salem tragedy; the peaceful
Quaker, William Penn, presiding upon the bench at the time of the
trial of two Swedish women accused of witchcraft. The Grand Jury
acting under instruction given in a charge delivered by him, found
bills against them, and his skirts were only saved from the guilt of
their blood by some technical irregularity in the indictment.

Marriage with devils was long one of the most ordinary accusations in
witch trials. The knowledge of witches was admitted, as is shown in
the widely extended belief of their ability to work miracles. A large
part of the women termed witches were in reality the profoundest
thinkers, the most advanced scientists of those ages. For many hundred
years the knowledge of medicine, and its practice among the poorer
classes was almost entirely in their hands, and many discoveries in
this science are due to them; but an acquaintance with herbs soothing
to pain, or healing in their qualities, was then looked upon as having
been acquired through diabolical agency. Even those persons cured
through the instrumentality of some woman were ready when the hour
came to assert their belief in her indebtedness to the devil for that
knowledge. Not only were the common people themselves ignorant of all
science, but their brains were filled with superstitious fears, and
the belief that knowledge had been first introduced to the world
through woman's obedience to the devil. Thus the persecution which for
ages raged against witches, was in reality an attack upon science at
the hands of the Church.

The entire subordination of the common law to ecclesiasticism, dates
in England to the reign of Stephen, who ascended the throne in 1135.
Its new growth of power must be ascribed to avarice, as it then began
to take cognizance of crimes, establishing an equivalent in money for
every species of wrong-doing. The Church not only remitted penalties
for crimes already perpetrated, but sold indulgences for the
commission of new ones. Its touch upon property soon extended to all
the relations of life. Marriages within the seventh degree were
forbidden by the Church as incestuous, but those who could buy
indulgence were enabled to get a dispensation. No crime so great that
it could not be condoned for money.

Canon law gained its greatest power in the family relation in its
control over wills, the guardianship of orphans, marriage and divorce.
Under ecclesiastical law, marriage was held as a sacrament, was
performed at the church door, the wife being required to give up her
name, her person, her property, her own sacred individuality, and to
promise obedience to her husband in all things. Certain hours of the
day were even set aside as canonical after which no marriage could be
celebrated.[199] Wherever it became the basis of legislation, the laws
of succession and inheritance, and those in regard to children,
constantly sacrificed the interests of wives and daughters to those
of husbands and sons. Ecclesiastical law ultimately secured such a
hold upon family property and became so grasping in its demands, that
the civil law interfered, not, however, in the interests of wives and
children, but in the interests of creditors. Canon law had its largest
growth through the pious fictions of woman's created inferiority.

To the credit of humanity it must be said that the laity did not
readily yield to priestly power, but made many efforts to wrest their
temporal concerns from ecclesiastical control. But in the general
paucity of education, together with the abnegation of the will,
sedulously taught by the Church, which brought all its dread power to
bear in threats of excommunication and future eternal torment, the
rights of the people were gradually lost. The control of the
priesthood over all things of a temporal, as well as of a spiritual
nature, tended to make them a distinct body from the laity, and rights
were divided into those pertaining to persons and things, the rights
of persons belonging to the priesthood alone; but inasmuch as every
man, whatever his condition, could become a priest, and no woman,
however learned or pious or high in station, could, the whole tendency
of ecclesiastical law was to separate man and woman into a holy or
divine sex, and an unholy or impious sex, creating an antagonism
between those whose interests are by nature the same. Thus canon law,
bearing upon the business of ordinary life between man and man, fell
with its greatest weight upon woman; it not only corrupted the common
law in England, but perverted the civil law of other countries. The
denial under common law of the right of woman to make a contract, grew
out of the denial of her right of ownership. Not possessing control
over her own property or her future actions, she was held as legally
unable to make a binding contract.

Property is a delicate test of the condition of a nation. It is a
singular fact of history that the rights of property have everywhere
been recognized before the rights of persons, and wherever the rights
of any class to property are attacked, it is a most subtle and
dangerous assault upon personal rights. The chief restrictive element
of slavery was the denial to the slave of the proceeds of his own
labor. As soon as a slave was allowed to hire his time, the door of
freedom began to open to him. The enslavement of woman has been much
increased from the denial of the rights of property to her, not merely
to the fruits of her own labor, but to the right of inheritance.

The great school of German jurists[200] teach that ownership increases
both physical and moral capacity, and that as owner, actual or
possible, man is a more capable and worthy being than he would
otherwise be. Inasmuch as under canon law woman was debarred from
giving testimony in courts of law, sisters were prohibited from taking
an inheritance with brothers, and wives were deprived of property
rights, it is entirely justifiable to say ecclesiastical law injured
civilization by its destruction of the property rights of women.[201]

The worst features of canon law, as Blackstone frankly admits, are
those touching upon the rights of woman. These features have been made
permanent to this day by the power the Church gained over common
law,[202] between the tenth and sixteenth centuries, since which
period the complete inferiority and subordination of the female sex
has been as fully maintained by the State as by the Church. The
influence of canon law upon the criminal codes of England and America
has but recently attracted the attention of legal minds. Wharton,
whose "Criminal Law" has for years been a standard work, did not
examine their relation until his seventh edition, in which he gave a
copious array of authors, English, German, and Latin, from whom he
deduced proof that the criminal codes of these two countries are
pre-eminently based upon ecclesiastical law.

Canon law gave to the husband the power of compelling the wife's
return if, for any cause, she left him. She was then at once in the
position of an outlaw, branded as a run-away who had left her master's
service, a wife who had left "bed and board" without consent, and whom
all persons were forbidden "to harbor" or shelter "under penalty of
the law." The absconding wife was in the position of an excommunicate
from the Catholic Church, or of a woman condemned as a witch. Any
person befriending her was held accessory to the wife's theft of
herself from her husband, and rendered liable to fine and other
punishment for having helped to rob the husband (master) of his wife
(slave).

The present formula of advertising a wife, which so frequently
disgraces the press, is due to this belief in wife-ownership.

     Whereon my wife ... has left my bed and board without just cause
     or provocation, I hereby forbid all persons from harboring or
     trusting her on my account.

By old English law, in case the wife was in danger of perishing in a
storm, it was allowable "to harbor" and shelter her.

It is less than thirty years since the dockets of a court in New York
city, the great metropolis of our nation, were sullied by the suit of
a husband against parties who had received, "harbored" and sheltered
his wife after she left him, the husband recovering $10,000 damages.

Although England was Christianized in the fourth century, it was not
until the tenth that a daughter had a right to reject the husband
selected for her by her father;[203] and it was not until this same
century that the Christian wife of a Christian husband acquired the
right of eating at table with him. For many hundred years the law
entered families, binding out to servile labor all unmarried women
between the ages of eleven and forty.

For more than a thousand years women in England were legislated for as
slaves. They were imprisoned for crimes that, if committed by a man,
were punished by simple branding in the hand; and other crimes which
he could atone for by a fine, were punished in her case by burning
alive. Down to the end of the eighteenth century the punishment of a
wife who had murdered her husband was burning[204] alive; while if the
husband murdered the wife, his was hanging, "the same as if he had
murdered any stranger." Her crime was petit treason, and her
punishment was the same as that of the slave who had murdered her
master. For woman there existed no "benefit of clergy," which in a man
who could read, greatly lessened his punishment; this ability to read
enabling him to perform certain priestly functions and securing him
immunity in crime. The Church having first made woman ineligible to
the priesthood, punished her on account of the restrictions of its own
making. We who talk of the burning of wives upon the funeral pyres of
husbands in India, may well turn our eyes to the records of Christian
countries.

Where marriage is wholly or partially under ecclesiastical law,
woman's degradation surely follows; but in Catholic and Protestant
countries a more decent veil has been thrown over this sacrifice of
woman than under some forms of the Greek Church, where the wife is
delivered to the husband under this formula: "Here, wolf, take thy
lamb!" and the bridegroom is presented with a whip, giving his bride a
few blows as part of the ceremony, and bidding her draw off his boots
as a symbol of her subjugation to him. With such an entrance ceremony,
it may well be surmised that the marriage relation permits of the most
revolting tyranny. In Russia, until recently, the wife who killed her
husband while he was chastising her, was buried alive, her head only
being left above ground. Many lingered for days before the mercy of
death reached them.

Ivan Panim, a Russian exile, now a student in Harvard College, made
the following statement in a speech at the Massachusetts Woman
Suffrage Convention, held in February, 1881:

     A short time ago the wife of a well-to-do peasant came to a
     justice of one of the district courts in Russia and demanded
     protection from the cruelty of her husband. She proved
     conclusively by the aid of competent witnesses, that he had bound
     her naked to a stake during the cold weather, on the street, and
     asked the passers-by to strike her; and whenever they refused, he
     struck her himself. He fastened her, moreover, to the ground, put
     heavy stones and weights on her and broke one of her arms. The
     court declared the husband "not guilty." "It cannot afford," it
     said, "to teach woman to disobey the commands of her husband."
     This is by no means an extreme or isolated case. Few, indeed,
     become known to the public through the courts or through the
     press.[205]

Canon law made its greatest encroachments at the period that chivalry
was at its height; the outward show of respect and honor to woman
keeping pace in its false pretense with the destruction of her legal
rights. Woman's moral degradation was at this time so great that a
community of women was even proposed, and was sustained by Jean de
Meung, the "Poet of Chivalry," in his Roman de la Rose. Christine of
Pisa, the first strictly literary woman of Western Europe, took up her
pen in defense of her sex against the general libidinous spirit of the
age, writing in opposition to Meung.

Under Feudalism, under Celibacy, under Chivalry, under the
Reformation, under the principles of new sects of the nineteenth
century--the Perfectionists and Mormons alike--we find this one idea
of woman's inferiority, and her creation as a subject of man's
passions openly or covertly promulgated.

The Salic law not only denied to women the right to reign, but to the
inheritance of houses and lands. One of its famous articles was:
"Salic land shall not fall to women; the inheritance shall devolve
exclusively on the males." The fact of sex not only prohibited woman's
inheritance of thrones and of lands, but there were forms in this law
by which a man might "separate himself from his family, getting free
from all obligations of relationship and entering upon an entire
independence." History does not tell us to what depths of degradation
this disseverance of all family ties reduced the women of his
household, who could neither inherit house or land. The formation of
the Salic code is still buried in the mists of antiquity; it is,
however, variously regarded as having originated in the fourth and in
the seventh century, many laws of its code being, like English common
law, unwritten, and others showing "double origin." But our interest
does not so greatly lie in its origin, as in the fact that after the
conversion of the Franks to Christianity the law was revised, and all
parts deemed inconsistent with this religion were revoked. The
restrictions upon woman were retained.

Woman's wrongs under the Reformation, we discover by glancing at
different periods. The Cromwellian era exhibited an increase of piety.
Puritanism here had its birth, but brought no element of toleration to
woman. Lydia Maria Child, in her "History of Woman," says:

     Under the Commonwealth society assumed a new and stern aspect.
     Women were in disgrace; it was everywhere reiterated from the
     pulpit that woman caused man's expulsion from Paradise, and ought
     to be shunned by Christians as one of the greatest temptations of
     Satan. "Man," said they, "is conceived in sin and brought forth
     in iniquity; it was his complacency to woman that caused his
     first debasement; let him not, therefore, glory in his shame; let
     him not worship the fountain of his corruption." Learning and
     accomplishments were alike discouraged; and women confined to a
     knowledge of cooking, family medicines, and the unintelligible
     theological discussions of the day.

A writer about this period, said: "She that knoweth how to compound a
pudding is more desirable than she who skillfully compoundeth a poem."

At the time of the Reformation, Luther at first continued celibate,
but thinking "to vex the Pope," he suddenly, at the age of forty-two,
gave his influence against celibacy by marriage with Catherine Von
Bora, a former nun. But although thus becoming an example of priestly
marriage under the new order of things, Luther's whole course shows
that he did not believe in woman's equality with man. He took with him
the old theory of her subordination. It was his maxim that "no gown or
garment worse becomes a woman than that she will be wise." Although
opposing monastic life, the home under the reformation was governed by
many of its rules for woman.

_First_. She was to be under obedience to the masculine head of the
household.

_Second_. She was to be constantly employed for his benefit.

_Third_. Her society was strictly chosen for her by her master and
head.

_Fourth_. This masculine family head was a general father confessor,
to whom she was held responsible in thought and deed.

_Fifth_. Neither genius nor talent could free woman from such control,
without consent.

Luther, though free from the lasciviousness of the old priesthood, was
not monogamic in principle. When applied to by the German Elector,
Philip,[206] Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel, for permission to marry a
second wife, while his first, Margaret of Savoy, was still living,
Luther called a synod of six of the principal reformers, who in joint
consultation decided that as the Bible nowhere condemned polygamy, and
as it had been invariably practiced by the highest dignitaries of the
Church, the required permission should be granted. History does not
tell us that the wife was consulted in the matter. She was held as in
general subordination to the powers that be, as well as in special
subordination to her husband; but more degrading than all else is the
fact that the doctrine of unchastity for man was brought into the
Reformation, as not inconsistent with the principles of the
Gospel.[207]

Many Protestant divines have written in favor of polygamy. John Lyser,
a Lutheran minister, living in the latter part of the seventeenth
century, defended it strongly in a work entitled "Polygamia
Triumphatrix." A former general of the Capuchin Order, converted to
the Protestant faith, published, in the sixteenth century, a book of
"Dialogues in Favor of Polygamy." Rev. Mr. Madan, a Protestant divine,
in a treatise called "Thalypthora," maintained that Paul's injunctions
that bishops should be the husbands of one wife, signified that laymen
were permitted to marry more than one. The scholarly William Ellery
Channing could find no prohibition of polygamy in the New Testament.
In his "Remarks on the Character and Writings of John Milton," he
says: "We believe it to be an indisputable fact, that although
Christianity was first preached in Asia, which had been from the
earliest days the seat of polygamy, the apostles never denounced it as
a crime, and never required their converts to put away all wives but
one. No express prohibition of polygamy is found in the New
Testament." The legitimate result of such views is seen in Mormonism,
the latest Protestant sect, which claims its authority from the Bible
as well as from the Book of Mormon. We give the remarks recently made
in defence of polygamy by Bishop Lunt of the Mormon Church, to a
reporter of _The San Francisco Chronicle_:

     God revealed to Joseph Smith the polygamous system. It is quite
     true that his widow declared that no such revelation was ever
     made, but that was because she had lost the spirit. God commanded
     the human race to multiply and replenish the earth. Abraham had
     two wives, and the Almighty honored the second one by a direct
     communication, Jacob had Leah and Zilpah. David had a plurality
     of wives, and was a man after God's own heart. God gave him
     Saul's wives, and only condemned his adulteries. Moses, Gideon,
     and Joshua had each a plurality of wives. Solomon had wives and
     concubines by hundreds, though we do not believe in the concubine
     system. We leave that to the Gentiles. Virtue and chastity wither
     beneath the monogamic institution, which was borrowed from the
     pagan nations by the early Christians. It was prophesied that in
     the latter days seven women would lay hold of one man and demand
     to bear his name, that they might not be held in dishonor. The
     Protestants and Catholics assail us with very poor grace when it
     is remembered that the first pillars of the religion they claim
     to profess were men like the saints of Utah--polygamists. The
     fact can not be denied. Polygamy is virtually encouraged and
     taught by example by the Old Testament. It may appear shocking
     and blasphemous to Gentiles for us to say so, but we hold that
     Jesus Christ himself was a polygamist. He was surrounded by women
     constantly, as the Scriptures attest, and those women were His
     polygamous wives. The vast disparity between the sexes in all
     settled communities is another argument in favor of polygamy, to
     say nothing of the disinclination among young male Gentiles to
     marrying. The monogamic system condemns millions of women to
     celibacy. A large proportion of them stray from the path of
     right, and these unfortunates induce millions of men to forego
     marriage. As I have said, virtue and chastity wither under the
     monogamic system.

     There are no illegitimate children in Utah; there are no
     libertines; there are no brothels, excepting where the presence
     of Gentiles creates the demand for them. Even then our people do
     what they can to root out such places. There is a positive
     advantage in having more than one wife. It is impossible to find
     a Gentile home, where comforts and plenty prevail, in which there
     is only one woman. No one woman can manage a household. She must
     have assistance. Hence we claim that when a man marries a second
     wife, he actually benefits the first one, and contributes to her
     ease, and relieves her of a large burden of care. The duties of
     the household are divided between the two women, and everything
     moves on harmoniously and peacefully. The whole thing is a matter
     of education. A girl reared under the monogamic system may look
     with abhorrence on ours; our young women do not do so. They
     expect, when they marry a man, that he will some day take another
     wife, and they consider it quite natural that he should do so. In
     wealthy Gentile communities the concubine system largely takes
     the place of the polygamous system. Any man of intelligence,
     observation, and travel, knows that such is the case. The fact is
     ignored by general consent, and little is said about it, and
     nothing is written about it. It is not regarded as a proper
     subject of conversation or of publication. How much better to
     give lonely women a home while they are uncontaminated, and honor
     them with your name, and perpetually provide for them, and before
     the world recognize your own offspring! The polygamous system is
     the only natural one, and the time rapidly approaches when it
     will be the most conspicuous and beneficent of American
     institutions. It will be the grand characteristic feature of
     American society. Our women are contented with it--more, they are
     the most ardent defenders of it to be found in Utah. If the
     question were put to a vote to-morrow, nine-tenths of the women
     of Utah would vote to perpetuate polygamy.

The Mormons claim that polygamy is countenanced by the New Testament
as well as by the Old. They interpret Paul's teaching in regard to
bishops, while commanding them to marry one wife, as also not
prohibiting them from marrying more than one; their interpretation of
this passage slightly varying from that of Rev. Mr. Madan.

Rev. C. P. Lyford, of the Methodist Church, long a resident of Utah,
in a letter of February 19, 1881, to _The Northern Christian
Advocate_, a Methodist paper published in Syracuse, says:

     We read of the stories of India and China, and the wonder of
     their existence is lost in their antiquity. Mohammedanism, with
     its 1,200 years of existence, amazes us that it should have
     obtained such a footing. But here, in our day, surrounded with
     all the advantages of the nineteenth century, that a people
     should have come up from nothing; that a man of low family,
     himself a worthless character, should have come up with a lie in
     his mouth and a stolen manuscript in his hand, and be found
     dictating terms to a strong government, and become an absolute
     despot in a republic, is the most amazing fact of history. It
     took the Methodist Church forty years to get a membership of
     138,000. Mormonism in forty-four years counted 250,000. It seems
     incredible, nevertheless it is a fact. In this brief space of
     time it has also been able to nullify our laws, oppose our
     institutions, openly perpetrate crimes, be represented in
     Congress, boast of the helplessness of the nation to prevent
     these things, and give the Church supremacy over the State and
     the people. Bills introduced in Congress adequate to their
     overthrow have been year after year allowed to fall to the ground
     without action upon them.

     Our public men can only pronounce against the crime of polygamy;
     the press can see only polygamy in Utah; the public mind is
     impressed with only the heinousness of polygamy. Back of polygamy
     is the tree that produces it and many kindred evils more dear to
     the Mormon rulers. They do not care for all the sentiment or law
     against this one fruit of the tree, if the tree itself is left to
     stand. The tree--the prolific cause of so many and so great evils
     in Utah, the greatest curse of the territory, the strength of
     Mormonism, and its impregnable wall of defence against
     Christianity and civilization, is that arbitrary, despotic, and
     absolute hierarchy known as the Mormon Priesthood.

Mr. Lyford has partial insight into the truth when he says "back of
polygamy is the tree that produces it and many kindred evils"; but in
defining that tree as the hierarchy--the priesthood--he has not
reached the entire truth. He does not touch the ground which supports
the tree. Polygamy is but one development of the doctrine of woman's
created inferiority, the constant tendency of which is to make her a
mere slave, under every form of religion extant, and of which the
complex marriage of the Oneida Community was but another logical
result.

When woman interprets the Bible for herself, it will be in the
interest of a higher morality, a purer home. Monogamy is woman's
doctrine, as polygamy is man's. Backofen, the Swiss jurist, says that
the regulation of marriage by which, in primitive times, it became
possible for a woman to belong only to one man, came about by a
religious reformation, wherein the women, in armed conflict, obtained
a victory over men.

In Christian countries to-day, the restrictions on woman in the
married relation are much greater than upon man.[208] Adultery, which
is polygamy outside of the married relation, is everywhere held as
more venial in man than in woman. In England, while the husband can
easily obtain a divorce from his wife, upon the ground of adultery, it
is almost impossible for the wife to obtain a divorce upon the same
ground. Nothing short of the husband's bringing another woman into the
house, to sustain wifely relations to him, at all justifies her in
proceeding for a separation; and even then, the husband retains
control of the wife's property. A trial[209] in England is scarcely
ended in which a husband willed his wife's property to his mistress
and illegitimate children. The courts not only decided in his favor,
but to this legal robbery of the wife, added the insult of telling her
that a part of her own money was enough for her, and that she ought to
be willing that her husband's mistress and illegitimate children
should share it with her.

Milton's "Paradise Lost" is responsible for many existing views in
regard to woman. After the Reformation, as women began to waken to
literature, came Milton, a patriot of patriots--as patriots were held
in those days, a man who talked of liberty for men--but who held man
to stand in God's place toward woman. Although it has been affirmed
that in his blindness Milton dictated his great epic to his daughters,
and a Scotch artist has painted the scene (a picture recently
purchased by the Lenox Library), yet this is one of the myths men call
history, and amuse themselves in believing. This tale of blind Milton
dictating "Paradise Lost" to his daughters, is a trick[210] designed
to play upon our sympathies. Old Dr. Johnson said of Milton, that he
would not allow his daughters[211] even to learn to write. Between
Milton and his wives, we know there was tyranny upon one side and
hatred on the other. He could not gain the love of either wife or
daughter, and yet he is the man who did so much to popularize the idea
of woman's subordination to man. "He, for God; she, for God in
him"--as taught in the famous line: "God thy law, thou mine."

That the clerical teaching of woman's subordination to man was not
alone a doctrine of the dark ages, is proven by the most abundant
testimony of to-day. The famous See trial of 1876, which shook not
only the Presbytery of Newark, but the whole Synod of New Jersey, and
finally, the General Presbyterian Assembly of the United States, was
based upon the doctrine of the divinely appointed subordination of
woman to man, and arose simply because Dr. See admitted two
ladies[212] to his pulpit to speak upon temperance; which act, Rev.
Dr. Craven, the prosecutor, declared to have been "an indecency in the
sight of Jehovah." He expressed the general clerical and Church view,
when he said:

     I believe the subject involves the honor of my God. I believe the
     subject involves the headship and crown of Jesus. Woman was made
     for man and became first in the transgression. My argument is
     that subordination is natural, the subordination of sex. Dr. See
     has admitted marital subordination, but this is not enough; there
     exists a created subordination; a divinely arranged and appointed
     subordination of woman as woman, to man as man. Woman was made
     for man and became first in the transgression. The proper
     condition of the adult female is marriage; the general rule for
     ladies is marriage. Women without children, it might be said,
     could preach, but they are under the general rule of
     subordination. It is not allowed women to speak in the Church.
     Man's place is on the platform. It is positively base for a woman
     to speak in the pulpit; it is base in the sight of Jehovah. The
     whole question is one of subordination.

Thus, before a large audience composed mainly of women, Dr. Craven
stood, and with denunciatory manner, frequently bringing his fists or
his Bible emphatically down, devoted a four hours' speech to proving
that the Bible taught woman's subordination; one of his statements
being that "in every country, under every clime, from the peasant
woman of Naples with a handkerchief over her hair, to the women before
him with bonnets, every one wore something upon her head in token of
her subordination." Dr. Craven's position was fully sustained by many
brother clergymen, some of whom enthusiastically shouted "Amen!"

Dr. Ballantine considered the subject too simple for an argument. Dr.
Few Smith, although he admired Miss Smiley, more than almost any other
orator he had ever listened to, did not want her or any other woman to
permanently occupy the Presbyterian pulpit. Dr. Wilson rejoiced to see
so many women crowding in the lecture-room; but Brother See should not
take all the glory to himself. He was glad to see the women take so
deep an interest in the subject under discussion; but as he looked at
them he asked himself, "What will all the little children do, while
these women are away from home?"[213]

The Christianity of to-day thus continues to teach the existence of a
superior and an inferior sex within the Church, possessing different
rights, and held accountable to a different code of morals, when even
woman's dress is held as typical of her inferiority. Not alone did Dr.
Craven express this idea, but the Right Rev. Dr. Coxe refused the
sacrament to the lady patients at the Clifton Springs Sanitarium in
1868, whose heads were uncovered. This same Right Rev. Dr. Coxe, in a
speech at his installation as first President of Ingham Seminary for
young ladies, declared "the laws of God to be plainly Salic."

Rev. Knox-Little, a High-Church clergyman of England, spent a few
weeks in the United States during the fall of 1880. In the course of
his stay in Philadelphia he preached a "Sermon to Women," in the large
church of St. Clements. The following extract from the report in the
Times of that city shows its teachings:

     "God made himself to be born of a woman to sanctify the virtue of
     endurance; loving submission is an attribute of woman; men are
     logical, but women lacking this quality, have an intricacy of
     thought. There are those who think women can be taught logic;
     this is a mistake. They can never by any power of education
     arrive at the same mental status as that enjoyed by men, but they
     have a quickness of apprehension, which is usually called leaping
     at conclusions, that is astonishing. There, then, we have
     distinctive traits of a woman, namely, endurance, loving
     submission, and quickness of apprehension. Wifehood is the
     crowning glory of a woman. In it she is bound for all time. To
     her husband she owes the duty of unqualified obedience. There is
     no crime which a man can commit which justifies his wife in
     leaving him or applying for that monstrous thing, divorce. It is
     her duty to subject herself to him always, and no crime that he
     can commit can justify her lack of obedience. If he be a bad or
     wicked man she may gently remonstrate with him, but refuse him
     never. Let divorce be anathema; curse it; curse this accursed
     thing, divorce; curse it, curse it! Think of the blessedness of
     having children. I am the father of many children and there have
     been those who have ventured to pity me, 'Keep your pity for
     yourself,' I have replied. 'They never cost me a single pang.' In
     this matter let woman exercise that endurance and loving
     submission which with intricacy of thought are their only
     characteristics."

Such a sermon as the above, preached to woman, under the fall blaze of
nineteenth century civilization, needs few comments. In it woman's
inferiority and subordination are as openly asserted as at any time
during the dark ages. According to Rev. Knox-Little, woman possesses
no responsibility; she is deprived of conscience, intelligent thought,
self-respect, and is simply an appendage to man, a thing. As the
clergy in the middle ages divided rights into those of persons and
things, themselves being the persons, the laity, things, so the Rev.
Knox-Little and his ilk of to-day divide the world into persons and
things,--men being the persons and women the things.

It should require but little thought upon woman's part to see how
closely her disabilities are interwoven with present religious belief
as to her inferiority and pre-destined subordination. If she needs aid
to thought, the Knox-Littles will help her. Have protests against his
blasphemous doctrine been made by his brother clergymen? Not one. Has
a single church denied his degrading theory? Not one. He has been
allowed in this sermon to stand as the representative, not only of
High-Church theology in regard to woman, but as expressing the belief
of all churches in her creation and existence as an inferior and
appendage to man.

There is scarcely a Protestant sect that has not, within a few years,
in some way, placed itself upon record in regard to woman's
subordination. The Pan-Presbyterian Council that assembled in
Edinburgh a few years since, refused to admit a woman even as a
listener to its proceedings, although women constitute at least
two-thirds of the membership of that Church. A solitary woman who
persisted in remaining to listen to the discussions of this body, was
removed by force; "six stalwart Presbyterians" lending their ungentle
aid to her ejection. The same Pan-Presbyterian body when in session in
Philadelphia in the summer of 1880, laughed to scorn the suggestion of
a liberal member, that the status of woman in the Church should
receive some consideration. The speaker referred to the Sisters of
Charity in the Catholic Church, and to the position of woman among the
Quakers; but although the question was twice introduced, it was as
often met with derisive laughter, and no action was taken upon it. A
vote of the New England Society of Friends at their meeting in
Newport, 1878, proves that as liberal as they have been considered
toward woman, even they have not in the past held her as upon a plane
of perfect equality. This body voted that hereafter "women shall be
eligible to office in the management of the Society, shall sign all
conveyances of real estate made by the Society, and shall be
considered equal to the opposite sex."

The Congregational Church is placed upon record through laws governing
certain of its bodies:

     "By the word 'church' is meant the adult males duly admitted and
     retained in the First Evangelical Congregational Church in
     Cambridgeport, present at any regular meeting of said church and
     voting by a majority."[214]

In the Unitarian and Universalist churches, which ordain women to
preach and administer the ordinances, these women pastors are made to
feel that the innovation is not universally acceptable.

The Methodist Church, professing to stand upon a broad basis, still
refuses to ordain its most influential women preachers, and, within
the year, has even deprived them of license, though one of them[215]
has brought more converts to the Church than a dozen of its most
influential bishops during the same period. To such bitter lengths has
the opposition to woman's ordination been carried, that a certain
reverend gentlemen, in debating the subject, declared that he would
oppose the admission of the mother of our Lord into the ministry, the
debate taking on a most unseemly form. The _Syracuse Sunday Morning
Courier_ of March 4, 1877, reported this debate as follows:

                           WOMEN AS PREACHERS.

     The subject of permitting women to preach in Methodist pulpits
     was incidentally, but rather racily discussed at the Methodist
     ministers' meeting in New York city a few days since. A Miss
     Oliver--a more or less reverend lady--had been invited to preach
     to the ministers at their next meeting, and the question was
     raised, by what authority she was invited? Thereupon Brother
     Buckley took the floor and gave expression to his dissent in the
     following terms:

     I am opposed to inviting any woman to preach before this meeting.
     If the mother of our Lord were on earth I should oppose her
     preaching here. [Sensation and murmurs of disapproval]. Oh, I do
     not mind that, I like at the beginning of a speech to find that
     there are two sides to my question. There is no power in the
     Methodist Church by which a woman can be licensed to preach; this
     is history, this is the report made at the last General
     Conference. It is, therefore, not legal for any quarterly
     conference to license a woman to preach, nevertheless here is a
     woman who claims to have such a license, and we are asked to
     invite her to preach.

     A BROTHER: We have the right!

     BROTHER BUCKLEY: Oh, you have the right to believe the moon is
     made of green cheese, but yet have no right to commit the
     ministers of this city on an unsettled Church question. [Laughter
     and applause]. The tendency of men--now here is a chance to
     hiss--the tendency of men to endeavor to force female preachers
     on the Church, and the desire to run after female preachers, is,
     as Dr. Finney said to the students at Oberlin, an aberration of
     amativeness. [Roars of laughter and applause]. When men are moved
     by women, then by men under the same circumstances, it is
     certainly due to an aberration of amativeness. [Applause and
     more laughter]. For some time the male and female students at
     Oberlin used to have their prayer-meetings together, but after a
     time they divided, and the young men complained to Dr. Finney
     that the Holy Ghost no longer came with equal force. Dr. Finney
     said this showed amativeness, or that the men were back-sliding.
     [Applause].

     BROTHER DICKINSON: As to the talk of amativeness, what about our
     holiness meetings and seaside meetings, where we go to hear
     woman, and to be moved by her words and her personality?
     [Applause]. Why are there so many women in the Church? It must be
     amativeness which urges them to go and hear men preach.
     [Laughter].

     Dr. ROACH: If this meeting has any dignity, has any Christian
     intelligence, has any weight of character, it ought not to take
     this action. [Laughter]. What wildness, what fanaticism, what
     strange freaks will we not take on next? [Laughter and applause].

     Brother McAllister and others took part in the discussion, and
     finally, amid cries of "Motion," "Question," points of order, and
     the utmost confusion, the question was put, and the meeting
     refused to invite Miss Oliver to preach by a vote of 46 to 38.
     The result was received with ejaculations of "Amen" and "Thank
     God" and "God bless Brother Buckley." The Chair announced that
     Brother Kittrell will preach next Monday on "Entire
     Satisfaction," and the meeting adjourned.

Miss Oliver appealed to the General Conference of the Methodist
Episcopal Church in session in Cincinnati, May, 1880, for full
installment and ordination. In this appeal she said:

     I am so thoroughly convinced that the Lord has laid commands upon
     me in this direction, that it becomes with me a question of my
     own soul's salvation. I have passed through tortures to which the
     flames of martyrdom would be nothing, for they would end in a
     day; and through all this time, and to-day, I could turn off to
     positions of comparative ease and profit. I ask you, fathers and
     brethren, tell me what you would do in my place? Tell me what you
     would wish the Church to do toward you, were you in my place?
     Please apply the golden rule, and vote in Conference accordingly.

As answer to this appeal, and in reply to all women seeking the
ministry of that Church, the Conference passed the following
resolution:

     _Resolved_, That women have already all the rights and privileges
     in the Methodist Church that are good for them, and that it is
     not expedient to make any change in the books of discipline that
     would open the doors for their ordination to the ministry.[216]

An Episcopal Church Convention meeting in Boston in the summer of
1877, busied itself in preparing canons upon marriage and divorce,
thus aiming to reach the finger of the Protestant Church down to a
control of this most private family relation. The Diocesan Convention
of South Carolina, in the spring of 1878, denied women the right to
vote upon Church matters, although some churches in the diocese
counted but five male members.

Not alone in her request for ordination has woman met with opposition,
but in her effort for any separate church work. The formation of
woman's foreign missionary societies was bitterly opposed by the
different evangelical denominations, although they have raised more
money than the male societies have ever been able to do--even helping
them pay old debts--and have reached large classes of their own sex
whom the male societies were powerless to touch. By thus supplementing
men's work, they have made themselves acceptable.

Not only do councils, convocations, conferences, conventions, synods,
and assemblies proclaim woman's inferiority, but Sunday-schools teach
the same doctrine. A letter from a correspondent of _The National
Citizen and Ballot-Box_ (Syracuse, N. Y.), in August, 1880, said:

     Our Sunday-schools here have just finished the lesson on the
     creation and fall of man, and those of us who are capable of
     feeling, felt keenly the thrusts at woman for her infidelity to
     God's laws, and her overpowering influence in dragging man from
     his exalted position in life into a bondage of sin and death, and
     that she is to be held responsible for all the accumulated sins
     of the ages. One man said that "had not Eve been _lurking_ around
     where she had no business, the devil would never have tempted
     her." Another said, "Had it not been for woman, we might to-day
     be living in ease and splendor," and I listened to hear them say
     the fallen angel was a woman.

This same doctrine is taught in the public schools. _The Republican_,
of Havre de Grace, Maryland, in its issue of August 6, 1880, gave the
following report of a speech at that time:

     Thus spoke Master Showell at the Berlin (Wicomico County)
     High-School commencement: "By woman was Eden lost and man cursed.
     If you trust her, give up all hopes of heaven. She can not love,
     because she is too selfish. She may have a fancy, but that is
     fleeting. Her smiles are deceit; her vows are traced in sand. She
     is a thread of candor with a web of wiles. Her charity is
     hypocrisy; she is deception every way--hair, teeth, complexion,
     heart, tongue, and all. Oh, I hate you, ye cold composition of
     art!"

Sermons are frequently preached in opposition to woman's demand for
equality of right in Church and State. On the Sunday following the
Thirtieth Anniversary Woman Suffrage Convention, held in Rochester,
1878, the Rev. A. H. Strong, D.D., President of the Baptist
Theological Seminary of that city, preached upon "Woman's Place and
Work," saying:

     In the very creation of mankind in the garden of beauty, God
     ordained the subordination of woman.

This president of a theological seminary, where Christian theology is
taught to embryo Christian ministers, said that woman's subordination
would be most perfectly seen in the "Christian humility and gentleness
and endurance of her character, and in her indisposition to assume the
place or do the work of man," forgetting, apparently, that
subordination, humility, and endurance are precisely the qualities
which tend to destroy nobleness of character.

The sermon was especially directed against the following resolutions
of this Convention, which throughout the country met much clerical
criticism and opposition:

     _Resolved_, That as the duty of every individual is
     self-development, the lessons of self-sacrifice and obedience
     taught women by the Christian Church have been fatal, not only to
     her own highest interests, but through her have also dwarfed and
     degraded the race.

     _Resolved_, That the fundamental principle of the Protestant
     Reformation, the right of individual conscience and judgment in
     the interpretation of Scripture, heretofore conceded to and
     exercised by man alone, should now be claimed by woman, and that
     in her most vital interests she should no longer trust authority,
     but be guided by her own reason.

     _Resolved_, That it is through the perversion of the religious
     element in woman, cultivating the emotions at the expense of her
     reason, playing upon her hopes and fears of the future, holding
     this life, with all its high duties, forever in abeyance to that
     which is to come, that she, and the children she has trained,
     have been so completely subjugated by priestcraft and
     superstition.

Professor Christlieb, a distinguished German clergyman who was in
attendance upon the Evangelical Alliance in New York, a few years
since, expressed severe condemnation of the marriage relation as he
saw it in this country. His criticism is a good exemplification of the
general religious view taken of woman's relation to man. After his
return to Germany, a young American student called, it is related,
upon the professor with a note of introduction, and was cordially
received by the German, who, while he praised this country, expressed
much solicitude about its future. On being asked his reasons, he
frankly expressed his opinion that "the Spirit of Christ" was not
here, and proceeded to illustrate his meaning. He seriously declared
that on more than one occasion he had heard an American woman say to
her husband, "Dear, will you bring me my shawl?" and the husband had
brought it! Worse than this, he had seen a husband, returning home at
evening, enter the parlor where his wife was sitting--perhaps in the
very best chair in the room--and the wife not only did not go and get
his slippers and dressing-gown, but she even remained seated, and left
him to find a chair as he could. In the view of this noted German
clergyman, the principles of the wife's equality with the husband, as
shown in the American home, is destructive of Christian
principles.[217]

Clerical action to-day, proves woman to hold the same place in the
eyes of the Church that she did during the dark ages. Woman is as
fully degraded, taking into consideration our civilization, as she
ever was. The form alone has changed. She is no longer burned at the
stake as a witch; she is no longer prostituted to feudal lords. The
age has outgrown a belief in the supernatural, and feudalism is dead;
yet the same principle which degraded her five hundred or a thousand
years since, still exists, even though its manifestation is not the
same. The feminine principle is still looked upon as secondary and
inferior,[218] though all the facts of nature and science prove it to
extend throughout creation.

It is through the Church idea of woman that the press of the world is
filled with scandals like the one that recently agitated the Romish
Church, in which the dead Cardinal Antonelli's name was bandied about
in courts of law. It is through Church interpretation of woman's
position that the suit of his putative daughter, the Countess
Lambertina, for his property, was decided against her on the ground
that she was "a sacrilegious child." The person who commits sacrilege
steals sacred things. "Sacrilegious" means violating sacred things. "A
sacrilegious child" is a child who "violated sacred things" by coming
into existence. Her father was holy; he did not violate holy things
when he violated and ruined a woman's life. He committed no sacrilege
in the eyes of the Church. His sin was nothing; but the unfortunate
result of his sin was a violation of holy things by the mere fact of
her coming into existence. What irony of all that is called holy!

It is because the Church has taught that woman was created solely for
man, that in tearing asunder a recent will in New York, it was proven
that the husband, indebted though he was to his wife for the beginning
of his vast fortune, incarcerated her while sane in a lunatic asylum,
because she objected to his practical polygamy by his introduction of
a mistress into the family.

Political despotism has now its strongest hold in the theory of
woman's created subordination. Woman has been legislated for as a
class, and not as a human being upon a basis of equality with man, but
as an inferior to whom a different code was applicable.

Our recent Secretary of State, William M. Evarts, when counsel in the
Beecher-Tilton trial, defined woman's legal and theological position
as that of subordination to man, declaring that notwithstanding
changing customs and the amenities of modern life, women were not
free, but were held in the hollow of man's hand, to be crushed at his
will.

     Then Mr. Evarts read from various legal authorities instances and
     opinions bearing upon the subjugation of weak wives by strong
     husbands, the gist of them being that confessions of guilt
     obtained by such husbands from such wives are not entitled to
     great weight. He continued:

                  RECOGNIZING THE PRINCIPLES OF MARRIAGE.

     This institution of marriage, framed in our nature, built up in
     our civilization, studied, contemplated, understood by the
     jurisprudence of ages, is a solid and real institution, and for
     its great benefits, and as a necessary part of them, it carries
     not only the fact of the wife's subordination to the husband, but
     of the merciful interpretation of that subordination[219] which
     sensible, instructed men ever accord in practical life, and which
     the judges pronounce from the bench, and the juries confirm by
     their verdicts. Now, gentlemen, you may think that is our
     advanced civilization, when so much of independence is assumed
     for women, and such entire equality is accorded to them in
     feeling and in sentiment by their husbands and by the world, that
     the old rule of the common law interpreting this institution of
     marriage, by which a wife was never held responsible to the law,
     or subject to punishment for any crime committed in the presence
     or under the influence of her husband, was one of those traits of
     human nature belonging to ruder ages and to past times; but,
     gentlemen, in our own Court of Appeals, and in the highest
     tribunals of England, within the last few years, there is an
     explicit recognition of these principles.

     Mr. Evarts cited an English case in which a wife, who
     participated in a robbery under the guidance of her husband, was
     acquitted on the ground that she was irresponsible; and he added
     an argument that the principle of law involved was correct. Then
     he called attention to a recent case in this State, which he held
     was a confirmation of the same sound theory.

The teachings of the Church that it was sinful for woman to use her
own reason, to think for herself, to question authority, thus
fettering her will, together with a false interpretation of Scripture,
have been the instruments to hold her, body and soul, in a slavery
whose depths of degradation can never be fathomed, whose indescribable
tortures can never be understood by man.

Not only has woman suffered in the Church, in society, under the laws,
and in the family by this theological degradation of her sex, but in
science and literature she has met a like fate. Hypatia, who succeeded
her father, Theon, in the government of the Alexandrian school, and
whose lectures were attended by the wisest men of Europe, Asia, and
Africa, was torn in pieces by a Christian mob afraid of her learning.

A monument erected to Catherine Sawbridge Macaulay, as "Patroness of
Liberty," was removed from the Church by order of its rector. Harriet
Martineau met the most strenuous opposition from bishops in her effort
to teach the poor; her day-schools and even her Sunday-schools were
broken up by clerical influence. Madam Pepe-Carpentier, founder of the
French system of primary instruction, of whom Froebel caught his
kindergarten idea, found her labors interrupted, and her life harassed
by clerical opposition.

Mary Somerville, the most eminent English mathematician of this
century, was publicly denounced in church by Dean Cockburn, of York;
and when George Eliot died a few weeks since, her lifeless remains
were refused interment in Westminster Abbey, where so many inferior
authors of the privileged sex lie buried; the grave even not covering
man's efforts toward the degradation of woman.

When Susannah Wesley dared to conduct religious services in her own
house, and to pray for the king, contrary to her husband's wishes, he
separated from her in consequence. The husband of Annie Besant left
her because she dared to investigate the Scriptures for herself, and
was sustained by the courts in taking from her the control of her
little daughter, simply because the mother thought best not to train
her in a special religious belief, but to allow her to wait until her
reason developed, that she might decide her religious views for
herself. A woman writing in the "Woman's Kingdom" department of The
_Chicago Inter-Ocean_, says:

     The orthodox Church has been almost suicidal in its treatment of
     women (and I write as one whose name still stands on the
     membership list of the Presbyterian Church). Persons who have not
     walked with wounded, lacerated hearts through the terrible
     realities, can form no idea of the suffering occasioned young
     women whose conscience summoned them to speak for temperance and
     woman suffrage, by the persecutions encountered in the Church. We
     have known clergymen come straight from the pulpit where they
     have talked eloquently of "moral courage," of the heroism of
     Martin Luther and Calvin and Wesley, and even of Garrison and
     Harriet Beecher Stowe, to meet with a sneer some brave young
     woman, who, with the same moral courage was proclaiming the truth
     as revealed unto her. Our young women have been denied admittance
     into theological schools; they have been compelled to go out into
     the by-ways and hedges; they have been persecuted for
     righteousness' sake. The Church has decreed that two-thirds of
     its members shall be governed by the masculine one-third; but
     despite this decision, woman will preach and the world will
     listen.

Not only has woman recognized her own degradation, but the
largest-hearted men have also seen it. Thomas W. Higginson, in an
address at the anniversary of the Young Men's Christian Union, in New
York City, as long ago as 1858, in an address upon women in Christian
civilization, said:

     No man can ever speak of the position of woman so mournfully as
     she has done it for herself. Charlotte Bronte, Caroline Norton,
     and indeed the majority of intellectual women, from the beginning
     to the end of their lives, have touched us to sadness even in
     mirth, and the mournful memoirs of Mrs. Siddons, looking back
     upon years when she had been the chief intellectual joy of
     English society, could only deduce the hope, "that there might be
     some other world hereafter, where justice would be done to
     woman."

