SIXTH QUESTION.

"Mrs. Packard, is your husband's real reason for treating you as he has,

merely a difference in your religious belief, or is there not something

back of all this? It seems unaccountable to us, that mere bigotry should

so annihilate all human feeling."

This is a question I have never been able hitherto to answer,

satisfactorily, either to myself or others; but now I am fully prepared to

answer it with satisfaction to myself, at least; that is, facts, stubborn

facts, which never before came to my knowledge until my visit home, compel

me to feel that my solution of this perplexing question, is now based on

the unchangeable truth of facts. For I have read with my own eyes the

secret correspondence which he has kept up with my father, for about eight

years past, wherein this question is answered by himself, by his own

confessions, and in his own words.

And as a very natural prelude to this answer, it seems to me not

inappropriate to answer one other question often put to me first, namely:

"has he not some other woman in view?"

I can give my opinion now, not only with my usual promptness, but more

than my usual confidence that I am correct in my opinion. I say

confidently, he has _not_ any other woman in view, nor never had; and it

was only because I could not fathom to _the cause_ of this "Great Drama,"

that this was ever presented to my own mind, as a question. I believe that

if ever there was a man who _practically_ believed in the monogamy

principle of marriage, he is the man. Yes, I believe, with only one degree

of faith less than that of knowledge, that the only Bible reason for a

divorce never had an existence in our case.

And here, as the subject is now opened, I will take occasion to say, that

as I profess to be a Bible woman both in spirit and practice, I cannot

conscientiously claim a Bible right to be divorced. I never have had the

first cause to doubt his fidelity to me in this respect, and he never has

had the first cause to doubt my own to him.

But fidelity to the truth of God's providential events compel me to give

it as my candid opinion, that the only key to the solution of this

mysterious problem will yet be found to be concealed in the fact, that Mr.

Packard is a _monomaniac_ on the subject of woman's rights, and that it

was the triumph of bigotry over his manliness, which occasioned this

public manifestation of this peculiar mental phenomenon. Some of the

reasons for this opinion, added to the facts of this dark drama which are

already before the public, lie in the following statement.

In looking over the correspondence above referred to, I find the

"confidential" part all refers to dates and occasions wherein I can

distinctly recollect we had had a warm discussion on the subject of

woman's rights; that is, I had taken occasion from the application of his

insane dogma, namely, that "_a woman has no rights that a man is bound to

respect_," to defend the opposite position of equal rights. I used

sometimes to put my argument into a written form, hoping thus to secure

for it a more calm and quiet consideration. I never used any other weapons

in self-defence, except those paper pellets of the brain. And is not that

man a coward who cannot stand before such artillery?

But not to accuse Mr. Packard of cowardice, I will say, that instead of

boldly meeting me as his antagonist on the arena of argument and

discussion, and there openly defending himself against my knockdown

arguments, with his Cudgel of Insanity, I find he closed off such

discussions with his secret "confidential" letters to my relatives and

dear friends, saying, that he had sad reason to fear his wife's mind was

getting out of order; she was becoming insane on the subject of woman's

rights; "but be sure to keep this fact a profound secret--especially,

never let Elizabeth hear that _I_ ever intimated such a thing."

I presume this is not the first time an opponent in argument has called

his conqueror insane, or lost to reason, simply because his logic was too

sound for him to grapple with, and the will of the accuser was too

obstinate to yield, when conscientiously convinced. But it certainly is

more honorable and manly, to accuse him of insanity _to his face_, than

it is to thus _secretly_ plot against him an imprisonable offence, without

giving him the least chance at self-defence.

Again, I visited Hon. Gerrit Smith, of Peterborough, New York, about three

years before this secret plot culminated, to get light on this subject of

woman's rights, as I had great confidence in the deductions of his noble,

capacious mind; and here I found my positions were each, and all, indorsed

most fully by him. Said he, "Mrs. Packard, it is high time that you

_assert your rights_, there is no other way for you to live a Christian

life with such a man." And, as I left, while he held my hand in his, he

remarked, "You may give my love to Mr. Packard, and say to him, if he is

as developed a man as I consider his wife to be a woman, I should esteem

it an honor to form his acquaintance." So it appears that Mr. Smith did

not consider my views on this subject as in conflict either with reason or

common sense.

