I, at first, declined to make the engagement, on the ground that I

could not be spared from my newspaper duties; but to escape further

importunity, finally consented to "ask my husband at home," and report

at New York, where one of the gentlemen would await my answer, and

myself, if I decided to accept their proposition. My husband's

cheerful, "Go, wife, you will be doing just the work you love, and

enjoying a journey which you have not means otherwise to undertake,"

and a notice from Mrs. Lydia F. Fowler, that she would join us in the

trip with a view to arranging for physiological lectures at eligible

points in the State, decided me to go. Mrs. F.'s company was not only

a social acquisition, but a happy insurance against pot-house witlings

on the alert to impale upon the world's dread laugh, any woman who, to

accomplish some public good, should venture for a space to cut loose

from the marital "buttons" and go out into the world alone!

In making the engagement, I had taken it for granted, that the right

and propriety of woman's public advocacy of temperance was a settled

question in the field to which I was invited. But arrived at

Milwaukee, I found that the popular prejudice against women as public

speakers, and especially the advocacy of Woman's Rights, with which I

had for years been identified, had been stirred to its most disgusting

depths by a reverend gentleman who had preceded us, and who had for

years been a salaried "agent at large," of the New York State

Temperance Society. A highly respectable minority of the Executive

Committee of the League endorsed the action of their delegation, but

were overruled by a numerical majority, and I found myself in the

position of agent "at large," while the reverend traducer secured his

engagement in my place.

This turn of affairs, embarrassing at first, proved in the end

providential--a timely clearance for a more congenial craft--since the

women of the State had organized a Woman's State Temperance Society,

and advertised a Convention to meet the following week at Delavan, the

populous shire town of Walworth County, fifty miles distant in the

interior. Thither the friendly Leaguers proposed to take us. Meantime

it was arranged that Mrs. F. and I should address the citizens of

Milwaukee. A capacious church was engaged for Sabbath evening, from

which hundreds went away unable to get in. But neither clergyman nor

layman could be found willing to commit himself by opening the

services; and with "head uncovered," in a church in which it was "a

shame for a woman to speak," I rested my burden with the dear Father,

as only burdens are rested with Him, in conscious unity of purpose.

Mrs. F. addressed the audience on the physiological effects of

alcoholic drinks. I followed, quoting from the prophecy of King

Lemuel, that "his mother taught him," Proverbs xxxi., verses 4, 5, 8,

9, "Open thy mouth for the dumb; in the cause of all such as are

appointed to destruction. Open thy mouth, judge righteously and plead

the cause of the poor and needy." The spirit moved audience and

speaker. We forgot ourselves; forgot everything but "the poor and

needy," the drunkard's wife and children "appointed to destruction"

through license laws and alienated civil rights.

At Delavan we met a body of earnest men and women, indignant at the

action of the Executive Committee of the League, to which many of them

had contributed funds for the campaign, and ready to assume the

responsibility of my engagement, and the expenses of Mrs. F., who in

following out her original plan, generously consented to precede my

lectures with a brief physiological dissertation apropos to the object

of the canvass. The burden of the speaking, as planned, rested with

me, provided my hitherto untested physical ability proved equal, as it

did, to the daily effort.

In counsel with Mrs. R. Ostrander, President of the Society, and her

sister officials, women of character and intelligence, I could

explain, as I could not have done to any body of equally worthy men,

that in justice to ourselves, to them, and to the cause we had at

heart, we must make the canvass in a spirit and in conditions above

reproach. "I can not come down from my work," said Miss Lyon, founder

of Mount Holyoke Female Seminary, when importuned to rebut some

baseless scandal. To fight our way would be to mar the spirit and

effect of our work. We must place the opposition at a disadvantage

from the first; then we could afford to ignore it altogether and rise

to a level with the humane issues of the campaign. It was accordingly

arranged that the friends should make appointments and secure us

suitable escort to neighboring towns; and to distant and less

accessible points a gentleman was engaged to take us in a private

carriage,--his wife, a woman of rare talent and fine culture, to

accompany us. A programme which was advertised in the local papers and

happily carried out.

From Delavan we returned to Milwaukee to perfect our arrangements.

From thence our next move was to Waukesha, the shire town of Waukesha

County, twenty miles by rail, to a Temperance meeting advertised for

"speaking and the transaction of business." The meeting was held in

the Congregational church, the pastor acting as chairman. The real

business of the meeting was soon disposed of, and then was enacted the

most amusing farce it was ever my lot to witness. The chairman and his

deacon led off in a long-drawn debate on sundry matters of no

importance, and of less interest to the audience, members of which

attempted in vain, by motions and votes, to cut it short. When it had

become sufficiently apparent that the gentlemen were "talking against

time" to prevent speaking, there were calls for speakers. The chairman

replied that it was a "business meeting, but Rev. Mr. ----, from

Illinois, would lecture in the evening." Several gentlemen rose to

protest. One said he "had walked seven miles that his wife and

daughters might ride, to hear the ladies speak." Another had "ridden

horseback twelve miles to hear them." A storm was impending; the

chairman was prepared; he declared the meeting adjourned and with his

deacon left the house.

There was a hurried consultation in the ante-room, which resulted in

an urgent request for "Mrs. Nichols to remain and speak in the

evening." The speaker noticed for the evening, joined heartily in the

request; "half an hour was all the time he wanted." But when the

evening came, he insisted that I should speak first, and when I should

have given way for him, assured me that he "had made arrangements to

speak the next evening," and joined in the "go on, go on!" of the

audience. So it was decided that I should remain over the Sabbath, and

Mrs. F. return with the friends to Milwaukee.

Meantime it had transpired that in the audience were several

Vermonters from a settlement of fourteen families from the vicinity of

my home; among them a lady from my native town; we had been girls

together. "We know all about Mrs. N.," said one. "We take the

_Tribune_, and friends at home send us her paper." So the good Father

had sent vouchers for His agent at large. But this was not all. I had

a pleasant reserve for the evening. I had recognized in the deacon, a

friend from whom I had parted twenty-one years before in Western New

York. In the generous confidence of youthful enthusiasm we had

enlisted in the cold-water army; together pledged ourselves to fight

the liquor interest to the death. And here my old friend, whose début

on the Temperance platform I had aided and cheered, had talked a full

hour to prevent me from being heard! Was I indignant? Was I grieved?

Nay! It was not a personal matter. Time's graver had made us strange

to each other. His name and voice had revealed him to me; but the name

I bore was not that by which he had known me. Besides, I remembered

that twenty-one years before, I could not have been persuaded to hear

a woman speak on any public occasion, and I had nothing to

forgive,--my friend had only stood still where I had left him. Such,

suppressing his name, was the story I told my audience on that

evening. And with his puzzled and kindly face intently regarding me, I

assured my hearers that I had not a doubt of his whole-souled and

manly support in my present work. Nor was I disappointed.

Next morning, (Sabbath) I listened to a scholarly sermon on infidel

issues and innovations from the chairman of the "business meeting" of

the previous afternoon, he having stayed away from my lecture to

prepare it. In the evening, after the temperance lecture of my

Illinois friend, I improved the opportunity of a call from the

audience, the Rev. Chairman being present, to meet certain points of

the sermon, personal to myself and the advocates of rights for women,

closing with a brief confession of my faith in Christ's rule of love

and duty as impressing every human being into the service of a common

humanity--the right to serve being commensurate with the obligation,

as of God and not of man.

One week later, another business meeting was held in the same house,

and in its published proceedings was a resolution introduced by the

Rev. Chairman, endorsing Mrs. Nichols, and inviting her "to be present

and speak" at a County Convention appointed for a subsequent day. Not

long after he sent me, through a brother clergyman, an apology that

would have disarmed resentment, had I felt any, toward a man who,

having opposed me without discourtesy and retracted by a published

resolution, was yet not satisfied without tendering a private apology.

I had achieved a grateful success; license to "plead the cause of the

poor and needy," where, _how_ to do so, without offending old-time

ideas of woman's sphere, had seemed to the women under whose direction

I had taken the field, the real question at issue. In consideration of

existing prejudices, they had suggested the prudence of silence on the

subject of Woman's Rights. And here, on the very threshold of the

campaign, I had been compelled to vindicate my right to speak for

woman; as a woman, to speak for her from any stand-point of life to

which nature, custom, or law had assigned her. I had no choice, no

hope of success, but in presenting her case as it stood before God and

my own soul. To neither could I turn traitor, and do the work, or

satisfy the aspirations of a true and loving woman.

For more than a quarter of a century earnest men had spoken, and

failed to secure justice to the poor and needy, "appointed to

destruction" by the liquor traffic. They had failed because they had

denied woman's right to help them, and taken from her the means to

help herself. In speaking for woman, I must be heard from a domestic

level of legal pauperism disenchanted of all political prestige. In

appealing to the powers that be, I must appeal from sovereigns drunk

to sovereigns sober,--with eight chances in ten that the decision

would be controlled by sovereigns drunk.

To impress the paramount claim of women to a no-license law, without

laying bare the legal and political disabilities that make them "the

greatest sufferers," the helpless victims of the liquor traffic, was

impossible. It would have been stupidly unwise to withhold what with a

majority of voters is the weightier consideration, that in alienating

from women their earnings, governments impose upon community taxes for

the support of the paupered children of drunken fathers, whose mothers

would joyfully support and train them for usefulness; and who, as a

rule, have done so when by the death or divorce of the husband they

have regained the control of their earnings and the custody of their

children. Thus proving, that man, by his disabling laws, has made

woman helpless and dependent, and not God, who has endowed her with

capabilities equal to the responsibilities He has imposed.

Worse than unwise would it have been to allow an unjust prejudice

against Woman's Rights, to turn the edge of my appeals for a law in

the interest of temperance, when by showing the connection, as of

cause and effect, between men's rights and women's wrongs, between

women's _no_-rights and their helplessness and dependence, I could

disarm that prejudice and win an intelligent support for both

temperance and equal rights. On such a showing I based my appeals to

the noble men and women of Wisconsin. I assured my audiences, that I

had not come to talk to them of "Woman's Rights," that indeed I did

not find that women had any rights in the matter, but to "suffer and

be still; to die and give no sign." But I had come to them to speak of

_man's rights_ and _woman's needs_.

From the Lake Shore cities, from the inland villages, the shire towns,

and the mining communities of the Mississippi, whose churches,

court-houses, and halls, with two or three exceptions, could not hold

the audiences, much less seat them; the responses were hearty, and

when outspoken, curiously alike in language as well as sentiment on

the subject of rights. "I like Mrs. Nichols' idea of talking man's

rights; the result will be woman's rights," said a gentleman rising in

his place in the audience at the close of one of my lectures. On

another occasion, "Let Mrs. Nichols go on talking men's rights and

we'll have women's rights." "Mrs. Nichols has made me ashamed of

myself--ashamed of my sex! I didn't know we had been so mean to the

women," was the outspoken conclusion of a man who had lived honored

and respected, his threescore years and ten. This reaction from the

curiosity and doubt which everywhere met us in the expressive faces of

the people, often reminded me of an incident in my Vermont labors for

a Maine law.

In accepting an invitation to address an audience of ladies in the

aristocratic old town of C----, in an adjoining county, I had

suggested, that as it was votes we needed, I would prefer to address

an audience of both sexes. Arrived at C----, I found that the ladies

of the committee, having acted upon my suggestion, were intensely

anxious as to the result. "An audience," they said, "could not be

collected to listen to woman's rights; the people were sensitive even

to the innovation of a mixed audience for a woman, and they felt that

I ought to be informed of the facts." And I felt in every nerve, that

they were suffering from fear lest I should fail to vindicate the

womanliness of our joint venture. But the people came, a church,

full; intelligent, expectant, and curious to hear a woman. The

resident clergyman, of my own faith, declined to be present and open

with prayer. A resident Universalist clergyman present, declined to

pray. A young Methodist licentiate in the audience, not feeling at

liberty to decline, tried. His ideas stumbled; his words hitched, and

when he prayed: "Bless thy serv--a'hem--thy handmaid, and a'hem--and

let all things be done decently and in order;" we in the committee pew

felt as relieved as did the young Timothy when he had achieved his

amen!

