her lordly master. If she attempted, like him, to improve her mind, she
was ridiculed as pedantic, and driven from the temple of science and
literature by coarse attacks and vulgar sarcasms. If she yielded to
the pressure of circumstances, and sought relief from the monotony of
existence by resorting to the theatre and the ball-room, by ornamenting
her person with flowers and with jewels, while her mind was empty and
her heart desolate; she was still the mark at which wit and satire and
cruelty levelled their arrows.
‘Woman,’ says Adam Clarke, ‘has been invidiously defined, _an animal
of dress_. How long will they permit themselves to be thus degraded?’
I have been an attentive observer of my sex, and I am constrained to
believe that the passion for dress, which so generally characterizes
them, is one cause why there so is little of that solid improvement
and weight of character which might be acquired under almost any
circumstances, if the mind were not occupied by the love of admiration,
and the desire to gratify personal vanity. I have already adduced some
instances to prove the inordinate love of dress, which is exhibited
by women in a state of heathenism; I shall, therefore, confine myself
now to what are called Christian countries; only remarking that
previous to the introduction of Christianity into the Roman empire, the
extravagance of apparel had arisen to an unprecedented height. ‘Jewels,
expensive embroidery, and delicious perfumes, were used in great
profusion by those who could afford them.’ The holy religion of Jesus
Christ came in at this period, and stript luxury and wealth of all
their false attractions. ‘Women of the noblest and wealthiest families,
surrounded by the seductive allurements of worldly pleasure, renounced
them all. Undismayed by severe edicts against the new religion, they
appeared before the magistrates, and by pronouncing the simple words,
“I am a Christian,” calmly resigned themselves to imprisonment,
ignominy and death.’ Could such women have had their minds occupied
by the foolish vanity of ornamental apparel? No! Christianity struck
at the root of all sin, and consequently we find the early Christians
could not fight, or swear, or wear costly clothing. Cave, in his work
entitled ‘Primitive Christianity,’ has some interesting remarks on this
subject, showing that simplicity of dress was not then esteemed an
unimportant part of Christianity.
Very soon, however, when the fire of persecution was no longer blazing,
pagan customs became interwoven with Christianity. The professors of
the religion of a self-denying Lord, whose kingdom was not of this
world, began to use the sword, to return railing for railing, to take
oaths, to mingle heathen forms and ceremonies with Christian worship,
to engraft on the beautiful simplicity of piety, the feasts and
observances which were usual at heathen festivals in honor of the gods,
and to adorn their persons with rich and ornamental apparel. And now if
we look at Christendom, there is scarcely a vestige of that religion,
which the Redeemer of men came to promulgate. The Christian world is
much in the situation of the Jewish nation, when the babe of Bethlehem
was born, full of outside observances, which they substitute for mercy
and love, for self-denial and good works, rigid in the performance
of religious duties, but ready, if the Lord Jesus came amongst them
and judged them by their fruits, as he did the Pharisees formerly, to
crucify him as a slanderer. Indeed, I believe the remark of a late
author is perfectly correct:
‘Strange as it may seem, yet I do not hesitate to declare my belief
that it is easier to make Pagan nations Christians, than to reform
Christian communities and fashion them anew, after the pure and
simple standard of the gospel. Cast your eye over Christian countries,
and see what a multitude of causes combine to resist and impair
the influence of Christian institutions. Behold the conformity of
Christians to the world, in its prodigal pleasures and frivolous
amusements, in its corrupt opinions and sentiments, of false honor.
Behold the wide spread ignorance and degrading superstition; the power
of prejudice and the authority of custom; the unchristian character of
our systems of education; and the dread of the frowns and ridicule of
the world, and we discover at once a host of more formidable enemies
to the progress of _true religion_ in Christian, than in heathen
lands.’
But I must proceed to examine what is the state of professing
Christendom, as regards the subject of this letter. A few words will
suffice. The habits and employments of fashionable circles are nearly
the same throughout Christian communities. The fashion of dress, which
varies more rapidly than the changing seasons, is still, as it has
been from time immemorial, an all-absorbing object of interest. The
simple cobbler of Agawam, who wrote in Massachusetts as early as 1647,
speaking of women, says,
“It is no marvel they wear drailes on the hinder part of their heads,
having nothing, as it seems, in the fore part, but a few squirrels’
brains to help them frisk from one fashion to another.’
