So Susan believed, and she was doing her best to make it all free.

Not only was she holding antislavery meetings, making speeches, and

distributing leaflets whenever and wherever possible, but she was also

lobbying in Albany for a personal liberty bill to protect the slaves

who were escaping from the South. "Treason in the Capitol," the

Democratic press labeled efforts for a personal liberty bill, and as

Susan reported to William Lloyd Garrison,[83] even Republicans shied

away from it, many of them regarding Seward's "irrepressible conflict"

speech a sorry mistake. Such timidity and shilly-shallying were

repugnant to her. She could better understand the fervor of John Brown

although he fought with bullets.

Yet John Brown's fervor soon ended in tragedy, sowing seeds of fear,

distrust, and bitter partisanship in all parts of the country. When,

in October 1859, the startling news reached Susan of the raid on

Harper's Ferry and the capture of John Brown, she sadly tried to piece

together the story of his failure. She admired and respected John

Brown, believing he had saved Kansas for freedom. That he had further

ambitious plans was common knowledge among antislavery workers, for he

had talked them over with Gerrit Smith, Frederick Douglass, and the

three young militants, Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Frank Sanborn, and

Samuel Gridley Howe. Somehow these plans had failed, but she was sure

that his motives were good. He was imprisoned, accused of treason and

murder, and in his carpetbag were papers which, it was said,

implicated prominent antislavery workers. Now his friends were fleeing

the country, Sanborn, Douglass, and Howe. Gerrit Smith broke down so

completely that for a time his mind was affected. Thomas Wentworth

Higginson, defiant and unafraid, stuck by John Brown to the end,

befriending his family, hoping to rescue him as he had rescued

fugitive slaves.

Scanning the _Liberator_ for its comment on John Brown, Susan found it

colored, as she had expected, by Garrison's instinctive opposition to

all war and bloodshed. He called the raid "a misguided, wild,

apparently insane though disinterested and well-intentioned effort by

insurrection to emancipate the slaves of Virginia," but even he added,

"Let no one who glories in the Revolutionary struggle of 1776 deny the

right of the slaves to imitate the example of our fathers."[84]

Behind closed doors and in public meetings, abolitionists pledged

their allegiance to John Brown's noble purpose. He had wanted no

bloodshed, they said, had no thought of stirring up slaves to brutal

revenge. The raid was to be merely a signal for slaves to arise, to

cast off slavery forever, to follow him to a mountain refuge, which

other slave insurrections would reinforce until all slaves were free.

To him the plan seemed logical and he was convinced it was

God-inspired. To some of his friends it seemed possible--just a step

beyond the Underground Railroad and hiding fugitive slaves. To Susan

he was a hero and a martyr.

Southerners, increasingly fearful of slave insurrections, called John

Brown a cold-blooded murderer and accused Republicans--"black

Republicans," they classed them--of taking orders from abolitionists

and planning evil against them. To law-abiding northerners, John Brown

was a menace, stirring up lawlessness. Seward and Lincoln, speaking

for the Republicans, declared that violence, bloodshed, and treason

could not be excused even if slavery was wrong and Brown thought he

was right. All saw before them the horrible threat of civil war.

During John Brown's trial, his friends did their utmost to save him.

The noble old giant with flowing white beard, who had always been more

or less of a legend, now to them assumed heroic proportions. His

calmness, his steadfastness in what he believed to be right captured

the imagination.

The jury declared him guilty--guilty of treason, of conspiring with

slaves to rebel, guilty of murder in the first degree. The papers

carried the story, and it spread by word of mouth--the story of those

last tense moments in the courtroom when John Brown declared, "It is

unjust that I should suffer such a penalty. Had I interferred ... in

behalf of the rich, the powerful, the intelligent, the so-called

great, or in behalf of any of their friends ... it would have been all

right.... I say I am yet too young to understand that God is any

respecter of persons. I believe that to have interferred as I have

done, in behalf of His despised poor, I did no wrong but right. Now if

it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the

furtherance of the ends of justice and mingle my blood further with

the blood of my children and with the blood of millions in this slave

country whose rights are disregarded by wicked, cruel, and unjust

enactments, I say, let it be done...."[85]

He was sentenced to die.

Susan, sick at heart, talked all this over with her abolitionist

friends and began planning a meeting of protest and mourning in

Rochester if John Brown were hanged. She engaged the city's most

popular hall for this meeting, never thinking of the animosity she

might arouse, and as she went from door to door selling tickets, she

asked for contributions for John Brown's destitute family. She tried

to get speakers from among respected Republicans to widen the popular

appeal of the meeting, but her diary records, "Not one man of

prominence in religion or politics will identify himself with the John

Brown meeting."[86] Only a Free Church minister, the Rev. Abram Pryn,

and the ever-faithful Parker Pillsbury were willing to speak.