Again, his physician, Dr. Fordice Rice, of Cazenovia, New York, to whom I

opened my whole mind on this subject, said to me in conclusion--"I can

unravel the whole secret of your family trouble. Mr. Packard is a

monomaniac on the treatment of woman. I don't see how you have ever lived

with so unreasonable a man."

I replied, "Doctor, I can live with any man--for I will never quarrel with

any one, especially a man, and much less with my husband. I can respect

Mr. Packard enough, notwithstanding, to do him good all the days of my

life, and no evil do I desire to do him; and moreover, I would not

exchange him for any man I know of, even if I could do so, simply by

turning over my hand; for I believe he is just the man God appointed from

all eternity to be my husband. Therefore, I am content with my appointed

portion and lot of conjugal happiness."

Again. It was only about four years before I was kidnapped, that Mr. O. S.

Fowler, the great Phrenologist, examined his head, and expressed his

opinion of his mental condition in nearly these words. "Mr. Packard, you

are losing your mind--your faculties are all dwindling--your mind is fast

running out--in a few years you will not even know your own name, unless

your tread-mill habits are broken up. Your mind now is only working like

an old worn out horse in a tread mill."

Thus our differences of opinion can be accounted for on scientific

principles. Here we see his sluggish, conservative temperament, rejecting

light, which costs any effort to obtain or use--clinging, serf-like, to

the old paths, as with a death grasp; while my active, radical

temperament, calls for light, to bear me onward and upward, never

satisfied until all available means are faithfully used to reach a more

progressive state. Now comes the question. Is activity and progression in

knowledge and intelligence, an indication of a sane, natural condition, or

is it an unnatural, insane indication? And is a stagnant, torpid, and

retrogressive state of mentality, a natural or an unnatural condition--a

sane, or an insane state?

In our mental states we simply grew apart, instead of together. He was

dwindling, dying; I was living, growing, expanding. And this natural

development of intellectual power in me, seemed to arouse this morbid

feeling of jealousy towards me, lest I outshine him. That is, it

stimulated his monomania into exercise, by determining to annihilate or

crush the victim in whose mental and moral magnetism he felt so uneasy and

dissatisfied with himself. While, at the same time, the influence of my

animal magnetism, was never unpleasant to him; but, on the contrary,

highly gratifying. Yea, I have every reason to believe he ever regarded me

as a model wife, and model mother, and housekeeper. He often made this

remark to me: "I never knew a woman whom I think could equal you in

womanly virtues."

Again. While on this recruiting tour, I made it my home for several weeks

at Mr. David Field's, who married my adopted sister, then living in Lyons,

New York. I made his wife my confidant of my family trials, to a fuller

degree than I ever had to any other human being, little dreaming or

suspecting that she was noting my every word and act, to detect if

possible, some insane manifestations. But, to her surprise, eleven weeks

observation failed to develop the first indication of insanity. The reason

she was thus on the alert, was, that my arrival was preceded by a letter

from Mr. Packard, saying his wife was insane, and urged her to regard all

my representations of family matters as insane statements. Then he added,

"Now, Mrs. Field, I must require of you one thing, and that is, that you

burn this letter as soon as you have read it; don't even let your husband

see it at all, or know that you have had a letter from me, and by all

means, keep this whole subject a profound secret from Elizabeth."

My sister, true to Mr. Packard's wishes, burned this letter, and buried

the subject entirely in oblivion. But when she heard that I was

incarcerated in an Asylum, then, in view of all she did know, and in view

of what she did not know, she deeply suspected there was foul play in the

transaction, and felt it to be her duty to tell her husband all she knew.

He fully indorsed her suspicions, and they both undertook a defence for

me, when she received a most insulting and abusive letter from Mr.

Packard, wherein he, in the most despotic manner, tried to browbeat her

into silence. Many tears did this devoted sister shed in secret over this

letter and my sad fate--as this letter revealed Mr. Packard's true

character to her in an unmasked state. "O, how could that dear, kind woman

live with such a man!" was her constant thought.

