Dr. NEVIN proceeded, and in the course of his remarks drew

various unauthorized inferences, as the belief of Mr. Barker, in

the doctrines of Christ. Mr. Barker repeatedly corrected him, but

Dr. Kevin very ingeniously continued to reaffirm them in another

shape. Finally, Mr. Garrison, in his seat, addressing the

President, said: "It is utterly useless to attempt to correct the

individual. He is manifestly here in the spirit of a blackguard

and rowdy." (A storm of hisses and cries of "down!" "down!")

Dr. NEVIN: I am sorry friend Garrison has thought fit to use

those words. He has been in scenes and situations like these, and

has himself stood up and spoken in opposition to the opinions of

audiences, too often not to have by this time been taught

patience.

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

right names.

Dr. NEVIN: Very well, then I should call him--turning upon Mr.

G.--worse names than those. Only one word has fallen from woman

in this Convention, to which I can take exception, and that fell

from the lips of a lady whom I have venerated from my

childhood--it was, that the pulpit was the castle of cowards.

Mrs. MOTT: I said it was John Chambers' cowards' castle; and I do

say, that such ministers make it a castle of cowards; but I did

not wish to make the remark general, or apply it to all pulpits.

Dr. NEVIN continued some time longer.

Mrs. FOSTER asked, at the close of his remarks, if he believed it

was right for woman to speak what she believed to be the truth,

from the pulpit; to which he replied affirmatively, "there and

everywhere."

Mrs. ROSE: I might claim my right to reply to the gentleman who

has just taken his seat. I might be able to prove from the

arguments he brought forward, that he was incorrect in the

statements he made, but I waive that right, the time has been so

unjustly consumed already. To one thing only, I will reply. He

charged France with being licentious, and spoke of the degraded

position of French women, as the result of the infidelity of that

nation. I throw back the slander he uttered, in regard to French

women. I am not a French woman, but if there is no other here to

vindicate them, I will do it. The French women are as moral as

any other people in any country; and when they have not been as

moral, it has been because they have been priest-ridden. I love

to vindicate the rights of those who are not present to defend

themselves.

STEPHEN S. FOSTER: Our "reverend" friend spoke of _dragging_

infidelity into this Convention, as though infidelity had to be

"dragged" here. I want to know if Christianity has been "dragged"

here, when the speakers made it the basis of their arguments. Who

ever dreamed of "dragging" Christianity here when they came to

advocate the rights of woman in the name of Christ? Why then

should any one stand up here and charge a speaker with "dragging"

infidelity when he advocates the rights of woman under the name

of an infidel. I supposed that Greek and Jew, Barbarian and

Scythian, Christian and Infidel had been invited to this

platform. One thing I know, we have had barbarians here, whether

we invited them or not; and I like to have barbarians here; I

know of no place where they are so likely to be civilized. I have

never yet been in a meeting managed by men when there was such

conflict of feelings, where there was not also ten times as much

confusion. And I think this meeting a powerful proof of the

superiority of our principles over those who oppose us.

Tell me if Christianity has not ever held the reins in this

country; and what has it done for woman? I am talking now of the

popular idea of Christianity. What has Christianity done for

woman for two hundred years past? Why, to-day, in this Christian

nation, there are a million and a half of women bought and sold

like cattle; a million and a half of women who can not say who

are the fathers of their children! I ask, are we to depend on a

Christianity like that to restore woman her rights? I am speaking

of your idea of Christianity--of Dr. Nevin's idea of

Christianity--I shall come to the true Christianity by and by.

One of two things is certain. The Church and Government deny to

woman her rights. There is not a denomination in this country

which places woman on an equality with man. Not one. Can you deny

it?

Mrs. MOTT: Except the Progressive Friends.

Mr. FOSTER: They are not a denomination, they have broken from

all bands and taken the name of the Friends of Progress. I say

there is not a religious society, having an organized body of

ministers, which admits woman's equality in the Gospel. Now, tell

me, in God's name, what we are to hope from the Church, when she

leaves a million and a half of women liable to be brought upon

the auction-block to-day? If the Bible is against woman's

equality, what are you to do with it? One of two things: either

you must sit down and fold up your hands, or you must discard the

divine authority of the Bible. Must you not? You must acknowledge

the correctness of your position, or deny the authority of the

Bible. If you admit the construction put upon the Bible by friend

Barker, to be a false one, or Miss Brown's construction to be the

true one, what then? Why, then, the priesthood of the country are

blind leaders of the blind. We have got forty thousand of them,

Dr. Nevin included with the rest. He stands as an accredited

Presbyterian, giving the hand of fellowship to the fraternity,

and withholding it from Garrison and others--he could not even

pray a few years ago in an anti-slavery meeting. Now, either the

Bible is against the Church and clergy, or else they have

misinterpreted it for two hundred years, yes, for six thousand

years. You must then either discard the Bible or the priesthood,

or give up Woman's Rights.

A friend says he does not regret this discussion. Why, it is the

only thing we have done effectively since we have been here. When

we played with jack-straws, we were hail-fellow with those who

now oppose us. When you come to take up the great questions of

the movement, when you propose to man, to divide with woman the

right to rule, then a great opposition is aroused. The ballot-box

is not worth a straw until woman is ready to use it. Suppose a

law were passed to-morrow, declaring woman's rights equal with

those of men, why, the facts would remain the same. The moment

that woman is ready to go to the ballot-box, there is not a

Constitution that will stand in the country. In this very city,

in spite of the law, I am told that negroes go to the ballot-box

and vote, without let or hindrance; and woman will go when she

resolves upon it. What we want for woman is the right of speech;

and in Dr. Nevin's reply to Mrs. Foster, does he mean that he

would be willing to accord the right of speech to woman and admit

her into the pulpit? I don't believe he would admit Antoinette

Brown to his pulpit. I was sorry Mrs. Foster did not ask him if

he would. I don't believe he dares to do it. I would give him a

chance to affirm or deny it. I hope some other friend will give

him that opportunity, and that Antoinette Brown may be able to

say that she was invited by the pastor of one of the largest

churches in this beautiful city, to speak to his people in his

pulpit; but if he does it, he is not merely one among a thousand,

but one among ten thousand.

I wish to have it understood that an infidel is as much at home

here as a Christian; and that his principles are no more

"dragged" here than those of a Christian. For myself, I claim to

be a Christian. No man ever heard me speak of Christ or of His

doctrines, but with the profoundest reverence. Still, I welcome

upon this platform those who differ as far as possible from me.

And the Atheist no more "drags" in his Atheism, provided he only

shows that Atheism itself demands woman's equality, and is no

more out of order than I, when I undertake to show that

Christianity preaches one law, one faith, and one line of duty

for all.

Mrs. MOTT: We ought to thank Dr. Nevin for his kindly fears, lest

we women should be brought out into the rough conflicts of life,

and overwhelmed by infidelity. I thank him, but at the same time

I must say, that if we have been able this afternoon to sit

uninjured by the hard conflict in which he has been engaged, if

we can maintain our patience at seeing him so laboriously build

up a man of straw, and then throw it down and destroy it, I think

we may be suffered to go into the world and bear many others

unharmed.

Again, I would ask in all seriousness, by what right does

Orthodoxy give the invidious name of Infidel, affix the stigma of

infidelity, to those who dissent from its cherished opinions?

What right have the advocates of moral reform, woman's rights,

abolition, temperance, etc., to call in question any man's

religious opinions? It is the assumption of bigots. I do not want

now to speak invidiously, and say sectarian bigots, but I mean

the same kind of bigotry which Jesus rebuked so sharply, when He

called certain men "blind leaders of the blind."

Now, we hold Jesus up as an example, when we perceive the

assumption of clergymen, that all who venture to dissent from a

given interpretation, must necessarily be infidels; and thus

denounce them as infidels; for it was only by inference, that one

clergyman this afternoon made Joseph Barker deny the Son of God.

By inference in the same way, he might be made to deny everything

that is good, and praiseworthy, and true.

I want we should consider these things upon this platform. I am

not troubled with difficulties about the Bible. My education has

been such that I look to that Source whence all the inspiration

of the Bible comes. I love the truths of the Bible. I love the

Bible because it contains so many truths; but I never was

educated to love the errors of the Bible; therefore it does not

startle me to hear Joseph Barker point to some of those errors.

And I can listen to the ingenious interpretation of the Bible,

given by Antoinette Brown, and am glad to hear those who are so

skilled in the outward, when I perceive that they are beginning

to turn the Bible to so good an account. It gives evidence that

the cause is making very good progress. Why, my friend Nevin has

had to hear the temperance cause denounced as infidel, and proved

so by Solomon; and he has, no doubt, seen the minister in the

pulpit, turning over the pages of the Bible to find examples for

the wrong. But the Bible will never sustain him in making this

use of its pages, instead of using it rationally, and selecting

such portions of it as would tend to corroborate the right; and

these are plentiful; for notwithstanding the teaching of

theology, and men's arts in the religious world, men have ever

responded to righteousness and truth, when it has been advocated

by the servants of God, so that we need not fear to bring truth

to an intelligent examination of the Bible. It is a far less

dangerous assertion to say that God is unchangeable, than that

man is infallible.

In this debate on the Bible-position of woman, Mr. Garrison having

always been a close student of that Book, was so clear in his

positions, and so ready in his quotations, that he carried the

audience triumphantly with him. The Rev. Dr. Nevin came out of the

contest so chagrined, that, losing all sense of dignity, on meeting

Mr. Garrison in the vestibule of the hall, at the close of the

Convention, he seized him by the nose and shook him vehemently. Mr.

Garrison made no resistance, and when released, he calmly surveyed his

antagonist and said, "Do you feel better, my friend? do you hope thus

to break the force of my argument?" The friends of the Rev. Mr. Nevin

were so mortified with his ungentlemanly behavior that they suppressed

the scene in the vestibule as far as possible, in the Cleveland

journals, and urged the ladies who had the report of the Convention in

charge, to make no mention of it in their publication. Happily, the

fact has been resurrected in time to point a page of history.

A question arising in the Convention as to the colleges, Antoinette

Brown remarked:

That much and deeply as she loved Oberlin, she must declare that

it has more credit for liberality to woman than it deserves.

Girls are not allowed equal privileges and advantages there; they

are not allowed instructions in elocution, nor to speak on

commencement day. The only college in the country that places all

students on an equal footing, without distinction of sex or

color, is McGrawville College in Central New York. Probably

Antioch College, Ohio (President Horace Mann), will also admit

pupils on the same ground.

Mrs. ROSE said she knew of no college where both sexes enjoyed

equal advantages. It matters not, however, if there be. We do not

deal with exceptions, but with general principles.

A sister has well remarked that we do not believe that man is the

cause of all our wrongs. We do not fight men--we fight bad

principles. We war against the laws which have made men bad and

tyrannical. Some will say, "But these laws are made by men."

True, but they were made in ignorance of right and wrong, made in

ignorance of the eternal principles of justice and truth. They

were sanctioned by superstition, and engrafted on society by long

usage. The Declaration issued by the Seneca Falls Convention is

an instrument no less great, no less noble than that to which it

bears a resemblance.

In closing she alluded to that portion of Mr. Channing's

Declaration which referred to the code of morals by which a

fallen woman is forever ruined, while the man who is the cause

of, or sharer in her crime, is not visited by the slightest

punishment. "It is time to consider whether what is wrong in one

sex can be right in another. It is time to consider why if a

woman commits a fault, too often from ignorance, from

inexperience, from poverty, because of degradation and

oppression--aye! because of designing, cruel man; being made

cruel by ignorance of laws and institutions,--why such a being,

in her helplessness, in her ignorance, in her inexperience and

dependency--why a being thus situated, not having her mind

developed, her faculties called out: and not allowed to mix in

society to give her experience, not being acquainted with human

nature, is drawn down, owing often to her best and tenderest

feelings; in consequence also of being accustomed to look up to

man as her superior, as her guardian, as her master,--why such a

being should be cast out of the pale of humanity, while he who

committed the crime, or who is, if not the main, the great

secondary cause of it,--he who is endowed with superior

advantages of education and experience, he who has taken

advantage of that weakness and confiding spirit, which the young

always have,--I ask, if the victim is cast out of the pale of

society, shall the despoiler go free?" The question was answered

by a thunder of "No! no! no!" from all parts of the house. A

profound sensation was observable. "And yet," said Mrs. Rose, "he

does go free!!"

