Business was brought forward, calmly deliberated upon, and

discussed with unanimity, and in a spirit becoming true woman,

and which would add an unknown dignity and consequent influence

to the transactions of public associations of the "lords."....

The appearance of the platform was pleasing and really imposing

in the extreme. The galaxy of bold women--for they were really

bold, indeed they are daring women--presented a spectacle the

like of which we never before witnessed. A glance at the "good

old lady" who presided with so much dignity and propriety, and

through the list to the youngest engaged in the cause, was enough

to impress the unprejudiced beholder with the idea that there

must be something in the movement.... The audience was large and

more impressive than has marked any convention ever held here....

We feel in a mood to dip lightly into a discussion of the Woman's

Rights question.... Our sober second thought dictates that a

three days' enlightenment at the intellectual feast spread by

Beauty and Genius, may have turned our brains, and consequently

we desist.

The discussions of this Convention did not end with its adjournment;

its _sine die_ had effect only upon the assembled body; for months

afterward controversies and discussions, both public and private, took

place. Clergymen of Syracuse and adjoining cities kept the interest

glowing by their efforts to destroy the influence of the Convention by

the cry of "infidel." A clergyman of Auburn not only preached against

the Convention as "infidel," but as one holding authority over the

consciences of his flock, boldly asserted that "no member of his

congregation was tainted with the unholy doctrine of woman's rights."

Rev. Byron Sunderland, pastor of the Plymouth Congregational Church of

Syracuse (since Chaplain of the United States Senate), characterized

it in his sermon[116] as a "Bloomer Convention," taking for his text

Deut. xxii. 5:

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto man; neither

shall a man put on a woman's garment; for all that do so are an

abomination to the Lord thy God.

Mrs. Gage's reply, in the absence of the editor, appeared in _The

Star_, in whose columns Rev. Mr. Sunderland's sermon had been given

the public, calling forth the following letter:

WASHINGTON, _Nov. 20, 1852_.

The readers of _The Star_ are aware that the editor does not

sanction the ridiculous stuff which appeared in the issues of the

17th and 18th insts. over the signature of "M" upon the subject

of "Woman's Rights," nor does he approve of its admission in the

columns of the paper, and hereby disclaims having authorized the

publication of any such emanations from the pit during his

absence from home. When at his post he sometimes gives publicity

to such communications for the purpose of showing up the fallacy

of the positions taken, but never does he intend, so long as he

has control of its columns, to allow _The Star_ to become the

medium of disseminating corrupt and unwholesome doctrines. Such

doctrines have found and will continue to find means enough with

which to do their duty in Syracuse without the aid of a

_reputable_ newspaper in their behalf; and the editor indeed is

greatly surprised that those who temporarily fill his place,

should lend _The Star_ to so base purposes. We trust that these

words (if discretion does not) will prevent further encroachment

upon our good nature.

_The Carson League_, quoting the above editorial, says:

It is the first paragraph of the above letter that is noticeable.

_The Star_ is the organ of a certain class of ministers. Messrs.

Sunderland and Ashley and _The Star_ nestle in a common sympathy.

It is significant of the character of their published sermons,

that _The Star_ stands alone in their defence. More significant

still that _The Star_ negates all replies to them, even by a

lady. "_Put out the light_," says the thief. "_Put out the

light_," says the assassin. "_Put out the light_," says _The

Star_; and verily if these gentlemen had their way, the light

would go out in Egyptian darkness. It is wholesome doctrine, in

the opinion of _The Star_, to deny woman's rights and negro's

rights and the right of free discussion, to maintain them is to

countenance "corrupt and unwholesome doctrines."

The subject of woman's rights somehow is attracting general

attention. Rev. Mr. Sunderland, of this city, in a published

sermon, sought to bring the whole matter into contempt under

cover of the ridicule of the Bloomer dress. His position is, that

if God made man a little lower than the angels, He made woman a

little lower still. His sermon we gave last week. This week we

give a woman's reply to it. Nobly has she shown him up. We like

her review. She treats his argument gravely, and answers it

logically. She has touched the tender in him. He will begin to

think women are somebody after all. We think he should have

measured his _calibre_ before making such a tilt.... Regarding

his condition as rather awkward, and finding it difficult to be

quiet, he appears in the Friday _Star_ with the following

equivocal communication:

_The Woman's Rights Question._--Mr. Editor: The last two numbers

of _The Star_ contain an article purporting to review my Sermon

from Deut. xxii. 5, but the author does not appear. The article

in question contains inaccuracies which should be noticed for the

author's future benefit. If the author should turn out to be a

man, I should have no objection to point out those inaccuracies

through your columns. But if the writer is a lady, why, I really

don't know yet what I shall do. If I thought she would consent to

a personal interview, I should like to see her.

Very truly,

B. SUNDERLAND.

_Syracuse, Nov. 18_.

Some other person, under the head of "A Reader," addressed the

following to _The Star_, which, in the editor's absence, was

published:

How is this, Mr. Editor? A few days since I read in your papers a

sermon, on woman's rights by Rev. Byron Sunderland. In your

numbers of Wednesday and Thursday I found an able and respectful

Review of that discourse--a Review which, in some points, is

unanswerable, especially in the matter of Scripture and female

dress. The dominie appealed to Scripture, and the reviewer "has

him fast." I have heard it more than once intimated that the

writer of this able, and in some instances most eloquent, review,

is a lady of this city. Are we to understand that it is an

article in the code of anti-progressive ethics, that the same

article written by a man, will be answered by Mr. Sunderland, but

if written by a woman, will not be answered? I may have

misunderstood Mr. Sunderland's note in this morning's _Star_, but

I so understood it. If correctly understood no comment is

necessary.

A READER.

_November 19, 1852._

Upon the expression of Mr. Sunderland's desire to meet the reviewer of

his sermon, if a lady, and his willingness to continue the

controversy, _The Star_ finally opened its columns to Mrs. Gage,

although delaying the publication of her articles, sometimes for

weeks, to suit the dominie's convenience, and allowing his reply to

appear in the same issue of the paper with her answer to his preceding

article. Mr. Sunderland's reply to "A Reader" was characteristic of

the spirit of the clergy, not only of their intolerance, but of their

patronizing and insulting manner toward all persons who presumed to

question either their authority or learning.

The impertinence of "A Reader" is quite characteristic. That

individual probably knows as much about the Bible as a wild ass'

colt, and is requested at this time to keep a proper distance.

When a body is trying to find out and pay attention to a lady, it

is not good manners for "A Reader" to be thrust in between us.

Rev. Mr. Ashley, rector of St. Paul's, the first Episcopal Church of

Syracuse, also preached a sermon against woman, which was published in

pamphlet form, and scattered over the State. This sermon was reviewed

by a committee of ladies appointed by the Ladies' Lyceum. It was an

able and lengthy document from the pen of the chairman of the

committee, a member of the Episcopal Church, and was a significant

sign of woman's growing independence of clerical authority. This

sermon and its reply was also published by the city press; the

Church, the press, and the fireside all aiding in the continued

dissemination of the woman's rights discussion.

The publication of the proceedings of the Convention in pamphlet form

gave _The Star_ occasion for a new fulmination which not only farther

showed the base character of this sheet, but which shocked all devout

minds by its patronizing tone toward the Deity. Both in the Convention

and its following debate, Syracuse well maintained its character for

radicalism.

MOB CONVENTION IN NEW YORK.

BROADWAY TABERNACLE, _Sept. 6 and 7, 1853_.

This week as already stated was one of unusual excitement in the city

of New York, as representatives of all the unpopular reforms were

holding their several conventions. The fact that the Anti-Slavery

Society held a meeting on Sunday morning, and Antoinette Brown

preached to five thousand people the same evening, called out the

denunciations of the religious press, which intensified the mob

spirit, culminating at last in the Woman's Rights Convention. That

portion of the secular press which had shown the most bitter

opposition to the anti-slavery cause, now manifested the same spirit

toward the enfranchisement of woman.

The leading papers in the United States were _The Tribune_, _The

Herald_, _The Times_, _The Evening Post_, and _The Express_, which

gave tone to the entire press of the country. All these journals were

edited by men of marked ability, each representing a different class

of thought in the community. _The Tribune_ was independent, and

fearless in the expression of opinions on unpopular reforms; its

editor, Horace Greeley, ever ready for the consideration of new ideas,

was on many points the leader of liberal thought.

_The Herald_ was recognized by reformers as at the head of the

opposition, and its diatribes were considered "Satanic." Its editor,

James Gordon Bennett, pandered to the lowest tastes in the community,

not merely deriding reforms, but holding their advocates up to the

ridicule of a class too degraded to understand the meaning of reform.

_The Times_ held a middle position; established at a much later date,

its influence was not so great nor extended as either _The Tribune_ or

_The Herald_. It represented that large conservative class that fears

all change, and accepts the conditions of its own day and generation,

knowing that in all upheavals the wealthy class is the first and

greatest loser. From this source the mob spirit draws its

inspiration. Violence being the outgrowth of superstition and

despotism; the false morality and philosophy taught by the press and

the pulpit are illustrated by the lower orders in hisses, groans, and

brick-bats. Although far below Horace Greeley in sagacity,

intelligence, and conscience, Henry J. Raymond claimed for his paper a

position superior in respectability. Having originated the present

system of reporting, and thereby acquired his first reputation, Mr.

Raymond prided himself upon reportorial sharpness, even at the expense

of veracity and common self-respect. That woman so long degraded

should dare to speak of injustice, so long defrauded of her social,

civil, and political rights, should dare to demand some restitution,

was to Mr. Raymond so fit a subject for ridicule that he could not

refrain from making even such women as Lucretia Mott and Ernestine L.

Rose targets for his irony.

_The Empress_, an organ of the Democratic party, was in its debasement

on a par with _The Herald_ and _Times_, though each had different

styles, more or less refined, of doing the same thing. Encouraged by

these three papers, the mob element held high carnival through that

eventful week. Starting in the anti-slavery and temperance meetings,

they assembled at every session in the Woman's Rights Convention.

Gentlemen and ladies alike who attempted to speak were interrupted by

shouts, hisses, stamping, and cheers, rude remarks, and all manner of

noisy demonstrations. The clergy, the press, and the rowdies combined

to make those September days a disgrace to the metropolis, days never

to be forgotten by those who endured the ridicule and persecution.

Although the Mayor with a large police force at his command made no

show even of protecting the right of free speech, the editor of _The

Tribune_ sent forth his grand fulminations against bigotry, hypocrisy,

and vulgarity in every issue of his journal. William Cullen Bryant,

editor of _The Post_, one of the purest men that ever stood at the

head of a daily paper, also spoke out grandly against mob law, and for

the rights of woman. We have made this brief episode on the press,

that our readers may see how characteristic are the comments of each

paper that we give here and there in this chapter.

This Convention, interrupted throughout by the mob, has an unique and

historic value of its own. It was the first overt exhibition of that

public sentiment woman was then combating. The mob represented more

than itself; it evidenced that general masculine opinion of woman,

which condensed into law, forges the chains which enslave her. Owing

to the turmoil we have no fair report of the proceedings; it was

impossible for the representatives of the press to catch what was

said, hence their reports, as well as the one issued by our Central

Committee, are alike fragmentary. And yet with such a brilliant array

of speakers of both men and women, it should have been one of our most

interesting and successful Conventions. The Tabernacle, holding three

thousand persons, was packed long before the hour announced. At ten

o'clock Lucy Stone called the Convention to order, and presented a

list of officers[117] nominated at a preliminary meeting, which was

adopted. In this list we find England, Germany, and eleven States

represented. The Rev. William Henry Channing opened the meeting with

prayer. After which Mrs. Mott made a few appropriate remarks. Lucy

Stone read a series of resolutions[118] which were accepted and laid

on the table for discussion.

Charles Burleigh and Lydia A. Jenkins spoke briefly on the many

grounds of opposition to this movement, which in all respects commends

itself as one of the greatest reforms of the age.