There was still hope that John Brown might be saved and excitement ran

high. Some like Higginson, unwilling to let him die, wanted to rescue

him, but Brown forbade it. Others wanted to kidnap Governor Wise of

Virginia and hold him on the high seas, a hostage for John Brown.

Wendell Phillips was one of these. Parker Pillsbury, sending Susan the

latest news from "the seat of war" and signing his letter, "Faithfully

and fervently yours," wrote, "My voice is against any attempt at

rescue. It would inevitably, I fear, lead to bloodshed which could not

compensate nor be compensated. If the people dare murder their victim,

as they are determined to do, and in the name of the law ... the moral

effect of the execution will be without a parallel since the scenes on

Calvary eighteen hundred years ago, and the halter that day sanctified

shall be the cord to draw millions to salvation."[87]

On Friday, December 2, 1859, John Brown was hanged. Through the North,

church bells tolled and prayers were said for him. Everywhere people

gathered together to mourn and honor or to condemn. In New York City,

at a big meeting which overflowed to the streets, it was resolved

"that we regard the recent outrage at Harper's Ferry as a crime, not

only against the State of Virginia, but against the Union itself...."

In Boston, however, Ralph Waldo Emerson spoke to a tremendous audience

of "the new saint, than whom none purer or more brave was ever led by

love of man into conflict and death ... who will make the gallows

glorious," and Henry Wadsworth Longfellow recorded in his diary, "This

will be a great day in our history; the date of a new revolution." Far

away in France, Victor Hugo declared, "The eyes of Europe are fixed on

America. The hanging of John Brown will open a latent fissure that

will finally split the union asunder.... You preserve your shame, but

you kill your glory."[88]

In Rochester, three hundred people assembled. All were friends of the

cause and there was no unfriendly disturbance to mar the proceedings.

Susan presided and Parker Pillsbury, in her opinion, made "the

grandest speech of his life," for it was the only occasion he ever

found fully wicked enough to warrant "his terrific invective."[89]

Thus these two militant abolitionists, Susan B. Anthony and Parker

Pillsbury, joined hundreds of others throughout the nation in honoring

John Brown, sensing the portent of his martyrdom and prophesying that

his soul would go marching on.

FOOTNOTES:

[69] Harper, _Anthony_, I, pp. 144-145. As John Brown visited

Frederick Douglass in Rochester, it is possible that Susan B. Anthony

had met him.

[70] Oct. 19, 1856, Blackwell Papers, Edna M. Stantial Collection.

[71] Harper, _Anthony_, I, p. 148.

[72] _Ibid._, p. 151; also quotation following.

[73] Alice Stone Blackwell, _Lucy Stone_ (Boston, 1930), pp. 197-198.

[74] Ms., Susan B. Anthony Papers, Library of Congress.

[75] Harper, _Anthony_, I, p. 152.

[76] April 20, 1857, Abby Kelley Foster Papers, American Antiquarian

Society, Worcester, Massachusetts.

[77] Parker Pillsbury, _The Acts of the Antislavery Apostles_

(Concord, N.H., 1883).

[78] Harper, _Anthony_, I. p. 160.

[79] March 22, 1858, Blackwell Papers, Edna M. Stantial Collection.

[80] N.d., Alma Lutz Collection.

[81] Charles A. and Mary B. Beard, _The Rise of American Civilization_

(New York, 1930), II, p. 9.

[82] A. M. Schlesinger and H. C. Hockett, _Land of the Free_ (New

York, 1944), p. 297.

[83] March 19, 1859, Antislavery Papers, Boston Public Library.

[84] Francis Jackson, William Lloyd II, and Wendell Phillips Garrison,

_William Lloyd Garrison_, 1805-1879 (New York, 1889), III, p. 486.

[85] _Ibid._, p. 490.

[86] Harper, _Anthony_, I, p. 181.

[87] _Ibid._, p. 180.

[88] Henrietta Buckmaster, _Let My People Go_ (New York, 1941), p.

269; Ehrlich, _God's Angry Man_, pp. 344-345, 350.

[89] Susan B. Anthony Scrapbook, Library of Congress. In 1890, after

visiting the John Brown Memorial at North Elbe, New York, Susan B.

