and assumest the ground that Abolitionists are the enemies of the South.
We say, we have the right, and mean to exercise it. I believe that every
northern Legislature has a right, and ought to use the right, to send a
solemn remonstrance to every southern Legislature on the subject of
slavery. Just as much right as the South has to send up a remonstrance
against our free presses, free pens, and free tongues. Let the North
follow her example; but, instead of asking her to enslave her subjects,
entreat her to _free_ them. The South may pretend _now_, that we have no
right to interfere, because it suits her convenience to say so; but a few
years ago, (1820,) we find that our Vice President, R. M. Johnson, in his
speech on the Missouri question, was amazed at the ‘cold insensibility,
the eternal apathy towards the slaves in the District of Columbia,’ which
was exhibited by _northern_ men, ‘though they had occular demonstration
continually’ before them of the abominations of slavery. _Then_ the South
wondered _we did not interfere with slavery_--and _now_ she says we have
no right to interfere.
I find, on the 57th p. a false assertion with regard to Abolitionists.
After showing the folly of our rejecting the worldly doctrine of
expediency, so excellent in thy view, thou then sayest that we say, the
reason why we do not go to the South is, that we should be murdered. Now,
if there are any half-hearted Abolitionists, who are thus recreant to the
high and holy principle of ‘Duty is ours, and events are God’s,’ then I
must leave such to explain their own inconsistencies; but that this is the
reason assigned by the Society, as a body, I never have seen nor believed.
So far from it, that I have invariably heard those who understood the
principles of the Anti-Slavery Society best, _deny_ that it was a duty to
go to the South, _not_ because they would be killed, but because the
_North was guilty_, and therefore ought to be labored with _first_. They
took exactly the same view of the subject, which was taken by the southern
friend of mine to whom I have already alluded. ‘Until northern women,
(said she,) do their duty on the subject of slavery, _southern_ women
cannot be expected to do theirs.’ I therefore utterly deny this charge.
Such may be the opinion of a few, but it is not and cannot be proved to be
a principle of action in the Anti-Slavery Society. The fact is, we need no
excuse for not going to the South, so long as the North is as deeply
involved in the guilt of slavery as she is, and as blind to her duty.
One word with regard to these remarks: ‘Before the Abolition movements
commenced, both northern and southern men expressed their views freely at
the South.’ This, also, I deny, because, as a southerner, _I know_ that
_I_ never could express my views freely on the abominations of slavery,
without exciting anger, even in professors of religion. It is true, ‘the
_dangers_, _evils_ and _mischiefs_ of slavery’ could be, and were
discussed at the South and the North. Yes, we might talk as much as we
pleased about _these_, as long as we viewed slavery as a _misfortune_ to
the _slaveholder_, and talked of ‘the dangers, evils and mischiefs of
slavery’ to _him_, and pitied _him_ for having had such a ‘sad inheritance
entailed upon him.’ But could any man or woman ever ‘express their views
freely’ on the SIN of slavery at the South? I say, never! Could they
express their views freely as to the dangers, mischiefs and evils of
slavery to the _poor suffering slave_? No, never! It was only whilst the
_slaveholder_ was regarded as _an unfortunate sufferer_, and sympathized
with _as such_, that he was willing to talk, and be talked to, on this
‘delicate subject.’ Hence we find, that as soon as _he_ is addressed as a
_guilty oppressor_, why then he is in a phrenzy of passion. As soon as we
set before him the dangers, and evils, and mischiefs of slavery to _the
down-trodden victims of his oppression_, O then! the slaveholder storms
and raves like a maniac. Now look at this view of the subject: as a
southerner, I know it is the only correct one.
With regard to the discussion of ‘the subject of slavery, in the
legislative halls of the South,’ if thou hast read these debates, thou
certainly must know that they did not touch on the SIN of slavery at all;
they were wholly confined to ‘the dangers, evils and mischiefs of slavery’
to the _unfortunate slaveholder_. What did the discussion in the Virginia
legislature result in? In the _rejection of every_ plan of emancipation,
and in the passage of an act which they believed would give additional
permanency to the institution, whilst it divested it of its dangers, by
removing the free people of color to Liberia; for which purpose they voted
$20,000, but took very good care to provide, ‘that no slave to be
thereafter emancipated should have the benefit of the appropriation,’ so
fearful were they, lest masters might avail themselves of this scheme of
expatriation to manumit their slaves. The Maryland scheme is altogether
based on the principle of banishment and oppression. The colored people
were to be ‘got rid of,’ for the benefit of their lordly oppressors--_not_
set free from the noble principles of justice and mercy to _them_. If
Abolitionists have put a stop to all _such_ discussions of slavery, I, for
one, do most heartily rejoice at it. The fact is, the South is enraged,
because we have exposed her horrible hypocrisy to the world. We have torn
off the mask, and brought to light the hidden things of darkness.