Ernestine L. Rose, says the _Plain Dealer_, is the master-spirit of

the Convention. She is described as a Polish lady of great beauty,

being known in this country as an earnest advocate of human liberty.

Though a slight foreign accent is perceptible, her delivery is

effective. She spoke with great animation. The impression made by her

address was favorable both to the speaker and the cause. In speaking

of the _personnel_ of the platform, it says:

Mrs. Lydia Ann Jenkins, of New York, who made an effective

speech, is habited in the Bloomer costume, and appears to much

advantage on the stage. Her face is amiable, and her delivery

excellent. She is as fine a female orator as we have heard. The

address embodied the usual arguments offered in favor of this

cause, and were put in a forcible and convincing manner. We say

convincing, because such a speaker would convince the most

obdurate unbeliever against his will.

Miss Stone is somewhat celebrated for an extraordinary enthusiasm

in the cause of her sex, and for certain eccentricities of speech

and thought, as well as of outward attire. She is as independent

in mind as in dress. She is as ready to throw off the restraints

society seems to have placed on woman's mind, as she is to cast

aside what she considers an absurd fashion in dress. Without

endorsing the eliminated petticoats, we can not but admire Miss

Stone's "stern old Saxon pluck," and her total independence of

the god, Fashion. Her dress is first a black velvet coat with

collar, fastened in front with buttons, next a skirt of silk,

reaching to the knees, then "she wears the breeches" of black

silk, with neat-fitting gaiters. Her hair is cut short and combed

straight back. Her face is not beautiful, but there is mind in

it; it is earnest, pleasant, prepossessing. Miss Stone must be

set down as a lady of no common abilities, and of uncommon energy

in the pursuit of a cherished idea. She is a marked favorite in

the Conventions.

During the proceedings, Miss Brown, in a long speech on the Bible,

had expounded many doctrines and passages of Scripture in regard to

woman's position, in direct opposition to the truths generally

promulgated by General Assemblies, and the lesser lights of the

Church. Mrs. Emma R. Coe took an equally defiant position toward the

Bench and the Bar, coolly assuming that she understood the spirit of

Constitutions and Statute Laws. Some lawyer had made a criticism on

the woman's petition then circulating in Ohio, and essayed to give the

Convention some light on the laws of the State, to all of which Mrs.

Coe says:

I have very little to say this evening beyond reading a letter,

received by me to-day. (Here follows the letter). I beg leave to

inform the gentleman, if he is present, that I believe I

understand these laws, and this point particularly, very nearly

as well as himself; and that I am well acquainted with the laws

passed since 1840, as with those enacted previous to that time. I

would also inform him that the committee, some of whom are much

better read in law than myself, were perfectly aware of the

existence of the statutes he mentions, but did not see fit to

incorporate them into the petition, not only on account of their

great length, but because they do not at all invalidate the

position which the petition affects to establish, viz: the

inequality of the sexes before the law. Their insertion,

therefore, would have been utterly superfluous. This letter

refers, evidently, to that portion of the petition which treats

of the equalization of property, which I will now read. (Then

follows the reading of one paragraph of the petition). Again I

refer you to the letter, the first paragraph of which is as

follows:

"Mrs. Emma R. Coe, will you look at Vol. 44, General Laws of

Ohio, page 75, where you will find that the property of the wife

can not be taken for the debts of her husband, etc.; and all

articles of household furniture, and goods which a wife shall

have brought with her in marriage, or which shall have come to

her by bequest, gift, etc., after marriage, or purchased with her

separate money or other property, shall be exempt from liability

for the debts of her husband, during her life, and during the

life of any heir of her body."

Very true: we readily admit the law of which the gentleman has

given an abstract; and so long as the wife holds the property in

her hands, just as she received it, it can not be taken for the

husband's debts, but the moment she permits her husband to

convert that property into another shape, it becomes his, and may

be taken for his debts. The gentleman I presume will admit this

at once.

The next paragraph of the letter reads thus: "Also in Vol. 51,

General Laws of Ohio, page 449, the act regulating descent, etc.,

provides, that real estate, which shall have come to the wife by

descent, devise, or gift, from her ancestor, shall

descend--first, to her children, or their legal representatives.

Second, if there be no children, or their legal representatives

living, the estate shall pass to the brothers and sisters of the

intestate, who may be of the blood of the ancestor from whom the

estate came, or their legal representatives," etc. True again: So

long as the wife holds real estate in her own name, in title,

and in title only, it is hers; for her husband even then controls

its profits, and if she leave it so, it will descend to her heirs

so long as she has an heir, and so long as she can trace the

descent. But if she suffers her husband to sell that property and

receive the money, it instantly becomes his; and instead of

descending to her heirs, it descends to his heirs. This the

gentleman will not deny. Now, we readily admit, that while the

wife abides by the statutes, of which our article has given us an

abstract, her husband can not take the property from her, he can

only take the use of it. But the moment she departs from the

statute, she comes under the provisions of the common law; which,

when they do not conflict, is equally binding in Ohio, as the

statute law. And in this case the common and statute laws do not

conflict. Departing from the statute, that is, suffering her

property to be exchanged, the provision is thus: (Here follows

the common law, taken from the petition). I have nothing further

to add on this point, but will quote the last paragraphs in the

letter.

"If you would know what our laws are, you must refer to the laws

passed in Ohio since 1840."

This has already been answered.

"You said last night, that the property of the wife passed to the

husband, even to his sixteenth cousin! Will you correct your

error? And oblige A BUCKEYE."

I should be extremely happy to oblige the gentleman, but having

committed no error there is nothing to correct; and I do not,

therefore, see that I can in conscience comply with his request.

I am, however, exceedingly thankful for any expression of

interest from that quarter. There are other laws which might be

mentioned, which really give woman an apparent advantage over

man; yet, having no relevancy to the subject in the petition, we

did not see fit to introduce them. One of these is, that no woman

shall be subject to arrest and imprisonment for debt; while no

man, that is, no ordinary man, none unless he has a halo of

military glory around his brow, is held sacred from civil process

of this kind. But this exemption is of very little benefit to

woman, since, if the laws were as severe to her as to man, she

would seldom risk the penalty. For this there are two very good

reasons. One is, that conscious of her inability to discharge

obligations of this kind, she has little disposition to run

deeply into debt; and the other is, that she has not the credit

to do it if she wished! If, however, she does involve herself in

this way, the law exempts her from imprisonment. This, perhaps,

is offered as a sort of palliation for the disabilities which she

suffers in other respects. The only object of the petition is, I

believe, that the husband and wife be placed upon a legal and

political equality. If the law gives woman an advantage over man,

we deprecate it as much as he can. Partiality to either, to the

injury of the other, is wrong in principle, and we must therefore

oppose it. We do not wish to be placed in the position which the

husband now occupies. We do not wish that control over his

interests, which he may now exercise over the interests of the

wife. We would no sooner intrust this power to woman than to man.

We would never place her in authority over her husband.

The question of woman's voting, of the propriety of woman's

appearing at the polls, is already settled. See what has been

done in Detroit: On the day of the late election, the women went

to the offices and stores of gentlemen, asking them if they had

voted. If the reply happened to be in the negative, as was often

the case, the next question was, "Will you be kind enough to take

this vote, sir, and deposit it in the ballot-box for me?" Which

was seldom, if ever, refused. And so, many a man voted for the

"Maine Law," who would not, otherwise, have voted at all. But

this was not all; many women kept themselves in the vicinity of

the polls, and when they found a man undecided, they ceased not

their entreaties until they had gained him to the Temperance

cause. More than this, two women finding an intemperate man in

the street, talked to him four hours, before they could get him

to promise to vote as they wished. Upon his doing so, they

escorted him, one on each side, to the ballot-box, saw him

deposit the vote they had given him, and then treated him to a

good supper.

Now, this is more than any Woman's Rights advocate ever thought

of proposing. Yet no one thinks of saying a word against it,

because it was done for temperance. But how much worse would it

have been for those women to have gone to the polls with a

brother or husband, instead of with this man? Or to have

deposited two votes in perhaps five minutes' time, than to have

spent four hours in soliciting some other person to give one? Why

is it worse to go to the ballot-box with our male friends, than

to the church, parties, or picnics, etc.? If a man should control

the political principles of his wife, he should also control her

religious principles.

CHARLES C. BURLEIGH: Among the resolutions which have been acted

upon and adopted by this meeting is one which affirms that for

man to attempt to fix the sphere of woman, is cool assumption. I

purpose to take that sentiment for the text of a few words of

remark this evening, for it is just there that I think the whole

controversy hinges. It is not so much what is woman's appropriate

sphere; it is not so much what she may do and what she may not

do, that we have to contend about; as whether one human being or

one class of human beings is to fix for another human being, or

another class of human beings, the proper field of action and the

proper mode of employing the faculties which God has given them.

If I understand aright the principles of liberty, just here is

the point of controversy, between the despot and the champion of

human rights, in any department. Just when one human being

assumes to decide for another what is that other's sphere of

action, just then despotism begins. Everything else is but the

legitimate consequence of this.

I have said it is not so much a matter of controversy what woman

may do or may not do. Why, it would be a hard matter to say what

has been recognized by men themselves, as the legitimate sphere

of woman. We have a great deal of contradiction and opposition

nowadays when woman attempts to do this, that, or the other

thing, although that very thing has sometime or other, and

somewhere or other, been performed or attempted to be performed

by woman, with man's approval. If you talk about politics, why,

woman's participation in politics is no new thing, is no mere

assumption on her part, but has been recognized as right and

proper by men.

You have already been told of distinguished women who have borne

a very prominent part in politics, both in ancient and modern

times, and yet the multitude of men have believed and

acknowledged that it was all right; and are now acknowledging it

with all the enthusiasm of devoted loyalty. They are now

acknowledging it in the case of an Empire on which it has been

said that the sun never sets--an Empire, "The morning drumbeat of

whose military stations circles the earth with one continued peal

of the martial airs of England." It is recognized, too, not by

the ignorant and thoughtless only, or the radical and heretical

alone, but also by multitudes of educated and pious men. That

bench of Bishops, sitting in the House of Lords, receiving its

very warrant to act politically, from the hands of a woman,

listening to a speech from a woman on the throne, endorses every

day the doctrine that a woman may engage in politics.

If you seize the young tree, when it just begins to put forth to

the air and sunshine and dews, and bend it in all directions for

fear it will not grow in proper shape, do not hold the tree

accountable for its distortion. There is no danger that from

acorns planted last year, pine trees will grow, if you do not

take some special care to prevent it. There is no danger that

from an apple will grow an oak, or, from a peach-stone an elm;

leave nature to work out her own results, or, in other words,

leave God to work out His own purpose, and be not so anxious to

intrude yourselves upon Him and to help Him govern the Universe

He has made. Some of us have too high an estimation of His

goodness and wisdom to be desirous of thrusting ourselves into

His government. We are willing to leave the nature of woman to

manifest itself in its own aptitudes. Try it. Did one ever trust

in God and meet with disappointment? Never! Tyrants always say it

is not safe to trust their subjects with freedom. Austria says it

is not safe to trust the Hungarian with freedom. Man says woman

is not safe in freedom, she will get beyond her sphere.

After having oppressed her for centuries, what wonder if she

should rebound, and at the first spring, even manifest that law

of reaction somewhat to your inconvenience, and somewhat even

beyond the dictates of the wisest judgment. What then? Is the

fault to be charged to the removal of the restraint; or is it to

be charged to the first imposition of the restraint? The

objection of our opponents remind one of the Irishman walking

among the bushes just behind his companion, who caught hold of a

branch, and passing on, let it fly back into the face of his

friend; "Indade I am thankful to ye!" said the injured man, "for

taking hold of that same; it a'most knocked the brains out of me

body as it was, an' sure, if ye hadn't caught hold of it, it

would have kilt me intirely!"

