to neglect but to prevent the education of his daughters. They were
sent to no school at all, but were handed over to a school mistress in
the house. He would not allow them to learn any language, saying with
a sneer that “for a woman one tongue is enough.” The miseries however
that follow the selfish sacrifice of others is so sure to strike, 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 now could not 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 was
something—is unutterably painful, but not surprising.—_The Athenaeum._
[2] _The Church as It Is._—Parker Pillsbury, pp. 32-3-4-5-6.
[3] Report of the _Proceedings of the Missionary Conference_.—Mr.
Perkins’ speech.
[4] The same hymns are sung, the same doctrine preached, the same
necessity for salvation emphasized, and justification by faith is made
the corner stone of redemption.
[5] Historians have declared that “Nowhere did the spirit of Puritanism
in its evil as well as its good, more thoroughly express itself than
in Massachusetts and Rhode Island.” Boston, for its atrocities was
known as “The Bloody Town.” “The Emancipation of Massachusetts” by
Brooks Adams, gives a very correct account of the retarding influence
of Puritan bigotry in the development of intellectual truth in the New
England States.
[6] _The true character of Presbyterian Pastors in Scotland in Time of
Charles II._
[7] When her father’s name was mentioned, Dora said, “Don’t speak to
me of my father, Mr. Morris, you and the whole church know that my
father, prophet though you call him, broke many a woman’s heart. If it
is required of me to break as many hearts and ruin as many women as
my father did, I should go to perdition before I would go back into
the church again, and—” “Oh, sister Dora!” exclaimed the teacher in
consternation at her clearness of vision. “It is a fact and you know
it,” she continued, “you know that many of his wives died of broken
hearts and how did he leave the rest? Look at my mother and look at all
the rest of them! A religion that breaks women’s hearts and ruins them
is of the devil. That’s what Mormonism does. Don’t talk to me of my
father.”—_Reported in the Chicago Inter Ocean._
[8] A correspondent writing for an eastern paper from Salt Lake City,
a few years since, said: “Of all the ill-conditioned, God-forsaken,
hopeless looking people I ever saw, the women here beat them all.
Yesterday was supply day for the Mormons living outside the city.
They bring their wives into town in dead-axle wagons, and fill the
vacant room with children who look fully as bad as their mothers, if
not worse. Many of them are lean and hump-backed and all look sickly
and ill-clad. Two out of three women on the streets yesterday, had
nursing infants in their arms. One of the saints had thirteen wives and
ninety-four children; another had nine wives and five nursling babies,
which he exhibited with all the pride I should take in a lot of fine
horses. I never realized the infernal nature of the institution nor its
effect upon society as I do now.”
[9] _Key to Theology_, by Parley Pratt.
[10] _Ibid._
[11] The following conversation took place between a mistress and
an Irish servant girl: “Bridget, why are not women ever priests?”
“Oh! they couldn’t be; they’re too wicked.” “You don’t believe
such nonsense, do you—you don’t believe women are more wicked than
men?” “Yes, ma’am,” replied Bridget with emphasis; “they’re a dale
more wicked; they can’t iver be prastes, for they brought sin into
the world. Eve was the very first sinner; I learned it all in the
catechism.”
[12] In a recent Catholic Allocution, emanating from the dignitaries
of that church on the Pacific Coast, it was said: “The church, like
Christ, is the same yesterday, today and forever; it is the same here
as in other parts of the world; its sacred laws, enacted under the
guidance of the divine spirit, are as binding here as in any other
place.”
