5. "Is it true that Dr. H. refused his pulpit for a temperance

lecture by Rev. E. H. Chapin, on the ground that he was a

Universalist?"

Sectarianism again! What has all this to do with the meeting at

the Brick Chapel? Why is it brought here but to kindle up

sectarian fires? A pastor of a church has everywhere conceded to

him the control of his pulpit, and no one may contend with him in

this matter. Whether that was so or not, I know not, nor is it

any concern of mine, nor of the public. Such a rule the world

knows does not govern us in selecting temperance speakers. We

will not invite speakers to speak at temperance meetings who have

something else more at heart than temperance, which they will

most offensively thrust in their speech upon the meeting. But we,

without hesitation, invite men of all sorts to speak at

temperance meetings, who will speak to the point, and do us good

and not hurt. Rev. Mr. Chapin, we all know, is of this character,

and, without hesitation, I invited him to speak at the late

Anniversary of the American Temperance Union (as I did Rev. Mr.

Higginson, who differs from me perhaps as much in religious

belief), and he (Mr. C.) would have spoken, but was to be out of

the city.

6. "How can the proposed Convention be a _World's_ Convention, if

women and all who do not belong to a particular Church are to be

excluded?"

Sectarianism again! Who has said a word about Church but this

writer, and about excluding women from the Convention and all its

entertainments? No one. The basis of the Convention has not been

settled. It probably will be as broad as the world. The last

query I think unworthy an answer. And I must be permitted to say

the whole inquiry manifests a very bad spirit, and is calculated

to promote evils which the public press should suppress rather

than foster.

As I sent you an anonymous communication explaining some of these

matters last Saturday, which you declined publishing, because, I

suppose, it was anonymous, I feel constrained, though

reluctantly, to give this my name.

Yours, etc., JOHN MARSH,

_Office of Am. Temp. Union, No. 149 Nassau St._

HORACE GREELEY'S REPLY.

Rev. John! we have allowed you to be heard at full length; now

you and your set will be silent and hear us.

Very palpably your palaver about Mr. Higginson's motion is a

dodge, a quirk, a most contemptible quibble, reluctant as we are

to speak thus irreverently of the solemn utterances of a Doctor

of Divinity. Right well do you know, reverend sir, that the

particular form, or time, or fashion in which the question came

up is utterly immaterial, and you interpose it only to throw dust

in the eyes of the public. Suppose a woman had been nominated at

the right time, and in the right way, according to your

understanding of punctilios, wouldn't the same resistance have

been made and the same row got up? You know right well that there

would. Then what is all your pettifogging about technicalities

worth? The only question that anybody cares a button about is

this, Shall woman be allowed to participate in your World's

Temperance Convention on a footing of perfect equality with man?

If yea, the whole dispute turns on nothing, and isn't worth six

lines in _The Tribune_. But if it was and is the purpose of those

for whom you pettifog to keep woman off the platform of that

Convention, and deny her any part in its proceedings except as a

spectator, what does all your talk about Higginson's untimeliness

and the Committees being full amount to? Why not treat the

subject with some show of honesty?

Now as to Barnum and Hewitt: it is eminently proper that the

public should know exactly on what ground H. ruled B. off the

Business Committee, and it is self-criminating to plead that a

mantle of secrecy was spread over the doings in Committee. If

Hewitt protested against Barnum on the assumption that the

latter is a sinner, while this is to be a Convention of saints,

let that fact be known, so that sinners may keep away from the

Convention. If on the assumption that Mr. Barnum is an infidel or

a heretic, let that fact come squarely out, so that we may know

that infidels or heretics, either or both, are to be proscribed

at the Hewitt-Marsh Convention. For if there is to be really and

truly a World's Temperance Convention, according to any fair

meaning of the phrase, then we say women, as well as men, youth,

as well as adults, colored, as well as white, heretic, as well as

orthodox, sinners, as well as saints--so that they be earnest and

undoubted upholders of total abstinence--should be invited to

send delegates, who should be equally welcome to its platform and

eligible to its offices. An Orthodox White Male Adult Saints'

Convention may be very proper and very useful, but it should be

called distinctly as such, and not unqualifiedly as a World's

Convention.

Dr. Marsh thinks it nobody's business whether Dr. Hewitt did or

did not refuse the use of his church for a temperance-meeting at

which Mr. Chapin was to speak, because he (Mr. C.) was a

Universalist. Yes, reverend sir, it is a good many people's

business if the public are purposely left in doubt as to the

character of the World's Convention that is to issue from the

Brick Church meeting. For if Dr. Hewitt shut his pulpit against

so unexceptionable, assiduous, effective an advocate of

temperance as Mr. Chapin confessedly is (see Marsh, above), then

we have a cue to his objection to Barnum and to the general

bearings of the "World's Convention" to be incubated under his

auspices. That single incident of the pulpit-shutting will have a

great deal of significance to many other people; wherefore the

fact that it has none to Marsh is overruled.

Whenever a real "World's Temperance Convention" shall assemble,

an inquiry may be found necessary as to what Dr. Hewitt has done

and sacrificed for temperance these five years that should

authorize him to rule P. T. Barnum off a temperance committee;

also, whether men who live by Temperance, like Dr. Marsh, are in

the right position to judge those, like Barnum, who labor and

spend money for it. For the present, however, we will leave these

inquiries on the General Orders.

One word as to Sectarianism. If "Inquirer," or Mr. Barnum, or Mr.

Chapin has proposed or intrigued to keep any one out of office,

or otherwise overslaughed in the Brick Church Meeting, or any of

its meetings, because of said body's religious opinions or

associations, then said intriguer has been guilty of a very

faulty and culpable sectarian dodge, which can not be too

severely reproached. But if it be in fact t'other fellow's bull

that has gored this one's ox, then the facts should come out, and

the culprit can not escape censure by raising the stop-thief cry

of "Sectarianism." "_Thou_ art the man!"

Let the women of this nation ponder Horace Greeley's arraignment of

the reverend gentlemen who were the chief actors in this farce, and

remember that in all ages of the world the priesthood have found their

pliant tools and most degraded victims in the women of their

respective sects. In all of these meetings there were intelligent,

sincere women, so blinded by the sophistry and hypocrisy of Marsh,

Chambers, Hewitt, _et al._, that they gave them their countenance and

support throughout this disgraceful mob, so-shocking and revolting to

the best men of that day and generation.

In consequence of the action in the Brick Church two temperance

conventions were called, to meet in New York the first week in

September. One designated "The Whole World's Convention," including

men and women, black and white, orthodox and heretic; the other the

"Half World's Convention," restricted to the "simon pure, white (male)

orthodox saints"; which for ribaldry of speech and rudeness of action

surpassed in its proceedings the outside mob, that raged and raved

through an entire week, making pandemonium of our metropolis.

A GRAND GATHERING--ANTI-SLAVERY--WOMAN'S RIGHTS--TEMPERANCE--THE

WORLD'S FAIR, SEPTEMBER, 1853.

The opening days of the autumn of this year were days of intense

excitement in the city of New York. Added to the numbers attracted by

the World's Fair was the announcement of the Anti-Slavery, Woman's

Rights, and two Temperance Conventions. The reformers from every part

of the country assembled in force, each to hold their separate

meetings, though the leaders were to take a conspicuous part in all.

The anti-slavery meetings began on Sunday, and every day two or three

of these conventions were in session, all drawing crowds to listen or

to disturb. William Henry Channing. William Lloyd Garrison, Wendell

Phillips and Thomas Wentworth. Higginson eloquently pleading for the

black man's freedom on the anti-slavery platform, and for the equality

of their mothers, wives, and daughters on the woman's rights platform,

and for both the woman and the black man on the temperance platform;

now face to face with Rynders and his mob, and then with the Rev. John

Chambers, Marsh and Hewitt and their mob, the viler of the two.

THE HALF WORLD'S TEMPERANCE CONVENTION,

led by Chambers, Hewitt, and Marsh, was in session in Metropolitan

Hall several days. As it was simply an organized mob, we find in the

journals of the day no speeches or resolutions on the great question

on which they nominally assembled.

In trying to get rid of Antoinette L. Brown, who had been sent as a

delegate from two respectable and influential societies, and of James

McCune Smith, a colored delegate, they quarrelled through most of the

allotted time for the convention over what class of persons could be

admitted. In summing up the proceedings of these meetings

HORACE GREELEY says, in the _Tribune_, September 7, 1853: "This

convention has completed three of its four business sessions, and

the results may be summed up as follows:

"_First Day_--Crowding a woman off the platform.

"_Second Day_--Gagging her.

"_Third Day_--Voting that she shall stay gagged. Having thus

disposed of the main question, we presume the incidentals will be

finished this morning."

Antoinette Brown was asked why she went to that Convention, knowing,

as she must, that she would be rejected.

"I went there," she said, "to assert a principle--a principle

relevant to the circumstances of that convention, and one which

would promote _all_ good causes and retard _all_ bad ones. I went

there, as an item of the world, to contend that the sons and

daughters of the race, without distinction of sex, sect, class or

color, should be recognized as belonging to the world, and I

planted my feet upon the simple _rights of a delegate_. I asked

no favor as a woman, or in behalf of woman; no favor as a woman

advocating temperance; no recognition of the cause of woman above

the cause of humanity; the indorsement of no 'ism' and of no

measure; but I claimed, in the name of the world, the rights of a

delegate in a world's convention.

"Is it asked. Why did you make that issue at that time? I answer,

I have made it at all times and in all places, whenever and

wherever Providence has given me the opportunity, and in whatever

way it could be made to appear most prominent. Last spring, when

woman claimed the supremacy--the right to hold all the offices in

the Woman's State Temperance Society--I contended, from this

platform, for the equality of man; the equal rights of all the

members of this society. I have claimed everywhere the equality

of humanity in Church and in State; God helping me, I here pledge

myself anew to Him, and to you all, to be true everywhere to the

central principle--the soul of the Divine commandment, 'Thou

shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.' The temperance cause was not

injured by our course at that Convention. We went there with

thoughtful hearts. Said Wendell Phillips: 'Take courage, and

remember that whether you are received or rejected, you are going

to make the most effectual speech for temperance, for woman, and

humanity that you have ever made in your life.' 'God bless you,'

were the fervent words of Mr. Channing, in a moment when there

was most need of Divine assistance; and when I stood on the

platform for an hour and a half, waiting to be heard, I could

read in the faces of men such as these, and in the faces, too, of

our opposers, the calm assurance, 'You are making the most

effectual speech for temperance, for woman, and humanity, that

you have ever made in your life.' I believed it then; I believe

it now."[101]

Rev. William Henry Channing, in giving his report of the World's

Temperance Convention to the Toronto Division of Sons of Temperance of

the City of Rochester, said:

And now it becomes my disagreeable duty, as one of your

delegates, to report to the Toronto Division how my highly

honored fellow-delegate was treated. Her credentials were

received without dissent; she was, of course, then entitled,

_equally_ with every other delegate, to take part in all the

proceedings of the Conventions. At a suitable time and in a

perfectly orderly manner she rose to speak; the floor was

adjudged to her by Hon. Neal Dow, the President, but her right to

the platform was questioned. Again and again the President

declared your delegate to be in order; again and again appeal was

made to the Convention and the decision of the President

sustained; but a factious minority succeeded in silencing her

voice, and so ended the first session in storm.