Anthony wrote: "John Brown was crucified for doing what he believed

God commanded him to do, 'to break the yoke and let the oppressed go

free,' precisely as were the saints of old for following what they

believed to be God's commands. The barbarism of our government was by

so much the greater as our light and knowledge are greater than those

of two thousand years ago." Harper, _Anthony_, II, p. 708.

THE TRUE WOMAN

Susan's preoccupation with antislavery work did not lessen her

interest in women's advancement. Her own expanding courage and ability

showed her the possibilities for all women in widened horizons and

activities. These possibilities were the chief topic of conversation

when she and Elizabeth Stanton were together. With Mrs. Stanton's

young daughters, Margaret and Harriot, in mind, they were continually

planning ways and means of developing the new woman, or the "true

woman" as they liked to call her; and one of these ways was physical

exercise in the fresh air, which was almost unheard of for women

except on the frontier.

Taking off her hoops and working in the garden in the freedom of her

long calico dress, Susan was refreshed and exhilarated. "Uncovered the

strawberry and raspberry beds ..." her diary records. "Worked with

Simon building frames for the grapevines in the peach orchards.... Set

out 18 English black currants, 22 English gooseberries and Muscatine

grape vines.... Finished setting out the apple trees & 600 blackberry

bushes...."[90]

She knew how little this strengthening work and healing influence

touched the lives of most women. Hemmed in by the walls of their

homes, weighed down by bulky confining clothing, fed on the tradition

of weakness, women could never gain the breadth of view, courage, and

stamina needed to demand and appreciate emancipation. She thought a

great deal about this and how it could be remedied, and wrote her

friend, Thomas Wentworth Higginson "The salvation of the race depends,

in a great measure, upon rescuing women from their hot-house

existence. Whether in kitchen, nursery or parlor, all alike are shut

away from God's sunshine. Why did not your Caroline Plummer of Salem,

why do not all of our wealthy women leave money for industrial and

agricultural schools for girls, instead of ever and always providing

for boys alone?"[91]

An exceptional opportunity was now offered Susan--to speak on the

controversial subject of coeducation before the State Teachers'

Association, which only a few years before had been shocked by the

sound of a woman's voice. Deeply concerned over her ability to write

the speech, she at once appealed to Elizabeth Stanton, "Do you please

mark out a plan and give me as soon as you can...."[92]

[Illustration: Susan B. Anthony, 1856]

Busy with preparations for woman's rights meetings in popular New York

summer resorts, Saratoga Springs, Lake George, Clifton Springs, and

Avon, she grew panicky at the prospect of her impending speech and

dashed off another urgent letter to Mrs. Stanton, underlining it

vigorously for emphasis: "Not a _word written_ ... and mercy only

knows when I can get a moment, and what is _worse_, as the _Lord knows

full well_, is, that if _I get all the time the world has--I can't get

up a decent document_.... It is of but small moment who writes the

Address, but of _vast moment_ that it be _well done_.... No woman but

you can write from _my standpoint_ for all would base their strongest

_argument_ on the _un_likeness of the _sexes_....

"Those of you who have the _talent_ to do honor to poor, oh how poor

womanhood have all given yourselves over to _baby_-making and left

poor brainless _me_ to battle alone. It is a shame. Such a lady as _I

might_ be _spared_ to _rock cradles_, but it is a crime for _you_ and

_Lucy_ and _Nette_."[93]

On a separate page she outlined for Mrs. Stanton the points she wanted

to make. Her title was affirmative, "Why the Sexes Should be Educated

Together." "Because," she reasoned, "by such education they get true

ideas of each other.... Because the endowment of both public and

private funds is ever for those of the male sex, while all the

Seminaries and Boarding Schools for Females are left to

maintain themselves as best they may by means of their tuition

fees--consequently cannot afford a faculty of first-class

professors.... Not a school in the country gives to the girl equal

privileges with the boy.... No school _requires_ and but very few

allow the _girls_ to declaim and discuss side by side with the boys.

Thus they are robbed of half of education. The grand thing that is

needed is to give the sexes _like motives_ for acquirement. Very

rarely a person studies closely, without hope of making that knowledge

useful, as a means of support...."[94]

Mrs. Stanton wrote her at once, "Come here and I will do what I can to

help you with your address, if you will hold the baby and make the

puddings."[95] Gratefully Susan hurried to Seneca Falls and together

they "loaded her gun," not only for the teachers' convention but for

all the summer meetings.