To prove to thee that the South, as a body, never was prepared for
emancipation, I might detail historical facts, which are stubborn things;
but I have not the time to go into this subject that would be necessary. I
will, therefore, give a few extracts from documents published by the old
Abolition Societies, whose principle was gradualism. In 1803, in the
report of the Delaware Society, I find the following statement:--‘The
general temper and opinion of the opulent in this state, is either
_opposed_ to the generous principles of emancipation to the people of
color, or indifferent to the success of the work.’ In 1804, when a
Committee was appointed to draft a memorial to the Legislature of North
Carolina, we find the following sentiment expressed in their
Report:--‘They believe that public opinion in that state is _exceedingly
hostile to the abolition of slavery_; and _every_ attempt towards
emancipation is regarded with an indignant and jealous eye; that at
present, the inhabitants of that State consider the preservation of their
lives, and all they hold dear on earth, as depending on the continuance of
slavery, and are even riveting _more firmly_ the fetters of oppression.’
‘They believe that great difficulty would attend the presentation of an
address to the public, and that, if presented, it would not be read.’ The
address was, however, issued, and in it we find this complaint--‘Many
_aspersions_ have been cast upon the advocates of the freedom of the
blacks, by malicious and interested men.’ In 1805, in the Report of the
Alexandria Society, District of Columbia, they say--‘There is rather a
disposition to _increase_ the measure of affliction already appointed to
the poor deserted African:’ and complain of the decline of the Society,
for which they assign several reasons, one of which is, ‘the admission of
slaveholders into fellowship at its formation.’ Several of the Reports
state, that they fully learned the impolicy of _this_ measure, by the
violent opposition which these slaveholding members made to their efforts
for emancipation. Just as well might a Temperance Society admit a
practical drunkard into their ranks, as for an Abolition Society to admit
a slaveholder to membership.
In 1806, the Report of the Pennsylvania Society says--‘We believe the true
reason, why ostensible and public measures are not pursued by the
advocates of abolition in the southern states, will be found in the pretty
general impression, that it would not, _under existing circumstances_, and
in the _present temper of the public mind_, be expedient and useful.’ The
Wilmington Report ‘laments that the people of South Carolina _continue
opposed_ to our cause’--and in 1809, the Report of this same Society says,
‘We regret most sincerely the difficulty we labor under in establishing
corresponding agents in the southern states, on whose fidelity and
integrity we can firmly rely.’ In 1816, the Delaware Society makes the
following confession--‘When we look back at the bright prospects which
opened on this cause within the last 20 years, and recur to the joyful
feelings excited by the just anticipations of speedy success in this
conflict with cruelty and wrong, we cannot but feel the pressure of that
gloom which is the consequence of _disappointment and defeat_.’ In 1826,
we find the North Carolina Report acknowledging that ‘the _gentlest_
attempt to agitate the subject, or the _slightest hint_ at the work of
emancipation, is sufficient to call forth their _indignant resentment_, as
if their dearest rights were invaded.’
How, then, can our opponents say, that the cause of emancipation has been
_rolled back_ by _us_? We ask, when was it ever _forward_? As a
southerner, I repeat my solemn conviction, from _my own experience_, and
from all I can learn from historical facts, and the reports of the Gradual
Emancipation Societies of this country, and the scope of the debates
which took place in the Kentucky, Virginia and Maryland Legislatures, that
it _never was_ forward. If the tendencies of the age are towards
emancipation, they are tendencies peculiar to this age in the United
States, and have been brought about by free discussion, and in accordance,
too, with the _known laws of mind_; for collision of mind as naturally
produces light, as the striking of the flint and the steel produces fire.