On the second morning your delegate wisely waited until the

resolutions offered to the convention by the Business Committee

were opened for discussion. When the first resolution, declaring

the _religious character_ of the Temperance Movement, was

submitted to the meeting, Miss Brown rose to speak. She rose

calmly in the body of the house; she was a minister of religion,

an advocate of temperance; she had it in her heart to press this

reformation onward in a religious spirit; she had avoided all

disputes on petty points of order, and now wished to address

herself earnestly to the momentous theme. Had she not a perfect

right to do so? And what fitter occasion could occur? The very

topic was of a kind to banish personalities and hush low

passions. Your delegate was invited by the President to take the

platform; she did so with quiet dignity, but scarcely had she

reached the stand when all around her on the platform itself, and

among the officers of the Convention, began that disgraceful row,

which led an onlooker in the gallery to cry out, "Are those men

drunk?" I have no wish to dwell upon that cowardly transaction,

but this remark I am bound in honor to make: If any man says that

Antoinette Brown forced the subject of "Woman's Rights" on that

Temperance Convention in plain Saxon speech, _He Lies_. She never

dreamed of asking any _privilege_ as a woman; she stood there in

her _right_ as a delegate; her aim was to urge forward the

Temperance Reform. No! the whole uproar on "Woman's Rights" came

from the professed friends of Temperance, and began with the

insulting cry--from a man on the platform--of, "Shame on the

woman!" That man I need hardly tell you was the notorious John

Chambers, of Philadelphia--the so-called Rev. John Chambers!--he

it was who, with brazen face and clanging tongue, stood stamping

until he raised a cloud of dust around him, pointing with coarse

finger and rudely shouting "shame on the woman," until he even

stood abashed before the indignant cry from the Convention of

"shame on John Chambers."

The Reverend John Chambers! _Reverend_ for what? For his piety;

manifested in the fact that he, a professed minister of the

gospel, could by rowdy tumult drown the voice of another minister

of the gospel while she was asserting the religious character of

the Temperance Reform! _Reverend_ for what? For his charity;

manifested by low cries and insulting gestures, to a gentlewoman

who stood there firm yet meek, before him! Strange that he, of

all, should thus seek a bad eminence in outraging the decencies

of social life; for unless report is false, John Chambers owes

whatever position he may have to woman. It is said--I believe on

good authority--that he was educated for the ministry by the

contributions of women; that he preaches in a church built and

endowed by a woman; that his salary is chiefly paid by

hard-working needle-women; finally, that he married a rich wife!

Now what a sight was there! A man, whose brain had been fed with

books by woman, whose body had been fattened with bread by woman,

every fragment and stitch of whose ministerial garb, from his

collar to his boot-heels, had been paid for by woman, whose very

traveling ticket to that convention had been bought by woman,

could find no better way to discharge his mission as minister of

the gospel than to point his finger and shout, "Shame on the

woman!"

Mr. Channing then bore his testimony to the admirable combination of

energy and mildness, by which Miss Brown's whole air and manner were

distinguished amid these hours of tumult. He said: "Such serene

strength comes only from religious principle and life. I know not how

it may have been with nerves and pulses--there was no apparent tremor.

But of this I am assured, whatever disturbance there was in the outer

court of the Temple, in the Holy of Holies was the heart of peace, and

the dove of the Spirit brooded in light on the tabernacle of

conscience."

In an editorial of _The Una_, headed "Rev. John Chambers Recommended

to Mercy," Mrs. Davis says: "We publish the letter of Rev. Wm. Henry

Channing because it is a noble defence of woman and a part of the

history of the movement. We do not give Mr. Chambers' reply, 1st,

Because we find in it no evidence of penitence nor any testimony as to

who was the guilty party--if he was not; and 2d, Because the tone and

language of the letter is of a character we trust will never sully the

pages of _The Una_. Mr. Channing's rebuke is severe, but we believe it

to have been richly deserved and given in true Christian love."

ROCHESTER, N. Y., Oct. 18, 1853.

EDITORS SUNDAY MERCURY:--You ask for proof that Rev. John

Chambers took part in the brutal insult offered to a Christian

gentlewoman at the late "World's Temperance Convention." I was

_witness_ of the conduct of that man and his abettors during that

_cowardly transaction_, and I hereby charge him with being a

ringleader in that platform row.

When my honored friend and fellow-delegate, the Rev. Antoinette

L. Brown, was standing calm, yet firm, amidst those rude

scoffers, the words of the Psalmist kept sounding in my ear:

"Strong bulls of Bashan have beset me roundabout, gaping upon me

with their mouths." I marked the _biggest_ of the herd with the

purpose, at the first suitable season, of laying on one blow of

the lash with such a will that it should cut through any hide,

however callous. That season came when, as a delegate, I was

called upon to report to the "Toronto Division of the Sons of

Temperance" how my fellow-delegate had been treated.

But having thus _indicted the bully_ and put him on trial in open

court, I merely record my testimony and leave him to go to

judgment; the public will render a verdict, pass sentence, and

inflict the _penalty_ in the pillory where he has placed himself;

may their justice be tempered with mercy. It was necessary, in

order to _protect women_ in future from the _insolence of

tyrants_, to make this example; yet let him be cordially pardoned

as soon as he gives sincere proof of penitence.

WILLIAM HENRY CHANNING.

Another letter of Mr. Channing's of same date to the editor of _The

Daily Register_:

SIR:--Respect for yourself, your readers, and your paper, prompts

me to reply at once to your article headed, "Answer," etc., by

Rev. John Chambers, which, through the courtesy of some friend,

reached me last evening. I must be frank, but will aim to be

brief.

And first, Mr. Birney, a word to yourself. You knew me in "former

days as mild," etc., and were not prepared for such a speech; you

charitably suggest that its "vindictiveness" may be owing to a

substitution of the reporter's language for my own, and "are not

without hope of seeing a disclaimer." Now, far from wishing to

disclaim the _one real accusation_ made in my remarks, I am

ready, anywhere and everywhere, to reiterate that charge. Yet

there is no "vindictiveness" in my heart toward the criminal whom

I thus arraign, and no emotion which I should not honor any man

for feeling toward myself, if I was consciously guilty of having

played so base a part. You were not wrong in thinking me "mild in

former days"; I trust I am milder now than then. But my mildness

never was, and never will be, of that mean quality, which can

tamely see a sister insulted, whether by a pugilist from the

ring, or by a _rowdy from the pulpit_. My principle is peace, but

I remember the saying, "You can not become an angel till you are

first a man.".... Womanhood, as such, claims honorable courtesy

of every manly heart; and he is unmanly who does not rejoice to

testify this respect. The man who can be rude to even a poor

prostitute in the street, will be rude to wife or daughter at his

own fireside; while he who is a _gentle_ man to any woman, will

be a _gentle_ man to all women. _His spirit is brutal_, who could

ever dream of applying the slang phrase "creature" to any woman

under any conceivable conditions. What shall be thought then of

the moral grade of him who chose as the mark for his missiles of

"contempt," a young lady of rare refinement in her whole presence

and manner, of spotless delicacy and gentlest dignity, of

commanding talent and philanthropic earnestness, and who stood

there before him, serene amid the tumult, clad, even then, in the

bright robe of heavenly peace?

And now one word in closing. Let Mr. Chambers, and all of like

spirit, be assured, that I am but a representative of a large,

rapidly growing, and influential body in every community

throughout our land, who are resolved, that women shall no longer

be insulted in public assemblies with impunity.

WM. HENRY CHANNING.

Through this fierce conflict Horace Greeley, with his personal

presence on the platform, and his brave editorials in the _New York

Tribune_, fought a great battle for free speech and human equality.

Speaking of the _Whole_ World's Convention, he said:

_New York Tribune, September 3, 1853._

This has been the most spirited and able Convention on behalf of

temperance that was ever held. It has already done good, and can

not fail to do more. The scarcity of white neck-ties on the

platform so fully atoned for by the presence of such champions of

reform and humanity as Antoinette L. Brown, Lucy Stone, and Mrs.

Jackson, of England, Mrs. C I. H. Nichols, Mrs. Frances D. Gage,

etc., that like the absence of wine from our festive board when

it is graced by women, it was the theme of no general or very

pointed regret. It was a great occasion, and we know truth was

there uttered which will bear fruit through coming years.

_Tribune, September 7, 1853._

When the call of the World's Temperance Convention was issued, we

were appealed to by valued friends, whom we know as devoted to

the temperance cause, to discountenance all efforts to get up a

rival Convention. "The call is unexceptionably broad," we were

reminded, "it invites all and excludes nobody, then why not

accept it and hold but one Convention?" The question was fair and

forcible, and had there been no antecedents we should have

acceded to its object. But we could not forget the preliminary

meeting at the Brick Church Chapel, and we could not take the

hazard of having many whom we knew as among the most efficient

and faithful laborers in the Temperance cause shut out of a

World's Convention of its advocates; so we cast our lot with them

about whose catholicity of sentiment and action there could be no

dispute, and yesterday's doings at the Metropolitan Convention

maintained the conviction created by the whole World's Convention

that our decision was right.

We ask especial attention to the proceedings of the World's

Convention yesterday morning, particularly with reference to

Antoinette Brown, who had been chosen by two separate temperance

organizations of men to represent them at this Convention. How

she was received, how treated, and how virtually crowded off the

platform, our report most faithfully exhibits. They who are sure

that the Age of Chivalry is not gone, are urged to ponder this

treatment of a pure and high-souled woman, a teacher of Christian

truth, an ornament of her sex, and an example to all, by a

Convention of Reformers and Gentlemen, many of them from that

section of the Union where the defence of woman from insult has

been deemed a manly grace, if not a manly duty. We presume the

matter will be further considered to-day.

Of the _Whole_ World's Temperance Convention a correspondent of

_The Una_ says: "Throughout, the meeting has been one of intense

interest; not a moment's flagging, not a poor or unworthy speech

made by either man or woman. Again and again, as we passed into

the large hall, filled with eager listeners, we felt it to be one

of the most sublime scenes we had ever looked upon. There the

audience remained, hour after hour, patient, earnest, full of

enthusiasm, and yet hundreds could scarcely hear a single

connected sentence. The majority were women, but the larger

number of the speakers were men. The right and equality being

recognized, there was no longer a necessity for controversy to

maintain principle, hence no woman attempted to speak except she

had something to say. Mrs. Jackson, of England, Mrs. Nichols,

Mrs. Vaughan, Miss Stone, Rev. A. L. Brown, Lucretia Mott, and

Mrs. F. D. Gage addressed the Convention during the different

sessions."

The same correspondent says of the _World's_ Temperance

Convention: "There was one feature more anomalous than the

rejection and gagging of Miss Brown, darker and far more cruel,

for it has not the excuse of custom, nor can the Bible be

tortured into any justification of it. This was the exclusion of

Dr. James McCune Smith, a gentleman, a graduate of the Edinburgh

University, a member of a long-established temperance society,

and a regularly appointed delegate. And wherefore? simply for the

reason that nature had bestowed on his complexion a darker,

richer tint than upon some of the sycophants who gathered there;

it appears to have been simply to pander to a bigoted priesthood

and a corrupt populace."

In deciding the action of the Convention to be worse in its treatment

toward Mr. Smith than toward Miss Brown, we think _The Una_

correspondent makes a grave mistake.

In point of courtesy the treatment of a lady of culture and

refinement, the peer of any man in that assembly, with the

unpardonable rudeness they did, was infinitely worse than to have done

the same thing to any man, white or black, because by every code of

honor or chivalry all men are bound to defend woman. Again, as a

question of morals, custom, and prejudice, they occupied the same

position in the State and the Church. The "white male" in the

Constitutions placed women and black men on the same platform as

citizens. The popular interpretation of Scripture sanctioned the same

injustice in both cases. In the mouths of the false prophets,

"Servants, obey your masters," was used for the same purpose, and with

equal effect, as "Wives, be in subjection to your own husbands."

"Servant of servants shall he be" has been used with the same

prophetic force as the more cruel curse pronounced on woman. The white

man's Bible has been uniformly used to show that the degradation of

the woman and the black man was in harmony with God's will. On what

principle is proscription on account of color more cruel than on

account of sex?

Most of the liberal men and women now withdrew from all temperance

organizations, leaving the movement in the hands of time-serving

priests and politicians, who, being in the majority, effectually

blocked the progress of the reform for the time--destroying, as they

did, the enthusiasm of the women in trying to press it as a moral

principle, and the hope of the men, who intended to carry it as a

political measure. Henceforward women took no active part in

temperance until the Ohio crusade revived them again all over the

nation, and gathered the scattered forces into "The Woman's National

Christian Temperance Union," of which Miss Frances E. Willard is

president. As now, so in 1853, intelligent women saw that the most

direct way to effect any reform was to have a voice in the laws and

lawmakers. Hence they turned their attention to rolling up petitions

for the civil and political rights of women, to hearings before

legislatures and constitutional conventions, giving their most

persistent efforts to the reform technically called "Woman's Rights."