Utterly unnerved by the anxious faces of my committee, I turned to my

audience with only the inspiration of homes devastated and families

paupered, to sustain me in a desperate exhibit of the need and the

"determination of women, impelled by the mother-love that shrinks

neither from fire or flood, to rescue their loved ones from the fires

and floods of the liquor traffic, though to do so they must make their

way through every platform and pulpit in the land!" "Thank God!"

exclaimed the licentiate on my right. "Amen!" emphasized the chairman

oh my left. My committee were radiant. My audience had accepted

woman's rights in her wrongs; and I ---- only woman's recording angel

can tell the sensations of a disfranchised woman when her "declaration

of intentions" is endorsed by an Anti-Woman's Rights audience with

fervent thanks to God!

Latter-day laborers can have little idea of the trials of the early

worker, driven by the stress of right and duty against popular

prejudices, to which her own training and early habits of thought have

made her painfully sensitive. St. Paul, our patron saint, I think had

just come through such a trial of his nerves when he wrote: "The

spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." The memory of the beautiful

scenery, the charming Indian summer skies, the restful companionship

of our family party in the daily drive, and the generous hospitality

of the people of Wisconsin, is one of the pleasantest of a life, as

full of sweet memories as of trials, amid and through which they have

clung to me with a saving grace.

The Temperance majority in the ensuing election, so far as influenced

by canvassing agents, was due to the combined efforts of all who

labored for it, and of these it was my good fortune to meet a younger

brother of William H. and O. C. Burleigh, who from his man's

stand-point of precedents and statistics did excellent service.

The law enacted by the Legislature securing to the wives of drunkards

their earnings and the custody and earnings of their minor children, I

think I may claim as a result of appeals from the home stand-point of

woman's sphere. As a financial measure diverting the supplies and

lessening the profits of the liquor traffic, this law is a civil

service reform of no mean promise for the abatement of pauper and

criminal taxes. In a plea of counsel for defendant in a case of

wife-beating to which I once listened, said the gentlemanly attorney:

"If Patrick will let the bottle alone"--"Please, your honor," broke in

the weeping wife, "if you will stop Misthur Kelly from filling it."

KANSAS.

In October, 1854, with my two eldest sons, I joined a company of two

hundred and twenty-five men, women, and children, emigrants from the

East to Kansas. In our passage up the Missouri River I gave two

lectures by invitation of a committee of emigrants and Captain Choteau

and brother, owners of the boat. A pious M.D. was terribly shocked at

the prospect, and hurried his young wife to bed, but returned to the

cabin himself in good time to hear. As the position was quite central,

and I wished to be heard distinctly by the crowd which occupied all

the standing room around the cabin, I took my stand opposite the

Doctor's berth. Next morning, poor man! his wife was an outspoken

advocate of woman's rights. The next evening she punched his ribs

vigorously, at every point made for suffrage, which was the subject of

my second lecture.

The 1st of November, 1854--a day never to be forgotten--heaven and

earth clasped hands in silent benedictions on that band of immigrants,

some on foot, some on horseback, women and children, seventy-five in

number, with the company's baggage, in ox-carts and wagons drawn by

the fat, the broken-down, and the indifferent "hacks" of wondering,

scowling Missouri, scattered all along the prairie road from Kansas

City to Lawrence, the Mecca of their pilgrimage.

In advance of all these, at 11 o'clock A.M., Mrs. H---- and myself

were sitting in front of the Lawrence office of the New England

Emigrant Aid Company, in the covered wagon of Hon. S. C. Pomeroy, who

had brought us from Kansas City, and entered the office to announce

the arrival of our company; when a hilarious explosion of several

voices assured us that good lungs as well as brave hearts were within.

Directly Col. P. and Dr. (Governor) Robinson came out. "Did you hear

the cheering?" asked the Doctor. "I did, and was thinking when you

came out, what a popular man the Colonel must be to call forth such a

greeting!" "But the cheers were for Mrs. Nichols," was the reply; and

the Doctor proceeded to tell us that, "the boys" had been hotly

discussing women's rights, when one of their advocates who had heard

her lecture, expressed a wish that his opponents could hear Antoinette

Brown on the subject; a second wished they could hear Susan B.

Anthony; and a third wished they could hear Mrs. Nichols. On the heels

of these wishes, the announcement of Colonel Pomeroy, that "Mrs.

Nichols was at the door," was the signal for triumphant cheering. "The

boys" wanted a lecture in the evening. The Doctor said: "No; Mrs.

Nichols is tired. To-morrow the thatching of the church will be

completed, and she can dedicate the building."

Thus truths sown broadcast among the stereotyped beliefs and

prejudices of the old and populous communities of the East, had

wrought a genial welcome for myself and the advocacy of woman's cause

on the disputed soil of Kansas. But, alas! for the "stony ground." One

of "the boys" didn't stay to the "dedication." He had "come to Kansas

to get away from the women," and left at once for Leavenworth. I

wonder if the Judge--he is that now, and a benedict--remembers? I

still regret that lost opportunity for making his acquaintance.

At Lawrence, the objective point of all the Free State immigration,

where I spent six weeks in assisting my sons to make a home for the

winter, I mingled freely with the incoming population, and gave

several lectures to audiences of from two to three hundred, the entire

population coming together at the ringing of the city dinnerbell. I

returned to Vermont early in January, 1855, and in April following,

with two hundred and fifty emigrants (my husband and younger son

accompanying me), rejoined my other sons in the vicinity of Baldwin

City, where we took claims and commenced homes. I presented the whole

subject of Woman's Rights on the boats in going and returning, as at

first, by invitation. In the summer of 1855, delegates were elected to

a Constitutional Convention, which later convened at Topeka. Governor

Robinson, who with six other delegates voted for the exclusion of the

word "male" from qualification for elector, sent me an invitation to

attend its sessions, speak before it for woman's equality, and they

would vote me a secretary's or clerk's position in the Convention. My

husband's fatal illness prevented me from going.

In January, 1856, I returned from Kansas to Vermont, widowed and

broken in health, to attend to matters connected with my husband's

estate. Prevented by the ruffian blockade of the Missouri from

returning as intended, I spent some time in the summer and all of the

autumn of 1856 and January, 1857, lecturing upon Kansas, the character

and significance of its political involvements, its promise and

importance as a free or slave State, and its claims to an efficient

support in the interest of freedom. In September, being appealed to by

the "Kansas National Aid Committee," at the instance of Horace

Greeley, I engaged for two months in a canvass of Western New York,

lecturing and procuring the appointment of committees of women to

collect supplies for the suffering people of Kansas; my two oldest

sons, C. H. and A. O. Carpenter being among its armed defenders, the

latter having been wounded in the fight between the invaders under

Captain Pate and the forces under John Brown and Captain S. Shores, at

Black Jack.

Between May, 1856, and February, 1857 (not counting my engagement with

the Aid Committee), I gave some fifty Kansas lectures in the States of

Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and

New York, followed occasionally by one or two lectures on the legal

and political disabilities of women; receiving more invitations on

both subjects than I could possibly fill.

My experiences in these semi-political labors were often racy, never

unsatisfactory. In a public conveyance one day, an honest old

Pennsylvania farmer asked if I was "the lady who made an appointment

to speak in his place on Kansas, and did not come?" I replied that I

had filled all the appointments made for me with my knowledge; that I

made a point of keeping my promises. "I believe you, ma'am," said he.

"I suspicioned then it was jest a republican trick. You see, ma'am,

our folks all are dimocrats and wouldn't turn out to hear the

republican speakers; so they appointed a meeting for _you_ and

everybody turned out, for we'd hearn of your lectures. But instid of

you, General D---- and Lawyer C---- came, and we were mad enough. I

was madder, 'cause I'd opened my house, seein' as it was the largest

and most convenient in the neighborhood."

Occasionally I stumbled on a loose segment of woman's sphere, even

among the friends of "free Kansas." In a populous Vermont village, at

a meeting called for the purpose, a committee was appointed to invite

me to speak, composed of the two clergymen of the village and Judge

S----. Reverend W---- excused himself from the service on the ground

of "conscientious scruples as to the propriety of women speaking in

public." Judge S----, a man who for a quarter of a century had, by a

racy combination of wit and logic, maintained his ground against the

foes of temperance and freedom, with inimitable gravity thanked the

audience for the honor conferred on him; adding, "I have no

conscientious scruples about getting desirable information wherever I

can find it."

In Sinclairville, Chautauque County, New York, where I arrived late,

in consequence of a railroad accident, I found a crowded church. A

gentleman introduced to me as "Mr. Bull" was sitting at a table in the

extreme front corner of the spacious platform, recording the names and

advance payments of a class in music, which, as I had been told

outside, was being organized by a gentleman who had arrived with the

news of my probable detention.

During the next half hour gentlemen rose at three several times and

requested Mr. B---- to "postpone the class business till the close of

the lecture: that people had come from a distance to hear the lecture,

and were anxious to return home, the night being dark and rainy." "I

will be through soon. I like to finish a thing when I begin."

"There'll be time enough," were the several replies, given in a tone

and with an emphasis that suggested to my mind a doubt of the

speaker's sympathy with my subject. When the clock pointed to eight, I

quietly took my seat in the desk and was smoothing my page of notes

when there fell on my astonished ear--"I was about to introduce the

lady speaker, but she has suddenly disappeared." Stepping forward, I

said, "Excuse me, sir; as the hour is very late I took my place to be

in readiness when you should be through with your class." "Madam, you

will speak on this platform." "I noticed, sir, that I could not see my

audience from the platform, also that the desk was lighted for me."

"Madam, you can't speak in that pulpit!" "This is very strange. Will

you give me your reasons?" "It's none of your business!" "Indeed, sir,

I do not understand it. Will you give me your authority?" "It's my

pulpit, and if you speak in this house to-night you speak from this

platform!" "Excuse me, sir; I mistook you for the music-teacher, who,

as I was told, was organizing a class in music." And stepping quickly

to the platform to restore the equanimity of the house, I remarked, as

indicating my position, that my self-respect admonished me to be the

lady always, no matter how ungentlemanly the treatment I might

receive; that the cause of humanity, the cause of suffering Kansas was

above all personal considerations, and proceeded with my lecture.

At the close, Mr. B---- arose and said: "I owe this audience an

apology for my ungentlemanly language to Mrs. Nichols. I am aware that

I shall get into the public prints, and I wish to set myself right." A

gentleman in the audience rose and moved, "that we excuse the Rev. R.

B---- for his ungentlemanly language to Mrs. Nichols to-night, on the

score of his ignorance." The motion was seconded with emphasis by a

man of venerable presence. "Friends," I appealed, "this is a personal

matter; it gives me no concern. It will affect neither me nor my work.

Please name suitable women for the committee of relief which I am here

to ask." Business being concluded, I turned to Mr. B----, who was shut

in with me by a press of sympathizing friends, and expressed my

regret, that he should have said anything to place him under the

necessity of apologizing, adding, "but I hope in future you will

remember the words of Solomon: 'Greater is he that controlleth his own

spirit, than he that taketh a city.' Good-night, sir." I learned that

a few months before he had prevented his people from inviting

Antoinette Brown to speak to them on Temperance, by declaring that "he

would never set his foot in a pulpit that had been occupied by a

woman." When three weeks later I heard of his dismissal from his

charge in S----, I could appreciate the remark of his brother

clergyman in a neighboring town, to whom I related the incident, that

"Brother B---- is rather given to hooking with those horns of his, but

he's in hot water now."

In the winter and spring of 1856, I had, by invitation of its editor,

written a series of articles on the subject of woman's legal

disabilities, preparatory to a plea for political equality, for the

columns of the Kansas _Herald of Freedom_, the last number of which

went down with the "_form_" and press of the office to the bottom of

the Kansas river, when the Border ruffians sacked Lawrence in 1856.

In March, 1857, I again returned to Kansas, and with my daughter and

youngest son, made a permanent home in Wyandotte County.

The Constitution was adopted in November, 1859, by popular vote. In

January, 1860, Kansas having been admitted to the Union, the first

State Legislature met at Topeka, the capital of the new State. I

attended its sessions, as I had those of the Convention, and addressed

both in behalf of justice for the women of the State, as delegate of

the Kansas Woman's Rights Association. This Association was formed in

the spring of 1859 with special reference to the Convention which had

already been called to meet in the July following, in the city of

Wyandotte.

The Association--if I recollect aright--numbered some twenty-five

earnest men and women of the John Brown type, living in Moneka, Linn

County; John O. Wattles, President; Susan Wattles, Secretary. Wendell

Phillips, treasurer of the Francis Jackson Woman's Rights Fund,

guaranteed payment of expenses, and the Association sent me, with

limited hopes and unstinted blessings, to canvass the principal

settlements in the Territory, obtain names to petitions and represent

them--if allowed by courtesy of the Convention--in behalf of equal

civil and political rights for the women of the State to be organized.