The essayist, E. P. Whipple, in a recent speech before the Papyrus
Club of Boston, said of George Eliot:

     The great masculine creators and delineators of human character,
     Homer, Cervantes, Shakespeare, Goeethe, Scott, and the rest, cheer
     and invigorate us even in the vivid representation of our common
     humanity in its meanest, most stupid, most criminal forms. Now
     comes a woman endowed not only with their large discourse of
     reason, their tolerant views of life, and their intimate
     knowledge of the most obscure recesses of the human heart and
     brain, but with a portion of that rich, imaginative humor which
     softens the savageness of the serious side of life by a quick
     perception of its ludicrous side, and the result of her survey of
     life is, that she depresses the mind, while the men of genius
     animate it, and that she saddens the heart, while they fill it
     with hopefulness and joy. I do not intend to solve a problem so
     complicated as this, but I would say, as some approach to an
     explanation, that this remarkable woman was born under the wrath
     and curse of what our modern philosophers call "heredity." She
     inherited the results of man's dealings with woman during a
     thousand generations of their life together.

Contempt for woman, the result of clerical teaching, is shown in
myriad forms. Wife-beating is still so common, even in America, that a
number of the States have of late introduced bills especially directed
to the punishment of the wife-beater. Great surprise is frequently
shown by these men when arrested. "Is she not my wife?" is cried in
tones proving the brutal husband had been trained to consider this
relationship a sufficient justification for any abuse.

In England, wives are still occasionally led to the market by a halter
around the neck to be sold by the husband to the highest bidder.[220]
George Borrow, in his singular narrative, "The Rommany Rye," says:

     The sale of a wife with a halter around her neck is still a legal
     transaction in England. The sale must be made in the cattle
     market, as if she were a mare, "all women being considered as
     mares by old English law, and indeed called 'mares' in certain
     counties where genuine old English is still preserved."

It is the boast of America and Europe that woman holds a higher
position in the world of work under Christianity than under pagandom.
Heathen treatment of woman in this respect often points the moral and
adorns the tale of returned missionaries, who are apparently forgetful
that servile labor[221] of the severest and most degrading character
is performed by Christian women in highly Christian countries. In
Germany, where the Reformation had its first inception, woman carries
a hod of mortar up steep ladders to the top of the highest buildings;
or, with a coal basket strapped to her back, climbs three or four
flights of stairs, her husband remaining at the foot, pipe in mouth,
awaiting her return to load the hod or basket, that she may make
another ascent, the payment for her work going into the husband's
hands for his uncontrolled use. Or mayhap this German wife works in
the field harnessed by the side of a cow, while her husband-master
holds the plough and wields the whip. Or perhaps, harnessed with a
dog, she serves the morning's milk, or drags her husband home from
work at night.

In France women act as porters, carrying the heaviest burdens and
performing the most repulsive labors at the docks, while eating food
of so poor a quality that the lessening stature of the population
daily shows the result. In Holland and Prussia women drag barges on
the canal, and perform the most repulsive agricultural duties. On the
Alps[222] husbands borrow and lend their wives, one neighbor not
scrupling to ask the loan of another's wife to complete some farming
task, which loan is readily granted, with the understanding that the
favor is to be returned in kind. In England, scantily clothed women
work by the side of nude men in coal pits, and, harnessed to trucks,
perform the severe labor of dragging coal up inclined planes to the
mouth of the pit, a work testing every muscle and straining every
nerve, and so severe that the stoutest men shrink from it; while their
degradation in brick-yards and iron mines has commanded the attention
of philanthropists and legislators.[223]

A gentleman recently travelling in Ireland blushes for his sex when he
sees the employments of women, young and old. They are patient
drudges, staggering over the bogs with heavy creels of turf on their
backs, or climbing the <DW72>s from the seashore, laden like beasts of
burden with the heavy sand-dripping seaweed, or undertaking long
journeys on foot into the market towns, bearing weighty hampers of
farm produce. In Montenegro, women form the beasts of burden in war,
and are counted among the "animals" belonging to the prince. In Italy,
that land which for centuries led the world in art, women work in
squalor and degradation under the shadow of St. Peter's and the
Vatican for four-pence a day; while in America, under the Christianity
of the nineteenth century, until within twenty years, she worked on
rice and cotton plantations waist-deep in water, or under a burning
sun performed the tasks demanded by a cruel master, at whose hands she
also suffered the same kind of moral degradation exacted of the serf
under feudalism. In some portions of Christendom the "service"[224] of
young girls to-day implies their sacrifice to the Moloch of man's
unrestrained passions.

Augustine, in his work, "The City of God," taunts Rome with having
caused her own downfall. He speaks of her slaves, miserable men, put
to labors only fit for the beasts of the field, degraded below them;
their condition had brought Rome to its own destruction. If such
wrongs contributed to the overthrow of Rome, what can we not predict
of the Christian civilization which, in the twentieth century of its
existence, degrades its Christian women to labors fit only for the
beasts of the field; harnessing them with dogs to do the most menial
labors; which drags them below even this, holding their womanhood up
to sale, putting both Church and State sanction upon their moral
death; which, in some places, as in the city of Berlin, so far
recognizes the sale of women's bodies for the vilest purposes as part
of the Christian religion, that license for this life is refused until
they have partaken of the Sacrament; and which demands of the "10,000
licensed women of the town" of the city of Hamburg, certificates
showing that they regularly attend church and also partake of the
sacrament?

A civilization which even there has not reached its lowest depths, but
which has created in England, as a result of its highest Christian
civilization, a class of women under the protection of the State,
known as "Queen's women," or "Government women," with direct purpose
of more fully protecting man in his departure from the moral law, and
which makes woman the hopeless slave of man's lowest nature; a system
not confined to England, but already in practice in France, in Italy,
in Switzerland, in Germany, and nearly every country in Europe. A
system of morality which declares "the necessity" of woman's
degradation, and which annually sends its tens of thousands down to a
death from which society grants no resurrection.

In a letter to the National Woman's Suffrage Convention, held at St.
Louis, May, 1879, upon this condition of Licensed Vice, from Josephine
E. Butler, Hon. Secretary of the Federation and the Ladies' National
Association for the Protection of Women; a society which has its
branches over Europe, and has for years been actively at work against
this last most hideous form of slavery for women, Mrs. Butler says:

     England holds a peculiar position in regard to the question. She
     was the last to adopt this system of slavery, and she adopted it
     in that thorough manner which characterizes the actions of the
     Anglo-Saxon race. In no other country has prostitution been
     regulated by law. It has been understood by the Latin races, even
     when morally enervated, that the law could not without risk of
     losing its majesty and force sanction illegality and violate
     justice. In England alone the regulations are law.

     This legalization of vice, which is the endorsement of the
     "necessity" of impurity for man and the institution of the
     slavery of woman, is the most open denial which modern times have
     seen of the principle of the sacredness of the individual human
     being. An English high-class journal dared to demand that women
     who are unchaste shall henceforth be dealt with "not as human
     beings, but as foul sewers," or some such "material nuisance"
     without souls, without rights, and without responsibility. When
     the leaders of public opinion in a country have arrived at such a
     point of combined skepticism and despotism as to recommend such a
     manner of dealing with human beings, there is no crime which that
     country may not presently legalize, there is no organization of
     murder, no conspiracy of abominable things that it may not, and
     in due time will not--have been found to embrace in its guilty
     methods. Were it possible to secure the absolute physical health
     of a whole province or an entire continent by the destruction of
     one, only one poor and sinful woman, woe to that nation which
     should dare, by that single act of destruction, to purchase this
     advantage to the many! It will do it at its peril. God will take
     account of the deed not in eternity only, but in time, it may be
     in the next or even in the present generation.

The fact of governments lending their official aid to the
demoralization of woman by the registration system, shows an utter
debasement of law. This system is directly opposed to the fundamental
principle of right, that of holding the accused innocent until proven
guilty, which until now has been recognized as a part of modern law.
Under the registration or license system, all women within the radius
of its action are under suspicion; all women are held as morally
guilty until they prove themselves innocent. Where this law is in
force, all women are under an irresponsible police surveillance,
liable to accusation, arrest, examination, imprisonment, and the
entrance of their names upon the list of the lewd women of a town.
Upon this frightful infraction of justice, we have the sentiments of
Sheldon Amos, Professor of Jurisprudence in the Law College of London
University. In "The Science of Law," he says, in reference to this
very wrong:

     The loss of liberty to the extent to which it exists, implies a
     degradation of the State, and, if persisted in, can only lead to
     its dissolution. No person or class of persons must be under the
     cringing fear of having imputed to them offences of which they
     are innocent, and of being taken into custody in consequence of
     such imputation. They must not be liable to be detained in
     custody without so much as a _prima facie_ case being made out,
     such as in the opinion of a responsible judicial officer leaves a
     presumption of guilt. They must not be liable to be detained for
     an indefinite time without having the question of their guilt or
     innocence investigated by the best attainable methods. When the
     fact comes to be inquired into, the best attainable methods of
     eliciting the truth must be used. In default of any one of these
     securities, _public liberty_ must be said to be proportionately
     at a very low ebb.

Great effort has been made to introduce this system into the United
States, and a National Board of Health, created by Congress in 1879,
is carefully watched in its action, lest its irresponsible powers lead
to its encroachment upon the liberties and personal rights of woman. A
resolution adopted March 2, 1881, at a meeting of the New York
Committee appointed to thwart the effort to license vice in this
country, shows the need of its watchful care.

     _Resolved_, That this committee has learned with much regret and
     apprehension of the action of the American Public Health
     Association, at its late annual meeting in New Orleans, in
     adopting a sensational report commending European governmental
     regulation of prostitution, and looking to the introduction in
     this country, with modifications, through the medium of State
     legislative enactments and municipal ordinances, of a kindred
     immoral system of State-regulated social vice.

From all these startling facts in Church and State we see that our
government and religion are alike essentially masculine in their
origin and development. All the evils that have resulted from
dignifying one sex and degrading the other may be traced to this
central error: a belief in a trinity of masculine Gods in One, from
which the feminine element is wholly eliminated.[225] And yet in the
Scriptural account of the simultaneous creation of man and woman, the
text plainly recognizes the feminine as well as the masculine element
in the Godhead, and declares the equality of the sexes in goodness,
wisdom, and power. Genesis i. 26, 27: "And God said: let us make man
_in our own, image, after our own likeness_.... So God created man in
His own image; in the image of God created He him; _male_ and _female_
created He THEM.... And gave them dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth
upon the earth."

While woman's subordination is taught as a Scriptural doctrine, the
most devout and learned biblical scholars of the present day admit
that the Bible has suffered many interpolations in the course of the
centuries. Some of these have doubtless occurred through efforts to
render certain passages clearer, while others have been forged with
direct intention to deceive. Disraeli says that the early English
editions contain 6,000 errors, which were constantly introduced, and
passages interpolated for sectarian purposes, or to sustain new
creeds. Sometimes, indeed, they were added for the purpose of
destroying all Scriptural authority by the suppression of texts. _The
Church Union_ says of the present translation, that there are more
than 7,000 variations from the received Hebrew text, and more than
150,000 from the received Greek text.

These 7,000 variations in the Old Testament and 150,000 in the New
Testament, are very significant facts. The oldest manuscripts of the
New Testament are the Alexandrine Codex, known since the commencement
of the seventeenth century, and believed to date back to the middle of
the fifth century, the Sinaitic, and the Vatican Codices, each
believed to have been executed about the middle of the fourth century.
The Sinaitic Codex was discovered by Professor Tischendorf, a German
scholar, at a monastery upon Mt. Sinai, in fragments, and at different
periods from 1848 to 1859, a period of eleven years elapsing from his
discovery of the first fragment until he secured the last one. The
Vatican Codex has been in the Vatican library since its foundation,
but it has been inaccessible to scholars until very recently. It is
not known from whence it came or by whom executed, but is deemed the
oldest and most authentic copy of the Bible extant. As these oldest
codices only date to the middle of the fourth century, we have no
record of the New Testament, in its present form, for the first three
hundred and fifty years of this era.

A commission of eminent scholars has been engaged for the past eleven
years upon a revision of the Bible. The New Testament portion is now
about ready for the public, but so great and so many are its
diversities from the old version, that it is prophesied the orthodox
church will be torn by disputes between adherents of the old and the
new, while those anxious for the truth, touch where it may, will be
honestly in doubt if either one is to be implicitly trusted. Various
comments and inquiries in regard to this revision have already
appeared in the press.[226] The oldest codices do not contain many
texts we have learned to look upon as especially holy. Portions of the
Sermon on the Mount are not in these old manuscripts, a proof of their
interpolation to serve the purpose of some one at a later date. In the
same way additions have been made to the Lord's Prayer. Neither of
these manuscripts contain the story of the woman taken in adultery, as
narrated John viii. 1-11, so often quoted as proof of the divine mercy
of Jesus. A letter upon this so long accepted story, from the eminent
scholar, Howard Crosby, D.D., LL.D., a member of the revisory
commission, will be read with interest:

     MRS. M. J. GAGE:

     DEAR MADAME:--The passage in John viii. 1-11, is _not_ in the
     Alexandrian, nor is it in the Sinaitic, Vatican, and Ephraim
     Codices. It is found in twelve uncials (though marked _doubtful_
     in five of these) and in over 300 cursives.

                                   Yours very truly,
                                                    HOWARD CROSBY.

     116 East 19th, N. Y., _March 14, '81_.

The world still asks, What is Truth? A work has recently been
published entitled, "The Christian Religion to A.D. 200." It is the
fruit of several-years' study of a period upon which the Church has
but little record. It finds no evidence of the existence of the New
Testament in its present form during that time; neither does it find
evidence that the Gospels in their present form date from the lives of
their professed authors. All Biblical scholars acknowledge that the
world possesses no record or tradition of the original manuscripts of
the New Testament, and that to attempt to reestablish the old text is
hopeless. No reference by writers to any part of the New Testament as
authoritative is found earlier than the third century (A.D. 202). The
first collection, or canon, of the New Testament was prepared by the
Synod or Council of Laodicea in the fourth century (A.D. 360). It
entirely omitted the Book of Revelation from the list of sacred works.
This book has met a similar fate from many sources, not being printed
in the Syriac Testament as late as 1562.

Amid this vast discrepancy in regard to the truth of the Scriptures
themselves; with no Hebrew manuscript older than the twelfth century;
with no Greek one older than the fourth; with the acknowledgment by
scholars of 7,000 errors in the Old Testament, and 150,000 in the New;
with assurance that these interpolations and changes have been made by
men in the interest of creeds, we may well believe that the portions
of the Bible quoted against woman's equality are but interpolations of
an unscrupulous priesthood, for the purpose of holding her in
subjection to man.

Amid this conflict of authority over texts of Scripture we have been
taught to believe divinely inspired, destroying our faith in doctrines
heretofore declared essential to salvation, how can we be sure that
the forthcoming version of the Bible from the masculine revisers of
our day will be more trustworthy than those which have been accepted
as of Divine origin in the past?

     This chapter is condensed from the writer's forthcoming work,
     "WOMAN, CHURCH, AND STATE."


FOOTNOTES:

[178] Maine (Gaius) says of the position of woman under Roman law
before the introduction of Christianity: "The juriconsulists had
evidently at this time assumed the equality of the sexes as a
principle of the code of equity. The situation of the Roman woman,
whether married or single, became one of great personal and property
independence ... but Christianity tended somewhat, from the very
first, to narrow this remarkable liberty. The prevailing state of
religious sentiment may explain why modern jurisprudence has adopted
these rules concerning the position of woman which belong peculiarly
to an imperfect civilization.... No society which preserves any
tincture of Christian institutions, is likely to restore to married
women the personal liberty conferred on them by middle Roman law.
Canon law has deeply injured civilization."

[179] Canon law is the whole body of Church decrees enacted by
councils, bulls, decretals, etc., and is recognized as a system of
laws primarily established by the Christian Church, and enforced by
ecclesiastical authority. It took cognizance first merely of what were
considered spiritual duties, but ultimately extended itself to
temporal rights. It was collected and embodied in the ninth century,
since which period numerous additions have been made.

[180] The women claimed the right to baptize their own sex. But the
bishops and presbyters did not care to be released from the pleasant
duty of baptizing the female converts.--_Hist. of Christian Religion
from A.D. to 200_, _p. 23, Waite_. The Constitution of the Church of
Alexandria, which is thought to have been established about the year
200, required the applicant for baptism to be divested of clothing,
and after the ordinance had been administered, to be anointed with
oil.--_Ibid._, _p. 384-5_. The converts were first exorcised of the
evil spirits that were supposed to inhabit them; then, after
undressing and being baptized, they were anointed with oil.--_Bunsen's
Christianity of Mankind_, _Vol. VII._, _p. 386-393_; _3d Vol.
Analecta_.

[181] All, or at least the greater part of the fathers of the Greek
Church before Augustine, denied any real, original sin.--"Augustinism
and Pelagianism," p. 43, Emerson's Translations (Waite). The doctrine
had a gradual growth, and was fully developed by Augustine, A.D.
420.--_Hist. Christian Religion to A.D. 200 (Waite)_, _p. 382_.

[182] Milman says that Heloise sacrificed herself on account of the
impediments the Church threw in the way of the married clergy's career
of advancement. As his wife she would close the ascending ladder of
ecclesiastical honors, priory, abbacy, bishopric, metropolitane,
cardinalade, and even that which was above and beyond all.--"_Latin
Christianity_."

[183] The Christian Church was swamped by hysteria from the third to
the sixteenth century.--_Rev. Charles Kingsley's Life and Letters_.

[184] In 1874 an Old Catholic priest of Switzerland, about to follow
Pere Hyacinth's example in abandoning celibacy, announced his
betrothal in the following manner: "I marry because I wish to remain
an honorable man. In the seventeenth century it was a proverbial
expression, 'As corrupt as a priest,' and this might be said to-day. I
marry, therefore, because I wish to get out of the Ultramontane
slough."--_Galignani's Messenger_, _September 19, 1874_.

[185] The abbot elect of St. Augustine, at Canterbury, in 1171 was
found, on investigation, to have seventeen illegitimate children in a
single village. An abbot of St. Pelayo in Spain in 1130 was proved to
have kept no less than seventy mistresses. Henry 3d, Bishop of
Liege, was deposed in 1274 for having sixty-five illegitimate
children.--_Lecky_, "_Hist. of European Morals_," _p. 350_. This same
bishop boasted in a public banquet, that in twenty-two months,
fourteen children had been born to him. A tax called "Cullagium,"
which was, in fact, a license to clergymen to keep concubines, was
during several centuries systematically levied by princes.--_Ibid_,
_Vol. 2_, _p. 349_. It was openly attested that 100,000 women in
England were made dissolute by the clergy.--_Draper's "Intellectua.
Development of Europe_," _p. 498_.

[186] "_Le Sorcerie_," p. 259, _Michelet_.

[187] _Died in 1880_.

[188] In the dominion of the Count de Foix the lord had right once in
his lifetime to take, without payment, a certain quantity of goods
from the stores of each tenant.--"_Histoire Universelle_," _Cesar
Cantu_.

[189] In days to come people will be slow to believe that the law
among Christian nations went beyond anything decreed concerning the
olden slavery; that it wrote down as an actual right the most grievous
outrage that could ever wound man's heart. The Lord Spiritual had this
right no less than the Lord Temporal. The parson being a lord,
expressly claimed the first fruits of the bride, but was willing to
sell his rights to the husband. The Courts of Berne openly maintain
that this right grew up naturally.--"_La Sorcerie_," _Michelet_, p.
62.

[190] Margaret was canonized in 1351, and made the patron saint of
Scotland in 1673. Several of the Scotch feudalry, despite royal
protestation, kept up the infamous practice till a late date. One of
the Earls of Crawford, a truculent and lustful anarch, popularly known
and dreaded as "Earl Brant," in the sixteenth century, was probably
among the last who openly claimed leg-right (the literal translation
of _droit de jambage_).--_Sketches of Feudalism_.

[191] At the beginning of the Christian era, Corinth possessed a
thousand women who were devoted to the service of its idol, the
Corinthian Venus. "To Corinthianize" came to express the utmost
lewdness, but Cornith, as sunken as she was in sensual pleasure, was
not under the pale of Christianity. She was a heathen city, outside of
that light which, coming into the world, is held to enlighten every
man that accepts it.

[192] Les Cuisiniers et les marmitons de l'areheveques de Vienne
avaient impose un tribut sur les mariages; on croit que certains
feuditaires extgeaient un droit obscene de leur vassaux qui se
marienient, quel fut transforme ensuite en droit de _cuissage_
consistant, de la part du seigneur, a mettre une jambe nue dans le lit
des nouveaux epoux. Dans d'autres pays l'homme ne pouvait couche avec
sa femme les trois premieres nuits sans le consentement de l'eveque ou
du seigneur du feif.--_Cesar Cantu_, "_Histoire Universelle_," _Vol.
IX._, p. 202-3.

[193] _Le Michelet_, "_Le Sorcerie_," _p. 151_.

[194] The very word _femina_ (woman) means one wanting in faith; for
_fe_ means faith, and _minus_, less.--_Witch Hammer_. This work was
printed in 18mo, an unusually small size for that period, for the
convenience of carrying it in the pocket, where its assertions, they
could not be called arguments, could be always within reach,
especially for those traveling witch inquisitors, who proceeded from
country to country, like Sprenger himself, to denounce witches. This
work bore the sanction of the Pope, and was followed, even in
Protestant countries, until the eighteenth century. It based its
theories upon the Bible, and devoted thirty-three pages to a proof
that women were especially addicted to sorcery.

[195] It was observed they (devils) had a peculiar attachment to women
with beautiful hair, and it was an old Catholic belief that St. Paul
alluded to this in that somewhat obscure passage in which he exhorts
women to cover their heads because of the angels.--SPRANGLER.

[196] One of the most powerful incentives to confession was
systematically to deprive the suspected witch of her natural sleep....
Iron collars, or witches' bridles, are still preserved in various
parts of Scotland, which had been used for such iniquitous purposes.
These instruments were so constructed that by means of a loop which
passed over the head, a piece of iron having four points or prongs,
was forcibly thrust into the mouth, two of these being directed to the
tongue and palate, the others pointing outward to each cheek. This
infernal machine was secured by a padlock. At the back of the collar
was fixed a ring, by which to attach the witch to a staple in the wall
of her cell. Thus equipped, and day and night waked and watched by
some skillful person appointed by her inquisitors, the unhappy
creature, after a few days of such discipline, maddened by the misery
of her forlorn and helpless state, would be rendered fit for
confessing anything, in order to be rid of the dregs of her wretched
life. At intervals fresh examinations took place, and they were
repeated from time to time until her "_contumacy_," as it was termed,
was subdued. The clergy and Kirk Sessions appear to have been the
unwearied instruments of "purging the land of witchcraft," and _to
them, in the first instance, all the complaints and informations were
made_.--_Pitcairn_, Vol. I., Part 2, p. 50.

[197] The following is an account of the material used, and the
expenses attending the execution of two witches in Scotland:

  For 10 loads of coal to burn the witches..............L3 06 8
   " a tar barrel....................................... 0 14 0
   " towes.............................................. 0 06 0
   " hurdles to be jumps for them....................... 3 10 0
   "  making of them.................................... 0 08 0
   " one to go to Tinmouth for the lord to sit upon
     the assize as judge ............................... 0 06 0
   " the executioner for his pains...................... 8 14 0
   " his expenses there................................. 0 16 4

             _--Lectures on Witchcraft in Salem, Charles W. Upham._

[198] See an account of the tortures and death of Alison Balfour, in
which not only she, but her husband and her young children were also
grievously tortured in order to wring confession from the wife and
mother. This poor woman bore everything applied to herself, nor did
the sufferings of her husband and son compel a confession of guilt.
Not until her little daughter of seven or eight years was put to the
torture in her presence did the constancy of the mother give way. To
spare the innocent child, the equally innocent mother confessed she
was a witch. After enduring all the agonies applied to herself, and
all she was made to bear in the persons of her innocent family, she
was still made to undergo the frightful suffering of death at the
stake. She was one of those who died calling upon God for that mercy
she could not find at the hands of Christian men.

[199] No marriage could take place after 12 M., which is even now the
rule of the established Church of England.

[200] Science of Law.

[201] Gerard say the doctrines of the Canon Law most favorable to the
power of the clergy, are founded on ignorance, or supported by fraud
and forgery.

[202] Whoever wishes to gain insight into that great institution,
Canon Law, can do so most effectively by studying Common Law, in
regard to woman.--BLACKSTONE..

I have arrived at conclusions which I keep to myself as yet, and only
utter as Greek [Greek: phonanta, sunetotsi], the principle of which is
that there will never be a good world for woman till the last monk,
and therewith the last remnant of the monastic idea of, and
legislation for, woman, _i.e._, the Canon Law, is civilized off the
face of the earth. Meanwhile all the most pure and high-minded women
in England and in Europe, have been brought up under the shadow of the
Canon Law, and have accepted it with the usual divine self-sacrifice,
as their destiny by law of God and nature, and consider their own
womanhood outraged when it, their tyrant, is meddled with.--_Charles
Kingsley_, _Life and Letters. Letter to John Stuart Mill, of June 17,
1849_.

[203] Wives in England were bought from the fifth to the eleventh
century (_Descriptive Sociology_, _Herbert Spencer_). By an ancient
law of India, a father was forbidden to sell his daughter in marriage.
_Keshub Chunder Sen_, who recently spent a few years in England,
objected, after his return home, to the introduction of English
customs in regard to woman into India, on account of their degradation
of the female sex.

[204] Our laws are based on the all-sufficiency of man's rights;
society exists for men only; for women, merely in so far as they are
represented by some man, are in the _mundt_, or keeping of some man
(_Descriptive Sociology, England, Herbert Spencer_). In England, as
late as the seventeenth century, husbands of decent station were not
ashamed to beat their wives. Gentlemen arranged parties of pleasure to
Bridewell, for the purpose of seeing the wretched women who beat hemp
there whipped. It was not until 1817 that the public whipping of woman
was abolished in England.--_Ibid._

[205] WIVES IN RUSSIA.--A peasant in the village of Zelova Baltia,
having reason to doubt the fidelity of his spouse, deliberately
harnessed her to a cart in company with a mare--a species of double
harness for which the lady was probably unprepared when she took the
nuptial vow. He then got into the cart in company with a friend, and
drove the ill-assorted team some sixteen versts (nearly eleven English
miles), without sparing the whip-cord. When he returned from his
excursion he shaved the unlucky woman's head, tarred and feathered
her, and turned her out of doors. She naturally sought refuge and
consolation from her parish priest; but he sent her back to her lord
and master, prescribing further flagellation. An appeal to justice by
the poor woman and her relatives resulted in a non-suit, and any
recourse to a higher court will probably terminate in the same manner.

WOMAN'S LOT IN RUSSIA.--Here and there the popular songs hear traces
of the griefs which in the rough furrows of daily life the Russian
woman finds it prudent to conceal. "Ages have rolled away," says the
poet Nekrasof; "the whole face of the earth has brightened; only the
sombre lot of mowjik's wife God forgets to change." And the same poet
makes one of his village heroines say, _apropos_ of the
enfranchisement of the serfs, "God has forgotten the nook where He hid
the keys of woman's emancipation."

[206] One of the powerful German Electors, who formerly made choice of
the Emperor of Germany.

[207] Even as late as the sixteenth century a plurality of wives was
allowed in some of the Christian countries of Europe, and the German
reformers were inclined to permit bigamy as not inconsistent with the
principles of the Gospel.--"_Woman in all Countries and Nations_,"
Nichols.

[208] See report of the Seney trial in Ohio, 1879, in which the judge
decided against the prosecuting wife, upon the ground of her lack of
the same ownership over the husband that the husband possessed over
the wife.

[209] The Birchall case.

[210] "History," says Voltaire, "is only a parcel of tricks we play
with the dead."

[211] JOHN MILTON AND HIS DAUGHTERS.--Milton's Oriental views of the
function of women led him not only to neglect, but to positively
prevent the education of his daughters. They were sent to no school at
all, but were handed over to a schoolmistress in the house. He would
not allow them to learn any language, saying, with a sneer, that "for
a woman one tongue was enough." The Nemesis, however, that follows
selfish sacrifice of others is so sure of stroke that there needs no
future world of punishment to adjust the balance. The time came when
Milton would have given worlds that his daughters had learned the
tongues. He was blind, and could only get at his precious book--could
only give expression to his precious verses--through the eyes and
hands of others. Whose hands and whose eyes so proper for this as his
daughters? He proceeded to train them to read to him, parrot-like, in
five or six languages, which he (the schoolmaster) could at one time
have easily taught them; but of which they could not now understand a
word. He turned his daughters into reading-machines. It is appalling
to think of such a task. That Mary should revolt, and at last, after
repeated contests with her taskmaster, learn to hate her father--that
she should, when some one spoke in her presence of her father's
approaching marriage, make the dreadful speech that "it was no news to
hear of his wedding, but if she could hear of his death, that were
something"--is unutterably painful, but not surprising.--_The
Athenaeum_.

[212] Mrs. Robinson, of Indiana, and Mrs. E. S. Whitney, of New York.

[213] While in the midst of correcting proof, March 22d, the New York
press comes with an article showing how generally women are rousing to
their rights. It is headed:

"WOMEN AT THE CHURCH POLL--_What Came of Reviving an Old Statute in
Portchester_.--The trustees of the Presbyterian Church in Portchester,
although elected on the 24th of February last, did not organize until
about ten days ago. The reason for this delay lies in the claim made
by some of the congregation that the election was irregular, owing to
women having been allowed to vote. Some of the trustees who held over
were at first inclined to resign, and the matter has been much
discussed. When opposition was made to women voting, H. T. Smith
produced the statute of 1818, which says that any member of the church
at full age shall have a right to vote for trustees. There is nothing
in the act prohibiting women from voting. There are, I believe,
statutes forbidding women to vote in the Dutch Reformed and Episcopal
Churches; but this is a regular Presbyterian Church. It seems to me
that the women have worked hard for this church, and that they ought
to have a vote at the election of trustees and other officers. A Sun
reporter called upon the ladies for their version of the troubles.
Miss Pink, who is a school teacher, said: 'We women do four-fifths of
the work, and contribute more than one-half the money to support the
church. Two years ago we were allowed to vote for a minister, and we
don't see why we shouldn't vote for trustees and at other elections.'
Miss Camp gave similar reasons for voting. Mrs. Montgomery Lyon said:
'If the old trustees didn't know that we had a right to vote, it isn't
our fault. We women do all the work, and why shouldn't we vote!' Women
will vote for President, soon."

[214] The above is article xiv. of the by-laws of the society
connected with the aforesaid church. Thus the society undertakes to
dictate to the church who shall have a voice in the selection of a
pastor. It is a matter of gratitude that the society, if it forbids
females to vote in the church, yet allows them to pray and to help the
society raise money.--_Independent_, _N. Y._, _Feb. 24, 1881_.

[215] BROKEN DOWN.--Mrs. Van Cott, the woman evangelist, has retired
from the field, probably forever. Her nervous system is broken down.
During the fourteen years of her ministry she has traveled 143,417
miles, has preached 4,294 sermons, besides conducting 9,333 other
religious meetings, and writing 9,853 letters.--_Ex_.

[216] But this Conference, which could not recognize woman's equality
of rights in the Church, adjourned in a body to Chicago, before its
business was completed, by its presence there to influence the
Republican Nominating Convention in favor of General Grant's name for
the Presidency.

[217] A professor of theology said a while ago, how sorry he should be
to have the law recognize that one-half of the income of the family
belonged to his wife, "it would establish such a mine-and-thine
relation." It evidently seemed to him, somehow, more harmonious, less
of the earth, earthy, that he could say, "All mine, my love," and that
she could sweetly respond, "All thine, dearest."--_State
Prohibitionist_, _Des Moines, Ia._, _Jan. 28, 1881_.

[218] The great botanist, Linnaeus, was persecuted when he first
presented his sexual system in vegetation to the world.

[219] The legal subordination of one sex to another is wrong in
itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human improvement; it
ought to be replaced by a principle of perfect equality, admitting no
powers or privileges on the one side or disability on the
other.--_Subjection of Woman, John Stuart Mill_.

[220] The _Worcester Chronicle_ of recent date gives an account of a
wife sale in England. Thomas Middleton delivered up his wife Mary M.
to Philip Rostius, and sold her for one shilling and a quart of ale,
and parted from her solely and absolutely for life, "not to trouble
one another for life." Philip Rostius made his mark as a witness. A
second witness was S. H. Shore, Crown Inn, Trim street.

[221] In the peace made by the Sabines with the Romans, after the
forcible abduction of the Sabine maidens, one of the provisions was
that no labor, except spinning, should be required of these Roman
wives.

[222] THE FAIR SEX IN THE ALPS.--The farmers In the Upper Alps, though
by no means wealthy, live like lords in their houses, while the
heaviest portion of agricultural labors devolves on the wife. It is no
uncommon thing to see a woman yoked to the plough with an ass, while
her husband guides it. An Alpine farmer accounts it an act of
politeness to lend his wife to a neighbor who has too much work, and
the neighbor in return lends his wife for a few days' labor whenever
requested.

[223] Lord Shaftesbury bringing the subject before Parliament.

[224] A STORY OF IRELAND IN 1880.--Recently, a young girl named
Catherine Cafferby, of Belmullet, in County Mayo--the pink of her
father's family--fled from the "domestic service" of a landlord as
absolute as Lord Leitrim, the moment the poor creature discovered what
that "service" customarily involved. The great man had the audacity to
invoke the law to compel her to return, as she had not given
statutable notice of her flight. She clung to the door-post of her
father's cabin; she told aloud the story of her terror, and called on
God and man to save her. Her tears, her shrieks, her piteous pleadings
were all in vain. The Petty Sessions Bench ordered her back to the
landlord's "service," or else to pay L5, or two weeks in jail. This is
not a story of Bulgaria under Murad IV., but of Ireland in the reign
of the present sovereign. That peasant girl went to jail to save her
chastity. If she did not spend a fortnight in the cells, it was only
because friends of outraged virtue, justice, and humanity paid the
fine when the story reached the outer world.

[225] The son of the late William Ellery Channing, in a recent letter
to a friend on this point, says: "Religions like the Jewish and
Christian, which make God exclusively _male_, consign woman logically
to the subordinate position which is definitely assigned to her in
Mahometanism. History has kept this tradition. The subjection of woman
has existed as an invariable element in Christian civilization. It
could not be otherwise. If God and Christ were both represented as
male (and the Holy Ghost, too, in the pictures of the old masters), it
stood to reason and appealed to fanaticism that the male form was the
Godlike. Hence, logically, intellect and physical force were exalted
above the intuition of conscience and attractive charm. The male
religion shaped government and society after its own form. Theodore
Parker habitually addressed God as our Father and Mother. What we call
God is the infinite ideal of humanity. The preposterous, ridiculous
absurdity of supposing God so defined to be of the male sex, and to
call God 'him,' does not need a word to make it apparent. This ideal
which we all reverence, and for which we yearn, necessarily enfolds in
_One_ the attributes which, separated in our human race, express
themselves in Manhood and Womanhood."

[226] Some person, over the signature of "A Bible Reader," writing in
the _Sun_ of March 16, says: "I would be sincerely glad to know what
guarantee we have that ere long we shall not have another revision of
Scripture? It is not so long ago since the discovery of Tischendorf of
an important manuscript of the New Testament, which gave a number of
new readings. There may be in existence other and older manuscripts of
the Bible than any we now have, from which may be omitted the
narratives of the Crucifixion and the Resurrection. Should we then
have to give these up? If the revisers act consistently they would
certainly have to do so.

"It appears that already the Calvinists and the Trinitarians have been
deprived by the revisers of the texts they relied upon to uphold their
peculiar doctrines. It remains to be seen how the Universalists,
Baptists, and other Christian sects will fare."




APPENDIX.


CHAPTER I.

PRECEDING CAUSES.

MARGARET FULLER possessed more influence upon the thought of America,
than any woman previous to her time. Men of diverse interests and
habits of thought, alike recognized her power and acknowledged the
quickening influence of her mind upon their own. Ralph Waldo Emerson
said of her: "The day was never long enough to exhaust her opulent
memory; and I, who knew her intimately for ten years, never saw her
without surprise at her new powers."

William R. Channing, in her "Memoirs," says: "I have no hope of
conveying to my readers my sense of the beauty of our relation, as it
lies in the past, with brightness falling on it from Margaret's risen
spirit. It would be like printing a chapter of autobiography, to
describe what is so grateful in memory--its influence upon oneself."

Rev. James Freeman Clarke says: "Socrates without his scholars, would
be more complete than Margaret without her friends. The insight which
Margaret displayed in finding her friends; the magnetism by which she
drew them toward herself; the catholic range of her intimacies; the
influence which she exerted to develop the latent germ of every
character; the constancy with which she clung to each when she had
once given and received confidence; the delicate justice which kept
every intimacy separate, and the process of transfiguration which took
place when she met any one on this mountain of friendship, giving a
dazzling lustre to the details of common life--all these should be at
least touched upon and illustrated, to give any adequate view of these
relations." Horace Greeley, in his "Recollections of a Busy Life,"
said: "When I first made her acquaintance she was mentally the best
instructed woman in America."

When Transcendentalism rose in New England, drawing the brightest
minds of the country into its faith, Margaret was accepted as its
high-priestess; and when _The Dial_ was established for the expression
of those views, she was chosen its editor, aided by Ralph Waldo
Emerson and George Ripley. Nothing could be more significant of the
place Margaret Fuller held in the realm of thought than the fact, that
in this editorship she was given precedence over the eminent
philosopher and eminent scholar, her associates.

She sought to unveil the mysteries of life and enfranchise her own sex
from the bondage of the past, and while still under thirty planned a
series of conversations (in Boston) for women only, wherein she took a
leading part. The general object of these conferences, as declared in
her programme, was to supply answers to these questions: "What are we
born to do?" and "How shall we do it?" or, as has been stated, "Her
three special aims in those conversations were, To pass in review the
departments of thought and knowledge, and endeavor to place them in
one relation to one another in our minds. To systematize thought and
give a precision and clearness in which our sex are so deficient,
chiefly, I think, because they have so few inducements to test and
classify what they receive. To ascertain what pursuits are best suited
to us, in our time and state of society, and how we may make the best
use of our means of building up the life of thought upon the life of
action."

These conversations continued for several successive winters, and were
in reality a vindication of woman's right to think. In calling forth
the opinions of her sex upon Life, Literature, Mythology, Art,
Culture, and Religion, Miss Fuller was the precursor of the Woman's
Rights agitation of the last thirty-three years. Her work, "The Great
Lawsuit; or, Man _vs._ Woman, Woman _vs._ Man," was declared by Horace
Greeley to be the loftiest and most commanding assertion made of the
right of woman to be regarded and treated as an independent,
intelligent, rational being, entitled to an equal voice in framing and
modifying the laws she is required to obey, and in controlling and
disposing of the property she has inherited or aided to acquire. In
this work Margaret said: "It is the fault of MARRIAGE and of the
present relation between the sexes, that the woman _belongs_ to the
man, instead of forming a whole with him.... Woman, self-centered,
would never be absorbed by any relation; it would only be an
experience to her, as to Man. It is a vulgar error that love--_a_
love--is to Woman her whole existence; she is also born for Truth and
Love in their universal energy. Would she but assume her inheritance,
Mary would not be the only virgin mother."

Margaret Fuller was the first woman upon the staff of _The New York
Tribune_, a position she took in 1844, when she was but thirty-four.
Mrs. Greeley having made Margaret's acquaintance, attended her
conversations and accepted her leading ideas, planned to have her
become a member of the Greeley family, and a writer for _The Tribune_;
a position was therefore offered her by Mr. Greeley upon his wife's
judgment. It required but a short time, however, for the great editor
to feel her power, although he failed to fully comprehend her
greatness. It has been declared not the least of Horace Greeley's
services to the nation, that he was willing to entrust the literary
criticisms of _The Tribune_ to one whose standard of culture was so
far above that of his readers or his own.

Margaret Fuller opened the way for many women, who upon the editorial
staff of the great New York dailies, as literary critics and as
reporters, have helped impress woman's thought upon the American mind.

Theodore Parker, who knew her well, characterized her as a critic,
rather than a creator or seer. But whether we look upon her as critic,
creator, or seer, she was thoroughly a woman. One of her friends wrote
of her, "She was the largest woman, and not a woman who wanted to be a
man." Woman everywhere, to-day, is a critic. Enthralled as she has
been for ages, by both religious and political despotism, no sooner
does she rouse to thought than she necessarily begins criticism. The
hoary wrongs of the past still fall with heavy weight upon
woman--their curse still exists. Before building society anew, she
seeks to destroy the errors and injustice of the past, hence we find
women critics in every department of thought.


       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER IV.

NEW YORK.

_Seneca Falls and Rochester Conventions._

WOMEN OUT OF THEIR LATITUDE.

We are sorry to see that the women in several parts of this State are
holding what they call "Woman's Rights Conventions," and setting forth
a formidable list of those Rights in a parody upon the Declaration of
American Independence.

The papers of the day contain extended notices of these Conventions.
Some of them fall in with their objects and praise the meetings
highly; but the majority either deprecate or ridicule both.

The women who attend these meetings, no doubt at the expense of their
more appropriate duties, act as committees, write resolutions and
addresses, hold much correspondence, make speeches, etc., etc. They
affirm, as among their rights, that of unrestricted franchise, and
assert that it is wrong to deprive them of the privilege to become
legislators, lawyers, doctors, divines, etc., etc.; and they are
holding Conventions and making an agitatory movement, with the object
in view of revolutionizing public opinion and the laws of the land,
and changing their relative position in society in such a way as to
divide with the male sex the labors and responsibilities of active
life in every branch of art, science, trades, and professions.

Now, it requires no argument to prove that this is all wrong. Every
true hearted female will instantly feel that this is unwomanly, and
that to be practically carried out, the males must change their
position in society to the same extent in an opposite direction, in
order to enable them to discharge an equal share of the domestic
duties which now appertain to females, and which must be neglected, to
a great extent, if women are allowed to exercise all the "rights" that
are claimed by these Convention-holders. Society would have to be
radically remodelled in order to accommodate itself to so great a
change in the most vital part of the compact of the social relations
of life; and the order of things established at the creation of
mankind, and continued _six thousand years_, would be completely
broken up. The organic laws of our country, and of each State, would
have to be licked into new shapes, in order to admit of the
introduction of the vast change that it contemplated. In a thousand
other ways that might be mentioned, if we had room to make, and our
readers had patience to hear them, would this sweeping reform be
attended by fundamental changes in the public and private, civil and
religious, moral and social relations of the sexes, of life, and of
the Government.

But this change is impracticable, uncalled for, and unnecessary. _If
effected_, it would set the world by the ears, make "confusion worse
confounded," demoralize and degrade from their high sphere and noble
destiny, women of all respectable and useful classes, and prove a
monstrous injury to all mankind. It would be productive of no positive
good, that would not be outweighed tenfold by positive evil. It would
alter the relations of females without bettering their condition.
Besides all, and above all, it presents no remedy for the _real_ evils
that the millions of the industrious, hard-working, and much suffering
women of our country groan under and seek to redress.--_Mechanic's_
(Albany, N. Y.) _Advocate_.


INSURRECTION AMONG THE WOMEN.

A female Convention has just been held at Seneca Falls, N. Y., at
which was adopted a "declaration of rights," setting forth, among
other things, that "all men and _women_ are created equal, and endowed
by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." The list of
grievances which the _Amazons_ exhibit, concludes by expressing a
determination to insist that woman shall have "immediate admission to
all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of the
United States." It is stated that they design, in spite of all
misrepresentations and ridicule, to employ agents, circulate tracts,
petition the State and National Legislatures, and endeavor to enlist
the pulpit and the press in their behalf. This is _bolting_ with a
vengeance.--_Worcester_ (Mass.) _Telegraph_.


THE REIGN OF PETTICOATS.

The women in various parts of the State have taken the field in favor
of a petticoat empire, with a zeal and energy which show that their
hearts are in the cause, and that they are resolved no longer to
submit to the tyrannical rule of the _heartless_ "lords of creation,"
but have solemnly determined to demand their "natural and inalienable
right" to attend the polls, and assist in electing our Presidents, and
Governors, and Members of Congress, and State Representatives, and
Sheriffs, and County Clerks, and Supervisors, and Constables, etc.,
etc., and to unite in the general scramble for office. This is right
and proper. It is but just that they should participate in the
beautiful and feminine business of politics, and enjoy their
proportion of the "spoils of victory." Nature never designed that they
should be confined exclusively to the drudgery of raising children,
and superintending the kitchens, and to the performance of the various
other household duties which the cruelty of men and the customs of
society have so long assigned to them. This is emphatically the age of
"democratic progression," of _equality_ and _fraternization_--the age
when all colors and sexes, the bond and free, black and white, male
and female, are, as they by right ought to be, all tending downward
and upward toward the common level of equality.