Mr. GARRISON said: The first pertinent question is, what has

brought us together? Why have we come from the East and from the

West, and from the North? I was about to add, and from the South;

but the South, alas! is so cursed by the spirit of slavery, that

there seems to be no vitality left there in regard to any

enterprise, however good; hence the South is not represented on

an occasion like this. It is because justice is outraged. We have

met to protest against proud, rapacious, inexorable usurpation.

What is this usurpation? What is this oppression of which we

complain? Is it local? Does it pertain to the city of New York,

or to the Empire State? No! It is universal--broader than the

Empire State--broader than our national domains--wide as the

whole world, weighing on the entire human race. How old is the

oppression which we have met to look in the face? Is it of

to-day? Is it young in years, or is it as old as the world

itself? In all ages men have regarded women as inferior to

themselves, and have robbed them of their co-equal rights. We

are, therefore, contesting hoary tyranny--universal tyranny. And

what follows, as a natural result?

That the land is beginning to be convulsed. The opposition to the

movement is assuming a malignant, desperate, and satanic

character; every missile of wickedness that can be hurled against

it is used. The pulpit is excited, the press is aroused; Church

and State are in arms to put down a movement on behalf of justice

to one-half of the whole human race. (Laughter and cheers). The

Bible, revered in our land as the inspired Word of God, is, by

pulpit interpreters, made directly hostile to what we are

endeavoring to obtain as a measure of right and justice; and the

cry of infidelity is heard on the right hand and on the left, in

order to combine public opinion so as to extinguish the movement.

Now, beloved, let us not imagine that any strange thing has

happened to us. We are but passing through one of the world's

great crises; we, too, in our day, are permitted to contend with

spiritual wickedness in high places--with principalities and

powers. What reform was ever yet begun and carried on with any

reputation in the day thereof? What reform, however glorious and

divine, was ever advocated at the outset with rejoicing? And if

they have called the Master of the house Beelzebub, how much more

them of his household? (Cheers and stamping).

I have been derisively called a "_Woman's Rights Man_." I know no

such distinction. I claim to be a HUMAN RIGHTS MAN, and wherever

there is a human being, I see God-given rights inherent in that

being whatever may be the sex or complexion.

To the excellence of the movement God has given witnesses in

abundance, on the right hand and on the left. Show me a cause

anathematized by the chief priests, the scribes, and the

pharisees; which politicians and demagogues endeavor to crush,

which reptiles and serpents in human flesh try to spread their

slime over, and hiss down, and I will show you a cause which God

loves, and angels contemplate with admiration. Such is our

movement. Do you want the compliments of the satanic press, _The

New York Times_, _Express_, and _Herald_? (Roars of laughter). If

you want the compliments of such journals, you will be bad enough

to take a place among the very vilest and lowest of the human

race. They are animated by a brutal, cowardly, and devilish

spirit. Let us rejoice at the manifestation! Not for the

wickedness, but at the evidence thus afforded by God, that our

cause is of Heaven, and therefore has on its side all the power

and might of God, and in due season is destined to have a

glorious triumph!

CHARLES C. BURLEIGH said: There is a feeling to-day that woman

has some rights, that she has some reason to complain of the

present relation in which she is placed. In this country we

congratulate ourselves that woman occupies a higher position than

elsewhere, although some think it would be a calamity to improve

her condition still further, and mere fanaticism to raise her

still higher.

The cry is--"unnatural!" The aspiration of woman for a better

lot, say her oppressors, is not natural, it is abnormal! So they

say; but why not hear her on the matter? Is she, the most

interested party, to have no voice in the solution of a question

which is to her of such overwhelming interest? I ask, did God

give woman aspirations which it is a sin for her to gratify?

Abnormal! No, it is to be found everywhere. The man whose soul

is so callous that he can hold his fellow-man as a slave, cries

out (as in excuse) that the slave is contented. The autocrat

exclaims that it is only a turbulent Kossuth or a factious

Mazzini who feels that uneasy discontent which preys not on the

hearts of his millions of legal slaves. Will that be, to us, an

argument that the tyrant is in the right? No! the aspirations to

liberty and justice are universal, and ever though the volcanic

blaze breaks into the air only through the loftiest mountain

peaks, the volcano is in itself an index to the ocean of molten

fire that boils inaudibly beneath it. And so the deep discontent

of humble millions breaks through the mountain-minds of their

great leaders. Woman is a part of the human commonwealth; why

deprive her of a voice in its government? Woman herself, a

component part of the community, must be called into the councils

which direct it, else a wrong is done her, the responsibility of

which lies heavily on those who do it. We ask rights for woman,

because she has a human nature, and it is not only ungenerous and

unmanly, but in the highest degree unjust to banish her from the

discussion of questions which so nearly and dearly concern her,

and in which nature, reason, and God have announced that she

should have a voice.

Either there is a distinction between the sphere of man and that

of woman, or there is not. If there is, it is unfair to have one

determine both; if there is not, why does tyrannous custom

separate her? The dilemma is clear, and can not be escaped. Both

should be called into counsel, every note in the scale of harmony

should be sounded; and to say that hers, because an octave

higher, should not be heard, is downright nonsense. (Rousing

cheers and laughter). We claim for woman simply the right to

decide her own sphere, or, in conjunction with man, to determine

what should be the relative position of both.

W. H. CHANNING said: When I was returning from the first Woman's

Rights Meeting at Worcester, a friend said to me, "I intend

getting up a Man's Rights Society; you misunderstand the matter;

all the efforts of society are for the elevation of woman, and

man has to perform the drudgery. The consequence is, the women

are far better educated than the men." The answer was obvious.

"If women are, according to your admission, fitted for the higher

plane, why keep them on the lower?" My friend then went on to

say, that the whole of this scheme was considered to be of the

most morally visionary character, and the proof of this feeling

was the slight opposition it met, "for," said he "if it were

looked on by society as serious, it would be at once, and

forcibly, opposed in the church, by the press, in all public

assemblies and private circles." Now, the object of this, and all

such conventions, is to prove that we have made up our minds as

regards operation and method; that we have looked clearly into

the future; and that we have at heart this movement, as we have

no other of the day, believing that out of this central agitation

of society will come healthful issues of life. The inhabitants of

Eastern India speak of a process for gaining immortality, namely,

churning together the sea and the earth. They say the gods had

the serpent by the head, and the devils had it by the tail, and

out of the churning of the foam came the waters of immortality.

The movement we are engaged in, may be typified by the Indian

allegory; and out of the commotion we make shall be drawn a new

principle which shall be one of immortal growth to all society.

(Stamping, cheers, and laughter).

As regards the differences between men and women, we say that out

of them grows union, not separation. Every organ of the body is

double; in the pulsations of the heart a double machinery is

used, there is a double auricle and a double ventricle. It is so

in the inspirations which flow from God to society; they must

pass twice, once through the heart of man, once through the heart

of woman; they must stream through the reforming and through the

conservative organ; and thus, out of the very difference which

exists between man and woman, arises the necessity for their

co-operation. It has never been asserted that man and woman are

alike; if they were, where would be the necessity for urging the

claims of the one? No; they differ, and for that very reason it

is, that only through the action of both, can the fullness of

their being find development and expression. We know that woman

exerts an influence on man, as man does on woman, to call forth

his latent resources. In the difference, we find a call for

union. And to this union we perceive no limit; on the contrary,

whatever necessity there is for the combination in the private,

there is the same necessity for it in the public sphere. (Long

continued stamping and cheers).

And now I will meet the two great objections made. It is not

objectionable, it is said, that woman, in some spheres of life,

should give an expression of her intellect; but, on the platform,

she loses her character of woman, and becomes incidentally

masculine. Just observe the practical absurdities of which

society is guilty. The largest assemblies greet with clamors

Jenny Lind, when she enchains the ear and exalts the soul with

the sublime strain, "I know that my Redeemer liveth"; but when

Mrs. Mott or Miss Brown stands with a simple voice, and in the

spirit of truth, to make manifest the honor due to our Redeemer,

rowdies hiss, and respectable Christians veil their faces! So,

woman can sing, but not speak, that "our Redeemer liveth." Again,

the great men of our land do not consider it unworthy of their

character to take from Fanny Ellsler what she makes by the

movement of her limbs, by a mere mechanical action,[119] to aid

in erecting a column to commemorate our struggles for liberty.

The dollars are received and built into the column; but when Mrs.

Rose or Mrs. Foster, who feels the spirit of justice within her,

and who has felt the injustice of the laws, stands up to show

truth and justice, and build a spiritual column, she is out of

her sphere! and the honorable men turn aside, and leave her to be

the victim of rowdyism, disorder, and lawlessness! It is not out

of character that Fanny Kemble should read Shakespeare on the

stage, to large circles. The exercise of the voice on the stage

is womanly, while she gives out the thoughts of another; but

suppose (and it is not unsupposable) a living female Shakespeare

to appear on a platform, and utter her inspirations, delicacy is

shocked, decency is outraged, and society turns away in disgust!

Such are the consistencies of the nineteenth century! (Great

uproar).

This is simply and merely prejudice, and it reminds me of the

proverb, "If you would behold the stars aright, blow out your own

taper." I say there is a special reason why woman should come

forward as a speaker; because she has a power of eloquence which

man has not, arising from the fineness of her organization and

the intuitive power of her soul; and I charge any man with

arrogance, if he pretend to match himself in this respect with

many women here, and thousands throughout our country. (Hissing).

I take it, the hissing comes from men who never had a mother to

love and honor, a sister to protect, and who never knew the worth

of a wife. Woman's power to cut to the quick and touch the

conscience, is beautifully accompanied by her unmatched

adaptation to pour balm into the wound; and though the flame she

applies may burn into the soul, it also affords a light to the

conscience which never can be dimmed.

There is an exquisite picture by Retsch, which represents angels

showering roses on devils; to the angels they are roses, but the

devils writhe under them as under fire. On sinful souls the words

of women fall as coals from the altar of God. And here let me

offer my humble gratitude to the women who have borne the brunt

of the test with the calm courage which women alone can exhibit;

to the women who have taught us that, as daughters of God, they

are the equals of His children everywhere on earth. (Cheers and

stamping).

Let me add another word upon this interference, or, rather,

entrance of woman into the sphere of politics. As a spiritual

being, her duties are like those of man; but, inasmuch as she is

different from man, man can not discharge them; and if there be

any truth in holding (as our institutions do), that the voice of

the whole is the nearest approach we can make to eternal truth,

we, of course, can not arrive at it till woman, as well as man,

is heard in the search for it. God, not man, nor herself, made

her woman; there is nothing arbitrary in the distinction; and let

the true woman go where she may, she will retain her womanhood.

We wish to see her enter into politics, not to degrade herself,

but to bring them up to her own level of simple-heartedness and

purity of soul. Can man ever raise them to that lofty height?

Never! woman alone can do it; it is a work reserved for her, and

by her and her alone will it be done. (Roars of laughter).

Whose exploits leave the brightest lines of moral courage on the

historic page? Those of woman! When the French had broken through

the barriers, the maid of Saragossa rushed to the breach. The

demand of the invader came to Palafox, and he trembled; but what

the heart of man was unequal to, the courage of woman could

perform, and the answer of the heroic maiden was, "War to the

knife!" And so, always when man has faltered, woman, earnest and

simple-hearted, has answered, War to the knife with evil! (A

frightful yell from the gallery.) I perceive my friend is anxious

to hear a woman speak to him as only a woman can. I will soon

give way and let him be gratified; but, first, I will tell him an

anecdote. A woman once told me she never saw a horse so wild that

she could not tame him. I asked her how, and she answered,

"Simply by whispering in his ear." Our wild friend in the

gallery will probably receive some benefit listening to the

voice of a woman, if his ears be only long enough to hear her.

(Prolonged cheers).

ANTOINETTE BROWN said: Our cause is progressing triumphantly; and

yet it is not without some to oppose it. Who are they? Persons

utterly ignorant of the claims which its advocates advance,

ignorant alike of the wrongs existing and of the remedy proposed.

