Among the most prominent opposers of immediate emancipation were Dr.
Lyman Beecher and the members of his remarkable family; and though
they ultimately became converts to it, even so far as to allow a
branch of the "underground railway" to run through their barn, their
conversion was gradual, and only arrived at after various
controversies and discussions, and much bitter feeling between them
and the advocates of the unpopular cause. Opposed to slavery in the
abstract, that is, believing it to be a sin to hold a fellow creature
in bondage for the "_mere purposes of gain_," they utterly condemned
all agitation of the question. The Church and the Gospel were, with
them, as with so many evangelical Christians, the true means through
which evils should be reached and reforms effected. All efforts
outside were unwise and useless, not to say sinful. And further, as
Catherine Beecher expressed it, they considered the matter of Southern
slavery as one with which the North was no more called to interfere
than in the abolition of the press-gang system in England, or the
tithe system in Ireland. Some chapters back, the short but pleasant
friendship of Catherine Beecher and Angelina Grimké was mentioned.
Very soon after that little episode, the Beechers removed to
Cincinnati, where the doctor was called to the Presidency of the Lane
Theological Seminary. We can well understand that the withdrawal of
nearly all its students after the great discussion was a sore trial to
the Beechers, and intensified their already adverse feelings towards
abolitionists. The only result of this with which we have to do is the
volume published by Catherine Beecher during the summer of 1837,
entitled "Miss Beecher on the Slave Question," and addressed to
Angelina Grimké.
Catherine was the true counterpart of her father, and the most
intellectual of his children, but she lacked the gentle, feminine
graces, and was so wanting in tenderness and sympathy that Angelina
charitably implies that her heart was sunk forever with her lover,
Professor Fisher of Yale, who perished in a storm at sea. With
independence, striking individuality, and entire freedom from timidity
of any sort, it would appear perfectly natural that Catherine should
espouse the Woman's Rights reform, even though opposing that of
abolitionism. But she presented the singular anomaly of a
strong-minded woman, already successful in taking care of herself,
advocating woman's subordination to man, and prescribing for her
efforts at self-help limits so narrow that only the few favored as she
was could venture within them.
Her book was received with much favor by slave-holders and their
apologists, though it was harshly criticised by a few of the more
sensible of the former. These declared that they had more respect for
abolitionists who openly denounced the system of slavery, than for
those people who, in order to please the South, cloaked their real
sentiments under a garb like that of Miss Beecher's book. It was also
severely handled by abolitionists, and Lucretia Mott wrote a very able
review of it, which Angelina, however, pronounced entirely too mild.
She writes to Jane Smith:
"Catherine's arguments are the most insidious things I ever read, and
I feel it my duty to answer them; only, I know not how to find
language strong enough to express my indignation at the view she takes
of woman's character and duty."
The answer was given in a number of sharp, terse, letters, sent to the
_Liberator_ from various places where the sisters stopped while
lecturing. A few passages will convey some idea of the spirit and
style of these letters, thirteen in number. In the latter part of the
second letter she says:--
"Dost thou ask what I mean by emancipation? I will explain myself in a
few words.
"1st. It is to reject with indignation the wild and guilty phantasy
that man can hold _property_ in man.
"2d. To pay the laborer his hire, for he is worthy of it.
"3d. No longer to deny him the right of marriage, but to let every man
have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband, as saith
the apostle.
"4th. To let parents have their own children, for they are the gift of
the Lord to them, and no one else has any right to them.
"5th. No longer to withhold the advantages of education, and the
privilege of reading the Bible.
"6th. To put the slave under the protection of equitable laws.
"Now why should not _all_ this be done immediately? Which of these
things is to be done next year, and which the year after? and so on.
_Our_ immediate emancipation means doing justice and loving mercy
_to-day_, and this is what we call upon every slave-holder to do....
"I have seen too much of slavery to be a gradualist. I dare not, in
view of such a system, tell the slave-holder that he is 'physically
unable to emancipate his slaves.'[6] I say _he is able_ to let the
oppressed go free, and that such heaven-daring atrocities ought to
cease _now_, henceforth, and forever. Oh, my very soul is grieved to
find a Northern woman 'thus sewing pillows under all arm-holes,'
framing and fitting soft excuses for the slave-holder's conscience,
whilst with the same pen she is _professing_ to regard slavery as a
sin. 'An open enemy is better than such a secret friend.'
"Hoping that thou mayst soon be emancipated from such inconsistency, I
remain until then,
"Thine _out_ of the bonds of Christian abolitionism.
"A.E. GRIMKÉ."