The winds come lashing over your lake, the waters piling upon

each other, wave rolling upon wave, and you may say what a pity

we could not bridge the lake over with ice, so as to keep down

these billows which may rise so high as to submerge us. But stand

still! God has fixed the law upon the waters, "thus far shalt

thou come"; and as you watch the ever piling floods, it secures

their timely downfall. When they come as far as their appointed

limits, the combing crest of the wave tells that the hour of

safety has arrived, proving that God was wiser than you in

writing down laws for His creation. We need not bridge over

woman's nature with the ice of conventionalism, for fear she will

swell up, aye, and overflow the continent of manhood. There is no

danger. Trust to the nature God has given to humanity, and do not

except the nature He has given to this portion of humanity.

But I need not dwell upon such an argument before an audience who

have witnessed the bearing of women in this Convention. It is a

cool, aye, insolent assumption for man to prescribe the sphere of

woman. What is the sphere of woman? Clearly, you say, her powers,

her natural instincts and desires determine her sphere. Who,

then, best knows those instincts and desires? Is it he who has

all his knowledge at second-hand, rather than she who has it in

all her consciousness?

If, then, you find in the progress of the race hitherto, that

woman has revealed herself pure, true, and beautiful, and lofty

in spirit, just in proportion as she has enjoyed the right to

reveal herself; if this is the testimony of all past experience,

I ask you where you will find the beginning of an argument

against the claim of woman to the right to enlarge her sphere yet

more widely, than she has hitherto done. Wait until you see some

of these apprehended evils, aye, a little later even, than that,

until you see the natural subsidence of the reaction from the

first out-bound of their oppression, before you tell us it is not

safe or wise to permit woman the enlargement of her own sphere.

The argument which I have thus based upon the very nature of man,

and of humanity and God, is confirmed in every particular--is

most impregnably fortified on every point, by the facts of all

past experience and all present observation; and out of all this

evidence of woman's right and fitness to determine her own

sphere, I draw a high prophecy of the future. I look upon this

longing of hers for a yet higher and broader field, as an

evidence that God designed her to enter upon it.

"Want, is the garner of our bounteous Sire;

Hunger, the promise of its own supply."

I might even add the rest of the passage as an address to woman

herself, who still hesitates to assert the rights which she feels

to be hers and longs to enjoy; I might repeat to her in the words

of the same poet:

"We weep, because the good we seek is not,

When but for _this_ it is not, that we weep;

We creep in dust to wail our lowly lot,

Which were not lowly, if we scorned to creep;

That which we _dare_ we shall be, when the will

Bows to prevailing Hope, its would-be to fulfill."

It can be done. This demand of woman can be nobly and

successfully asserted. It can be, because it is but the

out-speaking of the divine sentiment of woman. Let us not then

tremble, or falter, or despair--I know we shall not. I know that

those who have taken hold of this great work, and carried it

forward hitherto, against obloquy, and persecution, and

contempt, will not falter now. No! Every step is bearing us to a

higher eminence, and thus revealing a broader promise of hope, a

brighter prospect of success. Though they who are foremost in

this cause must bear obloquy and reproach, and though it may seem

to the careless looker-on, that they advance but little or not at

all; they know that the instinct which impels them being divine,

it can not be that they shall fail. They know that every quality

of their nature, every attribute of their Creator, is pledged to

their success.

"They never fail who gravely plead for right,

God's faithful martyrs can not suffer loss.

Their blazing faggots sow the world with light,

Heaven's gate swings open on their bloody cross."

Pres. MAHAN: If I would not be interrupting at all, there are a

few thoughts having weight upon my mind which I should be very

happy to express. I have nothing to say to excite controversy at

all, but there are things which are said, the ultimate bearing of

which I believe is not always understood. I have heard during

these discussions, things said which bear this aspect--that the

relation of ruler and subject is that of master and slave. The

idea of the equality of woman with man, seems to be argued upon

this idea. I am not now to speak whether it is lawful for man to

rule the woman at all; but I wish to make a remark upon the

principles of governor and governed. The idea seems to be

suggested that if the wife is subject to the husband, the wife is

a slave to the man--if He has said, in the sense in which some

would have it, even that the woman should be subject to the man,

and the wife to the husband, you will find that in no other

position will woman attain her dignity; for God has never dropped

an inadvertent thought, never penned an inadvertent line. There

is not a law or principle of His being, that whoever penned that

Book did not understand. There is not a right which that Book

does not recognize; and there is not a duty which man owes to

woman, or woman to man, that is not there enjoined. It is my firm

conviction, that there is but one thing to be done on this

subject--if the women of this State want the elective franchise,

they can have it. I don't believe it is in the heart of man to

refuse it. Only spread the truth, adhere to Woman's Rights, and

adhere to that one principle, and when the people are convinced

that her claim is just, it will be allowed.

Of Charles C. Burleigh the _Plain Dealer_ says:

This noble poet had not said much in the Convention. He had taken

no part in the interferences and interruptions of other

gentlemen, Mr. Barker and Mr. Nevin for instance.

When at length he took the stand he did indeed speak out a noble

defense of woman's rights. It was the only speech made before the

Convention by man in which the cause of woman was advocated

exclusively. When Mr. Burleigh arose, two or three geese hissed;

when he closed, a shower of applause greeted him.

We hope the reader will not weary of these debates. As the efforts of

many of our early speakers were extemporaneous, but little of what

they said will be preserved beyond this generation unless recorded

now. These debates show the wit, logic, and readiness of our women;

the clear moral perception, the courage, and honesty of our noble

Garrison; the skill and fiery zeal of Stephen Foster; the majesty and

beauty of Charles Burleigh; and, in Asa Mahan, the vain struggles of

the wily priest, to veil with sophistry the degrading slavery of

woman, in order to reconcile her position as set forth in certain

man-made texts of Scripture with eternal justice and natural law. Mr.

Mahan would not have been willing himself, to accept even the mild

form of subjection he so cunningly assigns to woman. The deadliest

opponents to the recognition of the equal rights of woman, have ever

been among the orthodox clergy as a class.

WORLD'S TEMPERANCE CONVENTION.

Just previous to this, two stormy Conventions had been held in the

city of New York; one called to discuss Woman's Rights, the other a

World's Temperance Convention. Thus many of the leaders of each

movement met for the first time to measure their powers of logic and

persuasion.

Antoinette L. Brown was appointed a delegate by two Temperance

associations. Her credentials were accepted, and she took her seat as

a member of the Convention; but when she arose to speak a tempest of

indignation poured upon her from every side. As this page in history

was frequently referred to in the Cleveland Convention, we will let

Miss Brown here tell her own story:

Why did we go to that World's Convention? We went there because

the call was extended to "the world." On the 12th of May a

preliminary meeting had been held at New York--the far-famed

meeting at the Brick Chapel. There, because of the objection

taken by some who were not willing to have the "rest of mankind"

come into the Convention, a part of those present withdrew. They

thought they would have a "Whole World's Temperance Convention,"

and they thought well, as the result proved. When it was known

that such a Convention would be called, that all persons would be

invited to consider themselves members of the Convention, who

considered themselves members of the world, some of the leaders

of the other Convention--the half world's Convention--felt that

if it were possible, they would not have such a meeting held;

therefore they took measures to prevent it. Now, let me read a

statement from another delegate to that Convention, Rev. Wm. H.

Channing, of Rochester. (Miss Brown read an extract from the

_Tribune_, giving the facts in regard to her appointment as

delegate, by a society of long standing, in Rochester, and

extracts, also, of letters from persons prominent in the Brick

Chapel meeting, urging Mr. Greeley to persuade his party to

abandon the idea of a separate Convention, a part of such

writers pleading that it was an unnecessary movement, as the call

to the World's Temperance Convention was broad enough, and

intended to include all). This appointment was made without my

knowledge or consent, but with my hearty endorsement, when I knew

it was done. Let me state also, that a society organized and for

years in existence in South Butler, N. Y., also appointed

delegates to that Convention, and myself among the number. They

did so because, though they knew the call invited all the world

to be present, yet they thought it best to have their delegations

prepared with credentials, if being prepared would do any good.

When we reached New York, we heard some persons saying that women

would be received as delegates, and others saying they would not.

We thought we ought to test that matter, and do it, too, as

delicately and quietly as possible. There were quite a number of

ladies appointed delegates to that meeting, but it was felt that

not many would be necessary to make the test of their sincerity.

We met at the Woman's Bights Convention on the day of the opening

of the half world's Temperance Convention, and had all decided to

be content with our own Temperance Convention, which had passed

off so quietly and triumphantly. Wendell Phillips and I sat

reconsidering the whole matter. I referred him to the fact, which

had come to me more than once during the few last days, that the

officials of the Convention in session at Metropolitan Hall, and

others, had been saying that women would be received no doubt;

that the Brick Chapel meeting was merely an informal preliminary

meeting, and its decisions of no authority upon the Convention

proper; and that the women were unjust in saying, that their

brethren would not accept their co-operation before it had been

fairly tested. Then, said Phillips, "Go, by all means; if they

receive you, you have only to thank them for rebuking the action

of the Brick Chapel meeting. Then we will withdraw and come back

to our own meeting. If, on the other hand, they do not receive

you, we will quietly and without protest, withdraw, and, in that

case, not be gone half an hour." I turned and invited one lady,

now on this platform, as gentle and lady-like as woman can be,

Caroline M. Severance, of your own city, to go with me. She said:

"I am quite willing to go, both in compliance with your wish, and

from interest in the cause itself. But I am not a delegate, and I

have in this city venerated grandparents, whose feelings I

greatly regard, and would not willingly or unnecessarily wound;

so that I prefer to go in quietly, but take no active part in

what will seem to them an antagonistic position for woman, and

uncalled for on my part. In that way I am quite ready to go." And

so we went out from our own meeting, Mr. Phillips, Mrs. S., and

myself; none others went with us, nor knew we were going.

After arriving at Metropolitan Hall, accompanied by these

friends, I did quietly what we had predetermined was the best to

do. The Secretary was sitting upon the platform. I handed him my

credentials from both societies. He said: "I can not now tell

whether you will be received or not. There is a resolution before

the house, stating, in substance, that they would receive all

delegates without distinction of color or sex. If this

resolution is adopted, you can be received." I then left my

credentials in his hands, and went down from the platform. It was

rather trying, in the sight of all that audience, to go upon the

platform and come down again; and I shall not soon forget the

sensations with which I stepped off the platform. After a little

time they decided that the call admitted all delegates. I thought

this decision settled my admission, and I went again upon the

platform. In the meantime a permanent organization was effected.

I went there, for the purpose of thanking them for their course,

and merely to express my sympathy with the cause and their

present movement, and then intended to leave the Hall. I arose,

and inquired of the President, Neal Dow, if I was rightly a

member of the Convention. He said, "Yes, if you have credentials

from any abstinence societies." I told him I had, and then

attempted to thank him. There was no appeal from the President's

decision, but yet they would not receive my expression of thanks;

therefore I took my seat and waited for a better opportunity.

And now let me read a paragraph again from this paper, the

temperance organ of your State. The writer is still Gen. Carey.

(The extract intimated that Miss Brown, supported and urged on by

several others, made an unwomanly entrance into the Convention,

and upon the platform itself, which was reserved for officers,

and as it would imply, already filled). There were only the two

other persons I mentioned who went with me to that Convention,

but they took their seats back among the audience, and did not

approach the platform. There were friends I found in that

audience to sustain me, but none others came with me for that

purpose. The platform was far from being full; it is a large

platform, and there might a hundred persons sit there, and not

incommode each other at all.

(Here Miss Brown read another extract from the same article, in

which Gen. Carey implies, that concerted measures had been set on

foot at the Woman's Rights meeting at the Tabernacle, the evening

after Miss Brown's first attempt at a hearing before the

Temperance Convention, for coming in upon them again _en masse_,

and revengefully).