They suppose that a few mad-cap reformers are endeavoring to

overthrow dame Nature, to invert society, to play the part of

merciless innovators to imperil religion, to place all civil and

religious freedom in jeopardy; that if our ends were accomplished

all the public and private virtues would be melted as in a

crucible and thrown upon the ground, thence to cry aloud to

heaven like the blood of righteous Abel. Were it not that

curiosity is largely developed in this class, they would go down

to their graves wholly uninformed of our true principles,

motives, and aims. They look upon us as black beetles or

death's-heads, to be turned away from with horror; but their

curiosity overcomes their repugnance, and they would investigate

some of our properties, as a naturalist does those of a noxious

animal. (Cheers and laughter).

There is another class, that of genuine bigots, with hearts so

ossified that no room can be found for one noble and expansive

principle within those little stony cells. Many of this class may

be persons of excellent intentions; they would do us good if they

could, but they approach us with somewhat of the feeling with

which Miss Ophelia regarded Topsy, the abhorrence that is

experienced on drawing near a large black spider. They try to

show us our errors, but if we attempt to justify by argument the

ground we have taken, they cry aloud that we are obstinate and

unreasonable, especially when we quote text for text, as Christ

did when talking with a certain person of old.

But the most hopeless and spiteful of our opponents is that large

class of women whose merits are not their own; who have acquired

some influence in society, not by any noble thoughts they have

framed and uttered, not by any great deed they have done, but by

the accident of having fathers, brothers, or husbands whose

wealth elevates them to the highest wave of fashion, and there

enables them to roll in luxurious and indolent pomp, like Venus

newly risen from the ocean. They feel how much easier it is to

receive the incense of honor and respect (however insincerely

paid to them) without any effort of their own, than to undergo

the patient toil after excellence which wrings from the heart of

all that homage of true honor which can not be denied to it.

They, unused to any noble labor (as all labor is), either

physical or mental, will be careful, to a degree of splenetic

antagonism, how they will allow the introduction, into the

acknowledged rights and duties of their sex, of a new element

which may establish the necessity of their being themselves

energetic and efficient. We need never hope to find any of this

class change, until compelled to do so by public sentiment. The

opposition here is really rabid. Intellectual women! oh, they are

monsters! As soon allow wild beasts to roam at large as these to

be let loose on society. Like lions and tigers, keep them in

their menagerie; perhaps they needn't be actually chained, but

see that they are well secured in their cages! (Stamping, groans,

and laughter).

These are far more bitterly hostile than the men of small

proportions, who are willing to have a great woman tower above

them from time to time--as a Madame de Stael. Such a case,

however, they would rank as an exception, not admit as a rule. To

allow women to stand every day in the foremost lines of intellect

and ability, is a thought altogether too expansive to be

entertained by them.

Such are the oppositions we meet; but they are all melting down

like frost-work before the morning sun. The day is dawning when

the intellect of woman shall be recognized as well as that of

man, and when her rights shall meet an equal and cordial

acknowledgment. The greatest wrong and injustice ever done to

woman is that done to her intellectual nature. This, like Goliath

among the Philistines, overtops all the rest. Drones are but the

robbers of the hive; ladies educated to no purpose are but

surfeited to a dronish condition on the sweets of literature.

Such minds are not developed, but molded in a fashionable

pattern.

LUCY STONE said: It has been stated that we women were not fit

for anything but to stay in the house! I look over the events of

the last five years, and almost smile at the confutation of this

statement which they supply. Let it not be supposed that I wish

to depreciate the value of house-duties, or the worth of the

woman who fitly discharges them. No! I think that any woman who

stands on the throne of her own house, dispensing there the

virtues of love, charity, and peace, and sends out of it into the

world good men, who may help to make the world better, occupies a

higher position than any crowned head. However, we said women

could do more; they could enter the professions, and there serve

society and do themselves honor. We said that women could be

doctors of medicine. Well, we can now prove the statement by

fact. Harriot K. Hunt is among us to-day, who, by recognized

attainment and successful practice, has shown that women can be

physicians, and good ones. You have in your city two women who

are good physicians; there are female medical colleges, with

their classes, as well ordered, and showing as good a proficiency

as any classes of men. Thus that point is gained. It was said

women could not be merchants. We thought they could; we saw

nothing to prevent women from using the power of calculation, the

knowledge of goods, and the industry necessary to make a

successful trader. Here, again, we have abundant examples. Many

women could be pointed to whose energy and ability for business

have repaired the losses of their less competent husbands, I will

mention a particular case. Mrs. Tyndal, of Lowell, Mass., has for

years carried on business in a quiet way; she has made herself

rich by conducting a ladies' shoe store in Lowell. She said to

herself: "What is to hinder me from going into this business? I

should know ladies' shoes, whether they were good or bad, and

what price they can bring. The ladies should support me." And so

they did, and that woman has given a proof that her sex does not

incapacitate for successful mercanti le operations.

It is said women could not be ministers of religion. Last Sunday,

at Metropolitan Hall, Antoinette L. Brown conducted divine

service, and was joined in it by the largest congregation

assembled within the walls of any building in this city.

(Hisses). Some men hiss who had no mothers to teach them better.

But I tell you that some men in New York, knowing that they can

hear the word of God from a woman, as well as from a man, have

called her to be their pastor, and she is to be ordained in this

month. Some of you reporters said she was a Unitarian, but it is

not so; she is among the most orthodox, and so is her church.

We have caused woman's right to address an audience to be more

fully recognized than before. I once addressed an assemblage of

men, and did so without giving previous notice, because I feared

the opposition of prejudice. A lady who was among the audience

said to me afterward, "How could you do it? My blood ran cold

when I saw you up there among those men!" "Why," I asked, "are

they bad men?" "Oh, no! my own husband is one of them; but to see

a woman mixing among men in promiscuous meetings, it was

horrible!" That was six or seven years ago last fall; and that

self-same woman, in Columbus, Ohio, was chosen to preside over a

temperance meeting of men and women; yes, and she took the chair

without the least objection! In Chicago, a woman is cashier of a

bank; and the men gave her a majority of three hundred votes over

her man-competitor. In another State, a woman is register of

deeds. Women can be editors; two sit behind me, Paulina W. Davis

and Mrs. Nichols. Thus we have an accumulation of _facts_ to

support our claims and our arguments.

_Daily Tribune, Sept. 7, 1853._

The Woman's Rights Convention was somewhat disturbed last evening

by persons whose ideas of the rights of free speech are these:

two thousand people assemble to hear a given public question

discussed under distinct announcement that certain persons whose

general views are well known, are to speak throughout the

evening. At least nineteen-twentieths come to hear those

announced speakers, and will be bitterly disappointed if the

opportunity be not afforded them. But one-twentieth have bought

tickets and taken seats on purpose to prevent the hearing of

those speakers, by hissing, yelling, and stamping, and all manner

of unseemly interruptions. Under such circumstances, which should

prevail; the right of the speakers to be heard and the great body

of the audience to hear them according to the announcement, or

the will of the disturbers who choose to say that nineteen out of

twenty shall not have what they have paid for, and what the

promised speakers are most willing to give them?

To state the case exactly as it is, precludes the necessity of

arguing it. We rejoice to say that the will of the great majority

prevailed, and that the discussion which was marked in its

earlier days by occasional tumult was closed in good order, and

amid hushed and gratified attention. We ought, perhaps, to return

thanks to the disturbers for so stirring the souls of the

speakers that their words came gushing forth from their lips with

exceeding fluency and power. We certainly never before heard

Antoinette Brown, Mrs. Rose, and Lucy Stone speak with such power

and unction as _last night_. It was never before so transparent

that a hiss or a blackguard yell was the only answer that the

case admitted of, and when Lucy Stone closed the discussion with

some pungent, yet pathetic remarks on the sort of opposition

that had been manifest, it was evident that if any of the rowdies

had an ant-hole in the bottom of his boot, he would inevitably

have sunk through it and disappeared forever.

_Herald, Sept. 7, 1853._

THE LAST VAGARY OF THE GREELEY CLIQUE--THE WOMEN, THEIR RIGHTS,

AND THEIR CHAMPIONS.

The assemblage of rampant women which convened at the Tabernacle

yesterday was an interesting phase in the comic history of the

nineteenth century.

We saw, in broad daylight, in a public hall in the city of New

York, a gathering of unsexed women--unsexed in mind all of them,

and many in habiliments--publicly propounding the doctrine that

they should be allowed to step out of their appropriate sphere,

and mingle in the busy walks of every-day life, to the neglect of

those duties which both human and divine law have assigned to

them. We do not stop to argue against so ridiculous a set of

ideas. We will only inquire who are to perform those duties which

we and our fathers before us have imagined belonged solely to

women. Is the world to be depopulated? Are there to be no more

children? Or are we to adopt the French mode, which is too well

known to need explanation?

Another reason why we will not answer the logic which is poured

out from the lips of such persons as Lucy Stone, Mrs. Mott, Mrs.

Amelia Bloomer, and their male coadjutors, Greeley, Garrison,

Oliver, Johnson, Burleigh, and others, is because they themselves

do not believe in the truth or feasibility of the doctrines they

utter. In some cases eccentricity is a harmless disease; but the

idiosyncrasies of these people spring from another source. They

admit the principle that fame and infamy are synonymous terms.

Disappointed in their struggle for the first, they grasp the

last, and at the same time pocket all the money they can wring

from the "barren fools" who can be found in any community eager

to grasp at any doctrine which is novel, no matter how outrageous

it may be. They are continually advertising from their platforms

some "Thrilling Narrative," or "Account of the Adventures of a

Fugitive," which may be had at the low price of one shilling

each, or eight dollars per hundred. Recently they have discovered

that the great body of their audiences came only to be amused,

and they have therefore imposed an admission fee. Lucy Stone, who

is a shrewd Yankee, has gone a step further, and in her

management of the business of the "Woman's Rights Convention,"

has provided for season tickets, to be had at "the extremely low

price of two shillings."

It is almost needless for us to say that these women are entirely

devoid of personal attractions. They are generally thin maiden

ladies, or women who perhaps have been disappointed in their

endeavors to appropriate the breeches and the rights of their

unlucky lords; the first class having found it utterly impossible

to induce any young or old man into the matrimonial noose, have

turned out upon the world, and are now endeavoring to revenge

themselves upon the sex who have slighted them. The second,

having been dethroned from their empire over the hearts of their

husbands, for reasons which may easily be imagined, go

vagabondizing over the country, boring unfortunate audiences with

long essays lacking point or meaning, and amusing only from the

impudence displayed by the speakers in putting them forth in a

civilized country. They violate the rules of decency and taste by

attiring themselves in eccentric habiliments, which hang loosely

and inelegantly upon their forms, making that which we have been

educated to respect, to love, and to admire, only an object of

aversion and disgust. A few of these unfortunate women have awoke

from their momentary trance, and quickly returned to the dress of

decent society; but we saw yesterday many disciples of the

Bloomer school at the Tabernacle. There was yesterday, and there

will be to-day, a wide field for all such at the Tabernacle.

The "compliments" showered upon _The Herald_ by the wretched

Garrison yesterday afternoon, at the Woman's Wrong Convention,

fully show that he and his coadjutors, Greeley and the rest, are

beginning to feel the truth of our remarks during the time they

have been amusing our citizens. His insane attack shows that our

course has been the true one.

To the credit of Mr. Greeley, he made an effort to suppress the

disturbance. Raymond, of _The Times_, gave the following report:

_Times, September 8, 1853._

(Evening of the first day, Mrs. Rose speaking).

Mr. Greeley was among the audience, and in passing through the

gallery, it was supposed he remonstrated with the sibillating

gentlemen, and a great rumpus was raised. Some cheered the

peace-maker, others hissed, the rush collected about the scene of

the disturbance, and all proceedings were interrupted. Mrs. Rose

suspended her remarks for a few moments, but presently said:

"Friends, be seated, and I will continue." The audience would not

listen, however. The uproar still continued. Cries of "Order,"

"Mrs. President," "Put him out," "Hurrah!" hisses, groans, and

cheers. Mr. Greeley and a policeman presently succeeded in

stilling the tumult, the officer collaring several men and

compelling them to keep quiet. Mrs. Rose resumed and continued

her remarks.