[6] The plea made by many of the apologists was that, as the laws of
some of the States forbade emancipation, the masters were physically
unable to free their slaves.
The last letter, which Angelina says she wrote in sadness and read to
her sister in tears, ends thus:--
"After endeavoring to show that woman has no moral right to exercise
the right of petition for the dumb and stricken slave; no business to
join, in any way, in the excitement which anti-slavery principles are
producing in our country; no business to join abolition societies,
etc., thou professest to tell our sisters what they are to do in order
to bring the system of slavery to an end. And now, my dear friend,
what does all thou hast said in many pages amount to? Why, that women
are to exert their influence in private life to allay the excitement
which exists on this subject, and to quench the flame of sympathy in
the hearts of their fathers, husbands, brothers, and sons. Fatal
delusion! Will Christian women heed such advice?
"Hast thou ever asked thyself what the slave would think of thy book
if he could read it? Dost thou know that, from the beginning to the
end, not a word of compassion for _him_ has fallen from thy pen?
Recall, I pray, the memory of hours which thou spent in writing it.
Was the paper once moistened by the tear of pity? Did thy heart once
swell with sympathy for thy sister in _bonds_? Did it once ascend to
God in broken accents for the deliverance of the captive? Didst thou
even ask thyself what the free man of color would think of it? Is it
such an exhibition of slavery and prejudice as will call down _his_
blessing on thy head? Hast thou thought of _these_ things? or carest
thou not for the blessings and prayers of these our suffering
brethren? Consider, I entreat, the reception given to thy book by the
apologists of slavery. What meaneth that loud acclaim with which they
hail it? Oh, listen and weep, and let thy repentings be kindled
together, and speedily bring forth, I beseech thee, fruits meet for
repentance, and henceforth show thyself faithful to Christ and His
bleeding representative, the slave.
"I greatly fear that thy book might have been written just as well,
hadst thou not had the heart of a woman. It bespeaks a superior
intellect, but paralyzed and spellbound by the sorcery of a
worldly-minded expediency. Where, oh, where in its pages are the
outpourings of a soul overwhelmed with a sense of the heinous crimes of
our nation, and the necessity of immediate repentance? ... Farewell!
Perhaps on a dying bed thou mayst vainly wish that '_Miss Beecher on
the Slave Question_' might perish with the mouldering hand which penned
its cold and heartless pages. But I forbear, and in deep sadness of
heart, but in tender love though I thus speak, I bid thee again,
farewell. Forgive me if I have wronged thee, and pray for her who still
feels like
"Thy sister in the bonds of a common sisterhood.
"A.E. GRIMKÉ."
While Angelina was writing these letters, Sarah was publishing her
letters on the "Province of Woman" in the _Spectator_. This was a
heavier dose than Boston could stand at one time; harsh and bitter
things were said about the sisters, notices of their meetings were
torn down or effaced, and abolitionism came to be so mixed up in the
public mind with Woman's Rights, that anti-slavery leaders generally
began to feel anxious lest their cause should suffer by being
identified with one to which the large majority of abolitionists was
decidedly opposed. Even among them, however, there was a difference of
opinion, Garrison, H.C. Wright and others, non-resistants, encouraging
the agitation of Woman's Rights. A few lines from one of Angelina's
letters will best define the position taken by herself and Sarah.
"Sister and I," she writes, "feel quite ready for the discussion about
women, but brothers Whittier and Weld entreat us to let it alone for
the present, because it will involve topics of such vast
importance,--a paid ministry, clerical domination, etc.,--and will,
they fear, divert our attention and that of the community from the
anti-slavery cause; and that the wrongs of the slave are so much
greater than the wrongs of woman, they ought not to be confounded. In
their letters, received last week, they regret exceedingly that the
letters in the _Spectator_ had been written. They think just as we do,
but believe that, for the time being, a persevering, practical
assertion of woman's right to speak to mixed audiences is the best one
we can make, and that we had better keep out of controversies, as our
hands are full. On the other hand, we fear that the leaven of the
Pharisees will be so assiduously worked into the minds of the people,
that if they come to hear us, they will be constantly thinking it is a
_shame_ for us to speak in the churches, and that we shall lose that
influence which we should otherwise have. We know that _our_ views on
this subject are quite new to the _mass_ of the people of this State,
and I think it best to throw them open for their consideration, just
letting them have both sides of the argument to look at, at the same
time. Indeed some wanted to have a meeting in Boston for us to speak
on this subject now, and we went into town on purpose to hold a
conference about it at Maria Chapman's. She, Mary Parker, and sister
were against it for the present, fearing lest it would bring down such
a storm upon our heads, that we could not work in the country, and so
Henrietta Sargent and I yielded, and I suppose this is the wisest
plan, though, as brother Stanton says, I am ready for the battle
_now_. I am still glad of sister's letters, and believe they are doing
great good. Some noble-minded women cheer her on, and she feels
encouraged to persevere, the brethren notwithstanding. I tell them
that this is _a part_ of the great doctrine of Human Rights, and can
no more be separated from emancipation than the light from the heat of
the sun; the rights of the slave and of woman blend like the colors of
the rainbow. However, I rarely introduce this topic into my addresses,
except to urge my sisters up to duty. Our _brethren_ are dreadfully
afraid of this kind of amalgamation. I am very glad to hear that
Lucretia Mott addressed the Moral Reform Society, and am earnest in
the hope that _we_ are only pioneers, going before a host of worthy
women who will come up to the help of the Lord against the mighty."
