As my case now stands delineated by the foregoing narrative, all the
States on this continent can see just where the common law places all
married women. And no one can help saying, that any law that can be used
in support of such a persecution, is a disgrace to any
government--Christian or heathen. It is not only a disgrace, a blot on
such a government, but it is a crime, against God and humanity, to let
confiding, trusting woman, be so unprotected in law, from such outrageous
abuses.
Mr. Packard has never impeached my _conduct_ in a single instance, that I
know of; neither has he ever charged me guilty of one insane _act_--except
that of teaching my children doctrines which I believed, and he did not!
This is all he ever alleges against me. He himself confirms the testimony
of all my friends, that I always did discharge my household duties in a
very orderly, systematic, kind, and faithful manner. In short, they
maintain that I, during all my married life, have been a very
self-sacrificing wife and mother, as well as an active and exemplary
co-worker with him in his ministerial duties.
Now I have mentioned these facts, not for self-glorification, but for this
reason, that it may be seen that _good conduct_, even the best and most
praiseworthy, does not protect a married woman from the most flagrant
wrongs, and wrongs, too, for which she has no redress in the present laws.
If a man had suffered a tithe of the wrongs which I have suffered, the
laws stand ready to give him redress, and thus shield him from a
repetition of them. But not so with me. I must suffer not only this tithe,
with no chance of redress, but ten times this amount, and no redress then.
I even now stand exposed to a life-long imprisonment, so long as my
husband lives, while I not only have never committed any crime, but on the
contrary, have ever lived a life of self-sacrificing benevolence, ever
toiling for the best interests of humanity.
Think again. After this life of faithful service for others, I am thrown
adrift, at fifty years of age, upon the cold world, with no place on earth
I can call home, and not a penny to supply my wants with, except what my
own exertion secures to me. Why is this? Because he who should have been
my protector, has been my robber, and has stolen all my life-long
earnings. And yet the law does not call this stealing, because the husband
is legally authorized to steal from the wife without leave or license
from her! Now, I say it is a poor rule that don't work both ways. Why
can't the wife steal all the husband has? I am sure she can't support
herself as well as he can, and the right of justice seems to be on our
side, in our view.
But this is not what we want; we don't wish to rob our husbands, we only
want they should be stopped from robbing us. We just ask for the
reasonable right to use our own property as if it were our own, that is,
just as we please, just according to the dictates of our own judgment. And
when we insist upon this right, we don't want our husbands to have power
to imprison us for so doing, as my husband did me. It was in this manner
that I insisted upon my right to my property, with this fatal issue
resulting from it.
While the discussions in our Bible-class were at the culminating point of
interest, Mr. Packard came to my room one day and made me the following
proposition: "Wife," said he, "how would you like to go to your brother's
in Batavia, and make a visit?"
Said I, "I should like it very well, since my influenza has in some degree
prostrated my strength, so that I need a season of rest; and besides, I
should like an excuse for retiring from this Bible-class excitement, since
the burden of these discussions lies so heavily upon me, and if it is not
running from my post of duty, I should like to throw off this mental
burden also, and rest for a season at least."
He replied, "You have not only a perfect right to go, but I think it is
your duty to go and get recruited."
"Very well," said I, "then I will go, and go, too, with the greatest
pleasure. But how long do you think I had better make my visit?"
"Three months."
"Three months!" said I, "Can you get along without me three months? and
what will the children do for their summer clothes without me to make
them?"
"I will see to that matter; you must stay three months, or not go at all."
"Well, I am sure I can stand it to rest that length of time, if you can
stand it without my services. So I will go. But I must take my baby and
daughter with me, as they have not fully recovered from their influenzas,
and I should not dare to trust them away from me."
"Yes, you may take them."