Not a word was said that night upon the subject in the Convention

at the Tabernacle, except what was said by myself; and I said

what I did, because some one inquired whether I was hissed on

going upon the platform. As to that matter, when I went upon the

platform I was not hissed, at others times I did not know whether

they hissed me or others, and

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

I stated some of the facts to our own Convention, but I did not

refer to this resolution (the one which was to exclude all but

officers or invited guests from the platform), for I was not

entirely clear with regard to the nature of it, it was passed in

so much confusion. I did state this, that there had been a

discussion raised upon such a resolution, and that it was decided

that only officers and invited guests should sit upon the

platform; but that they had received me as a delegate, and had

thus revoked the action of the Brick Chapel meeting, and that on

the morrow Neal Dow might invite me to sit upon the platform.

That was the substance of my remarks, and not one word of

objection was taken, or reply made by our Convention.

I read again from this paper. (An extract implying that among the

measures taken to browbeat the Convention into receiving Miss

Brown, was the forming of a society instantly, under the special

urgency of herself and friends, for this especial object, etc.)

That again is a statement without foundation. I intend to-night

to use no harsh words, and I shall say nothing with regard to

motives. You may draw your own conclusions in regard to all this.

I shall state dispassionately, the simple, literal facts as they

occurred, and they may speak for themselves.

When Wendell Phillips went out of the Convention, he told persons

with whom he came in contact, that a delegate had been received

by the President, and that delegate had been insulted, and nobody

had risen to sustain her. He said to me, too, "I shall not go

to-morrow, but do you go. I can do nothing for you, because I am

not a delegate." There were a few earnest friends in New York,

however, who felt that the rights of a delegate were sacred. They

organized a society and appointed just three delegates to that

Temperance Convention. Those three persons were Wendell Phillips,

of Boston; Mr. Cleveland, one of the editors of the Tribune; and

Mr. Gibbon, son-in-law of the late venerated Isaac T. Hopper. The

last two were men from New York City. The question was already

decided that women might be received as delegates to that

Convention; therefore there was no need of appointing any one to

insist upon woman's right to appear, and no one was appointed for

that purpose.

The next morning we went there with Mr. Phillips, who presented

his credentials. During the discussion, Mr. Phillips took part,

and persisted in holding the Convention to parliamentary rules.

He carried in his hand a book of rules, which is received

everywhere as authority, and when he saw that they were wrong, he

quoted the standard authority to them. After a while the

preliminary business was disposed of, and various resolutions

were brought forward. I arose, and the President said I had the

floor. I was invited upon the stand, and was therefore an

"invited guest" within their own rules; but when once there, I

was not allowed to speak, although the President said repeatedly

that the floor was mine. The opposition arose from a dozen or

more around the platform, who were incessantly raising "points of

order"--the extempore bantlings of great minds in great

emergencies. For the space of three hours I endeavored to be

heard, but they would not hear me (although as a delegate, and I

spoke simply as a delegate), I could have spoken but ten minutes

by a law of the house. Twice the President was sustained in his

decision by the house; but finally some one insisted that there

might be persons voting in the house who were not delegates, and

it was decided that the Hall should be cleared by the police, and

that those who were delegates might come in, one by one, and

resume their seats.

There were printed lists of the delegates of the Convention, but

there were several new delegates whose names were not on the

lists. Wendell Phillips and his colleagues were among them. He

went to the President and said: "I rely upon you to be admitted

to the Hall, for we know that our names are not yet on the list."

The President assented. As the delegates returned, the names

upon the printed lists were called, and while the rest of us were

earnest to be admitted to the house, and while they were

examining our credentials and deciding whether or not we should

be received, Neal Dow had gone out of the Hall, and Gen. Carey

had taken the Chair! The action of a part of the delegates who

were in the house while the other part were shut out, was like to

nothing that ever had occurred in the annals of parliamentary

history. Those persons who came in afterward, asked what was the

business before the house, and on being informed, moved that it

be reconsidered. The President decided upon putting it to the

house, that they had not voted in the affirmative, and would not

reconsider. Gen. Samuel F. Carey is a man of firmness, and I

could not but admire the firmness with which he presided,

although I felt that his decisions were wrong. "Gentlemen," said

he, "there can be no order when you are raising so many points of

order; take your seats!" and they took their seats.

Previous to the adjournment, a question was raised about Wendell

Phillips' credentials, and again next morning they raised it and

decided it against him, so that he felt all further effort vain,

and left the Hall. After this, there came up a multitude of

resolutions, which were passed so rapidly that no one could get

the opportunity of speaking to them. A resolution also written by

Gen. Carey, was presented by him, as follows:

"_Resolved_, That the common usages have excluded women from the

public platform," etc.

That resolution, amid great confusion, was declared as passed. Of

course, then soon after, I left the Hall. I ought to say, in

regard to Mr. Phillips' credentials, that they had been referred

to a committee, who decided that he had not properly been sent to

the Convention, for no reason in the world, but because the

society who sent him, had been organized only the night before;

while I know positively, and others knew, that there were

societies organized one week before, for the very purpose of

sending delegates to that Convention; which societies will never

be heard of again, I fear. But the Neal Dow Association, of New

York, exists yet. Their society shall not die; so good comes out

of evil often.

A motion was also made by some one, as better justice to Mr.

Phillips, to refer the credentials of all the delegates of

Massachusetts to the Committee on Credentials, but for very

obvious and prudent reasons, it was not suffered to have a

moment's hearing or consideration. (Miss Brown here read a few

additional lines from the same article, asserting that she was

merely the tool of others, and thrust by them upon the platform;

and charging all the disorder and disturbance of that Convention

to herself and friends, etc.) I needed no thrusting upon the

platform. I was able to rise and speak without urging or

suggestion. And as to the disorder which prevailed throughout the

Convention, who made that disorder? I said not a word to cause

it, for they gave me no opportunity to say a word, and the other

delegates with me, sat quietly. No mention is made in this paper

that I had credentials. It is stated that throughout Ohio the

impression is that I had none; and it is generally believed that

I went there without proper credentials.

One word more as to Mr. Carey. He says, "The negro question was

not discussed as Greeley & Co. wished it to be. O Greeley, how

art thou fallen!" These are Gen. Carey's words, not mine. Mr.

Greeley has risen greatly in my estimation, and not fallen. A

colored delegate[18] did take his credentials to the Convention,

but he was not received. I saw him myself, and asked him what

could be done about it. He folded up his hands and said it was

too late. And this was a "World's Temperance Convention!"

And this paper says that the _New York Tribune_, which has

usually been an accredited sheet, has most shamefully

misrepresented the whole affair, and refers to what was said in

the _Tribune_, as to what the Convention had accomplished: "The

first day, crowding a woman from the platform; second day,

gagging her; and the third day voting she should stay gagged;"

and asserts that it is a misrepresentation.

The evenings of that Convention were not devoted to this

discussion, and wore not noisy or fruitless. There were burning

words spoken for temperance during the evenings; but whether the

_Tribune's_ report of the day-sessions be correct or not, you

yourselves can be the judges. I must say, however, the _Tribune_

did not misrepresent that affair in its regular report; and I

call upon Gen. Carey, in all kindness and courtesy; to point out

just what the misstatements are--and upon any one acquainted with

the facts, to show the false statement, if it can be shown.

And now I leave the action of the Convention to say what were our

motives in going there. From what I have related of the

circumstances which conspired to induce us to go, and the manner

of our going, you can but see that no absurd desire for

notoriety, no coveting of such unenviable fame as we know must

await us, were the inducements. And as a simple fact, there was

nothing so very important in a feeble woman's going as a delegate

to that Convention; but the fact was made an unpleasant one in

the experience of that delegate, and was blown into notoriety by

the unmanly action of that Convention itself. But what were our

reasons for going to that Convention? Did we go there to forward

the cause of Temperance or to forward the cause of woman, or what

were our motives in going? Woman was pleading her own cause in

the Convention at the Tabernacle, and she had no need that any

should go there to forward her cause for her; and much as I love

temperance, and love those poor sisters who suffer because of

intemperance, it was not especially to plead their cause that I

went there. I went to assert a principle, a principle relevant to

the circumstances of the World's Convention to be sure, but one,

at the same time, which, acknowledged, must forward all good

causes, and, disregarded, must retard them. I went there, asking

no favor as a woman, asking no special recognition of the

woman-cause. I went there in behalf of the cause of humanity. I

went there, asking the indorsement of no ism, and as the exponent

of no measure, but as a simple item of the world in the name of

the world, claiming that all the sons and daughters of the race

should be received in that Convention, if they went there with

the proper credentials. I simply planted my feet upon the rights

of a delegate. I asked for nothing more, and dare take nothing

less. The principle which we were there to assert, was that which

is the soul of the Golden Rule, the soul of that which says, "All

things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye

even so unto them." I went there to see if they would be true to

their own call, and recognize delegates without distinction of

color, sex, creed, party, or condition; to see if they would

recognize each member of the human family, as belonging to the

human family; to see if they would grant the simple rights of a

delegate to all delegates.

And do you ask, did this not retard the cause of Temperance? No;

it carried it forward, as it carries every good cause forward. It

awakened thought, and mankind need only to be aroused to thought,

to forever destroy all wrong customs, and among them the rum

traffic. They need only to think to the purpose, and when this

shall be done, all good causes are bound to go forward together.

Christianity is the heart and soul of them all, and those reforms

which seek to elevate mankind and better their condition, cling

around our Christianity, and are a part of it. They are like the

cluster of grapes, all clinging about the central stem.

A wrong was done in that Convention to a delegate, and many

people saw and felt that wrong, and they began to inquire for the

cause of it; and so the causes of things were searched more

nearly than before, and this was a good which promoted

temperance. It is absurd to believe that any man or woman is any

less a temperance man or woman, or a "Maine law" man or woman

now, than before. If ever they loved that cause they love it now

as before.

Water is the very symbol of democracy! a single jet of it in a

tube will balance the whole ocean. We went there, only to claim

in the name of Democracy and Christianity, that all be treated

alike and impartially. The human soul is a holy thing; it is the

temple of living joy or sorrow. It is freighted with vital

realities. It can outlengthen Heaven itself, and it should be

reverenced everywhere, and treated always as a holy thing. We

only went there in the name of the world, in the name of

humanity, to promote a good cause; and it is what I pledge myself

now anew to do, at all times and under all circumstances, when

the opportunity shall present itself to me. It was a good act, a

Christian duty, to go there under those circumstances.

But let me now leave this matter, and say something which may

have a direct bearing upon the circumstances of our Convention,

and show why it is proper to bring up these facts here. Let us

suppose ourselves gathered in Metropolitan Hall. It is a large

hall, with two galleries around its sides. I could see men up

there in checked blouses, who looked as though they might disturb

a Convention, but they looked down upon the rowdyism of the

platform, a thing unprecedented before, with simple expressions

of wonder, while they were quiet. Well, here we are upon the

platform. The President is speaking.

PRESIDENT: "Miss Brown has the floor."

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

PRESIDENT: "State your point of order."

It is stated, but at the same time, in the general whirl and

confusion all around, another voice from the floor exclaims: "I

rise to a point of order!"

The PRESIDENT: "State it!"

But while these things are going on, a voice arises, "She sha'n't

speak!" another, "She sha'n't be heard!" another, "You raise a

point of order when he is done, and I will raise another." In the

confusion I hear something almost like swearing, but not

swearing, for most of those men are "holy men," who do not think

of swearing. The confusion continues. Most of this time I am

standing, but presently a chair is presented me, and now a new

class of comforters gathers around me, speaking smooth, consoling

words in my ear while upon the other side are angry disputants,

clinching their fists and growing red in the face. Are the former

good Samaritans, pouring into my wounded heart the oil and the

wine? Listen. "I know you are acting conscientiously; but now

that you have made your protest, do, for your own sake, withdraw

from this disgraceful scene."

"I can not withdraw," I say; "it is not now the time to withdraw;

here is a principle at stake."