I was appealed to as the only woman in the Territory who had

experience and could take the field, which was I believe true.

We had no material for Conventions, and the population was so sparse,

distances so great, and means of conveyance and communication so slow

and uncertain, that I felt sure an attempt at Conventions would be

disastrous, only betraying the weakness of our reserves, for I must

have done most, if not all the speaking.

It was the policy of the Republicans to "keep shady," as a party. John

Wattles came to Wyandotte before I addressed the Convention, counseled

with members, and reported to me that "I didn't need him, that it was

better that no man appear in it."

After spending some four weeks in the field, I went to the Convention,

and with a very dear friend, Mrs. Lucy B. Armstrong, of Wyandotte, was

given a permanent seat beside the chaplain, Rev. Mr. Davis, Presiding

Elder of the Methodist Episcopal Church of the District, which I

occupied till the adjournment of the Convention, laboring to develop

an active and corresponding interest in outsiders as well as members,

until my petitions had been acted upon and the provisions finally

passed; purposely late in the session.

Having at the commencement, only two known friends of our cause among

the delegates to rely upon for its advocacy, against the compact

opposition of the sixteen Democratic members, and the bitter

prejudices of several of the strongest Republicans, including the

first Chief Justice of the new State and its present unreconstructed

Senator Ingalls, an early report upon our petitions would have been

utter defeat. Persistent "button-holing" of the delegates, any

"unwomanly obtrusiveness" of manners, a vague apprehension of which,

at that period of our movement, was associated in the minds of even

good men and women, with the advocacy of the cause, was the

"big-'fraid" followed by more than one "little 'fraid," that made my

course one of anxiety, less only than my faith in the ultimate

adoption of the provisions named.

Of political suffrage I had, as I confidentially told my friends of

the Association, no hope, and for the very reason given me later by

members of the Convention who consented to school suffrage; viz: "even

if endorsed by popular vote, such a provision would probably defeat

admission to the Union." None the less, however, was the necessity for

disarming the prejudices and impressing upon delegates and citizens

the justice of the demand for political enfranchisement.

Fortunately, the hospitable tea-table of Mrs. Armstrong, with whom I

was domiciled for the session, offered abundant womanly opportunity

for conference and discussion with delegates; and in the homes of

leading citizens I met a hearty sympathy which I can never forget.

During a recess of the Convention, a friendly member introduced me to

Governor Medary, as "the lady who, by vote of the Convention, will

speak here this evening in behalf of equal Constitutional rights for

the women of Kansas." "But, Mrs. Nichols, you would not have women go

down into the muddy pool of politics?" asked the Governor. "Even so,

Governor, I admit that you know best how muddy that pool is, but you

remember the Bethesda of old; how the angel had to go in and trouble

the waters before the sick could be healed. So I would have the angels

trouble this muddy pool that it may be well with the people; for you

know, Governor Medary, that this people is very sick. But here is a

petition to which I am adding names as I find opportunity; will you

place your name on the roll of honor?" "Not now, Madam, not now. I

will _sign the bill_." And the Governor, quite unconscious of his

mistake, with a smile and a bow, hurried away amid the good-natured

raillery of the little circle that had gathered around us. But it was

Governor Robinson, the life-long friend of woman and a free humanity,

that had the pleasure of "signing the bills."

In compliance with the earnest request of delegates, supported by the

action of the Association, I labored from the adjournment of the

Convention till the vote on the adoption of the Constitution, to

"remove the prejudices"--as the delegates expressed it--"of their

constituents, against the Woman's Rights provisions" of that document.

The death of Mr. Wattles on the eve of the campaign sent me alone into

the lecture field. For with the exception of Hon. Charles Robinson,

our first State Governor, and always an outspoken friend of our cause,

the politicians in the field either ignored or ridiculed the idea of

women being entitled under the school provision to vote.

At Bloomington, when I had presented its merits in contrast with

existing legal provisions, a venerable man in the audience rose and

remarked that the Hon. James H. Lane, in addressing them a few days

before, denied that the provision regarding Common Schools meant

anything more than equal educational privileges, and that the Courts

would so decide. That it would never do to allow women to vote, for

only vile women would go to the polls. And now, added the old

gentleman, "I would like to hear what Mrs. Nichols has to say on this

point?" Taking counsel only of my indignation, I replied: "Mrs.

Nichols has to say, that vile men who seek out vile women elsewhere,

may better meet them at the polls under the eyes of good men and good

women:" and dropped into my seat 'mid a perfect storm of applause, in

which women joined as heartily as men.

Policy restrained the few Republican members who had voted against the

provisions[24] from open opposition, and the more that everywhere

Democrats, whom I appealed to as "friends in political disguise,"

treated me with marked courtesy; often contributing to my expenses.

One such remarked, "There, Mrs. Nichols, is a Democratic half-dollar;

I like your Woman's Rights."

At Troy, Don. Co., sitting behind the closed shutters of an open

window, I heard outside a debate between Republicans and Democrats.

One of the latter, an ex-Secretary of the Territory, at one time

acting Governor, and a member of the Constitutional Convention, who

had dwelt much on the superior prerogatives of the Anglo-Saxon race,

was saying, "You go for political equality with the negro; we

Democrats won't stand that, it would demoralize the white man." On my

way to lecture in the evening, a friend forewarned me that the

ex-Secretary, with two or three of his political stripe, had engaged a

shrewd Democratic lawyer, by getting him half drunk, to reply to me.

So when in my concluding appeal I turned as usual to the Democrats, I

narrated the above incident and bowed smilingly to the ex-Secretary,

with whom I was acquainted, and said, "Gentlemen who turn up their

'Anglo-Saxon' noses at the idea of 'political equality with the

negro,' as demoralizing to the white man, forget that in all these

years the white woman has been 'on a political equality with the

negro'; they forget, that in keeping their own mothers, wives and

daughters in the negro pew, to save them from demoralization by

political equality with the white man, they are paying themselves a

sorry compliment." The drunken lawyer was quietly hustled out by his

friends, the Democrats themselves joining the audience in expressions

of respect at the close of my lecture. But these from hundreds of

telling incidents must suffice to initiate you in the spirit of that

ever memorable campaign.

[Illustration: CLARINA HOWARD NICHOLS (with autograph).]

In 1854, when I was about leaving Vermont for Kansas, an earnest

friend of our cause protested that I was "going to bury myself in

Kansas, just as I had won an influence and awakened a public sentiment

that assured the success of our demand for equal rights." I replied

that it was a thousand times more difficult to procure the repeal of

unjust laws in an old State, than the adoption of just laws in the

organization of a new State. That I could accomplish more for woman,

even the women of the old States, and with less effort, in the new

State of Kansas, than I could in conservative old Vermont, whose

prejudices were so much stronger than its convictions, that justice to

women must stand a criminal trial in every Court of the State to win,

and then pay the costs.

My husband went to Kansas for a milder climate; my sons to make homes

under conditions better suited than the old States to their tastes and

means. I went to work for a Government of "equality, liberty,

fraternity," in the State to be.

I had learned from my experience with the legal fraternity, that as a

profession they were dead-weights on our demands, and the reason why.

When pressed to logical conclusions, which they were always quick to

see, and in fair proportion to admit, were in our favor, they almost

invariably retreated under the plea that the reforms we asked "being

fundamental, would destroy the harmony of the statutes!" And I had

come to the conclusion that it would cost more time and effort to

disrupt the woman's "disabilities" attachment from the legal and

political harmonicons of the old States, than it would to secure

vantage ground for legal and political equality in the new. I believed

then and believe now that Woman Suffrage would have received a

majority vote in Kansas if it could have been submitted unembarrassed

by the possibility of its being made a pretext for keeping Kansas out

of the Union. And but for Judge Kingman, I believe it would have

received the vote of a majority in convention. He played upon the old

harmonicon, "organic law," and "the harmony of the statutes."

My pleas before the Constitutional Convention and the people, were for

equal legal and political rights for women. In detail I asked:

1st. Equal educational rights and privileges in all the schools and

institutions of learning fostered or controlled by the State.

2d. An equal right in all matters pertaining to the organization and

conduct of the Common Schools.

3d. Recognition of the mother's equal right with the father to the

control and custody of their mutual offspring.

4th. Protection in person, property, and earnings for married women

and widows the same as for men.

The first three were fully granted. In the final reading. Kingman

changed the wording of the fourth, so as to leave the Legislature a

chance to preserve the infamous common law right to personal services.

There were too many old lawyers in the Convention. The Democracy had

four or five who pulled with Kingman, or he with them against us. Not

a Democrat put his name to the Constitution when adopted.

The debate published in the Wyandotte _Gazette_ of July 13, 1859, on

granting Mrs. Nichols a hearing in the Constitutional Convention, and

the Committee's report on the Woman's Petition, furnishes a page of

history of which some of the actors, at least, will have no reason to

read with special pride.

REPORT OF JUDICIARY FRANCHISE COMMITTEE ON WOMAN SUFFRAGE PETITIONS.

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom in connection with the

Committee on Franchise was referred the petition of sundry

citizens of Kansas, "protesting against any constitutional

distinctions based on difference of sex," have had the same under

consideration, and beg leave to make the following report:

Your Committee concede the point in the petition upon which the

right is claimed, that "the women of the State have individually

an evident common interest with its men in the protection of

life, liberty, property, and intellectual culture, and are not

disposed to deny, that sex involves greater and more complex

responsibilities, but the Committee are compelled to dissent from

conclusion of petition; they think the rights of women are safe

in present hands. The proof that they are so is found in the

growing disposition on the part of different Legislatures to

extend and protect their rights of property, and in the

enlightened and progressive spirit of the age which acts gently,

but efficiently upon the legislation of the day. Such rights as

are natural are now enjoyed as fully by women as men. Such rights

and duties as are merely political they should be relieved from,

that they may have more time to attend to those greater and more

complicated responsibilities which petitioners claim, and which

your Committee admit devolves upon woman.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

SAM. A. KINGMAN, GEO. H. LILLIE, P. S. PARKS, JOHN P. SLOUGH,

SAM. A. STINSON, JOHN F. BURNS, J. D. GREER, G. BLUNT,

BEN. WRIGLEY.

MISSOURI.

In the spring of 1858, having arranged my home affairs, I set about

the prosecution of a plan for widening the area of woman's work and

influence on the Missouri border. Separated only by the steam-plowed

river from my Kansas home, Missouri towns and hamlets lay invitingly

before me. For more than three years I had held my opportunity in

reserve. The time to improve it seemed to have come.

When our company landed at Kansas City, October, 1854, members of a

Missouri delegation opposed to the Free State emigration to that

Territory met us. More than half the company that preceded ours had

been turned back by their representations without a look at the

territory. As our boat touched the landing, Col. Scott, of St. Joseph,

stepped on board, and commenced questioning Hon. E. M. Thurston, of

Maine, who, as Committee of Arrangements for the transfer of the

company's baggage, excused himself, and turning to me, added: "Here,

sir, is a lady who can give you the information you desire--Mrs.

Nichols, editor of the _Windham County Democrat_." In accepting the

introduction, I caught the surprised and quizzical survey of a pair of

keen, black eyes, culminating in an unmistakable expression of

humorous anticipation; and, certain that my interviewer was

intelligent and a gentleman, I resolved to follow his lead in kind.

"Madam," he inquired, "can you tell me where all these people are

from, and where they are going?" They are from the New England States,

and are going to Kansas. "And what are they going to do in Kansas?"

Make homes and surround themselves with the institutions, social and

political, to which they are accustomed. "But, madam, they can't make

homes on the Kansas prairies with free labor; it is impossible!"

Why, sir, our ancestors felled the primitive forests and cleared the

ground to grow their bread, but Kansas prairies are ready for the

plow; their rank grasses invite the flocks and herds. Do you know what

a country we come from? did you never hear how in New Hampshire and

Vermont the sheeps' noses have to be sharpened, so that they can pluck

the spires of grass from between the rocks?

With a humorous, give-it-up sort of laugh, he remarked, abruptly: "You

are an editor; do you ever lecture?" Sometimes I do. "On what

subjects?" Education, Temperance, Woman's Rights--"Oh, woman's rights!

