After twelve added years of agitation, from the passage of the

property bill, New York conceded other civil rights to married women.

Pending the discussion of these various bills, Susan B. Anthony

circulated petitions both for the civil and political rights of woman

throughout the State, traveling in stage coaches and open wagons and

sleighs in all seasons, and on foot from door to door through towns

and cities, doing her uttermost to rouse women to some sense of their

natural rights as human beings, to their civil and political rights as

citizens of a republic; and while expending her time, strength, and

money to secure these blessings for the women of the State, they would

gruffly tell her they had all the rights they wanted, or rudely shut

the door in her face, leaving her to stand outside, petition in hand,

with as much contempt as if she were asking alms for herself. None but

those who did that petition work in the early days for the slaves and

the women, can ever know the hardships and humiliations that were

endured. But it was done because it was only through petitions, a

power seemingly so inefficient, that disfranchised classes could be

heard in the national councils, hence their importance.

The frivolous objections some women made to our appeals were as

exasperating as ridiculous. To reply to them politely at all times,

required a divine patience. On one occasion, after addressing the

Legislature, some of the ladies in congratulating me, inquired in a

deprecating tone, "What do you do with your children?" "Ladies," I

said, "it takes me no longer to speak than you to listen; what have

you done with your children the two hours you have been sitting here?

But to answer your questions. I never leave my children to go to

Saratoga, Washington, Newport, or Europe, nor even to come here. They

are at this moment with a faithful nurse at the Delavan House, and

having accomplished my mission, we shall all return home together."

Miss Anthony, who was a frequent guest at my home, sometimes stood

guard on such occasions.[83] The children of our household say that

among their earliest recollections is the tableau of "Mother and

Susan," seated by a large table covered with books and papers, always

writing and talking about the Constitution, interrupted with

occasional visits from others of the faithful. Hither came Elizabeth

Oakes Smith, Paulina Wright Davis, Frances Dana Gage, Dr. Harriot

Hunt, Antoinette Brown, Lucy Stone, Abby Kelly, by turn, until all

these names were as familiar as household words to the children.

Martha C. Wright, of Auburn, was a frequent visitor at the center of

the rebellion, as my sequestered cottage on Locust Hill was

facetiously called. She brought to these councils of war not only her

own individual wisdom, but that of the wife and sister of William H.

Seward, and sometimes encouraging suggestions from the great statesman

himself, from whose writings we often gleaned grand and radical

sentiments. Lucretia Mott, too, being an occasional guest at her

sister's in Auburn, added the dignity of her presence at many of these

important consultations. She was uniformly in favor of toning down our

fiery pronunciamentoes. For Miss Anthony and myself, the English

language had no words strong enough to express the indignation we felt

in view of the prolonged injustice to woman. We found, however, that

after expressing ourselves in the most vehement manner, and thus in a

measure giving our feelings an outlet, we were reconciled to issue the

documents at last in milder terms. If the men of the State could have

known the stern rebukes, the denunciations, the wit, the irony, the

sarcasm that were garnered there, and then judiciously pigeon-holed,

and milder and more persuasive appeals substituted, they would have

been truly thankful that they fared no worse.

Mr. Seward, in the brief intervals in his Washington life, made

frequent visits in our neighborhood at the house of Judge G. V.

Sackett, a man of wealth and some political influence. One of the

Senator's standing anecdotes at dinner to illustrate the purifying

influence of woman at the polls, which he always told with great zest

for my special benefit, was in regard to the manner his wife's sister

exercised the right of suffrage.

"Mrs. Worden having the supervision of a farm near Auburn, was obliged

to hire two or three men for its cultivation. It was her custom,

having examined them as to their capacity to perform the required

labor, their knowledge of tools, horses, cattle, gardening, and

horticulture, to inquire as to their politics. She informed them that

being a woman and a widow, and having no one to represent her, she

must have Republicans to do her voting, to represent her political

opinions, and it always so happened that the men who offered their

services belonged to the Republican party.

"Some one remarked to her one day, 'Are you sure your men vote as they

promise?' 'Yes,' she replied, 'I trust nothing to their discretion. I

take them in my carriage within sight of the polls, put them in charge

of some Republican who can be trusted. I see they have the right

tickets, then I feel sure I am faithfully represented, and I know I am

right in so doing. I have neither husband, father, nor son; am

responsible for my own taxes; am amenable to all the laws of the

State; must pay the penalty of my own crimes if I commit any; hence I

have the right, according to the principles of our government, to

representation, and so long as I am not permitted to vote in person, I

have a right to do so by proxy, hence I hire men to vote my

principles.'" Thus she disposed of the statesman and his seriocomic

morality.

These two sisters, daughters of Judge Miller, an influential man of

wealth and position, were women of culture and remarkable natural

intelligence, and interested in all progressive ideas. They had rare

common-sense and independence of character, great simplicity of

manner, and were wholly indifferent to the little arts of the toilet.

I was often told by fashionable women that one great objection to the

woman's rights movement was the publicity of the conventions; the

immodesty of speaking from a platform; and the trial of seeing one's

name in the papers. Several ladies made such remarks to me one day as

a bevy of us were sitting together in one of the fashionable hotels in

Newport. We were holding a Convention there at that time, and some of

them had been present at one of the sessions. "Really," said I,

"ladies, you surprise me; our Conventions are not as public as the

ball-room where I saw you all dancing last night. As to modesty, it

may be a question in many minds whether it is less modest to speak

words of soberness and truth, plainly dressed with one's person

decently covered on a platform, than gorgeously arrayed with bare arms

and shoulders, to waltz in the arms of strange gentlemen.

"And as to the press, I noticed you all reading with evident

satisfaction the personal compliments and full descriptions of your

dresses at the last ball, in this morning's papers. I presume that any

one of you would have felt slighted if your name had not been

mentioned in the general description. When my name is mentioned, it is

in connection with some great moral movement, as making a speech, or

reading a resolution. Thus we all suffer or enjoy the same publicity,

we are all alike ridiculed, wise men pity and ridicule you, fops and

fools pity and ridicule me, you as the victims of folly and fashion,

me as the representative of many of the disagreeable 'isms' of the

age, as they choose to distinguish liberal opinions. It is amusing in

analyzing prejudices to see on what slender foundations they rest,"

and the ladies around me were so completely cornered that no one

attempted an answer.

I remember being at a party at Gov. Seward's one evening, when Mr.

Burlingame and his Chinese delegation were among the guests. As soon

as the dancing commenced, and young ladies and gentlemen locked in

each other's arms, began to whirl in the giddy waltz, these Chinese

gentlemen were so shocked that they covered their faces with their

fans, occasionally peeping out each side and expressing their surprise

to each other. They thought us the most immodest women on the face of

the earth. Modesty and good taste are questions of latitude and

education; the more people know, the more their ideas are expanded, by

travel, experience, and observation; the less easily they are shocked.

The narrowness and bigotry of women, are the result of their

circumscribed sphere of thought and action.

Soon after Judge Hurlbut had published his work on "Human Rights," and

I had addressed the Legislature the first time, we met at a dinner

party in Albany; Mr. and Mrs. Seward were there. The Senator was very

merry on that occasion, and made Judge Hurlbut and myself the target

for all his ridicule on the woman's rights question, in which most of

the company joined, so that we stood quite alone. Sure that we had the

right on our side, and the arguments clearly defined in our own minds,

and both being cool and self-possessed, and with wit and sarcasm quite

equal to any of them, we fought the Senator inch by inch until he had

a very narrow platform to stand on. Mrs. Seward maintained an unbroken

silence, while those ladies who did open their lips were with the

opposition, supposing, no doubt, that Mr. Seward represented his

wife's opinions.

When the ladies withdrew from the table, my embarrassment may be

easily imagined. Separated from the Judge, I should now be an hour

with a bevy of ladies who evidently felt a repulsion to all my most

cherished opinions. It was the first time I had met Mrs. Seward, and I

did not then know the broad liberal tendencies of her mind. What a

tide of disagreeable thoughts rushed through me in that short passage

from the dining-room to the parlor; how gladly I would have glided out

the front door, but that was impossible, so I made up my mind to

stroll round as if self-absorbed and look at the books and paintings

until the Judge appeared, as I took it for granted that after all I

said at the table on the political, religious, and social equality of

woman, not a lady would have anything to say to me.

Imagine then my surprise when the moment the parlor door was closed

upon us, Mrs. Seward, approaching me most affectionately said, "Let me

thank you for all the brave words you uttered at the dinner-table, and

for your speech before the Legislature, that thrilled my soul as I

read it over and over." I was filled with joy and astonishment.

Recovering myself, I said, "Is it possible, Mrs. Seward, that you

agree with me? Then why, when I was so hard pressed with foes on every

side, did you not come to the defence? I supposed that all you ladies

were hostile to every one of my ideas on this question!" "No, no!"

said she, "I am with you thoroughly, but I am a born coward; there is

nothing I dread more than Mr. Seward's ridicule. I would rather walk

up to the cannon's mouth than encounter it." "I too am with you," "And

I," said two or three others who had been silent at the table. I never

had a more serious, heartfelt conversation than with these ladies.

Mrs. Seward's spontaneity and earnestness had moved them all deeply,

and when the Senator appeared the first word he said was, "Before we

part I must confess that I was fairly vanquished by you and the Judge,

on my own principles (for we had quoted some of his most radical

utterances). You have the argument, but custom and prejudice are

against you, and they are stronger than truth and logic."

We had quite a magnetic circle of reformers in Central New York, that

kept the missives flying. At Rochester, were William H. Ohanning,

Frederick Douglass, the Anthonys, the Posts, the Hallowells, the

Stebbins, some grand Quaker families in Farmington, and Waterloo; Mrs.

Bloomer and her sprightly weekly called _The Lily_, at Seneca Falls;

Mrs. Wright, Mrs. Worden, Mrs. Seward, at Auburn; Gerrit Smith's

family at Peterboro; Beriah Green's at Whitesboro, with the Sedgwicks

and Mays, and Matilda Joslyn Gage at Syracuse. Although Mrs. Gage was

surrounded with a family of small children for years, yet she was

always a student, an omnivorous reader and liberal thinker, and her

pen was ever at work answering the attacks on the woman movement in

the county and State journals. In the village of Manlius, where she

lived some time after her marriage, she was the sole representative of

this unpopular reform. When walking the street she would often hear

some boy, shielded by a dry-goods box or a fence, cry out "woman's

rights."

On one occasion, at a large evening party at Mr. Van Schaick's, the

host read aloud a poem called Rufus Chubb, a burlesque on

"strong-minded" women, ridiculing careers and conventions, and the

many claims being made for larger freedom. Mrs. Gage, then quite

young, was surprised and embarrassed. Every eye was fixed on her, as

evidently the type of womanhood the author was portraying. As soon as

the reader's voice died away, Mrs. Gage, with marked coolness and

grace, approached him, and with an imaginary wreath crowned him the

poet-laureate of the occasion, and introduced him to the company as

"the immortal Rufus Chubb." The expressive gesture and the few brief

words conferring the honor, turned the laugh on Mr. Van Schaick so

completely, that he was the target for all the merriment of the

evening.

Mrs. Gage was the only daughter of Dr. Hezekiah Joslyn, a man of

learning and philanthropic tendencies. He gave much attention to the

direction of his daughter's thought and reading. She always had a

knack of rummaging through old libraries, bringing more startling

facts to light than any woman I ever knew.[84]

In the winter of 1861, just after the election of Lincoln, the

Abolitionists decided to hold a series of Conventions in the chief

cities of the North. All their available speakers were pledged for

active service. The Republican party, having absorbed the political

Abolitionists within its ranks by its declared hostility to the

extension of slavery, had come into power with overwhelming

majorities; hence the Garrisonian Abolitionists, opposed to all

compromises, felt this was the opportune moment to rouse the people to

the necessity of holding that party to its declared principles, and

pushing it, if possible, a step or two forward.

I was invited to accompany Miss Anthony and Beriah Green to a few

points in Central New York. But we soon found, by the concerted action

of Republicans all over the country, the Conventions were broken up at

every point. This furnished one occasion on which Republicans and

Democrats could work harmoniously together, and they made common cause

against the Abolitionists. The John Brown raid the year before had

intimidated Northern politicians as much as Southern slaveholders, and

the general feeling was that the discussion of the question at the

North should be altogether suppressed.

From Buffalo to Albany our experience was the same, varied only by the

fertile resources of the actors and their surroundings. Thirty years

of education had somewhat changed the character of Northern mobs. They

no longer dragged men through the streets with ropes round their

necks, nor broke up women's prayer-meetings; they no longer threw eggs

and brickbats at the apostles of reform, nor dipped them in barrels of

tar and feathers; they simply crowded the halls, and with laughing,

groaning, clapping, and cheering, effectually interrupted the

proceedings.

