females, as petitioners and partisans, into every political measure that
may tend to injure and oppress their sex.’ As to their ever becoming
partisans, i.e. sacrificing principles to power or interest, I reprobate
this under all circumstances, and in _both_ sexes. But I trust my sisters
may always be permitted to _petition_ for a redress of grievances. Why
not? The right of petition is the only political right that women have:
why not let them exercise it whenever they are aggrieved? Our fathers
waged a bloody conflict with England, because _they_ were taxed without
being represented. This is just what unmarried women of property now are.
_They_ were not willing to be governed by laws which _they_ had no voice
in making; but this is the way in which women are governed in this
Republic. If, then, _we_ are taxed without being represented, and governed
by laws _we_ have no voice in framing, then, surely, we ought to be
permitted at least to remonstrate against ‘every political measure that
may tend to injure and oppress our sex in various parts of the nation, and
under the various public measures that may hereafter be enforced.’ Why
not? Art thou afraid to trust the women of this country with discretionary
power as to petitioning? Is there not sound principle and common sense
enough among them, to regulate the exercise of this right? I believe they
will always use it wisely. I am not afraid to trust my sisters--not I.
Thou sayest, ‘In this country, petitions to Congress, in reference to
official duties of legislators, seem, IN ALL CASES, to fall entirely
without the sphere of female duty. Men are the proper persons to make
appeals to the rulers whom they appoint,’ &c. Here I entirely dissent from
thee. The fact that women are denied the right of voting for members of
Congress, is but a poor reason why they should also be deprived of the
right of petition. If their numbers are counted to swell the number of
Representatives in our State and National Legislatures, the _very least_
that can be done is to give them the right of petition in all cases
whatsoever; and without any abridgement. If not, they are mere slaves,
known only through their masters.
In my next, I shall throw out my own views with regard to ‘the appropriate
sphere of woman’--and for the present, subscribe myself,
Thy Friend,
A. E. GRIMKÉ.
LETTER XII.
HUMAN RIGHTS NOT FOUNDED ON SEX.
EAST BOYLSTON, Mass., _10th mo. 2d, 1837_.
DEAR FRIEND: In my last, I made a sort of running commentary upon thy
views of the appropriate sphere of woman, with something like a promise,
that in my next, I would give thee my own.
The investigation of the rights of the slave has led me to a better
understanding of my own. I have found the Anti-Slavery cause to be the
high school of morals in our land--the school in which _human rights_ are
more fully investigated, and better understood and taught, than in any
other. Here a great fundamental principle is uplifted and illuminated, and
from this central light, rays innumerable stream all around. Human beings
have _rights_, because they are _moral_ beings: the rights of _all_ men
grow out of their moral nature; and as all men have the same moral nature,
they have essentially the same rights. These rights may be wrested from
the slave, but they cannot be alienated: his title to himself is as
perfect _now_, as is that of Lyman Beecher: it is stamped on his moral
being, and is, like it, imperishable. Now if rights are founded in the
nature of our moral being, then the _mere circumstance of sex_ does not
give to man higher rights and responsibilities, than to woman. To suppose
that it does, would be to deny the self-evident truth, that the ‘physical
constitution is the mere instrument of the moral nature.’ To suppose that
it does, would be to break up utterly the relations, of the two natures,
and to reverse their functions, exalting the animal nature into a monarch,
and humbling the moral into a slave; making the former a proprietor, and
the latter its property. When human beings are regarded as _moral_ beings,
_sex_, instead of being enthroned upon the summit, administering upon
rights and responsibilities, sinks into insignificance and nothingness. My
doctrine then is, that whatever it is morally right for man to do, it is
morally right for woman to do. Our duties originate, not from difference
of sex, but from the diversity of our relations in life, the various gifts
and talents committed to our care, and the different eras in which we
live.