Will you go to St. Joseph and lecture on woman's rights? Our people

are all anxious to hear on that subject." Why, sir, I am an

Abolitionist, and they would tar and feather me! "You don't say

anything about slavery in your woman's rights' lectures, do you?" No,

sir; I never mix things.

After a sharp, but good natured tilt on the slavery question, the

Colonel returned to the lecture, about which he was so evidently in

earnest--guaranteeing "a fine audience, courteous treatment, and ample

compensation"; that I gave a promise to visit St. Joseph on my return

if there should be time before the closing of navigation, a promise I

was prevented from fulfilling. And now after three years, in which the

emigrants had made homes and secured them against the aggressions of

the slave power, I wrote him that if the people of St. Joseph still

wished to hear, and it pleased him to renew his guarantees of aid and

protection, I was at leisure to lecture on woman's rights. His reply

was prompt; his assurances hearty. I had "only to name the time," and

I would find everything in readiness. That the truce-like courtesy of

the compact between us may be appreciated, I copy a postscript

appended to his letter and a postscript in reply added to my note of

appointment; with the explanation, that in our Kansas City interview,

the Colonel had declared the negro incapable of education, and that

emancipation would result in amalgamation.

Postscript No. 1.--Have you tried your experiment of education on any

little nigger yet? J. S.

Postscript No. 2.--No, I have not tried my educational experiment, for

the reason that the horrid amalgamationists preceded us, and so

bleached the "niggers" that I have not been able to find a pure-blood

specimen. C. I. H. N.

The subject of slavery was not again mentioned between us. And when we

shook hands in the cabin of the steamer at parting, he remarked, with

a manly frankness in grateful contrast with the covert contempt felt,

rather than expressed, in his previous courtesies, that he thought it

proper I should know, that my audiences, composed of the most

intelligent and respectable people of St. Joseph, were pleased with my

lectures. One of its most eminent citizens had said to him, that he

"had not thought of the subject in the light presented, but he really

could see no objection to women voting."

Only one lecture had been proposed. By a vote of my audience I gave a

second, and had reason to feel that I had effectually broken ground in

Missouri; that I had not only won a respectful consideration for

woman's cause and its advocacy, but improved my opportunity to

vindicate New England training, in face of Southern prejudices. One

little episode, as rich in its significance, as in the inspiration it

communicated, will serve to round out my St. Joseph experience.

In introducing me to my audience, the Colonel--remembering, perhaps,

that I did not "mix things," or feeling that he might trust my

consciousness of being cornered on the slavery question--remarked in a

vein of courteously concealed irony: "It looks very strange to us for

a lady to speak in public, but we must remember that in the section of

country from which this lady comes, the necessity of self-support

bears equally upon women, and crowds them out of domestic life into

vocations more congenial to the sterner sex. Happily our domestic

institutions, by relieving women of the necessity to labor, protect

them in the sacred privacy of home."

In his ignorance of the subject, my friend had unwittingly resined the

bow. In bringing his "domestic institution" to the front, he had so

"mixed things," that in my showing of the legal disabilities of women,

of the _no_-right of the white wife and mother to herself, her

children, and her earnings, my audience could not fail to appreciate

the anomalous character of a "protection" so pathetically suggestive

of the legal level of the slave woman, to which man, in his greed of

wealth and power, had "crowded" both.

Some months later, at the breakfast-table of a Missouri River steamer,

a gentleman of St. Joseph recognized me, and reported my lectures to

ex-Governor Rollins, who was also on board, and asked an introduction.

After a long and pleasant discussion with the Governor, who entered at

once upon the subject, in its legal, political, and educational

aspects, it was agreed that I should lecture at my earliest

convenience in several of the principal towns of the State, the

capital included; the Governor himself proposing to communicate with

influential citizens to make the necessary arrangements.

An early compliance with my promise was prevented by the Kansas

movement for a constitutional convention; my connection with which

left me no leisure till late in the autumn, when I commenced my

proposed lecture course in Missouri by an appointment at Westport, by

arrangement of a gentleman of that place, whose acquaintance I had

made in my Kansas campaign. Arrived at the Westport hotel, where my

entertainment had been bespoken, I was taken by the landlady to her

own cosy sitting-room, and made pleasantly at home. Later in the day I

became aware of considerable excitement in the bar-room and street of

the town. The landlord held several hurried consultations with his

wife in the ante-room. My dinner was served in the private room, it

"being more pleasant," my hostess said, "than eating at the public

table with a lot of strange men." An hour after time, the gentleman

who was to call for myself and the landlady, announced an assembly of

a "dozen rude boys," and that in consequence of the news of John

Brown's raid at Harper's Ferry (of which I had not before heard), the

excitement was such that he could not persuade the ladies to come out.

With some hesitation he added, that it "had even been suggested that I

might be an emissary or accomplice, in what was suspected to be a

general and preconcerted abolition movement." This explained the

questionings of my hostess, and the provision against any possible

rudeness which I might have received from the "strange men" at the

public table. Thus ended my projected campaign in Missouri. For every

city and hamlet in the State was so haunted by the marching spirit of

the Kansas hero, that to have suggested a lecture on any subject from

a known Abolitionist, would have ruined the political prospects of

even an ex-Governor.

Three years later, assisted by a former resident of Kansas, I lectured

to a very small, but respectful audience in Kansas City; and in the

spring of 1867 was invited by a committee of ladies to lecture at a

Fair of the Congregational Society of that city, with accompanying

assurances from the pastor and his wife, of their confidence in the

salutary influence of such a lecture, on a community which had been

recently treated to an unfriendly presentation of the woman's rights

movement and its advocates. I was too ill at the time to leave home,

but the difference between my anxious efforts three years before to be

heard, and this more than cordial assurance of a waiting audience, was

a happy tonic. It was from persons who knew me only through my

advocacy of woman's equality, and evidenced the progress of our cause.

In December, 1854, on my return from Kansas to Vermont, I spent

several days in St. Louis, in the pleasant family of my friend, Mrs.

Frances D. Gage, who, very much to my regret, was away in Illinois.

The Judge having recently removed to the city, the family were

comparatively strangers; Abolitionists in a pro-slavery community.

Mrs. Gage, I think, had broken ground for temperance, but they could

tell me of no friends to woman's rights. Rev. Mr. Elliot was not then

one of us, as I learned through a son of Mrs. Gage, who called on him

in my behalf for the use of his lecture-room. I felt instinctively

that, unfettered by home and business interests, I was less

constrained than my friend, and resolved, if possible, to win a

hearing for woman. Having secured a hall, I called at the business

office of a gentleman of wealth and high social position--a

slave-holder and opposed to free Kansas, with whom I had formed a

speaking acquaintance in Brattleboro'--and procured from him a voucher

for my respectability. Armed with this I called on the editors of the

_Republican_ (pro-slavery), and secured a paid notice of my lecture.

The editor of the _Democrat_, who had an interest in free Kansas, and

was glad of news items from its immigrants, received me cordially, and

gave the "lady lecturer" a handsome "personal," though he had no more

interest in my subject than either of the other gentlemen, and gave me

little encouragement of an audience. Nevertheless, when the evening

came, I met an audience intelligent and respectful, and larger than I

had ventured to expect, but not numerous enough to warrant the venture

of a second lecture in the expensive hall, which from the refusal of

church lecture-rooms, I had been obliged to occupy. But here, as often

before and after, a good Providence interposed. Rev. Mr. Weaver,

Universalist, claimed recognition as "a reader in his boyhood of Mrs.

Nichols' paper"--his father was a patron of the _Windham County

Democrat_--and tendered the use of his church for further lectures. I

had found a friend of the cause. The result was a full house, and

hearty appeals for "more."

As isolated, historical facts, how very trivial all these

"reminiscences" appear! How egotistical the pen that presumes upon

anything like a popular interest in their perusal! But to the social

and political reformer, as to the Kanes and Livingstons, trifles teach

the relations of things, and indicate the methods and courses of

action that result in world-wide good or evil. Seeds carried by the

winds and waves plant forests and beautify the waste places of the

earth. Truths that flowed from the silent nib of my pen in Vermont,

had been garnered in a boy's sympathies to yield me a man's welcome

and aid in St. Louis. How clear the lesson, that for seed-sowing, all

seasons belong to God's truth!

The autumn and winter of 1860-61 I spent in Wisconsin and Ohio; in

Wisconsin, visiting friends and lecturing. In Ohio, Mrs. Frances D.

Gage, Mrs. Hannah Tracy Cutler, and myself were employed under

direction of Mrs. Elizabeth Jones, of Salem, to canvass the State,

lecturing and procuring names to petitions to the Legislature for

equal legal and political rights for the women of the State. The time

chosen for this work was inopportune for immediate success--the

opening scenes of the rebellion alike absorbing the attention of the

people and their Legislature. Women in goodly numbers came out to

hear, but men of all classes waited in the streets, or congregated in

public places to hear the news and discuss the political situation.

From December, 1863, to March, 1866, I was in Washington, D. C.,

writing in the Military or Revenue Departments, or occupying the

position of Matron in the Home for Colored Orphans, which had been

opened in the second year of the rebellion, by the help of the

Government and the untiring energy of a few noble women intent on

saving the helpless waifs of slavery cast by thousands upon the bare

sands of military freedom.

In the autumn of 1867, the Legislature of Kansas having submitted to

the voters of the State a woman suffrage amendment to its

Constitution, I gave some four weeks to the canvass, which was engaged

in by some of the ablest friends of the cause from other States, among

them Lucy Stone, Rev. Olympia Brown, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan

B. Anthony. In our own State, among others, Governor Robinson, John

Ritchie, and S. N. Wood of the old Free State Guard, rallied to the

work. With the canvass of Atchison and Jefferson Counties, and a few

lectures in Douglass, Shawnee, and Osage Counties, I retired from a

field overlaid with happy reminders of past trials merged in present

blessings. The work was in competent hands, but the time was

ill-chosen on account of the political complications with negro

suffrage, and failure was the result.

Since December, 1871, my home has been in California, where family

cares and the infirmities of age limit my efforts for a freer and a

nobler humanity to the pen. Trusting that love of God and man will

ever point it with truth and justice, I close this _exposé_ of my

public life.

FOOTNOTES:

[22] Mrs. Nichols had written up a case occurring among the

subscribers to the _Democrat_, in which $500, the whole estate, was

divided, the half of that amount being all the law allowed for the

support of a woman, then in the decline of life, and sent fifty marked

copies of the paper to members of the Legislature elect. One of them

introduced the bill, which passed the first day of the session.

[23] The violent throbbing of Mrs. Nichols' heart, caused by her

unusual position and her intense anxiety that her plea might be

successful, had stopped her speaking at the close of a brief preface

to her plea. She, however, soon rallied, though her voice was

tremulous throughout, from the conviction that only an eminently

successful presentation of her subject, could spike the enemy's

batteries and win a verdict of "just and womanly." Mrs. Nichols hoped

no further than that. She did not expect conservative Vermont to yield

at once for what she asked, as she stood alone with her paper among

the press; and there was no other advocate in the State to take the

field.

[24] The head and front of the opposition was Judge Kingman, Chairman

of the Judiciary Committee, to which, with the Committee on Elections,

my petition was referred. He wrote the Report against granting our

demand, and of those who signed it all but (Gen.) Blunt and himself

were Democrats. The report was adopted by a solid vote of the

Democrats (16), and enough Republicans to make a majority. Thirty-six

Republicans and 16 Democrats comprised the whole delegation. If my

memory is not at fault, 27 Republicans voted in caucus for the

provisions which were ultimately carried in our behalf, which was a

majority of the whole Convention. In caucus a majority were in favor

of political rights; but only a minority, from conviction that Woman

Suffrage would prevent admission to the Union, would vote it in

Convention.

CHAPTER VIII.

MASSACHUSETTS.

Women in the Revolution--Anti-Tea Leagues--Phillis

Wheatley--Mistress Anne Hutchinson--Heroines in the Slavery

Conflict--Women Voting under the Colonial Charter--Mary Upton

Ferrin Petitions the Legislature in 1848--Woman's Rights

Conventions in 1850, '51--Letter of Harriet Martineau from

England--Letter of Jeannie Deroine from a Prison Cell in

Paris--Editorial from _The Christian Inquirer_--_The Una_, edited

by Paulina Wright Davis--Constitutional Convention in

1853--Before the Legislature in 1857--Harriet K. Hunt's Protest

against Taxation--Lucy Stone's Protest against the Marriage

Laws--Boston Conventions--Theodore Parker on Woman's Position.