Thus we passed the two days we had advertised for a Convention in St.

James' Hall, Buffalo. As we paid for the Hall, the mob enjoyed

themselves at our expense in more ways than one. At the appointed time

every session we took our places on the platform, making at various

intervals of silence renewed efforts to speak. Not succeeding, we sat

and conversed with each other and many friends who crowded the

platform and ante-rooms. Thus among ourselves we had a pleasant

reception and a discussion of many phases of the question that brought

us together. The mob not only vouchsafed to us the privilege of

talking to our friends without interruption, but delegations of their

own came behind the scenes from time to time, to discuss with us the

right of free speech and the constitutionality of slavery.

These Buffalo rowdies were headed by ex-Justice Hinson, aided by

younger members of the Fillmore and Seymour families and the Chief of

Police and fifty subordinates, who were admitted to the hall free for

the express purpose of protecting our right of free speech, which in

defiance of the Mayor's orders, they did not make the slightest effort

to do. At Lockport there was a feeble attempt in the same direction.

At Albion neither hall, church, nor school-house could be obtained, so

we held small meetings in the dining-room of the hotel.

At Rochester, Corinthian Hall was packed long before the hour

advertised. This was a delicately appreciative jocose mob. At this

point Aaron Powell joined us. As he had just risen from a bed of

sickness, looking pale and emaciated, he slowly mounted the platform.

The mob at once took in his look of exhaustion, and as he seated

himself they gave an audible, simultaneous sigh, as if to say, What a

relief it is to be seated! So completely did the tender manifestation

reflect Mr. Powell's apparent condition, that the whole audience burst

into a roar of laughter. Here, too, all attempts to speak were futile.

At Port Byron a generous sprinkling of cayenne pepper on the stove,

soon cut short all constitutional arguments and paeans to liberty. And

so it was all the way to Albany. The whole State was aflame with the

mob spirit, and from Boston and various points in other States, the

same news reached us. As the Legislature was in session, and we were

advertised in Albany, a radical member sarcastically moved "that as

Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony were about to move on Albany, the

militia be ordered out for the protection of the city."

Happily, Albany could then boast a democratic Mayor, a man of courage

and conscience, who said the right of free speech should never be

trodden underfoot where he had the power to prevent it. And grandly

did that one determined man maintain order in his jurisdiction.

Through all the sessions of the Convention Mayor Thatcher sat on the

platform, his police stationed in different parts of the Hall and

outside the building, to disperse the crowd as fast as collected. If a

man or boy hissed or made the slightest interruption, he was

immediately ejected. And not only did the Mayor preserve order in the

meetings, but with a company of armed police, he escorted us every

time to and from the Delavan House. The last night Gerrit Smith

addressed the mob from the steps of the hotel, after which they gave

him three cheers, and dispersed in good order.

When proposing for the Mayor a vote of thanks at the close of the

Convention, Mr. Smith expressed his fears that it had been a severe

ordeal for him to listen to these prolonged anti-slavery discussions,

he smiled, and said: "I have really been deeply interested and

instructed. I rather congratulate myself that a Convention of this

character has at last come in the line of my business, otherwise I

should have probably remained in ignorance of many important facts and

opinions I now understand and appreciate."

Whilst all this was going on publicly, we had an equally trying

experience progressing day by day behind the scenes. Miss Anthony had

been instrumental in helping a fugitive mother with her child, escape

from a husband who had immured her in an insane asylum. The wife,

belonging to one of the first families of New York, her brother a

United States Senator, and the husband a man of position, a large

circle of friends and acquaintances were interested in the result.

Though she was incarcerated in an insane asylum for eighteen months,

yet members of her own family again and again testified that she was

not insane. Miss Anthony knowing that she was not, and believing fully

that the unhappy mother was the victim of a conspiracy, would not

reveal her hiding-place.

Knowing the confidence Miss Anthony felt in the wisdom of Mr. Garrison

and Mr. Phillips, they were implored to use their influence with her

to give up the fugitives. Letters and telegrams, persuasions,

arguments, warnings, from Mr. Garrison, Mr. Phillips, the Senator, on

the one side, and from Lydia Mott, Mrs. Elizabeth F. Ellet, Abby

Hopper Gibbons, on the other, poured in upon her day after day, but

Miss Anthony remained immovable, although she knew she was defying

authority and violating law, and that she might be arrested any moment

on the platform. We had known so many aggravated cases of this kind,

that in daily counsel we resolved that this woman should not be

recaptured if it was possible to prevent it. To us it looked as

imperative a duty to shield a sane mother who had been torn from a

family of little children and doomed to the companionship of lunatics,

and to aid her in fleeing to a place of safety, as to help a fugitive

from slavery to Canada. In both cases an unjust law was violated; in

both cases the supposed owners of the victims were defied, hence, in

point of law and morals, the act was the same in both cases. The

result proved the wisdom of Miss Anthony's decision, as all with whom

Mrs. P. came in contact for years afterward, expressed the opinion

that she was perfectly sane and always had been. Could the dark

secrets of these insane asylums be brought to light, we should be

shocked to know the countless number of rebellious wives, sisters, and

daughters that are thus annually sacrificed to false customs and

conventionalisms, and barbarous laws made by men for women.

Quite an agitation occurred in 1852, on woman's costume. In demanding

a place in the world of work, the unfitness of her dress seemed to

some, an insurmountable obstacle. How can you, it was said, ever

compete with man for equal place and pay, with garments of such frail

fabrics and so cumbrously fashioned, and how can you ever hope to

enjoy the same health and vigor with man, so long as the waist is

pressed into the smallest compass, pounds of clothing hung on the

hips, the limbs cramped with skirts, and with high heels the whole

woman thrown out of her true equilibrium. Wise men, physicians, and

sensible women, made their appeals, year after year; physiologists

lectured on the subject; the press commented, until it seemed as if

there were a serious demand for some decided steps, in the direction

of a rational costume for women. The most casual observer could see

how many pleasures young girls were continually sacrificing to their

dress: In walking, running, rowing, skating, dancing, going up and

down stairs, climbing trees and fences, the airy fabrics and flowing

skirts were a continual impediment and vexation. We can not estimate

how large a share of the ill-health and temper among women is the

result of the crippling, cribbing influence of her costume. Fathers,

husbands, and brothers, all joined in protest against the small waist,

and stiff distended petticoats, which were always themes for unbounded

ridicule. But no sooner did a few brave conscientious women adopt the

bifurcated costume, an imitation in part of the Turkish style, than

the press at once turned its guns on "The Bloomer," and the same

fathers, husbands, and brothers, with streaming eyes and pathetic

tones, conjured the women of their households to cling to the

prevailing fashions.[85] The object of those who donned the new

attire, was primarily health and freedom; but as the daughter of

Gerrit Smith introduced it just at the time of the early conventions,

it was supposed to be an inherent element in the demand for political

equality. As some of those who advocated the right of suffrage wore

the dress, and had been identified with all the unpopular reforms, in

the reports of our conventions, the press rung the changes on

"strong-minded," "Bloomer," "free love," "easy divorce,"

"amalgamation." I wore the dress two years and found it a great

blessing. What a sense of liberty I felt, in running up and down

stairs with my hands free to carry whatsoever I would, to trip through

the rain or snow with no skirts to hold or brush, ready at any moment

to climb a hill-top to see the sun go down, or the moon rise, with no

ruffles or trails to be limped by the dew, or soiled by the grass.

What an emancipation from little petty vexatious trammels and

annoyances every hour of the day. Yet such is the tyranny of custom,

that to escape constant observation, criticism, ridicule,

persecution, mobs,[86] one after another gladly went back to the old

slavery and sacrificed freedom to repose. I have never wondered since

that the Chinese women allow their daughters' feet to be encased in

iron shoes, nor that the Hindoo widows walk calmly to the funeral

pyre. I suppose no act of my life ever gave my cousin, Gerrit Smith,

such deep sorrow, as my abandonment of the "Bloomer costume." He

published an open letter[87] to me on the subject, and when his

daughter, Mrs. Miller, three years after, followed my example, he felt

that women had so little courage and persistence, that for a time he

almost despaired of the success of the suffrage movement; of such

vital consequence in woman's mental and physical development did he

feel the dress to be.

Gerrit Smith[88] Samuel J. May, J. C. Jackson, C. D. Miller and D. C.

Bloomer, sustained the women who lead in this reform, unflinchingly,

during the trying experiment. Let the names of those who made this

protest be remembered. We knew the Bloomer costume never could be

generally becoming, as it required a perfection of form, limbs, and

feet, such as few possessed, and we who wore it also knew that it was

not artistic. Though the martyrdom proved too much for us who had so

many other measures to press on the public conscience, yet no

experiment is lost, however evanescent, that rouses thought to the

injurious consequences of the present style of dress, sacrificing to

its absurdities so many of the most promising girls of this

generation.

FOOTNOTES:

[82] One imagined himself possessed of rare powers of invention (an

ancestral weakness for generations), and had just made a

life-preserver of corks, and tested its virtues on a brother about

eighteen months old. Accompanied by a troop of expectant boys, the

baby was drawn in his carriage to the banks of the Seneca, stripped,

the string of corks tied under his arms, and set afloat in the river,

the philosopher and his satellites in a row-boat, watching the

experiment. The child, accustomed to a morning bath in a large tub,

splashed about joyfully, keeping his head above water. He was as blue

as indigo, and as cold as a frog when rescued by his anxious mother.

The next day, the same victimized infant was seen by a passing friend,

seated on the chimney, on the highest peak of the house. Without

alarming any one, the friend hurried up to the house-top, and rescued

the child from the arms of the philosopher. Another time, three elder

brothers entered into a conspiracy, and locked up the fourth in the

smoke-house. Fortunately, he sounded the alarm loud and clear, and was

set free in safety, whereupon the three were imprisoned in a garret

with two barred windows. They summarily kicked out the bars, and

sliding down on the lightning-rod betook themselves to the barn for

liberty. The youngest boy, then only five years old, skinned his hands

in the descent. This is a fair sample of the quiet happiness I enjoyed

in the first years of motherhood. It was 'mid such exhilarating scenes

that Miss Anthony and I wrote addresses for temperance, anti-slavery,

educational and woman's rights conventions. Here we forged

resolutions, protests, appeals, petitions, agricultural reports, and

constitutional arguments, for we made it a matter of conscience to

accept every invitation to speak on every question, in order to

maintain woman's right to do so. To this end, we took turns on the

domestic watch-towers, directing amusements, settling disputes,

protecting the weak against the strong, and trying to secure equal

rights to all in the home as well as the nation. I can recall many a

stern encounter between my friend and the young experimenter. It is

pleasant to remember that he never seriously injured any of his

victims, and only once came near shooting himself with a pistol. The

ball went through his hand; happily a brass button prevented it from

penetrating his heart.

[83] When the flock reached the magic number of seven, my good angel

would sometimes take one or two to her own quiet home just out of

Rochester, where on a well-cultivated little farm, one could enjoy

uninterrupted rest and the choicest fruits of the season. That was

always a safe harbor for my friend, as her family sympathized fully in

the reforms to which she gave her life. I have many pleasant memories

of my own flying visits to that hospitable Quaker home and the broad

catholic spirit of Daniel and Lucy Anthony. Whatever opposition and

ridicule their daughter endured elsewhere, she enjoyed the steadfast

sympathy and confidence of her own home circle. Her faithful sister

Mary, a most successful principal in the public schools of Rochester

for a quarter of a century, and a good financier, who with her

patrimony and salary has laid by a competence, took on her shoulders

double duty at home in cheering the declining years of her parents,

that Susan might do the public work in these reforms, in which the

sisters were equally interested. At one time when Susan had expended

her last dollar in the publication of her paper, _The Revolution_, and

also $5,000 given her by a wealthy cousin, Anson Lapham, Mary

generously advanced another five thousand, and thus bridged the last

chasm. And now with life's earnest work nearly accomplished, the

sisters are living happily together, illustrating another of the many

charming homes of single women so rapidly multiplying in later years.

[84] Mrs. Gage received a somewhat remarkable early training. Not only

was her father a man of profound thought, a reformer thoroughly

studying all the new questions coming up, but his house was a station

on the underground railroad, the home of anti-slavery speakers and

advanced thinkers upon every subject, as well as that of a large

number of clergymen, who yearly held "protracted meetings" in the

place. Sitting up until midnight listening to the discussions of those

reverend gentlemen upon baptism, original sin, predestination, and

other doctrinal points, her thought was early turned to religious

questions. She read the Bible through before she was nine years old,

and became a church member at the early age of eleven, her parents, in

accordance with their habits, not attempting to influence her mind for

or against this step.