SECOND DAY, MORNING SESSION, Opened at 10 A.M.

Mrs. MOTT: The uproar and confusion which attended the close of

our proceedings of last night, although much to be regretted, as

indicating an unreasonable and unreasoning disposition on the

part of some, to close their ears against the truth, or rather,

to drown its voice by vulgar clamor, yet, when viewed aright, and

in some phases, present to us matter of congratulation. I do

suppose that never, at any meeting, was public propriety more

outraged, than at ours of last evening. I suppose no transactions

of a body assembled to deliberate, were ever more outrageously

invaded by an attempt to turn them into a mere tumult; yet,

though voices were loud and angry, and the evil passions

exhibited themselves with much of that quality to affright, which

usually, if not always, attends their exhibition, not a scream

was heard from any woman, nor did any of the "weaker sex" exhibit

the slightest terror, or even alarm at the violent manifestations

which invaded the peace of our assemblage.

I felicitate the women on this exhibition of fortitude; of calm

moral courage. Should not our opponents, if they have any reason

among them, reflect that these exhibitions are, in reality, some

of the strongest arguments that can be offered to support the

claims which we stand here to advocate? Do they not show, on the

one hand, that men, by whom such an overpowering superiority is

arrogated, can betimes demean themselves in such a way as to show

that they are wholly unfit for the lofty functions which they

demand as their exclusive right? And, on the other hand, do they

not conclusively show, that women are possessed of, at least,

some of those qualities which assist in calmness of deliberation

during times of excitement and even danger? I think it was really

a beautiful sight to see how calm the women remained during last

evening's excitement; their self-possession I consider something

truly admirable. I know that in the tumult and noise it would

have been vain for any woman to raise her voice in an attempt to

check it. Indeed, I am satisfied the outrage was predetermined,

and I regret that the aid of the police had to be called in to

quell it. Had there been here a company of women who were taught

to rely upon others, they would, doubtless, have felt bound to

scream for "their protectors"; but the self-reliance displayed,

which must have its basis in a consciousness of the truth and

justice of our cause, and which kept the members of the

Convention unmoved, amid all the prevailing confusion, gives us

matter of real congratulation. Let us rejoice in this, my

friends; and let us remember, that when we have a true

cause--while our cause rests on the basis of right--we have

nothing to fear, but may go on unmoved by all these petty

circumstances, by which we may be surrounded.

Mr. BURLEIGH said: A request was made last night by some person,

I don't know who, or rather a challenge was offered, that three

good reasons should be given why women should vote. Perhaps, had

the person making this demand had this question put to him,

namely: "What reasons are there why men should vote?" he would

have considered them so self-evident as to make any answer

superfluous. Yet it would be found difficult, I apprehend, to

assign any reason why men should vote, which would not be found

to be an equally good one for extending the elective franchise to

women. He asked, however, why women should be allowed to take a

part in the civil government of the country. This question will,

I doubt not, be answered to-day by some one more able than

myself; and if the person who asked it be present, and open to

conviction, he will hear reasons sufficient to convince him.

Why should women vote? She should vote, first, because she has to

bear her portion of the burdens imposed by the government which

the voting makes. Is not this one reason amply sufficient for any

honest-minded man? Taxation and representation go hand in hand,

says a principle of our body politic. Is woman represented? No.

Is woman taxed? Yes. How is that? Is it consistent with the

profession; and, if there were no profession, is it right, is it

just? The burden falls equally on woman and her brother; but he

has all the power of applying it; she must bear it to the end of

the journey, and then know nothing, say nothing, as to how it is

to be disposed of. What kind of justice is that? Were woman

exempted from those burdens, why, then, the exemption would so

far be an argument on the other side; although even that would

fail on investigation, because other equally immutable principles

show that neither exemption nor representation is the condition

in which any portion of the political body should be allowed to

remain. But where there is no exemption, but a full apportionment

of the burden, and, at the same time, no representation, the

absurdity of injustice has reached its climax. (Laughter and

cheers).

In the second place, woman should vote, because she ought to be a

sharer in those benefits which government is formed to confer

upon the governed. She has property which the government must

protect, a person which it must defend, and rights which it is

bound to secure. Were the millennium arrived, were there no such

thing as selfishness on earth; were simple truth and justice the

prominent elements in all men's minds, and the guiding spirit of

all men's actions, then indeed might woman confide herself to

man; then might she rely on him to secure those governmental

benefits which are her due, as a portion of the general

community. But is this the state of things? Alas! not yet; and,

until it is, the horrible injustice of the laws which exclude

woman from a share in making them, while they are her only

security for the advantages she ought to enjoy, will never cease

crying aloud to all men for purification. One of the great aims

of all government, one of the strong considerations which alone

makes its restrictions endurable, is the assurance which it gives

the governed, that the sum of their happiness, and even of their

liberty, shall, by individual restraints, become greater on the

whole. It holds out a bonus to society, or rather, to its

individual members, "Give me this little, and I will give you in

exchange this much." Thus each individual puts a stake into the

common fund, has an interest in the common weal, which demands

careful watching. Can woman watch the large, the all-absorbing

interest she has at stake? She, above all, the most tender, the

most sensitive of beings, the most keenly alive to wrong, to

insult, to oppression, to aught that bruises her womanly nature,

can she give a careful eye to the disposal of those important

questions which touch the very core of her heart? Why, when

reduced to these, its naked dimensions, the injustice seems so

horrible, as not to be credible, and did we not know the facts,

we would find it hard to believe that man, made in the image of

his Maker, could violate justice so barbarously. Surely woman

lies under no moral obligation to any laws which, wanting her

assent, yet assume to control her every action, word, and even

thought. Her property, her person, all her rights, her most

sacred affections, come within the province of those enactments;

yet she can have no voice, no weight in determining what those

enactments shall be. (Stamping and groans).

In the third place, woman is entitled to vote, because she is

liable to all the penalties imposed by government. Not only is it

that she confides, or rather, that government compels her to

confide to it, the custody of person, property, rights, and all

dearest interests, but it goes a step further, and thus adds

another link (though quite a superfluous one) to the adamantine

chain of argument which it supplies to bind down its own

injustice. It stands not merely in a passive or receiving

relation to woman, it becomes the active arbiter of her doom; it

declares itself competent to lay hands on her, to shut her up in

prison, to take away her life, the life of one who has made with

it no compact--giving such awful power--the life of one who never

consented to the laws which assert over her so terrible a

supremacy! All the principles already applied come in here with

perhaps renewed force, as being the arbiters of a question which

may be regarded by some as of a still more absorbing interest,

although to woman it may not be so, for when did she value life

more highly than tenderness, domestic confidence, and affection?

(Prolonged laughter).

Dr. H. K. ROOT, of New York, rose in his place among the audience

and declared his intention of arguing against the principles and

demands of the Convention. Being requested to take the rostrum,

he did so, and spoke thus:

Mrs. President and Ladies: I do not come here with the slightest

intention of offering to the ladies any opposition for mere

opposition's sake. If they are proved to have more knowledge and

intelligence than men, let them govern! My purpose, ladies, is to

try and attain truth, which, I think, will not be found favorable

to the views you express. I come, rather, as a matter of

intelligence than opposition. I do not come here for the purpose

of opposing the ladies too much; but as the question was not only

open yesterday, but still is for discussion, I maintain that if

the ladies have more intelligence, and more energy, and science

than the male sex, they should rule. I think I can give three

reasons why men should vote, and one why woman should not vote.

(Cheers).

My first reason is, because there was an original command from

God that man should rule. It may be supposed that we are in the

garden of Eden now, as in the days of Adam and Eve. Now, it will

be remembered, when Adam and Eve fell, Adam, because Eve tempted

him, was placed in the garden as its keeper, and it was necessary

in those days, as it is now, that woman should be a helpmeet for

him; but you recollect that by the eating of the forbidden fruit,

original sin came into the world. What was the expression of God

to Adam? He says in the third chapter of Genesis, 17th verse:

"Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast

eaten of the tree of which I commanded thee, saying, thou shalt

not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt

thou eat of it all the days of thy life." Now, permit us to be in

the relation that Adam and Eve were originally. It behooves the

male sex to answer the objections of the female sex--not that we

wish to combat them in public; but it behooves us, as a matter of

justice, to put the question on a right foundation. It may be

necessary, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, that the ladies

should be here, but in the hundredth it may be necessary that man

should say, "Thus far shalt thou go, and no farther." You see the

original cause of sin was because man, being placed in the

garden, gave way to woman, and the curse fell upon him; the

original cause of sin was because man gave up his judgment to

woman; and it may be, if we now give up our rights to woman, some

great calamity may fall upon us. Had woman only sinned, perhaps

we might still have been in Eden. (Great applause).

My second reason why man should vote is the law of physical force

over the woman--because man's strength is greater than woman's.

The third reason is, because if women enter the field of

competition with men, it may lead not only to domestic

unhappiness, but a great many other ill feelings. And I will give

another reason why men should be dictators. If woman says she

shall vote, and man says she sha'n't, he is in duty bound to

maintain what he says. If he says she sha'n't, that is reason

enough why she should not." (Cheers and laughter).

ALEXANDER PARKER, of Philadelphia, rose in his place, and on

being invited to the platform, spoke thus:

Adam was the first gardener in the world; he belonged to my

business, for I am a gardener--a business I took up myself, so I

should have something to say about the garden of Eden. Well, I

have often thought about the fall, and I have often pictured it

in this manner: the very moment the charge was given not to do

such a thing, that was just the time they wanted to do it.

(Prolonged cheers).

It is often said that woman has a great deal of curiosity, and no

doubt it was whispered into her ear, that the moment she ate of

the forbidden fruit she should become a god. Now, I have seen

more reason this morning why women should vote than I have ever

seen before. In Pennsylvania a man has got but one vote, while a

woman has three--her husband's and her two sons'. Eve tried to

get over the temptation, but she could not; and so, after many

efforts, she clutched the apple she looked at so, and so, and she

reached out to it; afraid at first, but at last she laid hold of

it, and, seeing that her fear was over, she kissed its lovely

cheek. Then she ran to Adam, and said it was good, and he ate of

it. Then his eyes were opened and he saw he was naked, and ran

and hid himself. He tried to hide himself among the bushes, but

he could not deny the eating of it, because the core was sticking

in his throat, and it is sticking there still; but woman has not

got the core sticking in her throat. Well, Adam pretended to be

innocent, like all the rest of mankind, and said it was not he,

but the woman that did it. No, no; it was not his fault, it was

the woman who gave it to him. Oh, yes! he was not to blame, no

more than any lord of creation. Well, then, there was a curse

upon him; but there was a promise to woman that her seed should

bruise the head of the serpent with her heel. (Shouts of

laughter).

Mrs. NICHOLS: As to the text which says that woman must obey her

husband, surely that is no reason why she should obey all the

bachelors and other women's husbands in the community. My husband

would have me advocate the claims I do, therefore by the logic of

our cause my husband wishes me to vote, and, according to the

Scripture, the gentleman must, even in his own reasoning, allow

me the right to vote. In one place the gentleman said that woman

had already turned the world over; and that man must be cautious

not to allow her to do so again. Perhaps, if he reconsidered

these statements he might be willing to retract the latter;

because, if she turned the world over once and put the wrong side

up, he ought now to allow her to turn it back, that she may bring

the right side up again.

Mrs. ROSE said: As to the personal property, after all debts and

liabilities are discharged, the widow receives one-half of it;

and, in addition, the law kindly allows her her own wearing

apparel, her own ornaments, proper to her station, one bed, with

appurtenances for the same; a stove, the Bible, family pictures,

and all the school-books; also, all spinning-wheels and

weaving-looms, one table, six chairs, tea cups and saucers, one

tea-pot, one sugar dish, and six spoons. (Much laughter). But the

law does not inform us whether they are to be tea or table

spoons; nor does the law make any provision for kettles,

sauce-pans, and all such necessary things. But the presumption

seems to be that the spoons meant are teaspoons; for, as ladies

are generally considered very delicate, the law presumed that a

widow might live on tea only; but spinning-wheels and

weaving-looms are very necessary articles for ladies nowadays.