"Well, in what way can you better the cause? Do you feel you are

doing any good?" Another voice chimes in with: "Do you love the

Temperance cause? Can you continue here and see all this

confusion prevailing around you? Why not withdraw, and then the

Convention will be quiet;" and all this in most mournful,

dolorous tones. I think if the man cries, I shall certainly cry

too.

But then a new interval of quiet occurs, and so I rise to get the

floor. I fancy myself in a melting mood enough to beg them, with

prayers and tears, to be just and righteous; but no, "this kind

goeth not out by prayer and fasting," and so I stand up again.

Directly Rev. John Chambers points his finger at me, and calls

aloud: "Shame on the woman! Shame on the woman!" Then I feel cool

and calm enough again, and sit down until his anger has way.

Again the "friends" gather around me, and there come more appeals

to me, while the public ear is filled with "points of order"; and

the two fall together, in a somewhat odd, but very pointed

contrast, somewhere in the center of my brain. "Do you think,"

says one, "that Christ would have done so?" spoken with a

somewhat negative emphasis. "I think He would," spoken with a

positive emphasis. "Do you love peace as well as Christ loved it,

and can you do thus?"

What answer I made I know not, but there came rushing over my

soul the words of Christ: "I came not to send peace, but a

sword." It seems almost to be spoken with an audible voice, and

it sways the spirit more than all things else. I remember that

Christ's doctrine was, "first pure, then peaceable;" that He,

too, was persecuted. So are my doctrines good; they ask only for

the simple rights of a delegate, only that which must be

recognized as just, by the impartial Father of the human race,

and by His holy Son. Then come these mock pleading tones again

upon my ear, and instinctively I think of the Judas kiss, and I

arise, turning away from them all, and feeling a power which may,

perhaps, never come to me again. There were angry men confronting

me, and I caught the flashing of defiant eyes; but above me, and

within me, and all around me, there was a spirit stronger than

they all. At that moment not the combined powers of earth and

hell could have tempted me to do otherwise than to stand firm.

Moral and physical cowardice were subdued, thanks to that

Washington delegate for the sublime strength roused by his

question: "Would Christ have done so?"

That stormy scene is passed; that memorable time when chivalrous

men forgot the deference, which according to their creed is due

to woman, and forgot it as they publicly said, because a woman

claimed a right upon the platform; and so they neither recognized

her equality of rights, nor her conceded courtesy as a lady. This

was neither just nor gallant, but to me it was vastly preferable

to those appeals made to me as a lady--appeals which never would

have been made to a man under the same circumstances; and which

only served to show me the estimation in which they held

womanhood. It reminded me of a remark which was made concerning

the Brick Chapel meeting: "If you had spoken words of flattery,

they would have done what you wanted."

Let the past be the past. "Let the dead bury their dead,"

contains truths we well may heed. Is God the impartial Father of

humanity? Is He no respecter of persons? Is it true that there is

known neither male nor female in Christ Jesus? In my heart of

hearts, I believe it is all true. I believe it is the foundation

of the Golden Rule. And now let me tell you in conclusion: if it

be true, this truth shall steal into your souls like the accents

of childhood; it shall come like a bright vision of hope to the

desponding; it shall flash upon the incredulous; it shall twine

like a chain of golden arguments about the reason of the skeptic.

WM. LLOYD GARRISON, having listened to the narration of the

action of the World's Convention in New York, said: I rise to

offer some resolutions by which the sense of this Convention may

be obtained. I happened to be an eyewitness of these proceedings,

and I bear witness to the accuracy of the account given us this

evening by Miss Brown. I have seen many tumultuous meetings in my

day, but I think on no occasion have I ever seen anything more

disgraceful to our common humanity, than when Miss Brown

attempted to speak upon the platform of the World's Temperance

Convention in aid of the glorious cause which had brought that

Convention together. It was an outbreak of passion, contempt,

indignation, and every vile emotion of the soul, throwing into

the shade almost everything coming from the vilest of the vile,

that I have ever witnessed on any occasion or under any

circumstances; venerable men, claiming to be holy men, the

ambassadors of Jesus Christ, losing all self-respect and

transforming themselves into the most unmannerly and violent

spirits, merely on account of the sex of the individual who

wished to address the assembly.

Miss Brown was asked while standing on the platform, "Do you love

the temperance cause?" What could have been more insulting than

such a question as that at that moment? What but the temperance

cause had brought her to the Convention? Why had she been

delegated to take her seat in that body except on the ground that

she was a devoted friend of the temperance enterprise, and had an

interest in every movement pertaining to the total abstinence

cause? She had been delegated there by total abstinence societies

because of her fitness as a temperance woman to advocate the

temperance cause, so dear to the hearts of all those who love

perishing humanity. Was it the love of the temperance cause that

raised the outcry against her? or was it not simply contempt of

woman, and an unwillingness that she should stand up anywhere to

bear her testimony against popular wrongs and crimes, the curses

of the race?

MISS BROWN: Allow me to state one incident. A Doctor of Divinity

was present at the meeting. His son and daughter-in-law stated to

me the fact. "I said to my father, you had stormy times at the

Convention to-day." "Yes," said the father, "stormy times." Said

the son, "Why didn't you allow her to speak?" "Ah," said the

Doctor, "it was the principle of the thing!" But it so happened

that the son and daughter thought the principle a wrong one.

Mr. Garrison: Yes, it was the principle that was at stake. It was

not simply the making of a speech at that Convention, by a woman.

By her speaking something more was implied, for if woman could

speak there and for that object, she might speak elsewhere for

another object, and she might, peradventure, as my friend does,

proceed to occupy a pulpit and settle over a congregation. In

fact, there is no knowing where the precedent would lead;

reminding me of the man who hesitated to leave off his profanity,

because having left that off he should have to leave off

drinking, and if he left off drinking he should have to leave off

his tobacco and other vile habits. He liked symmetry of

character, and so he was unwilling to take the first step toward

reform.

The principle for which Miss Brown contended, was this: every

society has a right to determine who shall represent it in

convention. Invitation was given to the "whole world" to meet

there in convention, to promote the cause of Temperance. Our

friend needed no credentials under the call. It is true all

societies were invited to send delegates, but in addition to that

all the friends of Temperance throughout the world were expressly

and earnestly invited to be present, and under that last express

invitation she had a right to come in as an earnest friend of the

cause, and take her seat in the Convention. When a body like that

comes together, the principle is this, each delegate stands on

the same footing as every other delegate, and no one delegate nor

any number of delegates has a right to exclude any other delegate

who has been sent there by any like society. Our friend had

credentials from two societies, and thus was doubly armed; but

she was put down by a most disgraceful minority of the

Convention, who succeeded in carrying their point. In view of all

this, I would present for the action of this Convention the

following resolutions:

WHEREAS, a cordial invitation having been extended to all

temperance societies and all the friends of temperance throughout

the world, to meet personally or by delegates in a "World's

Temperance Convention" in the city of New York, Sept. 6th and

7th, 1853;

And whereas, accepting this invitation in the spirit in which it

was apparently given, the "South Butler Temperance Association,"

and the "Rochester Toronto Division of the Sons of Temperance,"

duly empowered the Rev. Antoinette L. Brown, to act in that

Convention as their delegate, representative, and advocate.

And whereas, on presenting herself at the time specified, her

credentials were received by the Committee on the roll of the

Convention, but on rising to address the assembly (though

declared by the President to be entitled to the floor, and

although his decision was repeatedly sustained by a majority of

the delegates) she was met with derisive outcries, insulting

jeers, and the most rowdyish manifestations, by a shameless

minority, led on by the Rev. John Chambers, of Philadelphia, and

encouraged by Gen. Carey, of Ohio, and other professed friends of

the temperance cause--so as to make it impossible for her to be

heard, and thus virtually excluding her from the Convention in an

ignominious manner, solely on account of her being a woman;

therefore,

_Resolved_, That in the judgment of this Convention, the

treatment received by the Rev. Antoinette L. Brown in the

"World's Temperance Convention" (falsely so called) was in the

highest degree disgraceful to that body, insulting to the

societies whose credentials she bore, worthy only of those who

are filled with strong drink, and a scandal to the temperance

movement.

_Resolved_, That the thanks of this Convention be given to Miss

Brown, for having accepted the credentials so honorably proffered

to her by the temperance societies aforesaid, and claiming a

right, not as a woman, but as a duly authorized delegate, an

eloquent and devoted advocate of the temperance enterprise, to a

seat and voice in the "World's Temperance Convention;" and for

the firm, dignified, and admirable manner in which she met the

storm of opprobrium and insult which so furiously assailed her on

her attempting to advocate the beneficent movement for the

promotion of which the Convention was expressly called together.

Hon. JOSHUA R. GIDDINGS: Ladies and gentlemen, although I had

designed to take no active part in the proceedings, I can not

avoid rising, to second that resolution. When I learned of the

appointing of this Convention, it brought a thrill of joy to me.

I had read the transactions to which the lady has made such

feeling allusion. I had read and mourned over them, and I

rejoiced that an opportunity was to be given to the people of

Cleveland, and this Western Reserve, to tender their thanks to

this Convention, which had been appointed to meet upon the shores

of Lake Erie; and that they also might see what sort of a

greeting the friends of the rights of woman would receive here.

And I now rejoice at the hearty manner in which the Convention

has proceeded. I rejoice at the treatment the Convention has

received. Then I was about to say, the fogies of New York, if

they could see and know all that they might see here, would not

be like some spirits, whom Swedenborg says he saw in the other

world. He found spirits who had been departed several years, who

had not yet learned that they were dead. I think Rev. John

Chambers would now look down and begin to suspect that he had

departed.

My friends, I know not how the remarks of Miss Brown fell upon

your ears. I can only say that they struck me with deep feelings

of mortification, that at this noontide of the nineteenth century

any human being, who can give her thoughts to an assembly in the

eloquent manner in which she has spoken to us, has been treated

as she was; and when this resolution of reproof by my friend from

Massachusetts was presented, I resolved to rise and second it,

and express myself willing that it be sent out in the report,

that I most heartily concur in the expressions contained in these

resolutions.

WILLIAM L. GARRISON: I wish to make one statement in regard to

General Carey, to show that he does not himself act on consistent

principles, in this matter. The last number of the _Pennsylvania

Freeman_ contains an account of a temperance gathering held in

Kennett Square. That square is for that region the headquarters

of Abolitionists, Liberals, Come-outers, and so forth. In that

meeting women were appointed for Vice-Presidents and Secretaries

with men, and there was a complete mixture throughout the

committees without regard to sex; and who do you think were those

who spoke on that occasion recognizing that woman was equal with

man in that gathering? The first was G. W. Jackson, of Boston,

who made himself very conspicuous in the exclusion of women from

the "World's Convention"; second, Judge O'Neil, of South

Carolina, who spoke at New York, and who was also very active in

the efforts to exclude Miss Brown; last of all was General Carey,

of Ohio; and three days afterward they wended their way to New

York, and there conspired with others to prevent a delegate from

being admitted, on the ground of being a woman; showing that

while at old Kennett they were willing to conform, finding it

would be popular; in New York they joined in this brutal

proscription of a woman, only because she was a woman.

LUCY STONE: I know it is time to take the question upon these

resolutions, but I wish to say one word. When a world's

convention of any kind is called--when the Rev. Drs. Chambers,

Hewett, Marsh, and I don't know how many more, backed up by a

part of those who were in that convention, are ready to ignore

the existence of woman, it should show us something of the amount

of labor we have to do, to teach the world even to know that we

are a part of it; and when women tell us they don't want any more

rights, I want them to know that they are held to have no right

in any world's convention. I took up a book the other day,

written by the Rev. Mr. Davis, in which he sketches the events of

the last fifty years. He states that the Sandwich Islands at one

time had one missionary at such a station; Mr. Green--and his

wife! Then he went on to state another where there were nineteen,

and--their wives! Now these are straws on the surface, but they

indicate "which way the wind blows," and indicate, in some sense,

the estimation in which woman is held. I mention these facts so

that we may see something of the length of the way we must tread,

before we shall even be recognized.