Dr. Joslyn paid great attention to his daughter's education. From her

earliest years it was a law of the household that her childish

questions should not be put off with an idle reply, but must be

reasonably answered; and when she was older, he himself instructed her

in mathematics, Greek, and physiology. But that for which she feels

most indebted to him, as she often says--the grandest training given

her--was to think for herself. She was taught to accept no opinion

because of its authority, but to question the truth of all things.

Thus was laid the foundation of Mrs. Gage's reform tendencies and of

her non-acceptance of masculine authority in matters of religion and

politics. Nor was she, in a certain way, less indebted to her mother,

a Scotch lady, belonging to the noble, old, and influential family of

Leslie, a woman of refined and elevated tastes, universally respected

and beloved. From this side Mrs. Gage inherited her antiquarian tastes

and habits of delving into old histories, from which she has unearthed

so many facts bearing upon woman's degradation.

[85] See Appendix.

[86] See Appendix.

[87] See Appendix.

[88] Gerrit Smith's home was ever a charming resort for lovers of

liberty as well as lovers of Eve's daughters. In his leisure hours my

cousin had a turn for match-making, and his chief delight in this

direction was to promote unions between good Abolitionists and the

sons and daughters of conservative families. Here James G. Birney,

among others, wooed and won his wife. Here one would meet the first

families in the State, with Indians, Africans, slaveholders,

religionists of all sects, and representatives of all shades of

humanity, each class alike welcomed and honored, feasting, feting,

dancing--joining in all kinds of amusements and religious worship

together (the Indians excepted, as they generally came for provisions,

which, having secured, they departed). His house was one of the depots

of the underground railroad. One day Mr. Smith summoned all the young

girls then visiting there, saying he had a great secret to tell them

if they would sacredly pledge themselves not to divulge it. Having

done so, he led the way to the third story, ushered us into a large

room, and there stood a beautiful quadroon girl to receive us.

"Harriet," said Mr. Smith, "I want you to make good Abolitionists of

these girls by describing to them all you have suffered in slavery."

He then left the room, locking us in. Her narrative held us

spell-bound until the lengthening shadows of the twilight hour made

her departure safe for Canada. One remark she made impressed me

deeply. I told her of the laws for women such as we then lived under,

and remarked on the parallel condition of slaves and women. "Yes,"

said she, "but I am both. I am doubly damned in sex and color. Yea, in

class too, for I am poor and ignorant; none of you can ever touch the

depth of misery where I stand to-day." We had the satisfaction to see

Harriet dressed in Quaker costume, closely veiled, drive off in the

moonlight that evening, to find the liberty she could not enjoy in

this Republic, under the shadow of a monarch's throne.

CHAPTER XIV.

NEW YORK.

First Steps in New York--Woman's Temperance Convention, Albany,

January, 1852--New York Woman's State Temperance Society,

Rochester, April, 1852--Women before the Legislature pleading for

a Maine Law--Women rejected as Delegates to Men's State

Conventions at Albany and Syracuse, 1852; at the Brick Church

Meeting and World's Temperance Convention in New York,

1858--Horace Greeley defends the Rights of Women in _The York

Tribune_--The Teachers' State Conventions--The Syracuse National

Woman's Rights Convention, 1852--Mob in the Broadway Tabernacle

Woman's Rights Convention through two days, 1853--State Woman's

Rights Convention at Rochester, December, 1853--Albany

Convention, February, 1854, and Hearing before the Legislature

demanding the Right of Suffrage--A State Committee

Appointed--Susan B. Anthony General Agent--Conventions at

Saratoga Springs, 1854, '55, '59--Annual State Conventions with

Legislative Hearings and Reports of Committees, until the

War--Married Women's Property Law, 1860--Bill before the

Legislature Granting Divorce for Drunkenness--Horace Greeley and

Thurlow Weed oppose it--Ernestine L. Rose, Lucretia Mott, and

Elizabeth Cady Stanton Address the Legislature in favor of the

Bill--Robert Dale Owen defends the Measure in _The New York

Tribune_--National Woman's Rights Conventions in New York City,

1856, '58, '59, '60--Status of the Woman's Rights Movement at the

Opening of the War, 1861.

A full report of the woman's rights agitation in the State of New

York, would in a measure be the history of the movement. In this

State, the preliminary battles in the anti-slavery, temperance,

educational, and religious societies were fought; the first

Governmental aid given to the higher education of woman, and her voice

first heard in teachers' associations. Here the first Woman's Rights

Convention was held, the first demand made for suffrage, the first

society formed for this purpose, and the first legislative efforts

made to secure the civil and political rights of women; commanding the

attention of leading members of the bar; of Savage, Spencer, Hertell,

and Hurlbut. Here too the pulpit made the first demand for the

political rights of woman. Here was the first temperance society

formed by women, the first medical college opened to them, and woman

first ordained for the ministry.

In 1850, in the city of Buffalo, 1,500 women petitioned the Common

Council not to license the sale of intoxicating drinks; and the

following year, they sent a petition to the Legislature, signed by

2,200, asking for an act authorizing some official body to take into

custody, and provide for the swarms of vagrant children, growing up in

ignorance and vice. This may be considered the initiative step to a

Board of Charities. In the same year, a number of spirited women in

Fulton, Oswego Co., disgusted with the inefficient action of the

temperance men, entered complaint against the liquor dealers, for the

violation of the license laws, and some of them attended the trials in

person. In 1851, the ladies of Cardiff, Onondaga Co., appeared before

the Grand Jury, and made complaint against the liquor dealers and

overseers of the poor, the one for violating the law, the other for

neglecting to prosecute the violators on their complaint, and they

succeeded in getting both indicted. In 1851, a petition was sent from

Ontario County, praying the Legislature to exempt women from taxation.

September 15, 1853, Antoinette L. Brown was ordained as pastor of a

church in South Butler, and November 15, performed the ceremony at the

marriage of a daughter of Rhoda de Garmo, of Rochester. In this year,

at a large Convention of liberal people, to promote Christian Union,

held in Syracuse, she made an address. All denominations took part on

the occasion and listened to her with respectful attention. In New

York, woman's voice was first heard on the Nation's great festal day.

In 1853, Mary Vaughan gave the fourth of July oration at Speedsville,

Emily Clarke at Watkins, Amelia Bloomer at Hartford, and Antoinette

Brown at South Butler. Everything on these occasions was conducted as

usual: the grand procession to the grove, or town hall, the military

escort, reading the Declaration, martial music, cannon, fire-crackers,

torpedoes, roast pig, and green peas; none of the usual accompaniments

were omitted. In the same year, Antoinette Brown and Lucy Stone

canvassed the twenty-second district, to secure the election of the

Hon. Gerrit Smith for Congress, and were successful in their efforts.

In April, 1854, the Daughters of Temperance at Johnson's Creek, sent

thirty pieces of silver to Gov. Seymour, for vetoing a bill for a

prohibitory law, and thus betraying the friends of temperance. In New

York, the first anti-tax association, the first woman's club and Loyal

League were formed. Here, too, a woman, Mrs. Josephine Shaw Lowell,

was appointed State Commissioner of Charities, by Gov. Samuel J.

Tilden. Whether the Governor of any other State had preceded him in a

more profitable or honorable appointment, has not yet been discovered.

Lest women should feel too deep a sense of gratitude, they should

understand that this office involves arduous labors, but no pecuniary

recompense. This may be a reason that such positions are being

gradually assigned to women.

At the time of this general uprising, New York was thoroughly stirred

with temperance and anti-slavery excitement. George Thompson, the

great English reformer and orator, who had been mobbed in all the

chief cities of the North, accompanied by William Lloyd Garrison, was

holding a series of conventions through the State. And as these

conventions were held in the midst of the "Jerry rescue trials,"[89]

the apostles of freedom spoke with terrible vehemence and

denunciation. Popular orators, too, were rushing here and there in the

furor of a Presidential campaign, and as all these reforms were thrown

into the governmental cauldron for discussion, the whole people seemed

to be on the watch towers of politics and philanthropy. Women shared

in the general unrest, and began to take many steps before unknown.

Since 1840, they had generally attended political meetings, as with

the introduction of moral questions into legislation, they had

manifested an increasing interest in government.

The repeal of the License Law of 1846, filled the temperance hosts

throughout the State with alarm, and roused many women to the

assertion of their rights. Impoverished, broken-hearted wives and

mothers, were for the first time looking to the State for some

protection against the cruelties and humiliations they endured at the

hands of liquor dealers, when suddenly the beneficent law was

repealed, and their reviving hopes crushed. The burning indignation of

women, who had witnessed the protracted outrages on helpless wives and

children in the drunkard's home, roused many to public speech, and

gave rise to the secret organizations called "Daughters of

Temperance." Others finding there was no law nor gospel in the land

for their protection, took the power in their own hands, visiting

saloons, breaking windows, glasses, bottles, and emptying demijohns

and barrels into the streets. Coming like whirlwinds of vengeance,

drunkards and rum-sellers stood paralyzed before them. Though women

were sometimes arrested for these high-handed proceedings, a strong

public sentiment justified their acts, and forced the liquor dealers

to withdraw their complaints.[90]

There is nothing more terrible than the reckless courage of despairing

women, who, though knowing they have eternal truth and justice on

their side, know also their helplessness against the tide of misery

engulphing the drunkard's home. Women were applauded for these acts of

heroism by the press and temperance leagues; they were welcomed too as

speakers sometimes on their platforms, just as slaves were in the

olden days, to move an audience with their tales of woe. But when they

organized themselves into associations, adopted constitutions, passed

resolutions, and sent their delegates to men's conventions, asking to

be recognized as equals, then began the battle in the temperance

ranks, vindictive and protracted for years. The clergy were the most

bitter opponents of the public action of women; but throughout the

conflict they were sustained by the purest men in the nation, such as

Horace Greeley, Joshua R. Giddings, Rev. E. H. Chapin, Rev. Samuel J.

May, Thomas W. Higginson, William H. Channing, Gerrit Smith, Wendell

Phillips, William Lloyd Garrison, and others. All this persecution on

the ground of sex, intensified the love of liberty in woman's soul,

and deepened the oft repeated lesson of individual rights.

On January 28, 1852, "The Daughters of Temperance" assembled in Albany

to take part in a mass meeting of all the "Divisions" in the State.

Among the delegates present were Susan B. Anthony, Mary C. Vaughan,

and Lydia Fowler, who were received as members of the Convention. But

at the first attempt by Miss Anthony to speak, they were informed that

the ladies were invited to listen, and not to take part in the

proceedings. Those women present who were not satisfied with such a

position withdrew, announcing that they would hold a meeting that

evening in which men and women would stand on equal ground.

At the appointed time they assembled in the vestry-room of the

Presbyterian church on Hudson Street. Samuel J. May, who was in Albany

attending one of the "Jerrey Rescue Trials," was present, and opened

the meeting with prayer. Mrs. Vaughan was chosen President,[91] and on

taking the chair, said:

We have met to consider what we, as women, can do and may do, to

forward the temperance reform. We have met, because, as members

of the human family, we share in all the sufferings which error

and crime bring upon the race, and because we are learning that

our part in the drama of life is something beside inactive

suffering and passive endurance. We would act as well as endure;

and we meet here to-day because many of us have been trying to

act, and we would combine our individual experiences, and

together devise plans for the future, out of which shall arise

well-based hopes of good results to humanity. We are aware that

this proceeding of ours, this calling together of a body of women

to deliberate publicly upon plans to carry out a specified

reform, will rub rather harshly upon the mould of prejudice,

which has gathered thick upon the common mind.

.... There are plenty of women, as well as men, who can labor for

reforms without neglecting business or duty. It is an error that

clings most tenaciously to the public mind, that because a part

of the sex are wives and mothers and have absorbing duties, that

all the sex should be denied any other sphere of effort. To

deprive every unmarried woman, spinster, or widow, or every

childless wife, of the power of exercising her warm sympathies

for the good of others, is to deprive her of the greatest

happiness of which she is capable; to rob her highest faculties

of their legitimate operation and reward; to belittle and narrow

her mind; to dwarf her affections; to turn the harmonies of her

nature to discord; and, as the human mind must be active, to

compel her to employ hers with low and grovelling thoughts, which

lead to contemptible actions.