"I will then prepare myself and them to go just as soon as you see fit to
send us. Another thing, husband," said I, "I shall want ten dollars of my
patrimony money to take with me for spending money." (This patrimony was
a present of $600.00 my father had recently sent me for my especial
benefit, and I had put it into Mr. Packard's hands for safe keeping,
taking his note on interest as my only security, except with this note he
gave me a written agreement, that I should have not only the interest, but
any part of the principal, by simply asking him for it whenever I wanted
it. When he absconded he took not only all this my money patrimony with
him, but also stole all my notes and private papers likewise.)
"This you can't have," said he.
"Why not? I shall need as much as this, to be absent three months with two
sick children. I may need to call a Doctor to them, and, besides, my
brother is poor, and I am rich comparatively, and I might need some extra
food, such as a beef-steak, or something of the kind, and I should not
like to ask him for it. And besides, I have your written promise that I
may have my own money whenever I want it, and I do want ten dollars of it
now; and I think it is no unreasonable amount to take with me."
"I don't think it is best to let you have it. I shan't trust you with
money."
"Shan't trust me with money! Why not? Have I ever abused this trust? Do
not I always give you an exact account of every cent I spend? And I will
this time do so; and besides, if you cannot trust it with me, I will put
it into brother's hands as soon as I get there, and not spend a cent but
by his permission."
"No, I shall not consent to that."
"One thing more I will suggest. You know Batavia people owe you twelve
dollars for preaching one Sabbath, and you can't get your pay. Now,
supposing brother 'dun' and get it, may I not use this money if I should
chance to need it in an emergency; and if I should not need any, I won't
use a cent of it? Or, I will write home to you and ask permission of _you_
before spending a dollar of it."
"No. You shall neither have any money, nor have the control of any, for I
can't trust you with any."
"Well, husband, if I can't be trusted with ten dollars of my own money
under these circumstances, and with all these provisions attached to it, I
should not think I was capable of being trusted with two sick children
three months away from home wholly dependent on a poor brother's
charities. Indeed, I had rather stay at home and not go at all, rather
than go under such circumstances."
"You shall not go at all;" replied he, in a most excited, angry, tone of
voice. "You shall go into an Insane Asylum!"
"Why, husband!" said I; "I did not suspect _such_ an alternative. I had
rather go to him penniless, and clotheless even, than go into an Asylum!"
"You have lost your last chance. You _shall_ go into an Asylum!"
And so it proved. It was my last chance. In a few days I was kidnapped and
locked up in my Asylum prison for life, so far as _he_ was concerned.
Now, I ask any developed man, who holds property which is rightfully his
own, and no one's else, how he would like to exchange places with me, and
be treated just as I was treated. Now, I say it is only fair that the law
makers should be subject to their own laws. That is, they should not make
laws for others, that they would not be willing to submit to themselves in
exchange of circumstances. Just put the case to yourselves, and ask how
would you like to be imprisoned without any sort of trial, or any chance
at self-defence, and then be robbed of all your life earnings, by a law
which women made for your good (?) as your God appointed protectors! O, my
government--the men of these United States--do bear with me long enough to
just make our case your own for one moment, and then let me kindly ask you
this question.
Won't you please stop this robbery of our inalienable right to our own
property, by some law, dictated by some of your noble, manly hearts? Do
let us have a _right_ to our own home--a _right_ to our own earnings--a
_right_ to our own patrimony. A right, I mean, as _partners_ in the family
firm. We do not ask for a separate interest. We want an identification of
interests, and then be allowed a legal right to this common fund as the
_junior partners_ of this company interest. We most cheerfully allow you
the rights of a senior partner; but we do not want you to be senior,
junior, and all, leaving us no rights at all, in a common interest.
Again, we true, natural women, want our own children too--we can't live
without them. We had rather die than have them torn from us as your laws
allow them to be. Only consider for one moment, what your laws are, in
relation to our own flesh and blood. The husband has all the children of
the married woman secured to himself, to do with them just as he pleases,
regardless of her protests, or wishes, or entreaties to the contrary;
while the children of the single women are all given to her as her right
by nature! Here the maternal nature of the single woman is respected and
protected, as it should be; while the nature of the married woman is
ignored and set at naught, and the holiest instinct of woman is trampled
in the dust of an utter despotism. In other words, the legitimate
offspring of the wife are not protected to her, but given to the husband,
while the illegitimate offspring of the unmarried women are protected to
her. So that the only way to be sure of having our maternity respected,
and our offspring legally protected to us, is to have our children in the
single instead of the married state!