The letters of Whittier and Weld, alluded to by Angelina, are so good
and so important that I feel no reluctance in giving them here almost
entire. The first is Whittier's, and is dated: "Office of Am. A.S.
Soc., 14th of 8th Mo., 1837,"--and is as follows:
"MY DEAR SISTERS,--I have been waiting for an opportunity to answer
the letter which has been so kindly sent me. I am anxious, too, to
hold a long conversation with you on the subject of _war_, human
government, and church and family government. The more I reflect on
this subject, the more difficulty I find, and the more decidedly am I
of opinion that we ought to hold all these matters far aloof from the
cause of abolition. Our good friend, H.C. Wright, with the best
intentions in the world, is doing great injury by a different course.
He is making the anti-slavery party responsible in a great degree, for
his, to say the least, startling opinions. I do not censure him for
them, although I cannot subscribe to them in all their length and
breadth. But let him keep them distinct from the cause of
emancipation. This is his duty. Those who subscribe money to the
Anti-Slavery Society do it in the belief that it will be spent in the
propagation, not of Quakerism or Presbyterianism, but of the doctrines
of Immediate Emancipation. To employ an agent who devotes half his
time and talents to the propagation of 'no human or no family
government' doctrines in connection--_intimate connection_--with the
doctrines of abolition, is a fraud upon the patrons of the cause. Just
so with papers. Brother Garrison errs, I think, in this respect. He
takes the 'no church, and no human government' ground, as, for
instance, in his Providence speech. Now, in his prospectus, he engaged
to give his subscribers an anti-slavery paper, and his subscribers
made their contract with him on that ground. If he fills his paper
with Grahamism and no governmentism, he defrauds his subscribers.
However, I know that brother Garrison does not look at it in this
light.
"In regard to another subject, '_the rights of woman_,' you are now
doing much and nobly to vindicate and assert the rights of woman. Your
lectures to crowded and promiscuous audiences on a subject manifestly,
in many of its aspects, _political_, interwoven with the framework of
the government, are practical and powerful assertions of the right and
the duty of woman to labor side by side with her brother for the
welfare and redemption of the world. Why, then, let me ask, is it
necessary for you to enter the lists as controversial writers on this
question? Does it not _look_, dear sisters, like abandoning in some
degree the cause of the poor and miserable slave, sighing from the
cotton plantations of the Mississippi, and whose cries and groans are
forever sounding in our ears, for the purpose of arguing and disputing
about some trifling oppression, political or social, which we may
ourselves suffer? Is it not forgetting the great and dreadful wrongs
of the slave in a selfish crusade against some paltry grievance of our
own? Forgive me if I have stated the case too strongly. I would not
for the world interfere with you in matters of conscientious duty, but
I wish you would weigh candidly the whole subject, and see if it does
not _seem_ an abandonment of your first love. Oh, let us try to forget
everything but our duty to God and our fellow beings; to dethrone the
selfish principle, and to strive to win over the hard heart of the
oppressor by truth kindly spoken. The Massachusetts Congregational
Association can do you no harm if you do not allow its splenetic and
idle manifesto to divert your attention from the great and holy
purpose of your souls.
"Finally, dear sisters, rest assured that you have my deepest and
warmest sympathy; that my heart rejoices to know that you are mighty
instruments in the hands of Him who hath come down to deliver. May the
canopy of His love be over you, and His peace be with you!
"Your friend and brother,
"JNO. G. WHITTIER."