There is no reform in which woman can act better or more

appropriately than temperance. I know not how she can resist or

turn aside from the duty of acting in this; its effects fall so

crushingly upon her and those whose interests are identical with

her own; she has so often seen its slow, insidious, but not the

less surely fatal advances, gaining upon its victim; she has seen

the intellect which was her dearest pride, debased; the

affections which were her life-giving springs of action,

estranged; the children once loved, abused, disgraced and

impoverished; the home once an earthly paradise, rendered a fit

abode for lost spirits; has felt in her own person all the

misery, degradation, and woe of the drunkard's wife; has shrunk

from revilings and cowered beneath blows; has labored and toiled

to have her poor earnings transferred to the rum-seller's

ill-gotten hoard; while her children, ragged, fireless, poor,

starving, gathered shivering about her, and with hollow eyes,

from which all smiles had fled, begged vainly for the bread she

had not to bestow. Oh! the misery, the utter, hopeless misery of

the drunkard's wife!

.... We account it no reason why we should desist, when

conscience, an awakened sense of duty, and aroused

heart-sympathies, would lead us to show ourselves something

different than an impersonation of the vague ideal which has been

named, Woman, and with which woman has long striven to identify

herself. A creature all softness and sensibility, who must

necessarily enjoy and suffer in the extreme, while sharing with

man the pleasures and the ills of life; bearing happiness meekly,

and sorrow with fortitude; gentle, mild, submissive, forbearing

under all circumstances; a softened reflex of the opinions and

ideas of the masculines who, by relationship, hold mastery over

her; without individualism, a mere adjunct of man, the chief

object of whose creation was to adorn and beautify his existence,

or to minister to some form of his selfishness. This is nearly

the masculine idea of womanhood, and poor womanhood strives to

personify it. But not all women.

This is an age of iconoclasms; and daring hands are raised to

sweep from its pedestal, and dash to fragments, this false image

of woman. We care not how soon, if the true woman but take its

place. This is also, and most emphatically, an age of progress.

One old idea, one mouldering form of prejudice after another, is

rapidly swept away. Thought, written and spoken, acts upon the

mass of mind in this day of railroads and telegraphs, with a

thousandfold more celerity than in the days of pillions and slow

coaches. Scarce have the lips that uttered great thoughts ceased

to move, or the pen which wrote them dropped from the weary hand,

ere they vibrate through the inmost recesses of a thousand

hearts, and awaken deep and true responses in a thousand living,

truthful souls. Thence they grow, expand, fructify, and the

result is Progress.

Mrs. Lydia F. Fowler then gave several very touching recitals of the

evils of intemperance in family circles within her own observation.

Her lectures on Hygiene and Physiology through the State, illustrating

as she did the effect of alcohol on the system, and pointing out to

mothers what they could do to promote the health of their children,

and thus ensure temperance and morality, were most effective in their

bearings on this question. Letters were read from Elizabeth Cady

Stanton, Clarina Howard Nichols, and Amelia Bloomer.

Mr. MAY, on rising, said: The sudden and unjustifiable repeal of

the License Law of 1846, changed the face of the community, which

had everywhere brightened with new hope under the brief but

salutary operation of that law. That repeal, which it was

indecorous if not presumptuous in the representatives of the

people to make, seeing the law had been enacted directly by the

people in their primary assemblies; that repeal brought back all

the evils of intemperance aggravated by the successful efforts

which had been openly and covertly made to break down the

barriers which the law of 1846 had set up. The flood-gates of

this loathsome vice were slammed open, as if never to be shut

again. What I have seen and heard since I came to the capital,

has encouraged me not a little. I have met with gentlemen from

all parts of the State, who seem to be convinced that the people

are ready for the passage of a stringent law similar to that

which has recently gone into operation in Maine.

But I am particularly encouraged that the women of the State have

made an especial and somewhat novel movement in this behalf. It

has in all ages of the world been ominous when the women of a

country have come out of the retirement they generally choose, to

take a public part in the affairs of the State. What if this

Convention be not a large one, it is significant nevertheless. I

could cite you to a reform in our own country which commenced

with less than twelve individuals twenty years ago, and now that

reform has drawn into its vortex all the living spirits in the

land, and has created an agitation of the public mind that will

never be quelled until Slavery is buried out of sight forever. If

the women of New York will act up to the noble sentiments that

have been expressed in the addresses and letters written by women

to this Convention, great and glorious results must follow. And

there are especial reasons why women should be earnest in this

cause. Their sex, though not so much addicted as ours to the use

of intoxicating drinks, suffers more from the effects of the

evil. To them it is the destruction of all domestic peace, the

wreck of all conjugal and maternal hopes; it is ignorance,

poverty, misery, for themselves and children. My own attention

was first called to this reform by the sufferings of women. (Mr.

May here related several touching anecdotes of most estimable

women he had known, devoted wives, mothers, sisters, daughters,

who had been utterly despoiled of all earthly comfort by the

intemperance of those they loved).

At one time I thought this evil might be repressed by man alone;

but I have learned that humanity is dual. God made man male and

female. The sexes are equally concerned in the welfare of the

race. What God has joined together must not be put asunder. Women

are constituent parts of the State and the Church, as well as of

the home; and their influence is as indispensable to the

well-being of the former as the latter. A State or Church that

excludes woman from its councils, is like a family without a

mother, in a condition of half orphanage.

In the days of our Revolution women made as many sacrifices and

endured as great sufferings for independence, as did the men. It

is most ungrateful when we are speaking of that event, and the

actors in it, not to make mention of our Revolutionary Mothers.

In the French Revolution women were conspicuous actors. If Madame

Roland and her coadjutors had been allowed to sway the public

councils, the results would have been far happier for France.

In moral revolutions women have ever signalized themselves. It

was a woman, Elizabeth Fry, who in England commenced the reform

in the discipline of prisons, and prosecuted it in person for

years, until she had proven her plans feasible, and inspired

others with a faith like her own. It was Dorothea Dix (a very

delicately organized woman), who first in this country recognized

the claims and acknowledged the rights of the insane. She found

these poor victims of man's ignorance everywhere suffering

terrible hardships. They were dreaded by all, and abhorred by

many who had charge of them, and believed to be incapable of

suffering as sane people suffer, and to be beyond the reach of

those kindly influences which more than all others control those

who are in their right minds. Miss Dix penetrated their

cheerless, dark, damp abodes. She brought to light the wrongs

that were inflicted upon them. She exposed the folly of the fears

which were entertained of them. She showed by her own courageous

experiments that even furious maniacs could be controlled by the

spirit of Christian love. The asylums in many of our States

to-day are noble monuments to the inestimable value of her

services.

When Miss Dix first visited the insane department of the jail in

Cambridge, to look after one miserable human being she had

chanced to hear was immured there, she little thought of the

career of benevolent effort and of high distinction as a

philanthropist that was opening before her. She went only to give

relief to a solitary sufferer. But the dejected, helpless and

wretched condition in which she found the insane there, raised

the inquiry in her mind whether it could be that the same class

of unfortunates were treated in this wise elsewhere. Such an

inquiry could not be suppressed in a heart like hers; it urged

her on to further investigation. It led to new developments of

the methods that philanthropists and scientists were advocating

in France. She came at last to feel that she had a mission to

that class of "the lost ones," and she has fulfilled it

gloriously. She has been the angel of the Lord to the insane in

almost all the States of the Union.

The Anti-Slavery cause in both England and America, owes as much

to woman as to man. If in Great Britain the suppression of the

African slave trade was commenced by men, the abolition of West

India slavery was begun by women; and it is acknowledged that

they did more than the men to accomplish the overthrow of that

system of all imaginable wickedness, which, while it endured,

stimulated the cupidity of the slave-trader, so that he

prosecuted his accursed traffic as much as ever, notwithstanding

the acts of the American Congress and the British Parliament. In

our country the most efficient, untiring laborers in the

anti-slavery cause, have from the beginning been women. Lydia

Maria Child, a lady highly distinguished among the authors of

America, was the first to publish a sizable book upon slavery.

Its very title was a pregnant one, viz, "An Appeal in behalf of

that Class of Americans called Africans." Its contents were of

great and permanent value. The publication of that volume was to

her a costly sacrifice of popularity as an author. At a very

early period of the enterprise, Elizabeth M. Chandler published

many essays and poems that will live forever. The bravery and

persistence of Prudence Crandall in maintaining a school for

colored girls in Connecticut, in the face of terrible

persecution, is beyond praise. Maria Weston Chapman, since 1834,

has been among the leaders of the anti-slavery host, directing

their movements and stimulating them to effort. Lucretia Mott,

Sarah Pugh, Eliza Lee Follen, Abby Kelly, Mary Grew, are all

worthy of mention--there is no end to the names of excellent,

wise, courageous women who have contended nobly for the

anti-slavery faith and practice. They have been traduced,

reviled, persecuted, but nothing has deterred them from

advocating the rights of humanity.

NEW YORK STATE TEMPERANCE CONVENTION,

ROCHESTER, N. Y., _April 20 and 21, 1852_.

At ten o'clock a large audience assembled in Corinthian Hall. The

morning session was composed entirely of women; more than five hundred

being present. The meeting was called to order by Susan B. Anthony,

who read the following call that had been extensively circulated

throughout the State:

The women of the State of New York who desire to aid in advancing

the cause of Temperance, and are willing to labor earnestly and

truthfully for its success, are respectfully invited to meet at

Corinthian Hall in the city of Rochester on the 20th of April,

for the purpose of devising, maturing, and recommending such a

course of associated action as shall best subserve for the

protection of their interests and of society at large, too long

invaded and destroyed by legalized intemperance. Feeling that

woman has hitherto been greatly responsible for the continuance

of this vice by encouraging social drinking, and by not

sufficiently exerting her influence for its overthrow, and

realizing that upon her rest the heaviest burthens which follow

in its train, the Committee are convinced that they will be

sustained by all good men and women in urging upon the sex such

noble and energetic action as shall tend to the downfall of the

traffic in intoxicating drinks.

Arrangements have been made to render the occasion one of

interest to all friends of the cause. Addresses and

communications from both ladies and gentlemen of known ability

will be presented, and a general and comprehensive plan of

operation proposed, whereby woman may aid in the promotion of a

cause which appeals to her sympathy through the avenue of every

relation which binds her to the race.

It is earnestly hoped that this meeting will be numerously

attended.[92]

SUSAN B. ANTHONY, H. ATTILIA ALBRO, AND MARY C. VAUGHAN,

_Central Committee_.

The officers of the Convention were then chosen. Elizabeth Cady

Stanton, President,[93] who on rising said:

I fully appreciate, ladies, the compliment intended, in choosing

me to fill this place on an occasion of such interest and

importance. If a sincere love for the principles of temperance, a

fervent zeal in the welfare of woman, and an unwavering faith in

the final triumph of truth, fits one for this post of honor, then

am I not unworthy, though I must confess myself, from the novelty

of the position, ignorant alike of the rights and duties of the

office of President. I shall deeply regret if in any omissions or

commissions of duty I fail to reflect back on this Convention a

full share of the honor now conferred upon me.

How my heart throbs to see women assembling in convention to

inquire what part they have in the great moral struggles of

humanity! Verily a new era is dawning upon the world, when

woman, hitherto the mere dependent of man, the passive recipient

alike of truth and error, at length shakes off her lethargy, the

shackles of a false education, customs and habits, and stands

upright in the dignity of a moral being, and not only proclaims

her own freedom, but demands what she shall do to save man from

the slavery of his own low appetites. We have come together at

this time to consult each other as to what woman may do in

banishing the vice of intemperance from the land. We can do much

by years of preparation and education of ourselves, for a great

moral revolution will burst forth with the regeneration of woman.

We shall do much when the pulpit, the forum, the professor's

chair, and the ballot-box are ours; but the question is, what can

we do to-day, under existing circumstances, under all the adverse

influences that surround us? I will briefly mention several

points for your consideration that have suggested themselves to

my mind.

1. Let no woman remain in the relation of wife with the confirmed

drunkard. Let no drunkard be the father of her children. Let no

woman form an alliance with any man who has been suspected even

of the vice of intemperance; for the taste once acquired can

never, never be eradicated. Be not misled by any pledges,

resolves, promises, prayers, or tears. You can not rely on the

word of a man who is, or has been, the victim of such an

overpowering appetite.

2. Let us petition our State governments so to modify the laws

affecting marriage, and the custody of children, that the

drunkard shall have no claims on either wife or child.

3. Let us touch not, taste not, handle not, the unclean thing in

any combination. Let us eschew it in all culinary purposes, and

refuse it in all its most tempting and refined forms.

4. With an efficient organization, lectures, tracts, newspapers,

and discussion, we shall accomplish much. I would give more for

the agitation of any question on sound principles, thus

enlightening and convincing the public mind, than for all the

laws that could be written or passed in a century. By the

foolishness of preaching, must all moral revolutions be achieved;

but remember the truth, the whole truth must be faithfully

preached.

5. We must raise the standard of temperance in all things. The

man who over-eats takes a little wine to aid digestion, and he

who exhausts himself by licentious indulgence takes a little as a

stimulus; thus one vice induces another, and all go hand in hand

together.