During the Revolutionary period, the country was largely indebted to

the women of Massachusetts. Their patriotism was not only shown in the

political plans of Mercy Otis Warren,[25] and the sagacious counsels

of Abigail Smith Adams, but by the action of many other women whose

names history has not preserved. It was a woman who sent Paul Revere

on his famous ride from Boston to Concord, on the night of April 18,

1775, to warn the inhabitants of the expected invasion of the British

on the morrow. The church bells pealing far and near on the midnight

air, roused tired sleepers hurriedly to arm themselves against the

invaders of their homes.

During the war two women of Concord dressed in men's clothing,

captured a spy bearing papers which proved of the utmost importance to

the patriot forces.

During these early days, the women of various Colonies--Virginia, New

York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts--formed Anti-Tea Leagues. In

Providence, R. I., young ladies took the initiative; twenty-nine

daughters of prominent families, meeting under the shade of the

sycamore trees at Roger Williams' spring, there resolving to drink no

more tea until the duty upon it was repealed. The name of one of these

young ladies, Miss Coddington, has been preserved, to whose house they

all adjourned to partake of a frugal repast; hyperion[26] taking the

place of the hated bohea. In Newport, at a gathering of ladies, where

both hyperion and bohea were offered, every lady present refused the

hated bohea, emblem of political slavery. In Boston, early in 1769,

the matrons of three hundred families bound themselves to use no more

tea until the tax upon it was taken off. The young ladies also entered

into a similar covenant, declaring they took this step, not from

personal motives, but from a sense of patriotism and a regard for

posterity.[27] Liberty, as alone making life of value, looked as sweet

to them as to their fathers. The Women's Anti-Tea Leagues of Boston

were formed nearly five years previous to the historic "Boston Tea

Party," when men disguised as Indians, threw the East India Company's

tea overboard, and six years before the declaration of war.

American historians ignoring woman after man's usual custom, have

neglected to mention the fact that every paper in Boston was suspended

during its invasion by the British, except the chief rebel newspapers

of New England, _The Massachusetts Gazette_ and _North Boston

News-Letter_, owned and edited by a woman, Margaret Draper.

They make small note of Women's Anti-Tea Leagues, and the many

instances of their heroism during the Revolutionary period, equaling,

as they did, any deeds of self-sacrifice and bravery that man himself

can boast.

The men of Boston, in 1773, could with little loss to themselves,

throw overboard a cargo of foreign tea, well knowing that for the last

five years this drink had not been allowed in their houses by the

women of their own families. Their reputation for patriotism was thus

cheaply earned in destroying what did not belong to them and what was

of no use to them. Their wives, daughters, mothers, and sisters drank

raspberry, sage, and birch, lest by the use of foreign tea they should

help rivet the chains of oppression upon their country. Why should not

the American Revolution have been successful, when women so nobly

sustained republican principles, taking the initiative in

self-sacrifice and pointing the path to man by patriotic example.

In Massachusetts, as in other States, were also formed associations

known as "Daughters of Liberty."[28] These organizations did much to

fan the nascent flames of freedom.

The first naval battle of the Revolution was fought at Machias, Maine,

then a part of Massachusetts. An insult having been offered its

inhabitants, by a vessel in the harbor, the men of the surrounding

country joined with them to avenge this indignity to their "Liberty

Tree," arming themselves, from scarcity of powder, with scythes,

pitchforks, and other implements of peace. At a settlement some twenty

miles distant, a quantity of powder was discovered, after the men had

left for Machias. What was to be done, was the immediate question.

Every able-bodied man had already left, only small boys and men too

aged or too infirm for battle having remained at home. Upon that

powder reaching them the defeat of the British, might depend. In this

emergency the heroism of woman was shown. Two young girls, Hannah and

Rebecca Weston, volunteered their services. It was no holiday

excursion for them, but a trip filled with unseen dangers. The way led

through a trackless forest, the route merely indicated by blazed

trees. Bears, wolves, and wild-cats were numerous. The distance was

impossible to be traversed in a single day; these young girls must

spend the night in that dreary wilderness. Worse than danger from wild

animals, was that to be apprehended from Indians, who might kill them,

or capture and bear them away to some distant tribe. But undauntedly

they set out on their perilous journey, carrying twenty pounds of

powder. They reached Machias in safety, before the attack on the

British ship, finding their powder a most welcome and effective aid in

the victory which soon crowned the arms of the Colonists. The heroism

of these young girls was far greater than if they had fought in the

ranks, surrounded by companions,'mid the accompaniments of beating

drums, waving flags, and all the paraphernalia of war.

In the war of 1812 two young girls of Scituate, Rebecca and Abigail W.

Bates, by their wit and sagacity, prevented the landing of the enemy

at this point.[29] Congress, during its session of 1880, nearly

seventy years afterward, granted them pensions, just as from extreme

age they were about to drop into the grave.

Though it is not considered important to celebrate the virtues of the

Pilgrim Mothers in gala days, grand dinners, toasts, and speeches, yet

a little retrospection would enable us to exhume from the past, many

of their achievements worth recording. More facts than we have space

to reproduce, testify to the heroism, religious zeal, and literary

industry of the women who helped to build up the early civilization of

New England. Their writings, for some presumed on authorship, are

quaint and cumbrous; but in those days, when few men published books,

it required marked courage for women to appear in print at all. They

imitated the style popular among men, and received much attention for

their literary ability. Charles T. Congdon, as the result of his

explorations through old book-stores, has brought to light some of

these early writers.

In 1630, Mrs. Anne Bradstreet, known as quite a pretentious writer,

came to Boston with her husband, Simon Bradstreet, Governor of

Massachusetts. Her first work was entitled "The Tenth Muse lately

sprung up in America." The first edition was published in London in

1650, and the first Boston edition was published in 1678. If Mrs.

Bradstreet loved praise, she was fortunate in her time and position.

It would have been in bad taste, as it would have been bad policy, not

to eulogize the poems of the Governor's wife. She was frequently

complimented in verse as bad as her own. Her next great epic was

entitled "A Complete Discourse and Description of the Four Elements,

Constitutions, Ages of Man, Seasons of the Year, together with an

exact epitome of the Four Monarchies, viz: the Assyrian, Persian,

Grecian, and Roman." "Glad as we were," says the owner, "to obtain

this book at a considerable price, we are still gladder of the

privilege of closing it." Although this lady had eight children, about

whom she wrote some amusing rhymes, she found time in the wilds of

America to perpetuate also these ponderous-titled poems.

Phillis Wheatly, a colored girl, also wrote poetry in Colonial Boston,

years before our Declaration of Independence startled the world. She

was brought from Africa, and sold in the slave market of Boston, when

only six years old. Mr. Sparks, the biographer of Washington, thinks

"that the poems contained in her published volume, exhibit the most

favorable evidence on record, of the capacity of the African intellect

for improvement." When the Rev. George Whitefield died, at

Newburyport, Mass., in 1770, the same writer from whom we quote these

facts, says: "It was quite natural, his demise being much talked of in

religious families, that our sable Phillis should burst into monody.

That expression of grief I have before me. Of the most rhetorical

preacher of his age, it is not inspiring to read:

"He prayed that grace in every heart might dwell.

He louged to see America excel."

Phillis married badly, and died at the age of thirty-one, in 1784,

utterly impoverished, leaving three little children. Her own copy of

her poems is in the library of Harvard College. When she died it was

sold for her husband's debts.

In a letter thanking her for an acrostic on himself, General

Washington said: "If you should ever come to Cambridge, or near

headquarters, I shall be happy to see a person so gifted by the muses,

and to whom Nature has been so liberal and beneficent in her

dispensations."

Was there ever any story, which had such a hold upon the readers of a

generation, as "Charlotte Temple"? It is said 25,000 copies were sold

soon after publication--an enormous sale for that day. Mrs. Rowson,

who wrote the book, was a daughter of a lieutenant in the Royal Navy;

she was an actress in Philadelphia, and afterward kept a school in

Boston for young ladies, where she died, in 1824. Her seminary was

highly recommended.

Women in the last age naturally drifted into the didactic. They should

have the credit of trying always to be useful. They go through so many

pages, seeking to give the little people some notion of botany, of

natural history, of other branches of human intelligence. There is no

book cleverer in its way than Miss Hannah Adams' "History of New

England," of which the second edition was published in Boston in

1807. The object of this lady was, as she tells us in the preface, "to

impress the minds of young persons with veneration for those eminent

men to whom their posterity are so highly indebted." All the tradition

is that Miss Adams was a wonderfully learned lady. She is best known

by her "History of the Jews." She wrote pretty good English, of which

this may be considered a specimen: "Exalted from a feeble state to

opulence and independence, the Federal Americans are now recognized as

a nation throughout the globe." To a sentence so admirably formed,

possibly there is nothing to add.

MISTRESS ANNE HUTCHINSON.

Mistress Anne Hutchinson, founder of the Antinomian party of New

England, was a woman who exerted great influence upon the religious

and political free thought of those colonies. She was the daughter of

an English clergyman, and with her husband, followed Pastor Cotton, to

whom she was much attached, to this country in 1634, and was admitted

a member of the Boston church, becoming a resident of Massachusetts

one hundred and forty years before the Revolutionary war. She was of

commanding intellect, and exerted a powerful influence upon the infant

colony.

It was a long established custom for the brethren of the Boston church

to hold, through the week, frequent public meetings for religious

exercises. Women were prohibited from taking part in these meetings,

which chafed the free spirit of Mistress Hutchinson, and soon she

called meetings of the sisters, where she repeated the sermons of the

Lord's day, making comments upon them. Her illustrations of Scripture

were so new and striking that the meetings were rendered more

interesting to the women than any they had attended. At first the

clergy approved, but as the men attracted by the fame of her

discourses, crowded into her meetings, they began to perceive danger

to their authority; the church was passing out of their control. Her

doctrines, too, were alarming. She taught the indwelling of the Holy

Spirit in each believer, its inward revelations, and that the

conscious judgment of the mind should be the paramount authority. She

was the first woman in America to demand the right of individual

judgment upon religious questions. Her influence was very great, yet

she was not destined to escape the charge of heresy.

The first Synod in America was called upon her account. It convened

August 30, 1637, sat three weeks, and proclaimed eighty-two errors

extant; among them the tenets taught by Mistress Hutchinson. She was

called before the church and ordered to retract upon twenty-nine

points. The infant colony was shaken by this discussion, which took on

a political aspect.[30] Mistress Hutchinson remained steadfast, and

was sustained by many important people, among whom was the young

Governor Vane.

Church and State became united in their opposition to Mistress Anne

Hutchinson. The fact that she presumed to teach men, was prominently

brought up, and in November, 1637, she was arbitrarily tried before

the Massachusetts General Court upon a joint charge of sedition and

heresy. She was examined for two days by the Governor and prominent

members of the clergy. The Boston Church, which knew her worth,

sustained her, with the exception of five members, one of them the

associate pastor, Wilson. But the country churches and clergy were

against her, and she was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment and

banishment.

As the winter was very severe, she was allowed to remain in Roxbury

until spring, when she joined Roger Williams in Rhode Island, where

she helped form a body-politic, democratic in principle, in which no

one was "accounted delinquent for doctrine." Mistress Hutchinson thus

helped to dissever Church and State, and to found religious freedom in

the United States.

After her residence in Rhode Island, four men were sent to reclaim

her, but she would not return. Upon the death of her husband she

moved, for greater security, to "The Dutch Colony," and died somewhere

in the State of New York.

Thus, through the protracted struggle of the American Colonies for

religious and political freedom, woman bravely shared the dangers and

persecutions of those eventful years. As spy in the enemy's camp;

messenger on the battle-field; soldier in disguise; defender of

herself and children in the solitude of those primeval forests;

imprisoned for heresy; burned, hung, drowned as a witch: what

suffering and anxiety has she not endured! what lofty heroism has she

not exemplified!

And when the crusade against slavery in our republic was inaugurated

in 1830, another Spartan band of women stood ready for the battle, and

the storm of that fierce conflict, surpassing in courage, moral

heroism, and conscientious devotion to great principles, all that

woman in any age had done or dared. With reverent lips we mention the

names of Sarah and Angelina Grimke, Lydia Maria Child, Maria Weston

Chapman, Mary S. Parker, Abby Kelly, whose burning words of rebuke

aroused a sleeping nation to a new-born love of liberty. To their

brave deeds, pure lives, and glowing eloquence, we pay our tributes of

esteem and admiration.