With shame I ask the question, does not our government here offer a
premium on infidelity? And yet this is a Christian government! Why can't
the inalienable rights of the lawful wife be _as much_ respected as those
of the open prostitute? I say, why? Is it because a woman has no
individuality, after she is joined to a man? Is her conscience, and her
reason, and her thoughts, all lost in him? So my case demonstrates the
_law_ to be, when practically tested.
And does not this legalized despotism put our souls in jeopardy, as well
as our bodies, and our children? It verily does. It was to secure the
interests of my immortal soul, that I have suffered all I have in testing
these despotic laws. I would have succumbed long ago, and said I believed
what I did not believe, had it not been that I cared more for the safety
of my own soul, that I did the temporal welfare of my own dear offspring.
I could not be true to God, and also true to the mandates of a will in
opposition to God. And whose will was to be my guide, my husband's will,
or God's will? I deliberately chose to obey God rather than man, and in
that choice I made shipwreck of all my earthly good things.
And one good thing I sorely disliked to lose, was my fair, untarnished
reputation and influence. This has been submerged under the insane
elements of this cruel persecution. But my character is not lost, thank
God! nor is it tarnished by this persecution. For my character stands
above the reach of slander to harm. Nothing can harm this treasure but my
own actions, and these are all guided and controlled by Him, for whose
cause I have suffered so much. Yes, to God's grace alone, I can say it,
that from the first to the last of all my persecutions, I have had the
comforting consciousness of duty performed, and an humble confidence in
the approval of Heaven. Strong only in the justice of my cause, and in
faith in God, I have stood _alone_, and defied the powers of darkness to
cast me down to any destruction, which extended beyond this life. And
this desperate treason against manliness which has sought to overwhelm me,
may yet be the occasion of the speedier triumph of my spiritual freedom,
and that also of my sisters in like bondage with myself.
The laws of our government most significantly requires us, "to work out
our own salvation with much fear and trembling," lest the iron will which
would hold us in subjection, should take from us all our earthly
enjoyments, if we dare to be true to the God principle within us. So
bitter has been my cup of spiritual suffering, while passing through this
crucible of married servitude, that it seems like a miracle almost, that I
have not been driven into insanity, or at least misanthropy by it. But a
happy elasticity of temperament conspired with an inward consciousness of
rectitude, and disinterestedness, has enabled me to despise these fiery
darts of the adversary, as few women could.
And I cherish such a reverence for my nature, as God has made it, that I
cannot be transformed into a "man-hater." I thank God, I was made, and
still continue to be, a "man-lover." Indeed, my native respect for the
manhood almost approaches to the feeling of reverence, when I consider
that man is God's representative to me--that he is endowed with the very
same attributes and feelings towards woman that God has--a protector of
the weak, not a subjector of them. It is the exceptions, not the masses of
the man race, who have perverted or depraved their God-like natures into
the subjectors of the dependent. The characteristic mark of this depraved
class is a "woman-hater," instead or a "woman-lover," as God, by nature
made him. This depraved class of men find their counterpart in those
women, who have perverted their natures from "men-lovers," into
"men-haters." And man, with a man-hating wife, may need laws to protect
his rights, as much as a woman, with a woman-hater for her husband. Laws
should take cognizance of _improper actions_, regardless of sex or
position.