6. Let us endeavor to make labor honorable in all. Work is

worship, says Emerson. Let us honor the hard hand and sun-burnt

brow. Remember idleness is the parent of vice; and there is no

surer way to banish vice from our land, than to see that the

young just coming on the stage of life are wisely and fully

employed.

And lastly, inasmuch as charity begins at home, let us withdraw

our mite from all associations for sending the Gospel to the

heathen across the ocean, for the education of young men for the

ministry, for the building up of a theological aristocracy and

gorgeous temples, to the unknown God, and devote ourselves to the

poor and suffering about us. Let us feed and clothe the hungry

and naked, gather children into schools, and provide

reading-rooms and decent homes for young men and women thrown

alone upon the world. Good schools and homes where the young

could ever be surrounded by an atmosphere of purity and virtue,

would do much more to prevent immorality and crime in our cities

than all the churches in the land could ever possibly do toward

the regeneration of the multitude sunk in poverty, ignorance, and

vice.

Susan B. Anthony, Chairman of the Central Committee, addressed the

meeting in a clear, forcible manner, alluding to the indifference

manifested by many women on the subject of temperance, and stated the

object of calling the women of the State together at this time. She

read letters[94] from Frances Dana Gage, Clarina Howard Nichols,

Elizabeth Oakes Smith, Abby Kelly Foster, and Horace Greeley. In the

discussion of the resolutions[95] during the different sessions, Giles

B. Stebbins, Benjamin Fish, William Barnes, Amy Post, Mrs. Albro, Mrs.

Vaughan, William C. Bloss, George W. Clark, and the Rev. Mr. Goodwin,

all took part. One resolution denouncing Mr. Gale, a State Senator,

for his insulting epithets in regard to the women who had petitioned

for a Maine law, called down on that gentleman some well-deserved

reprimands. The Rev. Mr. Goodwin expressed his indignation and shame,

that any man of education and position should use such language in

speaking of women who were so faithfully laboring in all the great

reforms of the day. Mrs. Bloomer in the course of her remarks also

criticised Mr. Gale for saying in a sneering way "that representatives

were not accustomed to listen to the voice of woman in legislating

upon great public questions; that the constitution of the female mind

was such as to render woman incapable of correctly deciding upon the

points involved in the passage of the proposed bill." After rousing

the attention of the people of the State by large and enthusiastic

meetings in all the chief cities, and sending into the Legislature a

mammoth petition for a Maine law, this was woman's answer. On the

Divorce resolution,

Mrs. BLOOMER said: We believe the teachings which have been given

to the drunkard's wife touching her duty--the commendable

examples of angelic wives which she has been exhorted to follow,

have done much to continue and aggravate the vices and crimes of

society growing out of intemperance. Drunkenness is good ground

for divorce, and every woman who is tied to a confirmed drunkard

should sunder the ties; and if she do it not otherwise the law

should compel it--especially if she have children.

We are told that such sentiments are "exceptional," "abhorrent,"

that the moral sense of society is shocked and outraged by their

promulgation. Can it be possible that the moral sense of a people

is more shocked at the idea of a pure-minded, gentle woman

sundering the ties which bind her to a loathsome mass of

corruption, than it is to see her dragging out her days in

misery, tied to his besotted and filthy carcass? Are the morals

of society less endangered by the drunkard's wife continuing to

live in companionship with him, giving birth to a large family of

children who inherit naught but poverty and disgrace, and who

will grow up criminal and vicious, filling our prisons and

penitentiaries and corrupting and endangering the purity and

peace of community, than they would be, should she separate from

him and strive to win for herself and the children she may have,

comfort and respectability? The statistics of our prisons,

poor-houses, and lunatic asylums, teach us a fearful lesson on

this subject of morals.

The idea of living with a drunkard is so abhorrent, so revolting

to all the finer feelings of our nature, that a woman must fall

very low before she can endure such companionship. Every

pure-minded woman must look with loathing and disgust upon such a

union of virtue and vice; and he who would compel her to it, or

dissuade the drunkard's wife from separating herself from such

wretchedness and degradation, is doing much to perpetuate

drunkenness and crime, and is wanting in the noblest feelings of

human nature. Thanks to our Legislature, if they have not given

us the Maine law, they are deliberating upon the propriety of

giving to the wives of drunkards and tyrants a loop-hole of

escape from the brutal cruelty of their self-styled lords and

masters. A bill of this kind has passed the House, but may be

lost in the Senate. Should it not pass now, it will be brought up

again, and passed at no distant day. Then if women have any

spirit, they will free themselves from much of the oppression and

wrong which they have hitherto of necessity borne.

A brief address was read by Mrs. Robinson, of Darien. This woman had

been for many years the wife of a drunkard; she had overcome many

obstacles to attend this Convention for the purpose of relating her

experience, and offering words of encouragement. Her narration of the

trials and sufferings she had endured was very affecting. She fully

endorsed the tenth resolution, "That the woman who consents to live in

the relation of wife with a confirmed drunkard, is, in so doing,

recreant to the cause of humanity, and to the dignity of a true

womanhood."

An organization was effected called "The Woman's New York State

Temperance Society"; large numbers of the members of the Convention

signed the Constitution, and elected Elizabeth Cady Stanton

President[96]. A vote of thanks was passed to Horace Greeley for the

kind manner in which he had uniformly sustained the women in their

temperance efforts in _The New York Tribune_, and after six long

sessions, the Convention adjourned.

As President of "The Woman's State Temperance Society," Mrs. Stanton

issued a plain, strong appeal to the women of the State in which it

was said woman's rights predominated over temperance. The strong point

she uniformly pressed on the temperance question was the right and

duty of divorce for drunkenness. A letter of hers to the Convention in

Albany on this point, was so radical, that the friends feared to read

it; however, after much discussion, Susan B. Anthony took the

responsibility. It was read to the Convention, and published in _The

Lily_ and other papers, and called out many condemnatory notices by

the press. _The Troy Journal_ was much excited at the idea of "a

virtuous woman severing the tie that bound her to a confirmed

drunkard," and spoke of such a union of virtue and vice as a "divine

institution," sacred in the eye of the "divine author," and declared

Mrs. Stanton's teachings "reviling Christianity."

However, these bold utterances roused the consciences of many women to

the sinfulness of such relations, and encouraged them in sundering

such unholy ties.

At the Rochester Convention, Gerrit Smith, Susan B. Anthony, and

Amelia Bloomer were appointed delegates to "The Men's State Temperance

Society," to be held in June, at Syracuse. The call for the meeting

contained these words, "Temperance associations of every name are

invited to send delegates." Hence the Woman's State Society being

earnestly enlisted in the good work, responded to this invitation.

Miss Anthony and Mrs. Bloomer accepted the appointment, and on

arriving at Syracuse, found many of the delegates already there, and

everything indicating a large Convention. The next morning, while

preparing to go to the hall, a gentleman was announced, who wished to

see them in the parlor. On descending thither, they were happy to meet

Samuel J. May. He came to inform them that their arrival had created

great excitement among some of the clergy, who were shocked at the

idea of women delegates to the Convention, and threatened if they were

admitted, to withdraw. This had alarmed others who were not quite so

conservative, but who feared to have anything occur to create

disturbance. They had persuaded Mr. May to wait upon the ladies and

urge them quietly to withdraw. Mr. May performed his part well, merely

stating the facts of the case, and leaving them to act upon their own

judgment. But when they decided to present their credentials and

demand their rights as members of the Convention, his face beamed with

joy, as he said to them, "You are right." At the appointed time they

were seated with other ladies in attendance at the side of the

platform. Presently Rev. Dr. Mandeville, of Albany, arose, turned his

chair facing them, his back to the audience, and stared at them with

all the impudence of a boor, as if to wither them with his piercing

glance.

WILLIAM H. BURLEIGH, says _The Lily_,[97] read the annual report,

which, among other things, "hailed the formation of the Woman's

State Society as a valuable auxiliary in the cause of

temperance." Rev. J. Marsh moved that the report be accepted and

adopted.

Dr. MANDEVILLE objected in a speech of some length, characterized

by more venom and vulgarity than it had ever before been our

fortune to hear; and such as the most foul-mouthed politician or

bar-room orator would have hesitated to utter before respectable

audiences. He denounced the Woman's State Temperance Society, and

all women who took an active public part in promoting the cause.

Spoke contemptuously of woman going from home to attend a

temperance convention, and characterized such as a sort of

"hybrid species, half man and half woman, belonging to neither

sex." The short dress and woman's rights questions were "handled

without gloves." These movements must be put down; cut up root

and branch, etc., etc., and finally his Reverence wound up with a

threat that if the report was adopted without striking out the

offensive sentence he would dissolve his connection with the

Society. Having thus discharged his venom, and issued his

commands, he took his hat and with a pompous air left the house

and did not again show himself at the meetings.

A warm discussion followed the motion for striking out, which it

would be impossible to describe. Mr. Havens, of New York, offered

an amendment--substituting a sort of unmeaning compliment to the

ladies, and asking their influence in their proper sphere--the

domestic circle. The discussion was kept up, but amid the

confusion of "Mr. President!" "Mr. President!" "Order!" "Order!"

"I have the floor!" "I will speak, right or wrong!" from at

least half a dozen voices, until all lost sight of both motion

and amendment.

Miss Anthony arose and addressed the Chair, but was at once

called to order by Rev. Fowler, of Utica. He denied woman's right

to speak in that meeting. Here the confusion again began. "Mr.

President!" "Mr. President!" "Order!" "Order!" "Hear the lady!"

"Hear the lady!" "Let her speak!" "Let her speak!" "Go on, go

on!" "Order! order!" in the midst of which the president left the

chair, and said if there was any gentleman present who could keep

order he would thank him to take the chair; he could hear nothing

when so many were talking at once, and if order was not preserved

he would not attempt to preside. A moment's quiet followed, and

then all was confusion again. The conservatives were determined

to have their way, and nearly every attempt on the part of the

liberals to make themselves heard was frustrated.

A. N. COLE, of Belfast, succeeded in keeping the floor a few

moments, and spoke ably in defence of woman and of her right to

be heard. He declared that man had no more right to prescribe

woman's sphere and mark out a course of action for her, than she

had to prescribe man's sphere and dictate his course of action.

Woman had ever been untiring and earnest in her labors in this

cause, and he was ready at all times and everywhere to

acknowledge her aid, and hail her as a co-worker. He insisted

that woman had a right to be heard on that floor; that she was

there on the invitation of the Society, and they could not refuse

her a voice in the proceedings.

But points of order were raised, and a determination manifested

not to permit a fair discussion of the subject. The Chair was at

length appealed to for a decision. He decided that the letter of

the Constitution of the State Society, and also the call for this

meeting would admit woman to an equal participation in the

proceedings, and allow her a vote; but as there were no female

societies in existence five years ago when this Society was

organized, such a thing was not contemplated at that time; he

therefore considered her inadmissible. "The letter of the

Constitution and call would admit her, but the spirit would not."

Mr. Camp must have been very ignorant not to know that ten years

before there were efficient woman's temperance societies all over

the State. He was doubtless right in saying that such a thing as

a woman presuming to speak or vote in the meetings of that

Society was not contemplated by its founders, but he greatly

erred in giving a reason for their short-sightedness.

The decision of the Chair was appealed from, and the excitement

continued. All tried to talk at the same time, but those

possessing more firmness than others succeeded in having their

say; while the opponents of woman were allowed to express their

sentiments freely, those in favor were called to order and forced

to yield the floor. The decision of the Chair was finally

sustained by two votes. As the delegates had not been required to

make themselves known, it was not ascertained how many were

present, or who they were; nor how many persons in the crowd

voted who had no right to do so. All men were permitted to vote,

without its even being known whether they were temperance men or

not.

And so, after spending the whole afternoon in hot discussion of

the woman's rights question, the disgraceful affair terminated by

refusing woman the right of uttering her sentiments on a subject

in which she was deeply interested, and of pleading in behalf of

the poor crushed victims of man's injustice and cruelty.

Rev. Luther Lee offered his church just before the adjournment, and

Mr. May announced that Miss Anthony and Mrs. Bloomer would speak there

in the evening. They had a crowded house, while the conservatives had

scarce fifty people. The general feeling was hostile to the action of

the Convention. This same battle on the temperance platform was fought

over and over in various parts of the State, and the most deadly

opposition uniformly came from the clergy, though a few noble men in

that profession ever remained true to principle through all the

conflicts of those days, in the anti-slavery, temperance, and woman's

rights movements.

SUSAN B. ANTHONY'S LETTER, FROM THE "CARSON LEAGUE."