The reader will see from these debates the amount of prejudice,

wickedness, and violence, woman was compelled to meet from all classes

of men, especially the clergy, in those early days, and on the other

hand the wisdom, courage, and mild self-assertion with which she

fought her battle and conquered. There is not a man living who took

part in that disgraceful row who would not gladly blot out that page

in his personal history. But the few noble men--lawyers, statesmen,

clergymen, philanthropists, poets, orators, philosophers--who have

remained steadfast and loyal to woman through all her struggles for

freedom--have been brave and generous enough to redeem their sex from

the utter contempt and distrust of all womankind.

NATIONAL CONVENTION AT CINCINNATI, OHIO.

In 1855, October 17th and 18th, the people of Cincinnati, Ohio, were

summoned to the consideration of the question of Woman's Rights. A

brief report in the city journals, is all we can find of the

proceedings. From these we learn that the meetings were held in

Nixon's Hall, that some ladies wore bloomers, and some gentlemen

shawls, that the audiences were large and enthusiastic, that the

curiosity to see women who could make a speech was intense. Martha C.

Wright, of Auburn, a sister of Lucretia Mott, was chosen President. On

the platform sat Mrs. Mott, Hannah Tracy Cutler, Josephine S.

Griffing, Mary S. Anthony, of Rochester, N. Y.; Ernestine L. Rose,

Adeline Swift, Joseph Barker, an Englishman, an ex-member of

Parliament, Lucy Stone and her husband, Henry B. Blackwell, recently

married. Mrs. Stone did not take her husband's name, because she

believed a woman had a right to an individual existence, and an

individual name to designate that existence.

After the election of officers,[19] the President stated the object of

the Convention to be to secure equality with man in social, civil, and

political rights. It was only seven years, she said, since this

movement commenced, since our first Convention was called, in timidity

and doubt of our own strength, our own capacity, our own powers; now,

east, west, north, and even south, there were found advocates of

woman's rights. The newspapers which ridiculed and slandered us at

first, are beginning to give impartial accounts of our meetings.

Newspapers do not lead, but follow public opinion; and doing so, they

go through three stages in regard to reforms; they first ridicule

them, then report them without comment, and at last openly advocate

them. We seem to be still in the first stage on this question.

Mrs. CUTLER said: "Let there be light, and there was light," "And

many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased."

This light, this increase of knowledge, we are seeking. Men have

always applied the last text to themselves, and did not expect

woman to run to and fro and increase in knowledge. They objected

to her raising her voice on this platform in the pursuit or

diffusion of knowledge; but when she is employed upon the stage

to minister to everything that pollutes and degrades man, no

voice was raised against it. It was but a few years ago that a

French queen brought over with her to the British Isles, a male

mantua-maker. It was not supposed then that woman was capable of

fitting woman's clothes properly. She has since advanced to have

the charge of man's wardrobe; and it will be right when the time

comes, for man to take care of himself. Conservatism opposes this

now; but I love conservatism; it is guarding our institutions

until the new mother is prepared to take the charge.

I desire that marriage shall not be simply a domestic union as in

early days, or a social one as it has now become, but a complete

and perfect union, conferring equal rights on both parties. I

desire light from the source of light. The question is frequently

asked, "What more do these women want?" A lady in Cincinnati told

me that she did not desire any change, for she thought we had now

entirely the best of it; while the men toiled in their shops and

offices, the women walked the streets splendidly dressed, or

lounged at home with nothing to do but spend the money their

husbands earned. I never understood the elevating effect of the

elective franchise until I went to England, where so few enjoy

it. I attended a political meeting during the canvass of Derby,

as a reporter for three or four political papers in the United

States. One of the candidates proposed to legislate for universal

suffrage; his opponent replied by showing the effect of it upon

France, which he declared was the only country in which it

existed. "You forget," exclaimed one, "America!" "America! never

name her! a land of three millions of slaves." The multitude

would not believe this; they shouted in derision, whenever the

speaker attempted to resume. America was their last hope. If that

country was given up to slavery, they could only despair. Party

leaders rose and tried to calm them as Christ calmed the sea, but

they could do nothing. "You are an American," said one near me;

"get up and defend your country!" What could I say? I spoke,

however, and pledged them that the stain of slavery should be

wiped out.

Mr. WISE, of North Carolina, made a long and learned address,

treating principally of geology and women. He claimed for woman

more even than she for herself. He said: "Women are generally

more competent to vote than their husbands, and sisters better

fitted to be judges than their brothers, the mother more capable

of wisely exercising the elective franchise than her booby son."

LUCY STONE said: The last speaker alluded to this movement as

being that of a few disappointed women. From the first years to

which my memory stretches, I have been a disappointed woman.

When, with my brothers, I reached forth after the sources of

knowledge, I was reproved with "It isn't fit for you; it doesn't

belong to women." Then there was but one college in the world

where women were admitted, and that was in Brazil. I would have

found my way there, but by the time I was prepared to go, one was

opened in the young State of Ohio--the first in the United States

where women and negroes could enjoy opportunities with white men.

I was disappointed when I came to seek a profession worthy an

immortal being--every employment was closed to me, except those

of the teacher, the seamstress, and the housekeeper. In

education, in marriage, in religion, in everything,

disappointment is the lot of woman. It shall be the business of

my life to deepen this disappointment in every woman's heart

until she bows down to it no longer. I wish that women, instead

of being walking show-cases, instead of begging of their fathers

and brothers the latest and gayest new bonnet, would ask of them

their rights.

The question of Woman's Rights is a practical one. The notion has

prevailed that it was only an ephemeral idea; that it was but

women claiming the right to smoke cigars in the streets, and to

frequent bar-rooms. Others have supposed it a question of

comparative intellect; others still, of sphere. Too much has

already been said and written about woman's sphere. Trace all the

doctrines to their source and they will be found to have no basis

except in the usages and prejudices of the age. This is seen in

the fact that what is tolerated in woman in one country is not

tolerated in another. In this country women may hold

prayer-meetings, etc., but in Mohammedan countries it is written

upon their mosques, "Women and dogs, and other impure animals,

are not permitted to enter." Wendell Phillips says, "The best and

greatest thing one is capable of doing, that is his sphere." I

have confidence in the Father to believe that when He gives us

the capacity to do anything He does not make a blunder. Leave

women, then, to find their sphere. And do not tell us before we

are born even, that our province is to cook dinners, darn

stockings, and sew on buttons. We are told woman has all the

rights she wants; and even women, I am ashamed to say, tell us

so. They mistake the politeness of men for rights--seats while

men stand in this hall to-night, and their adulations; but these

are mere courtesies. We want rights. The flour-merchant, the

house-builder, and the postman charge us no less on account of

our sex; but when we endeavor to earn money to pay all these,

then, indeed, we find the difference. Man, if he have energy, may

hew out for himself a path where no mortal has ever trod, held

back by nothing but what is in himself; the world is all before

him, where to choose; and we are glad for you, brothers, men,

that it is so. But the same society that drives forth the young

man, keeps woman at home--a dependent--working little cats on

worsted, and little dogs on punctured paper; but if she goes

heartily and bravely to give herself to some worthy purpose, she

is out of her sphere and she loses caste. Women working in

tailor-shops are paid one-third as much as men. Some one in

Philadelphia has stated that women make fine shirts for twelve

and a half cents apiece; that no woman can make more than nine a

week, and the sum thus earned, after deducting rent, fuel, etc.,

leaves her just three and a half cents a day for bread. Is it a

wonder that women are driven to prostitution? Female teachers in

New York are paid fifty dollars a year, and for every such

situation there are five hundred applicants. I know not what you

believe of God, but I believe He gave yearnings and longings to

be filled, and that He did not mean all our time should be

devoted to feeding and clothing the body. The present condition

of woman causes a horrible perversion of the marriage relation.

It is asked of a lady, "Has she married well?" "Oh, yes, her

husband is rich." Woman must marry for a home, and you men are

the sufferers by this; for a woman who loathes you may marry you

because you have the means to get money which she can not have.

But when woman can enter the lists with you and make money for

herself, she will marry you only for deep and earnest affection.

I am detaining you too long, many of you standing, that I ought

to apologize, but women have been wronged so long that I may

wrong you a little. (Applause). A woman undertook in Lowell to

sell shoes to ladies. Men laughed at her, but in six years she

has run them all out, and has a monopoly of the trade. Sarah

Tyndale, whose husband was an importer of china, and died

bankrupt, continued his business, paid off his debts, and has

made a fortune and built the largest china warehouse in the

world. (Mrs. Mott here corrected Lucy. Mrs. Tyndale has not the

largest china warehouse, but the largest assortment of china in

the world). Mrs. Tyndale, herself, drew the plan of her

warehouse, and it is the best plan ever drawn. A laborer to whom

the architect showed it, said: "Don't she know e'en as much as

some men?" I have seen a woman at manual labor turning out

chair-legs in a cabinet-shop, with a dress short enough not to

drag in the shavings. I wish other women would imitate her in

this. It made her hands harder and broader, it is true, but I

think a hand with a dollar and a quarter a day in it, better than

one with a crossed ninepence. The men in the shop didn't use

tobacco, nor swear--they can't do those things where there are

women, and we owe it to our brothers to go wherever they work to

keep them decent. The widening of woman's sphere is to improve

her lot. Let us do it, and if the world scoff, let it scoff--if

it sneer, let it sneer--but we will go on emulating the example

of the sisters Grimké and Abby Kelly. When they first lectured

against slavery they were not listened to as respectfully as you

listen to us. So the first female physician meets many

difficulties, but to the next the path will be made easy.

Lucretia Mott has been a preacher for years; her right to do so

is not questioned among Friends. But when Antoinette Brown felt

that she was commanded to preach, and to arrest the progress of

thousands that were on the road to hell; why, when she applied

for ordination they acted as though they had rather the whole

world should go to hell, than that Antoinette Brown should be

allowed to tell them how to keep out of it. She is now ordained

over a parish in the State of New York, but when she meets on the

Temperance platform the Rev. John Chambers, or your own Gen.

Carey (applause) they greet her with hisses. Theodore Parker

said: "The acorn that the school-boy carries in his pocket and

the squirrel stows in his cheek, has in it the possibility of an

oak, able to withstand, for ages, the cold winter and the driving

blast." I have seen the acorn men and women, but never the

perfect oak; all are but abortions. The young mother, when first

the new-born babe nestles in her bosom, and a heretofore unknown

love springs up in her heart, finds herself unprepared for this

new relation in life, and she sends forth the child scarred and

dwarfed by her own weakness and imbecility, as no stream can rise

higher than its fountain.

We find no report of the speeches of Frances D. Gage, Lydia Ann

Jenkins, Ernestine L. Rose, Euphemia Cochrane, of Michigan, nor J.

Mitchell, of Missouri, editor of the _St. Louis Intelligencer_, nor of

the presence of James Mott, whose services were always invaluable on

the committees for business and resolutions.

In 1857, the Legislature of Ohio passed a bill enacting that no

married man shall dispose of any personal property without having

first obtained the consent of his wife; the wife being empowered in

case of the violation of such act, to commence a civil suit in her own

name for the recovery of said property; and also that any married

woman whose husband shall desert her or neglect to provide for his

family, shall be entitled to his wages and to those of her minor

children. These amendments were warmly recommended by Gov. Salmon P.

Chase in his annual message. The Select Committee[20] of the Senate on

the petition asking the right of suffrage for woman, reported in favor

of the proposed amendment, recommending the adoption of the following

resolution:

_Resolved_, That the Judiciary Committee be instructed to report

to the Senate a bill to submit to the qualified electors at the

next election for Senators and Representatives an amendment to

the Constitution, whereby the elective franchise shall be

extended to the citizens of Ohio without distinction of sex.

But the bill was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 44 to 44. The

petition had received 10,000 signatures. We give this able report in

full.[21]

The proceedings of these early Conventions might be read with pride

and satisfaction by the women of Ohio to-day, with all their superior

advantages of education. Frances D. Gage was a natural orator. Her wit

and pathos always delighted her audiences, and were highly appreciated

by those on the platform. Her off-hand speeches, ready for any

occasion, were exactly complemented by J. Elizabeth Jones, whose

carefully prepared essays on philosophy, law, and government, would do

honor to any statesman. Together they were a great power in Ohio. From

this time Conventions were held annually for several years, the

friends of woman suffrage being thoroughly organized; J. Elizabeth

Jones was made General Agent. In her report of May 16th, 1861, she

says:

And through the earnest efforts of Mrs. Robinson, Mrs. Gage, Mrs.