It must, however, be conceded, that although there are too many women
who merit this severe reprehension, there is a numerous class whose
improvement of mind and devotion to the cause of humanity justly
entitle them to our respect and admiration. One of the most striking
characteristics of modern times, is the tendency toward a universal
dissemination of knowledge in all Protestant communities. But the
character of woman has been elevated more by participating in the
great moral enterprises of the day, than by anything else. It would
astonish us if we could see at a glance all the labor, the patience,
the industry, the fortitude which woman has exhibited, in carrying on
the causes of Moral Reform, Anti-Slavery, &c. Still, even these noble
and ennobling pursuits have not destroyed personal vanity. Many of
those who are engaged in these great and glorious reformations, watch
with eager interest, the ever varying freaks of the goddess of fashion,
and are not exceeded by the butterflies of the ball-room in their love
of curls, artificial flowers, embroidery and gay apparel. Many a woman
will ply her needle with ceaseless industry, to obtain money to forward
a favorite benevolent scheme, while at the same time she will expend on
useless articles of dress, more than treble the sum which she procures
by the employment of her needle, and which she might throw into the
Lord’s treasury, and leave herself leisure to cultivate her mind, and
to mingle among the poor and the afflicted more than she can possibly
do now.
I feel exceedingly solicitous to draw the attention of my sisters to
this subject. I know that it is called trifling, and much is said about
dressing fashionably, and elegantly, and becomingly, without thinking
about it. This I do not believe can be done. If we indulge our fancy
in the chameleon caprices of fashion, or in wearing ornamental and
extravagant apparel, the mind must be in no small degree engaged in the
gratification of personal vanity.
Lest any one may suppose from my being a Quaker, that I should like to
see a uniform dress adopted, I will say, that I have no partiality
for their peculiar costume, except so far as I find it simple and
convenient; and I have not the remotest desire to see it worn, where
one more commodious can be substituted. But I do believe one of the
chief obstacles in the way of woman’s elevation to the same platform
of human rights, and moral dignity, and intellectual improvement, with
her brother, on which God placed her, and where he designed her to
act her part as an immortal creature, is her love of dress. ‘It has
been observed,’ says Scott, ‘that foppery and extravagance as to dress
_in men_ are most emphatically condemned by the apostle’s silence on
the subject, for this intimated that surely _they_ could be under no
temptation to such a childish vanity.’ But even those men who are
superior to such a childish vanity in themselves, are, nevertheless,
ever ready to encourage it in women. They know that so long as we
submit to be dressed like dolls, we never can rise to the stations of
duty and usefulness from which they desire to exclude us; and they are
willing to grant us paltry indulgences, which forward their own design
of keeping us out of our appropriate sphere, while they deprive us of
essential rights.
To me it appears beneath the dignity of woman to bedeck herself in
gewgaws and trinkets, in ribbons and laces, to gratify the eye of man.
I believe, furthermore, that we owe a solemn duty to the poor. Many a
woman, in what is called humble life, spends nearly all her earnings in
dress, because she wants to be as well attired as her employer. It is
often argued that, as the birds and the flowers are gaily adorned by
nature’s hand, there can be no sin in woman’s ornamenting her person.
My reply is, God created me neither a bird nor a flower; and I aspire
to something more than a resemblance to them. Besides, the gaudy colors
in which birds and flowers are arrayed, create in them no feelings of
vanity; but as human beings, we are susceptible of these passions,
which are nurtured and strengthened by such adornments. ‘Well,’ I am
often asked, ‘where is the limitation?’ This it is not my business to
decide. Every woman, as Judson remarks, can best settle this on her
knees before God. He has commanded her not to be conformed to this
world, but to be transformed by the renewing of her mind, that she may
know what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God. He made
the dress of the Jewish women the subject of special denunciation by
his prophet--Is. 3: 16-26; yet the chains and the bracelets, the rings
and the ear-rings, and the changeable suits of apparel, are still worn
by Christian women. He has commanded them, through his apostles, not
to adorn themselves with broidered hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly
array. Not to let their adorning be the ‘outward adorning of plaiting
the hair, or of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel, but let
it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible,
even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight
of God of great price;’ yet we disregard these solemn admonitions.
May we not form some correct estimate of dress, by asking ourselves
how we should feel, if we saw ministers of the gospel rise to address
an audience with ear-rings dangling from their ears, glittering rings
on their fingers, and a wreath of artificial flowers on their brow,
and the rest of their apparel in keeping? If it would be wrong for
a minister, it is wrong for every professing Christian. God makes no
distinction between the moral and religious duties of ministers and
people. We are bound to be ‘a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a
peculiar people, a holy nation; that we should show forth the praises
of him who hath called us out of darkness into his marvellous light.’
Thine in the bonds of womanhood,
SARAH M. GRIMKE.
LETTER XII.
LEGAL DISABILITIES OF WOMEN.