(Hissing and great confusion). Why, you need not hiss, for I am

expounding the law. These wise law-makers, who seem to have lived

somewhere about the time of the flood, did not dream of spinning

and weaving by steam-power. When our great-great-grandmothers had

to weave every article of apparel worn by the family, it was, no

doubt, considered a very good law to allow the widow the

possession of the spinning-wheels and the weaving-looms. But,

unfortunately for some laws, man is a progressive being; his

belief, opinions, habits, manners, and customs change, and so do

spinning-wheels and weaving-looms; and, with men and things, law

must change too, for what is the value of a law when man has

outgrown it? As well might you bring him to the use of his baby

clothes, because they once fitted him, as to keep him to such a

law. No. Laws, when man has outgrown them, are fit only to be

cast aside among the things that were.

But I must not forget, the law allows the widow something more.

She is allowed one cow, all sheep to the number of ten, with the

fleeces and the cloth from the same, two swine, and the pork

therefrom. (Great laughter). My friends, do not say that I stand

here to make these laws ridiculous. No; if you laugh, it is at

their own inherent ludicrousness; for I state them simply and

truly as they are; for they are so ridiculous in themselves, that

it is impossible to make them more so.

Mrs. NICHOLS said: As widow, too, the law bears heavily on woman.

If her children have property, she is adjudged unworthy of their

guardianship; and although the decree of God has made her the

true and natural guardian of her children, she is obliged to pay

from her scanty means to be constituted so by law.

I have conversed with judges and legislators, and tried to learn

a reason for these things, but failed to find it. A noble man

once gave me what he probably thought was a good one. "Women," he

said to me, "can not earn as much as men!" We say they should be

allowed to earn as much. They have the ability, and the means

should not be shut out from them. I have heard of another man who

held woman's industrial ability at a low rate. "His wife," he

said, "had never been able to do anything but attend to her

children." "How many have you?" he was asked; and the answer was,

"Nine." Nine children to attend to! nine children cared for! and

she could do nothing more, the wife of this most reasonable man.

Now, which is of more importance to the community, the property

which that reasonable husband made, or the nine children whom

that mother brought, with affectionate and tender toil, through

the perils of infancy and youth, until they were men and women?

Which was of more importance to this land, the property which the

father of George Washington amassed, or the George Washington

whom a noble mother gave to his country? The name of Washington,

his glorious deeds, and the enduring benefits he secured for us,

still remain, and will long after the estates of Washington have

passed from his name forever!

In the State of Vermont, a wife sought a divorce from her husband

on the ground of his intemperance. They were persons moving among

our highest circles--wealthy people; and the wife knew that she

could, through the aid of her friends and relations, with the

influence and sympathy of the community, obtain a divorce and a

support for her children. That father carried away into Canada

one child, a little girl, and paid three hundred dollars to a

low, vile Frenchman, that he might keep her from her mother and

friends. Three times her almost heart-broken mother went in

search of her; twice in vain, but the third time she was found.

So badly had the poor child been treated in the vile hands in

which her father had placed her, that, when recovered, she was

almost insensible; and when, by her mother's nursing care, her

intelligence was at length restored, her joy at seeing her mother

was so violent, that it was feared its excess might prove fatal.

The case came into court, and the judge decided that the two

daughters should be given to their mother, but that the custody

of the son should be given to the father. She was acquitted of

the least impropriety or indiscretion; yet, though the obscenity

and profanity of her husband in his own family was shocking, and

it was in the last degree painful to that high-minded woman to

see her son brought up under the charge of such a man, the law

decided that the unworthy father was the more proper guardian for

the boy!

In the Green Mountain State a great many sermons have lately been

preached on the text, "Wives, submit yourselves to your

husbands." The remaining words, "in the Lord," are generally

omitted; so that the text is made to appear like an injunction

that the wives should submit to their husbands, whether they were

in the Lord or in the devil. And the best of all is, that we are

told that if we would be submissive, we could change our husbands

from devils into angels.

Mrs. MOTT: I now introduce to the Convention Frances Dana Gage,

of St. Louis, Mo., better known as "Aunt Fanny," the poet.

Mrs. GAGE said: This morning, when I was leaving my

boarding-house, some one said to me, "So you are ready armed and

equipped to go and fight the men." I was sorry, truly sorry, to

hear the words--they fell heavily on my heart. I have no fight

with men. I am a daughter, a sister, a wife, and a mother, and in

all these relations I live in harmony with man. Neither I, nor

any of the sisters with whom I am united in this movement, have

any quarrel with men. What is it that we oppose? What do we seek

to overturn? The bad laws and customs of society. These are our

only enemies, and against these alone is our hostility directed;

although they be "hallowed by time," we seek to eradicate them,

because the day for which they were suited, if such ever existed,

is long since gone by. The men, we may suppose, are above and

beyond the laws, and we assail the laws only.

There is one law which I do not remember having heard any of my

sisters touch upon, that is the Law of Wills, as far as it

relates to married women, and as far as it allows a husband

(which it fully does), along with his power to determine the lot

of his wife while he is alive, also to control her when he is

dead. Would any gentleman like to have that law reversed? Let me

read to you a will after that odd fashion. It will fall on your

ears, gentlemen, with as loud a tone of injustice as it does on

mine:

WILL OF BRIDGET SMITH.--In the name of God, amen. I, Bridget

Smith, being weak in body, though sound in mind, blessed be God

for the same, do make and declare this my last will and

testament. Item first: I give my soul to God, and my body to the

earth, from which it came. Item second: I give to my beloved

husband, John Smith, Sen., my Bible, and forty acres of wild land

which I own in Bear Marsh, Ill, for the term of his natural life,

when it shall descend to our son, John Smith, Jr. Item third: I

give and bequeath to my daughter, Tabitha, my farm, house,

outhouse, barns, and all the stock on said farm, situated in

Pleasant Valley, and which said farm consists of 160 acres. I

also give to my said daughter Tabitha, the wagons, carriages,

harnesses, carts, plows, and all other property that shall be on

said farm at the time of my death. Item fourth: I give to my son,

John Smith, Jr., my family horse, my buggy, harness, and saddle,

and also eighty acres of wild land which I own in the State of

Iowa, for which I have a patent. Item fifth: I give to my beloved

husband, John Smith, Sen., the use of the house in which we live,

together with my bed, so long as he shall live, or remain my

widower; but in case he shall die, or get married, then it is my

will that my house and bed shall descend to my said daughter,

Tabitha. Recommending my said husband to her care, whom I make

the sole executrix of this my last will and testament, hereby

revoking all others.

Signed, sealed, and proclaimed this ---- day of ----, 1853, in

the presence of John Doe and Richard Roe.

BRIDGET SMITH.

Would any of you like such power as that to be placed in our

hands? Yet, is it not as fair that married women should dispose

of their property, as that married men should dispose of theirs?

It is true, the power thus given to husbands is not always used

to the detriment of women, and this is frequently urged in

support of the law. But I reply, that law is made for extreme

cases; and while any such statutes remain on the books, no good

man will cease to exert himself for their removal. I ask the

right to vote, not because it would create antagonism, but

because it would create harmony. I want to do away with

antagonism by removing oppression, for where oppression exists,

there antagonism must exist also.

ERNESTINE L. ROSE: In allusion to the law respecting wills, I

wish to say that, according to the Revised Statutes of our State,

a married woman has not a right to make a will. The law says that

wills may be made by all persons, except idiots, persons of

unsound mind, married women, and infants. Mark well, all but

idiots, lunatics, married women, and infants. Male infants ought

to consider it quite an insult to be placed in the same category

with married women. No, a married woman has no right to bequeath

a dollar of the property, no matter how much she may have brought

into the marriage, or accumulated in it. Not a dollar to a

friend, a relative, or even to her own child, to keep him from

starving. And this is the law in the nineteenth century, in the

enlightened United States, under a Republic that declares all men

to be free and equal.

LUCY STONE: Just one word. I think Mrs. Rose is a little

mistaken; I wish to correct her by saying that of some States

in--

Mrs. ROSE: I did not say this was the universal law; I said it

was the law in the State of New York.

LUCY STONE: I was not paying close attention, and must have been

mistaken. In Massachusetts the law makes a married woman's will

valid in two cases: the first is, where the consent of her

husband is written on the will; the second, where she wills all

she has to her husband, in which case his written consent is not

deemed requisite.

Dr. HARRIOT K. HUNT spoke on the fruitful theme of taxation

without representation! and read her annual protest[120] to the

authorities of Boston against being compelled to submit to that

injustice. She said: I wish to vote, that women may have, by law,

an equal right with men in property. In October, 1851, I went to

pay my taxes in Boston. Going into the Assessor's office, I saw a

tall, thin, weak, stupid-looking Irish boy. It was near election

time, and I looked at him scrutinizingly. He held in his hand a

document, which, I found on inquiry, was one of naturalization;

and this hopeful son of Erin was made a citizen of the United

States, and he could have a voice in determining the destinies of

this mighty nation, while thousands of intellectual women,

daughters of the soil, no matter how intelligent, how

respectable, or what amount of taxes they paid, were forced to be

dumb!

Now, I am glad to pay my taxes, am glad that my profession

enables me to pay them; but I would like very much to have a

voice in directing what is to be done with the money I pay. I

meditated on what I had seen, and, in 1852, when paying my taxes,

I took to the Treasurer's office my protest.

The case of the Hon. Mrs. Norton before the English courts, then

attracting much attention, was a fair exemplification of the injustice

of the law to married women.

LUCY STONE said: I have before me, in a newspaper, a case which

shows strongly the necessity for woman's legislating for herself.

I mean the case of the Hon. Mrs. Norton, which lately transpired

in a court in London, and which fully proves that it is never

right for one class to legislate for another. There are,

probably, few here who have not been made better and wiser by the

beautiful things which have fallen from the pen of that lady. In

1836 her husband obtained a separation from her on the charge of

infidelity. Eighteen years of a blameless life since, and the

conviction every pure mind must feel, that nothing impure could

ever dwell in a mind such as her productions show hers to be,

will fully relieve her of any suspicion that she ever was guilty

of acts justifying that charge. She was a woman of transcendent

abilities; and her works brought her in £1,000 a year--sometimes

more, sometimes less. This her husband procured to be paid over

to himself, by securing the profits of her copyrights; and this

husband allowed her only £400 a year! and, at last, refused to

pay her even this sum; so that, for her necessary expenses, she

was obliged to go into debt, and her debtors brought a suit

against her husband, which was taken into court. In the court she

stood before her husband's lawyer, and said to him: "If you are

afraid of what I may say, beware how you ask me questions!"

Wealth and power were against her, and the lawyer _did_ ask

questions which wrung from her what she had concealed for

seventeen long years, and the world at last knew how her husband

had kept the money she earned by her pen. She stood in court, and

said: "I do not ask for rights; I have no rights, I have only

wrongs. I will go abroad, and live with my son." Her husband had

proposed to take her children from her, but she said: "I would

rather starve than give them up." And for a time she did starve.

I will read for you her poem of "Twilight," and you will all see

what kind of woman has been so wronged, and has so suffered.

That woman, gifted, noble, and wealthy, with such great yearnings

in her soul, whose heart was so bound up in her children, was

thus robbed not only of her own rights, but also of theirs. Men!

we can not trust you! You have deceived us too long! Since this

movement began, _some_ laws have been passed, securing to woman

her personal property, but they are as nothing in the great

reform that is needed. I can tell you a case. A woman married a

man, whom she did not love, because he had a fortune. He died,

and she married the man whom she loved before her first marriage.