This regulation of duty by the mere circumstance of sex, rather than by
the fundamental principle of moral being, has led to all that multifarious
train of evils flowing out of the anti-christian doctrine of masculine and
feminine virtues. By this doctrine, man has been converted into the
warrior, and clothed with sternness, and those other kindred qualities,
which in common estimation belong to his character as a _man_; whilst
woman has been taught to lean upon an arm of flesh, to sit as a doll
arrayed in ‘gold, and pearls, and costly array,’ to be admired for her
personal charms, and caressed and humored like a spoiled child, or
converted into a mere drudge to suit the convenience of her lord and
master. Thus have all the diversified relations of life been filled with
‘confusion and every evil work.’ This principle has given to man a charter
for the exercise of tyranny and selfishness, pride and arrogance, lust and
brutal violence. It has robbed woman of essential rights, the right to
think and speak and act on all great moral questions, just as men think
and speak and act; the right to share their responsibilities, perils and
toils; the right to fulfil the great end of her being, as a moral,
intellectual and immortal creature, and of glorifying God in her body and
her spirit which are His. Hitherto, instead of being a help meet to man,
in the highest, noblest sense of the term, as a companion, a co-worker, an
equal; she has been a mere appendage of his being, an instrument of his
convenience and pleasure, the pretty toy with which he wiled away his
leisure moments, or the pet animal whom he humored into playfulness and
submission. Woman, instead of being regarded as the equal of man, has
uniformly been looked down upon as his inferior, a mere gift to fill up
the measure of his happiness. In ‘the poetry of romantic gallantry,’ it is
true, she has been called ‘the last _best_ gift of God to man;’ but I
believe I speak forth the words of truth and soberness when I affirm, that
woman never was given to man. She was created, like him, in the image of
God, and crowned with glory and honor; created only a little lower than
the angels,--not, as is almost universally assumed, a little lower than
man; on her brow, as well as on his, was placed the ‘diadem of beauty,’
and in her hand the sceptre of universal dominion. Gen: i. 27, 28. ‘The
last _best gift_ of God to man!’ Where is the scripture warrant for this
‘rhetorical flourish, this splendid absurdity?’ Let us examine the account
of her creation. ‘And the rib which the Lord God had taken from man, made
he a woman, and brought her unto the man.’ Not as a gift--for Adam
immediately recognized her _as a part of himself_--(‘this is now bone of
my bone, and flesh of my flesh’)--a companion and equal, not one hair’s
breadth beneath him in the majesty and glory of her moral being; not
placed under his authority as a _subject_, but by his side, on the same
platform of human rights, under the government of God only. This idea of
woman’s being ‘the last best gift of God to man,’ however pretty it may
sound to the ears of those who love to discourse upon ‘the poetry of
romantic gallantry, and the generous promptings of chivalry,’ has
nevertheless been the means of sinking her from an _end_ into a mere
_means_--of turning her into an _appendage_ to man, instead of recognizing
her as _a part of man_--of destroying her individuality, and rights, and
responsibilities, and merging her moral being in that of man. Instead of
_Jehovah_ being _her_ king, _her_ lawgiver, and _her_ judge, she has been
taken out of the exalted scale of existence in which He placed her, and
subjected to the despotic control of man.
I have often been amused at the vain efforts made to define the rights and
responsibilities of immortal beings as _men_ and _women_. No one has yet
found out just _where_ the line of separation between them should be
drawn, and for this simple reason, that no one knows just how far below
man woman is, whether she be a head shorter in her moral responsibilities,
or head and shoulders, or the full length of his noble stature, below him,
i.e. under his feet. Confusion, uncertainty, and great inconsistencies,
must exist on this point, so long as woman is regarded in the least degree
inferior to man; but place her where her Maker placed her, on the same
high level of human rights with man, side by side with him, and
difficulties vanish, the mountains of perplexity flow down at the presence
of this grand equalizing principle. Measure her rights and duties by the
unerring standard of _moral being_, not by the false weights and measures
of a mere circumstance of her human existence, and then the truth will be
self-evident, that whatever it is _morally_ right for a man to do, it is
_morally_ right for a woman to do. I recognize no rights but _human_
rights--I know nothing of men’s rights and women’s rights; for in Christ
Jesus, there is neither male nor female. It is my solemn conviction, that,
until this principle of equality is recognised and embodied in practice,
the church can do nothing effectual for the permanent reformation of the
world. Woman was the first transgressor, and the first victim of power. In
all heathen nations, she has been the slave of man, and Christian nations
have never acknowledged her rights. Nay more, no Christian denomination or
Society has ever acknowledged them on the broad basis of humanity. I know
that in some denominations, she is permitted to preach the gospel; not
from a conviction of her rights, nor upon the ground of her equality as a
_human being_, but of her equality in spiritual gifts--for we find that
woman, even in these Societies, is allowed no voice in framing the
Discipline by which she is to be governed. Now, I believe it is woman’s
right to have a voice in all the laws and regulations by which she is to
be _governed_, whether in Church or State; and that the present
arrangements of society, on these points, are _a violation of human
rights_, _a rank usurpation of power_, a violent seizure and confiscation
of what is sacredly and inalienably hers--thus inflicting upon woman
outrageous wrongs, working mischief incalculable in the social circle, and
in its influence on the world producing only evil, and that continually.