The harmony of this great movement in the cause of freedom would not
be perfect if women were still to be confined to petticoats, and men
to breeches. There must be an "interchange" of these "commodities" to
complete the system. Why should it not be so? Can not women fill an
office, or cast a vote, or conduct a campaign, as judiciously and
vigorously as men? And, on the other hand, can not men "nurse" the
babies, or preside at the wash-tub, or boil a pot as safely and as
well as women? If they can not, the evil is in that arbitrary
organization of society which has excluded them from the practice of
these pursuits. It is time these false notions and practices were
changed, or, rather, removed, and for the political millennium
foreshadowed by this petticoat movement to be ushered in. Let the
women keep the ball moving, so bravely started by those who have
become tired of the restraints imposed upon them by the antediluvian
notions of a Paul or the tyranny of man.--_Rochester_ (N. Y.) _Daily
Advertiser_, Henry Montgomery, Editor.

"PROGRESS," is the grand bubble which is now blown up to balloon bulk
by the windy philosophers of the age. The women folks have just held a
Convention up in New York State, and passed a sort of "bill of
rights," affirming it their right to vote, to become teachers,
legislators, lawyers, divines, and do all and sundries the "lords"
may, and of right now do. They should have resolved at the same time,
that it was obligatory also upon the "lords" aforesaid, to wash
dishes, scour up, be put to the tub, handle the broom, darn stockings,
patch breeches, scold the servants, dress in the latest fashion, wear
trinkets, look beautiful, and be as fascinating as those blessed
morsels of humanity whom God gave to preserve that rough animal man,
in something like a reasonable civilization. "Progress!" Progress,
forever!--_Lowell_ (Mass.) _Courier_.

To us they appear extremely dull and uninteresting, and, aside from
their novelty, hardly worth notice.--_Rochester Advertiser_.

This has been a remarkable Convention. It was composed of those
holding to some one of the various _isms_ of the day, and some, we
should think, who embraced them all. The only practical good
proposed--the adoption of measures for the relief and amelioration of
the condition of indigent, industrious, laboring females--was almost
scouted by the leading ones composing the meeting. The great effort
seemed to be to bring out some new, impracticable, absurd, and
ridiculous proposition, and the greater its absurdity the better. In
short, it was a regular _emeute_ of a congregation of females gathered
from various quarters, who seem to be really in earnest in their aim
at revolution, and who evince entire confidence that "the day of
their deliverance is at hand." Verily, this is a progressive
era!--_Rochester Democrat_.


THE WOMEN OF PHILADELPHIA.

Our Philadelphia ladies not only possess beauty, but they are
celebrated for discretion, modesty, and unfeigned diffidence, as well
as wit, vivacity, and good nature. Whoever heard of a Philadelphia
lady setting up for a reformer, or standing out for woman's rights, or
assisting to man the election grounds, raise a regiment, command a
legion, or address a jury? Our ladies glow with a higher ambition.
They soar to rule the hearts of their worshipers, and secure obedience
by the sceptre of affection. The tenure of their power is a law of
nature, not a law of man, and hence they fear no insurrection, and
never experience the shock of a revolution in their dominions. But all
women are not as reasonable as ours of Philadelphia. The Boston ladies
contend for the rights of women. The New York girls aspire to mount
the rostrum, to do all the voting, and, we suppose, all the fighting
too.... Our Philadelphia girls object to fighting and holding office.
They prefer the baby-jumper to the study of Coke and Lyttleton, and
the ball-room to the Palo Alto battle. They object to having a George
Sand for President of the United States; a Corinna for Governor; a
Fanny Wright for Mayor; or a Mrs. Partington for Postmaster.... Women
have enough influence over human affairs without being politicians.

Is not everything managed by female influence? Mothers, grandmothers,
aunts, and sweethearts manage everything. Men have nothing to do but
to listen and obey to the "of course, my dear, you will, and of
course, my dear, you won't." Their rule is absolute; their power
unbounded. Under such a system men have no claim to rights, especially
"equal rights."

A woman is nobody. A wife is everything. A pretty girl is equal to ten
thousand men, and a mother is, next to God, all powerful.... The
ladies of Philadelphia, therefore, under the influence of the most
serious "sober second thoughts," are resolved to maintain their rights
as Wives, Belles, Virgins, and Mothers, and not as Women."--_Public
Ledger and Daily Transcript_.


WOMAN'S RIGHTS CONVENTION.

This is the age of revolutions. To whatever part of the world the
attention is directed, the political and social fabric is crumbling to
pieces; and changes which far exceed the wildest dreams of the
enthusiastic Utopians of the last generation, are now pursued with
ardor and perseverance. The principal agent, however, that has
hitherto taken part in these movements has been the rougher sex. It
was by man the flame of liberty, now burning with such fury on the
continent of Europe, was first kindled; and though it is asserted that
no inconsiderable assistance was contributed by the gentler sex to the
late sanguinary carnage at Paris, we are disposed to believe that such
a revolting imputation proceeds from base calumniators, and is a libel
upon woman.

By the intelligence, however, which we have lately received, the work
of revolution is no longer confined to the Old World, nor to the
masculine gender. The flag of independence has been hoisted, for the
second time, on this side of the Atlantic; and a solemn league and
covenant has just been entered into by a Convention of women at Seneca
Falls, to "throw off the despotism under which they are groaning, and
provide new guards for their future security." Little did we expect
this new element to be thrown into the cauldron of agitation which is
now bubbling around us with such fury. We have had one Baltimore
Convention, one Philadelphia Convention, one Utica Convention, and we
shall also have, in a few days, the Buffalo Convention. But we never
dreamed that Lucretia Mott had convened a fifth Convention, which, if
it be ratified by those whom it purposes to represent, will exercise
an influence that will not only control our own Presidential
elections, but the whole governmental system throughout the world....
The declaration is a most interesting document. We published it in
_extenso_ the other day. The amusing part is the preamble, where they
assert their equality, and that they have certain inalienable rights,
to secure which governments, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed, are instituted; and that after the long train
of abuses and usurpations to which they have been subjected, evincing
a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right,
it is their duty, to throw off such government.

The declaration is, in some respects, defective. It complains of the
want of the elective franchise, and that ladies are not recognized as
teachers of theology, medicine, and law.... These departments,
however, do not comprise the whole of the many avenues to wealth,
distinction, and honor. We do not see by what principle of right the
angelic creatures should claim to compete with the preacher, and
refuse to enter the lists with the merchant. A lawyer's brief would
not, we admit, sully the hands so much as the tarry ropes of a
man-of-war; and a box of Brandreth's pills are more safely and easily
prepared than the sheets of a boiler, or the flukes of an anchor; but
if they must have competition in one branch, why not in another? There
must be no monopoly or exclusiveness. If they will put on the
inexpressibles, it will not do to select those employments only which
require the least exertion and are exempt from danger. The laborious
employments, however, are not the only ones which the ladies, in right
of their admission to all rights and privileges, would have to
undertake. It might happen that the citizen would have to doff the
apron and buckle on the sword. Now, though we have the most perfect
confidence in the courage and daring of Miss Lucretia Mott and several
others of our lady acquaintances, we confess it would go to our hearts
to see them putting on the panoply of war, and mixing in scenes like
those at which, it is said, the fair sex in Paris lately took
prominent part.

It is not the business, however, of the despot to decide upon the
rights of his victims; nor do we undertake to define the duties of
women. Their standard is now unfurled by their own hands. The
Convention of Seneca Falls has appealed to the country. Miss Lucretia
Mott has propounded the principles of the party. Ratification meetings
will no doubt shortly be held, and if it be the general impression
that this lady is a more eligible candidate for the Presidential chair
than McLean or Cass, Van Buren or old "Rough and Ready," then let the
Salic laws be abolished forthwith from this great Republic. We are
much mistaken if Lucretia would not make a better President than some
of those who have lately tenanted the White House.--_New York Herald_,
James Gordon Bennett, Proprietor.


MRS. STANTON'S REPLY.

In answer to all the newspaper objections, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, in
an article published in the _National Reformer_, Rochester, N. Y.,
Geo. G. Cooper, Editor, Sept. 14, 1848, said as follows:

There is no danger of this question dying for want of notice. Every
paper you take up has something to say about it, and just in
proportion to the refinement and intelligence of the editor, has this
movement been favorably noticed. But one might suppose from the
articles that you find in some papers, that there were editors so
ignorant as to believe that the chief object of these recent
Conventions was to seat every lord at the head of a cradle, and to
clothe every woman in her lord's attire. Now, neither of these points,
however important they be considered by humble minds, were touched
upon in the Conventions.... For those who do not yet understand the
real objects of our recent Conventions at Rochester and Seneca Falls,
I would state that we did not meet to discuss fashions, customs, or
dress, the rights or duties of man, nor the propriety of the sexes
changing positions, but simply our own inalienable rights, our duties,
our true sphere. If God has assigned a sphere to man and one to woman,
we claim the right to judge ourselves of His design in reference to
_us_, and we accord to man the same privilege. We think a man has
quite enough in this life to find out his own individual calling,
without being taxed to decide where every woman belongs; and the fact
that so many men fail in the business they undertake, calls loudly for
their concentrating more thought on their own faculties, capabilities,
and sphere of action. We have all seen a man making a jackass of
himself in the pulpit, at the bar, or in our legislative halls, when
he might have shone as a general in our Mexican war, captain of a
canal boat, or as a tailor on his bench. Now, is it to be wondered at
that woman has some doubts about the present position assigned her
being the true one, when her every-day experience shows her that man
makes such fatal mistakes in regard to himself?

There is no such thing as a sphere for a sex. Every man has a
different sphere, and one in which he may shine, and it is the same
with every woman; and the same woman may have a different sphere at
different times. The distinguished Angelina Grimke was acknowledged by
all the anti-slavery host to be in her sphere, when, years ago, she
went through the length and breadth of New England, telling the people
of her personal experience of the horrors and abominations of the
slave system, and by her eloquence and power as a public speaker,
producing an effect unsurpassed by any of the highly gifted men of her
day. Who dares to say that in thus using her splendid talents in
speaking for the dumb, pleading the cause of the poor friendless
slave, that she was out of her sphere? Angelina Grimke is now a wife
and the mother of several children. We hear of her no more in public.
Her sphere and her duties have changed. She deems it her first and her
most sacred duty to devote all her time and talents to her household
and to the education of her children. We do not say that she is not
_now_ in her sphere. The highly gifted Quakeress, Lucretia Mott,
married early in life, and brought up a large family of children. All
who have seen her at home agree that she was a pattern as a wife,
mother, and housekeeper. No one ever fulfilled all the duties of that
sphere more perfectly than did she. Her children are now settled in
their own homes. Her husband and herself, having a comfortable
fortune, pass much of their time in going about and doing good.
Lueretia Mott has now no domestic cares. She has a talent for public
speaking; her mind is of a high order; her moral perceptions
remarkably clear; her religious fervor deep and intense; and who shall
tell us that this divinely inspired woman is out of her sphere in her
public endeavors to rouse this wicked nation to a sense of its awful
guilt, to its great sins of war, slavery, injustice to woman and the
laboring poor. As many inquiries are made about Lucretia Mott's
husband, allow me, through your columns, to say to those who think he
must be a _nonentity_ because his wife is so distinguished, that James
Mott is head and shoulders above the greater part of _his sex_,
intellectually, morally, and physically. As a man of business, his
talents are of the highest order. As an author, I refer you to his
interesting book of travels, "Three Months in Great Britain." In
manners he is a gentleman; in appearance, six feet high, and
well-proportioned, dignified, and sensible, and in every respect
worthy to be the companion of Lueretia Mott.


MRS. C. I. H. NICHOLS.

Miss Barber, of _The Madison_ (Ga.) _Visitor_, promises to "sit in the
corner and be a good girl," if we will admit her to our next
"editorial _soiree_." Indeed we will, and brother Lamb, of _The
Greenfield Democrat_, shall sit in the other corner and "cast sheep's
(Lamb's) eyes" at her; for he copies her naughty declaration of
inferiority, and adds that she "is just the editress for him"; that he
"don't like Mrs. Swisshelm, Mrs. Pierson, and that class." We will let
him off with a whispered reminder that there is a _Mr._ Swisshelm,
_Mr._ Pierson, and more of the same sort for "_that class_." He has
nobody on his side but the musty, fusty old bachelors of the ----, and
----, and ----, who, never having wanted for anything but _puddings_
and _shirts_, imagine, as Mrs. Pierson says, that "a shirt and a
pudding are the two poles of woman's sphere."

But we can not let Miss Barber off so lightly. She says "it is written
in the volume of inspiration, as plainly as if traced in sunbeams,
that man, the creature of God's own image, is superior to woman, who
was afterward created to be his companion. He has a more stately form,
stronger nerves and muscles, and, in nine cases out of ten, a more
vigorous intellect."

In the first place, it is paying no great compliment to man to suppose
that God created an inferior to be his companion. But a man, "_the_
creature of God's own image!" And was the material for God's image all
worked up in creating Adam? And if so, whose images are the men of
to-day, who can't possibly lay claim to more of the original stock
than mother Eve, who set up existence with an _entire rib_! And what
has it to do with the question of her intellectual equality, that she
was created _afterward_? If precedence in creation gave any advantage
intellectually, the inferior animals may claim superiority of
intellect over both man and woman. It would be quite as sound logic to
maintain, as some do, that, as last in the series which commenced in
nothing (?) and rose by gradations to image God, woman's superiority
to all that preceded her in the creation, is probable.... Again, if
women have less nerves and muscles, the ox and the ass have a great
deal more--while God and angels and disembodied spirits have none at
all; so that nerves and muscles are of no more significance in this
question of the intellectual equality or inequality of the sexes, than
is the beard that grows on a man's face and not on a woman's. And
arguments drawn from such premises always remind us of the profound
logic of a gentleman we once met in a stage coach, and who is now
holding a high office under Government at Washington. He professed to
set great store by whiskers and mustaches--he had none himself--and
gave as a reason why the beard should be tenderly cherished, that "it
was given to man as a badge of his superiority over woman." We were
young and mischievous then, and so we told him, most complacently,
that the ladies would readily concede the point, and give him the full
benefit of his argument and of his beard, since men shared their
"badge of superiority" with goats, monkeys, and many other inferior
animals. Some fifteen years have passed, but we never think of the
honorable gentleman or see his name attached to official reports,
without a laugh.

Miss Barber assumes woman's entire intellectual equality, in claiming
that she "may mould the mind of the future statesman into _whatsoever_
she will--that "through him she _can_ and _will_ make the laws." And
we only regret that she should speak so lightly of "depositing a
little strip of paper in the ballot-box." To us it is a serious thing,
that the depositing of that strip of paper gives and takes the rights,
whose possession is the means of the highest intellectual and moral
culture and enjoyment.--_Windom County Democrat_, Brattleboro,
Vermont.


MRS. JANE G. SWISSHELM.

A MISTAKE.--_Dear Brother Wright_:--In printing my former letter,
there was a mistake made which I intended to let pass; but as some of
your cotemporaries have taken an agony over the letter, it may be as
well to set it right. The last sentence reads, "Now, I move Grace be
let alone, and her moral power be no longer invoked by those who have
set her and all the rest of her sex, down on a stool mid-way between
free <DW64>s and laborers." I wrote it "between free <DW64>s and
_baboons_," and meant just what I said. Man, in his code of laws, has
assigned woman a place somewhere between the rational and irrational
creation. Our Constitutions provide that all "free white male
citizens" of a certain age shall have a right to vote. Here Indians,
<DW64>s, and women stand side by side. Our gallant legislators
excluded the "inferior races" from the elective franchise because of
their inferiority; and just threw their wives and mothers into the
same heap, because of their great superiority! One was excluded
because they hated them, the other because they loved them so very
well. Yet one sentence covers both cases. Women and <DW64>s stand side
by side in this case, and also in that of exclusion from our colleges.
A <DW64> can not be admitted into one of our colleges or seminaries of
the highest class. Neither can a woman. Witness the refusal of some
half dozen of your medical colleges to admit Miss Blackwell.

But free <DW64>s can acquire property, can sell it, keep it, give it
away, or divide it. A baboon has no such rights; neither has a woman
in her highest state of existence here. The right to acquire and hold
property is a distinguishing trait between mankind and the brute
creation. Woman is deprived of that distinction; for all that she has
and all she can acquire, belongs to her master. Custom says she should
be fed and clothed, dandled and fondled, her freaks borne with and her
graces admired; it awards the same attentions, in a little different
degree, to a pet monkey. So woman has been "set down mid-way between
free <DW64>s and baboons."

                                   Your good-tempered friend and sister,
                                                JANE G. SWISSHELM.

BORDERS OF MONKEYDOM, _Sept. 28, 1848_.

P. S.--There is a man who edits _The Sunday Age_ of New York--H. P.
Grattan--who appears to be in a peck of trouble about "Blue-Stocking
Effusions" in general, and my letter to you in particular. He says,
"We love woman. We bow down to them in adoration. But they have their
proper place; but the moment they step from the pedestal upon which
heaven stood them, they fail to elicit our admiration," etc. Then, to
show what the pedestal is on which he adores them, he adds, "If they
gave evidence of a knowledge of puddings and pies, how much happier
they might be," in the sunlight of his admiration, of course. Well,
freedom of conscience in this free land! The Faithful may bow to his
prophet; the Persian adore his sun; the Egyptian may kneel to his
crocodile; and why should not Mr. Grattan go into rhapsodies before
his cook, as the dispenser of the good things of this life? The good
book speaks of "natural brute beasts who make a god of their bellies,"
and it might be natural to transfer the homage to her who ministers to
the stomach. I can see his chosen divinity now, mounted on her
"pedestal," a kitchen stool, her implements before her, crowned with a
pudding-pan, her sceptre a batter spoon, and Mr. Grattan down, in rapt
adoration, with eyes upturned, and looks of piteous pleading! Poor
fellow! Do give him his dinner! J. G. S.--_Saturday Visitor_,
Pittsburg, Penn.

Here are some of the titles of editorials and communications in
respectable papers all over the country: "Bolting among the Ladies,"
"Women Out of their Latitude," "Insurrection among the Women," "The
Reign of Petticoats," "Office-Seeking Women," "Petticoats _vs._
Boots." The reader can judge, with such texts for inspiration, what
the sermons must have been.


RESOLUTIONS AT ROCHESTER.

The following resolutions, which had been separately discussed, were
again read. Amy Post moved their adoption by the meeting, which was
carried with but two or three dissenting voices:

1. _Resolved_, That we petition our State Legislature for our right to
the elective franchise, every year, until our prayer be granted.

2. _Resolved_, That it is an admitted principle of the American
Republic, that the only just power of the Government is derived from
the consent of the governed; and that taxation and representation are
inseparable; and, therefore, woman being taxed equally with man, ought
not to be deprived of an equal representation in the Government.

3. _Resolved_, That we deplore the apathy and indifference of woman in
regard to her rights, thus restricting her to an inferior position in
social, religious, and political life, and we urge her to claim an
equal right to act on all subjects that interest the human family.

4. _Resolved_, That the assumption of law to settle estates of men who
die without wills, having widows, is an insult to woman, and ought to
be regarded as such by every lover of right and equality.

5. WHEREAS, The husband has the legal right to hire out his wife to
service, collect her wages, and appropriate it to his own exclusive
and independent benefit; and,

WHEREAS, This has contributed to establish that hideous custom, the
promise, of obedience in the marriage contract, effectually, though
insidiously, reducing her almost to the condition of a slave, whatever
freedom she may have in these respects being granted as a privilege,
not as a right; therefore,

_Resolved_, That we will seek the overthrow of this barbarous and
unrighteous law; and conjure women no longer to promise obedience in
the marriage covenant.

_Resolved_, That the universal doctrine of the inferiority of woman
has ever caused her to distrust her own powers, and paralyzed her
energies, and placed her in that degraded position from which the most
strenuous and unremitting effort can alone redeem her.

Only by faithful perseverance in the practical exercise of those
talents, so long "wrapped in a napkin and buried under the earth," she
will regain her long-lost equality with man.

_Resolved_, That in the persevering and independent course of Miss
Blackwell, who recently attended a series of medical lectures in
Geneva, and has now gone to Europe to graduate as a physician, we see
a harbinger of the day when woman shall stand forth "redeemed and
disenthralled," and perform those important duties which are so truly
within her sphere.

_Resolved_, That those who believe the laboring classes of women are
oppressed, ought to do all in their power to raise their wages,
beginning with their own household servants.

_Resolved_, That it is the duty of woman, whatever her complexion, to
assume, as soon as possible, her true position of equality in the
social circle, the Church, and the State.

_Resolved_, That we tender our grateful acknowledgment to the Trustees
of the Unitarian Church, who have kindly opened their doors for the
use of this Convention.

_Resolved_, That we, the friends who are interested in this cause,
gratefully accept the kind offer from the Trustees of the use of
Protection Hall, to hold our meetings whenever we wish.


SIGNATURES TO THE DECLARATION ADOPTED AT SENECA FALLS.

Firmly relying upon the final triumph of the Right and the True, we do
this day affix our signatures to this Declaration:

          Lucretia Mott,                         Hannah Plant,
          Harriet Cady Eaton,                    Lucy Jones,
          Margaret Pryor,                        Sarah Whitney,
          Elizabeth Cady Stanton,                Mary H. Hallowell,
          Eunice Newton Foote,                   Elizabeth Conklin,
          Mary Ann McClintock,                   Sally Pitcher,
          Margaret Schooley,                     Mary Conklin,
          Martha C. Wright,                      Susan Quinn,
          Jane C. Hunt,                          Mary S. Mirror,
          Amy Post,                              Phebe King,
          Catharine F. Stebbins,                 Julia Ann Drake,
          Mary Ann Frink,                        Charlotte Woodward,
          Lydia Mount,                           Martha Underhill,
          Delia Matthews,                        Dorothy Matthews,
          Catharine C. Paine,                    Eunice Barker,
          Elizabeth W. McClintock,               Sarah K. Woods,
          Malvina Seymour,                       Lydia Gild,
          Phebe Mosher,                          Sarah Hoffman,
          Catherine Shaw,                        Elizabeth Leslie,
          Deborah Scott,                         Martha Ridley,
          Sarah Hallowell,                       Rachel D. Bonnel,
          Mary McClintock,                       Betsy Tewksbury,
          Mary Gilbert,                          Rhoda Palmer,
          Sophronie Taylor,                      Margaret Jenkins
          Cynthia Davis,                         Cynthia Fuller,
          Mary Martin,                           Eliza Martin,
          P. A. Culvert,                         Maria E. Wilbur,
          Susan R. Doty,                         Elizabeth D. Smith,
          Rebecca Race,                          Caroline Barker,
          Sarah A. Mosher,                       Ann Porter,
          Mary E. Vail,                          Experience Gibbs,
          Lucy Spalding,                         Antoinette F. Segur,
          Lavinia Latham,                        Hannah J. Latham,
          Sarah Smith,                           Sarah Sisson.

The following are the names of the gentlemen present in favor of the
movement:

          Richard P. Hunt,                       Charles L. Hoskins,
          Samuel D. Tilman,                      Thomas McClintock,
          Justin Williams,                       Saron Phillips,
          Elisha Foote,                          Jacob Chamberlain,
          Frederick Douglass,                    Jonathan Metcalf,
          Henry W. Seymour,                      Nathan J. Milliken,
          Henry Seymour,                         S. E. Woodworth,
          David Spalding,                        Edward F. Underhill,
          William G. Barker,                     George W. Pryor,
          Elias J. Doty,                         Joel Bunker,
          John Jones,                            Isaac Van Tassel,
          William S. Dell,                       Thomas Dell,
          James Mott,                            E. W. Capron,
          William Burroughs,                     Stephen Shear,
          Robert Smalldridge                     Henry Hatley,
          Jacob Matthews,                        Azaliah Schooley.

Many persons signed the Declaration at Rochester, among them Daniel
Anthony, Lucy Read Anthony, Mary S. Anthony, the officers of the
Convention, and others.


       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER VI.

OHIO.

_Salem Convention_, _April 19, 20, 1850_.

LETTER FROM ELIZABETH CADY STANTON.

                                   SENECA FALLS, N. Y., _April 7_.

DEAR MARIANA:--How rejoiced I am to hear that the women of Ohio have
called a Convention preparatory to the remodeling of their State
Constitution. The remodeling of a Constitution, in the nineteenth
century, speaks of progress, of greater freedom, and of more enlarged
views of human rights and duties. It is fitting that, at such a time,
woman, who has so long been the victim of ignorance and injustice,
should at length throw off the trammels of a false education, stand
upright, and with dignity and earnestness manifest a deep and serious
interest in the laws which are to govern her and her country. It needs
no argument to teach woman that she is interested in the laws which
govern her. Suffering has taught her this already. It is important now
that a change is proposed, that she speak, and loudly too. Having
decided to petition for a redress of grievances, the question is, _for
what shall you first petition?_ For the exercise of your right to the
elective franchise--nothing short of this. The grant to you of this
right will secure all others; and the granting of every other right,
whilst this is denied, is a mockery. For instance: What is the right
to property without the right to protect it? The enjoyment of that
right to-day is no security that it will be continued to-morrow, so
long as it is granted to us as a favor, and not claimed by us as a
right. Woman must exercise her right to the elective franchise, and
have her own representatives in our National councils, for two good
reasons:

1st. Men can not represent us. They are so thoroughly educated into
the belief that woman's nature is altogether different from their own,
that they have no idea that she can be governed by the same laws of
mind as themselves. So far from viewing us like themselves, they seem,
from their legislation, to consider us their moral and intellectual
antipodes; for whatever law they find good for themselves, they
forthwith pass its opposite for us, and express the most profound
astonishment if we manifest the least dissatisfaction. For example:
our forefathers, _full of righteous indignation_, pitched King George,
his authority, and his tea-chests, all into the sea, and because,
forsooth, they were forced to pay taxes without being represented in
the British Government. "Taxation without representation," was the
text for many a hot debate in the forests of the New World, and for
many an eloquent oration in the Parliament of the Old. Yet, in forming
our new Government, they have taken from us the very rights which they
fought and bled and, died to secure to themselves. They not only tax
us, but in many cases they strip us of all we inherit, the wages we
earn, the children of our love; and for such grievances we have no
redress in any court of justice this side of Heaven. They tax our
property to build colleges, then pass a special law prohibiting any
woman to enter there. A married woman has no legal existence; she has
no more absolute rights than a slave on a Southern plantation. She
takes the name of her master, holds nothing, owns nothing, can bring
no action in her own name; and the principle on which she and the
slave is educated is the game. The slave is taught what is considered
best for him to know--which is nothing; the woman is taught what is
best for her to know--which is little more than nothing, man being the
umpire in both cases. A woman can not follow out the impulses of her
own mind in her sphere, any more than the slave can in his sphere.
Civilly, socially, and religiously, she is what man chooses her to be,
nothing more or less, and such is the slave. It is impossible for us
to convince man that we think and feel exactly as he does; that we
have the same sense of right and justice, the same love of freedom and
independence. Some men regard us as devils, and some as angels; hence,
one class would shut us up in a certain sphere for fear of the evil we
might do, and the other for fear of the evil that _might be done to
us_; thus, except for the sentiment of the thing, for all the good
that it does us, we might as well be thought the one as the other. But
we ourselves have to do with what we are and what we _shall_ be.

2d. Men can not legislate for us. Our statute books and all past
experience teach us this fact. His laws, where we are concerned, have
been, without one exception, unjust, cruel, and aggressive. Having
denied our identity with himself, he has no data to go upon in judging
of our wants and interests. If we are alike in our mental structure,
then there is no reason why we should not have a voice in making the
laws which govern us; but if we are not alike, most certainly we must
make laws for ourselves, for who else can understand what we need and
desire? If it be admitted in this Government that all men and women
are free and equal, then must we claim a place in our Senate Chamber
and House of Representatives. But if, after all, it be found that even
here we have classes and caste, not "Lords and Commons," but lords and
women, then must we claim a lower House, where our Representatives can
watch the passage of all bills affecting our own welfare, or the good
of our country. Had the women of this country had a voice in the
Government, think you our national escutcheon would have been stained
with the guilt of aggressive warfare upon such weak, defenceless
nations as the Seminoles and Mexicans? Think you we should cherish and
defend, in the heart of our nation, such a wholesale system of piracy,
cruelty, licentiousness, and ignorance as is our slavery? Think you
that relic of barbarism, the gallows, by which the wretched murderer
is sent with blood upon his soul, uncalled for, into the presence of
his God, would be sustained by law? Verily, no, or I mistake woman's
heart, her instinctive love of justice, and mercy, and truth!

Who questions woman's right to vote? We can show our credentials to
the right of self-government; we get ours just where man got his; they
are all Heaven-descended, God-given. It is our duty to assert and
reassert this right, to agitate, discuss, and petition, until our
political equality be fully recognized. Depend upon it, this is the
point to attack, the stronghold of the fortress--_the one_ woman will
find the most difficult to take, _the one_ man will most reluctantly
give up; therefore let us encamp right under its shadow; there spend
all our time, strength, and _moral_ ammunition, year after year, with
perseverance, courage, and decision. Let no sallies of wit or ridicule
at our expense; no soft nonsense of woman's beauty, delicacy, and
refinement; no promise of gold and silver, bank stock, road stock, or
landed estate, seduce us from our position until that one stronghold
totters to the ground. This done, the rest they will surrender _at
discretion_. Then comes equality in Church and State, in the family
circle, and in all our social relations.

The cause of woman is onward. For our encouragement, let us take a
review of what has occurred during the last few years. Not two years
since the women of New York held several Conventions. Their meetings
were well attended by both men and women, and the question of woman's
true position was fully and freely discussed. The proceedings of those
meetings and the Declaration of Sentiments were all published and
scattered far and near. Before that time, the newspapers said but
little on that subject. Immediately after, there was scarcely a
newspaper in the Union that did not notice these Conventions, and
generally in a tone of ridicule. Now you seldom take up a paper that
has not something about woman; but the tone is changing--ridicule is
giving way to reason. Our papers begin to see that this is no subject
for mirth, but one for serious consideration. Our literature is also
assuming a different tone. The heroine of our fashionable novel is now
a being of spirit, of energy, of will, with a conscience, with high
moral principle, great decision, and self-reliance.

Contrast Jane Eyre with any of Bulwer's, Scott's, or Shakespeare's
heroines, and how they all sink into the shade compared with that
noble creation of a woman's genius! The January number of _The
Westminster Review_ contains an article on "Woman," so liberal and
radical, that I sometimes think it must have crept in there by
mistake. Our fashionable lecturers, too, are now, instead of the
time-worn subjects of "Catholicism," "The Crusades," "St. Bernard,"
and "Thomas a Becket," choosing Woman for their theme. True, they do
not treat this new subject with much skill or philosophy; but enough
for us that the great minds of our day are taking this direction. Mr.
Dana, of Boston, lectured on this subject in Philadelphia. Lucretia
Mott followed him, and ably pointed out his sophistry and errors. She
spoke to a large and fashionable audience, and gave general
satisfaction. Dana was too sickly and sentimental for that meridian.
The women of Massachusetts, ever first in all moral movements, have
sent, but a few weeks since, to their Legislature, a petition
demanding their right to vote and hold office in their State. Woman
seems to be preparing herself for a higher and holier destiny. That
same love of liberty which burned in the hearts of our sires, is now
being kindled anew in the daughters of this proud Republic. From the
present state of public sentiment, we have every reason to look
hopefully into the future. I see a brighter, happier day yet to come;
but woman must say how soon the dawn shall be, and whether the light
shall first shine in the East or the West. By her own efforts the
change must come. She must carve out her future destiny with her own
right hand. If she have not the energy to secure for herself her true
position, neither would she have the force or stability to maintain
it, if placed there by another. Farewell!

                                   Yours sincerely,
                                                    E. C. STANTON.


LETTER FROM LUCRETIA MOTT.

DEAR FRIENDS:--The call for this Convention, so numerously signed, is
indeed gratifying, and gives hope of a large attendance. The letter of
invitation was duly received, and I need scarcely say how gladly I
would be present if in my power. Engagements in another direction, as
well as the difficulty to travel at this season of the year, will
prevent my availing myself of so great a privilege. You will not,
however, be at a loss for speakers in your midst, for among the
signers to the call are the names of many whose hearts "believe unto
righteousness"; out of their abundance, therefore, the mouth will make
"confession unto salvation."

The wrongs of woman have too long slumbered. They now begin to cry for
redress. Let them be clearly pointed oat in your Convention; and then,
not _ask_ as _favor_, but _demand_ as _right_, that every civil and
ecclesiastical obstacle be removed out of the way.

Rights are not dependent upon equality of mind; nor do we admit
inferiority, leaving that question to be settled by future
developments, when a fair opportunity shall be given for the equal
cultivation of the intellect, and the stronger powers of the mind
shall be called into action.

If, in accordance with your call, you ascertain "the bearing which the
circumscribed sphere of woman has on the great political and social
evils that curse and desolate the land," you will not have come
together in vain.

May you, indeed, "gain strength" by your contest with "difficulty!"
May the whole armor of "Right, Truth, and Reason" be yours; Then will
the influence of the Convention be felt in the assembled wisdom of
_men_ which is to follow; and the good results, as well as your
example, will ultimately rouse other States to action in this most
important cause.

I herewith forward to you a "Discourse on Woman," which, though
brought out by local circumstances, may yet contain principles of
universal application.

Wishing you every success in your noble effort,

          I am yours, for woman's redemption and consequent elevation,
                                                    LUCRETIA MOTT.

PHILADELPHIA, _4th mo., 13, 1850_.


LETTER FROM LUCY STONE.

_For the Woman's Rights Convention:_

DEAR FRIENDS:--The friends of human freedom in Massachusetts rejoice
that a Woman's Rights Convention is to be held in Ohio. We hail it as
a sign of progress, and deem it especially fitting that such a
Convention should be held _now_, when a State Constitution is to be
formed.

It is easier, when the old is destroyed, to build the _new_ right,
than to right it _after_ it is built.

The statute books of every State in the Union are disgraced by an
article which limits the right to the elective franchise to "male
citizens of twenty-one years of age and upwards," thus excluding
one-half the population of the country from all political influence,
subjecting woman to laws in the making of which she has neither vote
nor voice. The lowest drunkard may come up from wallowing in the
gutter, and, covered with filth, _reel_ up to the ballot-box and
deposit his vote, and his right to do so is not questioned. The
meanest foreigner who comes to our shores, who can not speak his
mother-tongue correctly, has secured for him the right of suffrage.
The <DW64>, crushed and degraded, as if he were not a brother man, made
the lowest of the law, even he, in some of the States, can vote; but
woman, in every State, is politically plunged in a degradation lower
than _his_ lowest depths.

Woman is taxed under laws made by those who profess to believe that
taxation and representation are inseparable, while, in the use and
imposition of the taxes, as in representation, she is absolutely
without influence. Should she hint that the profession and practice do
not agree, she is gravely told that "Women should not talk politics."
In most of the States the married woman loses, by her marriage, the
control of her person and the right of property, and, if she is a
mother, the right to her children also: while she secures what the
town paupers have--the right to be maintained. The legal disabilities
under which women labor have no end: I will not attempt to enumerate
them. Let the earnest women who speak in your Convention enter into
the detail of this thing, nor stop to "patch fig-leaves for the naked
truth," but "before all Israel and the sun," expose the atrocities of
the laws relative to women, until the ears of those who hear shall
tingle. So that the men who meet in Convention to form the new
Constitution for Ohio, shall, for very shame's sake, make haste to put
away the last remnant of the barbarism which your statute book (in
common with other States) retains in its inequality and injustice to
woman. We know too well the stern reform spirit of those who have
called this Woman's Eights Convention, to doubt for a moment that
what can be done by you to secure equal rights for all, will be done.

Massachusetts _ought_ to have taken the lead in the work you are now
doing, but if she chooses to linger, let her young sisters of the West
set her a worthy example; and if the "Pilgrim spirit is not dead,"
_we'll pledge Massachusetts to follow her_.

                         Yours, for Justice and Equal Rights,
                                                       LUCY STONE.

SOUTHAMPTON, _April 10, 1850_.


LETTER FROM SARAH PUGH

"Lawrencian Villa is extremely beautiful; the grounds full of
shrubbery and flowers; the splendid dairy, the green-houses and
conservatories--four or five of them appropriated to fruit, flowers,
and rare plants in large numbers--the whole presenting great taste and
skill. Mrs. Lawrence's improvements are not completed; she is
extending her shrubbery and walks. She is undoubtedly one of the most
skillful cultivators and florists in the country (a country abounding
with them), and carries off more prizes at the horticultural
exhibitions than almost any one else. I am told Mr. Lawrence is an
eminent surgeon in London, and that the whole of the country place is
under Mrs. Lawrence's management."--_Colman's Letters from Europe_.

DEAR FRIENDS:--As I finished reading this paragraph, your letter,
inviting me to your Convention, to be held on the 19th inst., was
received. I can not, as I gladly would, be with you. That my mite may
not be wanting in aid of the cause, taking the above extract for my
text, I would add as a commentary, that, according to the laws and
usages of a large portion of Christendom, in the event of the death of
Mr. Lawrence, Mrs. Lawrence, the one whose skill and taste has formed
this elegant establishment, would be left by the will of Mr. Lawrence
an income from a part of the estate, and the "privilege" of occupying
"during her natural life," two or three rooms in the large mansion,
but powerless as a stranger in the beautiful demesne made valuable by
her industry and skill! This is not "supposing" a case, only in the
application of it to Mrs. L. In this country, where, as a general
rule, women take their full share of the labor and responsibility of a
household, and thus by their constant assiduity contribute their full
proportion to the means by which a comfortable competence is secured,
do we not see the disposal of it assumed as a matter of right by the
male partner of the firm?

That women contribute their full share in the building-up of an estate
by _labor_--the only rightful mode--no one that is capable of taking
an enlightened view of the prevailing condition of things will deny.
True, she may not wield the axe or guide the plough, braced by the
invigorating air, for hers is the wearisome task, and the one which
requires the most skill to attend to the complicated machinery within
doors; she may not handle the awl or the plane for "ten hours a day,"
with but a small tax on the intellectual, but by her _perpetual_
oversight and unvarying labor she may make one dollar, two, or more.

This is one form of the many grievances to which women are subjected,
all arising from the false assumption of their inferiority by nature
and by the "ordination of Providence." May your Convention aid in
dispelling this delusion from the minds of men, but chiefly from the
minds of women; for to themselves, in a great degree, is their
degraded position owing. Rouse them to a belief in their natural
equality, and to a desire to sustain it by cultivation of their
noblest powers.

There is much that crowds on me for utterance, but there will be those
among you that will be able to give a fuller and fitter expression to
the thoughts that cluster around this all-important question, the
"Rights and Duties of Women"--her rights equal to those of men--she
alone the judge of her duties.

May your Convention hasten the day when these rights shall be
acknowledged as equal to those of man and independent of him, and when
men and women shall equally co-operate for the good of all mankind.

                         With great interest, your friend,
                                                       SARAH PUGH.

_To the Ohio Convention of Women, Phila., April 15, 1850._


RESOLUTIONS OF THE SALEM (OHIO) CONVENTION, 1850.

6th. _Resolved_, That in those laws which confer on man the power to
control the property and person of woman, and to remove from her at
will the children of her affection, we recognize only the modified
code of the slave plantation; and that thus we are brought more nearly
in sympathy with the suffering slave, who is despoiled of all his
rights.

16th. _Resolved_, That we regard those women who content themselves
with an idle, aimless life, as involved in the guilt as well as the
suffering of their own oppression; and that we hold those who go forth
into the world, in the face of the frowns and the sneers of the
public, to fill larger spheres of labor, as the truest preachers of
the cause of Woman's Rights.

19th. _Resolved_, That, as woman is not permitted to hold office, nor
have any voice in the Government, she should not be compelled to pay
taxes out of her scanty wages to support men who get eight dollars a
day for _taking_ the right to _themselves_ to enact laws _for_ her.

20th. _Resolved_, That we, the women of Ohio, will hereafter meet
annually in Convention, to consult upon and adopt measures for the
removal of the various disabilities--political, social, religious,
legal, and pecuniary--to which women, as a class, are subjected, and
from which results so much misery, degradation, and crime.

After the Akron Convention in 1851, _The New York Sunday Mercury_
published a woodcut covering a whole page, representing the
Convention. Every woman in coat and breeches and high-heeled boots,
sitting cross-legged smoking cigars (truly manly arguments for equal
political rights). There was not a Bloomer present.


ELIZABETH CADY STANTON.

_To the Woman's Convention, held at Akron, Ohio, May 25, 1851:_

DEAR FRIENDS:--It would give me great pleasure to accept your
invitation to attend the Convention, but as circumstances forbid my
being present with you, allow me, in addressing you by letter, to
touch on those points of this great question which have, of late, much
occupied my thoughts. It is often said to us tauntingly, "Well, you
have held Conventions, you have speechified and resolved, protested
and appealed, declared and petitioned, and now, what next? Why do you
not do something?" I have as often heard the reply, "We know not what
to do."

Having for some years rehearsed to the unjust judge our grievances,
our legal and political disabilities and social wrongs, let us glance
at what we may do, at the various rights of which we may, even now,
quietly take possession. True, our right to vote we can not exercise
until our State Constitutions are remodelled; but we can petition our
legislators every session, and plead our cause before them. We can
make a manifestation by going to the polls, at each returning
election, bearing banners, with inscriptions thereon of great
sentiments handed down to us by our revolutionary fathers--such as,
"No Taxation without Representation," "No just Government can be
formed without the consent of the Governed," etc. We can refuse to pay
all taxes, and, like the English dissenters, suffer our goods to be
seized and sold, if need be. Such manifestations would appeal to a
class of minds that now take no note of our Conventions or their
proceedings; who never dream, even, that woman thinks herself
defrauded of a single right. The trades and professions are all open
to us; let us quietly enter and make ourselves, if not rich and
famous, at least independent and respectable. Many of them are quite
proper to woman, and some peculiarly so. As merchants, postmasters,
and silversmiths, teachers, preachers, and physicians, woman has
already proved herself fully competent. Who so well fitted to fill the
pulpits of our day as woman? All admit her superior to man in the
affections, high moral sentiments, and religious enthusiasm; and so
long as our popular theology and reason are at loggerheads, we have no
need of acute metaphysicians or skillful logicians in our pulpits. We
want those who can make the most effective appeals to our
imaginations, our hopes and fears.

Again, as physicians. How desirable are educated women in this
profession! Give her knowledge commensurate with her natural
qualifications, and there is no position woman could assume that would
be so pre-eminently useful to her race at large, and her own sex in
particular, as that of ministering angel to the sick and afflicted; an
angel, not capable of sympathy merely, but armed with the power to
relieve suffering and prevent disease. The science of Obstetrics is a
branch of the profession which should be monopolized by woman. The
fact that it is now almost wholly in the hands of the male
practitioner, is an outrage on common decency that nothing but the
tyrant _custom_ can excuse. "From the earliest history down to 1568,
it was practiced by women. The distinguished individual first to make
the innovation on this ancient, time-sanctified custom, was no less a
personage than a court prostitute, the Duchess of Villiers, a favorite
mistress of Louis XIV. of France." This is a formidable evil, and
productive of much immorality, misery, and crime. But now that some
colleges are open to woman, and the "Female Medical College of
Pennsylvania" has been established for our sex exclusively, I hope
this custom may be abolished as speedily as possible, for no excuse
can be found for its continuance, in the want of knowledge and skill
in our own sex. It seems to me, the existence of this custom argues a
much greater want of delicacy and refinement in woman, than would the
practice of the profession by her in all its various branches.

