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 niggers!" "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 niggers, 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 niggers 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 nigger'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.