[13] We do not, indeed, prize as highly as some of our countrymen
appear to do the ability to read, write and cipher. Some men are born
to be leaders, and the rest are born to be led. The best ordered and
administered state is that in which the few are well educated and lead,
and the many are trained to obedience.—“_Catholic Review._”
[14] The Mormon faith belts Idaho, Montana, Arizona, New Mexico,
Nevada, Utah and Wyoming, a portion of the country that is wealthier
than any other portion in its natural products. It is not simply in
Utah that this power of Mormonism is found, but it is spreading in
every territory. Every railroad in that section is partially built
by Mormon laborers. They are spreading all over that country. They
control, in three or four states there, the balance of power. They
control every election that is held in Utah, and every man is dictated
to in relation to his vote. They also control the ballot-box in Idaho
and Wyoming, and are thus liable in time to come, should the two
Mormon territories become states, to throw sixteen Senators into our
Congress. They openly boast of their intention to take their plural
system to your watering places here in the east, Saratoga, Newport and
other resorts. I realize the struggle of the past when the manhood of
our nation was put to the test, and I know there is another contest
approaching. The leaders say they intend to fight this contest until
Mormonism prevails—_Mormonism and treason to the United States
Government._
CHAPTER EIGHT
[1] See _Decision of New York Court of Appeals_ 1892, page 463-4.
[2] During the Parliament Commission inquiry, a witness, Peter Garkel,
collier, said that he preferred women to boys as drawers; they were
better to manage and kept time better; they would fight and shriek and
everything but let anybody pass them. The _London National Reformer_
states that “The first woman member (Mrs. Jane Pyne), of the London
Society of Compositors was admitted by the executive on August 30
(1892). Two years ago Miss Clementine Black applied for permission to
join the society but the request had to be refused on the ground that
“it was not proposed that woman should be paid on the same scale as
men.”
[3] Lecture by Felix Adler, 1892, _The Position of Woman in the
Present_.
[4] “The New York Court of Appeals has rendered an opinion which shows
that married women in that state are still in bondage. A woman fell
down a coal-hole and sued for damages, recovering $500. The defendant
asked for a new trial on the ground that the woman was working for her
husband and the court had taken into account her loss of wages. The
Court of Appeals reversed the decision and sent the case back for a new
trial. It held that the services of a wife belonged to her husband, and
she can not recover any wages even if she holds his written promise to
pay.”—_Chicago Inter Ocean._ Jan. 1892.
CHAPTER NINE
[1] Generally these conventicles produced very many bastards, and the
excuse they (the ministers) made for that, was, “where sin abounds the
Grace of God super abounds; there is no condemnation in those that are
in Christ.” Sometimes this: “The lambs of God may sport together; to
the pure all things are pure.” Nay, generally they are of opinion that
a man is never a true saint till he have a fall like that of David with
Bathsheba, _The true character of the Presbyterian Pastors and People
of Scotland_. Reign of King Charles II—and since the Revolution, p. 12.
[2] Mr. Mott a member of the Salvation army in Syracuse, having led
astray another member, a young girl of seventeen and being requested to
do her the justice of marrying her, replies that he has a great mission
converting the world and has no time for marrying. He took an active
part in the salvation meeting the other night. He says he was doing as
Jesus did, and was free from sin. He carried the flag in the streets
and prayed three times. There was great disorder and indignation at
Mott’s impudence in praying and speaking.—_Syracuse Daily Standard._
1883.
[3] _The Book of Pitris._
[4] _Light on the Path._
[5] Mrs. Gage, _Chairman of the Resolution Committee_.
[6] Both Marie Weston Chapman, and Whittier, immortalized this letter
in verse, Mrs. Chapman by a spirited poem entitled: “The Times that
try Men’s souls,” and Whittier in one called “A Pastoral Letter.” 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.”
[7] 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.—_Wendell Phillips._
[8] Who afterwards married Stephen Foster, one of the apostles of the
anti-slavery cause.
[9] Decomposed eggs, the contents of stables, and even of outhouses,
were hurled at the speaker and those assembled to listen.
[10] Rev. Samuel J. May first had his attention called to the wrongs of
women under Church and State by a striking comparison of the two from
the lips of a woman. Priestly opposition to new ideas, and to woman’s
taking part in reform work, still continues to be manifest, as shown
by the tour of General Weaver and Mrs. Lease, through the Southern
States in the fall of 1892. “The notorious Mrs. Lease,” as she was
termed, was met by hooting, howling, egg-throwing mobs, and in Atlanta
“an eminent minister of the strongest religious denomination (Baptist)
in the South” preached against the third party, September 18th, five
days before that on which General Weaver and Mrs. Lease were to speak
in that city. This sermon, reported by the Constitution, as a “red-hot
roasting” declared against the political party that would employ women
as speakers, “unsex American women,” as an evidence of the skepticism
of the age. Nor is this the only recent instance of pulpit opposition
to woman. After the formation of the woman’s National Liberal League,
Washington, February 1890, clergymen in different portions of the
country—Washington, Iowa, Massachusetts, etc., hurled their anathemas
against this association, as inimical to Bible morality, and especially
against the women leading in this step. In addition to these sermons,
a Catholic Orphanage of seven hundred children, was instructed to pray
against such demoralizing ideas; and beyond this, letters passing
between influential women fell under United States supervision, and
were opened in transit.