To such as these let South Carolina and Massachusetts build future

monuments, not in Quincy granite, or Parian marble, but in more

enduring blessing to the people; inviolable homesteads for the

laborer; free schools and colleges for boys and girls, both black and

white; justice and mercy in the alms-house, jail, prison, and the

marts of trade, thus securing equal rights to all.

WOMAN'S EARLY POLITICAL RIGHTS.

In Massachusetts, women voted at an early day. First, under the Old

Province Charter, from 1691 to 1780, for all elective officers;

second, they voted under the Constitution for all elective officers

except the Governor, Council, and Legislature, from 1780 to 1785. The

Bill of Rights, adopted with the Constitution of 1780, declared that

all men were born free and equal. Upon this, some slaves demanded

their freedom, and their masters yielded.[31] Restrictions upon the

right of suffrage were very great in this State; church membership

alone excluded for thirty years three-fourths of the male inhabitants

from the ballot-box.[32]

That women exercised the right of suffrage amid so many restrictions,

is very significant of the belief in her right to the ballot, by those

early Fathers.[33]

THE FIRST STEP IN MASSACHUSETTS.

Woman's rights petitions were circulated in Massachusetts as early as

1848. Mary Upton Ferrin, of Salem, in the spring of that year,

consulting Samuel Merritt, known as "the honest lawyer of Salem," in

regard to the property rights of married women, and the divorce laws,

learned that the whole of the wife's personal property belonged to the

husband, as also the improvements upon her real estate; and that she

could only retain her silver and other small valuables by secreting

them, or proving them to have been loaned to her. To such deception

did the laws of Massachusetts, like those of most States, based on the

Old Common Law idea of the wife's subjection to the husband, compel

the married woman in case she desired to retain any portion of her own

property.

Mrs. Ferrin reported the substance of the above conversation to Mrs.

Phebe King,[34] of Danvers, who at once became deeply interested,

saying, "If such are the laws by which women are governed, every woman

in the State should sign a petition to have them altered."

"Will you sign one if drawn up?" queried Mrs. Ferrin.

"Yes," replied Mrs. King, "and I should think every woman would sign

such a petition."

As the proper form of petitions was something with which women were

then quite unfamiliar, the aid of several gentlemen was asked, among

them Hon. D. P. King and Judge John Heartley, but all refused.

Miss Betsy King then suggested that Judge Pitkin[35] possessed

sufficient influence to have the laws amended without the trouble of

petitioning the Legislature. Strong in their faith that the enactment

of just laws was the business of legislative bodies, these ladies

believed they but had to bring injustice to the notice of a law-maker

in order to have it done away. Therefore, full of courage and hope,

Judge Pitkin was respectfully approached. But, to their infinite

astonishment, he replied:

"The law is very well as it is regarding the property of married

women. Women are not capable of taking care of their own property;

they never ought to have control of it. There is already a law by

which a woman can have her property secured to her."

"But not one woman in fifty knows of the existence of such a law," was

the reply.

"They ought to know it; it is no fault of the law if they don't. I do

not think the Legislature will alter the law regarding divorce. If

they do, they will make it more stringent than it now is."

Repulsed, but not disheartened, Mrs. Ferrin herself drew up several

petitions, circulated them, obtaining many hundred signatures of old

and young; though finding the young more ready to ask for change than

those inured to ill-usage and injustice. Many persons laughed at her;

but knowing it to be a righteous work, and deeming laughter healthful

to those indulging in it, Mrs. Ferrin continued to circulate her

petitions.

They were presented to the Legislature by Rev. John M. Usher, a

Universalist minister of Lynn, and member of the lower House. Although

too late in the session for action, these petitions form the

initiative step for Woman Suffrage in Massachusetts.

Early the next fall, similar petitions were circulated. It was

determined to attack the Legislature in such good season, that

lateness of time would not again be brought up as an excuse for

non-attention to the prayers of women. Mrs. King's interest continued

unabated, and through her advice, Mrs. Ferrin prepared an address to

accompany the petitions. Hon. Charles W. Upham, minister of the First

Unitarian church of Salem, afterward Representative in Congress, was

State Senator that year. From him they received much encouragement. "I

concur with you in every sentiment," said he, "but please re-write

your address, making two of it; one in the form of a memorial to the

Legislature, and the other, an address to the Judiciary Committee, to

whom your petitions will be referred." These two documents will be

found to suggest most of the important demands, afterward made in

every State, for a change of laws relating to woman. The fallacy of

"sacredness" for these restrictive laws was shown; the rights of

humanity as superior to any outside authority, asserted; and justice

made the basis of the proposed reformation. The right of woman to

trial by a jury of her peers was claimed, followed by the suggestion

that woman is capable of making the laws by which she is governed. The

memorial excited much attention, and was printed by order of the

Legislature, though the possibility of a woman having written it was

denied.[36]

But in 1850, as in 1849, no action was taken, the petitioners having

"leave to withdraw." Petitions of a similar character were again

circulated throughout Salem and Danvers, in 1850, '51, '52, '53,

making six successive years, in each of which the petitioners had

"leave to withdraw," as the only reply to their prayers for relief.

The Hon. Mr. Upham, however, remained woman's steadfast friend through

all this period, and Mrs. Phebe Upton King was as constantly found

among the petitioners.

In 1852 the petitions were signed only by ladies over sixty years of

age, women of large experience and matured judgment, whose prayers

should have received at least respectful consideration from the

legislators of the State. We give the appeal accompanying their

petition:

GENTLEMEN:--Your petitioners, who are tax-payers and originators

of these petitions, are upwards of three-score years; ten of them

are past three-score years and ten; three of them three-score and

twenty. If length of days, a knowledge of the world and the

rights of man and woman entitle them to a respectful hearing,

few, if any, have prior or more potent claims, for reason has

taught them what individual rights are, experience, what woman

and her children suffer for the want of just protection in those,

and humanity impels them once more to appear before you, it may

be for the last time. Let not their gray hairs go down in sorrow

to the grave for the want of this justice in your power to

extend, as have several of their number whose names are no longer

to be found with theirs, whose voices can plead never more in

behalf of your own children and those of your constituents.

In 1853 a petition[37] bearing only Mrs. King's name was presented. In

1854 the political organization called the "Know Nothings" came into

power, and although no petition was presented, a bill securing the

control of their own property to all women married subsequent to the

passage of the law, was passed. The power to make a will without the

husband's consent, was also secured to wives, though not permitted to

thus will more than one-half of their personal property. This law also

gave to married women having no children, whose husbands should die

without a will, five thousand dollars, and one-half of the remainder

of the husband's property. The following year the Divorce Law[38] was

amended, and shortly thereafter two old ladies, nearly seventy years

of age, having no future marriage in view, but solely influenced by a

desire to secure their own property to their own children, which

without such divorce they would be unable to do, although one of their

husbands had not provided for his wife in twenty years, nor the other

in thirty years, availed themselves of its new privileges.

The first change in the tyrannous laws of Massachusetts was really due

to the work of this one woman, Mary Upton Ferrin, who for six years,

after her own quaint method, poured the hot shot of her earnest

conviction of woman's wrongs into the Legislature. In circulating

petitions, she traveled six hundred miles, two-thirds of this distance

on foot. Much money was expended besides her time and travel, and her

name should be remembered as that of one of the brave pioneers in this

work.

Although two thousand petitions were sent into the Constitutional

Convention of 1853, from other friends of woman's enfranchisement in

the State, Mrs. Ferrin totally unacquainted with that step, herself

petitioned this body for an amendment to the Constitution securing

justice to women, referring to the large number of petitions sent to

the Legislature during the last few years for this object. Working as

she did, almost unaided and alone, Mrs. Ferrin is an exemplification

of the dissatisfaction of women at this period with unjust laws.[39]

MRS. FERRIN'S ADDRESS TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OF THE

MASSACHUSETTS LEGISLATURE IN 1850.

Long have our liberties and our lives been lauded to the skies,

to our amusement and edification, and until our sex has been as

much regaled as has the Southern slave, with "liberty and law."

But, says one, "Women are free." So likewise are slaves free to

submit to the laws and to their masters. "A married woman is as

much the property of her husband, likewise her goods and

chattels, as is his horse," says an eminent judge, and he might

have added, many of them are treated much worse. No more apt

illustration could have been given. Though man can not beat his

wife like his horse, he can kill her by abuse--the most

pernicious of slow poisons; and, alas, too often does he do it.

It is for such unfortunate ones that protection is needed.

Existing laws neither do nor can protect them, nor can society,

on account of the laws. If they were men, society would protect

and defend them. Long, silently, and patiently have they waited

until forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

Should a woman make her will without her husband's consent in

writing, it is of no use. It is as just and proper that a woman

should dispose of her own property to her own satisfaction as

that a man should dispose of his. In many cases she is as

competent, and sadly to be pitied if not in many cases more so.

And even with her husband's consent she can not bequeath to him

her real estate. She can sell it with his consent, but the deeds

must pass and be recorded, and then, if the husband pleases, he

can take the money and buy the property back again. Does justice

require that a man and his wife should use so much deception, and

be at so much unnecessary expense and trouble, to settle their

own private affairs to their own satisfaction--affairs which do

not in the least affect any other individual? Reason, humanity,

and common sense answer--No!

"All men are created free and equal," and all women are born

subject to laws which they have neither the power to make or to

repeal, but which they are taxed, directly or indirectly, to

support, and many of which are a disgrace to humanity and ought

to be forthwith abolished. A woman is compelled by circumstances

to work for less than half an ordinary man can earn, and yet she

is as essential to the existence, happiness, and refinement of

society as is man.

We are told "a great deal has already been done for woman;" in

return we would tender our grateful acknowledgments, with the

assurance that when ours is the right, we will reciprocate the

favor. Much that has been done, does not in the least affect

those who are already married; and not one in ten of those who

are not married, will ever be apprised of the existence of the

laws by which they might be benefited. Few, if any, would marry a

man so incompetent as in their opinion to render it necessary to

avail themselves of such laws; neither would any spirited man

knowingly marry a woman who considered him so incompetent; hence,

instead of being a blessing, much labor and expense accrue to

those who desire to avail themselves of their benefit; and such a

step often induces the most bitter contention.

We are told "the Bible does not provide for divorce except for

one offence." Neither does the Bible prohibit divorce for any

other justifiable cause. Inasmuch as men take the liberty to

legislate upon other subjects of which the Bible does, and does

not, take particular notice, so likewise are they equally at

liberty to legislate and improve upon this, when the state of

society demands it.... A woman who has a good husband glides

easily along under his protection, while those who have bad

husbands, of which, alas! there are too many, are not aware of

the depths of their degradation until they suddenly and

unexpectedly find themselves, through the influence of the law,

totally destitute, condemned to hopeless poverty and servitude,

with an ungrateful tyrant for a master. No respectable man with a

decent woman for a wife, will ever demean himself so much as to

insult or abuse his wife. Wherever such a state of things exists,

it is a disgrace to the age and to society, by whomsoever

practiced, encouraged, or protected, whether public or

private--whether social, political, or religious.

A very estimable and influential lady, whose property was valued

at over $150,000, married a man, in whom she had unbounded, but

misplaced confidence, as is too often the case; consequently the

most of her property was squandered through intemperance and

dissipation, before she was aware of the least wrong-doing. So

deeply was she shocked by the character of her husband, that she

soon found a premature grave, leaving several small children to

be reared and educated upon the remnant of her scattered wealth.

Nearly twelve years since, a woman of a neighboring town, whose

husband had forsaken her, hired a man to carry her furniture in a

wagon to her native place, with her family, which consisted of

her husband's mother, herself, and six children, the eldest of

which was but twelve years old. On her arrival there, she had

only food enough for one meal, and nine-pence left. During the

summer, in consequence of hardships and deprivations, she was

taken violently sick, being deprived of her reason for several

weeks. Her husband had not, as yet, appeared to offer her the

least assistance, although apprised of her situation. But, being

an uncommonly mean man, he had sold her furniture, piece by

piece, and reduced her to penury, so that nothing but the aid of

her friends and her own exertions, saved her and her family from

the alms-house.