Weld's first letter, written the day after Whittier's, begins by
defining his own position on the disturbing question. He says: "As to
the rights and wrongs of woman, it is an old theme with me. It was the
first subject I ever discussed. In a little debating society, when a
boy, I took the ground that sex neither qualified nor disqualified for
the discharge of any functions, mental, moral, or spiritual: that
there is no reason why woman should not make laws, administer justice,
sit in the chair of State, plead at the Bar, or in the pulpit, if she
has the qualifications, just as much as man. What I advocated in
boyhood, I advocate now--that woman, in every particular, shares,
equally with man, rights and responsibilities. Now that I have made
this statement of my creed on this point, to show you that we fully
agree, except that I probably go much further than you do, I must say
I do most deeply regret that you have begun a series of articles in
the papers on the rights of woman. Why, my dear sisters, the best
possible advocacy which you can make is just what you are making day
by day. Thousands hear you every week who have all their lives held
that women must not speak in public. Such a practical refutation of
the dogma which your speaking furnishes has already converted
multitudes."
He then goes on to urge two strong points:--
1st. That as Southerners, and having been brought up among
slaveholders, they could do more to convince the North than twenty
Northern women, though they could speak as well, and that they would
lose this peculiar advantage the moment they took up another subject.
2d. That almost any other women of their capacity and station could
produce a greater effect on the public mind on that subject than they,
because they were Quakers, and woman's right to speak and minister was
a Quaker doctrine. Therefore, for these and other reasons, he urged
them to leave the lesser work to others who could do it better than
they, and devote, consecrate their whole souls, bodies, and spirits to
the greater work which they could do far better than anybody else. He
continues: "Let us all first wake up the nation to lift millions of
slaves from the dust and turn them into men, and then, when we all
have our hand in, it will be an easy matter to take millions of women
from their knees and set them on their feet; or, in other words,
transform them from _babies_ into _women_."
A spirited, almost dogmatic, controversy was the result of these
letters. In a letter to Jane Smith, Angelina says: "I cannot
understand why they (the abolitionists) so exceedingly regret sister's
having begun those letters. Brother Weld was not satisfied with
writing us _one_ letter about them, but we have received two more
setting forth various reasons why we should not moot the subject of
woman's rights _at all_, but our judgment is not convinced, and we
hardly know what to do about it, for we have just as high an opinion
of Brother Garrison's views, and _he_ says, '_go on_.' ... The great
effort of abolitionists now seems to be to keep every topic but
slavery out of view, and hence their opposition to Henry O. Wright and
his preaching anti-government doctrines, and our even writing on
woman's rights. Oh, if I _only_ saw they were _right_ and _we_ were
_wrong_, I would yield immediately."
One of the two other letters from T.D. Weld, referred to by Angelina,
is a very long one, covering over ten pages of the old-fashioned
foolscap paper, and is in reply to letters received from the sisters,
and which were afterwards returned to them and probably destroyed. I
have concluded to make some extracts from this long letter from Mr.
Weld, not only on account of the arguments used, but to show the
frank, fearless spirit with which he met the reasoning of his two
"sisters." When we consider that he was even then courting Angelina,
his hardihood is a little surprising.
After observing that he had carefully read their letters, and made an
abstract on half a sheet of paper of the "positions and conclusions
found therein," he continues:--
"This abstract I have been steadily looking at with great marvelling,
"1st. That you should argue at length the doctrine of Woman's Rights,
as though I was a _dissentient_;
"2d. That you should so magnify the power of the New England clergy;
"3d. That you should so misconceive the actual convictions of
ministers and Christians, and almost all, as to the public speaking of
women;
"4th. That you should take the ground that the clergy, and the whole
church government, must come down _before_ slavery can be abolished (a
proposition which to my mind is absurd).
"5th. That you should so utterly overlook the very _threshold_
principle upon which alone any moral reformation can be effectually
promoted. Oh, dear! There are a dozen other things--marvellables--in
your letters; but I must stop short, or I can say nothing on other
points.
"... Now, before we commence action, let us clear the decks; for if
they are clogged we shall have foul play. _Overboard_ with everything
that don't _belong on board_. Now, first, _what is the precise point
at issue between us?_ I answer first _negatively_, that we may
understand each other on all points kindred to the main one. 1st. It
is _not_ whether _woman's_ rights are inferior to _man's_ rights."
He then proceeded to state the doctrine of Woman's Rights very
forcibly. Of _sex_, he says:--
"Its _only_ design is not to give nor to take away, nor in any respect
to modify, or even touch, rights or responsibilities in any sense,
except so far as the peculiar offices of each sex may afford less or
more opportunity and ability for the exercise of rights, and the
discharge of responsibilities, but merely to continue and enlarge the
human department of God's government."