He died, too, and the fortune which was hers through her first

husband was seized on by the relatives of the second, and she was

left penniless in the wide world. Here, as in England, women earn

large sums by their literary fame and talents; and I know a _man_

who watches the post-office, and, because the Law gives him the

power, secures the letters which contain the wages of his wife's

intellectual toil, and pockets them for his own use.

I will conclude by reading a letter from an esteemed friend, Mr.

Higginson. It proposes certain questions which I should wish to

hear our enemies answer.

WORCESTER, _Sept. 4, 1853_.

DEAR FRIEND:--You are aware that domestic duties alone prevent my

prolonging my stay in New York during the session of the Woman's

Rights Convention. But you know, also, that all my sympathies are

there. I hope you will have a large representation of the friends

of the great movement--the most important of the century; and

that you will also assemble a good many of the opposition during

the discussion. Perhaps from such opponents I might obtain

answers to certain questions which have harassed my mind, and are

the following:

If there be a woman's sphere, as a man's sphere, why has not

woman an equal voice in fixing the limits? If it be unwomanly for

a girl to have a whole education, why is it not unwomanly for her

to have even a half one? Should she not be left where the Turkish

women are left? If women have sufficient political influence

through their husbands and brothers, how is it that the worst

laws are confessedly those relating to female property? If

politics are necessarily corrupting, ought not good men, as well

as good women, to be exhorted to quit voting?

If, however, man's theory be correct--that none should be

appointed jurors but those whose occupations fit them to

understand the matters in dispute--where is the propriety of

empanneling a jury of men to decide on the right of a divorced

mother to her child? If it be proper for a woman to open her lips

in jubilee to sing nonsense, how can it be improper for her to

open them and speak sense? These afford a sample of the questions

to which I have been trying in vain to find an answer. If the

reasonings of men on this subject are a fair specimen of the

masculine intellect of the nineteenth century, I think it is

certainly quite time to call in women to do the thinking.

Yours, respectfully and cordially,

T. W. HIGGINSON.

MISS LUCY STONE.

MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE cited the Convention to a case recently tried

before the Court of Common Pleas of New York, as illustrating the

husband's ownership of the wife, the Court deciding that the

friends of a woman who had "harbored" and detained her from her

husband, though with her own consent and desire, should pay him

$10,000. He recovered this sum on the principle of ownership; the

wife's services were due him, and he recovered their value.

Mrs. Gage also commented on the divorce laws, which she declared

were less just in Christian than in Mohammedan countries. In

those countries if the husband sues for a divorce he is obliged

to restore the dower, but in Christian America the husband not

only retains all the property in case he sues for a divorce, but

where the wife, being the innocent party, sues, she even then

receives neither property nor children, unless by an express

decree of the court. She is alike punished, whether innocent or

guilty. Mrs. Gage also discussed the question so often put, "What

has woman to do with politics?" She said the country must look to

women for its salvation.

Sojourner Truth, a tall colored woman, well known in anti-slavery

circles, and called the Lybian Sybil, made her appearance on the

platform. This was the signal for a fresh outburst from the mob; for

at every session every man of them was promptly in his place, at

twenty-five cents a head. And this was the one redeeming feature of

this mob--it paid all expenses, and left a surplus in the treasury.

Sojourner combined in herself, as an individual, the two most hated

elements of humanity. She was black, and she was a woman, and all the

insults that could be cast upon color and sex were together hurled at

her; but there she stood, calm and dignified, a grand, wise woman, who

could neither read nor write, and yet with deep insight could

penetrate the very soul of the universe about her. As soon as the

terrible turmoil was in a measure quelled

SHE SAID: Is it not good for me to come and draw forth a spirit,

to see what kind of spirit people are of? I see that some of you

have got the spirit of a goose, and some have got the spirit of a

snake. I feel at home here. I come to you, citizens of New York,

as I suppose you ought to be. I am a citizen of the State of New

York; I was born in it, and I was a slave in the State of New

York; and now I am a good citizen of this State. I was born here,

and I can tell you I feel at home here. I've been lookin' round

and watchin' things, and I know a little mite 'bout Woman's

Rights, too. I come forth to speak 'bout Woman's Rights, and want

to throw in my little mite, to keep the scales a-movin'. I know

that it feels a kind o' hissin' and ticklin' like to see a

colored woman get up and tell you about things, and Woman's

Rights. We have all been thrown down so low that nobody thought

we'd ever get up again; but we have been long enough trodden now;

we will come up again, and now I am here.

I was a-thinkin', when I see women contendin' for their rights, I

was a-thinkin' what a difference there is now, and what there was

in old times. I have only a few minutes to speak; but in the old

times the kings of the earth would hear a woman. There was a

king in the Scriptures; and then it was the kings of the earth

would kill a woman if she come into their presence; but Queen

Esther come forth, for she was oppressed, and felt there was a

great wrong, and she said I will die or I will bring my complaint

before the king. Should the king of the United States be greater,

or more crueler, or more harder? But the king, he raised up his

sceptre and said: "Thy request shall be granted unto thee--to the

half of my kingdom will I grant it to thee!" Then he said he

would hang Haman on the gallows he had made up high. But that is

not what women come forward to contend. The women want their

rights as Esther. She only wanted to explain her rights. And he

was so liberal that he said, "the half of my kingdom shall be

granted to thee," and he did not wait for her to ask, he was so

liberal with her.

Now, women do not ask half of a kingdom, but their rights, and

they don't get 'em. When she comes to demand 'em, don't you hear

how sons hiss their mothers like snakes, because they ask for

their rights; and can they ask for anything less? The king

ordered Haman to be hung on the gallows which he prepared to hang

others; but I do not want any man to be killed, but I am sorry to

see them so short-minded. But we'll have our rights; see if we

don't; and you can't stop us from them; see if you can. You may

hiss as much as you like, but it is comin'. Women don't get half

as much rights as they ought to; we want more, and we will have

it. Jesus says: "What I say to one, I say to all--watch!" I'm

a-watehin'. God says: "Honor your father and your mother." Sons

and daughters ought to behave themselves before their mothers,

but they do not. I can see them a-laughin', and pointin' at their

mothers up here on the stage. They hiss when an aged woman comes

forth. If they'd been brought up proper they'd have known better

than hissing like snakes and geese. I'm 'round watchin' these

things, and I wanted to come up and say these few things to you,

and I'm glad of the hearin' you give me. I wanted to tell you a

mite about Woman's Rights, and so I came out and said so. I am

sittin' among you to watch; and every once and awhile I will come

out and tell you what time of night it is.

_The Times_ next day commented as follows:

_The New York Times, Sept. 9, 1853._

THE ROW OF YESTERDAY.--Row No. 3 was a very jolly affair, a

regular break-down, at the Woman's Convention. The women had

their rights, and more beside. The cause was simply that the

rowdyish diathesis is just now prevalent. True, a colored woman

made a speech, but there was nothing in that to excite a

multitude; she did not speak too low to be heard; she did not

insult them with improper language; nor did the audience respond

at all insultingly. They did not curse, they only called for

"half a dozen on the shell." They did not swear, they only

"hurried up that stew." They did wrong, however.

If we had our own way every rascally rowdy among them should have

Bloomers of all colors preaching at them by the year--a year for

every naughty word they uttered, a score of them for every hiss.

Out upon the villains who go to any meeting to disturb it. Let

anybody who can hire a house and pay for it have his way, and let

none be disturbed; the opposers can stay away. But for us, let us

be thankful that in such hot weather there is something to amuse

us, something to season our insipid dishes, something to spice

our dull days with. _Mem._ It was cooler in the evening.

* * * * *

CAROLINE M. SEVERANCE, of Ohio, presented an argument and appeal

based upon the following propositions: That as the manifest

dissimilarities which cause the _nations_ of the earth to differ,

physically, and in degree of mental and moral development and

cultivation, are not found justly to invalidate their claim to a

place in the vast brotherhood of man--to fullness of family

communion and rights; so there are no radical differences of _the

sexes_ in these respects, which can at all impair the integrity

of an equal humanity--no sufficient basis for a distinction in so

comprehensive a classification.

The fundamental facts and faculties--the higher and more

essential attributes which make up the accepted definition of

humanity in our day, are identical in both--are no more confined

or unduly allotted to one sex than to one nation.

On the broad basis of this philosophy, on the ground of woman's

undeniable and equal humanity, proven by the possession of

identical human faculties, and equal human needs, we claim for

her the recognition of that humanity and its rights--for the

freedom, protection, development, and use of those faculties, and

the supply of those needs. And we maintain that no accident of

sex, no prejudged or proven dissimilarity _in degree_ of

physical, mental, or moral endowment, or development, can at all

stand in the way of the admission of such just claim; and no

denial of such claim but must necessarily be fraught with evil,

as subversive of the Creator's economy and design. [Shouts and

laughter.]

Rev. JOHN PIERPONT, who, for the first time, took part in a

Woman's Rights Convention, said: Ladies and gentlemen, a woman,

at this hour, occupies the throne of the mightiest kingdom of the

globe. Under her sway there are some hundred and fifty millions

of the human race. Has she a right to sit there? [Several voices,

"No!"] The vote here is--no; but a hundred and fifty millions

vote the contrary. If a woman can thus have the highest right

conceded to her, why should not woman have a lower? Therefore,

some women have some rights. Is not the question a fair one,--how

many women have any rights? And, also, how many rights has any

woman? Are not these fair subjects for discussion? I do not come

here to advocate any specific right for women; I come merely for

the consideration of the question, what right she has. What are

the rights which can not rightfully be denied her? Surely, some

belong to the sex at large, as part of the great family of man.

We lay it, down as the foundation of our civil theory, that man,

as man, has, and by nature is endowed with certain natural,

inviolable, indefeasible rights; not that men who have attained

the age of majority alone possess those rights; not that the

older, the young, the fair, or the dark, are alone endowed with

them; but that they belong to _all_. The rights are not of man's

giving; God gave them; and if you deny or withhold them, you

place yourself in antagonism with your Creator. The more humble

and despised is the human being claiming those rights, the more

prompt should be the feeling of every manly bosom to stand by

that humble creature of God, and see that its right is not

withheld from it! Is it a new thing in this country to allow

civil rights to a woman?

Susan B. Anthony, who had been a teacher for fifteen years, gave an

amusing description of her recent experience in attempting to speak at

a teachers' convention. Paulina Wright Davis offered the following

resolution:

_Resolved_, That inasmuch as this great movement is intended to

meet the wants, not of America only, but of the whole world, a

committee be appointed to prepare an address from this Convention

to the women of Great Britain and the continent of Europe,

setting forth our objects, and inviting their co-operation in the

same.[121]

WM. LLOYD GARRISON: I second the resolution, because it shows the

universality of our enterprise. I second it heartily, for it

manifests the grandeur of the object we are pursuing. There never

yet was a struggle for liberty which was not universal, though,

for the time, it might have appeared to be no more than local. If

the women of this country have to obtain rights which have been

denied them, the women of England, of France, of the world, have

to obtain the same; and I regard this as a struggle for the race,

sublime as the world itself. It is right that this Convention

should address the women of the whole world, in order that they

should announce precisely how they regard their own position in

the universe of God. What rights they claim are God-given; what

rights they possess, and what rights they have still to achieve.

It is time that the women of America should ask the women beyond

the Atlantic to consider their own condition, and to co-operate

with them in the same glorious struggle. There is not an argument

that God ever permitted a human being to frame, that can be

brought against this cause. This is a free Convention, and we are

willing that any man or woman who has aught against its

principles, should come here and freely urge it. And yet, with a

free platform, where is the human being who cares to argue the

question? Where is the man who presents himself decently, and

proffers a word of reasonable argument against our cause? I have

yet to see that man. Instead, we have blackguardism, defamation,

rowdyism, profanity; we have all the indications that hell from

beneath is stirred up against this divine Convention, for it is

divine--it takes hold of heaven and the throne of God! (Hisses).

Hiss, ye serpents! ye have nothing else to offer. There is not

one of you to whom God has given a brain to fashion an argument.