Susan B. Anthony had a similar battle to fight in the educational

conventions. Having been a successful teacher in the State of New York

fifteen years of her life, she had seen the need of many improvements

in the mode of teaching and in the sanitary arrangements of school

buildings; and more than all, the injustice to women in their half-pay

as teachers. Her interest in educational conventions was first roused

by listening to a tedious discussion at Elmira on the "Divine

ordinance" of flogging children, in which Charles Anthony, principal

of the Albany Academy, quoted Solomon's injunction, "Spare the rod,

and spoil the child."

In 1853, the annual convention being held in Rochester, her place of

residence, Miss Anthony conscientiously attended all the sessions

through three entire days. After having listened for hours to a

discussion as to the reason why the profession of teacher was not as

much respected as that of the lawyer, minister, or doctor, without

once, as she thought, touching the kernel of the question, she arose

to untie for them the Gordian knot, and said, "Mr. President." If all

the witches that had been drowned, burned, and hung in the Old World

and the New had suddenly appeared on the platform, threatening

vengeance for their wrongs, the officers of that convention could not

have been thrown into greater consternation.

There stood that Quaker girl, calm and self-possessed, while with

hasty consultations, running to and fro, those frightened men could

not decide what to do; how to receive this audacious invader of their

sphere of action. At length President Davies, of West Point, in fall

dress, buff vest, blue coat, gilt buttons, stepped to the front, and

said, in a tremulous, mocking tone, "What will the lady have?" "I

wish, sir, to speak to the question under discussion," Miss Anthony

replied. The Professor, more perplexed than before, said: "What is the

pleasure of the Convention?" A gentleman moved that she should be

heard; another seconded the motion; whereupon a discussion pro and con

followed, lasting full half an hour, when a vote of the men only was

taken, and permission granted by a small majority; and lucky for her,

too, was it, that the thousand women crowding that hall could not vote

on the question, for they would have given a solid "no." The president

then announced the vote, and said: "The lady can speak."

We can easily imagine the embarrassment under which Miss Anthony arose

after that half hour of suspense, and the bitter hostility she noted

on every side. However, with a clear, distinct voice, which filled the

hall, she said: "It seems to me, gentlemen, that none of you quite

comprehend the cause of the disrespect of which you complain. Do you

not see that so long as society says a woman is incompetent to be a

lawyer, minister, or doctor, but has ample ability to be a teacher,

that every man of you who chooses this profession tacitly acknowledges

that he has no more brains than a woman? And this, too, is the reason

that teaching is a less lucrative profession, as here men must compete

with the cheap labor of woman. Would you exalt your profession, exalt

those who labor with you. Would you make it more lucrative, increase

the salaries of the women engaged in the noble work of educating our

future Presidents, Senators, and Congressmen."

This said, Miss Anthony took her seat, amid the profoundest silence,

broken at last by three gentlemen, Messrs. Cruttenden, Coburn, and

Fanning, walking down the broad aisle to congratulate the speaker on

her pluck and perseverance, and the pertinency of her remarks. The

editor of _The Rochester Democrat_ said the next morning, that

"whatever the schoolmasters might think of Miss Anthony, it was

evident that she hit the nail on the head."

To give the women of to-day some idea of what it cost those who first

thrust themselves into these conventions, at the close of the session

Miss A. heard women remarking: "Did you ever see anything like this

performance?" "I was actually ashamed of my sex." "I felt so mortified

I really wished the floor would open and swallow me up." "Who can that

creature be?" "She must be a dreadful woman to get up that way and

speak in public." "I was so mad at those three men making such a

parade to shake hands with her; that will just encourage her to speak

again." These ladies had probably all been to theatres, concerts,

operas, and gone into ecstasies over Fanny Kemble, Rachel, and Jenny

Lind; and Fanny Elsler, balanced on one toe, the other foot in the

air, without having their delicacy shocked in the least. But a simple

Quaker girl rising in a teachers' convention to make a common-sense

remark modestly, dressed, making no display of her neck, or arms, or

legs, so tried their delicate sensibilities that they were almost

afraid to attend the next session.

At the opening of the next morning's session, after Miss Anthony's

début, Professor Davies, in all his majesty and pomposity, with his

thumbs in the arm-holes of his regulation buff vest, called the

Convention to order, and said: "I have been asked by several persons,

why no provisions have been made for women to speak, and vote, and act

on committees, in these assemblies?" My answer is, "Be hold yonder

beautiful pilaster of this superb hall! contemplate its pedestal, its

shaft, its rich entablature, the crowning glory of the whole. Each and

all the parts in their appropriate place contribute to the strength,

symmetry, and beauty of the whole. Could I aid in taking down that

magnificent entablature from its proud elevation, and placing it in

the dust and dirt that surround the pedestal? Neither could I drag

down the mother, wife, and daughter, whom we worship as beings of a

higher order, on the common plane of life with ourselves."

If all men were pedestals and shafts capable of holding the women of

their households above the dirt and dust of common life, in a serene

atmosphere of peace and plenty, the good professor's remarks would

have had some significance; but as the burdens of existence rest

equally on the shoulders of men and women, and we must ever struggle

together on a common plane for bread, his metaphor has no foundation.

Miss Anthony attended these teachers' conventions from year to year,

at Oswego, Utica, Poughkeepsie, Lockport, Syracuse, making the same

demands for equal place and pay, until she had the satisfaction to see

every right conceded. Women speaking and voting on all questions;

appointed on committees, and to prepare reports and addresses, elected

officers of the Association, and seated on the platforms. In 1856, she

was chairman of a committee herself, to report on the question of

co-education; and at Troy, before a magnificent audience of the most

intelligent men and women of the State, she read her report, which the

press pronounced able and conclusive. The President, Mr. Hazeltine, of

New York, congratulating Miss Anthony on her address, said: "As much

as I am compelled to admire your rhetoric and logic, the matter and

manner of your address and its delivery, I would rather follow a

daughter of mine to her grave, than to have her deliver such an

address before such an assembly." Superintendent Randall, overhearing

the President, added: "I should be proud, Madam, if I had a daughter

capable of making such an eloquent and finished argument, before this

or any assembly of men and women. I congratulate you on your

triumphant success."

In 1857, at Binghamton, Professor Fowler, of Rochester, took up the

gauntlet thrown down by Miss Anthony, and presented the other side of

the question, taking the ground that boys and girls should not be

educated together, and that women should not be paid equal wages even

for equally good work. The gentlemen who sustained the side demanding

equal rights for women in these conventions, were Randall, Rice,

Cruttenden, Cavert, Fanning, Johonett, Coburn, Wilder, and Farnham.

The opposition was led by Davies, Valentine, Buckley, Anthony (not S.

B. A.), Ross, an old bachelor, the butt of ridicule, the clown of the

Convention; and McElligott, the latter hardly ranking with the rest,

for though opposed, he was always a gentleman, the others being

ofttimes so coarse in their sneers and innuendoes, that they disgraced

the positions they occupied, as the educators of the youth of the

State. In the discussion at Binghamton, where Miss Anthony introduced

a resolution in favor of co-education, Mr. McElligott said "he was in

favor of allowing her full and equal opportunity with any other member

to present resolutions, or to call them up for discussion. Standing up

as she does before large audiences, to advocate what she

conscientiously considers the rights and privileges of her sex, gives

a touch of moral sublimity to our proceedings worthy the admiration of

all."

Professor Davies denounced the resolutions in the strongest terms. "He

had for four years been trying to escape this discussion; but if the

question must come, let it be boldly met and disposed of. These

resolutions involve a great social rather than an educational

question, calculated to introduce a vast social evil; they are the

first step in that school which seeks to abolish marriage, and behind

the picture presented by them, I see a monster of deformity."[102]

In view of the grand experiment of co-education, so successful in

every part of our country, the fears of those timid men thirty years

ago provoke nothing now but a passing smile. How few of them with a

sober face could at this time defend their old positions. It is

creditable to the stronger sex that so many men in all those

encounters, took no counsel with their fears nor prejudices, but

seeing the principle steadfastly maintained it.

But the temperance and educational conventions, the clergy and the

pedagogues, were alike abandoned now for the legislators. All this

escapading of Miss Anthony's was mere child's play, compared with the

steady bombardment kept up until the war on the legislators of the

Empire State. Calls, appeals, petitions to rouse the women, fell like

snow-flakes in every county, asking for the civil and political rights

of woman; they were carried into the Legislature, frequent hearings

secured, the members debating the question as hotly there as it had

already been discussed in popular conventions. As New York could boast

a larger number of strong-minded women than any other State, whose

continuity of purpose knew no variableness nor shadow of turning, the

agitation was persistently continued in all directions.

THE SYRACUSE NATIONAL CONVENTION,

_September 8, 9, and 10, 1852._

This Convention, lasting three days, was in many respects remarkable,

even for that "City of Conventions." It called out immense audiences,

attracted many eminent persons from different points of the State, and

was most favorably noticed by the press; the debates were unusually

earnest and brilliant, and the proceedings orderly and harmonious

throughout. Notwithstanding an admission fee of one shilling, the City

Hall was densely packed at every session, and at the hour of

adjournment it was with difficulty that the audience could gain the

street. The preliminary[103] editorials of the city papers reflected

their own conservative or progressive tendencies.

In no one respect were the participants in these early Conventions

more unsparingly ridiculed, and more maliciously falsified, than in

their personal appearance; it may therefore be wise to say that in

dignity and grace of manner and style of dress, the majority of these

ladies were superior to the mass of women; while the neat and

unadorned Quaker costume was worn by some, many others were elegantly

and fashionably attired; two of them in such extreme style as to call

forth much criticism from the majority, to whom a happy medium seemed

desirable.

The Convention was called to order by Paulina Wright Davis, chairman

of the Central Committee, and prayer offered by the Rev. Samuel J.

May, pastor of the Unitarian Church in Syracuse.

Although this was the first Woman's Rights Convention at which Mr. May

was ever present, he had been represented in nearly all by letter, and

as early as 1845 had preached an able sermon advocating the social,

civil, and political rights of woman. He had been an early convert to

this doctrine, and enjoyed telling the manner of his conversion.

Speaking once in Providence on the question of slavery, he

was attracted by the earnest attention he received from an

intelligent-looking woman. At the close of the meeting, she said to

him: "I have listened to you with an interest that only a woman can

feel. I doubt whether you see how much of your description of the

helpless dependence of slaves applies equally to all women." She ran

the parallel rapidly, quoting law and custom, maintaining her

assertion so perfectly that Mr. May's eyes were opened at once, and he

promised the lady to give the subject his immediate consideration.

Lucy Stone read the call[104] and expressed the wish that every one

present, even if averse to the new demands by women, would take part

in the debates, as it was the truth on this question its advocates

were seeking. Among the most noticeable features of these early

Conventions was the welcome given to opposing arguments.

The Nominating Committee reported the list of officers,[105] with

Lucretia Mott as permanent President. She asked that the vote be taken

separately, as there might be objections to her appointment. The

entire audience (except her husband, who gave an emphatic "No!") voted

in her favor. The very fact that Mrs. Mott consented, under any

circumstances, to preside over a promiscuous assemblage, was proof of

the progress of liberal ideas, as four years previously she had

strenuously opposed placing a woman in that position, and as a member

of the Society of Friends, by presiding over a meeting to which there

was an admission fee, she rendered herself liable to expulsion. The

vote being taken, Mrs. Mott, who sat far back in the audience, walked

forward to the platform, her sweet face and placid manners at once

winning the confidence of the audience. This impression was further

deepened by her opening remarks. She said she was unpracticed in

parliamentary proceedings, and felt herself incompetent to fulfill the

duties of the position now pressed upon her, and was quite unprepared

to make a suitable speech. She asked the serious and respectful

attention of the Convention to the business before them, referred to

the success that had thus far attended the movement, the respect shown

by the press, and the favor with which the public generally had

received these new demands, and closed by inviting the cordial

co-operation of all present.