For an entire page he continues in this manner of "_negatives_" to
"_clear the decks_," until he has shown through seven negative
specifications what do _not_ constitute the point at issue, and then
goes on:--
"Well, waving further negatives, the question at issue between us
_is_, whether _you_, S.M.G. and A.E.G., should engage in the public
discussion of the rights of women as a distinct topic. Here you
affirm, and I deny. Your reasons for doing it, as contained in your
two letters, are the following:--
"1st. The _New England Spectator_ was _opened_; you were invited to
write on the subject, and some of the Boston abolitionists _urged_ you
to do so, and you say, 'We viewed this unexpected opportunity of
throwing our views before the public, as _providential_.'
"_Answer_. When the devil is hard pushed, and likely to be run down in
the chase, it is an old trick of his to start some smaller game, and
thus cause his pursuers to strike off from his own track on to that of
one of his imps. It was certainly a very _providential_ opportunity
for Nehemiah to 'throw his views before the public,' when Geshem,
Sanballat, and Tobiah invited and urged him to stop building the wall
and hold a public discussion as to the _right_ to build. And doubtless
a great many Jews said to him, 'Unless we _establish_ the right in the
first place, it will surely be taken from us utterly. This is a
providential opportunity to preach truth in the very camp of the
enemy.' But who got it up, God or the devil?... Look over the history
of the world, and in nine cases out of ten we shall find that Satan,
after being foiled in his arts to stop a great moral enterprise, has
finally succeeded by diverting the reformers from the _main_ point to
a _collateral_, and that too just at the _moment_ when such diversion
brought ruin. Now, even if this opportunity made it the duty of
_somebody_ to take up the subject (which is not proved by the fact of
the opportunity), why should _you_ give _your_ views, and with _your
name_? Others as able might be found, and as familiar with the
subject. But you say, others 'are driven off the field, and cannot
answer the objections.' I answer, your _names_ do not answer the
objections.... How very easy to have helped a third person to the
argument. By publicly making an onset in your own names, in a
widely-circulated periodical, upon a doctrine cherished as the apple
of their eye (I don't say really _believed_) by nine tenths of the
church and the world; what was it but a formal challenge to the whole
community for a regular set-to?"
He proceeds to speak of such a "set to" and debate as "producing
alienation wide-spread in our own ranks, and introducing confusion and
every evil work." He urges the necessity of vindicating a right "by
exercising it," instead of simply arguing for it.
Of ministers he says: "True, there is a pretty large class of
ministers who are fierce about it, and will fight, but a still larger
class that will come over _if_ they first witness the successful
practice rather than meet it in the shape of a doctrine to be
swallowed. Now, if instead of blowing a blast through the newspapers,
sounding the onset, and summoning the ministers and churches to
surrender, you had without any introductory flourish just gone right
among them and lectured, _when_ and _where_ and _as_ you could find
opportunity, and paid no attention to criticism, but pushed right on,
without making any ado about 'attacks,' and 'invasions,' and
'opposition,' and have let the barkers bark their bark out,--within
one year you might have practically brought over five hundred thousand
persons, of the very moral _élite_ of New England. You may rely upon
it.... No moral enterprise, when prosecuted with ability and any sort
of energy, _ever_ failed under heaven so long as its conductors pushed
the _main_ principle, and did not strike off until they reached the
summit level. On the other hand, every reform that ever foundered in
mid-sea, was capsized by one of these gusty side-winds. Nothing more
utterly amazes me than the fact that the _conduct_ of a great, a
_pre-eminently_ great moral enterprise, should exhibit so little of a
wise, far-sighted, comprehensive _plan_. Surely it is about plain
enough to be called _self-evident_, that the only common-sense method
of conducting a great moral enterprise is to _start_ with a
_fundamental, plain principle, so_ fundamental as not to involve
side-relations, and _so_ plain, that it cannot be denied."
The main obvious principle he urges is to be pushed until the
community surrenders to it. He adds:--
"Then, when you have drawn them up to the top of the general
principle, you can slide them down upon all the derivative principles
_all at once_. But if you attempt to start off on a derivative
principle, from any other point than the summit level of the main
principle, you must beat up stream--yes, up a cataract. It reverses
the order of nature, and the laws of mind....
"You put the cart before the horse; you drag the tree by the top, in
attempting to push your woman's rights until human rights have gone
ahead and broken _the path_.
* * * * *
"You are both liable, it seems to me, from your structure of mind, to
form your opinions upon _too slight_ data, and too narrow a range of
induction, and to lay your plans and adopt your measures, rather
_dazzled_ by the glare of false _analogies_ than _led on_ by the
relations of cause and effect. Both of you, but especially Angelina,
unless I greatly mistake, are constitutionally tempted to push for
_present_ effect, and upon the suddenness and impulsiveness of the
onset rely mainly for victory. Besides from _her_ strong
_resistiveness_ and constitutional obstinacy, she is liable every
moment to turn short from the main point and spend her whole force
upon some little one-side annoyance that might temporarily nettle her.