Nerved and strengthened by her husband's advice, she determined to visit

me in the Asylum, and, if possible, obtain a personal interview. She did

so. She was admitted to my room. There she gave me the first tidings I

ever heard of that letter. While at the Asylum, my attendants, amongst

others, asked her this question: "Mrs. Field, can you tell us why such a

lady as Mrs. Packard, is shut up in this Asylum; we have never seen the

least exhibition of insanity in her; and one in particular said, I saw her

the first day she was entered, and she was then just the same quiet,

perfect lady, you see her to be to day--now do tell us why she is here?"

Her reply I will not give, since her aggravated and indignant feelings

prompted her to clothe it in very strong language against Mr. Packard,

indicating that he ought to be treated as a criminal, who deserved capital

punishment. In my opinion, sister would have come nearer the truth, had

she said he ought to be treated just as he is treating his wife--as a

monomaniac.

And I hope I shall be pardoned, if I give utterance to brother's indignant

feelings, in his own words, for the language, although strong, does not

conflict with Christ's teachings or example. Among the pile of letters

above alluded to, which Mr. Packard left accidentally in my room, was one

from this Mr. Field, which seemed to be an answer to one Mr. Packard wrote

him, wherein it seemed he had been calling Mr. Field to account for having

heard that he had called him a "devil," and demanded of him satisfaction,

if he had done so; for Mr. Field makes reply: "I do believe men are

possessed with devils now a days, as much as they were in Christ's days,

and I believe too that some are not only possessed with one devil, but

even seven devils, and I believe _you are the man_!" I never heard of his

denying the charge as due Mr. Field afterwards!

From my own observations in an insane asylum, I am fully satisfied that

Mr. Field is correct in his premises, and I must also allow that he has a

right of opinion in its application.

Looking from these various stand-points, it seems to me self-evident, that

this Great Drama is a woman's rights struggle. From the commencement to

its present stage of development, this one insane idea seems to be the

backbone of the rebellion: A married woman has no rights which her husband

is bound to respect.

While he simply defended his insane dogma as an _opinion_ only, no one had

the least right to call him a monomaniac; but when this insane idea became

a _practical_ one, then, and only till then, had we any right to call him

an insane person. Now, if the course he has taken with me is not

insanity--that is, an unreasonable course, I ask, what is insanity?

Now let this great practical truth be for one moment considered, namely,

All that renders an earth-life desirable--all the inalienable rights and

privileges of one developed, moral, and accountable, sensitive being, lie

wholly suspended on the arbitrary will of this intolerant man, or

monomaniac. No law, no friend, no logic, can defend me in the least,

_legally_, from this despotic, cruel power; for the heart which controls

this will has become, as it respects his treatment of me, "without

understanding, a covenant breaker, without natural affection, implacable,

unmerciful."

And let another truth also be borne in mind, namely, that this one man

stands now as a fit representative of all that class in society, and God

grant it may be found to be a very small class! who claim that the

subjection of the wife, instead of the protection of the wife, is the true

law of marriage. This marriage law of subjection has now culminated, so

that it has become a demonstrated fact, that its track lies wholly in the

direction of usurpation; and therefore this track, on which so many

devoted, true women, have taken a through or life ticket upon, is one

which the American government ought to guard and protect by legal

enactments; so that such a drama as mine cannot be again legally tolerated

under the flag of our protective government. God grant, that this one mute

appeal of _stubborn fact_, may be sufficient to nerve up the woman

protectors of our manly government, to guard us, in some manner, against

woman's greatest foe--the women subjectors of society.

It may be proper here to add the result of this recruiting tour. After

being absent eleven weeks from my home, and this being the first time I

had left my husband during all my married life, longer than for one week's

time, I returned to my home, to receive as cordial and as loving a welcome

as any wife could desire. Indeed, it seemed to me, that the home of my

husband's heart had become "empty, swept, and garnished," during my

absence, and that the foul spirits of usurpation had left this citadel, as

I fondly hoped, forever. Indeed, I felt that I had good reason to hope,

that my logic had been calmly and impassionately digested and indorsed,

during my absence, so that now this merely practical recognition of my

womanly rights, almost instantly moved my forgiving heart, not only to

extend to him, unasked, my full and free forgiveness for the past, but all

this abuse seemed to be seeking to find its proper place in the grave of

forgetful oblivion.