_If_ Ecclesiastical and Civil governments are ordained of God, _then_ I
contend that woman has just as much right to sit in solemn counsel in
Conventions, Conferences, Associations and General Assemblies, as
man--just as much right to sit upon the throne of England, or in the
Presidential chair of the United States.
Dost thou ask me, if I would wish to see woman engaged in the contention
and strife of sectarian controversy, or in the intrigues of political
partizans? I say no! never--never. I rejoice that she does not stand on
the same platform which man now occupies in these respects; but I mourn,
also, that he should thus prostitute his higher nature, and vilely cast
away his birthright. I prize the purity of _his_ character as highly as I
do that of hers. As a moral being, _whatever it is morally wrong for her
to do, it is morally wrong for him to do_. The fallacious doctrine of
male and female virtues has well nigh ruined all that is morally great and
lovely in his character: he has been quite as deep a sufferer by it as
woman, though mostly in different respects and by other processes. As my
time is engrossed by the pressing responsibilities of daily public duty, I
have no leisure for that minute detail which would be required for the
illustration and defence of these principles. Thou wilt find a wide field
opened before thee, in the investigation of which, I doubt not, thou wilt
be instructed. Enter this field, and explore it: thou wilt find in it a
hid treasure, more precious than rubies--a fund, a mine of principles, as
new as they are great and glorious.
Thou sayest, ‘an ignorant, a narrow-minded, or a stupid woman, cannot feel
nor understand the rationality, the propriety, or the beauty of this
relation’--i.e. subordination to man. Now, verily, it does appear to me,
that nothing but a narrow-minded view of the subject of human rights and
responsibilities can induce any one to believe in _this subordination to a
fallible_ being. Sure I am, that the signs of the times clearly indicate a
vast and rapid change in public sentiment, on this subject. Sure I am that
she is not to be, as she has been, ‘_a mere second-hand agent_’ in the
regeneration of a fallen world, but the acknowledged equal and co-worker
with man in this glorious work. Not that ‘she will carry her measures by
tormenting when she cannot please, or by petulant complaints or obtrusive
interference, in matters which are out of her sphere, and which she cannot
comprehend.’ But just in proportion as her moral and intellectual
capacities become enlarged, she will rise higher and higher in the scale
of creation, until she reaches that elevation prepared for her by her
Maker, and upon whose summit she was originally stationed, only ‘a little
lower than the angels.’ Then will it be seen that nothing which concerns
the well-being of mankind is either beyond her sphere, or above her
comprehension: _Then_ will it be seen ‘that America will be distinguished
above all other nations for well educated women, and for the influence
they will exert on the general interests of society.’
But I must close with recommending to thy perusal, my sister’s Letters on
the Province of Woman, published in the New England Spectator, and
republished by Isaac Knapp of Boston. As she has taken up this subject so
fully, I have only glanced at it. That thou and all my country-women may
better understand the true dignity of woman, is the sincere desire of
Thy Friend,
A. E. GRIMKÉ.
LETTER XIII.
MISCELLANEOUS REMARKS,--CONCLUSION.
HOLLISTON, Mass., _10th month, 23d, 1837_.