Says the law to this heroic woman, "What, though your property is

squandered, your health and spirits broken, and you have six

small children, besides yourself and your husband's mother to

support! After five years of incessant toil in humility and

degradation, why should not your lord and master intrude his

loathsome person, like a blood-sucker upon your vitals, never

offering you any assistance; and should your precarious life be

protracted to that extent of time, for twenty dollars you can buy

a divorce from bed and board, and have your property secured to

you. Such, Madam, is your high privilege. Complain then not to

us, lest instead of alleviating your sufferings, we strengthen

the cords that already bind you."

The moral courage of the "Hero of the Battle-field" would shrink

in horror from scenes like these; but such is the fate of woman,

to whom God grant no future "hell."

In case a man receives a trifle from a departed friend or any

other source, the wife's signature is not required. Recently a

poor man left his daughter twenty dollars, of which her husband

allowed her ten, retaining the remainder for acknowledging its

receipt. It was probably the only ten dollars the woman ever

received, except for her own exertions, which were constantly

required to supply the necessities of her family, her husband

being very intemperate and abusive, often pulling her by the ears

so as to cause the blood to flow freely.

No bodily pain, however intense, can compare with the mental

suffering which we witness and experience, and which would long

since have filled our Insane Asylums to overflowing, were it not

for the unceasing drudgery to which we are subjected, in order to

save ourselves and families from starvation.

Often does the drunkard bestow upon his wife from one to a dozen

children to rear and support until old enough to render her a

little assistance, when they are compelled to seek service in

order to clothe themselves decently, and often are their

earnings, with those of their mother, appropriated to pay for

rum, tobacco, gambling, and other vices. "Say not that we

exaggerate these evils; neither tongue nor pen can do it!" says

the unfortunate wife of a man whose moral character, so far as

she knew, was unimpeachable, but who proved to be an insufferable

tyrant, depriving her of the necessaries of life, and often

ordering her out of the house which her friends provided for them

to live in, using the most abusive epithets which ingenuity, or

the want of it, could suggest. Intemperance degraded the

character of the man with whom she lived as long as apprehensions

for the safety of her life would warrant; from the fact that her

health was rapidly failing under the severity and deprivation to

which she was subjected, and the repeated threats of violence to

her own life and that of her friends. "But one step farther and

you drive us to desperation! Sooner would I pour out my heart's

blood, drop by drop, than suffer again what I have hitherto

experienced, or that my female friends should suffer as I have

done, and I know that many of them do. Yet, neither sacrifice,

sympathy, argument, or influence can avail us anything under

existing circumstances."

Such an appeal from helpless, down-trodden humanity, though it

were made to a council of the most benighted North American

savages, would not pass unheeded. Shall it be made in vain to

you?

To many of us death would be a luxury compared to what we suffer

in consequence of the abusive treatment we receive from

unprincipled men, which existing laws sanction and encourage by

their indiscriminate severity, and with which we are told "it

would be difficult to meddle on account of their sacredness and

sublimity." The idea is sufficiently ludicrous to excite the

risibility of the most grave. Though the sublime and the

ridiculous may be too nearly allied for females to distinguish

the difference, unjust inequality is to them far more

contemptible than sacred, having thus far been ungraciously

subjected to it. Well may we be called "the weaker sex" if the

error in judgment is ours, although we have intellect and energy

enough not to respect the circumstances under which we are

placed, nor the powers which would designedly inflict such

injustice upon us.

Debased indeed would a man consider himself to employ a woman to

plead his cause, with a woman for judge and twelve women for

jurors. How much less degraded are women when exposed to a

similar assembly of men, who have for them neither interest,

sympathy, nor respect, subjected as they are to insolent

questions and the uncharitable remarks of an indifferent

multitude.

It is urged that women are ignorant of the laws. They are

sufficiently enlightened to comprehend the meaning of justice--a

far more important thing--which admits of neither improvement nor

modification, but is applicable to every emergency. With the

perceptibility that some can boast, it would require but a short

time for them to enact laws sufficient to govern themselves,

which is all that the most aspiring can covet; convinced as they

are that, as in families, so likewise in government, the mild,

indulgent parent who would consult the greatest good of the

greatest number, is rewarded with agreeable and honorable

children; while the one who is unjust, partial, and severe, is

proportionably recompensed for his indiscretion.

In regard to unjust imprisonment we are told, "It is of too rare

occurrence to require legal enactments." How many a devoted wife,

mother, and child can tell a far different story. Who of us or

our children is secure from false accusation and imprisonment,

or, perhaps, an ignominious death upon the gallows, to screen

some miserable villain from justice? Witnesses, lawyers, judges,

jurors, and executioners are paid for depriving innocent persons

of their time, liberty, health, and reputation, which, to many,

is dearer than life, while the guilty one escapes, and society,

when too late, laments the sad catastrophe. The life-blood of

many a victim demands not only justice for the guilty, but

protection for the innocent.

FIRST NATIONAL CONVENTION IN WORCESTER, OCTOBER 23d and 24th, 1850.

The Conventions in New York and Ohio, though not extensively

advertised, nor planned with much deliberation, for in both cases

they were hastily decided upon, yet their novelty attracted much

attention, and drew large audiences. Those who had long seen and felt

woman's wrongs, were now for the first time inspired with the hope

that something might be done for their redress by organized action.

When Massachusetts decided to call a convention, the initiative steps

were well considered, as there were many men and women in that State

trained in the anti-slavery school, skilled in managing conventions,

who were also interested in woman's enfranchisement. But to the energy

and earnestness of Paulina Wright Davis, more than to any other one

person, we may justly accord the success of the first Conventions in

Massachusetts.

In describing the preliminary arrangements in a report read in the

second decade meeting in New York in 1870, she says:

"In May, 1850, a few women in Boston attending an Anti-Slavery

meeting, proposed that all who felt interested in a plan for a

National Woman's Rights Convention, should consult in the ante-room.

Of the nine who went out into that dark, dingy room, a committee of

seven were chosen to do the work. Worcester was the place selected,

and the 23d and 24th of October the appointed time. However, the work

soon devolved upon one person.[40] Illness hindered one, duty to a

brother another, duty to the slave a third, professional engagements a

fourth, the fear of bringing the gray hairs of a father to the grave

prevented another from serving; but the pledge was made, and could not

be withdrawn.

"The call was prepared, an argument in itself, and sent forth with

earnest private letters in all directions. It covered the entire

question, as it now stands before the public. Though moderate in tone,

carefully guarding the idea of the absolute unity of interests and of

the destiny of the two sexes which nature has established, it still

gave the alarm to conservatism.

"Letters, curt, reproachful, and sometimes almost insulting, came with

absolute refusals to have the names of the writers used, or added to

the swelling list already in hand. There was astonishment at the

temerity of the writer in presenting such a request.

"Some few there were, so cheering and so excellent, that it is but

justice to give extracts from them:

"'I doubt whether a more important movement has ever been

launched, touching the destiny of the race, than this in

regard to the equality of the sexes. You are at liberty to

use my name. WILLIAM LLOYD GARRISON.'

"'You do me but justice in supposing me deeply interested in the

question of woman's elevation. CATHERINE M. SEDGWICK.'

"'The new movement has my fullest sympathy, and my name is at

its service. WILLIAM HENRY CHANNING.'

"None came with such perfect and entire fullness as the one from which

I quote the closing paragraph:

"'Yes, with all my heart I give my name to your noble call.

"'ELIZABETH CADY STANTON.'

"'You are at liberty to append my own and my wife's name to your

admirable call, "'ANN GREEN PHILLIPS,

"'WENDELL PHILLIPS.'

"Rev. Samuel J. May's letter, full of the warmest sympathy, well

deserves to be quoted entire, but space forbids; suffice it that we

have always known just where to find him.

"'Your business is to launch new ideas--not one of them will ever

be wrecked or lost. Under the dominion of these ideas, right

practice must gradually take the place of wrong, and the first we

shall know we shall find the social swallowing up the political,

and the whole governing its parts.

"'With genuine respect, your co-worker,

"'MRS. PAULINA W. DAVIS. ELIZUR WRIGHT.'

"Letters from Gerrit Smith, Joshua R. Giddings, John G. Whittier,

Ralph Waldo Emerson, A. Bronson Alcott, Caroline Kirkland, Ann Estelle

Lewis, Jane G. Swisshelm, William Elder, Rev. Thomas Brainard, and

many others, expressive of deep interest, are before us.

"The Convention came together in the bright October days, a solemn,

earnest crowd of noble men and women.

"One great disappointment fell upon us. Margaret Fuller, toward whom

many eyes were turned as the future leader in this movement, was not

with us. The 'hungry, ravening sea,' had swallowed her up, and we were

left to mourn her guiding hand--her royal presence. To her, I, at

least, had hoped to confide the leadership of this movement. It can

never be known if she would have accepted it; the desire had been

expressed to her by letter; but be that as it may, she was, and still

is, a leader of thought; a position far more desirable than a leader

of numbers.

"The Convention was called to order by Mrs. Sarah H. Earl,[41] of

Worcester, and a permanent list of officers presented in due order,

and the whole business of the Convention was conducted in a

parliamentary manner. Mrs. Earl, to whose memory we pay tribute

to-day as one gone before, not lost, was one of the loveliest

embodiments of womanhood I have ever known. She possessed a rare

combination of strength, gentleness, and earnestness, with a childlike

freedom and cheerfulness. I miss to-day her clear voice, her graceful

self-poise, her calm dignity.

"From our midst another is missing: Mrs. Sarah Tyndale, of

Philadelphia--one of the first to sign the call. Indeed, the idea of

such a convention had often been discussed in her home, more than two

years before, a home where every progressive thought found a cordial

welcome. To this noble woman, who gave herself to this work with

genuine earnestness, it is fitting that we pay a tribute of

affectionate respect. She was, perhaps, more widely known than any

other woman of her time for her practical talents; having conducted

one of the largest business houses in her native city for nearly a

quarter of a century. Genial and largely hospitable, there was for her

great social sacrifice in taking up a cause so unpopular; but she had

no shrinking from duty, however trying it might be. Strong and grand

as she was, in her womanly nature, she had nevertheless the largest

and tenderest sympathies for the weak and erring. She was prescient,

philosophical, just, and generous. The mother of a large family, who

gathered around to honor and bless her, she had still room in her

heart for the woes of the world, and the latter years of her life were

given to earnest, philanthropic work. We miss to-day her sympathy, her

wise counsel, her great, organizing power.

"Many others there are, whose names well deserve to be graven in gold,

and it is cause of thanksgiving to God that they are still present

with us, their lives speaking better than words. Some are in the Far

West, doing brave service there; others are across the water; others

are withheld by cares and duties from being present; but we would fain

hope none are absent from choice.

"Profound feeling pervaded the entire audience, and the talent

displayed in the discussions, the eloquence of women who had never

before spoken in public, surprised even those who expected most. Mrs.

C. I. H. Nichols, of Vermont, made a profound impression. There was a

touching, tender pathos in her stories which went home to the heart;

and many eyes, all unused to tears, were moistened as she described

the agony of the mother robbed of her child by the law.

"Abby H. Price, large-hearted and large-brained, gentle and strong,

presented an address on the social question not easily forgotten, and

seldom to the present time bettered.

"Lucy Stone, a natural orator, with a silvery voice, a heart warm and

glowing with youthful enthusiasm; Antoinette L. Brown, a young

minister, met firmly the Scriptural arguments; and Dr. Harriot K.

Hunt, earnest for the medical education of woman, gave variety to the

discussions of the Convention.

"In this first national meeting the following resolution was passed,

which it may be proper here to reiterate, thus showing that our

present demand has always been one and the same:

"'_Resolved_, That women are clearly entitled to the right of

suffrage, and to be considered eligible to office; the omission

to demand which, on her part, is a palpable recreancy to duty,

and a denial of which is a gross usurpation on the part of man,

no longer to be endured; and that every party which claims to

represent the humanity, civilization, and progress of the age, is

bound to inscribe on its banners, "Equality before the Law,

without distinction of Sex or Color."'

"From North to South the press found these reformers wonderfully

ridiculous people. The 'hen convention' was served up in every variety

of style, till refined women dreaded to look into a newspaper.

Hitherto man had assumed to be the conscience of woman, now she

indicated the will to think for herself; hence all this odium. But,

however the word was preached, whether for wrath or conscience sake,

we rejoiced and thanked God.