In commenting upon Mrs. Mott's opening address, the press of the city

declared it to have been "better expressed and far more appropriate

than those heard on similar occasions in political and legislative

assemblages." The choice of Mrs. Mott as President was pre-eminently

wise; of mature years, a member of the Society of Friends, in which

woman was held as an equal, with undoubted right to speak in public,

and the still broader experience of the Anti-Slavery platform, she

was well fitted to guide the proceedings and encourage the expression

of opinions from those to whom public speaking was an untried

experiment. "It was a singular spectacle," said the _Syracuse

Standard_, "to see this gray-haired matron presiding over a Convention

with an ease, dignity, and grace that might be envied by the most

experienced legislator in the country."

Delegates were present from Canada and eight different States. Letters

were received from Mrs. Marion Reid, of England, author of an able

work upon woman; from John Neal, of Maine, the veteran temperance

reformer; from William Lloyd Garrison, Rev. William Henry Channing,

Rev. A. D. Mayo, Margaret H. Andrews, Sarah D. Fish, Angelina Grimké

Weld, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, from G. W. Johnson, chairman of the

State Committee of the Liberty party, and Horace Greeley, the

world-renowned editor of the _Tribune_. Mr. Johnson's letter enclosed

ten dollars and the following sentiments: 1. Woman has, equally with

man, the inalienable right to education, suffrage, office, property,

professions, titles, and honors--to life, liberty, and the pursuit of

happiness. 2. False to our sex, as well as her own, and false to

herself and to God, is the woman who approves, or who submits without

resistance or protest, to the social and political wrongs imposed upon

her in common with the rest of her sex throughout the world.

Mrs. Stanton's letter[106] presented three suggestions for the

consideration of the Convention, viz.: That all women owning property

should refuse to pay taxes as long as unrepresented; that man and

woman should be educated together, and the abuse of the religious

element in woman. This letter created much discussion, accompanied as

it was by a series of resolutions of the most radical character, which

were finally, with one exception, adopted. Thus at that early day was

the action of those women, who have since refused to pay taxes,

prefigured and suggested. One of the remarkable aspects of this

reform, is the fact that from the first its full significance was seen

by many of the women who inaugurated it.

HORACE GREELEY'S LETTER.

NEW YORK, _Sept. 1, 1852_.

MY FRIEND:--I have once or twice been urged to attend a

Convention of the advocates of woman's rights; and though

compliance has never been within my power, I have a right to

infer that some friends of the cause desire suggestions from me

with regard to the best means of advancing it. I therefore

venture to submit some thoughts on that subject. To my mind the

BREAD problem lies at the base of all the desirable and practical

reforms which our age meditates. Not that bread is intrinsically

more important to man than Temperance, Intelligence, Morality,

and Religion, but that it is essential to the just appreciation

of all these. Vainly do we preach the blessings of temperance to

human beings cradled in hunger, and suffering at intervals the

agonies of famine; idly do we commend intellectual culture to

those whose minds are daily racked with the dark problem, "How

shall we procure food for the morrow?" Morality, religion, are

but words to him who fishes in the gutters for the means of

sustaining life, and crouches behind barrels in the street for

shelter from the cutting blasts of a winter's night.

Before all questions of intellectual training or political

franchises for women, not to speak of such a trifle as costume,

do I place the question of enlarged opportunities for work; of a

more extended and diversified field of employment. The silk

culture and manufacture firmly established and thriftily

prosecuted to the extent of our home demand for silk, would be

worth everything to American women. Our now feeble and infantile

schools of design should be encouraged with the same view. A

wider and more prosperous development of our Manufacturing

Industry will increase the demand for female labor, thus

enhancing its average reward and elevating the social position of

woman. I trust the future has, therefore, much good in store for

the less muscular half of the human race.

But the reform here anticipated should be inaugurated in our own

households. I know how idle is the expectation of any general and

permanent enhancement of the wages of any class or condition

above the level of equation of Supply and Demand; yet it seems to

me that the friends of woman's rights may wisely and worthily set

the example of paying juster prices for female assistance in

their households than those now current. If they would but

resolve never to pay a capable, efficient woman less than

two-thirds the wages paid to a vigorous, effective man employed

in some corresponding vocation, they would very essentially aid

the movement now in progress for the general recognition and

conception of Equal Rights to Woman.

Society is clearly unjust to woman in according her but four to

eight dollars per month for labor equally repugnant with, and

more protracted than that of men of equal intelligence and

relative efficiency, whose services command from ten to twenty

dollars per month. If, then, the friends of Woman's Rights could

set the world an example of paying for female service, not the

lowest pittance which stern Necessity may compel the defenceless

to accept, but as approximately fair and liberal compensation for

the work actually done, as determined by a careful comparison

with the recompense of other labor, I believe they would give

their cause an impulse which could not be permanently resisted.

With profound esteem, yours,

HORACE GREELEY.

MRS. PAULINA W. DAVIS, Providence, R. I.

Mr. Greeley's letter bore two remarkable aspects. First, he recognized

the poverty of woman as closely connected with her degradation. One

of the brightest anti-slavery orators was at that time in the habit of

saying, "It is not the press, nor the pulpit, which rules the country,

but the counting-room"; proving his assertion by showing the greater

power of commerce and money, than of intellect and morality. So Mr.

Greeley saw the purse to be woman's first need; that she must control

money in order to help herself to freedom.

Second, ignoring woman's pauperized condition just admitted, he

suggested that women engaged in this reform should pay those employed

in the household larger wages than was customary, although these very

women were dependent upon others for their shelter, food, and clothes;

so impossible is it for a governing class to understand the

helplessness of dependents, and to fully comprehend the disabilities

of a subject class.

The declaration of sentiments[107] adopted at the Westchester

Convention was read by Martha C. Wright, and commented upon as follows

by

CLARINA HOWARD NICHOLS: There _is_ no limit to personal

responsibility. Our duties are as wide as the world, and as

far-reaching as the bounds of human endeavor. Woman and man must

act together; she, _his_ helper. She has no sphere peculiar to

herself, because she could not then be his helper. It is only

since I have met the varied responsibilities of life, that I have

comprehended woman's sphere; and I have come to regard it as

lying within the whole circumference of humanity. If, as is

claimed by the most ultra opponents of the wife's legal

individuality, the _interests of the parties are identical_, then

I claim as a legitimate conclusion that their spheres are also

identical. For interests determine duties, and duties are the

land-marks of spheres. The dependence of the sexes is mutual.

It is in behalf of our sons, the future men of the Republic, as

well as of our daughters, its future mothers, that we claim the

full development of our energies by education, and legal

protection in the control of all the issues and profits of our

lives called _property_. Woman must seek influence, independence,

representation, that she may have power to aid in the elevation

of the human race. When men kindly set aside woman from the

National Councils, they say the moral field belongs to her; and

the strongest reason why woman should seek a more elevated

position, is because her moral susceptibilities are greater than

those of man.

Mrs. MOTT thought differently from Mrs. Nichols; she did not

believe that woman's moral feelings were more elevated than

man's; but that with the same opportunities for development, with

the same restrictions and penalties, there would probably be

about an equal manifestation of virtue.

ELIZABETH OAKES SMITH: My friends, do we realize for what purpose

we are convened? Do we fully understand that we aim at nothing

less than an entire subversion of the present order of society,

a dissolution of the whole existing social compact? Do we see

that it is not an error of to-day, nor of yesterday, against

which we are lifting up the voice of dissent, but that it is

against the hoary-headed error of all times--error borne onward

from the foot-prints of the first pair ejected from Paradise,

down to our own time? In view of all this, it does seem to me

that we should each and all feel as if anointed, sanctified, set

apart as to a great mission. It seems to me that we who struggle

to restore the divine order to the world, should feel as if under

the very eye of the Eternal Searcher of all hearts, who will

reject any sacrifice other than a pure offering.

We are said to be a "few disaffected, embittered women, met for

the purpose of giving vent to petty personal spleen and domestic

discontent." I repel the charge; and I call upon every woman here

to repel the charge. If we have personal wrongs, here is not the

place for redress. If we have private griefs (and what human

heart, in a large sense, is without them?), we do not come here

to recount them. The grave will lay its cold honors over the

hearts of all here present, before the good we ask for our kind

will be realized to the world. We shall pass onward to other

spheres of existence, but I trust the seed we shall here plant

will ripen to a glorious harvest. We "see the end from the

beginning," and rejoice in spirit. We care not that we shall not

reach the fruits of our toil, for we know in times to come it

will be seen to be a glorious work.

Bitterness is the child of wrong; if any one of our number has

become embittered (which, God forbid!), it is because social

wrong has so penetrated to the inner life that we are crucified

thereby, and taste the gall and vinegar with the Divine Master.

All who take their stand against false institutions, are in some

sense embittered. The conviction of wrong has wrought mightily in

them. Their large hearts took in the whole sense of human woe,

and bled for those who had become brutalized by its weight, and

they spoke as never man spoke in his own individualism, but as

the embodied race will speak, when the full time shall come. Thus

Huss and Wickliffe and Luther spoke, and the men of '76.

No woman has come here to talk over private griefs, and detail

the small coin of personal anecdote; and yet did woman speak of

the wrongs, which unjust legislation; the wrongs which corrupt

public opinion; the wrongs which false social aspects have

fastened upon us; wrongs which she hides beneath smiles, and

conceals with womanly endurance; did she give voice to all this,

her smiles would seem hollow and her endurance pitiable.

I hope this Convention will be an acting Convention. Let us

pledge ourselves to the support of a paper in which our views

shall be fairly presented to the world. At our last Convention in

Worcester, I presented a prospectus for such a paper, which I

will request hereafter to be read here. We can do little or

nothing without such an organ. We have no opportunity now to

repel slander, and are restricted in disseminating truth, from

the want of such an organ. _The Tribune_, and some other papers

in the country, have treated us generously; but a paper to

represent us must be sustained by ourselves. We must look to our

own resources. We must work out our own salvation, and God grant

it be not in fear and trembling! Woman must henceforth be the

redeemer, the regenerator of the world. We plead not for

ourselves alone, but for Humanity. We must place woman on a

higher platform, and she will raise the race to her side. We

should have a literature of our own, a printing-press and a

publishing-house, and tract writers and distributors, as well as

lectures and conventions; and yet I say this to a race of

beggars, for women have no pecuniary resources.

Well, then, we must work, we must hold property, and claim the

consequent right to representation, or refuse to be taxed. Our

aim is nothing less than an overthrow of our present partial

legislation, that every American citizen, whether man or woman,

may have a voice in the laws by which we are governed. We do not

aim at idle distinction, but while we would pull down our present

worn-out and imperfect human institutions, we would help to

reconstruct them upon a new and broader foundation.

LUCY STONE: It seems to me that the claims we make at these

Conventions are self-evident truths. The second resolution

affirms the right of human beings to their persons and earnings.

Is not that self-evident? Yet the common law which regulates the

relation of husband and wife, and which is modified only in a

very few instances where there are statutes to the contrary,

gives the "custody" of the wife's person to her husband, so that

he has a right to her even against herself. It gives him her

earnings, no matter with what weariness they have been acquired,

or how greatly she may need them for herself or her children. It

gives him a right to her personal property, which he may will

entirely from her, also the use of her real estate; and in some

of the States, married women, insane persons, and idiots are

ranked together as not fit to make a will. So that she is left

with only one right, which she enjoys in common with the pauper,

viz.: the right of maintenance. Indeed when she has taken the

sacred marriage vow, her legal existence ceases.