In doing this she might win a _single battle_, but _lose a whole
campaign_. Add to this, great pride of character, so closely curtained
as to be almost searchless to herself, with a passion for adventure
and novel achievements, and she has in all an amount of temptation to
poor human nature that can be overmastered only by strong conflicts
and strong faith. Under this, a sense of justice so keen that
violation of justice would be likely to lash up such a tide of
indignation as would drive her from all anchorage. I say this to her
_not_ in raillery. I _believe_ it, and therefore utter it. It is
either fiction or fact. If _fiction_ it can do no hurt; if _fact_, it
may not be in vain in the Lord, and then my heart's desire and prayer
will be fulfilled. May the Lord have you in his keeping, my own dear
sisters.
"Most affectionately, your brother ever,
"T.D. WELD."
"One point I designed to make _more_ prominent. It is this: What is
done for the _slave_ and _human rights_ in this country _must be done
note, now, now_. Delay is madness, ruin, whereas woman's rights are
not a life and death business, _now or never_. Why can't you have eyes
to see this? The wayfaring man, though a _fool_, need not err _here_,
it is so plain. What will you run a tilt at next?"
And he names several things,--the tariff, the banks, English tithe
system, burning widows, etc., and adds:--
"If you adopt the views of H.C. Wright, as you are reported to have
done, in his official bulletin of a 'domestic scene' (where you are
made to figure conspicuously among the conquests of the victor as rare
spoils gracing the triumphal car), why then we are in one point of
doctrine just as wide asunder as extremes can be."
This letter was answered by Sarah, and with the most admirable
patience and moderation. She begins by saying:--
"Angelina is so wrathy that I think it will be unsafe to trust the pen
in her hands to reply to thy two last _good_ long letters. As I feel
nothing but gratitude for the kindness which I am sure dictated them,
I shall endeavor to answer them, and, as far as possible, allay thy
uneasiness as to the course we are pursuing."
She then proceeds to calmly discuss his objections, and to defend
their views on the woman question, which, she says, she regards as
second in importance to none, but that she does not feel bound to take
up every _caviller_ who presents himself, and therefore will not
notice some others who had criticised her letters in the _Spectator_.
About H.C. Wright, she says: "I must say a few words concerning
Brother Wright, towards whom I do not feel certain that the law of
love predominated when thou wrote that part of thy letter relative to
him.... We feel prepared to avow the principles set forth in the
'domestic scene.' I wonder thou canst not perceive the simplicity and
beauty and consistency of the doctrine that all government, whether
civil or ecclesiastical, conflicts with the government of Jehovah, and
that by the Christian no other can be acknowledged, without leaning
more or less on an arm of flesh. Would to God that all abolitionists
put their trust where I believe H.C. Wright has placed his, in God
alone.... I have given my opinions (in the _Spectator_). Those who
read them may receive or reject or find fault. I have nothing to do
with that. I shall let thee enjoy thy opinion, but I must wait and see
the issue before I conclude it was one of Satan's providences.... I
know the opposition to our views arises in part from the fact that
women are habitually regarded as inferior beings, but chiefly I
believe from a desire to keep them in unholy subjection to man, and
one way of doing this is to deprive us of the means of becoming their
equals by forbidding us the privileges of education which would fit us
for the performance of duty. I am greatly mistaken if most men have
not a desire that women should be silly.... I have not said half I
wanted, but this must suffice for the present, as Angelina has
concluded to try her hand at scolding. Farewell, dear brother. May the
Lord reward thee tenfold for thy kindness, and keep thee in the hollow
of His holy hand.
"Thy sister in Jesus,
"S.M.G."
Angelina's part of the letter is not written in the sweet, Quaker
spirit which prevails through Sarah's, but shows a very interesting
consciousness of her power over the man she addressed.
"Sister," she writes, "seems very much afraid that my pen will be
transformed into a venomous serpent when I employ it to address thee,
my dear brother, and no wonder, for I like to pay my debts, and, as I
received ten dollars' worth of scolding,[7] I should be guilty of
injustice did I not return the favor. Well! such a lecture I never
before had from anyone. What is the matter with thee? One would really
suppose that we had actually abandoned the anti-slavery cause, and
were roving the country, preaching _nothing_ but woman's rights, when,
in fact, I can truly say that whenever I lecture, I forget _everything
but the slave_. He is all in all for the time being. And what is the
reason _I_ am to be scolded because _sister_ writes letters in the
_Spectator_? Please let every woman bear _her own burdens_. Indeed, I
should like to know what I have done yet? And dost thou really think
in my answer to C.E. Beecher's absurd views of woman that I had better
suppress my own? If so, I will do it, as thou makest such a monster
out of the molehill, but my judgment is _not_ convinced that in this
incidental way it is wrong to throw light on the subject."