[11] Lucretia Mott foremost among these delegates, after this rejection
decided upon holding a Woman’s Rights Convention, upon her return to
America, which should present the wrongs under which women suffered.
This was done, 1848, at Seneca Falls, N.Y.
[12] Through _Senator Joseph E. Brown_.
[13] Several ladies well known for their work in the enfranchisement
of their sex, attended this trial, the _New York Sun_ facetiously
referring to the presence of “those eminent Presbyterians, Lillie
Devereux Blake, Matilda Joslyn Gage and Susan A. King.”
[14] Report of the Washington D.C. “_Republican_.”
[15] Ably reviewed each week as they appeared, by Mrs. Lillie Devereux
Blake.
[16] _Lenten Lectures_, p. 56-7-114.
[17] WOMEN AND THEIR SPHERE! Rev. Dr. Dix, some weeks since, came to
the front with a series of sermons in which, by unsupported assertion,
he managed to demonstrate that women in the United States are no longer
ornamental. The trouble in the mind of the reverend D.D. seems to be
that women, having grown in the knowledge of the truth and of that
liberty wherewith Christ maketh free, have concluded that their sphere
is not to be man’s slave—his plaything, a human gewgaw, to be fondled,
caressed, or kicked as the masculine mind may elect. If it is important
for man to “know himself,” brave women have concluded that it is quite
as essential for a woman to know herself, and with a heroism born
of rights conferred by God Himself, women have in these latter days
resolved to map out their own sphere independent of man’s dictation.
They have made commendable headway. They have succeeded in shaking
down a number of antiquated citadels where ignorance, superstition,
prejudice, despotism and cruelty found refuge, and, as they tumbled,
the breath of popular indignation has blown the fragments away like
chaff in the grasp of a tornado. These brave women, finding out that—
“Life is real, life is earnest,”
set themselves about solving its problems for themselves and for their
sex. Some of them asked for the ballot. Why? Because they wanted
to obliterate from the statute books such laws as restricted their
liberties and circumscribed their sphere. As wives they wanted to
be the equals of their husbands before the law. Why not? As mothers
they wanted to be the equal of their sons before the law. Why not? A
thousand reasons have been assigned why not, but they do not answer the
demand. What is wanted as prudent guarantees that the ballot will be
wisely wielded by those upon whom the great right has been conferred?
The answer is ready—intellect, education, a fair comprehension of the
obligations of citizenship, loyalty to the Government, to republican
institutions and the welfare of society. It is not contended that
women do not possess these qualifications, but the right is withheld
from them nevertheless, and by withholding this right a hundred others
are included, every one of which when justice bears sway will be
granted. This done woman’s sphere will regulate itself as does man’s
sphere. _The Boston Herald_ in a recent issue takes Dr. Dix to task
for narrowness of vision and weakness of grasp in discussing “the
calling of a Christian woman,” and then proceeds to outline its own
views on the “sphere of capable women,” in which it is less robust than
the reverend D.D. To intimate that the Infinite Disposer of Events
favors the narrow, vulgar prejudices of Rev. Dr. Dix and his organ,
the _Boston Herald_, is to dwarf the Almighty to human proportions
and bring discredit upon His attributes in the midst of which justice
shines with resplendent glory, but the demand is that women themselves
shall determine for themselves the boundaries of their sphere. It
is not a question of mere sentiment, it is not a matter of fancy or
caprice. It is rugged question. It involves food, clothing, shelter. It
means self-reliance. Women are not appealing to man’s gallantry, not
to any quality of less importance than his sense of justice for their
rights. Man is not likely to regard his mother with less affection and
reverence because she is his father’s equal, and in the past, when
women were more degraded than at present, the best men have found in
women inspiration for their best work, good men will not find less
inspiration for good work when women are emancipated from the thraldom
of vicious laws, and crowned man’s equal in all matters relating to
“sphere,” shall, by laws relating to physical and mental organism,
take their chances in the world’s broad field of battle, demanding and
receiving for work done in any of the departments of human activities
men’s pay when they perform men’s work.—_Indianapolis Sentinel_, May
13, 1883.