Wilson, Mrs. Tilden, and many others, the Legislature was

petitioned from year to year for a redress of legal and political

wrongs. At a later period, the indefatigable exertions of Mrs.

Adeline T. Swift sustained the interest and the agitation in such

portions of the State as she could reach. As the fruit of her

labor, many thousands of names, pleading for equality, have been

presented to the General Assembly, which labor has been continued

to the present time.

Our last effort, of which I am now more particularly to speak,

was commenced early in the season, by extensive correspondence to

enlist sympathy and aid in behalf of petitions. As soon as we

could get the public ear, several lecturing agents were secured,

and they did most efficient service, both with tongue and with

pen. One of these was Mrs. C. I. H. Nichols, of Kansas, formerly

of Vermont; and perhaps no person was ever better qualified than

she. Ever ready and ever faithful, in public and in private, and

ever capable, too, whether discussing the condition of woman with

the best informed members of the legal profession, or striving at

the fireside of some indolent and ignorant sister, over whose

best energies "death is creeping like an untimely frost," to

waken in her heart a desire for that which is truly noble and

good.

Of another of our agents--Mrs. Cutler, of Illinois--equally as

much can be said of her qualifications and her efficiency. Having

been very widely acquainted with the sorrowful experiences of

women, both abroad and in our own country, which have been caused

by their inferior position, and by legal disabilities; and

lamenting, too, as only great and elevated natures can, the utter

wreck of true, noble womanhood in the higher circles of society,

a necessity is thus laid upon her to do all in her power to lift

both classes into a freer, better life.

Mrs. Frances D. Gage, of Ohio, deeply interested herself in this

question in the beginning, and has never failed in faithful

testimony and timely word, to promote its success. Although not

identified with us as an agent, yet we had her active

co-operation during the campaign. Her editorial connection with

the press, and her lectures on the West India Islands, gave her

abundant opportunity, which she did not fail to embrace, of

circulating petitions and advocating the cause to which she has

so largely given her energies.

Besides the General Agent, whose time was divided between

correspondence, lecturing, and the general details of the

movement, there were other and most efficient workers, especially

in canvassing for signatures. We are indebted to Mrs. Anne Ryder,

of Cincinnati, for much labor in this direction; and also to

Mrs. Howard, of Columbus for similar service. Miss Olympia Brown,

a graduate of Antioch College, canvassed several towns most

successfully--adding thousands of names to the lists heretofore

obtained. Equally zealous were women, and men also, in various

sections of the State. By means of this hearty co-operation, both

branches of the Legislature were flooded with Woman's Rights

petitions during the first part of the session--a thousand and

even two thousand names were presented at a time.

Our main object this year, as heretofore, has been to secure

personal property and parental rights, never ignoring, however,

the right to legislate for ourselves. We were fortunate in the

commencement in enlisting some of the leading influences of the

State in favor of the movement. Persons occupying the highest

social and political position, very fully endorsed our claims to

legal equality, and rendered valuable aid by public approval of

the same. We took measures at an early period to obtain the

assistance of the press; and by means of this auxiliary our work

has been more fully recognized, and more generally appreciated

than it could otherwise have been. Without exception, the leading

journals of the State have treated our cause with consideration,

and generously commended the efforts of its agents.

So numerous were the petitions, and so largely did they represent

the best constituency of the State, that the committees in whose

hands they were placed, felt that by all just parliamentary

usage, they were entitled to a candid consideration. Accordingly

they invited several of us who had been prominent, to defend our

own cause in the Senate chamber, before their joint Committee and

such of the General Assembly and of the public, as might choose

to come and listen. From the reports of the numerous

letter-writers who were present, I will place one extract only

upon record.

"The Senate chamber was filled to overflowing to hear Mrs. Jones,

Cutler, and Gage, and hundreds went away for want of a place to

stand. Columbus has seldom seen so refined and intelligent an

audience as that which gathered round those earnest women, who

had none of the charm of youth or beauty to challenge admiration,

but whose heads were already sprinkled with the frosts of life's

winter. Earnest, truthful, womanly, richly cultivated by the

experiences of practical life, those women, mothers, and two of

them grandmothers, pleaded for the right of woman to the fruit of

her own genius, labor, or skill, and for the mother her right to

be the joint guardian of her own offspring. I wish I could give

you even the faintest idea of the brilliancy of the scene, or the

splendor of the triumph achieved over the legions of prejudice,

the cohorts of injustice, and the old national guard of hoary

conservatism. If the triumph of a prima donna is something to

boast, what was the triumph of these toil-worn women, when not

only the members of the Committee, but Senators and Members of

the House, crowded around them with congratulations and

assurances that their able and earnest arguments had fully

prevailed, and the prayers of their petitioners must be granted."

The address of the first speaker was a written argument on legal

rights. It was solicited by members of the General Assembly for

publication, and distributed over the State at their expense.

The change in public sentiment, the marked favor with which our

cause began to be regarded in the judicial and legislative

departments, encouraged us to hope that if equal and exact

justice were not established, which we could hardly expect, we

should at least obtain legal equality in many particulars. The

Senate committee soon reported a bill, drafted by one of their

number--Judge Key--and fully endorsed by all the judges of the

Supreme Court, securing to the married woman the use of her real

estate, and the avails of her own separate labor, together with

such power to protect her property, and do business in her own

name, as men possess. The last provision was stricken out and the

bill thus amended passed both Houses, the Senate by a very large

majority.

Although this secures to us property rights in a measure only,

yet it is a great gain. He, who in abject bondage has striven

with his fetters, rejoices to have the smallest amount of their

weight removed. We have, therefore, reason to be grateful not

only for the benefits we shall derive from this Act, but for the

evidence of a growing sense of justice on the part of those who

claim for themselves the exclusive right to legislate. Senator

Parish had already prepared a Bill for Guardianship, and to

change the Laws of Descent, that something more than a paltry

dower should be secured to the widow in the common estate; but

the press of business, and the sudden commencement of open

hostilities between the North and South, precluded all

possibility of further legislation in our behalf. While Judge Key

has deservedly received universal thanks from the women of Ohio,

for proposing and carrying through the Legislature the Property

Bill, they are no less indebted to the Hon. Mr. Parish for his

faithful defense of their cause, not only during the present

session, but in years past. If all the Honorable Senators and

Representatives who have given their influence in favor of it

were to be mentioned, and all the faithful men and earnest women

who have labored to promote it, the list would be long and

distinguished.

J. ELIZABETH JONES.

Thus, in a measure, were the civil rights of the women of Ohio

secured. Some of those who were influential in winning this modicum of

justice have already passed away; some, enfeebled by age, are

incapable of active work; others are seeking in many latitudes that

rest so necessary in the declining years of life.

The question naturally suggests itself, where are the young women of

Ohio, who will take up this noble cause and carry it to its final

triumph? They are reaping on all sides the benefits achieved for

them by others, and they in turn, by earnest efforts for the

enfranchisement of woman, should do what they can to broaden the lives

of the next generation.

In Ohio, as elsewhere, the great conflict between the North and South

turned the thoughts of women from the consideration of their own

rights, to the life of the nation. Many of them spent their last days

and waning powers in the military hospitals and sanitariums,

ministering to sick and dying soldiers; others at a later period in

the service of the freedmen, guiding them in their labors, and

instructing them in their schools; all alike forgetting that justice

to woman was a more important step in national safety than freedom or

franchise to any race of men.

FOOTNOTES:

[14] Years before the calling of this Convention, Mrs. Frances D. Gage

had roused much thought in Ohio by voice and pen. She was a long time

in correspondence with Harriet Martineau and Mrs. Jane Knight, who was

energetically working for reduced postage rates, even before the days

of Rowland Hill.

[15] See Appendix.

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

[17] My notoriety as an Abolitionist made it very difficult for me to

reach people at home, and, consequently, I had to work through press

and social circle; women dared not speak then. But the seed was sown

far and wide, now bearing fruit.

[18] James McCune Smith.

[19] See Appendix.

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

[21] See Appendix.

CHAPTER VII.

REMINISCENCES BY CLARINA I. HOWARD NICHOLS.

VERMONT: Editor _Windham County Democrat_--Property Laws, 1847

and 1849--Addressed the Legislature on school suffrage, 1852.

WISCONSIN: Woman's State Temperance Society--Lydia F. Fowler in

company--Opposition of Clergy--"Woman's Rights" wouldn't

do--Advertised "Men's Rights."

KANSAS: Free State Emigration, 1854--Gov. Robinson and Senator

Pomeroy--Woman's Rights speeches on Steamboat, and at

Lawrence--Constitutional Convention, 1859--State Woman Suffrage

Association--John O. Wattles, President--Aid from the Francis

Jackson Fund--Canvassing the State--School Suffrage gained.

MISSOURI: Lecturing at St. Joseph, 1858, on Col. Scott's

invitation--Westport and the John Brown raid, 1859--St. Louis,

1854--Frances D. Gage, Rev. Wm. G. Eliot, and Rev. Mr. Weaver.

In gathering up these individual memories of the past, we feel there

will be an added interest in the fact that we shall thus have a

subjective, as well as an objective view of this grand movement for

woman's enfranchisement. To our older readers, who have known the

actors in these scenes, they will come like the far-off whispers of

by-gone friends; to younger ones who will never see the faces of the

noble band of women who took the initiative in this struggle, it will

be almost as pleasant as a personal introduction, to have them speak

for themselves; each in her own peculiar style recount the experiences

of those eventful years. As but few remain to tell the story, and each

life has made a channel of its own, there will be no danger of

wearying the reader with much repetition.

To Clarina Howard Nichols the women of Kansas are indebted for many

civil rights they have as yet been too apathetic to exercise.

Her personal presence in the Constitutional Convention of 1859,

secured for the women of that State liberal property rights, equal

guardianship of their children, and the right to vote on all school

questions. She is a large-hearted, brave, faithful woman, and her life

speaks for itself. Her experiences are indeed the history of all that

was done in the above-mentioned States.

VERMONT.

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

From 1843 to 1853 inclusive, I edited _The Windham County_

_Democrat_, published by my husband, Geo. W. Nichols, at Brattleboro.

Early in 1847, I addressed to the voters of the State a series of

editorials setting forth the injustice and miserable economy of the

property disabilities of married women. In October of the same year,

Hon. Larkin Mead, of Brattleboro, "moved," as he said, "by Mrs.

Nichols' presentation of the subject" in the _Democrat_, introduced in

the Vermont Senate a bill securing to the wife real and personal

property, with its use, and power to defend, convey, and devise as if

"sole." The bill as passed, secured to the wife real estate owned by

her at marriage, or acquired by gift, devise, or inheritance during

marriage, with the rents, issues, and profits, as against any debts of

the husband; but to make a sale or conveyance of either her realty or

its use valid, it must be the joint act of husband and wife. She might

by last will and testament dispose of her lands, tenements,

hereditaments, and any interest therein descendable to her heirs, as

if "sole." A subsequent Legislature added to the latter clause,

moneys, notes, bonds, and other assets, accruing from sale or use of

real estate. And this was the first breath of a legal civil existence

to Vermont wives.

In 1849, Vermont enacted a Homestead law. In 1850, a bill empowering

the wife to insure, in her own interest, the life, or a term of the

life of her husband; the annual premium on such insurance not to

exceed $300; also an act giving to widows of childless husbands the

whole of an estate not exceeding $1,000 in value, and half of any

amount in excess of $1,000; and if he left no kin, the whole estate,

however large, became the property of the widow. Prior to this Act,

the widow of a childless husband had only half, however small the

estate, and if he left no kindred to claim it, the remaining half went

into the treasury of the State, whose gain was the town's loss, if, as

occasionally happened, the widow's half was not sufficient for her

support.[22]

In 1852, I drew up a petition signed by more than 200 of the most

substantial business men, including the staunchest conservatives, and

tax-paying widows of Brattleboro, asking the Legislature to make the

women of the State voters in district school meetings.