BUFFALO, _July 28, 1852_.

DEAR LEAGUE:--Permit me to say a few words to your readers,

relative to the plan of action, recommended by the "Women's New

York State Temperance Society." We have now three agents

lecturing, who are endeavoring, by a novel application of woman's

"marvelous gift of tongue," to rouse their sisters of Western New

York, to render active service in aid of the Temperance cause.

Woman has so long been accustomed to "non-intervention" with the

business of law-making--so long considered it men's business to

regulate the Liquor Traffic, that it is with much cautiousness

that she receives the new doctrine which we preach; the doctrine

that it is her right and her duty to speak out against the liquor

traffic and all men and institutions that in any way sanction,

sustain, or countenance it; and since she can not vote, to duly

instruct her husband, father, or brother how she would have him

vote, and if he longer continue to misrepresent her, take the

right to march to the ballot-box, with firm, unwavering tread,

and deposit a vote indicative of her highest ideas of practical

temperance. For women longer to submit to be ruled by men and

legislators who sanction license laws, is to act the part of

slaves and cowards. Men are just beginning to see that they must

carry this temperance question into politics, but can see no

farther than to vote for a rum-drinking President,

Vice-President, and Congressmen. If they can place temperance men

in those offices which directly control the license system of our

own State, they seem to think they need look to, nor care for,

the habits and principles of the men who fill the National

offices. And it is for woman now, in the present Presidential

campaign, to say to her husband, father, or brother, if you vote

for any candidate for any office whatever, who is not pledged to

total abstinence and the Maine law, we shall hold you alike

guilty with the rum-seller. He who loves not humanity better

than his whig or loco partyism, is not worthy the name of man nor

the love and respect of woman. But to our Society.

We recommend that women form temperance societies in their

respective cities, towns, and villages, which shall be auxiliary

to the State Association. The work which we propose to do is a

missionary one. We therefore suggest the name "Temperance Home

Missionary Society," whose object shall be to raise funds, by

means of an admission fee and donations, to be expended in

subscribing for temperance newspapers, for gratuitous

distribution among all families, both rich and poor, who do not

furnish themselves with such reading. During the last two weeks I

have visited several villages in Genesee and Erie Counties, have

found the women ready for work, and now and then a temperance man

who had taken in the whole idea of political action.

Home Missionary Societies are formed in all of the places visited

except two, and will doubtless soon be in those. I recommend them

to take _The Lily_ and _Carson League_. _The Lily_, because it is

particularly devoted to woman's interest in temperance and

kindred reforms, and because it is their duty to sustain the only

paper in the State owned and edited by a woman. _The Carson

League_, because it presents and advocates a definite plan for

temperance political action. It is to be hoped that the State

Alliance, at its session at Rochester, the 18th of August, will

make converts not only of all the professed temperance men of

Western New York, but of all the temperance newspapers. Alliances

must be formed in every county and town of the State. An

additional clause must be appended to the pledge, "that no member

of the Society shall vote for any officer who is not an open and

avowed total abstinence man, and pledged to use his influence to

secure the enactment of the Maine law." There must be concert of

action; every man must know exactly how and for whom all other

men of the State are going to vote. Let there be combined

political action and the Maine law is ours.

Yours for Temperance Politics,

S. B. A.

During this year the Society was active, its agents visiting nearly

every county, forming auxiliary societies, circulating tracts and

petitions, and rolling up subscribers to _The Lily_.

In January, 1853, a great mass-meeting of all the temperance

organizations of the State was held in Albany. Nearly every hall and

church in the city was occupied, with different associations of men

and women. "The Woman's Society" met in the Baptist church in State

Street, which was crowded at every session. Susan B. Anthony presided.

Emily Clark, Mrs. Bloomer, Mrs. Vaughan and Mrs. Albro were appointed

a committee to present to the Legislature a petition signed by 28,000

women for a prohibitory law. On motion of S. M. Burroughs, of Orleans,

the rules of the House were suspended and the ladies invited to the

Speaker's desk. In a brief and dignified speech, Miss Clark presented

the petition, after which they returned to the Convention, and

reported the success of their mission, in full confidence that their

prayers would be answered. But alas! they forgot that women were a

disfranchised class, and that legislators give no heed to the claims

of such for protection.

In the evening, the ladies had two immense meetings, one in the

church, and one in the Assembly Chamber of the Capitol. At the latter,

Susan B. Anthony read Mrs. Stanton's "Appeal to the Legislature," and

addresses were made by Mary C. Vaughan and Antoinette Brown; the

galleries as well as the floor of the house being literally packed;

while at the former, Mrs. Bloomer, Mrs. Fowler, Mrs. Albro, and Miss

Clark addressed an equally crowded audience.

Following this Convention, Mrs. Bloomer, Miss Brown, and Miss Anthony

went to New York, on the invitation of S. P. Townsend, and addressed

3,000 people in Metropolitan Hall; Lydia F. Fowler presided; Mr. and

Mrs. Horace Greeley, Abby Hopper Gibbons, and other prominent

gentlemen and ladies sat on the platform. They also addressed large

audiences in the Broadway Tabernacle and Knickerbocker Hall, and in

Brooklyn. And during March and April made a most successful tour

through the State, speaking at Sing Sing, Poughkeepsie, Hudson, Troy,

Cohoes, Utica, Syracuse, Rochester, Lockport, Buffalo, and many of the

smaller cities, and were greeted everywhere with large audiences and

the most respectful attention from both press and people.

_The New York Tribune_, under the heading of GREAT GATHERING OF

THE WOMEN OF NEW YORK, said of their Metropolitan meeting: The

Women's Grand Temperance Demonstration at Metropolitan Hall last

evening, was a most brilliant and successful affair. The audience

which assembled on that occasion to welcome Mrs. Bloomer and her

assistants in the cause of Temperance, was almost as large and

fully as respectable as the audiences that nightly greeted Jenny

Lind and Catharine Hays during their engagement in that hall.

Good order was observed throughout the evening, and earnest and

hearty applause was frequent. The only hissing evidently intended

for the speakers was when Mrs. Bloomer reviewed the sentiments of

Hon. Horace Mann relative to woman; and then the plaudits came to

her rescue and triumphantly sustained the speaker. The audience

was a smiling one; some smiled at the novelty of the occasion;

others with admiration; the latter, judging from the twinkling of

eyes and clapping of hands, were in the majority. While some

evidently writhed under the application of the lash for their

disregard of the principles of temperance; others enjoyed the

rigor of the infliction and manifested their satisfaction by

applause.

The _New York Evening Post_ said: The first meeting of the

Women's Temperance Society was held last evening in Metropolitan

Hall. There were about three thousand persons present, a large

proportion of whom were ladies. It was the first time that an

audience in this hall was to be addressed by women, and the

novelty of the occasion doubtless attracted a large number who

would otherwise have been absent. The proceedings, however, were

conducted in the most orderly manner, and the speakers apparently

felt themselves as much at home with their hearers, as if they

were merely a private company. They were listened to with much

attention and frequently applauded. Altogether, the meeting was

very successful and would compare most favorably with any that

has ever been held in the same building.

The proceedings were commenced by Mrs. Lydia F. Fowler being

appointed President, and Miss Mary S. Rich Secretary. Prayer was

offered by Rev. Antoinette L. Brown, after which Mrs. Amelia

Bloomer was introduced amid warm applause. She was dressed in the

peculiar costume to which her name is given. Her speech, which

occupied more than an hour in its delivery, was an able

exposition of the reasons why women should be amongst the

foremost of the advocates of the temperance reformation. Her

remarks on the position of woman under the law, and the

subordinate part she was compelled to play in all the relations

of life, were listened to with much attention, and though

sometimes very caustic and severe upon the other sex, they were

received not only with forbearance, but were frequently

applauded. Rev. Antoinette L. Brown made a very effective and

eloquent address, urging the necessity for legislative action

against the evils of intemperance, and recommended the passage of

the Maine Law in our Legislature. Addresses were also made by

Susan B. Anthony, and Horace Greeley.

_The Tribune_, under the heading of "Grand Temperance Rally,"

said: Last evening an exceedingly numerous and enthusiastic

meeting was convened in the Tabernacle, under the auspices of the

"Fifth Ward Temperance Alliance," it then gave a full report of

the addresses of the four ladies, and closed with:

Horace Greeley then came forward in response to numerous and

repeated calls, and said that within his immediate recollection

the Temperance cause had been utterly ruined (as it was said)

three distinct times; first when the pledge of total abstinence

was introduced; again when the Washingtonian movement was set on

feet, and then when the Maine Liquor Law came out, every

rum-drinker in the country mourned the cause as irrevocably

ruined. But now, however, it was gone entirely, because some

women came forward to speak for temperance. He had spoken so

often on the subject that he had nothing new to say; but he

rejoiced to see that there was another army coming up who could

speak, as they had heard them that evening and on other

occasions. There was something of freshness in them; and if they

did not advance new truth, we, at least, heard truth from a new

point of view. He had often heard of the fascinating influence of

woman, and he was glad if she had such that it should be put

forth for temperance. He was happy to hear her explain the wants

of the poor mother, or sister, or wife of the unfortunate

drunkard; he would not object to her saying if her home had

become intolerable that she should be allowed a separation, and

permitted to earn a living for herself, seeing that her brute of

a husband was unwilling or unable to give her a support. The

great cause would be advanced, he thought, by the advocacy of it

by women. He considered that the people would be called upon to

vote for the Maine Liquor Law one way or the other within a year,

for the politicians were becoming tired of this mischievous

element. It was one on which they could not calculate, and would

be glad to get it out of the way by submitting it to the people

for their disposition. The friends of the cause should be

rejoiced if women who could speak on this subject did come

forward and speak until the law was passed. He would feel their

advocacy an additional assurance of success.

The women of New York brought to this work a religious earnestness and

intense enthusiasm, that seemed determined to override every obstacle

that blocked the way to family purity and peace. Every phase of the

question, without a thought of policy or conciliation, was freely

discussed. Seeing the evils in social life, in the destruction of all

domestic harmony, they demanded divorce for drunkenness. Seeing wine

on the tables of clergymen and bishops, liquor-dealers and

wine-bibbers dignified and honored as elders and deacons in churches,

they called on the women to leave all such unholy organizations. Thus

besieging legislators for a "Maine Law," demanding purity at the

family altar, denouncing the Church for its apathy, and the clergy for

their hostility to the public action of woman, this State Temperance

Society roused the enmity of many classes, and was the target for

varied criticism.

Politicians said such radical measures as the women proposed would

destroy the Whig party, if carried into legislation. Churchmen said

such infidel measures would undermine the influence of the clergy and

the foundations of the Church. Conservatives said the divorce measures

proposed would upheave the whole social fabric. Thus a general

disintegration of society was threatened, if freedom was granted to

woman. Not being allowed to vote themselves, they used their influence

both in the anti-slavery and temperance reforms, to strengthen many

men in their determination not to vote for any man who was in favor of

slavery and license; hence there had been a steadily increasing

defection in the Whig ranks, that cost Clay his election in 1844, and

Scott in 1852.

Mr. Pierce's administration, beginning in 1853, was a period of great

political overturning. Innumerable small office-holders being thrown

out of employment, and feeling hostile to all "isms," as the

opposition designated the reforms of the day, they became a

troublesome element in our Conventions.

To avoid this class in organizing "The Woman's Temperance Society," it

was decided to enroll men as members, but not to allow them to vote

and hold office. They were permitted to attend the meetings, talk, and

contribute money, but they were to have no direct power. On this basis

the Society was formed, and maintained its integrity one year.

However, as the justice of such discrimination on the ground of sex

was questionable, and some women and many men refused to unite with a

Society thus prescriptive, the Constitution was amended, and men

admitted to full membership.

FIRST ANNUAL MEETING OF THE WOMAN'S STATE TEMPERANCE SOCIETY.

ROCHESTER, JUNE 1 and 2, 1853.

_The Rochester Advertiser_ gives the following report: In

Corinthian Hall yesterday, at ten o'clock, a large audience

assembled. The Society was called to order by Mrs. E. C. Stanton,

who said if any one present desired to offer vocal prayer, there

was now an opportunity. Prayer was then offered by a young man in

one of the side seats. The platform was occupied by Mrs. Stanton,

Emily Clark, Lucy Stone, Mrs. Vaughan, Dr. Harriot Hunt, Mrs.

Nichols, Mrs. Fish, Mrs. Albro, Mrs. Alling, Elizabeth C. Wright,

and Mrs. Lydia F. Fowler.

The attendance at this opening session is much larger this year

than last, and a more hopeful spirit prevails. There are several

of the notabilities of the Woman's Rights cause present, and a

fair sprinkling of Bloomers is scattered through the audience.