_Concord, 9th Mo., 6th, 1837._
MY DEAR SISTER,--There are few things which present greater obstacles
to the improvement and elevation of woman to her appropriate sphere
of usefulness and duty, than the laws which have been enacted to
destroy her independence, and crush her individuality; laws which,
although they are framed for her government, she has had no voice in
establishing, and which rob her of some of her _essential rights_.
Woman has no political existence. With the single exception of
presenting a petition to the legislative body, she is a cipher in the
nation; or, if not actually so in representative governments, she is
only counted, like the slaves of the South, to swell the number of
law-makers who form decrees for her government, with little reference
to her benefit, except so far as her good may promote their own. I
am not sufficiently acquainted with the laws respecting women on the
continent of Europe, to say anything about them. But Prof. Follen,
in his essay on ‘The Cause of Freedom in our Country,’ says, ‘Woman,
though fully possessed of that rational and moral nature which is the
foundation of all rights, enjoys amongst us fewer legal rights than
under the civil law of continental Europe.’ I shall confine myself to
the laws of our country. These laws bear with peculiar rigor on married
women. Blackstone, in the chapter entitled ‘Of husband and wife,’
says:--
‘By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law; that is,
_the very being, or legal existence of the woman_ is suspended during
the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that
of the husband under whose wing, protection and cover she performs
everything.’ ‘For this reason, a man cannot grant anything to his
wife, or enter into covenant with her; for the grant would be to
suppose her separate existence, and to covenant with her would be to
covenant with himself; and therefore it is also generally true, that
all compacts made between husband and wife when single, are voided by
the intermarriage. A woman indeed may be attorney for her husband; but
that implies no separation from, but is rather a representation of,
her love.’
Here now, the very being of a woman, like that of a slave, is absorbed
in her master. All contracts made with her, like those made with slaves
by their owners, are a mere nullity. Our kind defenders have legislated
away almost all our legal rights, and in the true spirit of such
injustice and oppression, have kept us in ignorance of those very laws
by which we are governed. They have persuaded us, that we have no right
to investigate the laws, and that, if we did, we could not comprehend
them; they alone are capable of understanding the mysteries of
Blackstone, &c. But they are not backward to make us feel the practical
operation of their power over our actions.
‘The husband is bound to provide his wife with necessaries by law, as
much as himself; and if she contracts debts for them, he is obliged
to pay for them; but for anything besides necessaries, he is not
chargeable.’
Yet a man may spend the property he has acquired by marriage at the
ale-house, the gambling table, or in any other way that he pleases.
Many instances of this kind have come to my knowledge; and women, who
have brought their husbands handsome fortunes, have been left, in
consequence of the wasteful and dissolute habits of their husbands,
in straitened circumstances, and compelled to toil for the support of
their families.
‘If the wife be indebted before marriage, the husband is bound
afterwards to pay the debt; for he has adopted her and her
circumstances together.’
The wife’s property is, I believe, equally liable for her husband’s
debts contracted before marriage.
‘If the wife be injured in her person or property, she can bring no
action for redress without her husband’s concurrence, and his name as
well as her own: neither can she be sued, without making her husband a
defendant.’
This law that ‘a wife can bring no action,’ &c., is similar to the law
respecting slaves, ‘A slave cannot bring a suit against his master, or
any other person, for an injury--his master, must bring it.’ So if any
damages are recovered for an injury committed on a wife, the husband
pockets it; in the case of the slave, the master does the same.
‘In criminal prosecutions, the wife may be indicted and punished
separately, unless there be evidence of coercion from the fact that
the offence was committed in the presence, or by the command of her
husband. A wife is excused from punishment for theft committed in the
presence, or by the command of her husband.’
It would be difficult to frame a law better calculated to destroy the
responsibility of woman as a moral being, or a free agent. Her husband
is supposed to possess unlimited control over her; and if she can offer
the flimsy excuse that he bade her steal, she may break the eighth
commandment with impunity, as far as human laws are concerned.
‘Our law, in general, considers man and wife as one person; yet there
are some instances in which she is separately considered, as inferior
to him and acting by his compulsion. Therefore, all deeds executed,
and acts done by her during her coverture (i. e. marriage,) are void,
except it be a fine, or like matter of record, in which case she must
be solely and secretly examined, to learn if her act be voluntary.’
Such a law speaks volumes of the abuse of that power which men have
vested in their own hands. Still the private examination of a wife, to
know whether she accedes to the disposition of property made by her
husband is, in most cases, a mere form; a wife dares not do what will
be disagreeable to one who is, in his own estimation, her superior,
and who makes her feel, in the privacy of domestic life, that she has
thwarted him. With respect to the nullity of deeds or acts done by a
wife, I will mention one circumstance. A respectable woman borrowed of
a female friend a sum of money to relieve her son from some distressing
pecuniary embarrassment. Her husband was from home, and she assured the
lender, that as soon as he returned, he would gratefully discharge the
debt. She gave her note, and the lender, entirely ignorant of the law
that a man is not obliged to discharge such a debt, actually borrowed
the money, and lent it to the distressed and weeping mother. The father
returned home, refused to pay the debt, and the person who had loaned
the money was obliged to pay both principal and interest to the friend
who lent it to her. Women should certainly know the laws by which they
are governed, and from which they frequently suffer; yet they are kept
in ignorance, nearly as profound, of their legal rights, and of the
legislative enactments which are to regulate their actions, as slaves.