[18] It is not a physiological cause which produced our present family
with the father as ruler and owner of all property.—_Kemptsky._
[19] By a singular lack of oversight in making up the title-page and
lettering the cover, the words “Husband and Wife” have been printed as
though they referred to objects of equal importance. Even the carefully
trained eye of a former editor of the “Christian Register,” the Rt.
Rev. F. D. Huntington, D.D., Bishop of Central New York, who furnishes
a brief and cautious introduction to the volume, did not detect this
error. It has been left to us to call attention to the incongruity
of the title-page, and to give the sentiment of the book proper
typographical expression. The conventional sobriety and ecclesiasticism
of the title-page do not prepare one for the novelty of the contents.
It is only by reading the book that we become aware of them. The
sensation of the reader is somewhat the same as one would have on going
into a building which from the facade appeared to be a plain, dignified
Episcopal church, but which on entering he found to be a mediaeval
circus. Not that there is any anything intentionally hilarious in the
arena of this book or that it displays any athletic vigor of thought
but that it is essentially novel and revolutionary. Dr. Gray is not
unconscious of the novelty of his doctrine. “It is believed,” he says,
“that the position of this essay is new to the discussion. It has not
been urged or stated in print in England or America;” and, later on, he
expresses a well-grounded belief that “some will smile” at his views as
“antiquated and fanciful.” All of these claims may be readily granted.
First, the doctrine is new. It is new at least in its present dress—as
new as Adam would seem to be, if he put on a modern costume, dyed his
gray hairs, and appeared in Boston as a social lecturer.—_The Christian
Register_, Boston.
[20] Who has forgotten the sublime magnanimity of Artemus Ward, when he
proposed on a certain occasion to sacrifice all his wife’s relatives?
This is exactly what Dean Gray theoretically achieves. He not only
abolishes his own wife’s relatives, but those of other men who have
entered into the marriage relationship. He makes thorough work of
it. Not only does he extinguish the wife’s sister as a relative,
but also her cousins and her aunts. In fact, he even abolishes the
mother-in-law. The luxury of a mother-in-law is granted to the wife,
who by virtue of marriage becomes related to her husband’s mother, but
is not granted to the husband, who has no relation whatever to the
mother of his wife. As to the sisters, the cousins and the aunts, there
may be a reason why Sir Joseph Porter, K.C.B., would view with dismay
an equal addition to their number through the offices of matrimony; but
the majority of men not blessed with a similar superfluity would hardly
wish to forego this delightful form of conjugal perquisite.—_Ibid._
[21] “One of the most learned colored men in the country is Alexander
Crummell, Rector of St. Luke’s Protestant Episcopal Church, Washington,
D.C. When he desired to study for holy orders he applied at Kenyon
College, Gambier, O., but was refused admission. He made applications
elsewhere, which were equally unsuccessful. He finally went to Oxford,
England, and there took a full course. He is an eloquent preacher, and
his congregation embraces a large number of prominent colored citizens.”
[22] I. Corinthians, v: 1.
[23] And one of the most bitter opponents to the admission of the women
lay delegates to the Methodist General Conference.
[24] As reported in Syracuse, New York “_Sunday Morning Courier_”,
March 4th, 1877.