And what is our position politically? Why, the foreigner who

can't speak his mother tongue correctly; the negro, who to our

own shame, we regard as fit only for a boot-black (whose dead

even we bury by themselves), and the drunkard, all are entrusted

with the ballot, all placed by men politically higher than their

own mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters. The woman who, seeing

and feeling this, dare not maintain her rights, is the woman to

hang her head and blush. We ask only for justice and equal

rights--the right to vote, the right to our own earnings,

equality before the law--these are the Gibraltar of our cause.

Rev. ANTOINETTE L. BROWN: Man can not represent woman. They

differ in their nature and relations. The law is wholly

masculine; it is created and executed by man. The framers of all

legal compacts are restricted to the masculine stand-point of

observation, to the thought, feelings, and biases of man. The law

then could give us no representation as woman, and therefore no

impartial justice even if the present lawmakers were honestly

intent upon this; for we can be represented only by our peers. It

is expected then under the present administration, that woman

should be the legal subject of man, legally reduced to pecuniary

dependence upon him; that the mother should have lower legal

claims upon the children than the father, and that, in short,

woman should be in all respects the legal inferior of man, though

entitled to full equality.

Here is the fact and its cause. When woman is tried for crime,

her jury, her judges, her advocates, are all men; and yet there

may have been temptations and various palliating circumstances

connected with her peculiar nature as woman, such as man can not

appreciate. Common justice demands that a part of the law-makers

and law executors should be of her own sex. In questions of

marriage and divorce, affecting interests dearer than life, both

parties in the compact are entitled to an equal voice. Then the

influences which arise from the relations of the sexes, when left

to be exerted in our halls of justice, would at least cause

decency and propriety of conduct to be maintained there; but now

low-minded men are encouraged to jest openly in court over the

most sacred and most delicate subjects. From the nature of

things, the guilty woman can not now have justice done her before

the professed tribunals of justice; and the innocent but wronged

woman is constrained to suffer on in silence rather than ask for

redress.

CLARINA HOWARD NICHOLS said: There is one peculiarity in the laws

affecting woman's property rights, which as it has not to my

knowledge been presented for the consideration of the public,

except by myself to a limited extent in private conversation and

otherwise, I wish to speak of here. It is the unconstitutionality

of laws cutting off the wife's right of dower. It is a provision

of our National and State Constitutions, that property rights

shall not be confiscated for political or other offences against

the laws. Yet in all the States, if I am rightly informed, the

wife forfeits her right of dower in case of divorce for

infidelity to the marriage vow. In Massachusetts and several

other States, if the wife desert her husband for any cause, and

he procure a divorce on the ground of her desertion, she forfeits

her right of dower. But it is worthy of remark that in no case is

the right of the husband to possess and control the estate which

is their joint accumulation, set aside; no, not even when the

wife procures a divorce for the most aggravated abuse and

infidelity combined. She, the innocent party, goes out childless

and portionless, by decree of law; and he, the criminal, retains

the home and the children, by the favor of the same law. I claim,

friends, that the laws which cut off the wife's right of dower,

in any case do confiscate property rights, and hence are

_unconstitutional_. The property laws compel the wife to seek

divorce in order to protect her earnings for the support of her

children. A rum-drinker took his wife's clothing to pay his rum

bill, and the justice decided that the clothing could be held,

because the wife belonged to him.

Only under the Common Law of England has woman been deprived of

her natural rights. Instances are frequent where the husband's

aged parents are supported by the wife's earnings, and the wife's

parents left paupers.

Mrs. Nichols here offered the following resolution:

_Resolved_, That equally involved as they are in all the Natural

Relations which lie at the base of society, the sexes are

equally entitled to all the rights necessary to the discharge of

the duties of those relations.

ELIZABETH OAKES SMITH presented the following resolution offered

by Lucretia Mott:

_Resolved_, That as the imbruted slave, who is content with his

own lot, and would not be free if he could, if any such there be,

only gives evidence of the depth of his degradation; so the woman

who is satisfied with her inferior condition, avering that she

has all the rights she wants, does but exhibit the enervating

effects of the wrongs to which she is subjected.

Susan B. Anthony read the resolutions.[108] The audience called upon

Hon. Gerrit Smith for a speech. His rising was received with cheers.

This was Mr. Smith's first appearance upon our platform, although in

letters to different Conventions he had already expressed his

sympathy. His commanding presence, his benevolent countenance, and

deep rich voice, made a profound impression, and intensified the power

of his glowing words. Being well known in Syracuse for his

philanthropy, his presence added dignity and influence to the

assembly.[109]

Mr. SMITH said: The women who are engaged in this movement are

ridiculed for aspiring to be doctors, lawyers, clergymen, sea

captains, generals, presidents. For the sake of argument

admitting this to be true, what then? Shall we block the way to

any individual aspiration? But women are totally unfit for these

places. Let them try, and their failure will settle the matter to

their own satisfaction. There is not the slightest danger of a

human being holding any position that he is incapable of

attaining. We can not lay down a rule for all women. Because all

women are not born with a genius for navigation, shall we say

that one who is by skill and education able to take observations,

who understands the chart and compass, the dangerous shores,

currents, and latitudes, shall not, if she chooses, be a sea

captain? Suppose we apply that rule to man. Because I can not

stand on my head, shall we deny that right to all acrobats in our

circuses? Because I can not make a steam engine, shall all other

men be denied that right? Because all men can not stand on a

platform and make a speech, shall I be denied the exercise of

that right? Each individual has a sphere, and that sphere is the

largest place that he or she can fill.

These women complain that they have been robbed of great and

essential rights. They do not ask favors; they demand rights, the

right to do whatever they have the capacity to accomplish, the

right to dictate their own sphere of action, and to have a voice

in the laws and rulers under which they live. Suppose I should go

to vote, and some man should push me back and say, "You want to

be Governor, don't you?" "No," I reply, "I want to exercise my

God-given right to vote." Such a taunt as this would be no more

insulting than those now cast at women, when they demand rights

so unjustly denied.

I make no claim that woman is fit to be a member of Congress or

President; all I ask for her is what I ask for the negro, a fair

field. All will admit that woman has a right to herself, to her

own powers of locomotion, to her own earnings, but how few are

prepared to admit her right to the ballot. But all rights are

held by a precarious tenure, if this one be denied. When women

are the constituents of men who make and administer the laws,

they will pay due consideration to their interests and not

before. The right of suffrage is the great right that guarantees

all others.

Mr. Smith set forth the education, the dignity, the power of

self-government, and took his seat amid great applause.

LUCY STONE said: It is the duty of woman to resist taxation as

long as she is not represented. It may involve the loss of

friends as it surely will the loss of property. But let them all

go; friends, house, garden spot, and all. The principle at issue

requires the sacrifice. Resist, let the case be tried in the

courts; be your own lawyers; base your cause on the admitted

self-evident truth, that taxation and representation are

inseparable. One such resistance, by the agitation that will grow

out of it, will do more to set this question right than all the

conventions in the world. There are $15,000,000 of taxable

property owned by women of Boston who have no voice either in the

use or imposition of the tax.

J. B. BRIGHAM, a school teacher, said: That the natures of men

and women showed that their spheres were not the same, and woman

was only truly lovely and happy when in her own element. He

wished woman to recognize the feminine element in her being, for

if she understood this, it would guide her in everything. In the

domestic animals even this difference was manifest. Women should

be keepers at home, and mind domestic concerns. The true object

of this Convention is, I fear, not so much to acquire any real or

supposed rights, as to make the speakers and actors conspicuous.

I urge those engaged in this movement to claim nothing masculine

for woman.

Mrs. NICHOLS said: Mr. Brigham's allusion to the animal world is

not a happy one, as no animal has been discovered which

legislated away the rights of the female.

GERRIT SMITH said: He would hand his esteemed friend over to

Lucretia Mott, that he might be slain like Abimelech of old, by

the hand of a woman; as evidently from his estimate of the sex,

that would be the most humiliating death he could suffer. I trust

no gentleman on this platform will consent to play the part of

the armor-bearer in his behalf, and rescue him from his impending

fate.

LUCRETIA MOTT said: It was impossible for one man to have

arbitrary power over another without becoming despotic. She did

not expect man to see how woman is robbed. Slaveholders did not

see that they were oppressors, but slaves did. Gerrit Smith

alluded to one woman that he intends me to personify, whom our

friend would consider far out of her sphere. Yet if he believes

his Bible, he must acknowledge that Deborah, a mother in Israel,

arose by divine command, and led the armies of Israel,--the wife

of Heber the Kenite, who drove the nail into the head of the

Canaanite General, and her praises were chanted in the songs of

Israel. The preaching of women, too, is approved in the Bible.

Paul gives special directions to women how to preach, and he

exhorts them to qualify themselves for this function and not to

pin their faith on the sleeves of the clergy. I would advise Mr.

Bingham not to set up his wisdom against the plain decrees of the

Almighty. As to woman's voice being too weak to be heard as a

public speaker, did Mr. Brigham send a protest to England against

Victoria's proroguing Parliament?

Mr. MAY moved that Mrs. Stephen Smith be placed on a Committee in

his stead.

The PRESIDENT quickly replied: Woman's Rights' women do not like

to be called by their husbands' names, but by their own.

Mr. MAY corrected himself and said--_Rosa Smith_.

Matilda Joslyn Gage made her first public appearance in an address to

this Convention. She pressed the adoption of some settled plan for the

future--brought up many notable examples of woman's intellectual

ability, and urged that girls be trained to self-reliance. Although

Mrs. Gage, whose residence was Onondaga County, had not before taken

part in a Convention, yet from the moment she read of an organized

effort for the rights of woman, she had united in it heart and soul,

merely waiting a convenient opportunity to publicly identify herself

with this reform; an opportunity given by the Syracuse Convention.

Personally acquainted with none of the leaders except Mr. May, it was

quite a test of moral courage for Mrs. Gage, then quite a young woman,

in fact the youngest person who took part in that Convention, to speak

upon this occasion. She consulted no one as to time or opportunity,

but when her courage had reached a sufficiently high point, with

palpitating heart she ascended the platform, where she was cordially

given place by Mrs. Mott, whose kindness to her at this supreme moment

of her life was never forgotten.

Mrs. GAGE said: This Convention has assembled to discuss the

subject of Woman's Rights, and form some settled plan of action

for the future. While so much is said of the inferior intellect

of woman, it is by a strange absurdity conceded that very many

eminent men owe their station in life to their mothers. Women are

now in the situation of the mass of mankind a few years since,

when science and learning were in the hands of the priests, and

property was held by vassalage. The Pope and the priests claimed

to be not only the teachers, but the guides of the people; the

laity were not permitted to examine for themselves; education was

held to be unfit for the masses, while the tenure of their landed

property was such as kept them in a continual state of dependence

on their feudal lords.

It was but a short time since the most common rudiments of

education were deemed sufficient for any woman; could she but

read tolerably and write her own name it was enough. Trammeled as

women have been by might and custom, there are still many shining

examples, which serve as beacon lights to show what may be

attained by genius, labor, energy, and perseverance combined.

"The longer I live in the world," says Göethe, "the more I am

certain that the difference between the great and the

insignificant, is energy, invincible determination, an honest

purpose once fixed, and then victory."

Although so much has been said of woman's unfitness for public

life, it can be seen, from Semiramis to Victoria, that she has a

peculiar fitness for governing. In poetry, Sappho was honored

with the title of the Tenth Muse. Helena Lucretia Corano, in the

seventeenth century, was of such rare scientific attainments,

that the most illustrious persons in passing through Venice, were

more anxious to see her than all the curiosities of the city; she

was made a doctor, receiving the title of Unalterable. Mary

Cunity, of Silesia, in the sixteenth century, was one of the most

able astronomers of her time, forming astronomical tables that

acquired for her a great reputation, Anna Maria Schureman was a

sculptor, engraver, musician, and painter; she especially

excelled in miniature painting. Constantina Grierson, an Irish

girl, of humble parentage, was celebrated for her literary

acquirements, though dying at the early age of twenty-seven.

With the learning, energy, and perseverance of Lady Jane Grey,

Mary and Elizabeth, all are familiar. Mrs. Cowper was spoken of

by Montague as standing at the head of all that is called

learned, and that every critic veiled his bonnet at her superior

judgment. Joanna Baillie has been termed the woman Shakespeare.