But the great work before us is the education of those just coming on
the stage of action. Begin with the girls of _to-day_, and in twenty
years we can revolutionize this nation. The childhood of woman must be
free and untrammeled. The girl must be allowed to romp and play,
climb, skate, and swim; her clothing must be more like that of the
boy--strong, loose-fitting garments, thick boots, etc., that she may
be out at all times, and enter freely into all kinds of sports. Teach
her to go alone, by night and day, if need be, on the lonely highway,
or through the busy streets of the crowded metropolis. The manner in
which all courage and self-reliance is educated _out_ of the girl, her
path portrayed with dangers and difficulties that never exist, is
melancholy indeed. Better, far, suffer occasional insults or die
outright, than live the life of a _coward_, or never move without a
protector. The best protector any woman can have, one that will serve
her at all times and in all places, is _courage_; this she must get by
her own experience, and experience comes by exposure. Let the girl be
thoroughly developed in body and soul, not modeled, like a piece of
clay, after some artificial specimen of humanity, with a body like
some plate in Godey's book of fashion, and a mind after the type of
Father Gregory's pattern daughters, loaded down with the traditions,
proprieties, and sentimentalities of generations of silly mothers and
grandmothers, but left free to be, to grow, to feel, to think, to act.
Development is one thing, that system of cramping, restraining,
torturing, perverting, and mystifying, called education, is quite
another. We have had women enough befooled under the one system, pray
let us try the other. The girl must early be impressed with the idea
that she is to be "a hand, not a mouth"; a worker, and not a drone, in
the great hive of human activity. Like the boy, she must be taught to
look forward to a life of self-dependence, and early prepare herself
for some trade or profession. Woman has relied heretofore too entirely
for her support on the _needle_--that one-eyed demon of destruction
that slays its thousands annually; that evil genius of our sex, which,
in spite of all our devotion, will never make us healthy, wealthy, or
wise.

Teach the girl it is no part of her life to cater to the prejudices of
those around her. Make her independent of public sentiment, by showing
her how worthless and rotten a thing it is. It is a settled axiom with
me, after much examination and reflection, that public sentiment is
false on every subject. Yet what a tyrant it is over us all, woman
especially, whose very life is to please, whose highest ambition is to
be approved. But once outrage this tyrant, place yourself beyond his
jurisdiction, taste the joy of free thought and action, and how
powerless is his rule over you! his sceptre lies broken at your feet;
his very babblings of condemnation are sweet music in your ears; his
darkening frown is sunshine to your heart, for they tell of your
triumph and his discomfort. Think you, women _thus_ educated would
long remain the weak, dependent beings we now find them? By no means.
Depend upon it, they would soon settle for themselves this whole
question of Woman's Rights. As educated capitalists and skillful
laborers, they would not be long in finding their true level in
political and social life.

                                             E. C. STANTON.
SENECA FALLS, _May 1861._


RESOLUTIONS OF THE MASSILON (OHIO) CONVENTION, 1852.

1st. _Resolved_, That in the proposition affirmed by the nation to be
self-evidently true, that "all men are created equal," the word "MEN"
is a general term, including the whole race, without distinction of
sex.

2d. _Resolved_, That this equality of the sexes must extend, and does
extend, to rights personal, social, legal, political, industrial, and
religious, including, of course, representation in the Government,
the elective franchise, free choice in occupations, and an impartial
distribution of the reward of effort; and in reference to all these
particulars, woman has the same right to choose _her_ sphere of
action, as man to choose _his_.

3d. _Resolved_, That since every human being has an individual sphere,
and that is the largest he or she can fill, no one has the right to
determine the proper sphere of another.

4th. _Resolved_, That the assertion of these rights for woman, equally
with man, involves the doctrine that she, equally with him, should be
_protected in their exercise_.

5th. _Resolved_, That we do not believe any legal or political
restriction necessary to preserve the distinctive character of woman,
and that in demanding for women equality of rights with their fathers,
husbands, brothers, and sons, we neither deny that distinctive
character, nor wish them to avoid any duty, or to lay aside that
feminine delicacy which legitimately belongs to them as mothers,
wives, sisters, and daughters.

6th. _Resolved_, That to perfect the marriage union and provide for
the inevitable vicissitudes of life, the individuality of both parties
should be equally and distinctively recognised by the parties
themselves, and by the laws of the land; and, therefore, justice and
the highest regard for the interests of society require that our laws
be so amended, that married women may be permitted to conduct business
on their own account; to acquire, hold, invest, and dispose of
property in their own separate and individual right, subject to all
corresponding and appropriate obligations.

7th. _Resolved_, That the clause of the Constitution of the State of
Ohio, which declares that "all men have the right of acquiring and
possessing property," is violated by the judicial doctrine that the
labor of the wife is the property of the husband.

8th. _Resolved_, That in the general scantiness of compensation of
woman's labor, the restrictions imposed by custom and public opinion
upon her choice of employments, and her opportunities of earning
money, and the laws and social usages which regulate the distribution
of property as between men and women, have produced a pecuniary
dependence of woman upon man, widely and deeply injurious in many
ways; and not the least of all in too often perverting marriage, which
should be a holy relation growing out of spiritual affinities, into a
mere bargain and sale--a means to woman of securing a subsistence and
a home, and to man of obtaining a kitchen drudge or a parlor ornament.

9th. _Resolved_, That sacred and inestimable in value as are the
rights which we assert for woman, their possession and exercise are
not the ultimate end we aim at; for rights are not ends, but only
means to ends, implying duties, and are to be demanded in order that
duties may be performed.

10th. _Resolved_, That God, in constituting woman the mother of
mankind, made her a living Providence, to produce, nourish, guard, and
govern His best and noblest work from helpless infancy to adult years.
Having endowed her with faculties ample, but no more than sufficient,
for the performance of her great work, He requires of her, as
essentially necessary to its performance, the full development of
those faculties.

11th. _Resolved_, That we do not charge woman's deprivation of her
rights upon man alone, for woman also has contributed to this result;
and as both have sinned together, we call on both to repent together,
that the wrong done by both may, by the united exertions of both, be
undone.


FIFTH NATIONAL WOMAN'S RIGHTS CONVENTION, CLEVELAND, OHIO, 1853.

1st. _Resolved_, That by Human Rights, we mean natural Rights, in
contradistinction to conventional usages, and that because Woman is a
Human being, she, _therefore_, has Human Rights.

2d. _Resolved_, because woman is a human being, and man is no more,
she has, by virtue of her constitutional nature, equal rights with
man; and that state of society must necessarily be wrong which does
not, in its usages and institutions, afford equal opportunities for
the enjoyment and protection of these Rights.

4th. _Resolved_, the common law, by giving the husband the custody of
the wife's person, does virtually place her on a level with criminals,
lunatics, and fools, since these are the only classes of adult persons
over which the law-makers have thought it necessary to place keepers.

5th. _Resolved_, That if it be true, in the language of John C.
Calhoun, that "he who digs the money out of the soil, has a right to
it against the universe," then the law which gives to the husband the
power to use and control the earnings of the wife, makes robbery
legal, and is as mean as it is unjust.

6th. _Resolved_, That woman will soonest free herself from the legal
disabilities she now suffers, by securing the right to the elective
franchise, thus becoming herself a lawmaker; and that to this end we
will petition our respective State Legislatures to call conventions to
amend their Constitutions, so that the right to the elective franchise
shall not be limited by the word "male."

7th. _Resolved_, That there is neither justice nor sound policy in the
present arrangements of society, restricting women to so comparatively
a narrow range of employments; excluding them from those which are
most lucrative; and even in those to which they are admitted, awarding
them a compensation less, generally by one-half or two-thirds, than is
paid to men for an equal amount of service rendered.

8th. _Resolved_, That, although the question of the intellectual
strength and attainments of woman has nothing to do with the
settlement of their rights, yet in reply to the oft-repeated inquiry,
"Have women, by nature, the same force of intellect with men?" we will
reply, that this inquiry can never be answered till women shall have
such training as shall give their physical and intellectual powers as
full opportunities for development, by being as heavily taxed and all
their resources as fully called forth, as are now those of man.

Mr. Garrison, on being called for, replied that the resolutions would
do for his speech to-night, and read as follows:

1st. _Resolved_, That the natural rights of one human being, are those
of every other, in all cases equally sacred and inalienable; hence the
boasted "Rights of Man," about which we hear so much, are simply the
"Rights of Woman," of which we hear so little; or, in other words,
they are the Rights of Humanity, neither affected by, nor dependent
upon, sex or condition.

2d. _Resolved_, That those who deride the claims of woman to a full
recognition of her civil rights and political equality, exhibit the
spirit which tyrants and usurpers have displayed in all ages toward
the mass of mankind; strike at the foundation of all truly free and
equitable government; contend for a sexual aristocracy, which is as
irrational and unjust in principle, as that of wealth and hereditary
descent, and show their appreciation of liberty to be wholly one-sided
and supremely selfish.

3d. _Resolved_, That for the men of this land to claim for themselves
the elective franchise, and the right to choose their own rulers and
enact their own laws, as essential to their freedom, safety, and
welfare, and then to deprive all the women of all these safeguards,
solely on the ground of a difference of sex, is to evince the pride of
self-esteem, the meanness of usurpation, and the folly of a
self-assumed superiority.

4th. _Resolved_, That woman, as well as man, has a right to the
highest mental and physical development; to the most ample educational
advantages; to the occupancy of whatever position she can reach, in
Church and State, in science and art, in poetry and music, in painting
and sculpture, in civil jurisprudence and political economy, and in
all the varied departments of human industry, enterprise, and skill;
to the elective franchise, and to a voice in the administration of
justice, and the passage of laws for the general welfare.

5th. _Resolved_, That to pretend that the granting of these claims
would tend to make woman less amiable and attractive, less regardful
of her peculiar duties and obligations as wife and mother, a wanderer
from her proper sphere, bringing confusion into domestic life, and
strife into the public assembly, is the cant of Papal Rome as to the
discordant and infidel tendencies of the right of private judgment in
matters of faith; is the outcry of legitimacy as to the incapacity of
the people to govern themselves; is the false allegations which
selfish and timid conservatism is ever making against every new
measure of reform, and has no foundation in reason, experience, fact,
or philosophy.

6th. _Resolved_, That the consequences arising from the exclusion of
woman from the possession and exercise of her natural rights and the
cultivation of her mental faculties, have been calamitous to the whole
human race; making her servile, dependent, unwomanly; the victim of a
false gallantry on the one hand, and of tyrannous subjection on the
other; obstructing her mental growth, crippling her physical
development, and incapacitating her for general usefulness; and thus
inflicting an injury upon all born of woman, and cultivating in man a
lordly and arrogant spirit, a love of dominion, a disposition to
lightly regard her comfort and happiness, all which have been indulged
to a fearful extent, to the curse of his own soul and the desecration
of her nature.

7th. _Resolved_, That so long as the most ignorant, degraded, and
worthless men are freely admitted to the ballot-box, and practically
acknowledged to be competent to determine who shall be in office and
how the Government shall be administered, it is preposterous to
pretend that women are not qualified to use the elective franchise,
and that they are fit only to be recognized, politically speaking, as
_non compos mentis_.


REBECCA M. SANFORD TO THE CLEVELAND CONVENTION.

                         NEW LONDON, HURON CO., O., _October 3, 1853_.

FRIENDS OF REFORM:--Not being present at the Convention, I can but
express my interest by a few lines.

The mere question of woman's civil rights is not a deep one, for it is
a natural one, and closely follows her mission in this world. She was
not created anything else than a helpmeet to man, and where to limit
that assistance there is no rule in nature, except her physical
functions; _there is a limit in law_, but whether the law has the
right to place her where she is, is the question. It must be conceded
that the law has drawn too great an inference from her ancient social
attitude, and from present custom and prejudice. But has the law the
right to be prejudiced--ought it not to stand pure, and noble, and
magnanimous, founded on the natural rights of the human soul? The law
grants woman protection; it also grants <DW64>s, animals, and property
protection in their certain spheres. It gives no more to woman.

Woman's sphere is her capability of performing her duty to herself,
her family, and to society, taking self-preservation as the first law
of her nature. At present she does not fully act in her sphere. The
lid of the ballot-box shuts out more than one-half of her duty to
herself, family, and society. The eye of the law is diseased, and
woman must be made assistant occulist, to render that eye pure and
single-sighted. Let not this Convention close until some way and means
are decided upon to secure woman's vote at the polls. The propriety or
impropriety of the same place and box and other objections, can be
disposed of in a short time, as occasion requires.

This done, the monster evils of society, Intemperance, etc., can be
handled with ungloved hands.

At this time, as far as custom, made potent by law, permits woman to
lead her sons on in the journey of life, she keeps them pure and
unspotted from the world; but where she leaves off, hell's avenues are
opened, and man too often leads them through.

Allow me, as one who has been obliged to look upon our Conventions
from many points of observation, and to note their effects upon the
community by actual communication with that community; as one who
feels identified in principle and purpose, to suggest perfect unity
and but few resolutions, and those well-digested and fully acted upon.
Beware of _ultraisms_. Give a high tone and elevation to your
deliberations; bring out the true, the beautiful, the divine of your
own souls, to meet the true, the grand, the divine inspirations of
this agitation.

One thing else I would strongly recommend. Let no gentleman be
appointed to office in the Convention, or by the Convention. You will
then secure yourselves from outside coarseness, and secure to
yourselves greater respect from the public at large. If you do not
come to this _now_, you will be obliged to come to it before you
receive the credit for a _wisdom_ you justly deserve.

May God guide you and bless you.

                                   Yours, strong in the right,
                                               REBECCA M. SANFORD.


SIXTH NATIONAL WOMAN'S RIGHTS CONVENTION, CINCINNATI, OHIO, 1856.

OFFICERS:

_President_--Martha C. Wright, New York.

_Vice-Presidents_--Ernestine L. Rose, New York; James Mott,
Pennsylvania; Frances D. Gage, Missouri; Hannah Tracy Cutler, Emily
Robinson, Ohio; Euphemia Cochrain, Michigan; Paulina Wright Davis,
Rhode Island.

_Business Committee_--Lucy Stone Blackwell, Ohio; Lucretia Mott,
Pennsylvania; Josephine S. Griffing, Adelaide Swift, Henry B.
Blackwell, Ohio.

_Secretaries_--Rebecca Plumly, Pennsylvania; Wm. Henry Smith, editor
of _The Type of the Times_.

RESOLUTIONS.

WHEREAS, All men are created equal and endowed with certain
inalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness; and,

WHEREAS, To secure these rights governments are instituted among them,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; therefore

_Resolved_, That the legislators of these United States are
self-convicted of the grossest injustice and of inconsistency with
their own admitted principles, while they refuse these rights to
women.

_Resolved_, That taxation without representation is tyranny.

_Resolved_, That in accordance with an universally admitted and
self-evident truth, woman should possess the elective franchise, as a
basis of all legal and political rights, as the only effective
protection of their interests, as a remedy against present oppression,
and as a school for character.

_Resolved_, That the right to acquire knowledge should be limited only
by the capacity of the individual; and, therefore, we deprecate,
especially, that social usage, inexorable as a written statute, which
excludes woman from all our best colleges, universities, schools of
law, medicine, and divinity, and that we demand equal scholastic
advantages for our daughters and our sons; that while only three out
of the one hundred and fifty American colleges are open to women, and
while every avenue to scientific and professional culture is closed
against her, it is unfair to judge woman by the same intellectual
standard as man, and impossible to define a limit to her capacities
and talents.

_Resolved_, That the inadequate compensation which the labor of women
now commands, is the source of inexpressible individual misery and
social demoralization; that inasmuch as the law of supply and demand
will always regulate the remuneration of labor, the diversity of
female employments and her free access to every branch of business,
are indispensable to the virtue, happiness, and well-being of society.


       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER VIII.

MASSACHUSETTS.

_First Worcester Convention, 1850._

NAMES OF PERSONS WHO SIGNED THE CALL OF 1850.

  MASSACHUSETTS.

  Lucy Stone,             B. S. Treanor,           Dr. Seth Rogers,
  Wm. H. Channing,        Mary M. Brooks,          Eliza F. Taft,
  Harriot K. Hunt,        T. W. Higginson,         Dr. A. C. Taft,
  A. Bronson Alcott,      Mary E. Higginson,       Charles K. Whipple,
  Nathaniel Barney,       Emily Winslow,           Mary Bullard,
  Eliza Barney,           R. Waldo Emerson,        Emma C. Goodwin,
  Wendell Phillips,       William L. Garrison,     Abby Price,
  Ann Greene Phillips,    Helen E. Garrison,       Thankful Southwick,
  Adin Ballou,            Charles F. Hovey,        Eliza J. Kenney,
  Anna Q. T. Parsons,     Sarah Earle              Louisa M. Sewall,
  Mary H. L. Cabot,       Abby K. Foster           Sarah Southwick.

  RHODE ISLAND.

  Sarah H. Whitman,       Sarah Brown,              George Clarke,
  Thomas Davis,           Elizabeth B. Chace,       Mary Adams,
  Paulina W. Davis,       Mary Clarke,              George Adams.
  Joseph A. Barker,       John L. Clarke,

  NEW YORK

  Gerrit Smith,           Charlotte G. Coffin,      Joseph Savage,
  Nancy Smith,            Mary G. Taber,            L. N. Fowler,
  Elizabeth C. Stanton,   Elizabeth S. Miller,      Lydia Fowler,
  Catharine Wilkinson,    Elizabeth Russell,        Sarah Smith,
  Samuel J. May,          Stephen Smith,            Charles D. Miller.
  Charlotte C. May,       Rosa Smith,

  PENNSYLVANIA.

  William Elder,          Jane G. Swisshelm,        Myra Townsend,
  Sarah Elder,            Charlotte Darlington,     Mary Grew,
  Sarah Tyndale,          Simon Barnard,            Sarah Lewis,
  Warner Justice,         Lucretia Mott,            Sarah Pugh,
  Huldah Justice,         James Mott,               Hannah Darlington,
  William Swisshelm,      W. S. Pierce,             Sarah D. Barnard.

  MARYLAND.

  Mrs. Eliza Stewart.

  OHIO.

  Elizabeth Wilson,       Mary Cowles,              Benjamin S. Jones,
  Mary A. Johnson,        Maria L. Giddings,        Lucius A. Hine,
  Oliver Johnson,         Jane Elizabeth Jones,     Sylvia Cornell.

RESOLUTIONS.

Wendell Phillips presented, from the Business Committee, the following
resolutions:

_Resolved_, That every human being of full age, and resident for a
proper length of time on the soil of the nation, who is required to
obey law, is entitled to a voice in its enactments; that every such
person, whose property or labor is taxed for the support of the
government, is entitled to a direct share in such government;
therefore,

_Resolved_, That women are clearly entitled to the right of suffrage,
and to be considered eligible to office; the omission to demand which
on her part, is a palpable recreancy to duty, and the denial of which
is a gross usurpation, on the part of man, no longer to be endured;
and that every party which claims to represent the humanity,
civilization, and progress of the age, is bound to inscribe on its
banners, "Equality before the law, without distinction of sex or
color."

_Resolved_, That political rights acknowledge no sex, and, therefore,
the word "male" should be stricken from every State Constitution.

_Resolved_, That the laws of property, as affecting married parties,
demand a thorough revisal, so that all rights may be equal between
them; that the wife may have, during life, an equal control over the
property gained by their mutual toil and sacrifices, be heir to her
husband precisely to the same extent that he is heir to her, and
entitled at her death to dispose by will of the same share of the
joint property as he is.

_Resolved_, That since the prospect of honorable and useful
employment, in after life, for the faculties we are laboring to
discipline, is the keenest stimulus to fidelity in the use of
educational advantages, and since the best education is what we give
ourselves in the struggles, employments, and discipline of life;
therefore, it is impossible that woman should make full use of the
instruction already accorded to her, or that her career should do
justice to her faculties, until the avenues to the various civil and
professional employments are thrown open to arouse her ambition and
call forth all her nature.

_Resolved_, That every effort to educate woman, until you accord to
her her rights, and arouse her conscience by the weight of her
responsibilities, is futile, and a waste of labor.

_Resolved_, That the cause we have met to advocate--the claim for
woman of all her natural and civil rights--bids us remember the two
millions of slave women at the South, the most grossly wronged and
foully outraged of all women; and in every effort for an improvement
in our civilization, we will bear in our heart of hearts the memory of
the trampled womanhood of the plantation, and omit no effort to raise
it to a share in the rights we claim for ourselves.


FROM MILDRED A. SPOFORD.

PAULINA WRIGHT DAVIS.--_Dear Madam_:--I take the liberty of enclosing
you an extract from a long epistle I have just received from Helene
Marie Weber. It speaks of matter interesting to us all, and I ask of
you the favor to submit it to the Convention. Miss Weber, as a
literary character, stands in the front rank of essayists in France.
She has labored zealously in behalf of her sex, as her numerous tracts
on subjects of reform bear testimony. No writer of the present age,
perhaps, has done more to exalt woman than she has by her powerful
essays. My personal knowledge of Miss Weber enables me to speak
confidently of her private character. It is utterly false that she is
a masculine woman. Her deportment is strictly lady-like, modest, and
unassuming, and her name is beyond reproach. She is a Protestant of
the Lutheran order; exemplary in all her religious duties, and
unaffectedly pious and benevolent.

She is, as you are doubtless aware, a practical agriculturist. The
entire business of her farm is conducted by herself, and she has been
eminently successful. She has proved the capacity of woman for
business pursuits. Her success in this vocation is a practical
argument worth a thousand theories. I find no difficulty with her
because she dresses like a man. Her dress has not changed her nature.
Those who censure her for abandoning the female dress, make up their
judgment without proper reflection. She has violated no custom of her
own country, and has merely acted according to the honest dictates of
her mind--"_Honi soit qui mal y pense._"

Miss Weber is now about twenty-five years of age. She is a ripe
scholar, and has a perfect command of the English language. I am
decidedly of the opinion that her visit among us will do a vast deal
of good to our cause, and we ought to give her a hearty welcome when
she comes. I can assure our most rigid friends that they will all be
reconciled to her attire on five minutes' acquaintance....

                         I remain, dear madam, yours sincerely,
                                               MILDRED A. SPOFORD.


_Extract from a Letter of_ H. M. WEBER.

                                   LA PELOUSE, _August 8, 1850_.

.... Circumstances place it out of my power to visit America during
the present season.... The newspapers, both of England and America,
have done me great injustice. While they have described my apparel
with the minute accuracy of professional tailors, they have seen fit
to charge me with a disposition to undervalue the female sex, and to
identify myself with the other. Such calumnies are annoying to me. I
have never wished to be an Iphis--never for a moment affected to be
anything but a woman. I do not think any one ever mistook me for a
man, unless it may have been some stranger who slightly glanced at me
while passing along the street or the highway. I adopted male attire
as a measure of convenience in my business, and not through any wish
to appear eccentric or to pass for one of the male sex; and it has
ever been my rule to dress with the least possible ostentation
consistent with due neatness. I have never had cause to regret my
adoption of male attire, and never expect to return to a female
toilette. I am fully aware, however, that my dress will probably
prejudice the great body of our friends in America against me, while
present impressions on that subject exist; and it was with the view of
allaying this feeling that I wished to address the assembly at
Worcester.

By this means I think I could satisfy any liberal-minded person, of
either sex, that there is no moral or political principle involved in
this question, and that a woman may, if she like, dress in male
habiliments without injury to herself or others.... Those who suppose
that woman can be "the political, social, pecuniary, religious equal
of man" without conforming to his dress, deceive themselves, and
mislead others who have no minds of their own. While the superiority
of the male dress for all purposes of business and recreation is
conceded, it is absurd to argue that we should not avail ourselves of
its advantages.

There are no well-founded objections to women dressing, as we term it,
_en cavalier_. The only two I ever heard are these: "To do so is
contrary to law, both human and divine," and, "The male dress is
_outre_ and less graceful than our own." These objections may be
answered in a few words. The human statutes on this subject should be
repealed, as they surely will be in due time, or be regarded as they
now are in European States--as dead letters. The practice is not
contrary to divine law. The alleged prohibition, as contained in the
fifth book of Moses, had reference to a religious custom of the
Amorites, and was limited in its application to the children of
Israel, who had by Divine command dispossessed that pagan nation of
their territory, and destroyed their temples of idolatrous worship.

The context will show two other prohibitions on this subject. In the
11th and 12th verses of the same chapter (Deut, xxii.) it is forbidden
to "wear garments of divers sorts, as of woolen and linen together,"
and to wear fringes on the vesture. These prohibitions are all of the
same character, and had an obvious reference to the ceremonies used by
the pagans in their worship of idols. If one of these prohibitions be
binding upon nations of the present age, the others are not less so.
To the second objection, it may be said that beauty and grace in
matters of dress are determined by no rules, and if the fashion of
men's clothes be awkward it can easily be improved.

Women who prefer the gown should, of course, consult their own
pleasure by continuing to wear it; while those whose preference is a
male dress, ought not to be blamed for adopting it. I close this
homily by recording my prediction, that in ten years male attire will
be generally worn by the women of most civilized countries, and that
it will precede the consummation of many great measures which are
deemed to be of paramount importance. I hope to visit America next
year. Thanks to the invention of steam, a voyage across the ocean is
now a mere _bagatelle_. I have not much of the spirit of travel
remaining. My agricultural pursuits confine me at home nearly the
whole year, but my captivity is a delightful one.

                                   Affectionately yours,
                                                      H. M. WEBER.


William Henry Channing, from the Business Committee, suggested a plan
for organization, and the principles which should govern the movement
for establishing woman's co-sovereignty with man, and reported the
following:

_Resolved_, That as women alone can learn by experience and prove by
works, what is their rightful sphere of duty, we recommend, as _next
steps_, that they should demand and secure:

1st. _Education_ in primary and high-schools, universities, medical,
legal, and theological institutions, as comprehensive and exact as
their abilities prompt them to seek and their capabilities fit them to
receive.

2d. _Partnership_ in the labors, gains, risks, and remunerations of
productive industry, with such limits only as are assigned by taste,
intuitive judgment, or their measure of spiritual and physical vigor,
as tested by experiment.

3d. A _co-equal share_ in the formation and administration of law,
Municipal, State, and National, through legislative assemblies,
courts, and executive offices.

4th. _Such unions_ as may become the guardians of pure morals and
honorable manners--a high court of appeal in cases of outrage which
can not be, and are not touched by civil or ecclesiastical
organizations, as at present existing, and a medium for expressing the
highest views of justice dictated by human conscience and sanctioned
by holy inspiration.

_Resolved_, That a Central Committee be appointed by this Convention,
empowered to enlarge its numbers, on (1st) Education; (2d) Industrial
Avocations; (3d) Civil and Political Rights and Regulations; (4th)
Social Relations; who shall correspond with each other and with the
Central Committee, hold meetings in their respective neighborhoods,
gather statistics, facts, and incidents to illustrate, raise funds for
the movement; and through the press, tracts, books, and the living
agent, guide public opinion upward and onward in the grand social
reform of establishing woman's co-sovereignty with man.

_Resolved_, That the Central Committee be authorized to call
Conventions at such times and places as they see fit, and that they
hold office until the next Annual Convention.

To carry out the plan suggested by Mr. Channing, the following
Committees were appointed:

MEMBERS OF COMMITTEES.

_Central Committee_.--Paulina W. Davis, Chairman; Sarah H. Earle,
Secretary; Wendell Phillips, Treasurer; Mary A. W. Johnson, Wm. H.
Channing, Gerrit Smith, John G. Forman, Martha H. Mowry, Lucy Stone,
Abby K. Foster, Pliny Sexton, J. Elizabeth Jones, William Elder,
William Stedman, Emily Robinson, Abby H. Price, William Lloyd
Garrison, Lucretia Mott, Ernestine L. Rose, Elizabeth C. Stanton,
Angelina Grimke Weld, Antoinette L. Brown, Harriot K. Hunt, Emma R.
Coe, Clarina I. H. Nichols, Charles C. Burleigh, Adin Ballou, Sarah H.
Hallock, Joseph A. Dugdale.

_Educational Committee_.--Eliza Barney, Chairman; Marian Blackwell,
Secretary; Elizabeth C. Stanton, Eliza Taft, Clarina I. H. Nichols,
Calvin Fairbanks, Hannah Darlington, Ann Eliza Brown, Elizabeth Oakes
Smith.

_Industrial Committee_.--Elizabeth Blackwell, Harriot K. Hunt,
Benjamin S. Treanor, Ebenezer D. Draper, Phebe Goodwin, Alice Jackson,
Maria Waring, Sarah L. Miller.

_Committee on Civil and Political Functions_.--Ernestine L. Rose, Lucy
Stone, Wendell Phillips, Hannah Stickney, Sarah Hallock, Abby K.
Foster, Charles C. Burleigh, Elizabeth C. Stanton, William L.
Garrison.

_Committee on Social Relations_.--Lucretia Mott, William H. Channing,
Anna Q. T. Parsons, William H. Fish, Rebecca Plumley, Elizabeth B.
Chace, John G. Forman, Henry Fish, Mary Grew.

_Committee on Publication_.--Wm. Henry Channing, Chairman; Ernestine
L. Rose, Charlotte Fowler Wells.


MEMBERS WORCESTER CONVENTION, 1850.

_Massachusetts_.--James N. Buffam, W. A. Alcott, A. H. Johnson, W. H.
Harrington, E. B. Briggs, A. C. Lackey, Ora Ober, Olive W. Hastings,
Thomas Provan, Rebecca Provan, A. W. Thayer, M. M. Munyan, W. H.
Johnson, G. W. Benson, Mrs. C. M. Carter, H. S. Brigham, E. A. Welsh,
Mrs. J. H. Moore, Margaret S. Merritt, Martha Willard, A. N. Lamb,
Mrs. Chaplin, N. B. Hill, K. H. Parsons, C. Jillson, L. Wait, Chas.
Bigham, J. T. Partridge, Eliza C. Clapp, Daniel Steward, Sophia Foord,
E. A. Clarke, E. H. Taft, Mrs. E. J. Henshaw, Edward Southwick, E. A.
Merrick, Mrs. C. Merrick, Lewis Ford, J. T. Everett, Loring Moody,
Sojourner Truth, E. Jane Alden, Elizabeth Dayton, Lima H. Ober, Thomas
Hill, Elizabeth Frail, Eli Belknap, M. M. Frail, Valentine Belknap,
Mary R. Metcalf, R. H. Ober, D. A. Mundy, Dr. S. Rogers, Elizabeth
Earle, G. D. Williams, Dorothy Whiting, Emily Whiting, Abigail Morgan,
Susan Fuller, Thomas Earle, Allen C. Earle, Martha B. Earle, Anne H.
Southwick, Joseph A. Howland, Adeline H. Howland, O. T. Harris, Julia
T. Harris, John M. Spear, E. D. Draper, D. R. P. Hewitt, L. C.
Wilkins, J. H. Binney, Mary Adams, Anna Goulding, E. A. Parrington,
Mrs. Parrington, Harriot K. Hunt, Chas. F. Hovey, Mrs. J. G. Hodgden,
C. M. Shaw, Ophelia D. Hill, Mrs. P. Allen, Anna Q. T. Parsons, C. D.
McLane, W. H. Channing, Wendell Phillips, Abby K. Foster, S. S.
Foster, Effingham L. Capron, Frances H. Drake, E. M. Dodge, Eliza
Barney, Lydia Barney, Wm. D. Cady, C. S. Dow, E. Goddard, Mary F.
Gilbert, Josiah Henshaw, Andrew Wellington, Louisa Gleason, Paulina
Gerry, Lucy Stone, Mary Abbot, Anna E. Fish, C. G. Munyan, Maria L.
Southwick, F. H. Underwood, J. B. Willard, Perry Joslin, Elizabeth
Johnson, Seneth Smith, Marian Hill, Wm. Coe, E. T. Smith, S. Aldrich,
M. A. Maynard, S. P. R., J. M. Cummings, Nancy Fay, M. Jane Davis, D.
R. Crandell, E. M. Burleigh, Sarah Chafee, Adeline Perry, Lydia E.
Chase, J. A. Fuller, Sarah Prentice, Emily Prentice, H. N. Fairbanks,
Mrs. A. Crowl, Dwight Tracy, J. S. Perry, Isaac Norcross, Julia A.
McIntyre, Emily Sanford, H. M. Sanford, C. D. M. Lane, Elizabeth
Firth, S. C. Sargeant, C. A. K. Ball, M. A. Thompson, Lucinda Safford,
S. E. Hall, S. D. Holmes, Z. W. Harlow, N. B. Spooner, Ignatius
Sargent, A. B. Humphrey, M. R. Hadwen, J. H. Shaw, Olive Darling, M.
A. Walden, Mrs. Chickery, Mrs. F. A. Pierce, C. M. Trenor, R. C.
Capron, Wm. Lloyd Garrison, Emily Loveland, Mrs. S. Worcester, Phebe
Worcester, Adeline Worcester, Joanna R. Ballou, Abby H. Price, B.
Willard, T. Pool, M. B. Kent, E. H. Knowlton, G. Valentine, A. Prince,
Lydia Wilmarth, J. G. Warren, Mrs. E. A. Stowell, Martin Stowell, Mrs.
E. Stamp, C. M. Barbour, Annie E. Ruggles, T. B. Elliot, A. H.
Metcalf, Eliza J. Kenney, Rev. J. G. Forman, Andrew Stone, M.D.,
Samuel May, Jr., Sarah R. May, M. S. Firth, A. P. B. Rawson, Nathaniel
Barney, Sarah H. Earle, F. C. Johnson.

_Maine_.--Anna R. Blake, Ellen M. Prescott, Oliver Dennett, Lydia
Dennett.

_New York_.--Frederick Douglass, Lydia Mott, S. H. Hallock, Ernestine
L. Rose, Joseph Carpenter, Pliny Sexton, J. C. Hathaway, Lucy N.
Colman, Antoinette L. Brown, Edgar Hicks.

_New Hampshire._--P. B. Cogswell, Julia Worcester, Parker Pillsbury,
Sarah Pillsbury, Asa Foster.

_Vermont._--Clarina I. Howard Nichols. Mrs. A. E. Brown.

_Pennsylvania._--Hannah M. Darlington, Sarah Tyndale, Emma Parker,
Lucretia Mott, S. L. Miller, Isaac L. Miller, Alice Jackson, Janette
Jackson, Anna R. Cox, Jacob Pierce, Lewis E. Capen, Olive W. Hastings,
Rebecca Plumley, S. L. Hastings, Phebe Goodwin.

_Connecticut._--C. C. Burleigh, Martha Smith, Lucius Holmes, Benj.
Segur, Buel Picket, Asa Cutler, Lucy T. Dike, C. M. Collins, Anna
Cornell, S. Monroe, Anna E. Price, M. C. Monroe, Gertrude R. Burleigh.

_Rhode Island._--Betsy F. Lawton, Paulina W. Davis, Cynthia P. Bliss,
Rebecca C. Capron, Martha Mowry, Mary Eddy, Daniel Mitchell, G. Davis,
Susan Sisson, Dr. S. Mowry, Elizabeth B. Chase, Rebecca B. Spring,
Susan R. Harris, A. Barnes.

_Iowa._--Silas Smith.

_Ohio._--Mariana Johnson, Oliver Johnson, Ellen Blackwell, Marian
Blackwell, Diana W. Ballou.

_California._--Mrs. Mary G. Wright.

Asenath Fuller, Denney M. F. Walker, Eunice D. F. Pierce, Elijah
Houghton, L. H. Ober, A. Wyman, Silence Bigelow, Adeline S. Greene,
Josephine Reglar, Anna T. Draper, E. J. Alden, Sophia Taft, Alice H.
Easton, Calvin Fairbanks, D. H. Knowlton, E. W. K. Thompson, Caroline
Farnum, Mary R. Hubbard.

       *       *       *       *       *

SECOND WORCESTER CONVENTION, 1851.

RESOLUTIONS.

1. _Resolved_, That while we would not undervalue other methods, the
Right of Suffrage for Women is, in our opinion, the corner-stone of
this enterprise, since we do not seek to protect woman, but rather to
place her in a position to protect herself.

2. _Resolved_, That it will be woman's fault if, the ballot once in
her hand, all the barbarous, demoralizing, and unequal laws relating
to marriage and property, do not speedily vanish from the
statute-book; and while we acknowledge that the hope of a share in the
higher professions and profitable employments of society is one of the
strongest motives to intellectual culture, we know, also, that an
interest in political questions is an equally powerful stimulus; and
we see, beside, that we do our best to insure education to an
individual when we put the ballot into his hands; it being so clearly
the interest of the community that one upon whose decisions depend its
welfare and safety, should both have free access to the best means of
education, and be urged to make use of them.

3. _Resolved_, That we do not feel called upon to assert or establish
the equality of the sexes, in an intellectual or any other point of
view. It is enough for our argument that natural and political
justice, and the axioms of English and American liberty, alike
determine that rights and burdens--taxation and representation--should
be co-extensive; hence women, as individual citizens, liable to
punishment for acts which the laws call criminal, or to be taxed in
their labor and property for the support of government, have a
self-evident and indisputable right, identically the same right that
men have, to a direct voice in the enactment of those laws and the
formation of that government.

4. _Resolved_, That the democrat, or reformer, who denies suffrage to
women, is a democrat only because he was not born a noble, and one of
those levelers who are willing to level only down to themselves.

5. _Resolved_, That while political and natural justice accords civil
equality to woman; while great thinkers of every age, from Plato to
Condorcet and Mill, have supported their claim; while voluntary
associations, religious and secular, have been organized on this
basis, still, it is a favorite argument against it, that no political
community or nation ever existed in which women have not been in a
state of political inferiority. But, in reply, we remind our opponents
that the same fact has been alleged, with equal truth, in favor of
slavery; has been urged against freedom of industry, freedom of
conscience, and the freedom of the press; none of these liberties
having been thought compatible with a well-ordered state, until they
had proved their possibility by springing into existence as facts.
Besides, there is no difficulty in understanding why the subjection of
woman has been a _uniform custom_, when we recollect that we are just
emerging from the ages in which _might_ has been always right.

6. _Resolved_, That, so far from denying the overwhelming social and
civil influence of women, we are fully aware of its vast extent;
aware, with Demosthenes, that "measures which the statesman has
meditated a whole year may be overturned in a day by a woman"; and for
this very reason we proclaim it the very highest expediency to endow
her with full civil rights, since only then will she exercise this
mighty influence under a just sense of her duty and responsibility;
the history of all ages bearing witness, that the only safe course for
nations is to add open responsibility wherever there already exists
unobserved power.

7. _Resolved_, That we deny the right of any portion of the species to
decide for another portion, or of any individual to decide for another
individual what is and what is not their "proper sphere"; that the
proper sphere for all human beings is the largest and highest to which
they are able to attain; what this is, can not be ascertained without
complete liberty of choice; woman, therefore, ought to choose for
herself what sphere she will fill, what education she will seek, and
what employment she will follow, and not be held bound to accept, in
submission, the rights, the education, and the sphere which man thinks
proper to allow her.

8. _Resolved_, That 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; that among these are life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments
are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent
of the governed; and we charge that man with gross dishonesty or
ignorance, who shall contend that "men," in the memorable document
from which we quote, does not stand for the human race; that "life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," are the "inalienable rights"
of half only of the human species; and that, by "the governed," whose
consent is affirmed to be the only source of just power, is meant that
_half_ of mankind only who, in relation to the other, have hitherto
assumed the character of _governors_.

9. _Resolved_, That we see no weight in the argument that it is
_necessary_ to exclude women from civil life because domestic cares
and political engagements are incompatible; since we do not see the
fact to be so in the case of men; and because, if the incompatibility
be real, it will take care of itself, neither men nor women needing
any law to exclude them from an occupation when they have undertaken
another incompatible with it. Second, we see nothing in the assertion
that women, themselves, do not desire a change, since we assert that
superstitious fears and dread of losing men's regard, smother all
frank expression on this point; and further, if it be their real wish
to avoid civil life, laws to keep them out of it are absurd, no
legislator having ever yet thought it necessary to compel people by
law to follow their own inclination.

10. _Resolved_, That it is as absurd to deny all women their civil
rights because the cares of household and family take up all the time
of some, as it would be to exclude the whole male sex from Congress,
because some men are sailors, or soldiers in active service or
merchants, whose business requires all their attention and energies.


                                        GLEN HAVEN, _Feb. 18, 1853_.

PAULINA WRIGHT DAVIS.--_My Dear Friend_:--Bless you for _The Una_, and
for sending me a copy. I am pleased with its appearance and with the
heartiness of your correspondents. Would you find room for some of my
lucubrations? If so, I will drive my quill a little for you some of
these evenings. Perhaps I might utter something readable.

I do not ask you to send me _The Una_, for the dollar must go with the
request, and the dollar has yet to be earned by _quill-work_, a task
quite as hard as was work when a child at the _quill-wheel_, winding
yarn from the reel.

Drop me a line if you would like my assistance as a correspondent, and
what I can do, I will cheerfully.

                                   Very truly, your friend,
                                             J. C. JACKSON, M.D.[227]


    FOOTNOTES:

    [227] At present the head of the water-cure establishment,
    Dansville, New York. Dr. Jackson has been identified with all the
    leading reforms of his generation--Anti-slavery, Temperance, Woman
    Suffrage--and an earnest advocate for a new dress for woman that
    shall give freedom to her lungs and powers of locomotion.


PETITION OF HARRIOT K. HUNT TO THE MASSACHUSETTS CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION.

_To the Constitutional Convention now sitting in Boston_:

Your petitioner respectfully prays your honorable body to insert into
the Constitution a clause securing to females paying town, county, and
States taxes upon property held in their own right, and who have no
husbands or other guardians to represent and act for them, the same
right of voting possessed by male tax-paying citizens; or, should your
honorable body not deem such females capable of exercising the right
of suffrage with due discretion, at least excuse them from the paying
of taxes, in the appropriation of which they have no voice, thus
carrying out the great principle on which the American Revolution was
based--that taxation and representation ought to go together. All of
which your petitioner will ever pray.


PAULINA WRIGHT DAVIS

Died August 24, 1876, after two years of great suffering. A large
circle of friends gathered at her elegant residence near Providence,
Rhode Island, to pay their last tributes of friendship and respect.
The chief speaker on the occasion was, at her request, Elizabeth Cady
Stanton. She left her noble husband, Hon. Thomas Davis, and two
adopted daughters, to mourn her loss. It was a soft, balmy day, just
such as our friend would have chosen, when she was laid in her last
resting-place. Dr. and Mrs. Channing, Theodore Tilton, and Joaquin
Miller, were among those who followed in the funeral _cortege_.


       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER IX.

INDIANA.


_Dublin Convention, October, 1851._

RESOLUTIONS.

_Resolved_, That all laws and customs having for their perpetuation
the only plea that they are time-honored, which in any way infringe on
woman's equal rights, cramp her energies, <DW36> her efforts, or
place her before the eyes of her family or the world as an inferior,
are wrong, and should be immediately abolished.

_Resolved_, That the avenues to gain, in all their varieties, should
be as freely opened to woman as they now are to man.

_Resolved_, That the rising generation of boys and girls should be
educated together in the same schools and colleges, and receive the
same kind and degree of education.

_Resolved_, That woman should receive for equal labor, equal pay with
man.

_Resolved_, That as the qualification for citizenship in this country
is based on capacity and morality, and as the sexes in their mental
condition are equal, therefore woman should enjoy the same rights of
citizenship with man.

An association was organized and a constitution was adopted, to which
the following names were appended: Amanda M. Way, Minerva Maulsby,
Jane Morrow, Agnes Cook, Rebecca Shreves, Rebecca Williams, Wilson D.
Schooley, Samuel Mitchell, Elda Ann Smith, Dr. O. P. Baer, Mrs. O. P.
Baer, Hannah Birdsall, Melissa J. Diggs, Hannah Hiatt, Jas. P. Way,
B. F. Diggs, Mary B. Birdsall, Fanny Hiatt, Henry Hiatt, Thomas
Birdsall, Elizabeth Hoover, Elijah C. Wright, Elizabeth Wright, A. W.
Pruyne, Dr. Mary F. Thomas, Dr. Owen Thomas, Emi B. Swank, Joel P.
Davis. Lydia P. Davis, Thursey A. Way, Rebecca A. C. Murray.


       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER X.

PENNSYLVANIA.

SAXE, DANA, AND GRACE GREENWOOD.

MR. SAXE not long since, in a poem, satirized literary women very
keenly, upon which Grace Greenwood wrote a severe criticism on his
volume, which was published in _The Evening Post_. Mr. Saxe, after
seeing the criticism, wrote a note to the editor of the _Post_, in
which he makes an exception in favor of Grace. This calls forth
another letter from her, from which we make the following extract:

                                   NEW BRIGHTON, _Jan. 22, 1850_.

GENTLEMEN:--....At the time of my writing, I was feeling peculiarly
sensitive in regard to my womanly, as well as literary position. The
grandpapaish lectures of Mr. Dana had troubled and discouraged me. I
said, "If so speak and write our poets, surely the age is on the
backward line of march." I had become impatient and indignant for my
sex, thus lectured to, preached at, and satirized eternally. I had
grown weary of hearing woman told that her sole business here, the
highest, worthiest aims of her existence were to be loving, lovable,
feminine, to win thus a lover and a lord whom she might glorify abroad
and make comfortable at home.