_Free discussion is this collision_, and the results are visible in the
light which is breaking forth in every city, town and village, and
spreading over the hills and valleys, through the whole length and breadth
of our land. Yes! it has already reached ‘the dark valley of the shadow of
death’ in the South; and in a few brief years, He who said, ‘Let there be
light,’ will gather this moral effulgence into a focal point, and beneath
its burning rays, the heart of the slaveholder, and the chains of the
slave, will melt like wax before the orb of day.
Let us, then, take heed lest we be found fighting against God while
standing idle in the market place, or endeavoring to keep other laborers
out of the field now already white to the harvest.
Thy Friend,
A. E. GRIMKÉ.
LETTER XI.
THE SPHERE OF WOMAN AND MAN AS MORAL BEINGS THE SAME.
BROOKLINE, Mass., _8th month, 28th, 1837_.
DEAR FRIEND: I come now to that part of thy book, which is, of all others,
the most important to the women of this country; thy ‘general views in
relation to the place woman is appointed to fill by the dispensations of
heaven.’ I shall quote paragraphs from thy book, offer my objections to
them, and then throw before thee my own views.
Thou sayest, ‘Heaven has appointed to one sex the _superior_, and to the
other the _subordinate_ station, and this without any reference to the
character or conduct of either.’ This is an assertion without proof. Thou
further sayest, that ‘it was designed that the mode of gaining influence
and exercising power should be _altogether different and peculiar_.’ Does
the Bible teach this? ‘Peace on earth, and good will to men, is the
character of all the rights and privileges, the influence and the power of
_woman_.’ Indeed! Did our Holy Redeemer preach the doctrines of _peace to
our sex_ only? ‘A _man_ may act on Society by the collision of intellect,
in public debate; _he_ may urge his measures by a sense of shame, by fear
and by personal interest; _he_ may coerce by the combination of public
sentiment; _he_ may drive by physical force, and _he_ does _not_ overstep
the boundaries of his sphere.’ Did Jesus, then, give a different rule of
action to men and women? Did he tell his disciples, when he sent them out
to preach the gospel, that man might appeal to the fear, and shame, and
interest of those he addressed, and coerce by public sentiment, and drive
by physical force? ‘But (that) all the power and all the conquests that
are lawful to _woman_ are those only which appeal to the kindly, generous,
peaceful and benevolent principles?’ If so, I should come to a very
different conclusion from the one at which thou hast arrived: I should
suppose that _woman was the superior_, and _man the subordinate being_,
inasmuch as moral power is immeasurably superior to ‘physical force.’
‘Woman is to win every thing by peace and love; by making _herself_ so
much respected, &c. that to yield to _her_ opinions, and to gratify _her_
wishes, will be the free-will offering of the heart.’ This principle may
do as the rule of action to the fashionable belle, whose idol is
_herself_; whose every attitude and smile are designed to win the
admiration of others to _herself_; and who enjoys, with exquisite delight,
the double-refined incense of flattery which is offered to _her_ vanity,
by yielding to _her_ opinions, and gratifying _her_ wishes, because they
are _hers_. But to the humble Christian, who feels that it is _truth_
which she seeks to recommend to others, _truth_ which she wants them to
esteem and love, and not herself, this subtle principle must be rejected
with holy indignation. Suppose she could win thousands to her opinions,
and govern them by her wishes, how much nearer would they be to Jesus
Christ, if she presents no higher motive, and points to no higher leader?
‘But this is all to be accomplished in the domestic circle.’ Indeed! ‘Who
made thee a ruler and a judge over all?’ I read in the Bible, that Miriam,
and Deborah, and Huldah, were called to fill _public stations_ in Church
and State. I find Anna, the prophetess, speaking in the temple ‘unto all
them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.’ During his ministry on
earth, I see women following him from town to town, in the most public
manner; I hear the woman of Samaria, on her return to the city, telling
the _men_ to come and see a man who had told her all things that ever she
did. I see them even standing on Mount Calvary, around his cross, in the
most exposed situation; but He never _rebuked_ them; He never told them it
was unbecoming _their sphere in life_ to mingle in the crowds which
followed his footsteps. Then, again, I see the cloven tongues of fire
resting on each of the heads of the one hundred and twenty disciples, some
of whom were _women_; yea, I hear _them preaching_ on the day of Pentecost
to the multitudes who witnessed the outpouring of the spirit on that
glorious occasion; for, unless _women_ as well as men received the Holy
Ghost, and _prophesied_, what did Peter mean by telling them, ‘This is
_that_ which was spoken by the prophet Joel: And it shall come to pass in
the last days, said _God_, I will pour out my spirit upon _all_ flesh: and
your sons and your _daughters shall prophesy_. … And on my servants and on
my _handmaidens_, I will pour out in those days of my spirit; and _they
shall prophesy_.’ This is the plain matter of fact, as Clark and Scott,
Stratton and Locke, all allow. Mine is no ‘private interpretation,’ no
mere sectarian view.