Caroline Herschell shares the fame of her brother as an

astronomer. The greatest triumphs of the present age in the

drama, music, and literature have been achieved by women, among

whom may be mentioned, Charlotte Cushman, Jenny Lind, the Misses

Carey, Mrs. Stowe, and Margaret Fuller. Mrs. Somerville's renown

has long been spread over both continents as one of the first

mathematicians of the present age.

Self-reliance is one of the first lessons to be taught our

daughters; they should be educated with our sons, and equally

with them, taught to look forward to some independent means of

support, either to one of the professions or the business best

fitted to exercise their talents. Being placed in a position

compelling them to act, has caused many persons to discover

talents in themselves they were before unaware of possessing.

Great emergencies produce great leaders, by arousing hitherto

dormant energies.

Let us look at the rights it is boasted women now possess. After

marriage the husband and wife are considered as one person in

law, which I hold to be false from the very laws applicable to

married parties. Were it so, the act of one would be as binding

as the act of the other, and wise legislators would not need to

enact statutes defining the peculiar rights of each; were it so,

a woman could not legally be a man's inferior. Such a thing would

be a veritable impossibility. One-half of a person can not be

made the protection or direction of the other half. Blackstone

says "a woman may indeed be attorney for her husband, for that

implies no separation from, but rather a representation of, her

lord. And a husband may also bequeath anything to his wife by

will; for it can not take effect till the coverture is determined

by his death." After stating at considerable length, the reasons

showing their unity, the learned commentator proceeds to cut the

knot, and show they are not one, but are considered as two

persons, one superior, the one inferior, and not only so, but the

inferior in the eye of the law as acting from compulsion.

J. ELIZABETH JONES, of Ohio: This is a time of progress; and man

may sooner arrest the progress of the lightning, or the clouds,

or stay the waves of the sea, than the onward march of Truth with

her hand on her sword and her banner unfurled. I am not in the

habit of talking much about rights; I am one of those who take

them. I have occupied pulpits all over the country five days out

of seven, in lecturing on science, and have found no objection.

I do not know what all the women want, but I do know what I want

myself, and that is, what men are most unwilling to grant; the

right to vote. That includes all other rights. I want to go into

the Legislative Hall, sit on the Judicial Bench, and fill the

Executive Chair. Now do you understand me? This I claim on the

ground of humanity; and on the ground that taxation and

representation go together. The whole question resolves itself

into this; there has been no attempt to dispute this. No man will

venture to deny the right of woman to vote. He may urge many

objections against the expediency of her exercising it, but the

right is hers.

But though women are deprived of political rights, there are

other rights which no law prevents. We can take our rights as

merchants and in other avocations, by investing our capital in

them; but we stand back and wait till it is popular for us to

become merchants, doctors, lecturers, or practitioners of the

mechanic arts. I know girls who have mechanical genius sufficient

to become Arkwrights and Fultons, but their mothers would not

apprentice them. Which of the women of this Convention have sent

their daughters as apprentices to a watchmaker? There is no law

against this!!

Mrs. MOTT: The Church and public opinion are stronger than law.

LYDIA JENKINS: Is there any law to prevent women voting in this

State? The Constitution says "white male citizens" may vote, but

does not say that white female citizens may not.

Mrs. JONES said: I do not understand that point sufficiently well

to explain, but whether the statute book is in favor or opposed,

every citizen in a republic (and a woman is a citizen) has a

natural right to vote which no human laws can abrogate; the right

to vote is the right of self-government.

ANTOINETTE BROWN said: I know instances of colored persons voting

under the same circumstances, and their votes being allowed by

the legal authorities; but John A. Dix declared the proceedings

of a school meeting void because two women voted at it.

BENJAMIN S. JONES said, in Ohio where there is much splitting of

hairs between white and black blood, the judges decided in favor

of a certain colored man's right to vote, because there was 50

per cent. of white blood in the person in question.

Mrs. DAVIS: The first draft of the Rhode Island Constitution said

"all citizens," but as soon as some one suggested that the door

was thus left open for women to vote, the word "male" was

promptly inserted.

Mrs. Davis read an interesting letter from the Rev. A. D. Mayo.[110]

Samuel J. May read letters from William Lloyd Garrison, of Boston, and

Margaret H. Andrews, of Newburyport, Massachusetts.

NEWBURYPORT, Mass., _September 4, 1852_.

REV. SAMUEL J. MAY.

DEAR FRIEND--I wish to express my deep sympathy with those brave

women who are struggling against ancient prejudices and modern

folly, and who will eventually elevate our sex to a position

which will command the respect of those who now regard them with

derision and contempt, and my gratitude to the noble-minded men

who are extending a helping hand to those who have hitherto been

considered the weak and dependent portion of society, and are

endeavoring to raise them to _their_ level, instead of trying to

establish their superiority over them. Such conduct shows true

greatness and dignity of character. I wish to bear my share of

the reproach and contumely which will be liberally bestowed upon

this movement by many who ought to know and to do better; this is

indeed the actuating motive which impels me to write.

With regard to the counsel which has been requested, I have

little to say. If there be any one subject which has not been

sufficiently insisted on, it is the aimless life which young

women generally lead after they have left school. A large portion

are occupied in forming matrimonial plans when they are wholly

unfit to enter into that sacred state. Dr. Johnson makes his

Nekayah say of young ladies with whom she associated, "Some

imagined they were in love, when they were only idle." If young

ladies directed their attention to some definite employment, this

evil would be remedied.

I am, dear sir,

Very truly yours,

MARGARET H. ANDREWS.

LUCY STONE said: Mrs. Jones' idea of taking our rights is

inspiring, but it can not be done. In Massachusetts some women

apprenticed themselves as printers, but were expelled because men

would not set type beside them. Dr. Harriot K. Hunt asked

permission to attend medical lectures at Harvard, but the

students declared that if she were admitted they would leave, and

so she was sacrificed.

HARRIET K. HUNT: No; I am here.

LUCY STONE: Mrs. Mott says she was only suspended. So, too, when

the Grimké sisters and Abby Kelley began publicly to plead the

cause of the slave, they were assailed both by pulpit and press,

and every species of abuse was heaped upon them; but they

persevered and proved their capacity to do it, and now we meet in

quietness, and our right to speak in public is not questioned.

The woman who first departs from the routine in which society

allows her to move must suffer. Let us bravely bear ridicule and

persecution for the sake of the good that will result, and when

the world sees that we can accomplish what we undertake, it will

acknowledge our right. We must be true to each other. We must

stand by the woman whose work of hand or brain removes her from

the customary sphere. Employ the woman physician, dentist, and

artist rather than a man of the same calling, and in time all

professions and trades will be as free to us as to our brothers.

ABBY PRICE, of Hopedale, said: I shall briefly consider woman's

religious position, her relation to the Church, and show that by

its restrictions she has suffered great injustice; that alike

under all forms of religion she has been degraded and oppressed,

the Church has proscribed her, and denied the exercise of her

inalienable rights, and in this the Church is false to the

plainest principles of Christianity. "There is neither Jew nor

Greek; there is neither bond nor free; there is neither male nor

female; for ye all are one in Christ Jesus." Gal., chap, iii., v.

28. "So God created man in His _own_ image; in the image of God

created He him; male and _female_ created He _them_, and said

unto _them_: have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the

fowl of the air; over every living thing that moveth upon the

earth." Genesis i., v. 27, 28. Notwithstanding these explicit

declarations of equality, even in the Godhead, the Church

claiming to be "Christian" denies woman's right of free speech.

The priesthood, from Paul down, say gravely: "It is not permitted

for woman to speak in the churches." Some denominations have

gravely debated whether she should be allowed in the service, or

chants, to respond Amen!

The whole arrangement of Nature in her beautiful and wise

manifestations to us evinces that the Divine order is for the

sexes to mingle their different and peculiar characteristics in

every relation of life. In Jesus the masculine and feminine

elements of humanity were blended harmoniously. These different

characteristics in His own person were distinctly and plainly

seen. The masculine, when He fixed His eye in stern rebuke, and

made the hypocrite and the Pharisee tremble; and the feminine

gleamed often through His tears of affection and pity, and shone

ever a glorious halo of patience and love around Him in the midst

of suffering the most wasting and intense. The Church, as His

Representative, should also exhibit these peculiarities in as

full and glorious harmony.

Yet very few of the sects allow woman to assume the

responsibility as religious teacher. However great she may feel

the duty to be upon her, and however well qualified she may be,

all ecclesiastical authorities, with one accord, begin to make

excuses whenever a woman presents herself to be properly

authorized, according to the popular usage of that Church, to

preach the Gospel to a people, one-half of whom are her own sex.

Again, _woman is denied_ a representation in all _Ecclesiastical

Assemblies_.

The male portion of the Church assemble in delegation from the

different bodies with which they are connected to legislate in

behalf of the churches, but woman has no representation in these

councils. Her opinion of what is best to promote the interests of

religion is not respected; her right to representation being

denied, her claim to just recognition is solemnly mocked. The

Church places its hands on woman's lips, and says to her, "You

shall not _speak_; you shall not be represented; you are not

eligible to office because _you are a woman_!" Is not this

crucifying with a strange presumption the soul of

Christ?--treating with contempt the purity of the Christian

character?--trampling upon _Human Rights?_ And yet woman

patiently bears this contumely and scorn. The poor young men that

she often educates by toil early and late, labor, arduous and

half paid, teach her, when properly prepared, that this absurd

tyranny is supported by the word of God!

Woman may speak when the thoughtless crowd the halls of fashion,

with no aim but amusement, in the theatre, opera, or concert

hall; she may meet with ministers in revivals, camp meetings, and

sociables, and reply with smile and bow to the hollow compliments

addressed to her vanity, but she must keep silence in the

churches and all religious meetings; if there are only six

persons present woman may not ask God's blessing to rest there,

nor presume, should one man be present, to give utterance to her

religious aspiration.

Every class of society, and especially each sex, need religious

teachers of their own class and sex with themselves, having the

same experience, the same hopes, aims, and relations. Human minds

are so constituted as to need not merely intellectual

instruction, but the strength imparted by an earnest sympathy

born of a like experience. In order rightly to appreciate the

wants of others, we must know and realize the trials of their

situation, the struggles they may encounter, the burthens, the

toils, the temptations that beset their different relations.

These should be apprehended to some extent, and the more the

better by the person qualified to speak to the spiritual wants of

all. Each relation, therefore, needs its teacher--its peculiar

ministry. No one can demonstrate by college lore the weight of a

mother's responsibility.

No man--not even the kindest father--can fully apprehend the

wearisome cares and anxious solicitude for children of her who

bore them. The tremblings of a mother's soul none save a mother

can feel. Man may prepare sound and logical discourses; he may

clearly define a mother's duty; he may talk eloquently about her

responsibility; he may urge upon her strong motives to

faithfulness in the discharge of her maternal duties; he may tell

her what her children should be in all life's varied aspects. She

hears the good instruction and advice with more or less of the

feeling, "_You_ cannot _know_ of what you are talking."....

The Church needs a varied ministry. Not alone is the power of

mind needed, but the zeal and the inspiration of the inner life;

the unction of love and faith and courage produced by a struggle

amid life's realities. Not the dreamer, but the toiler can best

affect the lives of others through their hearts. In this ministry

the sexes must blend harmoniously their ministrations to others

from their own lives and experiences. This must be the Divine

order. Reason teaches it to the calm observer. Our souls respond

to this truth from their deepest chambers.

... Doom woman no longer to banishment from the hallowed ground

of Church and State. She has too long been but as the Pariah of

the desert. Welcome her ministrations reverently to her human

nature, kindly to her present weakness, encouragingly to her

hopes; receive her counsels with respect and confidence, so far

as they are worthy, and be assured that a better day will begin

to dawn. The birth of a new spiritual life will be given in this

new marriage, and melody as from the harps of angels will be

breathed from the circles of earth.