MY DEAR FRIEND: I resume my pen, to gather up a few fragments of thy
Essay, that have not yet been noticed, and in love to bid thee farewell.
Thou appearest to think, that it is peculiarly the duty of _women_ to
educate the little children of this nation. But why, I would ask--why are
they any more bound to engage in this sacred employment, than men? I
believe, that as soon as the rights of women are understood, our brethren
will see and feel that it is their duty to co-operate with us, in this
high and holy vocation, of training up little children in the way they
should go. And the very fact of their mingling in intercourse with such
guileless and gentle spirits, will tend to soften down the asperities of
their characters, and clothe them with the noblest and sublimest Christian
virtues. I know that this work is deemed beneath the dignity of man; but
how great the error! I once heard a man, who had labored extensively among
children, say, ‘I never feel so near heaven, as when I am teaching these
little ones.’ He was right; and I trust the time is coming, when the
occupation of an instructer to children will be deemed the most honorable
of human employment. If it is drudgery to teach these little ones, then it
is the duty of men to bear a part of that burthen; if it is a privilege
and an honor, then we generously invite them to share that honor and
privilege with us.
I know some noble instances of this union of principles and employment,
and am fully settled in the belief, that abolition doctrines are
pre-eminently calculated to qualify men and women to become faithful and
efficient teachers. _They alone_ teach fully the doctrine of human rights;
and to know and appreciate these, is an indispensable prerequisite to the
wisely successful performance of the duties of a teacher. The right
understanding of these will qualify her to teach the fundamental, but
unfashionable doctrine, that ‘God is no respecter of persons,’ and that he
that despiseth the colored man, because he is ‘guilty of a skin not
colored like our own,’ reproacheth his Maker for having given him that
ebon hue. I consider it absolutely indispensable, that this truth should
be sedulously instilled into the mind of every child in our republic. I
know of _no_ moral truth of greater importance at the present crisis.
Those teachers, who are not prepared to teach _this in all its fullness_,
are deficient in one of the most sterling elements of moral character, and
are false to the holy trust committed to them, and utterly unfit to train
up the children of _this_ generation. So far from urging the deficiency of
teachers in this country, as a reason why women should keep out of the
anti-slavery excitement, I would say to my sisters, if you wish to become
pre-eminently qualified for the discharge of your arduous duties, come
into the abolition ranks, enter this high school of morals, and drink from
the deep fountains of philanthropy and Christian equality, whence the
waters of healing are welling forth over wide desert wastes, and making
glad the city of our God. Intellectual endowments are _good_, but a high
standard of moral principle is _better_, is _essential_. As a nation, we
have too long educated the _mind_, and left the _heart_ a moral waste. We
have fully and fearfully illustrated the truth of the Apostle’s
declaration: ‘Knowledge puffeth up.’ We have indeed been puffed up,
vaunting ourselves in our mental endowments and national greatness. But we
are beginning to realize, that it is ‘Righteousness which exalteth a
nation.’