[25] Rev. F. B. Neely, of Philadelphia, said that he was in favor of
submitting the question to the annual conferences. He offered the
following amendment to the report of the committee: But since there
is great interest in this question, and since the church generally
should be consulted in regard to such an important matter, therefore
_Resolved_: That we submit to the annual conferences the proposition
to amend the second restrictive rule by amending the words “and said
delegates may be men or women” after the words “two lay delegates” for
an annual conference so that it would read, “Nor of more than two lay
delegates for an annual conference, and the said delegates may be men
or women.” The amendment was seconded by Dr. Paxton.—_Telegram._ New
York, May 12.—The debate on the admission of women delegates was one
of the most lengthy in the history of the church. It occupied the time
of the conference during the larger part of six sessions. It is the
common remark, too, that never before was a subject contested in this
body with such obstinacy, not to say bitterness. The struggle to obtain
recognition from the chair was a revelation to those who did not know
previously how fond Methodists are of speaking in meeting. The instant
the chairman’s gavel fell, announcing the termination of one speech,
fifty delegates or more were on their feet, and from fifty stentorian
voices rang out the pitiful appeal, “Mr. Chairman!” This was the order
of affairs from the beginning of the debate to the close. One delegate
who was finally recognized proved to be so hoarse from his protracted
efforts to get the floor that it was with difficulty he could be heard
when he did get it.—Correspondence, Syracuse, N.Y. _Sunday Herald_,
May 13.
[26] The final vote, excluding women from this conference and
submitting the question of their eligibility to the annual conferences,
stood: To exclude and submit, 237; against, 198—making a majority of
39 only of the total vote, while the laymen were so evenly divided
that the change of one vote would have tied them. If now the annual
conference shall decree by a three-fourths vote of all the ministers
present and voting, that women are eligible, and if four years hence
the general conference by a two-thirds vote shall ratify that decree,
the fair sisters will thereafter have free course in that body.
Otherwise they will be tolerated only as mere lookers-on. From the
fact, that many who voted to submit the matter to the annual conference
did so, not because they wish the women to come in, but merely as the
best method of getting rid of a troublesome question for the time
being, it looks as though their chances of gaining admittance as
delegates four years hence were little better, if any, than in the
present instance.—_Sunday Herald_ Syracuse, N.Y. May 13.
[27] THE PRIESTHOOD. Now, too oft the priesthood wait
At the threshold of the state—
Waiting for the beck and nod
Of its power as law and God.—
From Whittier’s _Curse of the Charter Breakers_.
[28] From “_The Woman’s Journal_.” Boston.
[29] Headed by _Mme. Astié de Valsayre_.
[30] When the temporal kingdom took possession of Italy, the rate of
ignorance was 90 per cent. It has now been reduced to 45 per cent.
[31] The “_Boston Herald_,” Aug. 17, 1886, heading an article upon
these statutes, “_Copper Colored Blue Laws_.”
[32] A husband is entitled to punish his wife when he sees fit. At
first he is to use remonstrances; if these do not avail, he is to have
recourse to more severe punishment. The confessor is at first bound not
to pay much heed to women complaining of their husbands, because women
are habitually inclined to lie.
[33] The scene in the convocation was animated, the public at large
favoring the women. The senior Proctor being slow in his figuring, one
of the “Gods in the Gallery” becoming impatient for the announcement
of the numbers, shouted “Call in one of the ladies to help you, sir.”
[34] In Egypt, where women received the same education as men, very few
children died—a fact noted in the absence of child mummies.
[35] “Eve lived 940 years, giving birth to a boy and a girl every
year. Eve lived ten years longer than Adam. They must give this first
woman the best constitution in the world for while her husband lived
930 years and communicated to his sons for several generations the
principle of so long a life (which is no less applicable to Eve than
to him), he must have been of very vigorous constitution; turn the
thing as you will it will always be an argument from the greater to the
less to show that Eve’s body was better constituted than that of her
husband.”
CHAPTER TEN
[1] _As the resurrection of a material body to dwell in a spiritual
heaven._
[2] When a quarter of the human race assume to tell me what I must
do, I may be too much disheartened by the circumstance to see clearly
the absurdity of this command. This is the condition of women, for
whom I have the same compassion that I would have for a prisoner so
long cramped in a narrow cage that he could not use his limbs. While
many women are thinking their own thoughts there are others without
so potent a brain, who have as yet, failed to see the absurdity of
allowing others to think for them. For this condition of mental and
moral blunders the church is responsible.—_Ralph Waldo Emerson._