[7] Angelina and Sarah had sent Mr. Weld ten dollars for some
supposed debts. He returned it, and said if any trifling sums fell
due, he would take them out in scolding, and pay himself thus.
She speaks very gratefully of "Brother Lincoln, of Gardner," who
rejoiced to have them speak in his pulpit, and says:--
"My _keen sense of justice_ compels me to admire such nobility. He
hoped sister would give her views on this branch of the subject in the
_Spectator_. He thought they were needed, and _we_ are well convinced
they are, T.D.W. notwithstanding. So much for my bump of obstinacy
which even thy sledge-hammer cannot beat down."
The subsequent correspondence, which I regret I have not room to
insert, shows that the remonstrances of Whittier and Weld were
effective in restraining, for the time being, the impatience of the
sisters to urge in their public meetings what, however, they
faithfully preached in private--their conviction that the wrongs of
woman were the root of _all_ oppression.
Sarah meekly writes to "brother Weld."
"After a struggle with my feelings, so severe that I was almost
tempted to turn back from the anti-slavery cause, I have given up to
what seemed the inevitable, and have thought little of it since.
Perhaps I have done wrong, and if so, I trust I shall see it and
repent it. I do not intend to make any promises, because I may have
reason to regret them, but I do not know that I shall scribble any
more on the objectionable topic of woman."
This interesting controversy did not end until several more letters
had passed back and forth, and various other topics had been brought
in; but it was carried through with the same spirit of candor and love
on all sides which marked the beginning. There was one subject
introduced, a sort of side-question which I must notice, as it reveals
in a very pleasant manner the religious principle and manly moral
courage of Theodore D. Weld. At the close of one of her letters, Sarah
says:--
"Now just as it has come into my head, please tell me whether thy
clothing costs one hundred dollars per annum? I ask because it was
insisted upon that Mr. Weld must spend that amount on his wardrobe,
and I as strenuously insisted he did not. It was thought impossible a
gentleman could spend less, but I think anti-slavery agents know
better."
To this, he answered thus, at the end of one of _his_ letters.
"Oh! I forgot the wardrobe! I suppose you are going to take me to task
about my shag-overcoat, linsey-woolsey coat, and cowhide shoes; for
you Quakers are as notional about _quality_ as you are precise about
_cut_. Well, now to the question. While I was travelling and
lecturing, I think that _one_ year my clothing must have cost me
nearly one hundred dollars. It was the first year of my lecturing in
the West, when one entire suit and part of another were destroyed or
nearly so by mobs. Since I resigned my commission as agent, which is
now nearly a year, my clothing has not cost me one third that amount.
I don't think it _even_ cost me fifty dollars a year, except the year
I spoke of, when it was ruined by mobs, and the year 1832, when, in
travelling, I lost it all with my other baggage in the Alum River.
There, I believe I have answered your question as well as I can.
However, I have always had to encounter the criticism and chidings of
my acquaintances about my coarse dress. They will have it that I have
always curtailed my influence and usefulness by such a John the
Baptist attire as I have always been habited in. But I have remarked
that those persons who have beset me on that score have shown in some
way that they had their hearts set more or less on showing off their
persons to advantage by their dress. Now I think of it, I believe you
are in great danger of making a little god out of your caps and your
drab color, and '_thee_' and '_thou_.' Besides, the tendency is quite
questionable. The moment certain shades of color, or a certain
combination of letters, or modulation of sounds, or arrangement of
seams and angles, are made the _sine qua non_ of religion and
principle, that moment religion and principle are hurled from their
vantage-ground and become _slaves_ instead of _rulers_. I cannot get
it out of my mind that these must be a fetter on the spirit that
clings to such stereotyped forms and ceremonies that rustle and
clatter the more because life and spirit and power do not inhabit
them. Think about it, dear sisters."
In Sarah's next letter to him she says:--
"Now first about the wardrobe. Thou art greatly mistaken in supposing
that I meant to quiz thee; no, not I, indeed. I wish from my heart
more of us who take the profession of Jesus on our lips were willing
to wear shag cloaks and linsey-woolsey garments. Now I may inform thee
that, notwithstanding my prim caps, etc., I am as economical as thou
art. I do many things in the way of dress to please my friends, but
perhaps their watchfulness is needful."