"In July, following this Convention, an able and elaborate notice

appeared in the _Westminster Review_. This notice, candid in tone and

spirit, as it was thorough and able in discussion, successfully

vindicated every position we assumed, reaffirmed and established the

highest ground taken in principle or policy by our movement. The

wide-spread circulation and high authority of this paper told upon the

public mind, both in Europe and this country. It was at the time

supposed to be by Mr. John Stuart Mill. Later we learned that it was

from the pen of his noble wife, to whom be all honor for thus coming

to the aid of a struggling cause. I can pay no tribute to her memory

so beautiful as the following extract from a letter recently received

from her husband:

"'It gives me the greatest pleasure to know that the service

rendered by my dear wife to the cause which was nearer her heart

than any other, by her essay in the _Westminster Review_, has had

so much effect and is so justly appreciated in the United States.

Were it possible in a memoir to have the formation and growth of

a mind like hers portrayed, to do so would be as valuable a

benefit to mankind as was ever conferred by a biography. But such

a psychological history is seldom possible, and in her case the

materials for it do not exist. All that could be furnished is her

birth-place, parentage, and a few dates, and it seems to me that

her memory is more honored by the absence of any attempt at a

biographical notice than by the presence of a most meagre one.

What she was, I have attempted, though most inadequately, to

delineate in the remarks prefaced to her essay, as reprinted with

my "Dissertations and Discussions."'

"'I am very glad to hear of the step in advance made by the Rhode

Island Legislature in constituting a Board of Women for some

important administrative purposes. Your intended proposal, that

women be impaneled on every jury where women are to be tried,

seems to me very good, and calculated to place the injustice to

which women are at present subjected, by the entire legal system,

in a very striking light.

"'I am, dear madam, yours sincerely,

"'MRS. PAULINA WRIGHT DAVIS. J. S. MILL.'

"Immediately after the reports were published, they were sent to

various persons in Europe, and before the second Convention was held,

letters of cheer were received from Harriet Martineau, Marion Reid,

and others.

"Thus encouraged, we felt new zeal to go on with a work which had

challenged the understanding and constrained the hearts of the best

and soundest thinkers in the nation; had given an impulse to the women

of England and of Sweden--for Frederika Bremer had quoted from our

writings and reported our proceedings; our words had been like an

angel's visit to the prisoners of State in France and to the wronged

and outraged at home!

"Many letters were received from literary women in this country as

well as abroad. If not always ready to be identified with the work,

they were appreciative of its good effects, and, like Nicodemus, they

came by night to inquire 'how these things could be.' Self-interest

showed them the advantages accruing from the recognition of

equality--self-ism held them silent before the world till the reproach

should be worn away; but we credit them with a sense of justice and

right, which prompts them now to action. The rear guard is as

essential in the army as the advance; each should select the place

best adapted to their own powers."

As Mrs. Davis has fallen asleep since writing the above, we have

thought best to give what seemed to her the salient points of that

period in her own words.

October 23, 1850, a large audience assembled in Brinley Hall,

Worcester, Mass. The Convention was called to order by Sarah H. Earle,

of Worcester. Nine States were represented. There were Garrison,

Phillips, Burleigh, Foster, Pillsbury, leaders in the anti-slavery

struggle; Frederick Douglass and Sojourner Truth representing the

enslaved African race. The Channings, Sargents, Parsons, Shaws, from

the liberal pulpit and the aristocracy of Boston. From Ohio came

Mariana and Oliver Johnson, who had edited the _Anti-Slavery Bugle_,

that sent forth many a blast against the black laws of that State, and

many a stirring call for the woman's conventions. From Ohio, too, came

Ellen and Marion Blackwell, sisters of Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell.

Pennsylvania sent its Lucretia Mott, its Darlingtons, Plumlys,

Hastings, Millers, Hicks, who had all taken part in the exciting

divisions among the "Friends," as a sect. On motion of Mariana

Johnson, a temporary chairman was chosen, and a nominating committee

appointed, which reported the following list of officers adopted by

the Convention:

_President_--PAULINA WRIGHT DAVIS, R. I.

_Vice-Presidents_--WILLIAM HENRY CHANNING, Mass.; SARAH TYNDALE, Pa.

_Secretaries_--HANNAH M. DARLINGTON, Pa.; JOSEPH C. HATHAWAY, N. Y.

The Call of the Convention was read. It contains so good a digest of

the demands then made, in language so calm and choice, in thought so

clear and philosophical, that we give it entire, that the women of the

future may see how well their mothers understood their rights, and

with what modesty and moderation they pressed their wrongs on the

consideration of their rulers.

THE CALL.

A Convention will be held at Worcester, Mass., on the 23d and

24th of October next, to consider the question of Woman's Rights,

Duties, and Relations. The men and women who feel sufficient

interest in the subject to give an earnest thought and effective

effort to its rightful adjustment, are invited to meet each other

in free conference at the time and place appointed.

The upward tending spirit of the age, busy in an hundred forms of

effort for the world's redemption from the sins and sufferings

which oppress it, has brought this one, which yields to none in

importance and urgency, into distinguished prominence. One-half

the race are its immediate objects, and the other half are as

deeply involved, by that absolute unity of interest and destiny

which Nature has established between them. The neighbor is near

enough to involve every human being in a general equality of

rights and community of interests; but men and women in their

reciprocities of love and duty, are one flesh and one blood;

mother, sister, wife, and daughter come so near the heart and

mind of every man, that they must be either his blessing or his

bane. Where there is such mutuality of interests, such an

interlinking of life, there can be no real antagonism of position

and action. The sexes should not, for any reason or by any

chance, take hostile attitudes toward each other, either in the

apprehension or amendment of the wrongs which exist in their

necessary relations; but they should harmonize in opinion and

co-operate in effort, for the reason that they must unite in the

ultimate achievement of the desired reformation.

Of the many points now under discussion, and demanding a just

settlement; the general question of woman's rights and relations

comprehends these: Her education--literary, scientific, and

artistic; her avocations--industrial, commercial, and

professional; her interests--pecuniary, civil, and political; in

a word, her rights as an individual, and her functions as a

citizen.

No one will pretend that all these interests, embracing as they

do all that is not merely animal in a human life, are rightly

understood, or justly provided for in the existing social order.

Nor is it any more true that the constitutional differences of

the sexes which should determine, define, and limit the resulting

differences of office and duty, are adequately comprehended and

practically observed.

Woman has been condemned for her greater delicacy of physical

organization, to inferiority of intellectual and moral culture,

and to the forfeiture of great social, civil, and religious

privileges. In the relation of marriage she has been ideally

annihilated and actually enslaved in all that concerns her

personal and pecuniary rights, and even in widowed and single

life, she is oppressed with such limitation and degradation of

labor and avocation, as clearly and cruelly mark the condition of

a disabled caste. But by the inspiration of the Almighty, the

beneficent spirit of reform is roused to the redress of these

wrongs.

The tyranny which degrades and crushes wives and mothers sits no

longer lightly on the world's conscience; the heart's

home-worship feels the stain of stooping at a dishonored altar.

Manhood begins to feel the shame of muddying the springs from

which it draws its highest life, and womanhood is everywhere

awakening to assert its divinely chartered rights and to fulfill

its noblest duties. It is the spirit of reviving truth and

righteousness which has moved upon the great deep of the public

heart and aroused its redressing justice, and through it the

Providence of God is vindicating the order and appointments of

His creation.

The signs are encouraging; the time is opportune. Come, then, to

this Convention. It is your duty, if you are worthy of your age

and country. Give the help of your best thought to separate the

light from the darkness. Wisely give the protection of your name

and the benefit of your efforts to the great work of settling the

principles, devising the methods, and achieving the success of

this high and holy movement.

This call was signed by eighty-nine leading men and women of six

States.[42]

On taking the chair, Mrs. Davis said:

The reformation we propose in its utmost scope is radical and

universal. It is not the mere perfecting of a reform already in

motion, a detail of some established plan, but it is an epochal

movement--the emancipation of a class, the redemption of half the

world, and a conforming reorganization of all social, political,

and industrial interests and institutions. Moreover, it is a

movement without example among the enterprises of associated

reformations, for it has no purpose of arming the oppressed

against the oppressor, or of separating the parties, or of

setting up independence, or of severing the relations of either.

Its intended changes are to be wrought in the intimate texture of

all societary organizations, without violence or any form of

antagonism. It seeks to replace the worn-out with the living and

the beautiful, so as to reconstruct without overturning, and to

regenerate without destroying.

Our claim must rest on its justice, and conquer by its power of

truth. We take the ground that whatever has been achieved for the

race belongs to it, and must not be usurped by any class or

caste. The rights and liberties of one human being can not be

made the property of another, though they were redeemed for him

or her by the life of that other; for rights can not be forfeited

by way of salvage, and they are, in their nature, unpurchasable

and inalienable. We claim for woman a full and generous

investiture of all the blessings which the other sex has solely,

or by her aid, achieved for itself. We appeal from man's

injustice and selfishness to his principles and affections.

It was cheering to find in the very beginning many distinguished men

ready to help us to the law, gospel, social ethics, and philosophy

involved in our question. A letter from Gerrit Smith to William Lloyd

Garrison says:

PETERBORO, N. Y., _Oct. 16, 1850_.

MY DEAR SIR:--I this evening received from my friend H. H. Van

Amringe, of Wisconsin, the accompanying argument on woman's

rights. It is written by himself. He is, as you are aware, a

highly intellectual man. He wishes me to present this argument to

the Woman's Convention which is to be held in Worcester. Permit

me to do so through yourself.

My excessive business engagements compel me to refuse all

invitations to attend public meetings not in my own county. May

Heaven's richest blessings rest on the Convention.

Very respectfully and fraternally yours, GERRIT SMITH.

Mr. Van Amringe's paper on "Woman's Rights in Church and State" was

read and discussed, and a large portion of it printed in the regular

report of the proceedings.

The papers read by the women, in style and argument, were in no way

inferior to those of the men present.

Letters were read from Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Rev. Samuel J. May, L.

A. Hine, Elizur Wright, O. S. Eowler, Esther Ann Lukens, Margaret

Chappel Smith, Nancy M. Baird, Jane Cowen, Sophia L. Little, Elizabeth

Wilson, Maria L. Varney, and Milfred A. Spaford.[43]

Mrs. Abby H. Price, of Hopedale, made an address on the injustice of

excluding girls from the colleges, the trades and the professions, and

the importance of training them to some profitable labor, and thus to

protect their virtue, dignity, and self-respect by securing their

pecuniary independence.

She thought the speediest solution of the vexed problem of

prostitution was profitable work for the rising generation of

girls. The best legislation on the social vice was in removing

the legal disabilities that cripple all their powers. Woman, in

order to be equally independent with man, must have a fair and

equal chance. He is in nowise restricted from doing, in every

department of human exertion, all he is able to do. If he is bold

and ambitious, and desires fame, every avenue is open to him. He

may blend science and art, producing a competence for his

support, until he chains them to the car of his genius, and, with

Fulton and Morse, wins a crown of imperishable gratitude. If he

desires to tread the path of knowledge up to its glorious

temple-summit, he can, as he pleases, take either of the learned

professions as instruments of pecuniary independence, while he

plumes his wings for a higher and higher ascent. Not so with

woman. Her rights are not recognized as equal; her sphere is

circumscribed--not by her ability, but by her sex. If, perchance,

her taste leads her to excellence, in the way they give her leave

to tread, she is worshiped as almost divine; but if she reaches

for laurels they have in view, the wings of her genius are

clipped because she is a woman.

Dr. Harriot K. Hunt, of Boston, the first woman who practiced medicine

in this country, spoke on the medical education of women.

Sarah Tyndale, a successful merchant in Philadelphia, on the business

capacity of woman.

Antoinette L. Brown, a graduate of Oberlin College, and a student in

Theology, made a logical argument on woman's position in the Bible,

claiming her complete equality with man, the simultaneous creation of

the sexes, and their moral responsibilities as individual and

imperative.

The debates on the resolutions were spicy, pointed, and logical, and

were deeply interesting, continuing with crowded audiences through two

entire days. In these debates Lucy Stone, Lucretia Mott, Wendell

Phillips, William Henry Channing, Ernestine L. Rose, Frederick

Douglass, Martha Mowry, Abby Kelly and Stephen Foster, Elizabeth B.

Chase, James N. Buffam, Sojourner Truth, Eliab Capron, and Joseph C.

Hathaway, took part. As there was no phonographic reporter present,

most of the best speaking, that was extemporaneous, can not be handed

down to history.