We have had enough of this. Man is not best qualified to mark out
woman's life-path. He knows, indeed, what he desires her to be, but he
does not yet understand all that God and nature require of her. Woman
should not be made up of love alone, the other attributes of her being
should not be dwarfed that this may have a large, unnatural growth.
Hers should be a distinct individuality, an independent moral
existence--or, at least, the dependence should be mutual. Woman can
best judge of woman, her wants, capacities, aspirations, and powers.
She can best speak to her on the life of the affections, on the loves
of her heart, on the peculiar joys and sorrows of her lot. She can
best teach her to be true to herself, to her high nature, to her brave
spirit; and then, indeed, shall she be constant in her love and
faithful to her duties, all, even to the most humble. Woman can
strengthen woman for the life of self-sacrifice, of devotion, of
ministration, of much endurance which lies before her.

A woman of intellect and right feeling would never dream of pointing
out the weak and unfilial Desdemona as an example to her sex in this
age; would never dare to hold up as "our destined end and aim," a one
love, however romantic and poetical, which might be so selfishly
sought and so unscrupulously secured.

Thank Heaven, woman herself is awaking to a perception of the causes
which have hitherto impeded her free and perfect development, which
have shut her out from the large experiences, the wealth and fullness
of the life to which she was called. She is beginning to feel, and to
cast off the bonds which oppress her--many of them, indeed,
self-imposed, and many gilded and rarely wrought, covered with flowers
and delicate tissues, but none the less bonds--bonds upon the speech,
upon the spirit, upon the life.

There surely is a great truth involved in this question of "Woman's
Rights," and agitated as it may be, with wisdom and mildness, or with
rashness and the bold, high spirit which shocks and startles at the
first, good will come out of it eventually, great good, and the women
of the next age will be the stronger and the freer, aye, and the
happier, for the few brave spirits who stood up fearlessly for
unpopular truth against the world.

I know that I expose myself to the charge of being unfeminine in
feeling, of ultraism. Well, better that than conservatism, though
conservatism were safer and more respectable. Senselessness is always
safety, and a mummy is a thoroughly respectable personage.

But to return to Mr. Saxe. Our poet satirized rather keenly literary
women, as a class, in the poem on which I remarked, but afterwards, in
his communication to the _Post_, most politely intimates that he
excepts me as one of the "women of real talent." But I will not be
excepted. I stand in the ranks, liable to all the penalties of the
calling--exposed to the hot shot of satire and the stinging arrows of
ridicule. I will not be received as an exception, where full justice
is not done to the class to which I belong.

Suppose, now, that I should write a poem to deliver before some
"Woman's Rights Convention" or "Ladies' Literary Association," on "The
Times," which should come down sharp and heavy on the literary men of
the day, for usurping the delicate employ by right and nature the
peculiar province of woman, "the weaker vessel"; for neglecting their
shops, their fields, their counting-houses, and their interesting
families, and wasting their precious time in writing love-tales,
"doleful ditties," and "distressful strains," for the magazines; for
flirting with the muse, while their wives are wanting shoes, or
perpetrating puns, while their children cry for "buns"! Suppose that,
pointing every line with wit, I should hold them up to contempt as
careless, improvident lovers of pleasure, given to self-indulgence;
taking their Helicon more than dashed with gin; seekers after
notoriety, eccentric in their habits and unmanly in all their tastes!
After this, should I very handsomely make an exception in favor of Mr.
Saxe, would he feel complimented?

As far as I have known literary women, and as far as they have been
made known to us in literary biography, the unwomanly and unamiable,
the poor wives, and daughters, and sisters, have been the rare
exceptions. I mean not alone "women of genius," but would include
those of mere talent, of mediocre talent even, devoted to letters as a
profession, and who, by their estimable characters and blameless
lives, are an honor to their calling.

I believe that for one woman whom the pursuits of literature, the
ambition of authorship, and the love of fame have rendered unfit for
home-life, a thousand have been made thoroughly undomestic by poor
social strivings, the follies of fashion, and the intoxicating
distinction which mere personal beauty confers.

                                                  GRACE GREENWOOD.


WESTCHESTER CONVENTION, JUNE 2 AND 3, 1852.

LETTER FROM MARY MOTT.

                    AUBURN, DE KALB COUNTY, INDIANA, _May 17, 1852_.

SISTERS:--You have called another Convention, and all who are the
friends of equal rights are invited to attend and participate in the
deliberations. The invitation will probably meet the eye of thousands
who would gladly encourage you by their presence, did circumstances
permit them to do so. Your aim is the moral, physical, and
intellectual elevation of woman, and through her to benefit the whole
human race. Can a Convention be called for a nobler purpose? Have men
ever aimed so high? They have had Conventions without stint; old men
and young men, Whigs, Democrats, Abolitionists, and Slaveholders, all
have had Conventions; but how few have aimed at anything higher than
political power for themselves and party. We have looked upon their
contests without personal interest in their result. Some benefits
might come to our husbands and brothers, but none to us. We are
permitted to talk about liberty, but we may not enjoy it. We may water
the tree with our tears, while our husbands pluck and enjoy the fruit.
Of what advantage is it to us to live in a Republic? Our social
position is no better than it was in the days of Queen Elizabeth. Men
have made great progress since that day; from being subjects they have
become sovereigns, ruling, as she professed to rule, by _divine
right_. True, many of these sovereigns have not a foot of ground, and
but one subject, a wife; but then he has absolute control over that
one. Yes, they have made progress; but for that progress they are much
indebted to men who, being in possession of power, were only anxious
to retain and extend it. The Great Charter was extorted from King John
by the barons in order to consolidate their power; they attended to
the interests of the common people (who then were in a state of
villanage) just so far as they could clearly see would be for their
own interest, and no further. The world is much indebted to those
sturdy barons; they did more good than they ever thought of doing.
There were germs in that charter that have borne excellent fruit since
that day.

Error delights in obscurity; surrounded with clouds and darkness, it
is comparatively secure; but let these clouds be scattered, let the
light of reason fall upon it, and it is dangerous no longer. Any act
that causes men to think, is so far an advantage to society. The ideas
will not be lost. When King James I talked and wrote upon the doctrine
of the divine right of kings, he little thought it would result in the
beheading of his son Charles, and the expulsion of his son James from
the throne. Shrouded in mystery, it was approached with reverence, and
seldom critically examined, until he lifted the veil and invited
others to behold its beauty. What had been a mystery was a mystery no
longer. He forgot what others remembered--that it might have different
aspects for the sovereign and subject. It was judged unworthy of
national homage, but very desirable as a household god. And men who
thought Paul was in the dark when he wrote, "Let every soul be subject
unto the higher powers, for there is no power but of God. The powers
that be are ordained of God. Whosoever resisteth the powers resisteth
the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves
damnation;" the men, I say, who could not and would not receive such
doctrine from Paul, found him worthy of all praise when he said,
"wives, obey your husbands." After a while England proposed taxing the
Colonies. One party held that protection gave them the right of
taxation. The other said the British Constitution gave the Government
no power to tax, unless the persons were represented in Parliament.
They declared their resolution to pay no taxes without representation.
Much was said about the rights of man. And when at last a three-penny
tax was laid upon tea, the men, being brimful of patriotism, cared
nothing for the tax; it was the principle they cared for, and they
would fight for their principles. How very sincere they were, let the
millions of wives answer, whose very existence is ignored in law.
There was one thing women gained by that contest; they gained a
clearer knowledge of their rights, a better understanding of their
wrongs, which, according to Blackstone, are a deprivation of rights. A
knowledge of these has produced a strong desire to seek a remedy.
Hence the call for a Woman's Convention. We must expect some
difference of opinion as to the extent of the reforms proposed; but
none who have carefully examined the subject will see reason to doubt
that our rights run parallel with the rights of man. That being
granted, we may then inquire into their expediency. Many things we
have a right to do which are inexpedient; but it is for us to say what
rights we will waive and what we will enjoy.

We claim that the professions should be open to woman, believing she
can preach as acceptably, study the law as thoroughly, and practice
medicine as successfully, as man. The business of a clerk seems to us
to be peculiarly feminine, and we claim the right to choose any trade
or business for which we have strength and capacity. If it is true
that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the
governed, we would respectfully ask by what authority men legislate
for us, and who gave them that authority? If the power is a just one,
from what source did they derive it? Certainly not from the consent of
the governed. We presume neither men nor women care for the privilege
of voting, except as a means of securing the enjoyment of the rights
with which they have been endowed by their Creator, and for the
protection of which "Governments were first instituted among men." The
rights of women have been long in abeyance, but no lapse of time can
deprive her of them; they are not transferable. She does not ask the
law to confer upon her new rights. She only asks to have her just
rights recognized and protected. A glance at the present position of
women will show that the law does not effect this. It places minors,
idiots, insane persons, and married women in the same category. Man
takes all that the wife has to his own use, and such robberies are so
common that they excite no indignation in the breasts of his
fellow-men. He can spend all she has at the gaming-table, and who can
hinder him? He can spend it in dissipation, while his deceived wife is
suffering at home for the necessaries of life. The law gives him the
property, and with that he can usually find tools to work out his
designs. The law interposes no barriers between him and his victim. If
a married woman had equal protection with her husband, she would be
ambitious to acquire property by her own industry, and the habit of
industry and forethought thus acquired, would be found valuable in
the marriage relation, and she would not be compelled to enter
matrimony as a house of refuge. But we are told that marriage is a
contract, voluntarily entered into by competent parties, and by this
contract the rights of the woman are transferred to the man. But
_marriage is not a contract_, it is an union instituted by God
Himself, anterior to any contract whatever. Man was not pronounced
good until woman was created, and God said, Let us make man in our
image after our own likeness, and let them _have dominion_. But some
one may meet us here with the question, did He not say to the woman,
after the fall, "Thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule
over thee?" Yes, the Bible says so; and in the next chapter we are
told that Adam and Eve had two sons, the eldest called Cain, the
youngest Abel; and God said to Cain when speaking of Abel, "Unto thee
shall be his desire, and _thou shalt rule over him_." You see they are
the very words used to Eve; therefore, if dominion was taken from the
woman and given to the man, it was taken from all younger brothers and
given to the first-born. If marriage be a contract, why is it not
governed by the same rules that govern other contracts? A
consideration is necessary to the existence of a contract. In
marriage, the man offers love for love and hand for hand, but what is
the consideration for those personal rights of which he dispossesses
her? If a contract, why is there no remedy for its violation either in
law or equity, as is the case with other contracts? The bridegroom
says in the marriage service, "With all my worldly goods I thee
endow." Those who framed that impressive service no doubt considered
it but just that he who received all by the courtesy of England,
should endow her as liberally, and they thus reminded every bridegroom
of his duty, even before the altar; and what honest man will say he
should not keep his word?

                                                  MARY MOTT.


LETTER FROM DR. ELIZABETH BLACKWELL.

                                        NEW YORK, _May 27, 1852_.

MRS. DARLINGTON.--_Dear Madam_:---I thank you cordially for your very
kind invitation, and would willingly attend your Convention did not my
duties in New York prevent my leaving the city.

The Convention could not choose a more important subject than
education for discussion, and great good will be done if public
attention is roused to the imperfection of our present system, in
which the _physical nature_ and the _duties of life_ are equally
neglected. I believe that the chief source of the false position of
women is, the _inefficiency of women themselves_--the deplorable fact
that they are so often careless mothers, weak wives, poor
housekeepers, ignorant nurses, and frivolous human beings. If they
would perform with strength and wisdom the duties which lie
immediately around them, every sphere of life would soon be open to
them. They might be priests, physicians, rulers, welcome everywhere,
for all restrictive laws and foolish customs would speedily disappear
before the spiritual power of strong, good women.

In order to develop such women, our present method of educating girls,
which is an injurious waste of time, must be entirely remodeled, and I
shall look forward with great interest to any plan of action that may
be suggested by your Convention.

With hearty sympathy in every aspiration, and the right hand of
fellowship to every conscientious worker, believe me,

                                   Very truly yours,
                                              ELIZABETH BLACKWELL.


LETTER FROM PAULINA WRIGHT DAVIS.

It is also often asked if women want more rights, why do they not take
them? Let us see how that may be. Does a woman desire a _thorough_
medical education, where is the institution fully and property endowed
to receive her? Two women, it is true, have made their way through two
separate colleges, and when they had honorably won their diplomas, and
even the voice of scandal could not cast a shadow upon them, they were
publicly insulted by having the doors of those institutions closed
upon all others of their sex. If she desires a course of thorough
disciplinary study for any purpose whatsoever, where is she to find
means or the institution to receive her? The academic shades are
forbidden ground to her, while their massive doors turn with no harsh
grating sound at the magic word of man for man. If we did not feel
too deeply the injustice of this, we might comfort ourselves with the
idea that our brains are so superior that we do not need the same
amount of study and discipline as the other sex....

When Socrates was advocating the equal education of women for
governmental offices, he was met by ridicule. His words in
consideration of it are full of wisdom. Says the sage, "The man who
laughs at women going through their exercises, reaps the unripe fruit
of a ridiculous wisdom, and seems not rightly to know at what he
laughs, or why he does it, for that ever was and will be deemed a
noble saying, that the profitable is beautiful and the hurtful
base."....

The harmony, unity, and oneness of the race, can not be secured while
there is class legislation; while one half of humanity is cramped
within a narrow sphere and governed by arbitrary power. This
unrecognized half desires these factitious restraints removed, and to
be placed side by side with the other, simply that there may be full,
free, and equal development in the future. The moral life which urges
this claim is the God within us. The force which opposes it, it
matters not whence it comes, "is of the earth, earthy."....


LETTER FROM WM. H. AND MARY JOHNSON.

The influence of woman as a wife and a mother has been so often
portrayed, that it would be difficult to find a moral writer who has
not indulged in the fruitful theme, but we can not omit the occasion
of quoting the sentiments of the eloquent Wm. Wirt on this subject:
"Is not _our_ conduct toward this sex ill-advised and foolish in
relation to our own happiness? Is it not to reject a boon which
Providence kindly offers to us, and which, were we to embrace and
cultivate it with skill, would refine and enlarge the sources of our
own enjoyment, and purify, raise, and ennoble our own character beyond
the power of human calculation?

"As the companion of a man of sense and virtue, as an instrument and
partner of his earthly happiness, what is the most beautiful woman in
the world without a mind--without a cultivated mind, capable of an
animated correspondence with his own, and of reciprocating all his
thoughts and feelings?

Is not our conduct on this head ungenerous and ignoble to the other
sex? Do we not deprive them of the brightest and most angelic portion
of their character, degrade them from the rank of intelligence which
they are formed to hold; and instead of making them the partners of
our souls, attempt to debase them into mere objects of sense?

"Is not our conduct mean and dastardly? Does it not look as if we were
afraid that, with equal opportunities, they would rival us in
intelligence, and examine and refute our pretended superiority?"

We congratulate the Convention on the selection of the place for
holding their deliberations. In no part of the State could a community
be found better qualified to appreciate the objects of such a meeting,
or the means for their accomplishment. Chester has undoubtedly taken
the lead of all her sister counties in educational movements, as may
be witnessed in her numerous flourishing schools for both sexes, which
are attracting, as to a common focus, pupils from all parts of the
country. And it affords us unmingled pleasure to observe the numerous
female schools that have been established in this quarter, and the
patronage that has been extended toward them. These are sure
indications of an improved public sentiment in relation to the
development of the female mind.

But there are other indications of advancement in this particular
still more encouraging, because they exhibit fruits of the most
ennobling powers of the human understanding. We allude to those
benevolent associations particularly for promoting temperance, in
which the females of Chester County have borne such a conspicuous and
effective part. The reflection is, indeed, animating, that at a period
when almost all kindred associations in the State, among the other
sex, had languished, and intemperance seemed likely once more to
overwhelm the land with more desolating evils than had ever yet been
known, there was yet to be found in Chester County an association of
females who were nobly bearing the standard of total abstinence, and
by their well-timed labors giving evidence that there was yet vitality
in the cause! Thus we have seen not only in this, but in other fields
of moral reform, that the progress has uniformly been commensurate
with the intellectual and moral culture of the female mind. Let the
sex, then, give their influence in promoting a system of education
that will, if carried out, secure to every woman in the land the
blessings of thorough practical instruction. May the deliberations of
the Convention tend to the promotion of this most desirable object.
With such developments as must result from the more general diffusion
of knowledge, not only rights, but duties that have been hidden by the
suggestions of ignorance and bigotry will be brought to light, and the
sex will realize the noble sentiment of one of New England's gifted
sons, that

    "New occasions teach new duties--Time makes ancient good uncouth,
    They must upward still and onward, who would keep abreast of Truth!"

Desiring that your discussions may be guided by that spirit which has
heretofore characterized them, we remain your friends,

                                   WM. H. JOHNSON AND MARY JOHNSON.


RESOLUTIONS OF THE WESTCHESTER CONVENTION, 1852.

_Resolved_, That every party which claims to represent the humanity,
the civilization, or the progress of the age, is bound to inscribe on
its banner, "Equality before the laws, without distinction of sex."

_Resolved_, That the science of government is not necessarily
connected with the violence and intrigue which are now frequently
practised by party politicians, neither does the exercise of the
elective franchise, or the _PROPER_ discharge of governmental duties
necessarily involve the sacrifice of the refinement or sensibilities
of true womanhood.

_Resolved_, That in demanding for women that equal station among their
brethren to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them,
we do not urge the claim in the spirit of an adverse policy, or with
any idea of separate advantages, or in any apprehension of conflicting
interests between the sexes.

_Resolved_, That while we regret the antagonism into which we are
necessarily brought to some of the laws, customs, and monopolies of
society, we have cause to rejoice that the exposure of the great
wrongs of woman has been so promptly met by a kind spirit, and a
disposition to redress these wrongs, to open avenues for her
elevation, and to co-operate for her entire enfranchisement.

_Resolved_, That the greatest and most varied development of the human
mind, and the widest sphere of usefulness, can be obtained only by the
highest intellectual culture of the whole people, and that all
obstructions should be removed which tend to prevent women from
entering, as freely as men, upon the study of the physical, mental,
and moral sciences.

_Resolved_, That we can not appreciate the justice or generosity of
the laws which require women to pay taxes, and thus enable legislators
richly to endow colleges and universities for their own sex, from
which the female sex is entirely excluded.

_Resolved_, That the growing liberality of legislation and judicial
construction, in regard to the property rights of married women,
affords gratifying evidence of the equity of our demands and of their
progress in public sentiment.

_Resolved_, That the disposition of property by law as affecting
married parties, ought to be the same for the husband and the wife,
"that she should have, during life, an equal control over the property
gained by their mutual toil and sacrifices; and be heir to her
husband, precisely to the extent that he is heir to her."

_Resolved_, That the mother being as much the natural guardian of the
child as the father, ought so to be recognized in law, and if it is
justly the province of the court to appoint guardians for minors, want
of qualification in the surviving parent should be the required
condition of the appointment.

_Resolved_, That the inequality of the remuneration paid for woman's
labor compared with that of man, is unjust and degrading, for so long
as custom awards to her smaller compensation for services of equal
value, she will be held in a state of dependence, not by any order of
nature, but by an arbitrary rule of man.

_Resolved_, That the distinctive traits of female character, like its
distinct physical organism, having its foundation in nature, the
widest range of thought and action, and the highest cultivation and
development of all its varied powers, will only make more apparent
those sensibilities and graces which are considered its peculiar
charm.

_Resolved_, That in claiming for woman all the rights of human beings
we are but asserting her humanity, leaving the differences actually
existing in the male and female constitutions to take care of
themselves, these differences furnishing no reason for subjecting one
sex to the other.

_Resolved_, That a Committee be appointed to prepare and circulate
petitions, asking of our Legislature such a change in the Constitution
and laws of this State, as shall extend to woman the privilege of the
elective franchise, and equality in the division and inheritance of
property.

_Resolved_, That said Committee be instructed to collect information
upon the rights acknowledged and privileges guaranteed to women by
other States and Governments, publishing it in such way as by them
shall be deemed best for promoting political and legal equality
between the sexes.

_Resolved_, That H. M. Darlington, P. E. Gibbons, Hannah Wright, Mary
Ann Fulton, Sarah E. Miller, Lea Pusey, and Ruth Dugdale be the
Committee.

Oliver Johnson offered a resolution expressing the satisfaction
afforded to the members of the Convention by the presence and labors
of those friends who had come from their distant homes in other States
to be with us on this occasion. It was unanimously adopted.

The Convention adjourned _sine die_.


FOURTH NATIONAL W. R. CONVENTION, PHILADELPHIA, OCTOBER 18, 19, 20,
1854.

RESOLUTIONS.

_Resolved_, That we congratulate the true friends of woman upon the
rapid progress which her cause has made during the year past, in spite
of the hostility of the bad and the prejudices of the good.

_Resolved_, That woman's aspiration is to be the only limit of woman's
destiny.

_Resolved_, That so long as woman is debarred from an equal education,
restricted in her employments, denied the right of independent
property if married, and denied in all cases the right of controlling
the legislation which she is nevertheless bound to obey, so long must
the woman's rights agitation be continued.

_Resolved_, That in perfect confidence that what we desire will one
day be accomplished, we commit the cause of woman to God and to
humanity.

_Resolved_, That in demanding the educational rights of woman, we do
not deny the natural distinctions of sex, but only wish to develop
them fully and harmoniously.

_Resolved_, That in demanding the industrial rights of woman, we only
claim that she should have "a fair day's wages for a fair day's work,"
which is, however, impossible while she is restricted to few ill-paid
avocations, and unable (if married) to control her own earnings.

_Resolved_, That in demanding the political rights of woman, we simply
assert the fundamental principle of democracy--that taxation and
representation should go together, and that, if this principle is
denied, all our institutions must fall with it.

_Resolved_, That our present democracy is an absurdity, since it
deprives woman even of the political power which is allowed to her in
Europe, and abolishes all other aristocracy only to establish a new
aristocracy of sex, which includes _all_ men and excludes all women.

_Resolved_, That it is because we recognize the beauty and sacredness
of the family, that we demand for woman an equal position there,
instead of her losing, as now, the control of her own property, the
custody of her own children, and, finally, her own legal existence,
under laws which have all been pronounced by jurists "a disgrace to a
heathen nation."

_Resolved_, That we urge it upon the women of every American State:
First, to petition the legislatures for universal suffrage and a
reform in the rights of property; second, to use their utmost efforts
to improve female education; third, to open as rapidly as possible new
channels for female industry.

Mrs. Tracy Cutler made an address upon the objects of the movement.


       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER XI.

LUCRETIA MOTT'S FUNERAL.

Lueretia Mott died at her quiet home, "Roadside," near Philadelphia,
Nov. 11, 1880. Notwithstanding the Associated Press dispatch said,
"Funeral strictly private by special request," the attendance on that
occasion was large. _The Philadelphia Times_ thus describes it: The
funeral of Lucretia Mott, attended by an immense concourse of people,
at her residence as well as in the cemetery, was an impressive scene
not soon to be forgotten. A handsome stone house, standing in
tastefully laid out and carefully kept grounds studded with forest
trees, just west of the old fork road in Cheltenham township,
Montgomery County, was the home of Lucretia Mott. On this occasion the
road and grounds were densely packed with carriages, people on
horseback and on foot, coming from many miles about to pay their last
tributes of respect to this noble woman.

The funeral was conducted according to the custom of the Society of
Friends, and was in all its appointments simple and unostentatious, in
keeping with the character of the noble woman who had passed away. No
set forms were observed.

The body, in her usual Quaker costume, lay in a room adjoining the
library, in a plain, unpolished walnut coffin, padded and lined with
some white material, but without any ornamentation whatever. There
were no flowers and no uttered demonstrations of grief, but a profound
sadness seemed to pervade the house, and for half an hour no sound was
heard in the densely thronged rooms save the muffled tread over the
thick carpets of fresh arrivals and the whispered directions of a
servant, pointing the way to the room where a last look at the dead
might be had.

At half-past 12 o'clock Deborah Wharton arose from her seat in the
parlor, and made a brief but touching address on the life and
character of the deceased. She began by a quotation from the Bible:
"This day a mighty prince has fallen in Israel." She then contrasted
the condition in life of Lucretia Mott and that of a prince, and
showed how she had accomplished more for humanity than the most
powerful princes, but without noise and tumult and the shedding of
blood.

Dr. Furness paid a beautiful tribute to the dead. He quoted the
beatitudes from the the fifth chapter of Matthew, and applied them to
her. "We are accustomed," he said, "to speak of the dead as having
gone to their reward, but Lucretia Mott had her reward here, and she
shall have it hereafter a hundred fold." Dr. Furness closed with an
eloquent prayer that the example of the beautiful life ended upon
earth might not be lost upon the living.

Phoebe Couzins paid a tender and loving tribute that touched every
heart. Then loving hands took up the little coffin--it looked hardly
larger than a child's--and bore it to the gravelled drive in front of
the house. The route was down York road to Fairhill, the Friends'
cemetery, at Germantown Avenue and Cambria Street, in this city, which
was reached about three o'clock. Here several hundred people were
already gathered to witness the interment. Fairhill is a little
cemetery, about the size of a city square. It is mound-shaped, sloping
up from all sides to the center. It is filled with trees and
shrubbery, but does not contain a single monument, the graves being
simply marked with little marble blocks, which do not rise more than
six inches above the ground. In the highest part of the grounds was
the open grave, by the side of the husband, James Mott, who was buried
about twelve years ago. Above the grave spread the branches of an
aspen tree, and near it is a weeping willow. While thousands stood
about, the coffin was reverently, solemnly, and silently lowered. The
grave was then filled up, the friends turned away, and slowly the
cemetery was deserted.

Memorial services were held the same day and hour by Liberal Germans
in Milwaukie, Wisconsin, and by the City Suffrage Association in New
York. Dr. Clement Lozier, president of the society, presided. Charles
G. Ames, of Philadelphia; Frederick Hinckley, of Providence; Robert
Collyer, of New York, gave memorial sermons in their respective
churches.


       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER XIII

MRS. STANTON'S REMINISCENCES.

                                        PETERBORO, _December 1, 1855_.

ELIZABETH C. STANTON.--_My Dear Friend_:--The "Woman's Rights
Movement" has deeply interested your generous heart, and you have ever
been ready to serve it with your vigorous understanding. It is,
therefore, at the risk of appearing somewhat unkind and uncivil, that
I give my honest answer to your question. You would know why I have so
little faith in this movement. I reply, that it is not in the proper
hands; and that the proper hands are not yet to be found. The present
age, although in advance, of any former age, is, nevertheless, very
far from being sufficiently under the sway of reason to take up the
cause of woman, and carry it forward to success. A much stronger and
much more widely diffused common sense than has characterized any of
the generations, must play its mightiest artillery upon the stupendous
piles of nonsense, which tradition and chivalry and a misinterpreted
and superstitious Christianity have reared in the way of this cause,
ere woman can have the prospect of the recognition of her rights and
of her confessed equality with man.

The object of the "Woman's Rights Movement" is nothing less than to
recover the rights of woman--nothing less than to achieve her
independence. She is now the dependent of man; and, instead of rights,
she has but privileges--the mere concessions (always revocable and
always uncertain) of the other sex to her sex. I say nothing against
this object. It is as proper as it is great; and until it is realized,
woman can not be half herself, nor can man be half himself. I rejoice
in this object; and my sorrow is, that they, who are intent upon it,
are not capable of adjusting themselves to it--not high-souled enough
to consent to those changes and sacrifices in themselves, in their
positions and relations, essential to the attainment of this vital
object.

What if a nation in the heart of Europe were to adopt, and uniformly
adhere to, the practice of cutting off one of the hands of all their
new-born children? It would from this cause be reduced to poverty, to
helpless dependence upon the charity of surrounding nations, and to
just such a measure of privileges as they might see fit to allow it,
in exchange for its forfeited rights. Very great, indeed, would be the
folly of this strange nation. But a still greater folly would it be
guilty of, should it, notwithstanding this voluntary mutilation, claim
all the wealth, and all the rights, and all the respect, and all the
independence which it enjoyed before it entered upon this systematic
mutilation.

Now, this twofold folly of this one-hand nation illustrates the
similar twofold folly of some women. Voluntarily wearing, in common
with their sex, a dress which imprisons and <DW36>s them, they,
nevertheless, follow up this absurdity with the greater one of
coveting and demanding a social position no less full of admitted
rights, and a relation to the other sex no less full of independence,
than such position and relation would naturally and necessarily have
been, had they scorned a dress which leaves them less than half their
personal power of self-subsistence and usefulness. I admit that the
mass of women are not chargeable with this latter absurdity of
cherishing aspirations and urging claims so wholly and so glaringly at
war with this voluntary imprisonment and this self-degradation. They
are content in their helplessness and poverty and destitution of
rights. Nay, they are so deeply deluded as to believe that all this
belongs to their natural and unavoidable lot. But the handful of women
of whom I am here complaining--the woman's rights women--persevere
just as blindly and stubbornly as do other women, in wearing a dress
that both marks and makes their impotence, and yet, O amazing
inconsistency! they are ashamed of their dependence, and remonstrate
against its injustice. They claim that the fullest measure of rights
and independence and dignity shall be accorded to them, and yet they
refuse to place themselves in circumstances corresponding with their
claim. They demand as much for themselves as is acknowledged to be
due to men, and yet they refuse to pay the necessary, the
never-to-be-avoided price of what they demand--the price which men
have to pay for it.

I admit that the dress of woman is not the primal cause of her
helplessness and degradation. That cause is to be found in the false
doctrines and sentiments of which the dress is the outgrowth and
symbol. On the other hand, however, these doctrines and sentiments
would never have become the huge bundle they now are, and they would
probably have all languished, and perhaps all expired, but for the
dress. For, as in many other instances, so in this, and emphatically
so in this, the cause is made more efficient by the reflex influence
of the effect. Let woman give up the irrational modes of clothing her
person, and these doctrines and sentiments would be deprived of their
most vital aliment by being deprived of their most natural expression.
In no other practical forms of folly to which they might betake
themselves, could they operate so vigorously and be so invigorated by
their operation.

Were woman to throw off the dress, which, in the eye of chivalry and
gallantry, is so well adapted to womanly gracefulness and womanly
helplessness, and to put on a dress that would leave her free to work
her own way through the world, I see not but that chivalry and
gallantry would nearly or quite die out. No longer would she present
herself to man, now in the bewitching character of a plaything, a
doll, an idol, and now in the degraded character of his servant. But
he would confess her transmutation into his equal; and, therefore, all
occasion for the display of chivalry and gallantry toward her on the
one hand, and tyranny on the other, would have passed away. Only let
woman attire her person fitly for the whole battle of life--that great
and often rough battle, which she is as much bound to fight as man is,
and the common sense expressed in the change will put to flight all
the nonsensical fancies about her superiority to man, and all the
nonsensical fancies about her inferiority to him. No more will then be
heard of her being made of a finer material than man is made of; and,
on the contrary, no more will then be heard of her being but the
complement of man, and of its taking both a man and a woman (the
woman, of course, but a small part of it) to make up a unit. No more
will it then be said that there is sex in mind--an original sexual
difference in intellect. What a pity that so many of our noblest women
make this foolish admission! It is made by the great majority of the
women who plead the cause of woman.

I am amazed that, the intelligent women engaged in the "Woman's Rights
Movement," see not the relation between their dress and the oppressive
evils which they are striving to throw off. I am amazed that they do
not see that their dress is indispensable to keep in countenance the
policy and purposes out of which those evils grow. I hazard nothing in
saying, that the relation between the dress and degradation of an
American woman, is as vital as between the cramped foot and
degradation of a Chinese woman; as vital as between the uses of the
inmate of the harem and the apparel and training provided for her.
Moreover, I hazard nothing in saying, that an American woman will
never have made her most effectual, nor, indeed, any serviceable
protest against the treatment of her sex in China, or by the lords of
the harem, so long as she consents to have her own person clothed in
ways so repugnant to reason and religion, and grateful only to a
vitiated taste, be it in her own or in the other sex.

Women are holding their meetings; and with great ability do they urge
their claim to the rights of property and suffrage. But, as in the
case of the <DW52> man, the great needed change is in himself, so,
also, in the case of woman, the great needed change is in herself. Of
what comparative avail would be her exercise of the right of suffrage,
if she is still to remain the victim of her present false notions of
herself and of her relations to the other sex?--false notions so
emphatically represented and perpetuated by her dress? Moreover, to
concede to her the rights of property would be to benefit her
comparatively little, unless she shall resolve to break out from her
clothes-prison, and to undertake right earnestly, as right earnestly
as a man, to get property. Solomon says: "The destruction of the poor
is their poverty." The adage that knowledge is power, is often
repeated; and there are, indeed, many instances to verify it.
Nevertheless, as a general proposition, it is a thousandfold more
emphatically true that property is power. Knowledge helps to get
property, but property is the power. That the slaves are a helpless
prey, is chiefly because they are so poor and their masters so rich.
The masses almost everywhere are well-nigh powerless, because almost
everywhere they are poor. How long will they consent to be poor? Just
so long as they shall consent to be robbed of their God-given right
to the soil. That women are helpless is no wonder, so long as women
are paupers.

As long as woman shall be silly enough to learn her lessons in the
schools of gallantry and chivalry, so long will it be the height of
her ambition to be a graceful and amiable burden upon the other sex.
But as soon as she shall consent to place herself under the
instructions of reason and common sense, and to discard, as wholly
imaginary, those differences between the nature of man and the nature
of woman, out of which have grown innumerable nonsensical doctrines
and notions, and all sorts of namby pamby sentiments, so soon will she
find that, to no greater extent than men are dependent on each other,
are women to foster the idea of their dependence on men. Then, and not
till then, will women learn that, to be useful and happy, and to
accomplish the high purposes of their being, they must, no less
emphatically than men, stand upon their own feet, and work with own
hands, and bear the burdens of life with their own strength, and brave
its storms with their own resoluteness.

The next "Woman's Rights Convention" will, I take it for granted,
differ but little from its predecessors. It will abound in righteous
demands and noble sentiments, but not in the evidence that they who
enunciate these demands and sentiments are prepared to put themselves
in harmony with what they conceive and demand. In a word, for the lack
of such preparation and of the deep earnestness, which alone can
prompt to such preparation, it will be, as has been every other
Woman's Rights Convention, a failure. Could I see it made up of women
whose dress would indicate their translation from cowardice to
courage; from slavery to freedom; from the kingdom of fancy and
fashion and foolery to the kingdom of reason and righteousness, then
would I hope for the elevation of woman, aye, and of man too, as
perhaps I have never yet hoped. What should be the parts and
particulars of such dress, I am incapable of saying. Whilst the
"Bloomer dress" is unspeakably better than the common dress, it
nevertheless affords not half that freedom of the person which woman
is entitled and bound to enjoy. I add, on this point, that however
much the dresses of the sexes should resemble each other, decency and
virtue and other considerations require that they should be obviously
distinguishable from each other.

I am not unaware that such views as I have expressed in this letter
will be regarded as serving to break down the characteristic delicacy
of woman. I frankly admit that I would have it broken down; and that I
would have the artificial and conventional, the nonsensical and
pernicious thing give place to the natural delicacy which would be
common to both sexes. As the delicacy, which is made peculiar to one
of the sexes, is unnatural, and, therefore, false, this, which would
be common to both, would be natural, and, therefore, true. I would
have no characteristic delicacy of woman, and no characteristic
coarseness of man. On the contrary, believing man and woman to have
the same nature, and to be therefore under obligation to have the same
character, I would subject them to a common standard of morals and
manners. The delicacy of man should be no less shrinking than that of
woman, and the bravery of woman should be one with the bravery of man.
Then would there be a public sentiment very unlike that which now
requires the sexes to differ in character, and which, therefore, holds
them amenable to different codes--codes that, in their partiality to
man, allow him to commit high crimes, and that, in their cruelty to
woman, make the bare suspicion of such crimes on her part the
justification of her hopeless degradation and ruin.

They who advocate that radical change in her dress which common sense
calls for, are infidels in the eyes of such as subscribe to this
interpretation of the Bible. For if the Bible teaches that the
Heaven-ordained condition of woman is so subordinate and her
Heaven-ordained character so mean, then they are infidels who would
have her cast aside a dress so becoming that character and condition,
and have her put on a dress so entirely at war with her humble nature,
as to indicate her conscious equality with man, and her purpose to
assert, achieve, and maintain her independence. Alas, how
misapprehended are the true objects and true uses of the Bible! That
blessed book is given to us, not so much that we may be taught by it
what to do, as that we may be urged by its solemn and fearful commands
and won by its melting entreaties, to do what we already know we
should do. Such, indeed, is the greatest value of its recorded fact
that Jesus Christ died to save us from our sins. We already know that
we should repent of our sins and put them away; and it is this fact
which furnishes our strongest possible motive for doing so. But men
run to the Bible professedly to be taught their duty in matters where
their very instincts--where the laws, written in large, unmistakable,
ineffaceable letters upon the very foundations of their being--teach
them their duty. I say _professedly_, for generally it is only so.
They run to the Bible, not to learn the truth, but to make the Bible
the minister to folly and sin. They run from themselves to the Bible,
because they can more easily succeed in twisting its records into the
service of their guilty passions and guilty purposes than they can
their inflexible convictions. They run to the Bible for a paramount
authority that shall override and supplant these uncomfortable
convictions. They run from the teachings of their nature and the
remonstrances of their consciences to find something more palatable.
Hence, we find the rum-drinker, and slaveholder, and polygamist, and
other criminals going to the Bible. They go to it for the very purpose
of justifying their known sins. But not only may we not go to the
Bible to justify what we ourselves have already condemned, but we must
not take to the judicature of that book, as an open question, any of
the wrongs against which nature and common sense cry out--any of the
wrongs which nature and common sense call on us to condemn.

So fraught with evil, and ruinous evil, is this practice, on the part
of the Church as well as the world, of inquiring the judgment of the
Bible in regard to sins, which the natural and universal conscience
condemns, but which the inquirer means to persist in, if only he can
get the Bible to testify against his conscience and in favor of his
sins; so baleful, I say, is this practice, as to drive me to the
conclusion that the Bible can not continue to be a blessing to mankind
in spite of it. The practice, in its present wide and well-nigh
universal extent, turns the heavenly volume into a curse. Owing to
this practice, the Bible is, this day, a hindrance rather than a help
to civilization.

But if woman is of the same nature and same dignity with man, and if
as much and as varied labor is needed to supply her wants as to supply
the wants of man, and if for her to be, as she so emphatically is,
poor and destitute and dependent, is as fatal to her happiness and
usefulness and to the fulfillment of the high purposes of her
existence, as the like circumstances would be to the honor and welfare
of man, why then put her in a dress which compels her to be a
pauper--a pauper, whether in ribbons or rags? Why, I ask, put her in a
dress suited only to those occasional and brief moods, in which man
regards her as his darling, his idol, and his angel; or to that
general state of his mind in which he looks upon her as his servant,
and with feelings certainly much nearer contempt than adoration.
Strive as you will to elevate woman, nevertheless the disabilities and
degradation of this dress, together with that large group of false
views of the uses of her being and of her relations to man, symbolized
and perpetuated, as I have already said, by this dress, will make your
striving vain.

Woman must first fight against herself--against personal and mental
habits so deep-rooted and controlling, and so seemingly inseparable
from herself, as to be mistaken for her very nature. And when she has
succeeded there, an easy victory will follow. But where shall be the
battle-ground for this indispensable self-conquest? She will laugh at
my answer when I tell her, that her dress, aye, her dress, must be
that battle-ground. What! no wider, no sublimer field than this to
reap her glories in! My further answer is, that if she shall reap them
anywhere, she must first reap them there. I add, that her triumph
there will be her triumph everywhere; and that her failure there will
be her failure everywhere.

                                   Affectionately yours,
                                                     GERRIT SMITH.


MRS. STANTON'S REPLY.

                                        SENECA FALLS, _Dec. 21, 1855_.

MY DEAR COUSIN:--Your letter on the "Woman's Right Movement" I have
thoroughly read and considered. I thank you, in the name of woman, for
having said what you have on so many vital points. You have spoken
well for a man whose convictions on this subject are the result of
reason and observation; but they alone whose souls are fired through
personal experience and suffering can set forth the height and depth,
the source and center of the degradation of women; they alone can feel
a steadfast faith in their own native energy and power to accomplish a
final triumph over all adverse surroundings, a speedy and complete
success. You say you have but little faith in this reform, because the
changes we propose are so great, so radical, so comprehensive; whilst
they who have commenced the work are so puny, feeble, and undeveloped.
The mass of women are developed at least to the point of discontent,
and that, in the dawn of this nation, was considered a most dangerous
point in the British Parliament, and is now deemed equally so on a
Southern plantation. In the human soul, the steps between discontent
and action are few and short indeed. You, who suppose the mass of
women contented, know but little of the silent indignation, the deep
and settled disgust with which they contemplate our present social
arrangements. You claim to believe that in every sense, thought, and
feeling, man and woman are the same. Well, now, suppose yourself a
woman. You are educated up to that point where one feels a deep
interest in the welfare of her country, and in all the great questions
of the day, in both Church and State; yet you have no voice in either.
Little men, with little brains, may pour forth their little sentiments
by the hour, in the forum and the sacred desk, but public sentiment
and the religion of our day teach us that silence is most becoming in
woman. So to solitude you betake yourself, and read for your
consolation the thoughts of dead men; but from the Bible down to
Mother Goose's Melodies, how much complacency, think you, you would
feel in your womanhood? The philosopher, the poet, and the saint, all
combine to make the name of woman synonymous with either fool or
devil. Every passion of the human soul, which in manhood becomes so
grand and glorious in its results, is fatal to womankind. Ambition
makes a Lady Macbeth; love, an Ophelia; none but those brainless
things, without will or passion, are ever permitted to come to a good
end. What measure of content could you draw from the literature of the
past?

Again, suppose yourself the wife of a confirmed drunkard. You behold
your earthly possessions all passing away; your heart is made
desolate; it has ceased to pulsate with either love, or hope, or joy.
Your house is sold over your head, and with it every article of
comfort and decency; your children gather round you, one by one, each
newcomer clothed in rags and crowned with shame; is it with gladness
you now welcome the embrace of that beastly husband, feel his fevered
breath upon your cheek, and inhale the disgusting odor of his tobacco
and rum? Would not your whole soul revolt from such an union? So do
the forty thousand drunkards' wives now in this State. They, too, are
all discontented, and but for the pressure of law and gospel would
speedily sunder all these unholy ties. Yes, sir, there are women, pure
and virtuous and noble as yourself, spending every day of all the
years of their existence in the most intimate association with
infamous men, kept so by that monstrous and unnatural artifice,
baptized by the sacred name of marriage. I might take you through
many, many phases of woman's life, into those sacred relations of
which we speak not in our conventions, where woman feels her deepest
wrongs, where in blank despair she drags out days, and weeks, and
months, and years of silent agony. I might paint you pictures of real
life so vivid as to force from you the agonized exclamation, How can
women endure such things!

We who have spoken out, have declared our rights, political and civil;
but the entire revolution about to dawn upon us by the acknowledgment
of woman's social equality, has been seen and felt but by the few. The
rights, to vote, to hold property, to speak in public, are
all-important; but there are great social rights, before which all
others sink into utter insignificance. The cause of woman is, as you
admit, a broader and a deeper one than any with which you compare it;
and this, to me, is the very reason why it must succeed. It is not a
question of meats and drinks, of money and lands, but of human
rights--the sacred right of a woman to her own person, to all her
God-given powers of body and soul. Did it ever enter into the mind of
man that woman too had an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of her individual happiness? Did he ever take in the idea that
to the mother of the race, and to her alone, belonged the right to say
when a new being should be brought into the world? Has he, in the
gratification of his blind passions, ever paused to think whether it
was with joy and gladness that she gave up ten or twenty years of the
heyday of her existence to all the cares and sufferings of excessive
maternity? Our present laws, our religious teachings, our social
customs on the whole question of marriage and divorce, are most
degrading to woman; and so long as man continues to think and write,
to speak and act, as if maternity was the one and sole object of a
woman's existence--so long as children are conceived in weariness and
disgust--you must not look for high-toned men and women capable of
accomplishing any great and noble achievement. But when woman shall
stand on an even pedestal with man--when they shall be bound together,
not by withes of law and gospel, but in holy unity and love, then, and
not till then, shall our efforts at minor reforms be crowned with
complete success. Here, in my opinion, is the starting-point; here is
the battle-ground where our independence must be fought and won. A
true marriage relation has far more to do with the elevation of woman
than the style and cut of her dress. Dress is a matter of taste, of
fashion; it is changeable, transient, and may be doffed or donned at
the will of the individual; but institutions, supported by laws, can
be overturned but by revolution. We have no reason to hope that
pantaloons would do more for us than they have done for man himself.
The <DW64> slave enjoys the most unlimited freedom in his attire, not
surpassed even by the fashions of Eden in its palmiest days; yet in
spite of his dress, and his manhood, too, he is a slave still. Was the
old Roman in his toga less of a man than he now is in swallow-tail and
tights? Did the flowing robes of Christ Himself render His life less
grand and beautiful? In regard to dress, where you claim to be so
radical, you are far from consistent.