I find, too, that Philip had four daughters which did _prophesy_; and what
is still more convincing, I read in the xi. of I. Corinthians, some
particular directions from the Apostle Paul, as to _how_ women were to
pray and prophesy in the assemblies of the people--_not_ in the domestic
circle. On examination, too, it appears that the very same word,
_Diakonos_, which, when applied to Phœbe, Romans xvi. 1, is translated
_servant_, when applied to Tychicus, Ephesians vi. 21, is rendered
_minister_. Ecclesiastical History informs us, that this same Phœbe was
pre-eminently useful, as a minister in the Church, and that female
ministers suffered martyrdom in the first ages of Christianity. And what,
I ask, does the Apostle mean when he says in Phillipians iv. 3.--‘Help
those women who labored with me in the gospel’? Did these holy women of
old perform all their gospel labors in ‘the domestic and social circle’? I
trow not.
Thou sayest, ‘the moment woman begins to feel the promptings of ambition,
or the thirst for power, her ægis of defence is gone.’ Can man, then,
retain his ægis when he indulges these guilty passions? Is it woman only
who suffers this loss?
‘All the generous promptings of chivalry, all the poetry of romantic
gallantry, depend upon woman’s retaining her place as _dependent_ and
_defenceless_, and making no claims, and maintaining no rights, but what
are the gifts of honor, rectitude and love.’
I cannot refrain from pronouncing this sentiment as beneath the dignity of
any woman who names the name of Christ. No woman, who understands her
dignity as a moral, intellectual, and accountable being, cares aught for
any attention or any protection, vouchsafed by ‘the promptings of
chivalry, and the poetry of romantic gallantry’? Such a one loathes such
littleness, and turns with disgust from all such silly insipidities. Her
noble nature is insulted by such paltry, sickening adulation, and she will
not stoop to drink the foul waters of so turbid a stream. If all this
sinful foolery is to be withdrawn from our sex, with all my heart I say,
_the sooner the better_. Yea, I say more, no woman who lives up to the
true glory of her womanhood, will ever be treated with such _practical
contempt_. Every man, when in the presence of true moral greatness, ‘will
find an influence thrown around him,’ which will utterly forbid the
exercise of ‘the poetry of romantic gallantry.’
What dost thou mean by woman’s retaining her place as defenceless and
dependent? Did our Heavenly Father furnish man with any offensive or
defensive weapons? Was _he_ created any less defenceless than _she_ was?
Are they not equally defenceless, equally dependent on Him? What did Jesus
say to his disciples, when he commissioned them to preach the
gospel?--‘Behold, I send you forth as SHEEP in the midst of wolves; be ye
wise as serpents, and _harmless_ as _doves_. What more could he have said
to women?
Again, she must ‘make no claims, and maintain no rights, but what are the
gifts of honor, rectitude and love.’ From whom does woman receive her
_rights_? From God, or from man? What dost thou mean by saying, her rights
are the _gifts_ of honor, rectitude and love? One would really suppose
that man, as her lord and master, was the gracious giver of her rights,
and that these rights were bestowed upon her by ‘the promptings of
chivalry, and the poetry of romantic gallantry,’--out of the abundance of
his honor, rectitude and love. Now, if I understand the real state of the
case, woman’s rights are not the gifts of man--no! nor the _gifts_ of God.
His gifts to her may be recalled at his good pleasure--but her _rights_
are an integral part of her moral being; they cannot be withdrawn; they
must live with her forever. Her rights lie at the foundation of all her
duties; and, so long as the divine commands are binding upon her, so long
must her rights continue.
‘A woman may seek the aid of co-operation and combination among her own
sex, to assist her in her appropriate offices of piety, charity,’ &c.