All we ask of our government is, to let us stand just where our actions
would place us, without giving us either the right or power to harm any
one, not even our own husbands. At least, give us the power to defend
ourselves, legally, against our husband's abuses, since you have licensed
him with almost Almighty power to abuse us. And it will be taking from
these women-haters no right to take from them the right to abuse us. It
may, on the contrary, do them good, to be compelled to treat us with
justice, just as you claim that it will do the slave-holder good, to
compel him to treat his slave with justice. It is oppression and abuse
alone we ask you to protect us against, and this we are confident you will
do, as soon as you are convinced there is a need or necessity for so
doing. And I will repeat, it is for this purpose that I have, in this
pamphlet, delineated a subjected wife's true, legal position, by thus
presenting my own personal, individual, experience for your consideration.
In summing up this argument, based on this dark chapter of a married
woman's bitter experience of the evils growing out of the law of married
servitude, I would close with a Petition to the Legislatures of all the
States of this Union, that they would so revolutionize their statute laws,
as to expunge them entirely from that most cruel and degrading kind of
despotism, which identifies high, noble woman as its victim. Let the
magnanimity of your holy, God-like natures, be reflected from your statute
books, in the women protective laws which emanate from them. And may God
grant that in each and all of these codes may soon be found such laws as
guarantee to married woman a _right_ to her own home, and a _right_ to be
the mistress of her own household, and a _right_ to the guardianship of
her own minor children.
In other words, let her be the legally acknowledged mistress of her own
household, and a co-partner, at least, in the interests and destiny of her
own offspring. Let the interests of the maternity be _as much_ respected,
at least, as those of the paternity; and thus surround the hallowed place
of the wife's and mother's sphere of action, with a fortress so strong and
invincible, that the single will of a perverted man cannot overthrow it.
For home is woman's proper sphere or orbit, where, in my opinion, God
designed she should be the sovereign and supreme; and also designed that
man should see that this sphere of woman's sovereignty should be
unmolested and shielded from any invasions, either foreign or internal. In
other words, the husband is the God appointed agent to guard and protect
woman in this her God appointed orbit. Just as the moon is sovereign and
supreme in her minor orbit, being guarded and protected there by the
sovereign power of the sun, revolving in his mighty orbit.
The appropriate sphere of woman being the home sphere, she should have a
legal right here, secured to her by statute laws, so that in case the man
who swore to protect his wife's rights here, perjures himself by an
usurpation of her inalienable rights, she can have redress, and thus
secure that protection in the _law_, which is denied her by her husband.
In short, woman needs legal protection _as a married woman_. She has a
right to be a married woman, therefore she has a right to be protected _as
a married woman_. If she cannot have protection as a married woman, it is
not safe for her to marry; for my case demonstrates the fact, that the
good conduct of the wife is no guarantee of protection to her; neither is
the most promising developments of manhood, proof against depravity of
nature, approximating very near to the point of "total depravity," and
then woe to that wife and mother, who has no protection except that of a
totally depraved man!
But, some may argue, that woman is already recognized in several of the
States as an individual property owner, and as one who can do business on
a capital of her own, independent of her husband. Yes, we do most
gratefully acknowledge this as the day star of hope to us, that the tide
is even now set in the right direction. But allow me to say, this does not
reach the main point we are aiming to establish, which is, that woman
should be a legal _partner_ in the family firm, not a mere appendage to
it. This principle of separating the interests of the married pair is not
wholesome nor salutary in its results. It tends towards an isolation of
interests; whereas it is an identification of interests, which the
marriage contract should form and cement. We want an equality of rights,
so far as copartners are concerned. These property rights should be so
identified as to command the mutual respect of partners, whose interests
are one and the same. In short, the wife should be the junior partner, and
law should recognize her as such, by protecting to her the rights of a
junior partner, and her husband should be the legally constituted senior
partner of the family firm. Then, and only till then, is she his companion
on an equality, in legal standing, with her husband, and sharing with him
the protection of that government, which she has done so much to sustain;
which government is based on the great fundamental principle of God's
government, namely, an equality of rights to all accountable moral agents.
Our government can never echo this heavenly principle, until it defends
"equal rights," independent of sex or color.