Believing, as you do, in the identity of the sexes, that all the
difference we see in tastes, in character, is entirely the result of
education--that "man is woman and woman is man"--why keep up these
distinctions in dress? Surely, whatever dress is convenient for one
sex must be for the other also. Whatever is necessary for the perfect
and full development of man's physical being, must be equally so for
woman. I fully agree with you that woman is terribly cramped and
crippled in her present style of dress. I have not one word to utter
in its defense; but to me, it seems that if she would enjoy entire
freedom, she should dress just like man. Why proclaim our sex on the
house-tops, seeing that it is a badge of degradation, and deprives us
of so many rights and privileges wherever we go? Disguised as a man,
the distinguished French woman, "George Sand," has been able to see
life in Paris, and has spoken in political meetings with great
applause, as no woman could have done. In male attire, we could travel
by land or sea; go through all the streets and lanes of our cities and
towns by night and day, without a protector; get seven hundred dollars
a year for teaching, instead of three, and ten dollars for making a
coat, instead of two or three, as we now do. All this we could do
without fear of insult, or the least sacrifice of decency or virtue.
If nature has not made the sex so clearly defined as to be seen
through any disguise, why should we make the difference so striking?
Depend upon it, when men and women in their every-day life see and
think less of sex and more of mind, we shall all lead far purer and
higher lives.

Your letter, my noble cousin, must have been written in a most
desponding mood, as all the great reforms of the day seem to you on
the verge of failure. What are the experiences of days and months and
years in the lifetime of a mighty nation? Can one man in his brief
hour hope to see the beginning and end of any reform? When you compare
the public sentiment and social customs of our day with what they were
fifty years ago, how can you despair of the temperance cause? With a
Maine Law and divorce for drunkenness, the rum-seller and drunkard
must soon come to terms. Let woman's motto be, "No union with
Drunkards," and she will soon bring this long and well-fought battle
to a triumphant close.

Neither should you despair of the anti-slavery cause; with its
martyrs, its runaway slaves, its legal decisions in almost every paper
you take up, the topic of debate in our national councils, our
political meetings, and our literature, it seems as if the nation were
all alive on this question. True, four millions of slaves groan in
their chains still, but every man in this nation has a higher idea of
individual rights than he had twenty years ago.

As to the cause of woman, I see no signs of failure. We already have a
property law, which in its legitimate effects must elevate the _femme
covert_ into a living, breathing woman, a wife into a property-holder,
who can make contracts, buy and sell. In a few years we shall see how
well it works. It needs but little forethought to perceive that in due
time these large property-holders must be represented in the
Government; and when the mass of women see that there is some hope of
becoming voters and law-makers, they will take to their rights as
naturally as the <DW64> to his heels when he is sure of success. Their
present seeming content is very much like <DW71>'s on the plantation.
If you truly believe that man is woman, and woman is man; if you
believe that all the burning indignation that fires your soul at the
sight of injustice and oppression, if suffered in your own person,
would nerve you to a life-long struggle for liberty and independence,
then know that what you feel, I feel too, and what I feel the mass of
women feel also. Judge by yourself, then, how long the women of this
nation will consent to be deprived of their social, civil, and
political rights; but talk not to us of failure. Talk not to us of
chivalry, that died long ago. Where do you see it? No gallant knight
presents himself at the bar of justice to pay the penalty of our
crimes. We suffer in our own persons, on the gallows, and in prison
walls. From Blackstone down to Kent, there is no display of gallantry
in your written codes. In social life, true, a man in love will jump
to pick up a glove or bouquet for a silly girl of sixteen, whilst at
home he will permit his aged mother to carry pails of water and
armfuls of wood, or his wife to lug a twenty-pound baby, hour after
hour, without ever offering to relieve her. I have seen a great many
men priding themselves on their good breeding--gentlemen, born and
educated--who never manifest one iota of spontaneous gallantry toward
the women of their own household.

Divines may preach thanksgiving sermons on the poetry of the arm-chair
and the cradle; but when they lay down their newspapers, or leave
their beds a cold night to attend to the wants of either, I shall
begin to look for the golden age of chivalry once more. If a short
dress is to make the men less gallant than they now are, I beg the
women at our next convention to add at least two yards more to every
skirt they wear. And you mock us with dependence, too. Do not the
majority of women in every town support themselves, and very many
their husbands, too? What father of a family, at the loss of his wife,
has ever been able to meet his responsibilities as woman has done?
When the mother dies the house is made desolate, the children are
forsaken--scattered to the four winds of heaven--to the care of any
one who chooses to take them. Go to those aged widows who have reared
large families of children, unaided and alone, who have kept them all
together under one roof, watched and nursed them in health and
sickness through all their infant years, clothed and educated them,
and made them all respectable men and women, ask them on whom they
depended. They will tell you on their own hands, and on that
never-dying, never-failing love, that a mother's heart alone can know.
It is into hands like these--to these who have calmly met the terrible
emergencies of life--who, without the inspiration of glory, or fame,
or applause, through long years have faithfully and bravely performed
their work, self-sustained and cheered, that we commit our cause. We
need not wait for one more generation to pass away, to find a race of
women worthy to assert the humanity of women, and that is all we claim
to do.

                                   Affectionately yours,
                                           ELIZABETH CADY STANTON.


FRANCES D. GAGE'S REPLY TO GERRIT SMITH.

[From Frederick Douglass' paper].

FREDERICK DOUGLASS.--_Dear Sir_:--In your issue of Dec. 1st, I find a
letter from Hon. Gerrit Smith to Elizabeth C. Stanton, in reference to
the Woman's Rights Movement, showing cause, through labored columns,
why it has proved a failure.

This article, though addressed to Mrs. Stanton, is an attack upon
every one engaged in the cause. For he boldly asserts that the
movement "is not in proper hands, and that the proper hands are not
yet to be found." I will not deny the assertion, but must still claim
the privilege of working in a movement that involves not only my own
interest, but the interests of my sex, and through us the interests of
a whole humanity. And though I may be but a John the Baptist, unworthy
to unloose the latchet of the shoes of those who are to come in _short
skirts_ to redeem the world, I still prefer that humble position to
being Peter to deny my Master, or a Gerrit Smith to assert that truth
_can_ fail.

I do not propose to enter into a full criticism of Mr. Smith's long
letter. He has made the whole battle-ground of the Woman's Rights
Movement her dress. Nothing brighter, nothing nobler than a few inches
of calico or brocade added to or taken from her skirts, is to decide
this great and glorious question--to give her freedom or to continue
her a slave. This argument, had it come from one of less influence
than Gerrit Smith, would have been simply ridiculous. But coming from
_him_, the almost oracle of a large portion of our reformers, it
becomes worthy of an answer from every earnest woman in our cause. I
will not say one word in defense of our present mode of dress. Not I;
but bad as it is, and cumbersome and annoying, I still feel that we
can wear it, and yet be lovers of liberty, speaking out our deep
feeling, portraying our accumulated wrongs, saving ourselves for a
time yet from that antagonism which we must inevitably meet when we
don the semi-male attire. We _must own ourselves under the law first_,
own our bodies, our earnings, our genius, and our consciences; then we
will turn to the lesser matter of what shall be the garniture of the
body. Was the old Roman less a man in his cumbrous toga, than
Washington in his tights? Was Christ less a Christ in His vesture,
woven without a seam, than He would have been in the suit of a
Broadway dandy?

"Moreover, to concede to her rights of property, would be to benefit
her comparatively little, unless she shall resolve to break out of her
clothes-prison, and to undertake right earnestly, as earnestly as a
man, to get property." So says Gerrit Smith. And he imputes the want
of earnestness to her clothes. It in a new doctrine that high and holy
purposes go from without inward, that the garments of men or women
govern and control their aspirations. But do not women _now_ work
right earnestly? Do not the German women and our market women labor
right earnestly? Do not the wives of our farmers and mechanics toil?
Is not the work of the _mothers_ in our land as important as that of
the father? "Labor is the foundation of wealth." The reason that our
women are "paupers," is not that they do not labor "right earnestly,"
but that the law gives their earnings into the hands of manhood. Mr.
Smith says, "That women are helpless, is no wonder, so long as they
are paupers"; he might add, no wonder that the slaves of the cotton
plantation are helpless, so long as they are paupers. What reduces
both the woman and the slave to this condition? The law which gives
the husband and the master entire control of the person and earnings
of each; the law that robs each of the rights and liberties that every
"free white male citizen" takes to himself as God-given. Truth falling
from the lips of a Lucretia Mott in long skirts is none the less
truth, than if uttered by a Lucy Stone in short dress, or a Helen
Maria Weber in pants and swallow-tail coat. And I can not yet think so
meanly of manly justice, as to believe it will yield simply to a
change of garments. Let us assert our right to be free. Let us get out
of our prison-house of law. Let us own ourselves, our earnings, our
genius; let us have power to control as well as to earn and to own;
then will each woman adjust her dress to her relations in life.

Mr. Smith speaks of reforms as failures; what can he mean? "The
Temperance Reform still drags." I have been in New York thirty-seven
days; have given thirty-three lectures; have been at taverns, hotels,
private houses, and depots; rode in stages, country wagons, omnibuses,
carriages, and railroad cars; met the masses of people daily, and yet
have not seen one drunken man, scarce an evidence that there was such
a thing as intemperance in the Empire State. If the whole body has
been diseased from childhood and a cure be attempted, shall we cry out
against the physician that his effort is a failure, because the malady
does not wholly disappear at once? Oh, no! let us rather cheer than
discourage, while we see symptoms of amendment, hoping and trusting
that each day will give renewed strength for the morrow, till the cure
shall be made perfect. The accumulated ills of centuries can not be
removed in a day or a year. Shall we talk of the Anti-Slavery Cause as
a "failure," while our whole great nation is shaking as if an Etna
were boiling below? When did the North ever stand, as now, defiant of
slavery? Anti-slavery may be said to be written upon the "chariots and
the bells of the horses." Our National Congress is nothing more or
less than a great Anti-slavery Convention. Not a bill, no matter how
small or how great its importance, but hinges upon the question of
slavery. The Anti-Slavery Cause is no failure; RIGHT CAN NOT FAIL.

"The next Woman's Rights Convention will be, as has every other
Woman's Rights Convention, a failure, notwithstanding it will abound
in righteous demands and noble sentiments." So thinks Mr. Smith. Has
any Woman's Rights Convention been a failure? No movement so radical,
striking so boldly at the foundation of all social and political
order, has ever come before the people, or ever so rapidly and widely
diffused its doctrine. The reports of our conventions have traveled
wherever newspapers are read, causing discussion for and against, and
these discussions have elicited truth, and aroused public thought to
the evils growing out of woman's position. New trades and callings are
opening to us; in every town and village may be found advocates for
the equality of privilege under the law, for every thinking, reasoning
human soul. Shall we talk of failure, because forty, twenty, or seven
years have not perfected all things? When intemperance shall have
passed away, and the four million chattel slaves shall sing songs of
freedom; when woman shall be recognized as man's equal, socially,
legally, and politically, there will yet be reforms and reformers, and
men who will despair and look upon one branch of the reform as the
great _battle-ground_, and talk of the failure of the eternal law of
progress. Still there will be stout hearts and willing hands to work
on, honestly believing that truth and right are sustained by no single
point, and their watchword will be "Onward!" We can not fail, for our
cause is just.

                                             FRANCES D. GAGE.
  ROCHESTER, _Dec. 24, 1855_.

The names of those who wore the Bloomer costume at that early day are:
Elizabeth Smith Miller, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Amelia Bloomer, Sarah
and Angelina Grimke, Mrs. William Burleigh, Charlotte Beebe Wilbour,
Lucy Stone, Susan B. Anthony, Helen Jarvis, Lydia Sayre Hasbrook,
Amelia Williard, Celia Burleigh, Harriet N. Austin, Lydia Jenkins, and
many patients at sanitariums, many farmers' wives, and many young
ladies for skating and gymnastic exercises.

Looking back to this experiment, we are not surprised at the hostility
of men in general to the dress, as it made it very uncomfortable for
them to go anywhere with those who wore it. People would stare; some
men and women make rude remarks; boys follow in crowds, or shout from
behind fences, so that the gentleman in attendance felt it his duty to
resent the insult by showing fight, unless he had sufficient
self-control to pursue the even tenor of his way without taking the
slightest notice of the commotion his companion was creating. No man
went through the ordeal with the coolness and dogged determination of
Charles Dudley Miller, escorting his wife and cousin on long
journeyings, at fashionable resorts, in New York and Washington, to
the vexation of all his gentleman friends and acquaintances.


AMELIA BLOOMER COMMENTS ON JANE G. SWISSHELM.

_To the Editor of the Nonpareil:_

Jane Grey Swisshelm thinks it is dare-devil independence that is
ruining the women of this country.--_Nonpareil_.

And what woman of them all has shown so much "dare-devil independence"
as Jane G. Swisshelm? One of the first women to wield the
pen-editorial thirty years ago, she was so independent and fearless as
to excite the wonder of her readers. The first woman admitted to the
reporters' gallery in the Capitol of the nation, she astonished and
shocked the country by her attacks upon Daniel Webster and other
prominent senators at that day, and was expelled from the gallery for
her "dare-devil independence." While publishing a paper at St. Cloud,
she was so outspoken and offensive in her personalities, that her
press and type were destroyed by indignant politicians. After the war
she obtained an office in one of the departments at Washington, and
started a paper called the _Reconstructionist_ in that city. For her
"dare-devil independence" as a writer in attacking President Johnson
and charging that he had part in the assassination of President
Lincoln, she was relieved of her office and her press destroyed.

And so in whatever she has part; to whatever she sets her hand, she
ever displays a reckless independence that is truly a marvel to those
who watch her uncertain course. She fearlessly attacks both friend and
foe, if they go contrary to her views of right; and both people and
measures that to-day have her countenance and approval, are liable
to-morrow to receive an unmerciful lashing from her pen. No woman has
set an example of more "dare-devil independence" before "the women of
this country" than Jane G. Swisshelm, and if it is proving their ruin
she has much to answer for. But we are not prepared to believe her
assertion, and we can not think her a ruined woman, notwithstanding
her many years of "dare-devil independence." The writer has known her
long, has engaged in many a pen-tilt with her, but has never met her
personally. She regards her as an able, outspoken defender of the
wronged and oppressed, a fearless advocate of the right as she sees
it, and an "independent dare-devil" writer on whatever subject she
deems worthy of her pen.

                                             AMELIA BLOOMER.

COUNCIL BLUFFS, _July 30, 1880_.


       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER XIV.

NEW YORK.

NEW YORK STATE TEMPERANCE CONVENTION, ROCHESTER,

APRIL 20, 21, 1852.

LETTER FROM FRANCES DANA GAGE.

                                   MCCONNELLSVILLE, O., _April 5, 1852_.

MY DEAR MISS ANTHONY:--Yours of March 22d, asking of me words of
counsel and encouragement for the friends of temperance, who are to
meet at Rochester on the 20th inst., is before me. Need I tell you how
earnestly my heart responds to that request, and with what joy I hail
every demonstration on the part of woman that evidences an awakening
energy in her mind, to the great duties and responsibilities of her
being!

If we examine the statistics of crime in the United States, we shall
find that a very large proportion of the criminals of our land are the
victims of intemperance. The records of poverty, shame, and
degradation furnish the same evidence against the traffic and use of
ardent spirits. Examine those same statistics, and another great truth
stares us in the face--that nine-tenths of all the manufacturers of
ardent spirits, of all the drinkers of ardent spirits, and of all the
criminals made by ardent spirits, are men. But we find, too, in our
search, a fact equally interesting to us, that the greatest sufferers
from all this crime and shame and wrong, are women. Is it not meet,
then, that women should lay aside the dependent inactivity which has
hitherto held them powerless, and give their strength to the cause of
reform which is now agitating the minds of the people?

What is woman? The answer is returned to me in tones that shake my
very soul. She is the mother of mankind! The living providence, under
God, who gives to every human being its mental, moral, and physical
organism--who stamps upon every human heart her seal for good or for
evil! Who then, but she, should cry aloud, and spare not, when the
children she has borne--forgetting their allegiance to her and their
duty to themselves, have assumed the power to rule over her, shutting
her out from their counsels, and surrounding her, without her own
consent, with circumstances which lead to misery and death; and, in
their pride and strength, trampling upon justice, love, and mercy,
withering her heart by violence and oppression, and yet compelling
her, in her dependence as a wife, to perpetuate in her offspring their
own depraved appetites and disorganized faculties?

It will not be denied that woman in all past ages has been made, by
both law and custom, the inferior of her own children. Man has assumed
to himself the power of being "lord of creation"; yet what has he done
for his kind? Look at the present state of society and receive your
answer! He has filled the world with madness, with oppression and
wrong; he has allowed snares to be laid at every turn, to entangle the
feet of our children, and lead them away into vice and crime. He has
legalized the causes which fill the jails, the penitentiaries, the
houses of correction, the poorhouses, and asylums with the blood of
our hearts, even our children, and our children's children. There is
not a drunkard in the land, not a criminal that has been made by
strong drink, but is the child of a woman. Yet not one woman's vote
has ever been given to legalize the sale of ardent spirits, that have
maddened the brain of her child. No woman's vote ever sanctioned the
rum-seller's bar, at which her husband has bartered away his manhood,
and made himself more vile than the brutes that perish.

Shall I be answered that woman's home influence must keep her children
and her husband in the paths of virtue and honor? What! disfranchised
woman--made by her law-maker an appendage to himself, her intellect
shackled, her labor underrated, her physical power dwarfed and
enfeebled by custom--is she expected to do this mighty thing? I hear
again an answer--"Woman is responsible for the moral atmosphere that
surrounds her." Is this indeed so? Men have taken from her every power
to protect herself, even the dignity and respect which the right of
suffrage confers upon the lowest man in the community, and which makes
his opinion worth its price among men, is denied her. Men are in the
daily habit of indulging in immoralities and vices, while they enjoin
it upon woman--"poor, frail, weak woman," as they call us--to destroy
the influence they have created. They place the temptation before the
child, then sternly demand of its suffering mother her vigilance and
care to control the appetite, which he has, it may be, inherited from
his fathers, back from the third and fourth generation. Perchance,
even through her own breast, he has sucked the poison that is
corrupting all the streams of his young life. She may have grappled
with the tempter, and come off conqueror; but can she hold him, the
drunkard's child--the drunkard's grandchild--with the twofold curse
upon his brow, while men place this direful temptation ever within his
reach, glaring out upon him in beautiful enticement at every corner of
the street, and at every turn of his daily and nightly walks, and add
their influence and example to draw him away from the counsels of a
mother's love, and the endearments of home? Then, when, under the
influence of men, he outrages society, and in his maniac madness
violates the law of the land, and becomes a felon, wasting away his
days in the gloomy prison, or expiating his crimes upon the gallows,
they forget what they have done, and, turning to the poor, crushed,
and bleeding heart, which they have pierced with a thousand sorrows,
cry out, "You, O mother of that guilty man, have not done your duty,
and society holds you responsible for all his suffering and for all
his crimes. O God! is this not adding insult to injury? How can the
weak control the strong? How can the servant, bound hand and foot by
the master, do the bidding of the tyrant? But all men are not
weak--all men are not oppressive--all men are not unjust. There is a
strong force, ever in the field of battle, struggling for truth and
right with earnest heart and firm resolve. Let us arouse, O my
sisters, and add our strength to theirs. The time is coming, aye, now
is, when we must shake off our dependence and inactivity, and live
more true to ourselves; when we must refuse to live the wives of
drunkards, perpetuating, as mothers, their vices and crimes, to
pollute society.

Let us unite with the good and true among men, that our efforts may
overcome the legions who have hitherto conquered on the side of wrong,
and raise high the standard of love and humanity, where falsehood and
hate have ruled rampant. Let every woman, everywhere, speak out her
bold, free thought on the subject of temperance; and while we plead
with our rulers to deliver our husbands, fathers, sons, and brothers
from the temptations to sin, let us demand with earnestness the right
hereafter to protect ourselves; that we may redeem ourselves from the
unjust law that now taxes every woman, without her own consent,
according to her property or ability to labor, to pay her proportion
for the support of vice and crime--that hereafter, when such great
moral questions are under public discussion, and we, as one-half of
the people, send up our petitions to our law-makers for a redress of
wrongs, or an abatement of evils, our voice of pleading shall not be
spurned by the heartless sneer, "They are only women, and the voice of
a woman can not affect us at the polls, or disturb the course of our
political parties. What care we for her progress or her wrongs?" Thus
have we too often been answered, and shall be again, if we do not
prove worthy of the chaplet of freedom, by winning it for ourselves.
Let us then unite heart and hand in this great temperance
reform--laying aside all local animosities, all sectional prejudices
and sectarian jealousies--and, as it were, with one voice and one
spirit, take hold of the work before us, resolved, if we fail to-day,
to rise with renewed energy to-morrow, and "Never give up!" be our
motto, till, without bloodshed, without hate, or uncharitableness, we
gain the victory over those who cater to the most uncontrollable and
destructive passion that has ever cursed humanity--the passion for
strong drink--and then, and not till then, will we fold our arms and
take our rest, amid the hallelujahs of the redeemed.

                              Yours, in the cause of humanity,
                                                  FRANCES D. GAGE.
  S. B. ANTHONY, _Chairman of Committee_.


LETTER FROM MRS. C. I. H. NICHOLS.

                                   BRATTLEBORO, Vt., _April 13, 1852_.

SISTERS AND FRIENDS OF TEMPERANCE:--In resorting to the pen as a
medium of communication with your Convention, I feel, most sensibly,
its inferiority to a _vis-a-vis_ talk--it tells so little, and that so
meagerly! But, remembering that a single just thought, or vital truth,
communicated to intelligent minds and willing hearts, is an investment
sure of increase, I will bless God for the pen, and ask of Him to make
it a tongue for humanity.

The limits of a written communication will forbid me to say much, and
I would address myself to a single point broached in your Albany
Convention, and a point that seems to me of the first importance;
because a mistake in morals, a wrong perpetrated in the home
relations, is the greatest of all wrongs to humanity. And marred,
indeed, would be your triumph, if, in preventing the repeal of one
unjust statute, you sanction the enactment of another. So true it is
that one injustice becomes the source of another, I fear to
contemplate the enactment of a trifling encroachment even upon
inalienable rights or divinely sanctioned pursuits.

In addressing myself to the position that "drunkenness be made a good
and sufficient cause for divorce," I am secured from any fear that you
will regard me as warring with abstractions, since such a bill has
found its way into your Legislature, proving that the popular sympathy
for suffering women and children is already concentrating on divorce
as the remedy. I have hesitated about addressing you on this subject,
lest I might render myself obnoxious to the charge of diverting the
objects of your meeting, to an occasion for the discussion of
forbidden topics. But an irresistible conviction, that since the
subject is already launched upon your reform, it is important that a
just view of its bearings should be presented, impels me to throw
myself upon your sympathy, trusting in the divine power of truth to
commend both my motives and my positions to your judgments and your
hearts.

And first, let me say, I would not be understood as opposed to
emancipating the wretched victims of irremediable abuse. And if there
be a benevolence, under the warm heaven of Almighty Love, it is the
protecting of helplessness and innocence from the sufferings that
result, inevitably, from the rum traffic. But while I fully agree with
Mrs. Stanton, that no pure-hearted and understanding woman can
innocently become the mother of a drunkard's offspring--while I rely
upon the general diffusion of physiological truths to create a
sentiment abhorrent to the idea of raising a posterity, the breath of
whose life shall be derived from the animalized and morally tainted
vitality of the drunkard--I differ with her in the remedy proposed.

If drunkenness were irremediable, and beyond the reach of legislation,
then would I accept her remedy as the final resort. But regarding
divorce as, at best, only affording a choice of evils, and drunkenness
as equally within the power of legislation, I propose that drunkenness
be legislated out of existence, and thus the necessity for divorce,
which it creates, be avoided.

Let a thoroughly prohibitive law destroy the traffic, and the drunkard
will be found "clothed" again and "in his right mind." It will come to
this glorious consummation at last; and, though years may intervene,
it becomes us to act with reference to the discerned future, and
beware that transient evils do not betray us into planting life-long
regrets. Allow me to illustrate my idea by narrating incidents of a
case in point, and which is inwoven with the recollections and
tenderest sympathies of my whole life.

The young and lovely mother of five little ones procured a divorce
from her husband, whose incompetency and unkindness was the result
solely of intemperance, and that intemperance the consequence of his
strong social bias and inability to resist the temptations of a
period, when every man put the bottle to his neighbor's month as proof
of his generosity, his friendship, and his good-breeding. His father,
on whom the family were dependent for support, urged it upon the wife,
as a duty to her children and due to her own self-respect, to procure
a divorce, when, at last, the miserable husband had been sent to
prison for a forgery, involving a small sum, and which he had thought
to meet--before the note came to maturity--undetected.

She submitted, and, before the period of his imprisonment expired,
married again, by the advice and persuasion of her kind father-in-law,
to a wealthy and excellent man, who offered a father's care and home
to her children, in proof of his affection for herself. But the heart
never yielded its first love; and, when more than twenty years had
passed, she confessed to a friend "that, should he reform at the
eleventh hour, she must be the most wretched of women." He did reform!
and for many years has exhibited those cheerful graces of the
Christian, which, added to his naturally amiable disposition and
unselfish deportment, make his three-score and tenth year seem rather
the morning than the evening of a life, stretching far away into the
glories of eternity.

And now, tell me, friends, if the picture of that youthful affection,
strengthened and intensified in the hearts of both by long years of
unavailing regret, does not awaken in you a conviction of some better
way for protecting helpless women and children from the evils of
drunkenness? Oh, say, can you calmly contemplate the hundreds and
thousands of hearts which would throb with repressed anguish, when the
wretchedness which drove them to divorce shall have vanished with the
doomed traffic, and reformed men, by the strong arm of law, reclaim
their children from the weeping Rachels of the land?

But think not, friends, that I am unmindful of the misery of years, or
months even, when I plead that divorce shall not be made the necessity
of hunted and betrayed affections, the factitious barrier against
abuse and starvation. I present to your consideration a remedy equally
effective, and far more grateful to the delicate sensibilities and
hopeful affection of the woman and the wife--a remedy which possesses
the merit of a preventive power, and the collateral security of a
reclaiming influence.

The advantage proposed to be secured to the wife of the drunkard, by
divorce, is the release from his control of her property and person.
Secure to the innocent and suffering wife the guardianship of her
children, and the control of her own earnings--in short, make her a
free, instead of a bond-woman--and you secure to the family of the
drunkard all the alleviation in the power of legislation, and without
compelling the wife, from pecuniary necessity or self-immolating
regard for her children, to sever her conjugal relation, and quench
the hope of a future of rational companionship.

The pauperism and extreme degradation of the drunkard's family is
mainly chargeable to the laws, which wreck the energies, by merging
the means of the wife and mother in the will of the irresponsible
husband and father.

With these views--gathered from facts and heart-broken confidences
open to few--I appeal to you in the name of the most sacred
affections--I protest, in behalf of humanity, against compelling the
unfortunate of my dependent sex to choose between their present
bondage of means and divorce.

To the Christian, who shrinks from divorce, as separating what God
hath joined, I appeal to carry out the principle, preserving
everywhere what God hath joined. Hath He not joined mother and child
in body and spirit? Sever them not. Hath He not joined in each human
being necessities and ability to supply them? But, alas! by man's
carpentry, the ability of woman to supply her wants is pressed into
the service of man's carnal and wicked appetites, to supply him with
liquid fire, while herself and babes become miserable paupers in body
and in mind!

I leave the subject here, praying that God may bless your
deliberations, and guide you into all truth.

                              Yours, for the oppressed, ever,
                                                      C. I. H. NICHOLS.


SYRACUSE CONVENTION, SEPT. 8, 9, 10, 1852.

ELIZABETH CADY STANTON'S LETTER.

                                             SENECA FALLS, _Sept. 6_.

MY DEAR FRIENDS:--As I can not be present with you, I wish to suggest
three points for your sincere and earnest consideration.

1. Should not all women living in States where woman has the right to
hold property refuse to pay taxes, so long as she is unrepresented in
the government of that State?

Such a movement, if simultaneous, would no doubt produce a great deal
of confusion, litigation, and suffering on the part of woman; but
shall we fear to suffer for the maintenance of the same glorious
principle for which our forefathers fought, bled, and died? Shall we
deny the faith of the old Revolutionary heroes, and purchase for
ourselves a false power and ignoble ease, by declaring in action that
taxation without representation is just? Ah, no! like the English
Dissenters and high-souled Quakers of our own land, let us suffer our
property to be seized and sold, but let us never pay another tax until
our existence as citizens, our civil and political rights be fully
recognized.... The poor, crushed slave, but yesterday toiling on the
rice plantation in Georgia, a beast, a chattel, a thing, is to-day, in
the Empire State (if he own a bit of land and a shed to cover him), a
person, and may enjoy the proud honor of paying into the hand of the
complaisant tax-gatherer the sum of seventy-five cents. Even so with
the white woman--the satellite of the dinner-pot, the presiding genius
of the wash-tub, the seamstress, the teacher, the gay butterfly of
fashion, the _feme covert_ of the law, man takes no note of her
through all these changing scenes. But, lo! to-day, by the fruit of
her industry, she becomes the owner of a house and lot, and now her
existence is remembered and recognized, and she too may have the
privilege of contributing to the support of this mighty Republic, for
the "white male citizen claims of her one dollar and seventy-five
cents a year, because, under the glorious institutions of this free
and happy land, she has been able, at the age of fifty years, to
possess herself of a property worth the enormous sum of three hundred
dollars. It is natural to suppose she will answer this demand on her
joyously and promptly, for she must, in view of all her rights and
privileges so long enjoyed, consider it a great favor to be permitted
to contribute thus largely to the governmental treasury.

One thing is certain, this course will necessarily involve a good deal
of litigation, and we shall need lawyers of our own sex whose
intellects, sharpened by their interests, shall be quick to discover
the loopholes of retreat. Laws are capable of many and various
constructions; we find among men that as they have new wants, that as
they develop into more enlarged views of justice, the laws are
susceptible of more generous interpretation, or changed altogether;
that is, all laws touching their own interests; for while man has
abolished hanging for theft, imprisonment for debt, and secured
universal suffrage for himself, a married woman, in most of the States
in the Union, remains a nonentity in law--can own nothing; can be
whipped and locked up by her lord; can be worked without wages, be
robbed of her inheritance, stripped of her children, and left alone
and penniless; and all this, they say, according to law. Now, it is
quite time that we have these laws revised by our own sex, for man
does not yet feel that what is unjust for himself, is also unjust for
woman. Yes, we must have our own lawyers, as well as our physicians
and priests. Some of our women should go at once into this profession,
and see if there is no way by which we may shuffle off our shackles
and assume our civil and political rights. We can not accept man's
interpretation of the law.

2. Do not sound philosophy and long experience teach us that man and
woman should be educated together? This isolation of the sexes in all
departments, in the business and pleasure of life, is an evil greatly
to be deplored. We see its bad effects on all sides. Look at our
National Councils. Would men, as statesmen, ever have enacted such
scenes as the Capitol of our country has witnessed, had the feminine
element been fairly represented in their midst? Are all the duties of
husband and father to be made subservient to those of statesman and
politician? How many of these husbands return to their homes as happy
and contented, as pure and loving, as when they left? Not one in
ten.... Experience has taught us that man has discovered the most
profitable branches of industry, and we demand a place by his side.
Inasmuch, therefore, as we have the same objects in life, namely, the
full development of all our powers, and should, to some extent, have
the same employments, we need precisely the same education; and we
therefore claim that the best colleges of our country be open to
us.... This point, the education of boys and girls together, is a
question of the day; it was prominent at the late Educational
Convention in Newark, and it is fitting that in our Convention it
should be fully discussed. My ground is, that the boy and the girl,
the man and the woman, should be always together in the business and
pleasures of life, sharing alike its joys and sorrows, its distinction
and fame; nor will they ever be harmoniously developed until they are
educated together, physically, intellectually, and morally.

I hope, therefore, that in the proposed People's College, some place
will be provided where women can be educated side by side with man.
There is no better test of the spirituality of a man, than is found in
his idea of the true woman. Men having separated themselves from women
in the business of life, and thus made their natures coarse by contact
with their own sex exclusively, now demand separate pleasures too; and
in lieu of the cheerful family circle, its books, games, music, and
pleasant conversation, they congregate in clubs to discuss politics,
gamble, drink, etc., in those costly, splendid establishments, got up
for such as can not find sufficient excitement in their own parlors or
studios. It seems never to enter the heads of these fashionable
husbands, that the hours drag as heavily with their fashionable wives,
as they sit alone, night after night, in their solitary elegance,
wholly given up to their own cheerless reflections; for what subjects
of thought have they? Gossip and fashion will do for talk, but not for
thought. Their theology is too gloomy and shadowy to afford them much
pleasure in contemplation; their religion is a thing of form and not
of life, so it brings them no joy or satisfaction. As to the reforms
of the day, they are too genteel to feel much interest in them. There
is no class more pitiable than the unoccupied woman of fashion thrown
wholly upon herself.... Does not the abuse of the religious element in
woman demand our earnest attention and investigation?

Priestcraft did not end with the beginning of the reign of
Protestantism. Woman has always been the greatest dupe, because the
sentiments act blindly, and they alone have been educated in her. Her
veneration, not guided by an enlightened intellect, leads her as
readily to the worship of saints, pictures, holy days, and inspired
men and books, as of the living God and the everlasting principles of
Justice, Mercy, and Truth.

There is the Education Society, in which women who can barely read and
write and speak their own language correctly, form sewing societies,
and beg funds to educate a class of lazy, inefficient young men for
the ministry, who, starting in life on the false principle that it is
a blessing to escape physical labor, begin at once to live on their
piety. What is the result? Why, after going through college,
theological seminaries, and a brief struggle at fitting up skeleton
sermons, got up by older heads for the benefit of beginners, and after
preaching them for a season to those who hunger and thirst for light
and truth, they sink down into utter insignificance, too inefficient
to keep a place, and too lazy to earn the salt to their porridge,
whilst the women work on to educate more for the same destiny. Look at
the long line of benevolent societies, all filled with these male
agents, living, like so many leeches, on the religious element in our
natures, most of them from the ranks of the clergy, who, unable to
build up or keep a church, have taken refuge in some of these
theological asylums for the intellectually maimed, halt, and blind of
this profession.

Woman really thinks she is doing God service when she casts her mite
into their treasury, when in fact not one-tenth of all the funds
raised ever reach the ultimate object. Among the clergy we find our
most violent enemies--those most opposed to any change in woman's
position; yet no sooner does one of these find himself out of place
and pocket, than, if all the places in the various benevolent
societies chance to be occupied, he takes a kind of philanthropic
survey of the whole habitable globe, and forthwith forms a Female
Benevolent Society for the conversion of the Jews, perhaps, or for
sending the Gospel to the Feejee Islands, and he is, in himself, the
law for one and the gospel for the other. Now, the question is, not
whether the Jews are converted, or whether the Gospel ever reaches the
islands, but, Does the agent flourish? Is his post profitable? And
does woman beg and stitch faithfully for his support and for the
promotion of his _glorious mission?_

Now, I ask women with all seriousness, considering that we have little
to give, had we not better bestow our own charities with our own
hands? And instead of sending our benevolent outgushings in steamers
to parts unknown, had we not better let them flow in streams whose
length and breadth we can survey at pleasure, knowing their source
and where they empty themselves? Instead of any further efforts in
behalf of a pin-cushion ministry, I conjure my countrywomen to devote
themselves from this hour to the education, elevation, and
enfranchisement of their own sex. If the same amount of devotion and
self-sacrifice could be given in this direction now poured out on the
churches, another generation would give us a nobler type of womanhood
than any yet molded by any Bishop, Priest, or Pope.

Woman in her present ignorance is made to rest in the most distorted
views of God and the Bible and the laws of her being; and like the
poor slave "Uncle Tom," her religion, instead of making her noble and
free, and impelling her to flee from all gross surroundings, by the
false lessons of her spiritual teachers, by the wrong application of
great principles of right and justice, has made her bondage but more
certain and lasting, her degradation more helpless and complete.

                                             ELIZABETH CADY STANTON.


                                 GLOUCESTER, MASS., _August 24, 1852_.

_To Mrs. Paulina W. Davis:_

DEAR MADAM:...--I have never questioned what I understand to be the
central principle of the reform in which you are engaged. I believe
that every mature soul is responsible directly to God, not only for
its faith and opinions, but for the details of its life in the world.
In every crisis of duty there can be consultation, at last, only
between one spirit and its Creator. The assertion that woman is
responsible to man for her belief or conduct, in any other sense than
man is responsible to woman, I reject, not as a believer in any theory
of "Woman's Rights," but as a believer in that religion which knows
neither male nor female, in its imperative demand upon the individual
conscience.

This being true, I know not by what logic the obligation of woman to
form her own ideal of life, and pursue the career which her reason and
conscience dictate, can be denied. The sphere of activity in which any
person will shine, is always an open question until answered by
experience. I may admire the wisdom of the mind which has discovered
that half the people in the world are incompetent to act beyond one
circle of duty; but until the fact has been established by the
universal failure of your sex, everywhere outside that fatal line, I
must admire rather than believe. Every real position in society is
achieved by conquest. I must convince my people that I am a true
minister of the Gospel, before I can claim their respect and support.
And when a woman, in the possession of the powers and opportunities
given her by God, tells me she must trade, or instruct the young, or
heal the sick, or paint, or sing, or act upon the stage, or call
sinners to repentance, I _can_ say but one thing--just what I must say
to the man who affirms the same--"My friend, show your _ability_ to
serve society in this way, and all creation can not deprive you of the
right. If you _can do_ this to which you aspire--can do it well, then
you and everybody will be the gainers. And whoever says you have
forfeited any essential grace or virtue of womanhood by your act,
betrays, by the accusation, an utter incompetency to judge upon
questions of human responsibility and obligation."

.... I therefore believe the method of this reform is that declared by
God when He said to Adam: "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat
bread." There is no "royal road" to womanhood, as there is certainly
none to manhood. _You_ must achieve what you desire.... Woman must do
much before man can help her. I suppose the sexes are about equally
culpable; and I make no peculiar charge, when I say that until I can
see more individual consecration, more clearness of perception and
firmness of conduct in regions outside of the walls of the household
among the mass of women, than now, I shall not cherish extravagant
hopes of the great immediate success of your noble object.

.... Your movement is a part of the great onward march of society, and
must be exposed to the reverses from outward hostility and inward
faithlessness, that have always hindered the progress of the race....
This reform will be a sword of division, and you will not be surprised
when those who have entered it from any motive less exalted than
consecration to duty, fall away in weariness and disgust. Yet all the
more honorable will it be to those who are content to remain, and
abide the fatal conditions of sincere human effort. You are not very
near your journey's end; but you are doing much for your sex, in a
mode which will "tell" inevitably upon society. I often encounter a
new spirit of self-respect and honorable independence; a new hope, and
works corresponding to it, among young women, which I can trace back
to these Conventions. I believe cultivated men in all professions are
becoming ashamed to treat your arguments with open ridicule or quiet
contempt, and occupy a position, at least, of fair-minded neutrality,
to a greater degree than ever before, while the popular sympathies are
every year more enlisted in your success.--With great respect, I
remain your friend and fellow-laborer in the cause of truth,

                                                      A. D. MAYO.


Samuel J. May read the following extract from a letter from Wm. Lloyd
Garrison, of Boston:

"Much, very much, do I regret that I can not be at the Woman's Rights
Convention which is to assemble to-morrow in Syracuse; but
circumstances prevent. I shall be there in spirit, from its
organization to its dissolution. It has as noble an object in view,
aye, and as Christian a one, too, as was ever advocated beneath the
sun. Heaven bless all its proceedings.

                              "Yours for all Human Rights,
                                               WM. LLOYD GARRISON.
  "Rev. S. J. MAY."


COMMENTS OF THE PRESS AFTER THE SYRACUSE CONVENTION.

  _The Syracuse Standard, Sept. 10th_ (a liberal Democratic paper).

Great interest was manifested in the proceedings yesterday, and the
hall was densely crowded during the day and evening. Much difficulty
was found in getting out of the Convention after the adjournment. Each
lady covered at least three steps of the stairway with her dress, and
little groups of ladies gathered in the passage-ways and went through
the ceremony of shaking hands and kissing each other, as though they
had been separated for years and never expected to meet again. This
operates as a serious obstacle, and we noticed some ladies exhibiting
a petulant spirit in being jostled by the crowd which they themselves
had occasioned, as their dresses were torn and soiled by the feet of
those who were using their utmost efforts to keep the crowd from
pushing them all down-stairs together. This is a great annoyance to
those who are not fond of going through the world at the slow and
steady pace of a fashionable lady, and we suggest the practice of
making the outside of the hall a place for retailing gossip. Those who
sweep the dirty stairway with their dresses should don the Bloomer
costume without delay.

_The Star_, belonging to that portion of the press called "the
Satanic," held to its original character while speaking of the
Convention. It was through this paper that Reverends Sunderland and
Ashley made public their sermons against Woman's Rights.

                    _The Star, September 10th._

The women at the Tomfoolery Convention now being held in this city,
talk as fluently of the Bible and God's teachings in their speeches,
as if they could draw an argument from inspiration in maintenance of
their Woman's Rights stuff.... The poor creatures who take part in the
silly rant of "brawling women" and Aunt Nancy men, are most of them
"ismizers" of the rankest stamp, Abolitionists of the most frantic and
contemptible kind, and Christian(?) sympathizers with such heretics as
Wm. Lloyd Garrison, Parker Pillsbury, C. C. Burleigh, and S. S.
Foster. These men are all Woman's Righters, and preachers of such
damnable doctrines and accursed heresies, as would make demons of the
pit shudder to hear.

We have selected a few appropriate passages from God's Bible for the
consideration of the infuriated gang (Bloomers and all) at the
Convention: Gen. iii. 16; Tit. ii. 4, 5; Prov. ix. 13, xxi. 9,19; 1
Cor. xi. 8, 9; 1 Tim. ii. 8-14; 1 Cor. xiv. 34, 35; Eph. v. 23-24.

                     _Daily Star, Sept. 11th._

Our usual amount of editorial matter is again crowded out this morning
by the extreme quantity of gabble the Woman's Righters got off
yesterday. Perhaps we owe an apology for having given publicity to the
mass of corruption, heresies, ridiculous nonsense, and reeking
vulgarities which these bad women have vomited forth for the past
three days. Our personal preference would have been to have entirely
disregarded these folks _per signe de mepris_, but the public
appetite cries for these novelties and eccentricities of the times,
and the daily press is expected to gratify such appetites;
furthermore, we are of opinion that reporting such a Convention as
this, is the most effectual way of checking the mischief it might
otherwise do. The proceedings of these three days' pow-wow are a most
shocking commentary upon themselves, and awaken burning scorn for the
participants in them.

The Convention adjourned _sine die_ last evening at ten o'clock, and,
for the credit of our city, we hope its members will adjourn out of
town as soon as possible, and stay so adjourned, unless they can come
among us for more respectable business. Syracuse has become a by-word
all through the country because of the influence which goes out from
these foolish Conventions held here, and it is high time that we
should be looking after our good name.

When the pamphlet report of the Convention's proceedings appeared,
_The Star_ said:

It gives the written speeches quite full, but only the skeleton of the
spoken ones, which in reality constituted the cream of the affair....
This portion of the world's history in relation to these agitating
questions, is very appropriately treated upon by the Lord Himself:
"_The sea and the waves roaring; men's hearts failing them for fear,
and for looking after those things which are coming on earth; for the
power of heaven shall be shaken_." We recognize the sea as symbolizing
the ideas which are drifted over the earth's surface, and the waves
roaring, the agitating topics which the times have brought upon us.


        _The New York Herald_ (editorial), _Sept. 12, 1852_.

     THE WOMAN'S RIGHTS CONVENTION--THE LAST ACT OF THE DRAMA.

The farce at Syracuse has been played out. We publish to-day the last
act, in which it will be seen that the authority of the Bible, as a
perfect rule of faith and practice for human beings, was voted down,
and what are called the laws of nature set up instead of the Christian
code. We have also a practical exhibition of the consequences that
flow from woman leaving her true sphere where she wields all her
influence, and coming into public to discuss questions of morals and
politics with men. The scene in which Rev. Mr. Hatch violated the
decorum of his cloth, and was coarsely offensive to such ladies
present as had not lost that modest "feminine element," on which he
dwelt so forcibly, is the natural result of the conduct of the women
themselves, who, in the first place, invited discussion about sexes;
and in the second place, so broadly defined the difference between the
male and the female, as to be suggestive of anything but purity to the
audience. The women of the Convention have no right to complain; but,
for the sake of his clerical character, if no other motive influenced
him, he ought not to have followed so bad an example. His speech was
sound and his argument conclusive, but his form of words was not in
the best taste. The female orators were the aggressors; but, to use
his own language, he ought not to have measured swords with a woman,
especially when he regarded her ideas and expressions as bordering
upon the obscene. But all this is the natural result of woman placing
herself in a false position. As the Rev. Mr. Hatch observed, if she
ran with horses she must expect to be betted upon. The whole tendency
of these Conventions is by no means to increase the influence of
woman, to elevate her condition, or to command the respect of the
other sex.