Dear Aunt Sarah! these last words will make many smile who remember
how scrupulously careful she was about spending more on her dress than
was absolutely necessary to cleanliness and health. Every dollar
beyond this she felt was taken from the poor or from some benevolent
enterprise. The watchfulness of her friends was indeed needful!
It appears from the above correspondence that both Sarah and Angelina
had become tinctured with the doctrines of "non-resistance," which,
within a few years, had gained some credit with a few "perfectionists"
and active reformers in and about Boston. They had been presented by
Lydia Maria Child, a genial writer, under the guise of the Scriptural
doctrine of love. This sentiment was held to be adequate to the
regulation of social and political life: by it, ruffians were to be
made to stand in awe of virtue; thieves, burglars, and murderers were
to be made ashamed of themselves, and turned into honest and amiable
citizens; children were to be governed without punishment; and the
world was to be made a paradise. Rev. Henry C. Wright, a man of some
ability, but tossed by every wind of doctrine, embraced the new
gospel. He applied its principles to public matters. From the
essential sinfulness of all forms of force, if used towards human
beings, he inferred that penal laws, prisons, sheriffs, and criminal
courts should be dispensed with; that governments, which, of
necessity, execute their decrees by force, should be abolished; that
Christians should not take part in politics, either by voting or
holding office; that they should not employ force, even to resist
encroachment or in the defence of their wives and children; and that
although slavery, being a form of force, was wrong, no one should vote
against it. The slave-holder was to be converted by love. The free
States should show their grief and disapprobation by seceding from the
slave States, and by nullifying within their limits any unjust laws
passed by the nation. All governments, civil, ecclesiastical, and
family, were to disappear, so that the divine law, interpreted by each
one for himself, might have free course. To this fanciful,
transcendental, and anarchical theory, Mr. Wright made sundry
converts, more or less thorough, including Parker Pillsbury, Wm. L.
Garrison, and Stephen S. Foster. That he took a good deal of pains to
capture the subjects of our biography is evident. He attended their
lectures, cultivated their acquaintance, extended to them his
sympathy, and made them his guests. There are certain affinities of
the non-resistance doctrines with Quakerism, which made them
attractive to these two women who had little worldly knowledge, and
who had been trained for years in the peace doctrines of the
Philadelphia Friends.
It was fortunate for the anti-slavery cause that Sarah and Angelina
were warned in time by their New York friends of the fatally dangerous
character of the heresies they were inclined to accept. They went no
further in that direction. In all their subsequent letters, journals,
and papers there is not a word to show that either of them ever
entertained no-government notions, or identified herself with persons
who did. During the remaining months of their stay in Massachusetts,
they devoted themselves to their true mission of anti-slavery work,
accepting the co-operation and friendship of all friends of the slave,
but avoiding compromising relations with those known as "no human
government" non-resistants. This course was continued in after years,
and drew upon them the disapprobation and strictures of the
non-voting, non-fighting faction. In a letter from Sarah to Augustus
Wattles, dated May 11, 1854, about the time of the Kansas war, she
says:--
"We were fully aware of the severe criticisms passed upon us by many
of those who showed their unfitness to be in the judgment seat, by the
unmerciful censure they have pronounced against us when we were doing
what to us seemed positive duty. They wanted us to live out Wm. Lloyd
Garrison, not the convictions of our own souls, entirely unaware that
they were exhibiting, in the high places of moral reform, the genuine
spirit of slave-holding by wishing to curtail the sacred privilege of
conscience. But we have not allowed their unreasonableness to sever us
from them; they have many noble traits, have acted grandly for
humanity, and it was perhaps a part of their business to abuse us. I
do not think I love Garrison any the less for what he has said. His
spirit of intolerance towards those who did not draw in his traces,
and his adulation of those who surrendered themselves to his guidance,
have always been exceedingly repulsive to me, weaknesses which marred
the beauty and symmetry of his character, and prevented its
symmetrical development, but nevertheless I know the stern principle
which is the basis of his action. He is Garrison and nobody else, and
all I ask is that he would let others be themselves."
The feeling thus expressed was probably never changed until after the
sisters had taken up their residence in the neighborhood of Boston,
when visits were interchanged with Mr. Garrison, and friendly
relations established, which ended only with death. It is certain,
however, that Sarah and Angelina sympathized with the stalwart freemen
who used Sharp's rifles in the defence of free Kansas, who voted the
Liberty, Free Soil, and Republican ticket, who elected Abraham Lincoln
President, and who shouldered muskets against the rebels.