Thou sayest, when a woman is asked to sign a petition, or join an
Anti-Slavery Society, it is ‘for the purpose of contributing her measure
of influence to keep up agitation in Congress, to promote the excitement
of the North against the iniquities of the South, to coerce the South by
fear, shame, anger, and a sense of odium, to do what she is determined not
to do.’ Indeed! Are these the only motives presented to the daughters of
America, for laboring in the glorious cause of Human Rights? Let us
examine them. 1. ‘To keep up agitation in Congress.’ Yes--for I can adopt
this language of Moore of Virginia, in the Legislature of that State, in
1832: ‘I should regret at all times the existence of any unnecessary
excitement in the country on any subject; but I confess, I see no reason
to lament that which may have arisen on the present occasion. It is often
necessary that there should be some excitement among the people, to induce
them to turn their attention to questions deeply affecting the welfare of
the Commonwealth; and _there never can arise any subject more worthy their
attention, than that of the abolition of slavery_.’ 2. ‘To promote the
excitement of the North against the iniquities of the South.’ Yes, and
against her own sinful copartnership in those iniquities. I believe the
discussion of Human Rights at the North has already been of incalculable
advantage to this country. It is producing the happiest influence upon the
minds and hearts of those who are engaged in it; just such results as
Thomas Clarkson tells us, were produced in England by the agitation of the
subject there. Says he, ‘Of the immense advantages of this contest, I know
not how to speak. Indeed, the very agitation of the question, which it
involved, has been highly important. Never was the heart of man so
expanded; never were its generous sympathies so generally and so
perseveringly excited. These sympathies, thus called into existence, have
been useful preservatives of national virtue.’ I, therefore, wish very
much to promote the Anti-Slavery excitement at the North, because I
believe it will prove a useful preservative of national virtue. 3. ‘To
coerce the South by fear, shame, anger, and a sense of odium.’ It is true,
that I feel the imminent danger of the South so much, that I would fain
‘save them with fear, pulling them out of the fire;’ for, if they ever are
saved, they will indeed be ‘as a brand plucked out of the burning.’ Nor
do I see any thing wrong in influencing slaveholders by a feeling of shame
and odium, as well as by a sense of guilt. Why may not abolitionists speak
some things _to their shame_, as the Apostle did to the Corinthians? As to
anger, it is no design of ours to excite so wicked a passion. We cannot
help it, if, in rejecting the truth, they become angry. Could Stephen help
the anger of the Jews, when ‘they gnashed upon him with their teeth’?
But I had thought the principal motives urged by abolitionists were not
these; but that they endeavored to excite men and women to active
exertion,--first, to cleanse _their own_ hands of the sin of slavery, and
secondly, to save the South, if possible, and the North, at any rate, from
the impending judgments of heaven. The result of their mission in this
country, cannot in the least affect the validity of that mission. Like
Noah, they may preach in vain; if so, the destruction of the South can no
more be attributed to them, than the destruction of the antediluvian world
to him. ‘In vain,’ did I say? Oh no! The discussion of the rights of the
slave has opened the way for the discussion of _other rights_, and the
ultimate result will most certainly be, ‘the breaking of _every_ yoke,’
the letting the oppressed of _every_ grade and description go free,--an
emancipation far more glorious than any the world has ever yet seen,--an
introduction into that ‘liberty wherewith Christ hath made his people
free.’
I will now say a few words on thy remarks about Esther. Thou sayest, ‘When
a woman is placed in similar circumstances, where death to herself and
all her nation is one alternative, and there is nothing worse to fear, but
something to hope as the other alternative, then she may safely follow
such an example.’ In this sentence, thou hast conceded every thing I could
wish, and proved beyond dispute just what I adduced this text to prove in
my Appeal. I will explain myself. Look at the condition of our
country--Church and State deeply involved in the enormous crime of
slavery: ah! more--claiming the sacred volume, as our charter for the
collar and chain. What then can we expect, but that the vials of divine
wrath will be poured out upon a nation of oppressors and hypocrites? for
we are loud in our professions of civil and ecclesiastical liberty. Now,
as a Southerner, I know that reflecting slaveholders expect their peculiar
institution to be overthrown in blood. Read the opinion of Moore of
Virginia, as expressed by him in the House of Delegates in 1832:--‘What
must be the ultimate consequence of retaining the slaves amongst us? The
answer to this enquiry is both obvious and appalling. It is, that _the
time will come, and at no distant day, when we shall be involved in all
the horrors of a servile war_, which will not end until both sides have
suffered much, until the land shall everywhere be red with blood, and
until the slaves or the whites are totally exterminated. If there be any
truth in history, and if the time has not arrived when causes have ceased
to produce their legitimate results, the dreadful catastrophe in which I
have predicted that our slave system must result, if persisted in, _is as
inevitable as any event which has already transpired_.’
Here, then, is one alternative, and just as tremendous an alternative as
that which was presented to the Queen of Persia. ‘There is _nothing worse_
to fear’ for the South, let the results of abolition efforts be what they
may, whilst ‘there is something to hope as the other alternative;’ because
if she will receive the truth in the love of it, she may repent and be
saved. So that, after all, according to thy own reasoning, the women of
America ‘may safely follow such an example.’