Who are these women? what do they want? what are the motives that
impel them to this course of action? The _dramatis personae_ of the
farce enacted at Syracuse present a curious conglomeration of both
sexes. Some of them are old maids, whose personal charms were never
very attractive, and who have been sadly slighted by the masculine
gender in general; some of them women who have been badly mated, whose
own temper, or their husbands, has made life anything but agreeable to
them, and they are therefore down upon the whole of the opposite sex;
some, having so much of the virago in their disposition, that nature
appears to have made a mistake in their gender--mannish women, like
hens that crow; some of boundless vanity and egotism, who believe that
they are superior in intellectual ability to "all the world and the
rest of mankind," and delight to see their speeches and addresses in
print; and man shall be consigned to his proper sphere--nursing the
babies, washing the dishes, mending stockings, and sweeping the
house. This is "the good time coming." Besides the classes we have
enumerated, there is a class of wild enthusiasts and visionaries--very
sincere, but very mad--having the same vein as the fanatical
Abolitionists, and the majority, if not all of them, being, in point
of fact, deeply imbued with the anti-slavery sentiment. Of the male
sex who attend these Conventions for the purpose of taking a part in
them, the majority are hen-pecked husbands, and all of them ought to
wear petticoats.

In point of ability, the majority of the women are flimsy, flippant,
and superficial. Mrs. Rose alone indicates much argumentative power.

How did woman first become subject to man as she now is all over the
world? By her nature, her sex, just as the <DW64> is and always will
be, to the end of time, inferior to the white race, and, therefore,
doomed to subjection; but happier than she would be in any other
condition, just because it is the law of her nature. The women
themselves would not have this law reversed. It is a significant fact
that even Mrs. Swisshelm, who formerly ran about to all such
gatherings from her husband, is now "a keeper at home," and condemns
these Conventions in her paper. How does this happen? Because, after
weary years of unfruitfulness, she has at length got her rights in the
shape of a baby. This is the best cure for the mania, and we would
recommend a trial of it to all who are afflicted.

What do the leaders of the Woman's Rights Convention want? They want
to vote, and to hustle with the rowdies at the polls. They want to be
members of Congress, and in the heat of debate to subject themselves
to coarse jests and indecent language, like that of Rev. Mr. Hatch.
They want to fill all other posts which men are ambitious to
occupy--to be lawyers, doctors, captains of vessels, and generals in
the field. How funny it would sound in the newspapers, that Lucy
Stone, pleading a cause, took suddenly ill in the pains of
parturition, and perhaps gave birth to a fine bouncing boy in court!
Or that Rev. Antoinette Brown was arrested in the middle of her sermon
in the pulpit from the same cause, and presented a "pledge" to her
husband and the congregation; or, that Dr. Harriot K. Hunt, while
attending a gentleman patient for a fit of the gout or _fistula in
ano_, found it necessary to send for a doctor, there and then, and to
be delivered of a man or woman child--perhaps twins. A similar event
might happen on the floor of Congress, in a storm at sea, or in the
raging tempest of battle, and then what is to become of the woman
legislator?


WORLD'S TEMPERANCE CONVENTION.

COMMENTS OF THE PRESS.

   "_The New York Herald_" (editorial article), _September 9, 1853_.

.... "We are at length--praised be the stars!--drawing to the
termination of the clamorous conventions, which have kept the city in
a state of ferment and agitation, excitement and fun, for the past two
weeks....

"The World's Temperance Convention commenced its sittings on Tuesday,
and is still in session. This organization was calculated to effect
much good, had it not been leavened with the elements of discord,
which had brought contempt and ridicule on that of the 'Whole World.'
The Rev. Miss Antoinette Brown cast the brand of disorder into it, by
presenting herself as a delegate from the other association. This was
a virtual declaration of Woman's Rights, and a resolute effort to have
them recognized by the Convention. Neal Dow, as President and as a man
of gallantry, decided on receiving Miss Antoinette's credentials, and
for a time victory appeared to smile on the Amazons. The triumph,
however, was only ephemeral and illusive. The motion was put and
carried that none but the officers and invited guests of the
Convention should be permitted to occupy places on the platform, and
so, by this indirect movement, Miss Brown saw herself, in the moment
of her brightest hopes, expelled from the stage, and once more the
Anti-Woman's Righters were in the ascendancy.

"This was on Tuesday. Next day another stormy scene, arising from the
same cause, was enacted. The meek, temperate Dow--the light of the
reformation, the apostle of the Maine Liquor Law, the President of the
World's Temperance Convention--no longer able to control the stormy
elements which had developed themselves in the council, resolved by a
_coup d'etat_ to give the world an instance of his temperate demeanor
and of the liberality of the reformers, and accordingly directed the
police officers in attendance to clear the hall. The order was
enforced, and even Miss Antoinette Brown, notwithstanding she was the
bearer of credentials, was compelled to evacuate with the rest of the
throng, and leave Metropolitan Hall to the quiet and peaceful
possession of the male delegates to the World's Temperance Convention.
Thus harmony was restored in that obstreperous assembly.

"'They made a solitude, and called it peace.'"


                   "_Herald," September 10, 1853_.

.... "Thus stands the case, then. This World's Temperance, or Maine
Law Convention, headed by Neal Dow, the founder of the aforesaid
statute, has turned adrift the Woman's Rights party, male and female,
black and white, the Socialists, the Amalgamationists, the Infidels,
the Vegetarians, and the Free  Americans ... What is to follow
from these proceedings, excluding Miss Brown, Phillips, Douglass, and
Smith from the holy cause of temperance? Agitation? Of course. What
else? Very likely a separate Maine Law coalition movement, comprising
the Abolitionists, the strong-minded women, and Free  Americans
all over the North, in opposition to Neal Dow and the orthodox Maine
Law party. Thus the house will be divided--is, indeed, already
divided--against itself. What then? The Scriptures say that such a
house can't stand. It can't. And thus the Maine Law is crippled in a
miserable squabble with fugitive slaves, Bloomers, and Abolitionists.
How strange! Great country this, anyhow."


    "_National Democrat," September 5_ (Rev. Chauncey C. Burr, editor).

"Time was when a full-blooded <DW65> meeting in New York would have
been heralded with the cry of 'Tar and feathers!' but, alas! in these
degenerate days, we are called to lament only over an uproarious
disturbance. _The Tribune_ groans horribly, it is true, because a set
of deistical fanatics were interrupted in their villainous orgies; but
it should rather rejoice that no harsher means were resorted to than
'tufts of grass.' Talk about freedom! Is any land so lost in
self-respect--so sunk in infamy--that God-defying, Bible-abhorring
sacrilege will be civilly allowed? Because the bell-wether of _The
Tribune_, accompanied by a phalanx of blue petticoats, is installed as
the grand-master of outrages, is that any reason for personal respect
and public humiliation? In view of all the aggravating circumstances
of the case, we congratulate the foolhardy fanatics on getting off as
easy as they did; and we commend the forbearance of the considerate
crowd in not carrying their coercive measures to extremes, because,
the humbug being exploded, all that is necessary now is to laugh,
hiss, and vociferously applaud. When men make up their minds to vilify
the Bible, denounce the Constitution, and defame their country
(although this is a free country), they should go down in some obscure
cellar, remote from mortal ken, and, even there, whisper their hideous
treason against God and liberty."


MOB CONVENTION, 1853.

1. _Resolved_, That this movement for the rights of woman makes no
attempt to decide whether woman is better or worse than man, neither
affirms nor denies the equality of her intellect with that of
man--makes no pretense of protecting woman--does not seek to oblige
woman any more than man is now obliged, to vote, take office, labor in
the professions, mingle in public life, or manage her own property.

2. _Resolved_, That what we do seek is to gain these rights and
privileges for those women who wish to enjoy them, and so to change
public opinion that it shall not be deemed indecorous for women to
engage in any occupation which they deem fitted to their habits and
talents.

3. _Resolved_, That the fundamental principle of the Woman's Rights
movement is--that every human being, without distinction of sex, has
an inviolable right to the full development and free exercise of all
energies; and that in every sphere of life, private and public,
Functions should always be commensurate with Powers.

4. _Resolved_, That each human being is the sole judge of his or her
sphere, and entitled to choose a profession without interference from
others.

5. _Resolved_, That whatever differences exist between Man and Woman,
in the quality or measure of their powers, are originally designed to
be and should become bonds of union and means of co-operation in the
discharge of all functions, alike private and public.

6. _Resolved_, That the monopoly of the elective franchise, and
thereby of all the powers of legislation and government, by men,
solely on the ground of sex, is a monstrous usurpation--condemned
alike by reason and common-sense, subversive of all the principles of
justice, oppressive and demoralizing in its operations, and insulting
to the dignity of human nature.

7. _Resolved_, That we see no force in the objection, that woman's
taking part in politics would be a fruitful source of domestic
dissension; since experience shows that she may be allowed to choose
her own faith and sect without any such evil result, though religious
disputes are surely as bitter as political--and if the objection be
sound, we ought to go further, and oblige a wife to forego all
religious opinions, or to adopt the religious as well as the political
creed of her husband.

8. _Resolved_, That women, like men, must be either self-supported and
self-governed, or dependent and enslaved; that an unobstructed and
general participation in all the branches of productive industry, and
in all the business functions and offices of common life, is at once
their natural right, their individual interest, and their public duty;
the claim and the obligation reciprocally supporting each other; that
the idleness of the rich, with its attendant physical debility, moral
laxity, passional intemperance and mental dissipation, and the
ignorance, wretchedness, and enforced profligacy of the poor, which
are everywhere the curse and reproach of the sex, are the necessary
results of their exclusion from those diversified employments which
would otherwise furnish them with useful occupation, and reward them
with its profits, honors, and blessings, that this enormous wrong
cries for redress, for reparation by those whose delinquency allows
its continuance.

_Whereas_, The energies of Man are always in proportion to the
magnitude of the objects to be obtained; and, whereas, it requires the
highest motive for the greatest exertion and noblest action;
therefore,

9. _Resolved_, That Woman must be recognized politically, legally,
socially, and religiously the equal of man, and all the obstructions
to her highest physical, intellectual, and moral culture and
development be removed, that she may have the highest motive to assume
her place in that sphere of action and usefulness which her capacities
enable her to fill.

10. _Resolved_, That this movement gives to the cause of education a
new motive and impulse; makes a vast stride toward the settlement of
the question of wages and social reform; goes far to cure that
widespread plague--the licentiousness of cities; adds to civilization
a new element of progress; and in all these respects commends itself
as one of the greatest reforms of the age.


FIRST APPEAL OF 1854.

WOMAN'S RIGHTS.--CIRCULATE THE PETITION.

The Albany Woman's Rights Convention, held in February last, resolved
to continue the work of Petitioning our State Legislature, from year
to year, until the law of Justice and Equality shall be dispensed to
the whole people, without distinction of sex.

In order to systematize and facilitate the labors of the friends who
shall engage in the work of circulating the Petitions, a Committee was
appointed to devise and present some definite plan of action. In the
estimation of that Committee, the first and most important work to be
done is to enlighten the people as to the real claims of the Woman's
Rights Movement, thereby dispelling their many prejudices, and
securing their hearty good-will. To aid in the accomplishment of this
first great object, the Committee purpose holding Woman's Rights
Meetings in all the cities and many of the larger villages of the
State, during the coming fall and winter, and gladly, could they
command the services of Lecturing Agents, would they thoroughly
canvass the entire State. But, since to do so is impossible, they
would urge upon the friends in every county, town, village, and
school district, to hold public meetings in their respective
localities, and, if none among their own citizens feel themselves
competent to address the people, invite speakers from abroad. Let the
question be fully and freely discussed, both pro and con, by both
friends and opponents.

Though the living speaker can not visit every hearthstone throughout
the length and breadth of the Empire State, and personally present the
claims of our cause to the hearts and consciences of those who
surround them, his arguments, by the aid of the invaluable art of
printing, may. Therefore the Committee have resolved to circulate as
widely as possible the written statement of Woman's Political and
Legal Rights, as contained in the Address written by Elizabeth Cady
Stanton, of Seneca Falls, N. Y., and adopted by the Albany
Convention--presented to our Legislature at its last session. This
Address has been highly spoken of by many of the best papers in the
State, and pronounced, by eminent lawyers and statesmen, an able and
unanswerable argument. And the Committee, being fully confident of its
power to convince every candid inquirer after truth of the justice and
mercy of our claims, do urgently call upon the friends everywhere to
aid them in giving to it a thorough circulation.

There is no reform question of the day that meets so ready, so full,
so deep a response from the masses, as does this Woman's Rights
question. To ensure a speedy triumph, we have only to take earnest
hold of the work of disseminating its immutable truths. Let us, then,
agitate the question, hold public meetings, widely circulate Woman's
Rights Tracts, and show to the world that we are in earnest--that we
will be heard--that our demands stop not short of justice and perfect
equality to every human being. Let us, at least, see to it, that this
admirable Address of Mrs. Stanton is placed in the hands of every
intelligent man and woman in the State, and thus the way prepared for
the gathering up of a mighty host of names to our petitions to be
presented to our next Legislature, a mammoth roll, that shall cause
our law-makers to know that the People are with us, and that if our
prayer be not wisely and justly answered by them, other and truer
representatives will fill those Legislative Halls.

The success of our first appeal to our Legislature, made last winter,
encourages us to persevere. That the united prayer of only 6,000 men
and women should cause the reporting and subsequent passage in the
House, of a bill granting two of our most special claims--that of the
wife to her earnings, and the mother to her children--is indeed a
result the most sanguine scarce dared to hope for. What may we not
expect from our next appeal, that shall be 20,000, nay, more, if we
but be faithful, 100,000 strong. To the work, then, friends, of
renovating public sentiment and circulating petitions. There is no
time to be lost. Our Fourth of July gatherings will afford an
opportunity for both distributing the Address and circulating the
petitions. And, Women of the Empire State, it is for you to do the
work, it is for you to shake from your feet the dust of tyrant custom,
it is for you to remember that "he who would be free must himself
strike the blow."

The petitions to be circulated are the same as last year--one asking
for the JUST AND EQUAL RIGHTS OF WOMEN, and the other for WOMAN'S
RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE. The petitions are to be signed by both men and
women, the men's names placed in the right column, and the women's in
the left. All intelligent persons must be ready and willing to sign
the first, asking a revision of the laws relative to the property
rights of women, and surely no true republican can refuse to give his
or her name to the second, asking for woman the Right of
Representation--a practical application of the great principles of
'76.

It is desirable that there shall be one person in each county to whom
all the petitions circulated in its several towns, villages, and
school districts, shall be forwarded, and who shall arrange and attach
them in one roll, stating upon a blank sheet, placed between the
petition and the signatures, the number of signers, the name of the
county, and the number of towns represented, and forward them as early
as the 1st of December next, to Susan B. Anthony, Rochester, N. Y.
Where no person volunteers, or is appointed such county agent, the
petitions, properly labeled, may be sent directly to Rochester.

Mrs. Stanton's Address is published in neat pamphlet form, in large
type, and may be had at the following prices: $2 per 100, 37-1/2 cts.
per dozen; or if sent by mail, $3 per 100, and 50 cts. per dozen.
Packages of over 25 may be sent by express to all places on the line
of the railroads at a less cost than by mail.

It is hoped that every person who reads this notice, and feels an
interest in the universal diffusion of the true aim and object of the
Woman's Rights agitation, will, without delay, order copies of this
address to distribute gratuitously or otherwise, among their neighbors
and townsmen. Should there be any wishing to aid in this work, who can
not command the money necessary to purchase the Address, their orders
will be cheerfully complied with free of charge.

The Committee have on hand a variety of Woman's Rights Tracts, written
by S. J. May, Wendell Phillips, Elizabeth C. Stanton, Mrs. C. I. H.
Nichols, Ernestine L. Rowe, T. W. Higginson, and others. Also, the
Reports of the several National Woman's Rights Conventions, all of
which may be had at very low prices.

All correspondence and orders for Address, petitions, etc., should be
addressed to

                    SUSAN B. ANTHONY, General Agent, Rochester, N. Y.

_June 22, 1854_.


SECOND APPEAL OF 1854.

_To the Women of the State of New York:_

We purpose again this winter to send petitions to our State
Legislature--one, asking for the Just and Equal Rights of Woman, and
one for Woman's Right of Suffrage. The latter, we think, covers the
whole ground, for we can never be said to have just and equal rights
until the right of suffrage is ours. Some who will gladly sign the
former may shrink from making the last demand. But be assured, our
cause can never rest on a safe, enduring basis, until we get the right
of suffrage. So long as we have no voice in the laws, we have no
guarantee that privileges granted us to-day by one body of men, may
not be taken from us to-morrow by another.

All man's laws, his theology, his daily life, go to prove the fixed
idea in his mind of the entire difference in the sexes--a difference
so broad that what would be considered cruel and unjust between man
and man, is kind and just between man and woman. Having discarded the
idea of the oneness of the sexes, how can man judge of the needs and
wants of a being so wholly unlike himself? How can he make laws for
his own benefit and woman's too at the same time? He can not. He never
has, as all his laws relative to woman most clearly show. But when man
shall fully grasp the idea that woman is a being of like feelings,
thoughts, and passions with himself, he may be able to legislate for
her, as one code would answer for both. But until then, a sense of
justice, a wise self-love, impels us to demand a voice in his
councils.

To every intelligent, thinking woman, we put the question, On what
sound principles of jurisprudence, constitutional law, or human
rights, are one-half of the people of this State disfranchised? If you
answer, as you must, that it is done in violation of all law, then we
ask you, when and how is this great wrong to be righted? We say now;
and petitioning is the first step in its accomplishment. We hope,
therefore, that every woman in the State will sign her name to the
petitions. It is humiliating to know that many educated women so
stultify their consciences as to declare that they have all the rights
they want. Have you who make this declaration ever read the barbarous
laws in reference to woman, to mothers, to wives, and to daughters,
which disgrace our Statute Books? Laws which are not surpassed in
cruelty and injustice by any slaveholding code in the United States;
laws which strike at the root of the glorious doctrine for which
our fathers fought and bled and died, "no taxation without
representation"; laws which deny a right most sacredly observed by
many of the monarchies of Europe--"the right of trial by a jury of
one's own peers"; laws which trample on the holiest and most unselfish
of all human affections--a mother's love for her child--and with
ruthless cruelty snap asunder the tenderest ties; laws which enable
the father, be he a man or a minor, to tear the infant from the
mother's arms and send it, if he chooses, to the Feejee Islands--yea,
to will the guardianship of the _unborn_ child to whomsoever he may
please, whether to the Sultan of Turkey or the Imam of Muscat; laws by
which our sons and daughters may be bound to service to cancel their
father's debts of _honor_, in the meanest rum-holes and brothels in
the vast metropolis; laws which violate all that is most pure and
sacred in the marriage relation, by giving to the cruel, beastly
drunkard the rights of a man, a husband, and father; laws which place
the life-long earnings of the wife at the disposal of the husband, be
his character what it may; laws which leave us at the mercy of the
rum-seller and the drunkard, against whom we have no protection for
our lives, our children, or our homes; laws by which we are made the
watch-dogs to keep a million and a half of our sisters in the foulest
bondage the sun ever shone upon--which forbid us to give food and
shelter to the panting fugitive from the land of slavery.

If, in view of laws like these, there be women in this State so lost
to self-respect, to all that is virtuous, noble, and true, as to
refuse to raise their voices in protest against such degrading
tyranny, we can only say of that system which has thus robbed
womanhood of all its glory and greatness, what the immortal Channing
did of slavery, "If," said he, "it be true that the slaves are
contented and happy--if there is a system that can blot out all love
of freedom from the soul of man, destroy every trace of his Divinity,
make him happy in a condition so low and benighted and hopeless, I ask
for no stronger argument against such a slavery as ours." No! never
believe it; woman falsifies herself and blasphemes her God, when in
view of her present social, legal, and political position, she
declares she has all the rights she wants. If a few drops of Saxon
blood gave our Frederick Douglass such a clear perception of his
humanity, his inalienable rights, as to enable him, with the
slaveholder's Bible, the slaveholder's Constitution, a Southern public
sentiment and education all laid heavy on his shoulders, to stand
upright and walk forth in search of freedom, with as much ease as did
Samson of old with the massive gates of the city, shall we, the
daughters of our Hancocks and Adamses, we in whose veins flow the
blood of the Pilgrim Fathers, shall we never try the strength of these
withes of law and gospel with which in our blindness we have been
bound hand and foot? Yes, the time has come.

          "The slumber is broken, the sleeper is risen,
    The day of the Goth and the Vandal is o'er.
    And old Earth feels the tread of Freedom once more."

Fail not, Women of the Empire State, to swell our Petitions. Let no
religious scruples hold you back. Take no heed to man's interpretation
of Paul's injunctions to women. To any thinking mind, there is no
difficulty in explaining those passages of the Apostle as applicable
to the times in which they were written, as having no reference
whatever to the Women of the nineteenth century.

"Honor the King," heroes of '76! Those leaden tea-chests of Boston
Harbor cry out, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's." When
the men of 1854, with their Priests and Rabbis, shall rebuke the
disobedience of their forefathers--when they shall cease to set at
defiance the British lion and the Apostle Paul in their National
Policy, then it will be time enough for us to bow down to man's
interpretation of law touching our social relations, and acknowledge
that God gave us powers and rights, merely that we might show forth
our faith in Him by being helpless and dumb.

The writings of Paul, like our State Constitutions, are susceptible of
various interpretations. But when the human soul is roused with holy
indignation against injustice and oppression, it stops not to
translate human parchments, but follows out the law of its inner
being, written by the finger of God in the first hour of its creation.

Our Petitions will be sent to every county in the State, and we hope
that they will find at least ten righteous Women to circulate them.
But should there be any county so benighted that a petition can not be
circulated throughout its length and breadth, giving to every man and
woman an opportunity to sign their names, then we pray, not that "God
will send down fire and brimstone" upon it, but that the "Napoleon" of
this movement will flood it with Woman's Rights Tracts and
Missionaries.

                                   ELIZABETH CADY STANTON,
                    _Chairman N. Y. State Woman's Rights Committee._

SENECA FALLS, _Dec. 11, 1854_.

N. B.--All orders for forms of Petitions and Woman's Rights Tracts,
and all communications relating to the movement in this State, should
be addressed to our General Agent, Susan B. Anthony, Rochester, N. Y.
Let the Petitions be returned, as soon as possible, to Lydia Mott,
Albany, N. Y., as we wish to present them early in the session, and
thereby give our Legislature due time for the consideration of this
important question.


NATIONAL WOMAN'S RIGHTS CONVENTION, COOPER INSTITUTE, 1856.

LETTER FROM MRS. STANTON.

                                   SENECA FALLS, _November 24, 1856_.

DEAR LUCY STONE:--We may continue to hold our Conventions, we may talk
of our right to vote, to legislate, to hold property, but until we can
arouse in woman a proper self-respect, she will hold in contempt the
demands we now make for our sex. We shall never get what we ask for
until the majority of women are openly with us; and they will never
claim their civil rights until they know their social wrongs. From
time to time I put these questions to myself: How is it that woman can
longer silently consent to her present false position? How can she
calmly contemplate the barbarous code of laws which govern her civil
and political existence? How can she devoutly subscribe to a theology
which makes her the conscientious victim of another's will, forever
subject to the triple bondage of the man, the priest, and the law? How
can she tolerate our social customs, by which womankind is stripped of
all true virtue, dignity, and nobility? How can she endure our present
marriage relations, by which woman's life, health, and happiness are
held so cheap, that she herself feels that God has given her no
charter of rights, no individuality of her own. I answer, she
patiently bears all this because in her blindness she sees no way of
escape. Her bondage, though it differs from that of the <DW64> slave,
frets and chafes her just the same. She too sighs and groans in her
chains; and lives but in the hope of better things to come. She looks
to heaven; whilst the more philosophical slave sets out for Canada.
Let it be the object of this Convention to show that there is hope for
woman this side of heaven, and that there is a work for her to do
before she leaves for the celestial city.

Marriage is a divine institution, intended by God for the greater
freedom and happiness of both parties--whatever therefore conflicts
with woman's happiness is not legitimate to that relation. Woman has
yet to learn that she has a right to be happy in and of herself; that
she has a right to the free use, improvement, and development of all
her faculties, for her own benefit and pleasure. The woman is greater
than the wife or the mother; and in consenting to take upon herself
these relations, she should never sacrifice one iota of her
individuality to any senseless conventionalisms, or false codes of
feminine delicacy and refinement.

Marriage, as we now have it, is opposed to all God's laws. It is by no
means an equal partnership. The silent partner loses everything. On
the domestic sign, the existence of a second person is not recognized
by even the ordinary abbreviation, Co. There is the establishment of
John Jones. Perhaps his partner supplies all the cents and the
senses--but no one knows who she is or whence she came. If John is a
luminous body, she shines in his reflection; if not, she hides herself
in his shadow. But she is nameless, for a woman has no name! She is
Mrs. John or James, Peter or Paul, just as she changes masters; like
the Southern slave, she takes the name of her owner. Many people
consider this a very small matter; but it is the symbol of the most
cursed monopoly on this footstool; a monopoly by man of all the
rights, the life, the liberty, and happiness of one-half of the human
family--all womankind. For what man can honestly deny that he has not
a secret feeling that where his pleasure and woman's seems to
conflict, the woman must be sacrificed; and what is worse, woman
herself has come to think so too. She believes that all she tastes of
joy in life is from the generosity and benevolence of man; and the
bitter cup of sorrow, which she too often drinks to the very dregs, is
of the good providence of God, sent by a kind hand for her improvement
and development. This sentiment pervades the laws, customs, and
religions of all countries, both Christian and heathen. Is it any
wonder, then, that woman regards herself as a mere machine, a tool for
men's pleasure? Verily is she a hopeless victim of his morbidly
developed passions. But, thank God, she suffers not alone! Man too
pays the penalty of his crimes in his enfeebled mind, dwarfed body,
and the shocking monstrosities of his deformed and crippled offspring.

Call yourselves Christian women, you who sacrifice all that is great
and good for an ignoble peace, who betray the best interests of the
race for a temporary ease? It were nobler far to go and throw
yourselves into the Ganges than to curse the earth with a miserable
progeny, conceived in disgust and brought forth in agony. What mean
these asylums all over the land for the deaf and dumb, the maim and
blind, the idiot and the raving maniac? What all these advertisements
in our public prints, these family guides, these female medicines,
these Madame Restells? Do not all these things show to what a depth of
degradation the women of this Republic have fallen, how false they
have been to the holy instincts of their nature, to the sacred trust
given them by God as the mothers of the race? Let Christians and
moralists pause in their efforts at reform, and let some scholar teach
them how to apply the laws of science to human life. Let us but use as
much care and forethought in producing the highest order of
intelligence, as we do in raising a cabbage or a calf, and in a few
generations we shall reap an abundant harvest of giants, scholars, and
Christians.

The first step in this improvement is the elevation of woman. She is
the protector of national virtue; the rightful lawgiver in all our
most sacred relations.

                                   Yours truly,
                                           ELIZABETH CADY STANTON.


LETTER FROM N. H. WHITING.

                              MARSHFIELD, MASS., _September 29, 1856_.

DEAR FRIEND:--I do not see that I can do much to aid you in your
effort for self-emancipation from the injustice your sex encounters in
the present social and political arrangements of the world. You know
the old maxim, "The gods help them who help themselves." This is true
of all times and circumstances. The two inevitable conditions that are
found in, and are essential to all bondage, are the spirit of
oppression, the desire to exercise unlawful dominion on the one side,
and ignorance, servility, the willingness, if not the desire to be
enslaved on the other. The absence of either is fatal to the existence
of the thing itself.

I apprehend the principal thing you want from our sex, as a
preliminary to your growth and equal position in the great struggle of
life, is what Diogenes wanted of Alexander, viz., that we shall "get
out of your sunshine." In other words, that we shall remove the
obstacles we have placed in your way. To this end, politically, all
laws which discriminate between man and woman, to the injury of the
latter, should at once be blotted out. Women should have an equal
voice in the creation and administration of that government to which
they are subject. This will be a fair start in that direction. The
first thing to be done, socially, is to so regulate and arrange the
industrial machinery that women shall have an equal chance to labor in
all the departments, and that the same work shall receive the same pay
whether done by man or woman. This will do much to clear the track, so
that all can have a fair chance. This is all you ask, as I take it.
This you should have. Justice demands it....

But, save in the removal of the outward forms of society, which now
environ and hedge up your way, the active work in all this change in
the most important human relations must be done by yourselves. "They
who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." What woman is
capable of we shall never know until she has a fair chance in the wide
arena of universal human life.

If the love of frivolity and show and of empty admiration, which now
so generally obtains, is an unfailing characteristic in the female
sex, legislation can not help you. Encouragement, sympathy, can not
help you. It is of no use to fight against the eternal laws. But if
this be only a perversion or misdirection of noble and lovely powers
and faculties, the result of accidental circumstances and vicious
institutions, as I believe, then, when the outward pressure is
removed, the elastic spring of the genuine human spirit, encased in
the form of woman, shall return; the great curse of civil and domestic
strife shall cease; the true marriage of the male and female heart can
then take place, because that perfect equality, under which alone it
can exist, will be recognized and established.

You are engaged in a great work. May you have faith and resolution to
continue to the end. It is a long way before you. Man is a plant of
slow growth. His education and development are the work of ages. It is
only by a landmark extending far back into the dim and misty past we
can trace his upward path.

But though the race grows so slow, and the forward wave is go often
pressed backward by the prevailing currents of ignorance,
superstition, and oppression, still, it is cheering to know that no
true word was ever spoken, or good deed ever done, but it cast some
rays of light into the surrounding darkness, while it gave strength
and vigor to the spirit that sent it forth. That is a grand truth
whose utterance is attributed to Jesus, "It is more blessed to give
than to receive." By that gift we may relieve the want of others, but
we gain far more to ourselves by creating from the chaos of human
crime and misery a beautiful and godlike act. That act is wrought into
the fibers of our own individual life, and we are nobler, better,
happier than before.

So you, in the thankless task before you, subject to ribald jest, to
the cold, heartless sneer, to obloquy and abuse of all sorts from our
and even your sex, who are most immediately to be benefited by your
labors, will have this great truth to console and stimulate you, that
in every step of this grand procession in which you are marching, you
will gather rich and substantial food for the sustenance and growth of
your own mental and moral natures.

                                   Truly yours,
                                                    N. H. WHITING.


                                        NEW YORK, _November 25, 1856_.

_To the Seventh National Woman's Rights Convention_:

The central claim for Woman is her right to be, and to do, as well as
to suffer. Allow her everywhere to represent herself and her own
interests.

Custom and law both deny her this right. If she is too cowardly to
contend with custom, and to overcome it, let her remain its slave. But
the law has bound her hand and foot. Here she can not act. The
law-makers have forged her chains and riveted them upon her. They
alone can take them off. Shall we not, then, at once demand of
them--demand of every sovereign State in the Union--the elective
franchise for woman? With this franchise she can make for herself a
civil and political equality with man. Without it she is utterly
without power to protect herself. She does not need to be protected
like a child. She does need freedom to use the powers of
self-protection with which her own nature is endowed.

Each of the several States has its specific laws--statutes and
constitution--varying in details, but all more or less unjust to her
as wife, mother, property-holder; in short, unjust to her in all her
relations as citizen. Every State denies to her the right to represent
herself politically. Once give her this, and she can take all the
rest.

Would it not be wholly appropriate, then, for this National Convention
to demand the right of suffrage for her from the Legislature of each
State in the Nation? We can not petition the General Government on
this point. Allow me, therefore, respectfully to suggest the propriety
of appointing a committee, which shall be instructed to prepare a
memorial adapted to the circumstances of each legislative body; and
demanding of each, in the name of this Convention, the elective
franchise for woman.

Such a memorial, presented to the several States during the coming
winter, could not fail of doing good. It would be pressing home this
great question upon all the powers that be in the whole nation; and,
with comparatively little effort, would, at least, create a healthful
agitation. Who shall say that the just men of some State will not even
accord to us the franchise we claim? With this hint to the wise, I
remain, as ever,

                              Yours, for equal human rights,
                                     ANTOINETTE L. BROWN BLACKWELL.


Mr. HATTELLE moved that a Committee be at once appointed to draft such
a memorial, which was adopted.

WENDELL PHILLIPS rose to offer as an amendment, that a recommendation
go forth from this Convention to the women of each State, to
inaugurate their presentation of the subject to their several
Legislatures.

Thomas Wentworth Higginson proposed that the friends of Woman Suffrage
should publish an almanac each year giving the advance steps in their
movement. He issued one for 1858, from which we clip the following:

THE WOMAN'S RIGHTS ALMANAC.

THE HISTORY OF WOMAN IN THREE PICTURES.

I. HINDOO LAWS. 2000 B. C.--"A man, both day and night, must keep his
wife so much in subjection, that she by no means be mistress of her
own actions. If the wife have her own free-will, notwithstanding she
be of a superior caste, she will behave amiss."

"The Creator formed woman for this purpose, that man might have sexual
intercourse with her, and that children might be born from thence."

"A woman shall never go out of the house without the consent of her
husband.... and shall act according to the orders of her husband, and
shall pay a proper respect to the Deity, her husband's father, the
spiritual guide, and the guests; and shall not eat until she has
served them with victuals (if it is physic, she may take it before
they eat); a woman also shall never go to a stranger's house, and
shall not stand at the door, and must never look out of a window."

"If a woman, following her own inclinations, goes whithersoever she
choose, and does not regard the words of her master, such a woman
shall be turned away."

"If a man goes on a journey, his wife shall not divert herself by
play, nor shall see any public show, nor shall laugh, nor shall dress
herself with jewels and fine clothes, nor shall see dancing, nor hear
music, nor shall sit in the window, nor shall ride out, nor shall
behold anything choice or rare, but shall fasten well the house-door
and remain private; and shall not eat any dainty victuals, and shall
not view herself in a mirror; she shall never exercise herself in any
such agreeable employment during the absence of her husband."

"It is proper for every woman, after her husband's death, to burn
herself in the fire with his corpse."

It will be seen that the following laws scarcely vary at all, in
principle, from the preceding:

II. ANGLO-SAXON LAWS. 1848.--"By marriage, the husband and wife are
one person in law; that is, _the very being or 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 _covert_ she performs everything; and is, therefore, called in our
Law-French a _feme-covert_, is said to be _covert-baron_, or under the
protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord; and her
condition during her marriage is called her _coverture_. Upon this
principle, of an union of person in husband and wife, depend almost
all the legal rights, duties, and disabilities that either of them
acquire by the marriage."--_1 Blackstone Com_., 356.

"The husband also, by the old law, might give his wife moderate
correction. For, as he is to answer for her misbehavior, the law
thought it reasonable to intrust him with this power of restraining
her by domestic chastisement, in the same moderation that a man is
allowed to correct his apprentices or children. But this power of
correction was confined within reasonable bounds, and the husband was
prohibited from using any violence to his wife, _aliter quam ad virum,
ex causa regiminis et castigationis uxoris suae licite et
rationabiliter pertinet_ (except as lawfully and reasonably belongs to
a husband, for the sake of governing and disciplining his wife). The
civil law gave the husband the same, or a larger authority over his
wife, allowing him, for some misdemeanors, _flagellis et Fustibus
acriter verberare uxorem_ (to beat his wife severely with whips and
cudgels); for others only _modicam castigationem adhibere_ (to
administer moderate chastisement). But with us, in the politer reign
of Charles II., this power of correction began to be doubted, and a
wife may now have security of peace against the husband, or, in
return, a husband against his wife. Yet the lower rank of people, who
were always fond of the old common law, still claim and exact their
ancient privilege, and the courts of law will still permit a
husband to restrain a wife of her liberty in case of any gross
misbehavior."--_1 Blackstone_, 366.

"The legal effects of marriage are generally deducible from the
principle of the common law by which the husband and wife are regarded
as one person, and her legal existence and authority are in a degree
lost or suspended during the continuance of the matrimonial
union."--_2 Kent's Comm. on Am. Law_, 129.

"Even now, in countries of the most polished habits, a considerable
latitude is allowed to marital coercion. In England the husband has
the right of imposing _such corporal restraints as he may deem
necessary_, for securing to himself the fulfillment of the obligations
imposed on the wife by virtue of the marriage contract. He may, in the
plenitude of his power, adopt every act of physical coercion which
does not endanger the life or health of the wife, or render
cohabitation unsafe."--_Petersdorff's Abridgement, note_.

"The husband hath, by law, power and dominion over his wife, and _may
keep her by force within the bounds of duty, and may beat her_, but
not in a violent or cruel manner."--_Bacon's Abridgement, title "Baron
aud Feme," B. 9_.

"_The wife is only the servant of her husband._"--_Baron Alderson_
(_Wharton's Laws relating to the Women of England_), _p. 168_.

"It is probably not generally known, that whenever a woman has
accepted an offer of marriage, all she has, or expects to have,
becomes virtually the property of the man thus accepted as a husband;
and no gift or deed executed by her between the period of acceptance
and the marriage is held to be valid; for were she permitted to give
away or otherwise settle her property, he might be disappointed in the
wealth he looked to in making the offer."--_Roper, Law of Husband and
Wife, Book I., ch. xiii_.

"A lady whose husband had been unsuccessful in business, established
herself as a milliner in Manchester. After some years of toil, she
realized sufficient for the family to live upon comfortably, the
husband having done nothing meanwhile. They lived for a time in easy
circumstances, after she gave up business, and then the husband died,
_bequeathing all his wife's earnings to his own illegitimate
children_. At the age of sixty-two, she was compelled, in order to
gain her bread, to return to business."--_Westminster Review, Oct.,
1856_.

MR. JUSTICE COLERIDGE'S JUDGMENT "_in re Cochrane_."--The facts were
briefly these. A writ of _habeas corpus_ had been granted to the wife,
who, having been brought into the power of the husband by strategem,
had since that time been kept in confinement by him. By the return to
the writ, it appeared that the parties had lived together for about
three years after their marriage on terms of apparent affection, and
had two children; that in May, 1836, Mrs. Cochrane withdrew herself
and offspring from his house and protection, and had resided away from
him against his will, for nearly four years. While absent from her
husband, Mrs. Cochrane had always resided with her mother, nor was
there the slightest imputation on her honor. In ordering her to be
restored to her husband, the learned judge, after stating the question
to be whether by the common law, the husband, in order to prevent his
wife from eloping, _has a right to confine her in his own
dwelling-house, and restrain her from liberty for an indefinite time_,
using no cruelty nor imposing any hardship or unnecessary restraint on
his part, and on hers there being no reason from her past conduct to
apprehend that she will avail herself of her absence from his control
to injure either his honor or his property, stated, "_That there could
be no doubt of the general dominion which the law of England
attributes to the husband over the wife_."--_8 Dowling's P. C. 360_.
_Quoted in Westminster Review, Oct., 1856_.

III. SIGNS OF THE TIMES. 1857.--It is obvious that the English common
law, as above stated, is scarcely a step beyond barbarism. Yet this
law remained almost unaltered in the United States, as respects woman,
till the year 1848--the year of the first local Woman's Rights
Convention, the first National one being held in 1850. Since then
every year has brought improvements, and even those who denounce the
Woman's Rights Movement, admit the value of these its results.

There is near Trenton, says _The Newark Advertiser_, a woman who is a
skillful mechanic. She has made a carriage, and can make a violin or a
gun. She is only 35 years old.

This is told as though it were something wonderful for a woman to have
mechanical genius; when the fact is, that there are thousands all over
the country who would make as good mechanics and handle tools with as
much skill and dexterity as men, if they were only allowed to make
manifest their ingenuity and inclinations. A girl's hands and head are
formed very much like those of a boy, and if put to a trade at the age
when boys are usually apprenticed, she will master her business quite
as soon as the boy--be the trade what it may.

SALE OF A WIFE AT WORCESTER, ENGLAND.--One of these immoral and
illegal transactions was recently completed at Worcester. The
agreement between the fellow who sold and the fellow who bought is
given in _The Worcester Chronicle_:

"Thomas Middleton delivered up his wife, Mary Middleton, to Phillip
Rostins, and sold her for one shilling and a quart of ale, and parted
wholly and solely for life, not trouble one another for life. Witness,
Signed Thomas |x| Middleton. Witness, Mary Middleton, his wife.
Witness, Phillip |x| Rostins. Witness, S. H. Stone, Crown Inn, Friar
Street."

FEMALE INVENTORS.--"Man, having excluded woman from all opportunity of
mechanical education, turns and reproaches her with having invented
nothing. But one remarkable fact is overlooked. Society limits woman's
sphere to the needle, the spindle, and the basket; and tradition
reports that she _herself invented all three_. If she has invented her
tools as fast as she has found opportunity to use them, can more be
asked?"--_T. W. Higginson_.

In the ancient Hindoo dramas, wives do not speak the same language
with their husbands, but employ the dialect of slaves.

A correspondent of _The London Spectator_ suggests:--"The employment
of women _as clerks at railway stations_ would not be an unprecedented
innovation; they not unfrequently fill that position abroad; and I can
recall at least one instance, when, at a principal station in France,
a female clerk displayed under difficult circumstances an amount of
zeal and intelligence which showed her to be admirably suited to her
office--'the right _woman_ in the right place.'"

The word courage is, in the Spanish and Portuguese languages, a
_feminine_ noun.

Upwards of ten thousand females in New York, forty thousand in Paris,
and eighty thousand in London, are said, by statisticians, to
regularly earn a daily living by immoral practices. And yet all these
are Christian cities!

A widow lady of Bury, Mary Chapman, who would appear to have been a
warlike dame, making her will in 1649, leaves to one of her sons,
among other things, "also _my_ muskett, rest, bandileers, sword, and
headpiece, _my_ jacke, a fine paire of sheets, and a hutche."

Addison, in _The Spectator_, refers to a French author, who mentions
that the ladies of the court of France, in his time, thought it
ill-breeding and a kind of female pedantry, to pronounce a hard word
right, for which reason they took frequent occasion to use hard words,
that they might show a politeness in murdering them. The author
further adds, that a lady of some quality at court, having
accidentally made use of a hard word in a proper place, and pronounced
it right, the whole assembly was out of countenance for her.

SEWING IN NEW YORK.--"I am informed from one source, that based on a
calculation some two years ago, the number of those who live by sewing
in New York exceeds fifteen thousand. Another, who has good means of
information, tells me there are forty thousand earning fifteen
shillings ($1.87-1/2) per week, and paying twelve shillings ($1.50)
for board, making shirts at four cents."--_E. H. Chapin_, "_Moral
Aspects of City Life_."

The first "pilgrim" who stepped ashore on Plymouth Rock is said, by
tradition, to have been a young girl, named Mary Chilton.

The _St. Louis Republican_ mentions that there is one feature about
the steamer Illinois Belle, of peculiar attractiveness--a lady clerk.
"Look at her bills of lading, and 'Mary J. Patterson, clerk,' will be
seen traced to a delicate and very neat style of chirography. A lady
clerk on a Western steamer! It speaks strongly of our moral progress."

George Borrow, in his singular narrative, "The Romany Rye," states
that the sale of a wife, with a halter round her neck, is still a
legal transaction in England. It must be done in the cattle-market, as
if she were a mare, "all women being considered as mares by old
English law, _and indeed called mares in certain counties where
genuine old English is still preserved_."

TESTIMONIAL TO MISS MITCHELL.--The fame of our talented countrywoman,
Miss Maria Mitchell, of Nantucket, has spread far and wide among
astronomers, and is cherished with pride by all Americans. We are glad
to learn that it is proposed to present her a testimonial which will
be at once an appropriate tribute to her talents, and an aid to the
future prosecution of her astronomical researches. An observatory on
Nantucket Island is for sale on very favorable terms, and a plan is on
foot for its purchase, to be presented to her. The sum needed is
$3,000, of which more than a third has been raised by ladies in
Philadelphia and its neighborhood.

Miss Mitchell is now in Europe, visiting the principal observatories
and astronomers there, and it is hoped that she will soon be
gratefully surprised by learning that the very imperfect means
hitherto at her disposal in pursuing her favorite science are to be
replaced on her return by a collection of instruments which she will
be delighted to possess. Drs. Bond, of Harvard College Observatory,
and Hall, of Providence, have interested themselves in securing this
object, and express strongly their opinion that valuable results to
science can not fail to be realized by furnishing so skillful and
diligent an observer as Miss Mitchell the proposed aids to her
researches. Dr. Bond expresses the conviction that Nantucket enjoys
special advantages as an astronomical site, on account of its
comparative exemption from thermometrical disturbances of the
atmosphere.