‘The husband, by the old law, might give his wife moderate correction,
as he is to answer for her misbehavior. The law thought it reasonable
to entrust him with this power of restraining her by domestic
chastisement. The courts of law will still permit a husband to
restrain a wife of her liberty, in case of any gross misbehavior.’
What a mortifying proof this law affords, of the estimation in which
woman is held! She is placed completely in the hands of a being subject
like herself to the outbursts of passion, and therefore unworthy to be
trusted with power. Perhaps I may be told respecting this law, that
it is a dead letter, as I am sometimes told about the slave laws; but
this is not true in either case. The slaveholder does kill his slave
by moderate correction, as the law allows; and many a husband, among
the poor, exercises the right given him by the law, of degrading
woman by personal chastisement. And among the higher ranks, if actual
imprisonment is not resorted to, women are not unfrequently restrained
of the liberty of going to places of worship by irreligious husbands,
and of doing many other things about which, as moral and responsible
beings, _they_ should be the _sole_ judges. Such laws remind me of
the reply of some little girls at a children’s meeting held recently
at Ipswich. The lecturer told them that God had created four orders
of beings with which he had made us acquainted through the Bible. The
first was angels, the second was man, the third beasts; and now,
children, what is the fourth? After a pause, several girls replied,
‘WOMEN.’
‘A woman’s personal property by marriage becomes absolutely her
husband’s, which, at his death, he may leave entirely away from her.’
And farther, all the avails of her labor are absolutely in the power
of her husband. All that she acquires by her industry is his; so that
she cannot, with her own honest earnings, become the legal purchaser
of any property. If she expends her money for articles of furniture,
to contribute to the comfort of her family, they are liable to be
seized for her husband’s debts: and I know an instance of a woman, who
by labor and economy had scraped together a little maintenance for
herself and a do-little husband, who was left, at his death, by virtue
of his last will and testament, to be supported by charity. I knew
another woman, who by great industry had acquired a little money which
she deposited in a bank for safe keeping. She had saved this pittance
whilst able to work, in hopes that when age or sickness disqualified
her for exertion, she might have something to render life comfortable,
without being a burden to her friends. Her husband, a worthless, idle
man, discovered this hid treasure, drew her little stock from the
bank, and expended it all in extravagance and vicious indulgence. I
know of another woman, who married without the least idea that she was
surrendering her rights to all her personal property. Accordingly, she
went to the bank as usual to draw her dividends, and the person who
paid her the money, and to whom she was personally known as an owner
of shares in that bank, remarking the change in her signature, withdrew
the money, informing her that if she were married, she had no longer
a right to draw her dividends without an order from her husband. It
appeared that she intended having a little fund for private use, and
had not even told her husband that she owned this stock, and she was
not a little chagrined, when she found that it was not at her disposal.
I think she was wrong to conceal the circumstance. The relation of
husband and wife is too near and sacred to admit of secrecy about money
matters, unless positive necessity demands it; and I can see no excuse
for any woman entering into a marriage engagement with a design to keep
her husband ignorant that she was possessed of property. If she was
unwilling to give up her property to his disposal, she had infinitely
better have remained single. The laws above cited are not very unlike
the slave laws of Louisiana.
‘All that a slave possesses belongs to his master; he possesses
nothing of his own, except what his master chooses he should possess.’
‘By the marriage, the husband is absolutely master of the profits of
the wife’s lands during the coverture, and if he has had a living
child, and survives the wife, he retains the whole of those lands,
if they are estates of inheritance, during his life; but the wife
is entitled only to one third if she survives, out of the husband’s
estates of inheritance. But this she has, whether she has had a child
or not.’ ‘With regard to the property of women, there is taxation
without representation; for they pay taxes without having the liberty
of voting for representatives.’
And this taxation, without representation, be it remembered, was the
cause of our Revolutionary war, a grievance so heavy, that it was
thought necessary to purchase exemption from it at an immense expense
of blood and treasure, yet the daughters of New England, as well as of
all the other States of this free Republic, are suffering a similar
injustice--but for one, I had rather we should suffer any injustice or
oppression, than that my sex should have any voice in the political
affairs of the nation.