But it goes on record, and all the journals of this city will

themselves bear testimony, that no one takes the platform, like

an honest and honorable man, to argue this cause down. Therefore,

the whole ground is won, and we stand, as we have stood from the

beginning, on the rock of victory.

It was rather singular that in this Convention, so entirely under the

control of a mob, that there should be found one man who dared to

stand upon the platform and announce that he had been an opponent for

ten years, and was connected with a journal which had initiated this

mob; and now he desired to give in his adhesion, and to confess his

conversion. This was one of the remarkable incidents of the occasion.

ISAAC C. PRAY said: Until within two years I have been an

incessant opponent of the persons on this platform, in a leading

journal in this city, which gives the cue to the hisses in that

gallery. I have myself given--(applause). Pray spare your

plaudits; I do not wish for them. In November, 1851, I retired

from that journal, and I have since applied myself to study. This

movement, among others, has come under my notice, and I have

given it much attention. The result is, that I have entirely

changed my opinion with regard to it. I know, not only that my

former opinion was wrong, but that this movement is one which you

can not stop; it emanates from the Deity himself, whose influence

urges man forward on the path of progress. I say to the clergy,

if they ignore this movement, they ignore that accountability to

the Almighty which they preach. I do not mean to enter into any

argument on this subject, but merely wish to say, as each one is

accountable for his energies to God, you must go on in this good

and holy cause; also, I wish to show that there is such a thing

as a man's changing his opinion. This cause has been the butt of

all the ridicule I could command. I scoffed at it, in season and

out of season. There is not a lady on this platform whom my pen

has not assailed; and now I come to make all the reparation in my

power, by thus raising my voice on behalf of them and the cause

committed to their hands. (Cheers and stamping).

As it was inconsistent with Mrs. Mott's Quaker principles to call upon

the police for the forcible suppression of the mob, she vacated the

chair, inviting Ernestine L. Rose to take her place. The last evening

session opened with a song by G. W. Clark; but the music did not

soothe the mob soul; he was greeted with screeches, which his voice

only at brief intervals could drown.

The President then introduced a German lady, Madame Mathilde Francesca

Anneké, editor of a liberal woman's rights newspaper which had been

suppressed in Germany. She had but recently landed in our country, and

hastened to the Convention to enjoy the blessings of free speech in a

republic. She had heard so much of freedom in America, that she could

hardly express her astonishment at what she witnessed. After many

attempts, and with great difficulty, owing to the tumult and

interruption by impertinent noises, she spoke as follows, in German,

Mrs. Rose translating her remarks into English:

I wish to say only a few words. On the other side of the Atlantic

there is no freedom of any kind, and we have not even the right

to claim freedom of speech. But can it be that here, too, there

are tyrants who violate the individual right to express opinions

on any subject? And do you call yourselves republicans? No; there

is no republic without freedom of speech. (The tumult showing no

signs of abatement),

WENDELL PHILLIPS came forward, and said: Allow me to say one

word, purely as a matter of the self-respect which you owe to

yourselves. We are citizens of a great country, which, from Maine

to Georgia, has ex tended a welcome to Kossuth, and this New York

audience is now looking upon a noble woman who stood by his side

in the battle-fields of Hungary; one who has faced the cannon of

Francis Joseph of Austria, for the rights of the people. Is this

the welcome you give her to the shores of republican America? A

woman who has proved her gallantry and attachment to principles,

wishes to say five words to you of the feelings with which she is

impressed toward this cause. I know, fellow-citizens, that you

will hear her.

The audience showing a better disposition to hear Madame Anneké, she

proceeded thus:

I saw this morning, in a paper, that the women of America have

met in convention to claim their rights. I rejoiced when I saw

that they recognized their equality; and I rejoiced when I saw

that they have not forgotten their sisters in Germany. I wished

to be here with my American sisters, to tell them that I

sympathize in their efforts; but I was too sick to come, and

would probably not have been here but that another German woman,

a friend of this movement, came to Newark and took me out of my

sick bed. But it was the want of a knowledge of the English

language which kept me away, more than sickness.

Before I came here, I knew the tyranny and oppression of kings; I

felt it in my own person, and friends, and country; and when I

came here I expected to find that freedom which is denied us at

home. Our sisters in Germany have long desired freedom, but there

the desire is repressed as well in man as in woman. There is no

freedom there, even to claim human rights. Here they expect to

find freedom of speech; here, for if we can not claim it here,

where should we go for it? Here, at least, we ought to be able to

express our opinions on all subjects; and yet, it would appear,

there is no freedom even here to claim human rights, although the

only hope in our country for freedom of speech and action, is

directed to this country for illustration and example. That

freedom I claim. The women of my country look to this for

encouragement and sympathy; and they, also, sympathize with this

cause. We hope it will go on and prosper; and many hearts across

the ocean in Germany are beating in unison with those here.

Madame Anneké retired amid a great uproar, which increased when Mr.

Phillips presented himself again. He persisted against frequent

clamorous interruptions in his purpose to speak, and addressed the

meeting as follows:

Mr. PHILLIPS: I am not surprised at the reception I meet.

(Interruption).

Mrs. ROSE: As presiding officer for this evening, I call upon the

police. The mayor, too, promised to see that our meetings should

not be disturbed, and I now call upon him to preserve order. As

citizens of New York, we have a right to this protection, for we

pay our money for it. My friends, keep order, and then we shall

know who the disturbers are.

Mr. PHILLIPS: You are making a better speech than I can, by your

conduct. This is proof positive of the necessity of this

Convention. The time has been when other Conventions have been

met like this--with hisses. (Renewed hisses). Go on with your

hisses; geese have hissed before now. If it be your pleasure to

argue the question for us, by proving that the men here, at

least, are not fit for exercising political rights. (Great

uproar).

Mrs. ROSE: I regret that I have again to call upon the police to

keep order; and if they are not able to do it, I call upon the

meeting to help them.

Mr. PHILLIPS: You prove one thing to-night, that the men of New

York do not understand the meaning of civil liberty and free

discussion.

Antoinette Brown made an attempt to speak, but soon ceased amidst the

most indescribable uproar. Mr. Elliott then jumped upon the platform,

and harangued the audience as a representative of the rowdies, though

he claimed for himself great fairness and respectability. He said:

If taxation without representation be robbery, then robbery is

right, and I am willing to be robbed. For twelve years I have

paid taxes; and here and in other countries I have, in return,

got protection. Robbery is, to take away property forcibly

without giving an equivalent for it; but a good equivalent is

given for taxation. In this and other countries, the property of

individuals is taken from them, as when an owner of land is

deprived of it by the State to make a railroad through it; that

is no robbery; an equivalent is given, and the owner is fairly

dealt by. We have heard many instances of the tyranny inflicted

on women; but is that a reason that they should vote? If it be,

minors, who are under a double tyranny, that of father and mother--

Here the audience seemed to have lost all patience, and Mr. Elliott's

voice was completely drowned in the uproar. He retired, repeating that

he had proved the rowdies were not all on one side. The confusion now

reached its climax. A terrific uproar, shouting, yelling, screaming,

bellowing, laughing, stamping, cries of "Burleigh," "Root," "Truth,"

"Shut up," "Take a drink," "Greedey," etc., prevented anything orderly

being heard, and the Convention, on the motion of Mrs. Rose, was

adjourned _sine die_; the following resolution having first been read

by Dr. Harriot K. Hunt, and passed without dissent:

_Resolved_, That the members of this Convention, and the audience

assembled, tender their thanks to Lucretia Mott for the grace,

firmness, ability, and courtesy with which she has discharged her

important and often arduous duties.

_Daily Tribune, Sept. 8, 1853._

WOMAN'S RIGHTS CONVENTION:--MEETING AT THE TABERNACLE.

_Evening Session_.--Tremendous uproar--close of the Convention.

Yesterday evening being the last sitting of this Convention, the

approach to the Tabernacle was thronged long before the hour for

opening the doors, and considerable excitement seemed to prevail.

At about seven o'clock the Tabernacle doors were thrown open, and

the rush for tickets and admission to the anxious throng could

only be equalled by that of a Jenny Lind night. The building,

capable of holding some 2,000 persons, was immediately filled to

excess, and the principal promoters of the movement took their

places on the platform.... Mr. George W. Clark, who had been

requested to sing a song on "Freedom of Thought," did so in a

style apparently not much approved by the audience, who at a very

early stage began to give vent to all kinds of groans and

ironical cheers.

Mrs. MARTIN, of this State, was then introduced, and with

considerable difficulty began her address.

(Cries--"No! no!" and tremendous yells and laughter). "Time's

up," "That'll do." (Loud hisses, groans, laughter, tigers, and

demoniac sounds from the galleries). Cries of "Phillips!

Phillips." (Hisses and yells).

_Tribune, Sept. 9, 1853._

We do not know whether any of the _gentlemen_ who have succeeded

in breaking up the Woman's Rights Convention, or of the other

_gentlemen_ who have succeeded in three sessions at Metropolitan

Hall in silencing a regularly appointed and admitted delegate,

will ever be ashamed of their passion and hostility, but we have

little doubt that some of them will live to understand their own

folly. At any rate, they have accomplished a very different thing

from what they now suppose. For if it had been their earnest

desire to strengthen the cause of Woman's Rights, they could not

have done the work half so effectively. Nothing is so good for a

weak and unpopular movement as this sort of opposition. Had

Antoinette Brown been allowed to speak at Metropolitan Hall, her

observations would certainly have occupied but a fraction of the

time now wasted, and would have had just the weight proper to

their sense and appropriateness, and no more. But instead of this

the World's Convention was disturbed and its orators silenced.

The consequences will be the mass of people throughout the

country who might otherwise not know of its existence, will have

their attention called and their sympathies enlisted in its

behalf. So, too, when Antoinette Brown is put down by Rev. John

Chambers and his colleagues, and denied what is her clear right

as a member of the Temperance Convention by a vociferous mob,

composed, we are sorry to say, very largely of clergymen, every

impartial person sees that she is surrounded with a prestige and

importance which, whatever her talents as a speaker, she could

hardly hope to have attained. Many who question the propriety of

woman's appearing in public, will revolt at the gagging of one

who had a right to speak and claimed simply to use it on a proper

occasion. There is in the public mind of this country an

intuitive love of fair play and free speech, and those who

outrage it for any purpose of their own merely reinforce their

opponents, and bestow a mighty power on the ideas they hate and

fain would suppress.

_Tribune, Sept. 12, 1853._

Arguments _pro_ and _con_. The meetings at the Tabernacle Tuesday

and Wednesday last, exhibited some features not often paralleled

in the progress of any public agitation for the redress of

grievances, or the vindication of rights. The advocates of an

enlargement of the allotted sphere of woman, had hired the house,

paid the advertising and other expenses, gathered at their own

expense from their distant homes, and taken all the

responsibilities of the outlay, yet they offered and desired

throughout to surrender their own platform for one-half of the

time, to any respectable and capable antagonists who should see

fit to appear and attempt to show why their demands were not just

and their grievances real. Consequently, though they are engaged

in a struggle, not only against numbers and power, and fashion

and immemorial custom, but with the Pulpit and the Press actively

and bitterly leading and spurring on their antagonists, and with

no access to the public ear but from the public platform, we

consider this proposition more than liberal--it was chivalric and

generous. We listened with interest to some of the arguments

_pro_ and _con_, and propose here to recapitulate their

substance, that our readers may see at a glance the present

position and bearing of the controversy. We will begin with the

first speech we heard, that of

Rev. WM. H. CHANNING: They say the public platform is not in

woman's sphere; but let us understand why. Jenny Lind stands on

that platform before thousands of men and women, and sings, "I

know that my Redeemer liveth," with all hearts approving, all

voices applauding, and nobody lisps a word that she is out of her

sphere. Well, Antoinette Brown believes the sentiment so sang to

be the hope of a lost world, and feels herself called to bear

witness in behalf of that religion, and to commend His salvation

to the understanding and hearts of all who will hear her. Why may

she not obey this impulse, and bear the tidings of a world's

salvation to those perishing in darkness and sin? What is there

unfeminine or revolting in her preaching the truth which Jenny

Lind may sing without objection and amid universal applause?