This radical transformation in the bearing of my husband towards me,

allowing me not only the rights and privileges of a junior partner in the

family firm, but also such a liberal portion of manly expressed love and

sympathy, as caused my susceptible, sensitive, heart of affection fairly

to leap for joy. Indeed, I could now say, what I could never say in truth

before, I am happy in my husband's love--happy in simply being treated as

a true woman deserves to be treated--with love and confidence. All the

noblest, purest, sensibilities of woman's sympathetic nature find in this,

her native element, room for full expansion and growth, by stimulating

them into a natural, healthful exercise. It is one of the truths of God's

providential events, that the three last years of married life were by far

the happiest I ever spent with Mr. Packard.

So open and bold was I in this avowal, during these three happy years,

that my correspondence of those days is radiant with this truth. And it

was not three months, and perhaps not even two months, previous to my

being kidnapped, that I made a verbal declaration of this fact, in Mr.

Packard's presence, to Deacon Dole, his sister's husband, in these words.

The interests of the Bible class had been our topic of conversation, when

I had occasion to make this remark: "Brother," said I, "don't you think

Mr. Packard is remarkably tolerant to me these days, in allowing me to

bring my radical views before your class? And don't you think he is

changing as fast as we can expect, considering his conservative

organization? We cannot, of course, expect him to keep up with my radical

temperament. I think we shall make a man of him yet!"

Mr. Packard laughed outright, and replied, "Well, wife, I am glad you

have got so good an opinion of me. I hope I shall not disappoint your

expectations!"

But, alas! where is he now? O, the dreadful demon of bigotry, was allowed

to enter and take possession of this once garnished house, through the

entreaties, and persuasions, and threats, of his Deacon Smith, and his

perverted sister, Mrs. Dole. These two spirits united, were stronger than

his own, and they overcame him, and took from him all his manly armor, so

that the demon he let in, "brought with him seven other spirits more

wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there," still; so that I

sadly fear "the last state of that man will be worse than the first."

I saw and felt the danger of the vortex into which his sister and deacon

were dragging him, and I tried to save him, with all the logic of love,

and pure devotion to his highest and best interests; but all in vain.

Never shall I forget this fatal crisis. When, just three weeks before he

kidnapped me, I sat alone with him in his study, and while upon his lap,

with my arms encircling his neck, and my briny cheek pressed against his

own, I begged of him to be my protector, in these words: "O, husband!

don't yield to their entreaties! Do be true to your marriage vow--true to

yourself--true to God. Instead of taking the side of bigotry, and going

against your wife, do just protect to me my right of opinion, which this

deacon and sister seem determined to wrest from me. Just say to the class,

"My wife has as good a right to her opinion as the class have to

theirs--and I shall _protect_ her in this right--you need not believe her

opinions unless you choose; but she shall have her rights of opinion,

unmolested, for I shall be my wife's protector." I added, "Then, husband,

you will be a _man_. You will deserve honor, and you will be sure to have

it; but if you become my persecutor, you will become a traitor to your

manliness; you will deserve dishonor, and you will surely get it in full

measure."

My earnestness he construed into anger. He thrust me from him. He

determined, at all hazard, to subject my rights of opinion to his will,

instead of protecting them by his manliness. The plot already laid, eight

years previous, now had a rare opportunity to culminate, sure as he was of

all needed help in its dreadful execution. In three short weeks I was a

State's prisoner of Illinois Lunatic Asylum, being supported as a State

pauper!

From this fatal evening all appeals to his reason and humanity have been

worse than fruitless. They have only served to aggravate his maddened

feelings, and goad him on to greater deeds of desperation. Like

Nebuchadnezzar, his reason is taken from him, on this one subject; and

unrestrained, maddened, resentment fills his depraved soul--his manliness

is dead. Is he not a monomaniac?

Marital Power Exemplified in Mrs. Packard's Trial, and Self-Defence from the Charge of Insanity · 第 59 / 103 题