There were many out, attracted by curiosity, though probably the

most are earnest friends of the Society. The proceedings were of

a deeply interesting character, both from their novelty and their

importance. After the prayer was concluded, Mrs. Stanton gave her

opening address, as follows:

MRS. STANTON'S ADDRESS.

A little more than one year ago, in this same hall, we formed the

first Woman's State Temperance Society. We believed that the time

had come for woman to speak on this question, and to insist on

her right to be heard in the councils of Church and State. It was

proposed at that time that we, instead of forming a society,

should go _en masse_ into the Men's State Temperance Society. We

were assured that in becoming members by paying the sum of $1, we

should thereby secure the right to speak and vote in their

meetings.

We who had watched the jealousy with which man had ever eyed the

slow aggressions of woman, warned you against the insidious

proposition made by agents from that Society. We told you they

would no doubt gladly receive the dollar, but that you would

never be allowed to speak or vote in their meetings. Many of you

thought us suspicious and unjust toward the temperance men of the

Empire State. The fact that Abby Kelly had been permitted to

speak in one of their public meetings, was brought up as an

argument by some agent of that Society to prove our fears

unfounded. We suggested that she spoke by favor and not right,

and our right there as equals to speak and vote, we well knew

would never be acknowledged. A long debate saved you from that

false step, and our predictions have been fully realized in the

treatment our delegates received at the annual meeting held at

Syracuse last July, and at the recent Brick Church meeting in New

York.

In forming our Society, the mass of us being radical and liberal,

we left our platform free; we are no respecters of persons, all

are alike welcome here without regard to sect, sex, color, or

caste. There have been, however, many objections made to one

feature in our Constitution, and that is, that although we admit

men as members with equal right to speak in our meetings, we

claim the offices for women alone. We felt, in starting, the

necessity of throwing all the responsibility on woman, which we

knew she never would take, if there were any men at hand to

think, act, and plan for her. The result has shown the wisdom of

what seemed so objectionable to many. It was, however, a

temporary expedient, and as that seeming violation of man's

rights prevents some true friends of the cause from becoming

members of our Society, and as the officers are now well skilled

in the practical business of getting up meetings, raising funds,

etc., and have fairly learned how to stand and walk alone, it may

perhaps be safe to raise man to an entire equality with

ourselves, hoping, however, that he will modestly permit the

women to continue the work they have so successfully begun. I

would suggest, therefore, that after the business of the past

year be disposed of, this objectionable feature of our

Constitution be brought under consideration.

Our experience thus far as a Society has been most encouraging.

We number over two thousand members. We have four agents who have

traveled in various parts of the State, and I need not say what

is well known to all present, that their labors thus far have

given entire satisfaction to the Society and the public. I was

surprised and rejoiced to find that women, without the least

preparation or experience, who had never raised their voices in

public one year ago, should with so much self-reliance, dignity,

and force, enter at once such a field of labor, and so ably

perform the work. In the metropolis of our country, in the

capital of our State, before our Legislature, and in the country

school-house, they have been alike earnest and faithful to the

truth. In behalf of our Society, I thank you for your unwearied

labors during the past year. In the name of humanity, I bid you

go on and devote yourselves humbly to the cause you have

espoused. The noble of your sex everywhere rejoice in your

success, and feel in themselves a new impulse to struggle upward

and onward; and the deep, though silent gratitude that ascends to

Heaven from the wretched outcast, the wives, the mothers, and the

daughters of brutal drunkards, is well known to all who have

listened to their tales of woe, their bitter experience, the

dark, sad passages of their tragic lives.

I hope this, our first year, is prophetic of a happy future of

strong, united, and energetic action among the women of our

State. If we are sincere and earnest in our love of this cause,

in our devotion to truth, in our desire for the happiness of the

race, we shall ever lose sight of self; each soul will, in a

measure, forget its own individual interests in proclaiming great

principles of justice and right. It is only a true, a deep, and

abiding love of truth, that can swallow up all petty jealousies,

envies, discords, and dissensions, and make us truly magnanimous

and self-sacrificing. We have every reason to think, from reports

we hear on all sides, that our Society has given this cause a new

impulse, and if the condition of our treasury is a test, we have

abundant reason to believe that in the hearts of the people we

are approved, and that by their purses we shall be sustained.

It has been objected to our Society that we do not confine

ourselves to the subject of temperance, but talk too much about

woman's rights, divorce, and the Church. It could be easily shown

how the consideration of this great question carries us

legitimately into the discussion of these various subjects. One

class of minds would deal with effects alone; another would

inquire into causes; the work of the former is easily perceived

and quickly done; that of the latter requires deep thought, great

patience, much time, and a wise self-denial. Our physicians of

the present day are a good type of the mass of our reformers.

They take out cancers, cut off tonsils, drive the poison which

nature has wisely thrown to the surface, back again, quiet

unsteady nerves with valerian, and by means of ether infuse an

artificial courage into a patient that he may bravely endure some

painful operation. It requires but little thought to feel that

the wise physician who shall trace out the true causes of

suffering; who shall teach us the great, immutable laws of life

and health; who shall show us how and where in our every-day

life, we are violating these laws, and the true point to begin

the reform, is doing a much higher, broader, and deeper work than

he who shall bend all his energies to the temporary relief of

suffering. Those temperance men or women whose whole work

consists in denouncing rum-sellers, appealing to legislatures,

eulogizing Neal Dow, and shouting Maine Law, are superficial

reformers, mere surface-workers. True, this outside work is well,

and must be done; let those who see no other do this, but let

them lay no hindrances in the way of that class of mind, who,

seeing in our present false social relations the causes of the

moral deformities of the race, would fain declare the immutable

laws that govern mind as well as matter, and point out the true

causes of the evils we see about us, whether lurking under the

shadow of the altar, the sacredness of the marriage institution,

or the assumed superiority of man.

1. We have been obliged to preach woman's rights, because many,

instead of listening to what we had to say on temperance, have

questioned the right of a woman to speak on any subject. In

courts of justice and legislative assemblies, if the right of the

speaker to be there is questioned, all business waits until that

point is settled. Now, it is not settled in the mass of minds

that woman has any rights on this footstool, and much less a

right to stand on an even pedestal with man, look him in the face

as an equal, and rebuke the sins of her day and generation. Let

it be clearly understood, then, that we are a woman's rights

Society; that we believe it is woman's duty to speak whenever she

feels the impression to do so; that it is her right to be present

in all the councils of Church and State. The fact that our

agents are women, settles the question of our character on this

point.

Again, in discussing the question of temperance, all lecturers,

from the beginning, have made mention of the drunkards' wives and

children, of widows' groans and orphans' tears; shall these

classes of sufferers be introduced but as themes for rhetorical

flourish, as pathetic touches of the speaker's eloquence; shall

we passively shed tears over their condition, or by giving them

their rights, bravely open to them the doors of escape from a

wretched and degraded life? Is it not legitimate in this to

discuss the social degradation, the legal disabilities of the

drunkard's wife? If in showing her wrongs, we prove the right of

all womankind to the elective franchise; to a fair representation

in the government; to the right in criminal cases to be tried by

peers of her own choosing, shall it be said that we transcend the

bounds of our subject? If in pointing out her social degradation,

we show you how the present laws outrage the sacredness of the

marriage institution; if in proving to you that justice and mercy

demand a legal separation from drunkards, we grasp the higher

idea that a unity of soul alone constitutes and sanctifies true

marriage, and that any law or public sentiment that forces two

immortal, high-born souls to live together as husband and wife,

unless held there by love, is false to God and humanity; who

shall say that the discussion of this question does not lead us

legitimately into the consideration of the important subject of

divorce?

But why attack the Church? We do not attack the Church; we defend

ourselves merely against its attacks. It is true that the Church

and reformers have always been in an antagonistic position from

the time of Luther down to our own day, and will continue to be

until the devotional and practical types of Christianity shall be

united in one harmonious whole. To those who see the philosophy

of this position, there seems to be no cause for fearful

forebodings or helpless regret. By the light of reason and truth,

in good time, all these seeming differences will pass away. I

have no special fault to find with that part of humanity that

gathers into our churches; to me, human nature seems to manifest

itself in very much the same way in the Church and out of it. Go

through any community you please--into the nursery, kitchen, the

parlor, the places of merchandise, the market-place, and

exchange, and who can tell the church member from the outsider? I

see no reason why we should expect more of them than other men.

Why, say you, they lay claim to greater holiness; to more rigid

creeds; to a belief in a sterner God; to a closer observance of

forms. The Bible, with them, is the rule of life, the foundation

of faith, and why should we not look to them for patterns of

purity, goodness, and truth above all other men? I deny the

assumption. Reformers on all sides claim for themselves a higher,

position than the Church. Our God is a God of justice, mercy, and

truth. Their God sanctions violence, oppression, and

wine-bibbing, and winks at gross moral delinquencies. Our Bible

commands us to love our enemies; to resist not evil; to break

every yoke and let the oppressed go free; and makes a noble life

of more importance than a stern faith. Their Bible permits war,

slavery, capital punishment, and makes salvation depend on faith

and ordinances. In their creed it is a sin to dance, to pick up

sticks on the Sabbath day, to go to the theater, or large parties

during Lent, to read a notice of any reform meeting from the

altar, or permit a woman to speak in the church. In our creed it

is a sin to hold a slave; to hang a man on the gallows; to make

war on defenseless nations, or to sell rum to a weak brother, and

rob the widow and the orphan of a protector and a home. Thus may

we write out some of our differences, but from the similarity in

the conduct of the human family, it is fair to infer that our

differences are more intellectual than spiritual, and the great

truths we hear so clearly uttered on all sides, have been

incorporated as vital principles into the inner life of but few

indeed.

[Illustration: AMELIA BLOOMER (with autograph).]

We must not expect the Church to leap _en masse_ to a higher

position. She sends forth her missionaries of truth one by one.

All of our reformers have, in a measure, been developed in the

Church, and all our reforms have started there. The advocates and

opposers of the reforms of our day, have grown up side by side,

partaking of the same ordinances and officiating at the same

altars; but one, by applying more fully his Christian principles

to life, and pursuing an admitted truth to its legitimate

results, has unwittingly found himself in antagonism with his

brother.

Belief is not voluntary, and change is the natural result of

growth and development. We would fain have all church members

sons and daughters of temperance; but if the Church, in her

wisdom, has made her platform so broad that wine-bibbers and

rum-sellers may repose in ease thereon, we who are always

preaching liberality ought to be the last to complain. Having

thus briefly noticed some of the objections to our movement, I

will not detain the audience longer at this time.

An able report of the Executive Committee was then read by Mrs.

Vaughan.

The President, on motion, appointed the various Committees,[98] and

read a letter from Gerrit Smith to Susan B. Anthony:

PETERBORO, _May 7, 1853_.

DEAR MADAM:--I thank you for your letter. So constantly am I

employed in my extensive private concerns, that I can attend none

of the anniversaries this spring. I should be especially happy to

attend yours; and to testify by my presence, if not by my words,

that woman is in her place when she is laboring to redeem the

world from the curse of drunkenness.

I know not why it is not as much the duty of your sex, as it is

of mine, to establish newspapers, write books, and hold public

meetings for the promotion of the cause of temperance. The

current idea, that modesty should hold women back from such

services, is all resolvable into nonsense and wickedness. Female

modesty! female delicacy! I would that I might never again hear

such phrases. There is but one standard of modesty and delicacy

for both men and women; and so long as different standards are

tolerated, both sexes will be perverse and corrupt. It is my duty

to be as modest and delicate as you are; and if your modesty and

delicacy may excuse you from making a public speech, then may

mine excuse me from making one.

The Quakers are the best people I have ever known--the most

serious and chaste, and yet the most brave and resisting. But

there is no other people who are so little concerned, lest man

get out of his sphere, or lest woman get out of hers. No people

make so little difference as they do, between man and woman.

Others appear to think that the happiness and safety of the world

consist in magnifying the difference. But when reason and

religion shall rule the world, there will be felt to be no other

difference between man and woman, than that of their physical

constitutions. None will then be acknowledged in respect to the

intellect, the heart, or the manners.

Very respectfully, your friend,

GERRIT SMITH.

The attendance at this Convention was larger than the year previous,

and the debates more interesting, as Mrs. Nichols, William Henry

Channing, Lucy Stone, Antoinette Brown, and Frederick Douglass all

took an active part in the proceedings. During one of the sessions

quite a heated discussion took place on the subject of Divorce, Mrs.

Stanton and Lucy Stone taking the ground that it was not only woman's

right, but her duty, to withdraw from all such unholy relations, Mrs.

Nichols and Miss Brown taking the opposite position.