PAULINA WRIGHT DAVIS: ... We commence life where our fathers left

it. We have their mistakes and their achievements. We attempt to

walk in the paths they trod, and wear the garments left by them;

but they are all too short and narrow for us; they deform and

cramp our energies; for they demand the Procrustean process to

conform the enlarged natures of the present to the past. While

the human soul, like the infinite in wisdom and love, is ever

governed by the eternal law of progress, creeds and codes are

always changing. All things founded in immutable truth grow only

the stronger by every trial.

... The sacred traditions of both Jew and Gentile agree in

ascribing to woman a primary agency in the introduction of human

evils. In the Greek Mythology, she is indeed not the first

offender; but she is the bearer of the box that contained all the

crimes and diseases which have punished our world for the abuse

of liberty. It is worthy of remark that Pandora, who is the Eve

of the Grecian system, being like her Hebrew correspondent,

created for special purposes, was the joint work of all the gods.

Venus gave her beauty, Minerva wisdom, Apollo the art of music,

Mercury eloquence, and the rest the perfection and completeness

of all her divine accomplishments. Her name signifies gifts from

all.

"A combination and a form Indeed

Where every god did seem to set his seal,

To give the world assurance of a paragon."

Prometheus made the first man of clay and animated him with fire

stolen from Heaven. Jupiter is represented as attaching the

terrible consequences of a rational and responsible vitality,

thus conferred upon a creation of earth, by sending this

wonderfully gifted Pandora into the world loaded with all the

evils which it was fated to endure. It was her destiny to be the

occasion of the fall, the instrument of doom; but her fortunes

are linked to the resurrection and life, as well as the suffering

and death of the race. Among the gifts of Pandora which had

otherwise been fatal, she brought hope which lay concealed after

all the others had flown abroad on their missions of mischief. In

our Sacred Story this point in the parable has a clear

explanation: "The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's

head." If she brought death into the world, she brought forth a

Son who "taketh away the sins of the world.".... These myths,

whether received as simple facts, or poetic fiction, whose

oracles always reveal the deepest signification of facts, alike

indicate the eminent agency of woman in the fall and rising again

of the human image of the divine upon earth.

... From the marriage hour woman is presented only in a series of

dissolving views. First. She stands beside her husband radiant in

girlish beauty. She worships. One side of the lesson is well

learned, that of entire dependence. Not once has she dreamed that

there must be mutual dependence and separate fountains of

reciprocal life.... In the next scene the child wife appears

withering away from life as from the heart she is not large or

noble enough to fill--pining in the darkness of her home-life,

made only the deeper by her inactivity, ignorance, and

despair.... In another view she has passed the season of despair,

and appears as the heartless votary of fashion, a flirt, or that

most to be dreaded, most to be despised being, a married

coquette; at once seductive, heartless, and basely unprincipled;

or as beauty of person has faded away, she may be found turning

from these lighter styles of toys to a quiet kind of hand-maiden

piety and philanthropy.

... Marriage as it now exists is only a name, a form without a

soul, a bondage, legal and therefore honorable. Only equals can

make this relation. True marriage is a union of soul with soul, a

blending of two in one, without mastership or helpless

dependence. The true family is the central and supreme

institution among human societies. All other organizations,

whether of Church or State, depend upon it for their character

and action. Its evils are the source of all evils; its good the

fountain of all good. The correction of its abuses is the

starting-point of all the reforms which the world needs.

Dr. Harriot K. Hunt attracted much attention from the fact of her

yearly protest against taxation. In the course of her remarks she

said, "Unseen spirits have been with us in this Convention; the

spirits of our Shaker sisters whom untold sorrows have driven into

those communal societies, the convents of our civilization."

After quite a brilliant discussion, in which Mr. Brigham made himself

a target for Lucy Stone, Martha C. Wright, Eliza Aldrich, Clarina

Howard Nichols, Harriot K. Hunt, and Mrs. Palmer to shoot at,

Antoinette L. Brown offered the following resolution, and made a few

good points on the Bible argument:

_Resolved_, That the Bible recognizes the rights, duties, and

privileges of woman as a public teacher, as every way equal with

those of man; that it enjoins upon her no subjection that is not

enjoined upon him; and that it truly and practically recognizes

neither male nor female in Christ Jesus.

God created the first human pair equal in rights, possessions,

and authority. He bequeathed the earth to them as a joint

inheritance; gave them joint dominion over the irrational

creation; but none over each other. (Gen. i. 28). They sinned.

God announced to them the results of sin. One of these results

was the rule which man would exercise over woman. (Gen. iii. 16).

This rule was no more approved, endorsed, or sanctioned by God,

than was the twin-born prophecy, "thou (Satan) shalt bruise his

(Christ's) heel." God could not, from His nature, command Satan

to injure Christ, or any other of the seed of woman. What

particle of evidence is there then for supposing that in the

parallel announcement He commanded man to rule over woman? Both

passages should have been translated will, instead of shall.

Either auxiliary is used indifferently according to the sense, in

rendering that form of the Hebrew verb into English.

Because thou hast done this, is God's preface to the

announcement. The results are the effects of sin. Can woman then

receive evil from this rule, and man receive good? Man should be

blessed in exercising this power, if he is divinely appointed to

do so; but the two who are one flesh have an identity of

interests, therefore if it is a curse or evil to woman, it must

be so to man also. We mock God, when we make Him approve of man's

thus cursing himself and woman.

The submission enjoined upon the wife in the New Testament, is

not the unrighteous rule predicted in the Old. It is a Christian

submission due from man towards man, and from man towards woman:

"Yea, all of you be subject one to another" (1 Pet. v. 5; Eph. v.

21; Rom. xii. 10, etc.) In I Cor. xvi. 16, the disciples are

besought to submit themselves "to every one that helpeth with us

and laboreth." The same apostle says, "help those women which

labored with me in the Gospel, with Clement also, and with other

of my fellow-laborers."

Man is the head of the woman. True, but only in the sense in

which Christ is represented as head of His body, the Church. In a

different sense He is head of all things--of wicked men and

devils. If man is woman's head in this sense, he may exercise

over her all the prerogatives of God Himself. This would be

blasphemous. The mystical Head and Body, or Christ and His

Church, symbolize oneness, union. Christ so loved the Church He

gave Himself for it, made it His own body, part and parcel of

Himself. So ought men to love their wives. Then the rule which

grew out of sin, will cease with the sin.

It is said woman is commanded not to teach in the Church. There

is no such command in the Bible. It is said (1 Cor. xiv. 34),

"Let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is not

permitted unto them to speak." This injunction, taken out of its

connection, forbids singing also; interpreted by its context,

woman is merely told not to talk unless she does teach. On the

same principle, one who has the gift of tongues is told not to

use it in the Church, unless there is an interpreter. The rule

enforced from the beginning to the end of the chapter is, "Let

all things be done unto edifying." Their women, who had not been

previously instructed like the men, were very naturally guilty of

asking questions which did not edify the assembly. It was better

that they should wait till they got home for the desired

information, rather than put an individual good before the good

of the Church. Nothing else is forbidden. There is not a word

here against woman's teaching. The apostle says to the whole

Church, woman included, "Ye may all prophesy, one by one."

In 1 Tim. ii. 12, the writer forbids woman's teaching over man,

or usurping authority over him; that is, he prohibits

dogmatizing, tutoring, teaching in a dictatorial spirit. This is

prohibited both in public and private; but a proper kind of

teaching is not prohibited. Verse 14--a reference to Eve, who,

though created last, sinned first, is merely such a suggestion as

we would make to a daughter whose mother had been in fault. The

daughters are not blamed for the mother's sin, merely warned by

it; and cautioned against self-confidence, which could make them

presume to teach over man. The Bible tells us of many

prophetesses approved of God. The Bible is truly democratic. Do

as you would be done by, is its golden commandment, recognizing

neither male nor female in Christ Jesus.

ERNESTINE L. ROSE: If the able theologian who has just spoken had

been in Indiana when the Constitution was revised, she might have

had a chance to give her definitions on the Bible argument to

some effect. At that Convention Robert Dale Owen introduced a

clause to give a married woman the right to her property. The

clause had passed, but by the influence of a minister was

recalled; and by his appealing to the superstition of the

members, and bringing the whole force of Bible argument to bear

against the right of woman to her property, it was lost. Had Miss

Brown been there, she might have beaten him with his own weapons.

For my part, I see no need to appeal to any written authority,

particularly when it is so obscure and indefinite as to admit of

different interpretations. When the inhabitants of Boston

converted their harbor into a teapot rather than submit to unjust

taxes, they did not go to the Bible for their authority; for if

they had, they would have been told from the same authority to

"give unto Cæsar what belonged to Cæsar." Had the people, when

they rose in the might of their right to throw off the British

yoke, appealed to the Bible for authority, it would have

answered them, "Submit to the powers that be, for they are from

God." No! on Human Rights and Freedom, on a subject that is as

self-evident as that two and two make four, there is no need of

any written authority. But this is not what I intended to speak

upon. I wish to introduce a resolution, and leave it to the

action of the Convention:

_Resolved_, That we ask not for our rights as a gift of charity,

but as an act of justice. For it is in accordance with the

principles of republicanism that, as woman has to pay taxes to

maintain government, she has a right to participate in the

formation and administration of it. That as she is amenable to

the laws of her country, she is entitled to a voice in their

enactment, and to all the protective advantages they can bestow;

and as she is as liable as man to all the vicissitudes of life,

she ought to enjoy the same social rights and privileges. And any

difference, therefore, in political, civil, and social rights, on

account of sex, is in direct violation of the principles of

justice and humanity, and as such ought to be held up to the

contempt and derision of every lover of human freedom.

... But we call upon the law-makers and law-breakers of the

nation, to defend themselves for violating the fundamental

principles of the Republic, or disprove their validity. Yes! they

stand arrayed before the bar, not only of injured womanhood, but

before the bar of moral consistency; for this question is

awakening an interest abroad, as well as at home. Whatever human

rights are claimed for man, moral consistency points to the equal

rights of woman; but statesmen dare not openly face the subject;

knowing well they can not confute it, and they have not moral

courage enough to admit it; and hence, all they can do is to

shelter themselves under a subterfuge which, though solidified by

age, ignorance, and prejudice, is transparent enough for the most

benighted vision to penetrate. A strong evidence of this, is

given in a reply of Mr. Roebuck, member of Parliament, at a

meeting of electors in Sheffield, England. Mr. R., who advocated

the extension of the franchise to the occupants of five-pound

tenements, was asked whether he would favor the extension of the

same to women who pay an equal amount of rent? That was a simple,

straight-forward question of justice; one worthy to be asked even

in our republican legislative halls. But what was the honorable

gentleman's reply? Did he meet it openly and fairly? Oh, no! but

hear him, and I hope the ladies will pay particular attention,

for the greater part of the reply contains the draught poor,

deluded woman has been accustomed to swallow--Flattery:

"There is no man who owes more than I do to woman. My education

was formed by one whose very recollections at this moment make me

tremble. There is nothing which, for the honor of the sex, I

would not do; the happiness of my life is bound up with it;

mother, wife, daughter, woman, to me have been the oasis of the

desert of life, and, I have to ask myself, would it conduce to

the happiness of society to bring woman more distinctly than she

now is brought, into the arena of politics? Honestly I confess to

you I believe not. I will tell you why. All their influences, if

I may so term it, are gentle influences. In the rude battle and

business of life, we come home to find a nook and shelter of

quiet comfort after the hard and severe, and, I may say, the

sharp ire and the disputes of the House of Commons. I hie me

home, knowing that I shall there find personal solicitude and

anxiety. My head rests upon a bosom throbbing with emotion for

me and our child; and I feel a more hearty man in the cause of my

country, the next day, because of the perfect, soothing, gentle

peace which a mind sullied by politics is unable to feel. Oh! I

can not rob myself of that inexpressible benefit, and therefore I

say, No."