_Appropriate_ offices! Ah! here is the great difficulty. What are they?
Who can point them out? Who has ever attempted to draw a line of
separation between the duties of men and women, as _moral_ beings, without
committing the grossest inconsistencies on the one hand, or running into
the most arrant absurdities on the other?
‘Whatever, in any measure, throws a woman into the attitude of a
combatant, either for herself or others--whatever binds her in a party
conflict--whatever obliges her in any way to exert coercive influences,
throws her out of her appropriate sphere.’ If, by a _combatant_, thou
meanest one who ‘drives by _physical force_,’ then I say, _man_ has no
more right to appear as _such_ a combatant than woman; for all the pacific
precepts of the gospel were given to _him_, as well as to her. If, by a
_party conflict_, thou meanest a struggle for power, either civil or
ecclesiastical, a thirst for the praise and the honor of man, why, then I
would ask, is this the proper sphere of _any_ moral, accountable being,
man or woman? If, by _coercive influences_, thou meanest the use of force
or of fear, such as slaveholders and warriors employ, then, I repeat, that
_man_ has no more right to exert these than _woman_. All such influences
are repudiated by the precepts and examples of Christ, and his apostles;
so that, after all, this appropriate sphere of woman is _just as
appropriate to man_. These ‘general principles are correct,’ if thou wilt
only permit them to be of _general application_.
Thou sayest that the propriety of woman’s coming forward as a suppliant
for a portion of her sex who are bound in cruel bondage, depends entirely
on its _probable results_. I thought the disciples of Jesus were to walk
by _faith_, _not_ by sight. Did Abraham reason as to the _probable
results_ of his offering up Isaac? No! or he could not have raised his
hand against the life of his son; because in Isaac, he had been told, his
seed should be called,--that seed in whom all the nations of the earth
were to be blessed. O! when shall we learn that God is wiser than
man--that his ways are higher than our ways, his thoughts than our
thoughts--and that ‘obedience is better than sacrifice, and to hearken
than the fat of rams?’ If we are always to _reason_ on the _probable
results_ of performing our duty, I wonder what our Master meant by telling
his disciples, that they must become like _little children_. I used to
think he designed to inculcate the necessity of walking by faith, in
childlike simplicity, docility and humility. But if we are to _reason_ as
to the _probable results_ of obeying the injunctions to plead for the
widow and the fatherless, and to deliver the spoiled out of the hand of
the oppressor, &c., then I do not know what he meant to teach.
According to what thou sayest, the women of this country are not to be
governed by principles of duty, but by the effect their petitions produce
on the members of Congress, and by the opinions of these men. If they deem
them ‘obtrusive, indecorous, and unwise,’ they must not be sent. If _thou_
canst consent to exchange the precepts of the Bible for the opinions of
_such a body of men_ as now sit on the destinies of this nation, I cannot.
What is this but _obeying man_ rather than God, and seeking the _praise of
man_ rather than of God? As to our petitions increasing the evils of
slavery, this is merely an opinion, the correctness or incorrectness of
which remains to be proved. When I hear Senator Preston of South Carolina,
saying, that ‘he regarded the concerted movement upon the District of
Columbia as an attempt to storm the gates of the citadel--as throwing the
bridge over the moat’--and declaring that ‘the South must resist the
_danger_ in its inception, or it would _soon become irresistible_‘--I feel
confident that petitions will effect the work of emancipation, _thy_
opinion to the contrary notwithstanding. And when I hear Francis W.
Pickens, from the same State, saying in a speech delivered in
Congress--‘Mr. Speaker, we cannot mistake all these things. The truth is,
the moral power of the world is against us. It is idle to disguise it. We
must, sooner or later, meet the great issue that is to be made on this
subject. Deeply connected with this, is the movement to be made on the
District of Columbia. If the power be asserted in Congress to interfere
here, or any approach be made toward that end, _it will give a shock to
our institutions_ and the country, the consequences of which no man can
foretell. Sir, as well might you grapple with iron grasp into the very
heart and vitals of South Carolina, as to touch this subject here.’ When I
hear these things from the lips of keen-eyed politicians of the South,
northern apologies for not interfering with the subject of slavery, ‘lest
it should increase, rather than diminish the evils it is wished to remove’
affect me little.