As it was decided at this second convention to admit gentlemen, a

schism was the immediate result. By their party tactics, in which they

were well versed, they took the initiative steps to scatter the forces

so successfully gathered. The Society, with its guns silenced on the

popular foes, lingered a year or two, and was heard of no more. It was

the policy of these worldly wise men to restrict the debate on

temperance within such narrow limits as to disturb none of the

existing conditions of society. They said, treat it as a purely moral

and religious question; "pray over it," it being too knotty a problem

to be solved on earth, they proposed to have the whole case adjusted

in the courts of Heaven: very much as the wise men to-day think best

to dispose of the temperance reform.

Thus these politic gentlemen manipulated the association, eliminated

the woman's rights element _per se_, which, having been educated in

the anti-slavery school of morals, could not be blinded with any male

sophistries or considerations of policy. It was the universal plea

then as now, in advocating reforms, "Sacrifice principle to numbers,

if you would secure victory," forgetting that one company of brave men

could clear their path to the enemy quicker than a battalion of

cowards. A multitude of timid, undeveloped men and women, afraid of

priests and politicians, are a hindrance rather than help in any

reform. When Garrison's forces had been thoroughly sifted, and only

the picked men and women remained, he soon made political parties and

church organizations feel the power of his burning words. The

temperance cause has had no organized body of fearless leaders. Psalm

singing and prayer it was supposed would accomplish what only could be

done by just laws, enlightened public sentiment, and pure religion,

applied to the practical interests of mankind. When abolitionists left

parties and churches, because of their pro-slavery codes and creeds,

they began alike to purify their organizations in order to win back

that noble army of patriots. Women were urged to enroll themselves as

members of men's associations, pay their initiation fee of one dollar,

gather petitions, do all in their power to rouse enthusiasm; but they

must not presume to sit on the platform, nor speak, nor vote in the

meetings. Those women who had no proper self-respect accepted the

conditions; those who had, tested their status on the platform, and

not being received as equals, abandoned all temperance organizations,

as the same proper pride that forbade them to accept the conditions of

a proscribed class in men's conventions, also prevented their

affiliation with women who would tolerate such insults to the sex. The

long, persistent struggle at last culminated in the World's Temperance

Convention, which may be called our Waterloo in that reform.

BRICK CHURCH MEETING.

May 12th, 1853, the friends of temperance assembled in New York to

make arrangements for a World's Temperance Convention. The meeting was

held in Dr. Spring's old Brick Church, on Franklin Square, where the

_New York Times_ building now stands. It was organized by nominating

the Hon. A. C. Barstow, of Rhode Island, chairman; the Rev. R. C.

Crampton, of New York, and the Rev. George Duffield, of Pennsylvania,

secretaries. The meeting opened with prayer, "asking God's blessing on

the proceedings."[99] A motion was made that all gentlemen present be

admitted as delegates. Dr. Trall, of New York, moved an amendment that

the word "ladies" be inserted, as there were delegates present from

the Woman's State Temperance Society. The motion was carried, and

credentials received, and every man and woman became members of the

convention. A business committee of one from each State was appointed.

A motion was made that Susan B. Anthony, Secretary of the Woman's

State Temperance Society, be added to the business committee. Then the

war commenced in earnest. D.D.'s, M.D.'s, and Honorables were

horrified. Speech followed speech in rapid succession, with angry

vehemence. As the committee was already full, the motion was ruled out

of order. Thomas Wentworth Higginson asked that he be excused from

serving on the committee, and moved that Lucy Stone be added in his

place. Then the confusion was increased. Abby Kelly Foster arose and

tried to explain, but shouts of "order" drowned her voice, and after

persisting in her attempt to speak for ten minutes the uproar was

frightful, and she was compelled to sit down. Emily Clark made a

similar attempt, with the same result.

Hon. Bradford R. Wood, of Albany, then moved, that as there was a

party present determined to introduce the question of woman's rights,

and to run it into the ground, that this convention adjourn _sine

die_; but on request he withdrew it, and moved that a committee on

credentials be appointed to decide who were members of the convention.

This committee, consisting of Rev. John Chambers, of Philadelphia,

Hon. B. R. Wood, of Albany, and Dr. Condit, of New Jersey, were absent

fifteen minutes, and then reported that, as in their opinion, the call

for this meeting was not intended to include female delegates, and

custom had not sanctioned the public action of women in similar

situations, the credentials of the ladies should be rejected. The

report was received, and after a disgraceful contest on the part of

those from whom we look for honor, truth, and nobleness, and every

Christian virtue, on account of their sacred calling and high

position, it was adopted by a vote of 34 to 32, ten of those voting in

the negative being women. During the progress of the discussion--if

discussion it could be called, where all the women who attempted to

speak were silenced, and the men who attempted to speak for them were

almost as rudely treated--Mayor Barstow twice requested the

appointment of another chairman in his stead, stating that he would

not preside over a meeting where woman's rights were introduced, or

women allowed to speak. Having finally silenced them, he was

henceforward content to wear the honors of his temporary office.

Mr. Higginson protested against the action of the meeting as

disgraceful to the leaders, and tendered his resignation as one of the

business committee. He then stated that all persons favorable to

calling a _whole_ world's temperance convention were invited to meet

at Dr. Trall's office at 2 o'clock. The ladies present, and the

gentlemen who had contended for their admission as delegates, then

withdrew. Another disgraceful scene occurred on a protest from Dr.

Townsend against the action of the convention, and a motion to pay the

expenses of the ladies who had come some distance as delegates and

been excluded. The motion was seconded. Again shouts of "order,"

"order," arose, and the confusion was worse than ever. Dr. T. finally

withdrew his motion, on being told that the ladies would accept no

such favor at the hands of a convention of rowdies.

Several speeches then followed, mostly from, clergymen; all condemning

the public action of women in any reforms, and defending the position

of the convention, quoting Scripture and the Divine Will to sanction

their injustice. One Rev. gentleman stated that he would have nothing

to do with the women. Rev. John Chambers said, for one, he rejoiced

that the women were gone; they were now rid of the scum of the

convention!! Other clergymen spoke in the same strain. A motion was

made by Dr. Snodgrass that the committee assign some part of the work

of the World's Convention to women, which called out from Mr. Barstow

some remarks too indecent for repetition. The motion was withdrawn.

The gall and bitterness, the ridicule and vulgarity of the Rev. D.D.'s

being expended on some of the grandest women our nation could boast,

they adjourned, after deciding to hold a four days' convention,

beginning the 6th of September. The other wing of the temperance army

decided to do the same, and held a meeting of protest a few days after

in the Tabernacle.

The _New York Tribune_ says of the meeting of protest, Saturday

evening, May 14, 1852: A grand Temperance demonstration was held

in the Broadway Tabernacle Saturday evening. There could not have

been less than 3,000 persons present. The floor of the house, the

aisles, the galleries, every inch of sitting and standing room

was literally packed. The greatest enthusiasm prevailed

throughout. The officers of the meeting were:

PRESIDENT--Susan B. Anthony.[100]

LUCY STONE, in a letter to _The Una_, says: Last week, at New

York, we had a foretaste of what woman is to expect when she

attempts to exercise her equal rights as a human being. In

conformity with a resolution adopted by the Mass Convention

recently held in Boston, a call was issued, inviting "the

_friends of temperance_" to meet in New York, May 11th, and

prepare for a "World's Convention." Under that call, the Woman's

State Society of New York, an active and efficient body, sent

delegates; but though regularly elected, their credentials were

rejected with scorn. The chairman of the committee reported that

those who called the meeting never intended to include women.

Think of it, a _World's_ Convention, in which woman is voted not

of the world!!

Rev. Dr. Hewitt affirmed it a burning shame for women to be

there; and though it was entirely out of order, he discussed the

question of "Woman's Rights," taking the ground that women should

be nowhere but at home. Rev. E. M. Jackson, gave it as his

opinion, that "the women came there expressly to disturb." The

Rev. Mr. Fowler, of Utica, showed the same contempt for woman

that he did last year, at the N. Y. State Temperance Society, at

Syracuse. Rev. Mr. Chambers was particularly bitter.

It would have been well for those women who accept the foolish

flattery of men, to have been present to see the real estimate in

which woman is held by these men who surely represent a large

class. The President of the meeting, Mayor Barstow, of your city,

indignantly refused to put the motion made--that Susan B. Anthony

should be on a committee, declaring "that he would resign rather

than do it." He said it "was not fit that a woman should be in

such places." After we left, if the papers reported him

correctly, he used language which proved that he was not fit to

be where decent people are. It was next to impossible for us or

our friends to get a hearing. The "previous question" was called,

or we were voted out of order, or half a dozen of the opposing

party talked at once to keep us silent. Rev. T. W. Higginson

declined serving on a committee from which women were excluded,

and when it became apparent that only half of the world could be

represented, he entered his protest, and invited those who were

in favor of a _Whole_ World's Temperance Convention to meet that

afternoon at Dr. Trall's. A large minority withdrew, including

several ministers, and arranged for a Convention that shall know

"neither male nor female," to be held in New York sometime during

The World's Fair.

A large and enthusiastic meeting was held at the Broadway

Tabernacle, to protest against the above proceedings, and

although twelve and a half cents were charged at the door, every

seat was occupied, and much of the "standing room" also.

The same gentlemen who excluded us, held a meeting subsequently

in Metropolitan Hall. There your Major Barstow said: "God has

placed woman in the moral world where he has the sun in the

physical, to regulate, enlighten, and cheer." C. C. Burleigh,

alluding to this remark, in our meeting at the Tabernacle, said:

"Thus he calls his Convention, in which Mars, Jupiter, Saturn,

Mercury, and Neptune are appointed a committee of arrangements,

and says the Sun shall be excluded."

At this meeting, _ladies_ were especially invited to vote, as

though they had a heart in it, and were urged also to give their

money to aid these very men by whom every soul of us had been

insulted. I am sorry to say some gave. But taught such lessons,

by such masters, woman will one day be wiser. Yours, for

humanity, without distinction of sex,

LUCY STONE.

After the Brick Church meeting was over, some of the actors being

ashamed of themselves, the Rev. John Marsh tried to defend himself and

his coadjutors, but Mr. Greeley very summarily brushed his sophistry

aside, and placed all the actors in that disgraceful farce in their

true colors.

_The New York Daily Tribune, Wednesday, May 18, 1853._

THE WORLD'S TEMPERANCE CONVENTION.

_To the Editor of the New York Tribune:_

SIR:--Your "Inquirer," it appears to me, is bent on throwing

firebrands into the temperance ranks, and the worst kind of

firebrands, those of vile sectarianism. Will you permit me to

answer and remark upon a few of his inquiries?

1. "Are there to be _two_ World's Conventions?"

_Answer_. That will be, I suppose, as people please. There may be

a dozen; and I know not that any harm will be done.

2. "Did Mayor Barstow occasion the schism in the temperance

ranks, by refusing to recognize the feminine element in the

movement?"

_Ans_. No. The schism, such as there was, was caused by a

proposal of Rev. Mr. Higginson, and a persistence in it, that a

representative of the Women's State Society should be added to

the Business Committee of one from each State; and this after the

Committee was full. With as good reason, it was said, might one

be pressed from the _Men's_ State Society or State Alliance. Mr.

Higginson pertinaciously pressed the matter; and because he could

not have his own way and rule the Convention, he refused to serve

on the Committee; and hence arose all the disturbance and the

schism.

3. "Did Dr. Hewitt rule out from office Mr. Barnum on the ground

that he (Mr. Barnum) was an infidel?"

_Ans_. No. I am confident he used no such phraseology; and

"Inquirer" has no more right to ask such a question, than he has

to ask if Dr. Hewitt did not rule him out on the ground that Mr.

Barnum was a horse thief. The very question amounts to an

assertion (as is announced in the next inquiry) that he _did_ say

it; which, if he did not, is calumny. Dr. H. _did_ object to Mr.

Barnum, as he had a perfect right to do, as one of the Appointing

Committee. It was desirable to find the best men to get up to the

World's Convention. I proposed Mr. Barnum as one, knowing his

amazing efficiency. Dr. H. objected, on the ground that he

(Barnum) was a very exceptionable man in his part of Connecticut,

and would do injury to the Convention; and, as harmony was

desirable, and unexceptionable men should be put upon the

Committee, his name was withdrawn. It was agreed that what was

said in Committee should not go abroad.

4. "Does Mr. Barnum's infidelity consist in his attending another

church in Bridgeport from Dr. Hewitt's?"

Here appears the cloven foot of sectarianism. One sect is to be

held up as persecuted. Here the writer assumes that Dr. Hewitt

did say that Mr. B. was an infidel; and, assuming it and knowing

it, why does he hypocritically ask whether Dr. H. _did_ say it?