Well, this is certainly a nice little romantic bit of

parliamentary declamation. What a pity that he should give up all

these enjoyments to give woman a vote! Poor man! his happiness

must be balanced on the very verge of a precipice, when the

simple act of depositing a vote by the hand of woman, would

overthrow and destroy it forever. I don't doubt the honorable

gentleman meant what he said, particularly the last part of it,

for such are the views of the unthinking, unreflecting mass of

the public, here as well as there. But like a true politician, he

commenced very patriotically, for the happiness of society, and

finished by describing his own individual interests. His reply is

a curious mixture of truth, political sophistry, false

assumption, and blind selfishness. But he was placed in a

dilemma, and got himself out as he could. In advocating the

franchise to five-pound tenement-holders, it did not occur to him

that woman may possess the same qualification that man has, and

in justice, therefore, ought to have the same rights; and when

the simple question was put to him (simple questions are very

troublesome to statesmen), having too much sense not to see the

justness of it, and too little moral courage to admit it, he

entered into quite an interesting account of what a delightful

little creature woman is, provided only she is kept quietly at

home, waiting for the arrival of her lord and master, ready to

administer a dose of purification, "which his politically sullied

mind is unable to feel." Well! I have no desire to dispute the

necessity of it, nor that he owes to woman all that makes life

desirable--comforts, happiness, aye, and common sense too, for

it's a well-known fact that smart mothers always have smart sons,

unless they take after their father. But what of that? Are the

benefits woman is capable of bestowing on man, reasons why she

must pay the same amount of rent and taxes, without enjoying the

same rights that man does?

But the justice of the case was not considered. The honorable

gentleman was only concerned about the "happiness of society."

Society! what does the term mean? As a foreigner, I understand by

it a collection or union of human beings--men, women, and

children, under one general government, and for mutual interest.

But Mr. Roebuck, being a native Briton and a member of

Parliament, gave us a parliamentary definition, namely; society

means the male sex only; for in his solicitude to consult "the

happiness of society," he enumerated the benefits man enjoys from

keeping woman from her rights, without even dreaming that woman

was at all considered in it; and this is the true parliamentary

definition, for statesmen never include woman in their solicitude

for the happiness of society. Oh, no! she is not yet recognized

as belonging to the honorable body, unless taxes are required for

its benefit, or the penalties of the law have to be enforced for

its security.

Thus, being either unwilling or afraid to do woman justice, he

first flattered her, then, in his ignorance of her true nature,

he assumed that if she has her rights equal with man, she would

cease to be woman--forsake the partner of her existence, the

child of her bosom, dry up her sympathies, stifle her affections,

turn recreant to her own nature. Then his blind selfishness took

the alarm, lest, if woman were more independent, she might not be

willing to be the obedient, servile tool, implicitly to obey and

minister to the passions and follies of man; "and as he could not

rob himself of these inexpressible benefits, therefore he said,

No."

The speech of Antoinette Brown, and the resolution she presented

opened the question of authority as against individual judgment, and

roused a prolonged and somewhat bitter discussion, to which Mrs.

Stanton's letter,[111] read in a most emphatic manner by Susan B.

Anthony, added intensity. It continued at intervals for two days,

calling out great diversity of sentiment. Rev. Junius Hatch, a

Congregational minister from Massachusetts, questioned the officers of

the Convention as to their belief in the paramount authority of the

Bible, saying the impression had gone abroad that the Convention was

infidel in character. The President ruled that question not before the

Convention.

Thomas McClintock[112] said, to go back to a particular era for a

standard of religion and morality, is to adopt an imperfect standard

and impede the progress of truth. The best minds of to-day surely

understand the vital issues of this hour better than those possibly

could who have slumbered in their graves for centuries. Mrs. Nichols,

whom the city press spoke of as wielding a trenchant blade, announced

herself as having been a member of a Baptist church since the age of

eight years, thus sufficiently proving her orthodoxy. Mrs. Rose,

expressing the conviction that belief does not depend upon voluntary

inclination, deemed it right to interpret the Bible as he or she

thought best, but objected to any such interpretation going forth as

the doctrine of the Convention, as, at best, it was but mere opinion

and not authority.

The debate upon Miss Brown's resolution was renewed in the afternoon,

during which the Rev. Junius Hatch made so coarse a speech that the

President was obliged to call him to order.[113] Paying no heed to

this reprimand he continued in a strain so derogatory to his own

dignity and so insulting to the Convention, that the audience called

out, "Sit down! Sit down! Shut up!" forcing the Reverend gentleman to

his seat. The discussion still continued between the members of the

Convention; Miss Brown sustaining her resolution, Mrs. Rose opposing

it.

Mrs. MOTT, vacating the chair, spoke in opposition to the

resolution, and related her anti-slavery experience upon the

Bible question; one party taking great pains to show that the

Bible was opposed to slavery, while the other side quoted texts

to prove it of divine origin, thus wasting their time by bandying

Scripture texts, and interfering with the business of their

meetings. The advocates of emancipation soon learned to adhere to

their own great work--that of declaring the inherent right of man

to himself and his earnings--and that self-evident truths needed

no argument or outward authority. We already see the disadvantage

of such discussions here. It is not to be supposed that all the

advice given by the apostles to the women of their day is

applicable to our more intelligent age; nor is there any passage

of Scripture making those texts binding upon us.

A GENTLEMAN said: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,

and profitable, etc." Does not this apply to the latest period?

LUCRETIA MOTT: If the speaker will turn to the passage he will

find that the word "_is_," being in italics, was inserted by the

translators. She accepted it as in the original, "All Scriptures

_given_ by inspiration of God, is profitable, etc." She was

somewhat familiar with the Scriptures, and at a suitable time

would have no objection to discuss the question. She concluded by

moving that the resolution be laid on the table, which was

unanimously carried.

On the morning of the last day the President stated that the subject

of organizing a National Society was to be discussed, and at her

suggestion Mr. May read a long and interesting letter from Angelina

Grimké Weld, from which we give the salient points:

"Organization is two-fold--natural and artificial, divine and

human. Natural organizations are based on the principle of

progression; the eternal law of change. But human or artificial

organizations are built upon the principle of crystallization;

they _fix_ the conditions of society; they seek to daguerreotype

themselves, not on the present age only, but on future

generations; hence, they fetter and distort the expanding mind.

Organizations do not protect the sacredness of the individual;

their tendency is to sink the individual in the mass, to

sacrifice his rights, and immolate him on the altar of some

fancied good.

It is not to organization that I object, but to an _artificial

society_ that must prove a burden, a clog, an incumbrance, rather

than a help. Such an organization as now actually exists among

the women of America I hail with heartfelt joy. We are bound

together by the natural ties of spiritual affinity; we are drawn

to each other because we are attracted toward one common

center--the good of humanity. We need no external bonds to bind

us together, no cumbrous machinery to keep our minds and hearts

in unity of purpose and effort we are not the lifeless staves of

a barrel which can be held together only by the iron hoops of an

artificial organization.

The present aspect of organizations, whether in Church, or State,

or society at large, foretokens dissolution. The wrinkles and

totterings of age are on them. The power of organization has been

deemed necessary only because the power of Truth has not been

appreciated, and just in proportion as we reverence the

individual, and trust the unaided potency of Truth, we shall find

it useless. What organization in the world's history has not

encumbered the unfettered action of those who created it? Indeed,

has not been used as an engine of oppression.

The importance of this question can hardly be duly magnified. How

few organizations have ever had the power which this is destined

to wield! The prayers and sympathies of the ripest and richest

minds will be ours. Vast is the influence which true-hearted

women will exert in the coming age. It is a beautiful

coincidence, that just as the old epochs of despotism and

slavery, Priestcraft and Political intrigue are dying out, just

as the spiritual part of man is rising into the ascendency,

Woman's Rights are being canvassed and conceded, so that when she

becomes his partner in office, higher and holier principles of

action will form the basis of Governmental administration.

ANGELINA GRIMKÉ WELD.

The reading of Mrs. Weld's letter was followed by a spirited

discussion, resulting in the continuance of the Central Committee,

composed of representative men and women of the several States, which

was the only form of National Organization until after the war.

MARY SPRINGSTEAD moved that the Convention proceed to organize a

National Woman's Rights Society.

Mrs. SMITH and Mrs. DAVIS did not like to be bound by a

Constitution longer than during the sessions of the Convention.

Both recommended the formation of State Societies.

Dr. HARRIOT K. HUNT spoke as a physician in deeming spontaneity

as a law of nature.

ERNESTINE L. ROSE declared organizations to be like Chinese

bandages. In political, moral, and religious bodies they hindered

the growth of men; they were incubi; she herself had cut loose

from an organization into which she had been born[114]; she knew

what it had cost her, and having bought that little freedom for

what was dearer to her than life itself, she prized it too highly

to ever put herself in the same shackles again.

LUCY STONE said, that like a burnt child that dreads the fire,

they had all been in permanent organizations, and therefore dread

them. She herself had had enough of thumb-screws and soul screws

ever to wish to be placed under them again. The present duty is

agitation.

Rev. SAMUEL J. MAY deemed a system of action and co-operation all

that was needed. There is probably not one woman in a thousand,

not one in ten thousand who has well considered the disabilities,

literary, pecuniary, social, political, under which she labors.

Ample provision must be made for woman's education, as liberal

and thorough as that provided for the other sex.

Mrs. C. I. H. NICHOLS favored organization as a means to collect

and render operative the fragmentary elements now favoring the

cause.

Rev. ABRAM PRYNE, in an able speech, favored National and State

organization.

The discussion was closed by the adoption of the following resolution,

introduced by Paulina Wright Davis:

_Resolved_, That this National Convention earnestly recommends to

those who are members of it from several States, and to those

persons in any or all of our States, who are interested in this

great reform, that they call meetings of the States or the

counties in which they live, certainly as often as once a year,

to consider the principles of this reform, and devise measures

for their promulgation, and thus co-operate with all throughout

the nation and the world, for the elevation of woman to a proper

place in the mental, moral, social, religious, and political

world.

It is impossible to more than give the spirit of the Convention,

though glimpses of it and its participants may be caught in the brief

sketch of its proceedings. In accordance with the call, woman's

social, civil, and religious rights were all discussed. Lucy Stone

made a brilliant closing address, the doxology was sung to "Old

Hundred," and the Convention adjourned.

The character and influence of this Convention can best be shown by

the reports of the city press.[115]

_The Standard, September 13, 1852_.

The WOMAN'S RIGHTS CONVENTION was in session during three days of

last week in this city, and was attended by a large number of

persons, not less, probably, than 2,000. Such a Convention, even

in this city of conventions, was something new under the sun....

The discussions were characterized by a degree of ability that

would do credit to any deliberative body in the country.... Some

able letters were read to the Convention. Among the most

noteworthy was that of Mrs. Stanton.... Mrs. Mott presided over

the Convention with much dignity and ability.... If any of the

natural rights belonging to women are withheld from them by the

laws and customs of society, it is due to them that a remedy

should be applied;.... those among them who are aggrieved should

have an opportunity to give free expression to their opinions.

This will hurt nobody, and those who profess to be alarmed at the

result, should dismiss their fears.

_The Daily Journal_ (_Whig_), _September 13, 1852_.

THE NATIONAL WOMAN'S RIGHTS CONVENTION--After a duration of three

mortal days this August Convention came to a "happy and peaceful

end" Friday evening.... All who attended any portion of the

Convention, or the whole, will unite with us in pronouncing it

the most dignified, orderly, and interesting deliberative body

ever convened in this city. The officers, and most especially

the distinguished woman who occupied the president's chair,

evinced a thorough acquaintance with the duties of their station,

and performed them in an admirable manner.... No person

acquainted with the doings of the assembly and capable of passing

judgment in the matter, will deny there was a greater amount of

talent in the Woman's Rights Convention than has characterized

any public gathering in this State during ten years past, and

probably a longer period, if ever.... For compact logic, eloquent

and correct expression, and the making of plain and frequent

points, we have never met the equal of two or three of the

number. The appearance of all before the audience was modest and

unassuming, though prompt, energetic, and confident.