Up to 1850 I had not taken position for suffrage, but instead of

disclaiming its advocacy as improper, I had, since 1849, shown the

absurdity of regarding suffrage as unwomanly. Having failed to secure

her legal rights by reason of her disfranchisement, a woman must look

to the ballot for self-protection. In this cautious way I proceeded,

aware that not a house would be opened to me, did I demand the

suffrage before convicting men of legal robbery, through woman's

inability to defend herself.

The petition was referred to the Educational Committee of the House,

whose chairman, editor of the _Rutland Herald_, was a bitter opponent,

and I felt that he would, in his report, lampoon "Woman's Rights" and

their most prominent advocates, thus sending his poison into all the

towns ignorant of our objects, and strengthening the already repellant

prejudices of the leading women at the capital. I wrote to Judge

Thompson, editor of the _Green Mountain Freeman_ (a recent accession

to the press of the State and friendly to our cause), what I feared,

and asked him to plead before the Committee and interest influential

members to protect woman's cause against abuse before the House. He

counseled with leading members of the three political parties--Whig,

Free-Soil, and Democrat--including the Speaker of the House, and they

advised, as the best course, that "Mrs. Nichols come to Montpelier,

and they would invite her, by a handsome vote, to speak to her

petition before the House." "When," added Judge T., "you can use your

privilege to present the whole subject of Woman's Rights. Come, and I

will stick by you like a brother." I went. The resolution of

invitation was adopted with a single dissenting vote, and that from

the Chairman of the Educational Committee, who unwittingly made the

vote unanimous by the unfortunate exclamation, "If the lady wants to

make herself ridiculous, let her come and make herself as ridiculous

as possible and as soon as possible, but I don't believe in this

scramble for the breeches!"

In concluding my plea before the House (in which I had cited the

statutes and decisions of courts, showing that the husband owned even

the wife's clothing), I thanked the House for its resolution, and

referred to the concluding remark of the Chairman of the Educational

Committee, and said that though I "had earned the dress I wore, my

husband owned it--not of his own will, but by a law adopted by

bachelors and other women's husbands," and added: "I will not appeal

to the gallantry of this House, but to its manliness, if such a taunt

does not come with an ill grace from gentlemen who have legislated our

skirts into their possession? And will it not be quite time enough for

them to taunt us with being after their wardrobes, when they shall

have restored to us the legal right to our own?"

With a bow I turned from the Speaker's stand, when the profound hush

of as fine an audience as earnest woman ever addressed, was broken by

the muffled thunder of stamping feet, and the low, deep hum of pent-up

feeling loosed suddenly from restraint. A crowd of ladies from the

galleries, who had come only at the urgent personal appeal of Judge

Thompson, who had spent the day calling from house to house, and who a

few months before had utterly failed to persuade them to attend a

course of physiological lectures from Mrs. Mariana Johnson, on account

of her having once presided over a Woman's Rights Convention, these

women met me at the foot of the Speaker's desk, exclaiming with

earnest expressions of sympathy: "We did not know before what Woman's

Rights were, Mrs. Nichols, but we are for Woman's Rights."

Said Mrs. Thompson to me upon our return to her home: "I broke out in

a cold perspiration when your voice failed and you leaned your head on

your hand."[23] "I thought you were going to fail," continued Mrs.

Thompson. "Yes," said the Judge, "I was very doubtful how it would

come out when I saw how sensitive Mrs. Nichols was. But," (turning to

me), "you have had a complete triumph! That final expression of your

audience was perfect. _Mr. Herald_ with his outside recruits did not

come forward with the suit of male attire at the close, as he had

advertised he would, (I did not tell Mrs. N. this, my dear," said the

Judge.) "He'll catch it now, in the House and out." And he did "catch

it."

The effort brought me no reproach, no ridicule from any quarter, but

instead, cordial recognition and delicate sympathy from unexpected

quarters, and even from those who had heard but the report of persons

present. The editorial criticism of the Chairman of the Educational

Committee, paid me the high compliment of saying, that "in spite of

her efforts Mrs. Nichols could not unsex herself; even her voice was

full of womanly pathos." The report of the Committee was adverse to my

petition, but not disrespectful. Though the petition failed, the

favorable impression created was regarded as a great triumph for

woman's rights.

From the time I spoke at the Worcester Convention, 1850, until I left

for Kansas, October, 1854, I responded to frequent calls from town and

neighborhood committees and lyceums--in the county and adjoining

territory of New Hampshire and Massachusetts as well as Vermont, to

lecture or join in debate with men and women, the women voting me

their time, on the subject of woman's legal and political equality. In

these neighborhood lyceums, ministers and deacons and their wives and

daughters took part. Generally wives were appointed in opposition to

their husbands, and from their rich and varied experience did

excellent execution. In order to secure opposition, I used to let the

negative open and close, other wise the debate was sure to be tame or

no debate at all. In all my experience it was the same; the

"affirmative" had the merit and the argument.

The clergy often spoke--always when present--and in the negative, if

it was their first hearing; and without a single exception they faced

the audience at the close with a cordial endorsement of the cause.

Said one such: "I told you, ladies and gentlemen, that I had given

little attention to the subject, and you see that I told the truth.

Mrs. Nichols has made out her case, and let her and the women laboring

like her, persevere, and woman will gain her rights." "Let your wife

go all she can," said one of these converts to Mr. Nichols, "she is

breaking down prejudices and making friends for your paper. Your

political opponents have represented her as a masculine brawler for

rights, and those who have never met her know no better. I went to

hear her, full of misgivings that it might be so."

In the winter of 1852 I went as often as twice a week--late P.M. and

returned early A.M.--from six to twenty miles. I was sent for where

there was no railroad. I often heard of "ready-made pants," and once

of a "rail," but the greater the opposition, the greater the victory.

On a clear, cold morning of January, 1852, I found myself some six

miles from home at a station on the Vermont side of the Massachusetts

State line, on my way to Templeton, Mass., whither I had been invited

by a Lyceum Committee to lecture upon the subject of "Woman's Rights."

I had scarcely settled myself in the rear of the saloon for a restful,

careless two hours' ride, when two men entered the car. In the younger

man I recognized the sheriff of our county. Having given a searching

glance around the ear, the older man, with a significant nod to his

companion, laid his hand upon the saloon door an instant, and every

person in the car had risen to his feet, electrified by the wail of a

"Rachel mourning for her children." "O, father! she's _my_ child!

_she's my child!_" I reached the door, which was guarded by the

sheriff, in a condition of mental exaltation (or concentration), which

to this day reflects itself at the recollection of that agonizing cry

of the beautiful young mother, set upon by the myrmidons of the law

whose base inhumanity shames the brute! "Who is it?" "What is it?"

"What does it all mean?" were the anxious queries put up on all sides.

I answered: "It means, my friends, that a woman has no legal right to

her own babies; that the law-makers of this _Christian country_ (!)

have given the custody of the babies to the father, drunken or sober,

and he may send the sheriff--as in this case--to arrest and rob her of

her little ones! You have heard sneers at 'Woman's Rights.' This is

one of the rights--a mother's right to the care and custody of her

helpless little ones!"

From that excited crowd--all young men and grown boys, I being the

only woman among them--rose thick and fast--"_They've no business with

the woman's babies!_" "_Pitch 'em overboard!_" "_I'll help._" "_Good

for you; so'll I!_" "All aboard." (The conductor had come upon the

scene). "_All aboard._" "Wait a minute till he gets the other child,"

cries the old man, rushing out of the saloon with a little

three-year-old girl in his arms, while the sheriff rushed in. Standing

behind the old man, I beckoned to the conductor, who knew me, to "_go

on_," and in five minutes we were across the Massachusetts line, and I

was in the saloon. With his hand on her child, the sheriff was urging

the mother to let go her hold. "Hold on to your baby," I cried, "he

has no right to take it from you, and is liable to fine and

imprisonment for attempting it. Tell me, Mr. C----, are you helping

the other party as a favor, or in your official capacity? In the

latter case you might have taken her child in Vermont, but we are in

Massachusetts now, quite out of your sheriff's beat." "The grandfather

made legal custodian by the father, was he? That would do in Vermont,

sir, but under the recent decision of a Massachusetts Court, given in

a case like this, _only the father_ can take the child from its

mother, and in attempting it you have made yourselves liable to fine

and imprisonment." Thus the "sheriffalty" was extinguished, and mother

and child took their seat beside me in the car.

Meantime the conductor had made the old gentleman understand that they

could get off at the next station, where they might take the "up

train," and get back to their "team" on the Vermont side of the

"line." As they could get no carriage at the bare little station, and

with the encumbrance of the child, could not foot it six miles in the

cold and snow, they must wait some three or four hours for the train,

which suggested the possibility of a rescue. I could not stop over a

train, but I could take the baby along with me, if some one could be

found--The conductor calls. The car stops. As the child robbers step

out (the little girl, clutched in the old grandfather's arms) 'mid the

frantic cries of the mother and the execrations of the passengers, two

middle-aged gentlemen of fine matter-of-fact presence, entered. I at

once met their questioning faces with a hurried statement of facts,

and the need of some intelligent, humane gentleman to aid the young

mother in the recovery of her little girl. Having spoken together

aside, the younger man introduced "Dr. B----, who lives in the next

town, where papers can be made out, and a sheriff be sent back to

bring the men and child; the lady can go with the doctor, and the baby

with Mrs. Nichols. I would stop, but I must be in my seat in the

Legislature." "I have no money, only my ticket to take me to my

friends," exclaimed the anxious mother. "I will take care of that,"

said the good doctor; "you won't need any." "They will have to pay," I

whispered....

I gave my lecture at Templeton to a fine audience; accepted an

invitation to return and give a second on the same subject, and having

left the dear little toddler happy and amply protected, at noon next

day found myself back at Orange, where I had left the mother. Here the

conductor, who by previous arrangement, left a note from me telling

her where to go for her baby, reported that the party had been brought

to Orange for trial, spent the night in care of the sheriff, and were

released on giving up the little girl and paying a handsome sum of the

needful to the mother. He had scarcely ended his report when the pair

entered the car, like myself, homeward bound. The old gentleman,

care-worn and anxious, probably thinking of his team left standing at

the Vermont station, looked straight ahead, but the kind-hearted

sheriff caught my eye and smiled. In my happiness I could not do

otherwise than give smile for smile.

Arrived at home, I found the affair, reported by the conductor of the

evening train, had created quite an excitement, sympathy being

decidedly with the mother. I was credited with being privy to the

escapade and the pursuit, and as having gone purposely to the rescue.

Had this been true, I could not have managed it better, for a good

Providence went with me. I received several memorial "hanks" of yarn,

with messages from the donors that "they would keep me in

knitting-work while preaching woman's rights on the railroad"--a

reference to my practice of knitting on the cars, and the report that

I gave a lecture on the occasion to my audience there.

And thus was the seed of woman's educational, industrial, and

political rights sown in Vermont, through infinite labor, but in the

faith and perseverance which bring their courage to all workers for

the right.

WISCONSIN.

In September and October, 1853, I traveled 900 miles in Wisconsin, as

agent of the Woman's State Temperance Society, speaking in forty-three

towns to audiences estimated at 30,000 in the aggregate, people coming

in their own conveyances from five to twenty miles. I went to

Wisconsin under an engagement to labor as agent of the State

Temperance League, an organization composed of both sexes and

officered by leading temperance men--at the earnest and repeated

solicitations of its delegates whom I met at the "Whole World's

Temperance Convention," held in New York City in September, and who

were commissioned by the League to employ speakers to canvass the

State; the object being to procure the enactment of a "Maine Law" by

the next Legislature. These delegates had counseled, among others,

with Horace Greeley, who advised my employment, curiosity to hear a

woman promising to call out larger audiences and more votes for

temperance candidates in the pending election.