We hope this worthy tribute to our countrywoman's scientific merit
will not fail to be paid. Miss Mitchell's friends have the refusal of
the observatory only till September 1st, and several other purchasers
are ready to take it at once. Dr. Geo. Choate, of Salem, has consented
to receive the pledges of such as desire to be enrolled among the
subscribers to the fund, among whose names are already the honored
ones of Edward Everett, J. I. Bowditch, John C. Brown, of Providence,
and F. Peabody, of Salem, besides other munificent patrons of
science.--_Journal of Commerce._

LEARN TO SWIM.--When the steamer Alida was sinking from her collision
with the Fashion, a Kentucky girl of seventeen was standing on the
guard, looking upon the confusion of the passengers, and occasionally
turning and looking anxiously toward the shore. A gallant young man
stepped up to her and offered to convey her safely to shore. "Thank
you," replied the lady, "you need not trouble yourself; I am only
waiting for the crowd to get out of the way, when I can take care of
myself." Soon the crowd cleared the space, and the lady plunged into
the water, and swam to the shore with ease, and without any apparent
fear.

A LADY HORSEBREAKER IN FRANCE.--In consequence of the success obtained
by Madame Isabelle in breaking in horses for the Russian army, the
French Minister of War lately authorized her to proceed officially
before a commission, composed of general and superior officers of
cavalry, with General Regnault de St. Jean d'Angely at their head, to
a practical demonstration of her method on a certain number of young
cavalry horses. After twenty days' training, the horses were so
perfectly broken in, that the minister no longer hesitated to enter
into an arrangement with Madame Isabelle to introduce her system into
all the imperial schools of cavalry, beginning with that of
Saumur.--_Galignani's Messenger_.

Since the passage of what is called the Married Woman's Act, in 1848,
in Pennsylvania, there have been brought, in the Court of Common
Pleas, one thousand one hundred and thirty-five suits for divorce. A
large majority of the cases are brought by the wives, on the ground of
cruel treatment and desertion.

    "Women ruled all, and ministers of state
    Were at the doors of women forced to wait--
    Women, who've oft as sovereigns graced the land,
    But never governed well at second-hand."

                              _Churchill's Satires, A.D. 1761._


SENATOR ANTHONY.

"A Woman's Rights Convention is in session in New York. A collection
of women arguing for political rights, and for the privileges usually
conceded only to the other sex, is one of the easiest things in the
world to make fun of. There is no end to the smart speeches and the
witty remarks that may be made on the subject. But when we seriously
attempt to show that a woman who pays taxes ought not to have a voice
in the manner in which the taxes are expended, that a woman whose
property and liberty and person are controlled by the laws, should
have no voice in framing those laws, it is not so easy. If women are
fit to rule in monarchies, it is difficult to say why they are not
qualified to vote in a republic; nor can there be greater indelicacy
in a woman going up to the ballot-box than there is in a woman opening
a legislature or issuing orders to an army.

"We do not say that women ought to vote; but we say that it is a great
deal easier to laugh down the idea than to argue it down. Moreover,
there are a great many things besides voting that are confined to men,
and that women can do quite as well, or even better. There are many
employments which ought to be opened to women, there are many ways in
which women can be made to contribute more largely to their own
independence and comfort, and to the general good of society. All
well-directed plans to this end should receive the support of thinking
men. The danger is that conventions of this kind are apt to overlook
the present and attainable good, in their efforts for results which
are of less certain value and far less practicable."--_Providence
Journal, Edited by Ex-Governor Anthony._


WISCONSIN LEGISLATURE, 1857.

WISCONSIN REPORT ON THE SUFFRAGE QUESTION.--The following extract from
the report on the extension of the right of suffrage in Wisconsin, we
find in _The Milwaukee Free Democrat_:

"Perhaps no question ever submitted to a community would call forth so
much of its mental activity, such a crusade into the realms of
history, such a balancing of good and evil, of the past with the
present, such an examination of the social and political rights and
relations, as the question whether the right of suffrage ought to be
extended to all citizens over the age of twenty-one, which would, of
course, include both sexes. The giddy devotee of fashion would be
surprised in the midst of her frivolity, and be compelled to think and
reason, in view of a new responsibility which is menacing her. Even if
opposed to the proposition, she would be compelled to organize and
inspire the public opinion necessary to defeat it. Whatever might be
the event, woman's intellectual position would be changed, and changed
forever, and with hers that of all other classes....

"Let no one imagine that he can dispose of this question by a
contemptuous fling at strong-minded women and hen-pecked husbands. The
principle will gain more strength from the character of the arguments
of its opponents than from any number of Bloomer conventions. The
modern idea of the fashionable belle, floating like a bird of paradise
through the soiree; the impersonation of motion and grace in the
ball-room, indulging alternately in syncope and rapture over the
marvelous adventures and despair of the hero of a mushroom romance,
her rapid transition from one excitement to another, to fill up the
dreary vacuum of life, provoking as it does the secret derision of
sensible men; all this comes from that legislation, from that public
opinion, which drives women away from real life; from the discussion
of questions in which her happiness and destiny are involved. A
senseless, though a false fondness, denies her a participation in all
questions of the actual world around her. The novel writers therefore
create a fictitious world, filled with fantastic and hollow
characters, for her to range in. Awhile she believes she is an angel,
till some unfortunate husband finds her to be a moth on his fortune,
and a baleful shadow stretching across his pathway, without curiosity
or interests in all those practical realities, which the world,
outside of her charmed existence, is attending to. These are the
abortions of a false public opinion. For ages they have been regarded
as the natural results of female organism. Hence, woman has become
famed as a gossip, because she would degrade herself by discussing
Judge A.'s qualifications for Judge of Probate, though Judge A. may
yet appoint a guardian for her children. In the sewing society, she
sews scandal, or reads brocades, silks, and crinolines, because it
would be extremely coarse and vulgar in her to read the statutes of
Wisconsin, where her rights of person and property, marriage and
divorce, are regulated. In those statutes she would find that though
$350,000 are appropriated to build a University, she is as effectually
excluded from that institution as though it was a convent of monks. So
there is some inconvenience at last in being regarded as a _bona-fide_
angel, for angels have no use for Universities. Some indignant
school-ma'am begins to suspect the hollow compliments of moon-struck
admirers, and demands a direct voice in the laws which provide for the
mutual improvement of her sex. But the grave doctor of law puts on his
spectacles, and tells her she is fully and exactly represented in man,
only more so. When he eats, she eats; when he thinks, she thinks; when
he gets drunk, she gets drunk; that it would be as absurd to provide
for the board and education of one's own shadow as to provide a
separate establishment for woman, who possesses all things, enjoys all
things, and sways all things in man, as fully as though she did it
herself. And a single woman, or widow, may pay taxes, but it would be
outrageous for her to have a choice in the men who are to spend the
money and then cry out for more. When married, ten years ago, her
education was equal to her husband's, now she can not write a
grammatical letter: her husband's mind has been enlarged by the influx
of new ideas, and by contacts with the electric atmosphere of thought
in the great world without; but denied as she has been the right of
expressing her will by a direct vote, she has lost all interest in
passing events; the globe has dwindled to a half-acre lot and the
village church. Her partner finds the match unequal, spends his time
with more congenial society, and is out-and-out in favor of Moses' law
of a galloping divorce. The old stager has filled the political arena
with frauds and brawls, and bruises and blood; and having levelled the
morals of the ballot-box with those of the race-ground or box-ring, he
has yet virtue enough left to declare that woman shall not enter this
moral Aceldama.

"Yet it may be that democracy, for self-preservation, will be
compelled to invite women to the ballot-box, to restrain and overawe
the ruffianism of man. Though man smiles with secret derision at the
competition of woman, in dress and show, yet he is too tender of her
reputation to allow her the same field with himself wherein to
exercise her powers. We believe that this contortion of character is
justly attributable to the denial of the right of voting, the great
mode by which the questions of the day are decided in this country.
Politics are our national life. As civilization advances, its issues
will penetrate still deeper into social and every-day life of the
people; and no man or woman can be regarded as an entity, as a power
in society, who has not a direct agency in governing its results.
Without a direct voice in molding the spirit of the age, the age will
disown us.

"But the objection is argued seriously. Political rivalry will arm the
wife against the husband; a man's foes will be those of his own
household. But we believe that political equality will, by lending the
thoughts and purposes of the sexes, to a just degree, into the same
channel, more completely carry out the designs of nature. Women will
be possessed of a positive power, and hollow compliments and
rose-water flatteries will be exchanged for a pure admiration and a
well-grounded respect, when we see her nobly discharging her part in
the great intellectual and moral struggles of the age, that wait their
solution by a direct appeal to the ballot-box. Woman's power is, at
present, poetical and unsubstantial; let it be practical and real.
There is no reality in any power that can not be coined into votes.
The demagogue has a sincere respect and a salutary fear of the voter;
and he that can direct the lightning flash of the ballot-box is
greater than he who possesses a continent of vapor, gilded with
moonshine.

"It is true, the right of voting would carry with it the right to hold
office; but since it is true that the sexes have appropriate spheres,
the discretion of individual voters would recognize this fact, and
seldom elect a woman to an office, for which she is unfitted by nature
and education, as incompetent men are now elected. But the cruelty of
our laws is seen in this--that where nature makes exceptions, the laws
are inexorable.

"We have shown that woman is not correctly represented by man at the
ballot-box. Could her voice be heard, it would alter the choice of
public men and their character. With legislators compelled to respect
her opinions, the law itself, constitutions, and politics reflect, to
a just extent, her peculiar views and interests. Nor is it for us to
decide whether these would be for the better or worse. Let the
majority rule. _Vox populi vox Dei._ Woman's intellect would enlarge
with her more commanding political condition, and though she might
blight the hopes of many a promising aspirant, yet the Union would not
be dissolved under her administration. Believing the time has come
when an appeal on her behalf to the voters of this State will not be
in vain, we have prepared to submit the question to the people, by our
amendment to the Senate bill.

                                                  "DAVID NOGGLE.
                                                  "J. T. MILLS.

"I altogether prefer the Committee's amendment to the Senate bill.

"_February 27, 1857_.                            HOPEWELL COXE."


ONE YEAR'S WORK.--The following are a portion of the results of the
Woman's Rights petitions, presented during the winter of 1856-7:

In Ohio and Wisconsin, Legislative Committees have reported favorably
to the Right of Suffrage, and extracts from the reports are given
above.

Ohio, Maine, Indiana, and Missouri have passed laws giving to married
women the right to control their own earnings. The Ohio and Maine
statutes are printed below; also a Maine act, giving the husband title
to an allowance from a deceased wife's property, similar to that now
given by the law to widows.

The memorial presented to the New York Legislature, owing to some
mistake, was not offered till too late for action.

OHIO STATUTE.--Bill passed by the Ohio Legislature, April 17, 1857.

Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio,
that no married man shall sell, dispose of, or in any manner part
with, any personal property, which is now, or may hereafter be, exempt
from sale upon execution, without having first obtained the consent of
his wife thereto.

Sec. 2. If any married man shall violate the provisions of the
foregoing section, his wife may, in her own name, commence and
prosecute to final judgment and execution, in civil action, for the
recovery of such property or its value in money.

Sec. 8. Any married woman, whose husband shall desert her, or from
intemperance or other cause become incapacitated, or neglect to
provide for his family, may, in her own name, make contracts for her
own labor and the labor of her minor children, and in her own name,
sue for and collect her own or their earnings.

MAINE STATUTE.--At the recent session of the Legislature of Maine, the
following acts were passed:

"An Act relating to the property of deceased married women. Be it
enacted," etc.

"When a wife dies intestate and insolvent, her surviving husband shall
be entitled to an allowance from her personal estate, and a
distributive share in the residue thereof, in the same manner as a
widow is in the estate of her husband; and if she leaves issue he
shall have the use of one-third, if no issue, one-half of her real
estate for life, to be received and assigned in the manner and with
the rights of dower." Approved April 13, 1857.

"An Act in relation to the rights of married women.

"Any married woman may demand and receive the wages of personal labor
performed other than for her own family, and may hold the same in her
own right against her husband or any other person, and may maintain an
action therefore in her own name." Approved April 17, 1857.

FEMALE SUFFRAGE IN KENTUCKY.--Kentucky Revised Statutes, 1852, ch. 88.
"Schools and Seminaries." Art. 6, Sec. 1:

"An election shall be held at the school-house of each school
district, from nine o'clock in the morning till two o'clock in the
evening, of the first Saturday of April of each year, for the election
of three Trustees for the District for one year, and until others are
elected and qualified. The qualified voters in each District shall be
the electors, and _any widow having a child between six and eighteen
years of age, may also vote in person or by written proxy_."

[But if the suffrage is not limited to _widows_ who have a child
between six and eighteen, but extended to _unmarried, married_, and
_childless_ men, why not give it to women in those positions also?
Such a partial concession, though valuable as recognizing a principle,
is not likely to be extensively used. For in this case, as in that of
women who are stockholders in corporations, the female voters will be
deterred by their own small numbers and by the prejudices of society.
But give woman the equal right of suffrage, and the prejudice will
soon be swept away].

FEMALE SUFFRAGE IN CANADA.--[The following is the Canadian law under
which women vote. The omission of the word _male_ was intentional, and
was done to secure the weight of the Protestant property in the hands
of women, against the Roman Catholic aggressions and demands for
separate schools. The law works well. "A friend of mine in Canada West
told me," said Lucy Stone recently, "that when the law was first
passed giving women who owned a certain amount of property, or who
paid a given rental, a right to vote, he went trembling to the polls
to see the result. The first woman who came was a large property
holder in Toronto; with marked respect the crowd gave way as she
advanced. She spoke her vote and walked quietly away, sheltered by her
womanhood. It was all the protection she needed."]

XVIII. and XIV. VICTORIA, CAP 48.--An Act for the better establishment
and maintenance of Common Schools in Upper Canada. Passed July 24,
1850.

Sec. 1. Preamble--Repeals former acts.

Sec. 2. Enacts that the election of School Trustees shall take place
on the second Wednesday of January in each year.

Sec. 22. And be it enacted, that in each Ward, into which any City or
Town is or shall be divided according to Law, two fit and proper
persona shall be elected School Trustees by a majority of all the
_taxable inhabitants_.

Sec. 25. Enacts that on the second Wednesday in January there shall be
a meeting of all the taxable inhabitants of every incorporated
village, and at such meeting six fit and proper persons, from among
the resident householders, shall be elected School Trustees.

Sec. 5. Provides that in all _Country_ School Districts _three_
trustees shall be similarly elected by a majority of _the freeholders
or householders_ of such school section.

"THE EMANCIPATION OF WOMEN."--A very curious controversy, on paper, is
going on at present in the _Reveu Philosophique et Religieuse_,
between M. Proudhon and Mme. Jenny D'Hericourt. The latter defends,
with great warmth, the moral, civil, and political emancipation of
woman. Proudhon, in reply, declares that all the theories of Mme.
D'Hericourt are inapplicable, in consequence of the inherent weakness
of her sex. The periodical in which the contest is going on was
founded and is conducted by the old St. Simoniens.

       *       *       *       *       *

REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE OF THE OHIO SENATE, ON GIVING THE RIGHT
OF SUFFRAGE TO FEMALES.

                                                  COLUMBUS, 1858.

The following petition, numerously signed by both men and women,
citizens of this State, was, at the first session of the Legislature,
referred to the undersigned Select Committee:

"WHEREAS, The women of the State of Ohio are disfranchised by the
Constitution solely on account of their sex;

"We do, respectfully, demand for them the right of suffrage--a right
which involves all other rights of citizenship--one that can not,
justly, be withheld, as the following admitted principles of
government show:

"First. 'All men are born free and equal.'

"Second. 'Government derives its just power from the consent of the
governed.'

"Third. 'Taxation and representation are inseparable.'

"We, the undersigned, therefore, petition your honorable body to take
the necessary steps for a revision of the Constitution, so that all
citizens may enjoy equal political rights."

Your Committee have given the subject referred to them a careful
examination, and now

                           REPORT.

Your Committee believe that the prayer of the petitioners ought
to be granted. Our opinion is based both upon grounds of
principle and expediency, which we will endeavor to present as
briefly as is consistent with a due consideration of this
subject.

The founders of this Republic claimed and asserted with
great emphasis, the essential equality of human rights as a
self-evident truth. They scouted the venerable old dogma of the
divine right of kings and titled aristocracies to rule the
submissive multitude. They were equally explicit in their claim
that "taxation and representation are inseparable."

The House of Representatives of Massachusetts, 1764, declared,
"That the imposition of duties and taxes, by the Parliament of
Great Britain, upon a _people not represented_ in the House of
Commons, is absolutely irreconcilable with their rights." A
pamphlet entitled "The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted,"
was sent to the agent of the Colony in England, to show him the
state of the public mind, and along with it an energetic letter.
"The silence of the province," said this letter, alluding to the
suggestion of the agent that he had taken silence for consent,
"should have been imputed to any cause--even to despair--rather
than be construed into a tacit cession of their rights, or the
acknowledgment of a right in the Parliament of Great Britain, to
impose duties and taxes on a people who are not represented In
the House of Commons." "_If we are not represented we are
slaves!_" Some of England's ablest jurists acknowledge the truth
of this doctrine. Chief Justice Pratt said: "My position is
this--taxation and representation are inseparable. The position
is founded in the law of nature. It is more; it is itself an
eternal law of nature." In defence of this doctrine they waged a
seven years' war: and yet, when they had wrung from the grasp of
Great Britain the Colonies she would not govern upon this
principle, and undertook to organize them according to their
favorite theory, most of the Colonies, by a single stroke of the
pen, cut off one-half of the people from any representation in
the government which claimed their obedience to its laws, the
right to tax them for its support, and the right to punish them
for disobedience.

This disparity between their theory and practice does not seem to
have excited much, if any notice, at the time, nor until its
bitter fruits had long been eaten in obscurity and sorrow by
thousands who suffered, but did not complain. Indeed, so
apathetic has been the public mind upon this subject, that no one
is surprised to see such a remark as the following by a
distinguished commentator upon American institutions: "In the
free States, except criminals and paupers, _there is no class of
persons_ who do not exercise the elective franchise." It seems
women are not even a class of persons. They are fairly dropped
from the human race, and very naturally, since we have grown
accustomed to recognize as _universal_ suffrage, that which
excludes by constitutional taboo one-half of the people. To
declare that a voice in the government is the right of _all_, and
then give it only to a _part_--and that the part to which the
claimant himself belongs--is to renounce even the appearance of
principle. As ought to have been foreseen, the class of persons
thus cut off from the means of self-protection, have become
victims of unequal and oppressive legislation, which runs through
our whole code. We first bind the hands, by the organic law, and
then proceed with deliberate safety, by the statute, to spoil the
goods of the victim. Whatever palliation for the past hoary
custom, false theology, and narrow prejudice may furnish, it is
certainly time now to remedy those evils, and reduce to practice
our favorite theory of government.

The citizens thus robbed of a natural right complain of the
injustice. They protest against taxation without representation.
They claim that all _just_ government must derive its power from
the consent of the governed. A forcible female writer says: "Even
this so-called free government of the united States, as at
present administered, is nothing but a political, hereditary
despotism to woman; she has no instrumentality whatever in making
the laws by which she is governed, while her property is taxed
_without_ representation."

But this feeling, it is claimed, is entertained but by few women;
on the contrary, they generally disown such claim when made in
their behalf. Supposing the fact to be true to the fullest extent
ever asserted, if it proves that American women ought to remain
as they are, it proves exactly the same with respect to Asiatic
women; for they, too, instead of murmuring at their seclusion and
at the restraint imposed upon them, pride themselves on it, and
are astonished at the effrontery of women who receive visits from
male acquaintances, and are seen in the streets unveiled. Habits
of submission make women, as well as men, servile-minded. The
vast population of Asia do not desire or value--probably would
not accept--political liberty, nor the savages of the forest
civilization; which does not prove that either of these things is
undesirable for them, or that they will not, at some future time,
enjoy it. Custom hardens human beings to any kind of degradation,
by deadening that part of their nature which would resist it. And
the case of woman is, in this respect even, a peculiar one, for
no other inferior caste that we have heard of has been taught to
regard its degradation as their, its, honor. The argument,
however, implies a secret consciousness that the alleged
preference of women for their dependent state is merely apparent,
and arises from their being allowed no choice; for, if the
preference be natural, there can be no necessity for enforcing
it by law. To make laws compelling people to follow their
inclinations, has not, hitherto, been thought necessary by any
legislator.

The plea that women do not desire any change is the same that has
been urged, times out of mind, against the proposal of abolishing
any social evil. "There is no complaint," which is generally, and
in this case certainly not true, and when true, only so because
there is not that hope of success, without which complaint seldom
makes itself audible to unwilling ears. How does the objector
know that women do not desire equality of freedom? It would be
very simple to suppose that if they do desire it they will all
say so. Their position is like that of the tenants and laborers
who vote against their own political interests to please their
landlords or employers, with the unique admission that submission
is inculcated in them from childhood, as the peculiar attraction
and grace of their character. They are taught to think that to
repel actively even an admitted injustice, done to themselves, is
somewhat unfeminine, and had better be left to some male friend
or protector. To be accused of rebelling against anything which
admits of being called an ordinance of society, they are taught
to regard as an imputation of a serious offence, to say the
least, against the propriety of their sex. It requires unusual
moral courage, as well as disinterestedness in a woman, to
express opinions favorable to woman's enfranchisement, until, at
least, there is some prospect of obtaining it.

The comfort of her individual life and her social consideration,
usually depend on the good-will of those who hold the undue
power; and to the possessors of power, any complaint, however
bitter, of the misuse of it, is scarcely a less flagrant act of
insubordination than to protest against the power itself. The
professions of women in this matter remind us of the State
offenders of old, who, on the point of execution, used to protest
their love and devotion to the sovereign by whose unjust mandate
they suffered. Grlselda, himself, might be matched from the
speeches put by Shakespeare into the mouths of male victims of
kingly caprice and tyranny; the Duke of Buckingham, for example,
in "Henry VIII.," and even Wolsey.

The literary class of women are often ostentatious in
disclaiming the desire for equality of citizenship, and
proclaiming their complete satisfaction with the place which
society assigns them; exercising in this, as in many other
respects, a most noxious influence over the feelings and opinions
of men, who unsuspectingly accept the servilities of toadyism as
concessions to the force of truth, not considering that it is the
personal interest of these women to profess whatever opinions
they expect will be agreeable to men. It is not among men of
talent, sprung from the people, and patronized and flattered by
the aristocracy, that we look for the leaders of a democratic
movement. Successful literary women are just as unlikely to
prefer the cause of woman to their own social consideration. They
depend on men's opinion for their literary, as well as for their
feminine successes; and such is their bad opinion of men, that
they believe there is not more than one in a thousand who does
not dislike and fear strength, sincerity, and high spirit in a
woman. They are, therefore, anxious to earn pardon and toleration
for whatever of these qualities their writings may exhibit on
other subjects, by a studied display of submission on this; that
they may give no occasion for vulgar men to say--what nothing
will prevent vulgar men from saying--that learning makes woman
unfeminine, and that literary ladies are likely to be bad wives.

But even if a large majority of women do not desire any change in
the Constitution, that would be a very bad reason for withholding
the elective franchise from those who do desire it. Freedom of
choice, liberty to choose their own sphere, is what is asked. We
have not heard that the most ardent apostles of female suffrage
propose to compel any woman to make stump speeches against her
will, or to march a fainting sisterhood to the polls under a
police, in Bloomer costume. Women who condemn their sisters for
discontent with the laws as they are, have their prototype in
those men of America who, in our revolutionary struggle with
England, vehemently denounced and stigmatized as fanatics and
rebels the leaders and malcontents of that day. But neither their
patriotism nor wisdom have ever been much admired by the American
people, perhaps not even by the English.

The objection urged against female suffrage with the greatest
confidence and by the greatest number, is that such a right is
incompatible with the refinement and delicacy of the sex. That it
would make them harsh and disputative, like male voters. This
objection loses most, if not all of its force, when it is
compared with the well-established usages of society as relates
to woman. She already fills places and discharges duties with the
approbation of most men, which are, to say the least, quite as
dangerous to her refinement and retiring modesty, as the act of
voting or even holding office would be. In our political
campaigns all parties are anxious to secure the co-operation of
women. They are urged to attend our political meetings, and even
in our mass meetings, when whole acres of men are assembled, they
are importunately urged to take a conspicuous part, sometimes as
the representatives of the several States, and sometimes as the
donors of banners and flags, accompanied with patriotic speeches
by the fair donors. And in great moral questions, such as
temperance, for example, in the right disposition of which woman
is more interested than man, she often discharges a large
amount of the labor of the campaign; but yet, when it comes
to the crowning act of voting, she must stand aside--delicacy
forbids--that is too masculine, too public, too exposing, though
it could be done, in most cases, with as little difficulty and
exposure as a letter can be taken out or put in the post-office.

Then there is that large class of concert singers and readers of
the drama, who are eulogized and petted by those who are most
shocked at the idea of women submitting themselves to the
exposure of voting. In fact, the whole question of publicity is
settled to the fullest extent; at least every man must be silent
who acquiesces in the concert, the drama, or the opera. We need
not dwell on the exposures of the stage or the indelicacies of
the ballet, but if Jenny Lind was "an angel of purity and
benevolence" for consenting to stand, chanting and enchanting,
before three thousand excited admirers; if Madame Sontag could
give a full-dress rehearsal (which does not commonly imply a
superfluity of apparel) for the special edification of the clergy
of Boston, and be rewarded with duplicate Bibles, it is difficult
to see why a woman may not vote on questions vitally affecting
the interests of herself, or children, or kindred.

But, with all our dainty notions of female proprieties, women
are, by common consent, dragged into court as witnesses, and
subjected to the most scrutinizing and often indelicate
examinations and questions, if either party imagines he can gain
a sixpence, or dull the edge of a criminal prosecution, by her
testimony. The interest, convenience, and prejudices of men, and
not any true regard for the delicacy of the sex, seem to be the
standard by which woman's rights and duties are to be measured.
It is prejudice, custom, long-established usage, and not reason,
which demand the sacrifice of woman's natural rights of
self-government; a relic of barbarism still lingering in all
political, and nearly all religions organizations. Among the
purely savage tribes, woman takes position as a domestic
drudge--a mere beast of burden, whilst the sensual civilization
of Asia regard her more in the light of a domestic luxury, to be
jealously guarded from the profane sight of all men but her
husband. Both positions equally and widely remote from the noble
one God intended her to fill.

In Persia and Turkey women grossly offend the public taste if
they suffer their faces to be seen in the streets. In the latter
country they are prohibited by law, in common with "pigs, dogs,
and other unclean animals," as the law styles them, from so much
as entering their mosques. _Our_ ideas of the proper sphere,
duties, and capabilities of woman do not differ from these so
much in kind as degree. They are all based upon the assumption
that man has the right to decide what are the rights, to point
out the duties, and to fix the boundaries of woman's sphere;
which, taking for true, our cherished theory of government, to
wit: the _inalienability and equality of human rights_ can hardly
be characterized by a milder term than that of an impudent and
oppressive usurpation. Who has authorized us, whilst railing at
miters, and crosiers, and scepters, and shouting in the ears of
the British Lion, as self-evident truths, "representation and
taxation are, and _shall_ be, inseparable,"--"governments, to be
_just_, must have the consent of the governed;" to say woman,
one-half of the whole race, shall, nevertheless, be taxed without
representation and governed without her consent? Who hath made us
a judge betwixt her and her Maker?

It is said woman's mental and moral organization is peculiar,
differing widely from that of man. Perhaps so. She must then have
a peculiar fitness of qualification to judge what will be wise
and just government for her. Let her be free to choose for
herself, in the light of her peculiar organization, to what she
is best adapted. She is better qualified to judge of her proper
sphere than man can be. She knows her own wants and capabilities.
Let us leave her, as God created her, a free agent, accountable
to Him for any violation of the laws of her nature. He has
mingled the sexes in the family relation; they are associated on
terms of equality in some churches. They are active working and
voting members of literary and benevolent societies. They vote as
share-holders in stock companies, and in countries where less is
said about freedom, and equality, and representation, they are
often called to, and fill, with distinguished ability, very
important positions, and often discharge the highest political
trusts known to their laws. Which of England's kings has shown
more executive ability than Elizabeth, or which has been more
conscientious and discreet than Annie and Victoria? Spain, too,
had her Isabella, and France her Maid of Orleans, her Madame
Roland, yes, and her Charlotte Corday. Austria and Hungary their
Maria Theresa. Russia her Catharine; and even the jealous Jewish
Theocracy was judged forty years by a woman. It is too late, by
thirty centuries, to put in the plea of her incompetency in
political affairs.

But it is objected that it would not do for woman, particularly a
married woman, to be allowed to vote. It might bring discord into
the family if she differed from her husband. If this objection
were worth anything at all, it would lie with tenfold greater
force against religious than political organizations. No
animosities are so bitter and implacable as those growing out of
religions disagreements; yet we allow women to choose their
religious creeds, attend their favorite places of worship, and in
some of them take an equal part in the church business, and all
this, though the husband is of another religion, or of no
religion, and no one this side of Turkey claims that the law
should compel woman to have no religion, or adopt that of her
husband. But, even if that objection were a good one, more than
half the adult women of the State are unmarried.

It is said, too, that as woman is not required to perform
military duty, and work on the roads, she ought not to vote. None
but "able-bodied" men, under a certain age, are required to do
military duty, and the effect is practically the same in regard
to the two days' work on the roads, whilst women pay tax for
military and road purposes the same as man. A _man's_ right to
vote does not depend on his ability to perform physical labor,
why should a _woman's?_ By the exclusion of woman from her due
influence and voice in the government, we lose that elevating and
refining influence which she gives to religious, social, and
domestic life. Her presence at our political meetings, all agree,
contributes greatly to their order, decorum, and decency. Why
should not the polls, also, be civilized by her presence?

Does not the morality of our politics demonstrate a great want of
the two qualities so characteristic of woman, heart and
conscience? The female element which works such miracles of
reform in the rude manners of men, in all the departments of life
where she has the freedom to go, is nowhere more needed than in
our politics, or at the polls.

We have endeavored to show that the constitutional prohibition of
female suffrage is not only a violation of natural right, but
equally at war with the fundamental principles of the government.
Let us now look at the practical results of this organic wrong.
After having taken away from woman the means of protecting her
person and property, by the peaceable, but powerful ballot, how
have we discharged the self-imposed duty of legislating for her?
By every principle of honor, or even of common honesty, we are
bound to see that her interests do not suffer in our hands. That,
if we depart at all from the principle of strict equality, it
should be in her favor. Let as see what are the facts.

When a woman marries she becomes almost annihilated in the eyes
of the law, except as a subject of punishment. She loses the
right to receive and control the wages of her own labor. If she
be an administratrix, or executrix, she is counted as dead, and
another must be appointed. If she have children, they may be
taken from her against her will, and placed in the care of any
one, no matter how unfit, whom the father may select. He may even
give them away by will. "The personal property of the wife, such
as money, goods, cattle, and other chattels, which she had in
possession at the time of her marriage, in her own right, and not
in the right of another, vest immediately in the husband, and he
can dispose of them as he pleases. On his death, they go to his
representatives, like the residue of his property. So, if any
such goods or chattels come to her possession in her own right,
after the marriage, they, in like manner, immediately vest in the
husband." "Such property of the wife, as bonds, notes, arrears of
rent, legacies, which are termed _choses in action_, do not vest
in the husband by mere operation of marriage. To entitle him to
them, he must first reduce them into possession, by recovering
the money, or altering the security, as by making them payable to
himself. If the husband appoint an attorney to receive a debt or
claim due the wife, and the attorney received it, or if he
mortgaged the claim or debt, or assign it for a valuable
consideration, or recover judgment by suit, in his own name, or
if he release it, in all these cases the right of the wife, upon
the decease of the husband, is gone."

The real estate of the wife, such as houses and lands, is in
nearly the same state of subjection to the husband's will. He is
entitled to all the rents and profits while they both live, and
the husband can hold the estate during his life, even though the
wife be dead. A woman may thus be stripped of every available
cent she ever had in the world, and even see it squandered in
ministering to the low appetite or passions of a drunken
debauchee of a husband. And when, by economy and toil, she may
have acquired the means of present subsistence, this, too, may be
_lawfully_ taken from her, and applied to the same base purpose.
Even her Family Bible, the last gift of a dying mother, her only
remaining comfort, can be lawfully taken and sold by the husband,
to buy the means of intoxication. _This very thing has been
done._ Can any one believe that laws, so wickedly one-sided as
these, were ever honestly designed for the equal benefit of woman
with man? Yet wives are said to have quite a sufficient
representation in the government, through their husbands, to
secure them protection.

But the cruel inequality of the laws relating to woman as wife
are quite outdone by those relating to her as widow. It is these
stricken and sorrowful victims, the law seems especially to have
selected as its prey. Upon the death of the husband, the law
takes possession of the whole of the estate. The smallest items
of property must be turned out for valuation, to be handled by
strangers. The clothes that the deceased had worn, the chair in
which he sat, the bed on which he died, all these sacred
memorials of the dead, must undergo the cold scrutiny of officers
of the law. The widow is counted but as an alien, and an
incumbrance on the estate, the bulk of which is designed for
other hands. She is to have doled out to her, like a pauper, by
paltry sixes, the furniture of her own kitchen. "One table, six
chairs, six knives and forks, six plates, six tea-cups and
saucers, one sugar-dish, one milk-pail, one tea-pot, and _twelve_
spoons!" All this munificent provision for, perhaps, a family of
only a dozen-persons. Think of it, ye widows, and learn to be
grateful for man's provident care of you in your hour of need!

Then comes the sale of "the effects of the deceased," as they are
called; and amid the fullness and freshness of her grief, the
widow is compelled to see sold into the hands of strangers, amid
the coarse jokes and levity of a public auction, articles to her
beyond all price, and around which so many tender memories cling.
Experience alone can fully teach the torture of this fiery
ordeal. But this is only the beginning of her sorrows. If she
have children, the estate is considered to belong to them, while
she is but an "incumbrance" upon it. She is to have the rents and
profits of one-third part of the real estate her lifetime, which,
to the vast majority of cases, is so unproductive as to compel
her to leave that spot, endeared to her by so many tender
ties--the home of her early love, the birthplace of her
children--for a cheaper and less comfortable home. But, bereaved
of her husband and robbed of her property,


     "The law hath yet another hold on her."


Following up the insulting and injurious assumption of her
incompetency and untrustworthiness, implied in the denial of her
right of suffrage, the guardianship of her children is taken from
her. Her daughter, at the age of twelve, and her son, at fifteen,
are to go through the mockery of choosing for themselves a
_competent_ guardian--a proceeding calculated to destroy the
beautiful trust and confidence in the wisdom and fitness of the
mother to govern and direct them, so natural and so essential to
the happiness of children. When the justifying pretext for the
infliction of all this misery is the benefit of the children, her
maternal nature will struggle hard to endure it with patience.
But, until the passage of the law of 1863, "regulating descents
and distributions," when there were no children of either parent,
the law did not abate its rigor toward her, in the disposition of
the real estate, which is generally all that is left, after
paying the debts and costs of "settlement," though the whole of
the houses and lands might have been bought with her money,
two-thirds were immediately handed over to the relatives of the
husband, however above need; and though they might have been
strangers, or even enemies, to her. She had but a life estate in
the other third, which, at her death, also went, as the other, to
her husband's heirs. She could not indulge her benevolent
feelings or gratify her friendships, by devising by will, to
approved charities or favorite friends, the means she no longer
needed. With a bitter sense of injustice and despairing sorrow,
she might well adopt the language of the unhappy Jew:

     "Nay, take my life and all, pardon not that;
     You take my house, when you do take the prop
     That doth sustain my house; you take my life,
     When you do take the means whereby I live."

Such is the famous right of dower, which has been the subject of
so many stupid eulogies by lawyers and commentators.

Take an example of the effect of these laws upon an overburdened
heart, which occurred just before the passage of the Act of 1853.
A young couple, by their united means and patient industry, had
secured for themselves a small, but comfortable home. It
furnished the means of supplying all their simple wants. It was
their own; doubly endeared by the struggles and sacrifices it had
cost them. They were content. They had no children, but they had
each other, and were happy in their mutual love. Death seemed a
great way off; and life--it was a real joy. They knew little of
the laws of estates. Owing nothing, they feared no intrusion upon
the sanctity of their home. But the husband was killed by the
falling of a tree; and, after some hours, was found dead by the
agonized wife. There was no will. The wrung heart of the
childless widow, in her utter bereavement, still clung to her
home, which, though blighted and desolate, was still dear to her.
There, at least, she would find shelter. But soon the inexorable
law laid its cold, unwelcome hand upon that darkened home. There
must be letters of administration had--an inventory of the
"effects"--an appraisement. Everything was explained by
sympathizing counsel. The "right of dower" set conspicuously
in the foreground--"one equal third part"--at length she
comprehended it all. Her home was to pass into other hands:
henceforth she was to be counted only as an incumbrance on it.
Looking from the misery of the present down the gloom of the
future, she could see only widowhood and penury. And whilst the
appraisers were performing their ungracious task of overhauling
cupboards and drawers, and estimating the value in cash of
presents received in her courtship, she, in her quiet despair at
this last bitter drop added to her full cup, arrayed herself in
her best apparel (which the law generously provides "she shall
retain"), and, without uttering a word of complaint or farewell,
walked to the nearest water and drowned herself.

If "oppression maketh even a wise man mad," ought we to wonder
that a woman, almost crazed by a sudden and terrible bereavement,
upon finding that her calamity, instead of giving her the jealous
and compassionate protection of the law, was to be made the
pretext for robbing her of what yet remained of earthly comforts,
should, in the madness of her despair, cast away the burden of a
life no longer tolerable? In India she would have been burned
upon the funeral pile of her dead husband; we drive her to
madness and suicide by the slower, but no less cruel torture, of
starvation and a breaking heart. Whilst persisting in such
legislation, how could we expect to escape the woe, denounced by
the compassionate and long-suffering Saviour, against the
"hypocrites who devour widows' houses"?

It is said woman can accomplish any object of her desire better
by persuasion, by her smiles and tears and eloquence, than she
could ever compel by her vote. But with all her powers of coaxing
and eloquence, she has never yet coaxed her partner into doing
her simple justice. Shall we never get beyond the absurd theory
that every woman is legally and politically represented by her
husband, and hence has an adequate guarantee? The answer is, that
she has been so represented ever since representation began, and
the result appears to be that, among the Anglo-Saxon race
generally, the entire system of laws in regard to women is, at
this moment, so utterly wrong, that Lord Brougham is reported to
have declared it useless to attempt to amend it--"There must be a
total reconstruction before a woman can have any justice." The
wrong lies not so much in any special statute as in the
fundamental theory of the law, yet no man can read the statutes
on this subject of the most enlightened nation, without admitting
that they were obviously made by man, not with a view to woman's
interest, but his own. Our Ohio laws may not be so bad as the law
repealed in Vermont in 1850, which _confiscated to the State_
one-half the property of every childless widow, unless the
husband had other heirs. But they must compel from every generous
man the admission, that neither justice nor gallantry has yet
availed to procure anything like impartiality in the legal
provisions for the two sexes. With what decent show of justice,
then, can man, thus dishonored, claim a continuance of this
suicidal confidence? There is something respectable in the frank
barbarism of the old Russian nuptial consecration, "Here, wolf,
take thy lamb." But we can not easily extend the same charity to
the civilized wolf of England and America, clad in the sheep's
clothing of a volume of revised statutes, caressing the person of
the bride and devouring her property.

It is said the husband can, by will, provide against these cases
of hardship and injustice. True, he can, if he will, but does he?
The number is few, some of the more thoughtful and conscientious;
but this is only obtaining justice as a favor, and not as a
natural right. But it is a majority of husbands who make these
laws, and they generally have no desire to amend them by will.
Besides, the will of the husband is sometimes even worse than the
law itself. Such cases are by no means rare. Almost every man's
memory may furnish one or more examples that have fallen under
his immediate notice. One or two only we will mention. A woman,
advanced in life, who owned a valuable farm in her own right, in
the border of a flourishing town, married a man who had little or
no property. The farm was soon cut up into town lots and sold at
high prices. In a few years the husband died, leaving no
children, but, by will, directed the division of nearly the whole
of the estate among his relatives, persons who the wife never
saw. The only remedy in this case was to fall back upon her right
of dower, and submit to the robbery of the law, in order to
escape the worse robbery of the will. This will was not the
result of any disagreement between the husband and the wife. It
was only the natural outgrowth of the whole policy of our laws as
regards the property rights of woman. Permit us to notice one
other case, which occurred in a neighboring State. Many similar
ones, no doubt, have occurred in our own, the law in both States
being the same.

A woman who had a fortune of fifty thousand dollars in "personal
property," married. All this, by the law, belonged absolutely to
the husband. In a year he died, leaving a will directing that the
widow should have the proceeds of a certain part of this money,
_so long as she remained unmarried_. If she married again, or at
her death, it was to go to his heirs.

How different in all these cases is the condition of the
husband upon the death of the wife. There in then no officious
intermeddling of the law in his domestic affairs. His house, sad
and desolate though it be, is still sacred and secure from the
foot of unbidden guests. There is no legal "settlement" to eat
up his estate. He is not told that "one equal third part" of all
his lands and tenements shall be set apart for his use during
his lifetime. "He has all, everything, even his wife's bridal
presents too are his. If the wife had lands in her own right, and
if they have ever had a living child, he has a life estate in the
whole of it, not a beggarly 'third part.'"

Such is the result of man's government of woman without her
consent. Such is the protection he affords her. She now asks
the means of protecting herself, by the same instrumentality
which man considers so essential to his freedom and security,
representation, political equality--THE RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE.
The removal of this constitutional restriction is of great
consequence, because it casts upon woman a stigma of inferiority,
of incompetency, of unworthiness of trust. It ranks her with
criminals and madmen and idiots. It is essential to her,
practically, as being the key to all her rights, which will open
to her the door of equality and justice.

Does any one believe that if woman had possessed an equal voice
in making our laws, we should have standing on our statute books,
for generations, laws so palpably unequal and unjust toward her?
The idea is preposterous.

If our sense of natural justice and our theory of government both
agree, that the being who is to suffer under laws shall first
personally assent to them, and that the being whose industry the
government is to burden should have a voice in fixing the
character and amount of that burden, then, while woman is
admitted to the gallows, the jail, and the tax-list, _we have no
right_ to debar her from the ballot-box.

Your Committee recommend the adoption of the following
resolution:

_Resolved_, That the Judiciary Committee be instructed to report
to the Senate, a bill to submit to the qualified electors at the
next election for senators and representatives, an amendment to
the Constitution whereby the elective franchise shall be extended
to the citizens of Ohio, without distinction of sex.

                                          J. D. CATTELL,
                                          H. CANFIELD.




       *       *       *       *       *




Transcriber's note:

The transcriber made changes as below indicated
to the text to correct obvious errors:

   1. p.  18, "worhips" --> "worships"
   2. p.  25, "evironments" --> "environments"
   3. P.  54, "resoultion" --> "resolution"
   4. p. 236, "spoliage" --> "spoilage"
   5. p. 236, "pacifcally" --> "pacifically"
   6. p. 269, "politicans" --> "politicians"
   7. p. 303, "wilness" --> "wilderness"
   8. p. 347, "itoxicating" --> "intoxicating"
   9. p. 347, "probibitory" --> "prohibitory"
  10. p. 349, "Legiture" --> "Legislature"
  11. p. 373, "dipossessed" --> "dispossessed"
  12. p. 383, "monoply" --> "monopoly"
  13. p. 384, "Jospeh" --> "Joseph"
  14. p. 405, "penalities" --> "penalties"
  15. p. 448, "coup d'etat" --> "coup d'etat"
  16. p. 491, "recolletion" --> "recollection"
  17. P. 507, "beleive" --> "believe"
  18. p. 534, "wrold" --> "world"
  19. p. 539, "familar" --> "familiar"
  20. p. 584, "lawer" --> "lawyer"
  21. p. 595, "prentence" --> "pretence"
  22. p. 730, "womahood" --> "womanhood"
  23. p. 742, "gods" --> "goods"
  24. p. 792, "moden" --> "modern"
  25. p. 834, "congratlate" --> "congratulate"
  26. p. 837, "nonsenical" --> "nonsensical"
  27. p. 838, "characacteristic" --> "characteristic"
  28. p. 840, "virtuons" --> "virtuous"



***