Answer by things "in male costumes." Hiss-s-s.

Mrs. ERNESTINE L. ROSE: The law declares husband and wife one;

and such we all feel that they should be, and must be when the

marriage is a true one. Now, why should that same law base their

union or oneness on inequality or subjugation? The wife dies and

the husband inherits all her property, as is right; but let the

husband die, and the greater part of the property is taken from

the wife and given to others, even though all that property was

earned or inherited by the wife. She may be turned out of the

house she was born in and which was hers until marriage, and see

it given to her husband's brothers or other kindred who are

strangers to her. I insist that the wife should own and inherit

the property of the husband just to the same extent that the

husband inherits that of the wife--why not?

Answer to the aforesaid--Hiss-s-s-s! Bow-ow-ow!

HARRIOT K. HUNT: I plant myself on the basis of the Declaration

of Independence and insist, with our Revolutionary sires, that

taxation without representation is tyranny. Well; here am I, an

independent American woman, educated for and living by the

practice of medicine. I own property, and pay taxes on that

property. I demand of the Government that taxes me that it should

allow me an equal voice with the other tax-payers in the disposal

of the public money. I am certainly not less intelligent than

thousands who, though scarcely able to read their ballots, are

entitled to vote. I am allowed to vote in any bank or insurance

company when I choose to be a stockholder; why ought I not to

vote in the disposition of public money raised by tax, as well as

those men who do not pay taxes, or those who do either?

Answer of the aforesaid--Yah! wow! Hiss-s-s-s!

LUCY STONE: I plead for the right of woman to the control of her

own person as a moral, intelligent, accountable being. I know a

wife who has not set foot outside of her husband's house for

three years, because her husband forbids her doing so when he is

present, and locks her up when he is absent. That wife is gray

with sorrow and despair though now in middle life, but there is

no redress for her wrongs because the law makes her husband her

master, and there is no proof that he beats or bruises her; there

is nothing in his treatment of her that the law does not allow. I

protest against such a law and demand its overthrow; and I

protest against any law which limits the sphere of woman, as a

bar to her intellectual development. You say she _can not_ do

this and that, but if so, what need of a law to prevent her? You

say her intellectual achievements have not equaled those of man;

but I answer, that she has had no motive, no opportunity for such

achievement. Close all the avenues, take away all the incitement

for man's ambition, and he would do no more than woman does.

Grant her freedom, education, and opportunity, and she will do

what God intended she should do, no less, no more. Men! you

dwarf, you wrong yourselves in restraining and fettering the

intellectual development of woman! I ask for her liberty to do

whatever moral and useful deed she proves able to do--why should

I ask in vain?

Answer by time-serving Press: Men, Women, and Bloomers! Faugh!

Bah!

ANTOINETTE BROWN: I plead that the mother may not be legally

robbed of her children. I know a mother who was left a widow

with three young children. She was able, and most willing to

support them in humble independence; but her husband before he

died, had secretly given two of them to his relatives, and the

law tore them from the mother's bosom, and left her but the

youngest, who was soon taken from her by death. That, mother

lived to see her two surviving children, grow up, the one to be a

drunkard and the other a felon, all through neglect and the want

of that care and guardianship which none so well as a parent can

be relied on to afford. I plead for woman as a mother, that her

right to her children be recognized as at least equal to that of

the father, and that he, being dead, no other can have a right to

their guardianship paramount or even equal to hers.

Pantalooned mob as aforesaid: Oh, dry up! Bow-ow! Waugh!

Hiss-s-s! Get out!

The case is still on.

[Illustration: SUSAN B. ANTHONY (with autograph).]

WOMAN'S RIGHTS STATE CONVENTION,

ROCHESTER, N. Y., NOVEMBER 30 AND DECEMBER 1, 1853.

As William Henry Channing resided at Rochester, and felt that the time

had come for some more active measures, he was invited to prepare the

call and resolutions for the Convention. The following was issued and

extensively circulated, and signed by many of the leading men and

women of the State:

THE JUST AND EQUAL RIGHTS OF WOMEN.

_To the Men and Women of New York:_

The "Woman's Rights" Movement is a practical one, demanding

prompt and efficient action for the relief of oppressive wrongs;

and, as the Conventions held for several years past in different

States, have answered their end of arousing earnest public

attention, the time has come for calling upon the people to

reform the evils from which women suffer, by their

Representatives in Legislative Assemblies.

The wise and humane of all classes in society, however much they

may differ upon speculative points as to woman's nature and

function, agree that there are actual abuses of women, tolerated

by custom and authorized by law, which are condemned alike by the

genius of republican institutions and the spirit of the Christian

religion. Conscience and common sense, then, unite to sanction

their immediate redress. Thousands of the best men and women, in

all our communities, are asking such questions as these:

1. Why should not woman's work be paid for according to the

quality of the work done, and not the sex of the worker?

2. How shall we open for woman's energies new spheres of well

remunerated industry?

3. Why should not wives, equally with husbands, be entitled to

their own earnings?

4. Why should not widows, equally with widowers, become by law

the legal guardians, as they certainly are by nature the natural

guardians, of their own children?

5. On what just ground do the laws make a distinction between men

and women, in regard to the ownership of property, inheritance,

and the administration of estates?

6. Why should women, any more than men, be taxed without

representation?

7. Why may not women claim to be tried by a jury of their peers,

with exactly the same right as men claim to be and actually are?

8. If women need the protection of the laws, and are subject to

the penalties of the laws equally with men, why should they not

have an equal influence in making the laws, and appointing

Legislatures, the Judiciary, and Executive?

And, finally, if governments--according to our National

Declaration of Independence--"derive their just powers from the

consent of the governed," why should women, any more than men, be

governed without their own consent; and why, therefore, is not

woman's right to suffrage precisely equal to man's?

For the end of finding out practical answers to these and similar

questions, and making suitable arrangements to bring the existing

wrongs of women, in the State of New York, before the Legislature

at its next session, we, the undersigned, do urgently request the

men and women of the Commonwealth to assemble in Convention, in

the city of Rochester, on Wednesday, November 30th, and Thursday,

December 1, 1853.[122]

The Convention assembled at Corinthian Hall at 10 o'clock. Rev. Samuel

J. May, of Syracuse, in the chair.[123] After thanking the Convention

for the honor conferred, he ran the parallel between the laws for

married women and the slaves on the Southern plantation, and then

introduced Ernestine L. Rose, to paint in more vivid colors the

picture he had outlined.

Mrs. ROSE said: The remarks of the president have impressed us to

do our duty with all the earnestness in our power. This is termed

a woman's rights movement. Alas! that the painful necessity

should exist, for woman's calling a Convention to claim her

rights from those who have been created to go hand in hand, and

heart in heart with her; whose interests can not be divided from

hers. Why does she claim them? Because every human being has a

right to all the advantages society has to bestow, if his having

them does not injure the rights of others. Life is valueless

without liberty, and shall we not claim that which is dearer than

life? In savage life, liberty is synonymous with aggression. In

civilized countries it is founded on equality of rights.

Oppression always produces suffering through the whole of the

society where it exists; this movement ought, therefore, to be

called a human rights movement. The wrongs of woman are so many

(indeed there is scarcely anything else but wrongs) that there is

not time to mention them all in one convention. She would speak

at present of legal wrongs, and leave it to her hearers, if all

are not--men, perhaps, more than women--sufferers by these

wrongs. How can woman have a right to her children when the right

to herself is taken away? At the marriage altar the husband says

in effect, "All this is mine, all mine is my own." She ceases to

exist legally, except when she violates the laws; then she

assumes her identity just long enough to receive the penalty.

When the husband dies poor, leaving the widow with small children

(here the speaker pictured thrillingly the suffering of a poor,

weak-minded, helpless woman, with small children dependent on

her), she is then acknowledged the guardian of her children. But

any property left them takes away her right of control. If there

is property the law steps in as guardian of it and therefore of

the children. The widowed mother is their guardian, only on

condition that the husband has made her so by will. Can any human

being be benefited by such gross violations of humanity?

MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE said: The legal disabilities of woman are

many, as not only known to those who bear them, but they are

acknowledged by Kent, Story, and many other legal authorities. A

wife has no management in the joint earnings of herself and her

husband; they are entirely under control of the husband, who is

obliged to furnish the wife merely the common necessaries of

life; all that she receives beyond these is looked upon by the

law as a favor, and not held as her right. A mother is denied the

custody of her own child; a most barbarous and unjust law, which

robs her of the child placed in her care by the great Creator

himself. A widow is allowed the use merely of one-third of the

real estate left at the husband's death; and when her minor

children have grown up she must surrender the personal property,

even to the family Bible, and the pictures of her dear children.

In view of such laws the women engaged in this movement ask that

the wife shall be made heir to the husband to the same extent

that he is now her heir.

Taxation without representation is another of the wrongs that

woman endures. In this she is held below the negro in the

political scale; for the black man, when not possessing property

to the extent of two hundred and fifty dollars, is not allowed to

vote, but neither is he taxed. The present law of divorce is very

unjust; the husband, whether the innocent or the guilty party,

retaining all the wife's property, as also the control of the

children unless by special decree of the court they are assigned

to the mother.

Rev. ANTOINETTE BROWN said: The wife owes service and labor to

her husband as much and as absolutely as the slave does to his

master. This grates harshly upon the ears of Christendom; but it

is made palpably and practically true all through our statute

books, despite the poetic fancy which views woman as elevated in

the social estate; but a little lower than the angels.

Letters were read from Paulina Wright Davis, Dr. Trail, Mary C.

Vaughan, and Hon. William Hay. A series of fourteen resolutions were

presented by Mr. Channing, and discussed, which suggested the

appointment of various committees. One to prepare an address to the

Legislature, and to ask a special hearing before a joint committee to

consider the whole subject of the just and equal rights of woman;

another to prepare an address to the capitalists and industrialists of

New York on the best modes of employing and remunerating women.

_Resolved_, That the movement, now in progress throughout the

United States, for securing the just and equal rights of women,

in education, industry, law, politics, religion, and social life,

is timely, wise, and practical; that it is authorized by all the

essential principles of Republican institutions, and sanctioned

by the spirit of the Christian religion; and finally that it is

but a carrying on to completeness of a reform, already begun, by

legal provisions, in the most advanced States of the Union.

_Resolved_, That the design of all true legislation should be the

elevation of every member of the community--and that the

violation of this legitimate design, in depriving woman of her

just and equal rights, is not only highly injurious to her, but

by reason of the equilibrium which pervades all existence, that

man, too, is impeded in his progress by the very chains which

bind woman to the lifeless skeleton of feudal civilization.

_Resolved_, That we do not ask for woman's political, civil,

industrial, and social equality with man, in the spirit of

antagonism, or with a wish to produce separate and conflicting

interests between the sexes, but because the onward progress of

society and the highest aspirations of the human race, demand

that woman should everywhere be recognized as the co-equal and

co-sovereign of man.

_Resolved_, That women justly claim an equally free access with

men, to the highest means of mental, moral, and physical culture,

provided in seminaries, colleges, professional and industrial

schools; and that we call upon all friends of progress and upon

the Legislature of New York, in establishing and endowing

institutions, to favor pre-eminently those which seek to place

males and females on a level of equal advantages in their system

of education.

_Resolved_, That, inasmuch as universal experience proves the

inseparable connection between dependence and degradation--while

it is plain to every candid observer of society that women are

kept poor, by being crowded together, to compete with and

undersell one another in a few branches of labor, and that from

this very poverty of women, spring many of the most terrible

wrongs and evils, which corrupt and endanger society: therefore

do we invite the earnest attention of capitalists, merchants,

traders, manufacturers, and mechanics, to the urgent need, which

everywhere exists, of opening to women new avenues of honest and

honorable employment, and we do hereby call upon all manly men to

make room for their sisters to earn an independent livelihood.