Addressing the large teachers' meeting in Troy, Susan declared that

mental sex-differences did not exist. She called attention to the

ever-increasing variety of occupations which women were carrying on

with efficiency. There were women typesetters, editors, publishers,

authors, clerks, engravers, watchmakers, bookkeepers, sculptors,

painters, farmers, and machinists. Two hundred and fifty women were

serving as postmasters. Girls, she insisted, must be educated to earn

a living and more vocations must be opened to them as an incentive to

study. "A woman," she added, "needs no particular kind of education to

be a wife and mother anymore than a man does to be a husband and

father. A man cannot make a living out of these relations. He must

fill them with something more and so must women."[96]

Her advanced ideas did not cause as much consternation as she had

expected and she was asked to repeat her speech at the Massachusetts

teachers' convention; but the thoughts of many in that audience were

echoed by the president when he said to her after the meeting, "Madam,

that was a splendid production and well delivered. I could not have

asked for a single thing different either in matter or manner; but I

would rather have followed my wife or daughter to Greenwood cemetery

than to have had her stand here before this promiscuous audience and

deliver that address."[97]

It was one thing to talk about coeducation but quite another to offer

a resolution putting the New York State Teachers' Association on

record as asking all schools, colleges, and universities to open their

doors to women. This Susan did at their next convention, and while

there were enough women present to carry the resolution, most of them

voted against it, listening instead to the emotional arguments of a

group of conservative men who prophesied that coeducation would

coarsen women and undermine marriage. Nor did she forget the Negro at

these conventions, but brought much criticism upon herself by offering

resolutions protesting the exclusion of Negroes from public schools,

academies, colleges, and universities.

Such controversial activities were of course eagerly reported in the

press, and Henry Stanton, reading his newspaper, pointed them out to

his wife, remarking drily, "Well, my dear, another notice of Susan.

You stir up Susan and she stirs up the world."[98]

* * * * *

The best method of arousing women and spreading new ideas, Susan

decided, was holding woman's rights conventions, for the discussions

at these conventions covered a wide field and were not limited merely

to women's legal disabilities. The feminists of that day extolled

freedom of speech, and their platform, like that of antislavery

conventions, was open to anyone who wished to express an opinion.

Always the limited educational opportunities offered to women were

pointed out, and Oberlin College and Antioch, both coeducational, were

held up as patterns for the future. Resolutions were passed, demanding

that Harvard and Yale admit women. Women's low wages and the very few

occupations open to them were considered, and whether it was fitting

for women to be doctors and ministers. At one convention Lucy Stone

made the suggestion that a prize be offered for a novel on women,

like _Uncle Tom's Cabin_, to arouse the whole nation to the unjust

situation of women whose slavery, she felt, was comparable to that of

the Negro. At another, William Lloyd Garrison maintained that women

had the right to sit in the Congress and in state legislatures and

that there should be an equal number of men and women in all national

councils. Inevitably Scriptural edicts regarding woman's sphere were

thrashed out with Antoinette Brown, in her clerical capacity, setting

at rest the minds of questioning women and quashing the protests of

clergymen who thought they were speaking for God. Usually Ernestine

Rose was on hand, ready to speak when needed, injecting into the

discussions her liberal clear-cut feminist views. Nor was the

international aspect of the woman's rights movement forgotten. The

interest in Great Britain in the franchise for women of such men as

Lord Brougham and John Stuart Mill was reported as were the efforts

there among women to gain admission to the medical profession.

Distributed widely as a tract was the "admirable" article in the

_Westminster Review_, "The Enfranchisement of Women," by Harriet

Taylor, now Mrs. John Stuart Mill.

In New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana, where

state conventions were held annually, women carried back to their

homes and their friends new and stimulating ideas. National

conventions, which actually represented merely the northeastern states

and Ohio and occasionally attracted men and women from Indiana,

Missouri, and Kansas, were scheduled by Susan to meet every year in

New York, simultaneously with antislavery conventions. Thus she was

assured of a brilliant array of speakers, for the Garrisonian

abolitionists were sincere advocates of woman's rights.

Both Elizabeth Stanton and Lucy Stone were a great help to Susan in

preparing for these national gatherings for which she raised the

money. Elizabeth wrote the calls and resolutions, while Lucy could not

only be counted upon for an eloquent speech, but through her wide

contacts brought new speakers and new converts to the meetings.

However, national woman's rights conventions would probably have

lapsed completely during the troubled years prior to the Civil War,

had it not been for Susan's persistence. She was obliged to omit the

1857 convention because all of her best speakers were either having

babies or were kept at home by family duties. Lucy's baby, Alice Stone

Blackwell, was born in September 1857, then Antoinette Brown's first

child, and Mrs. Stanton's seventh.

[Illustration: Lucy Stone and her daughter, Alice Stone Blackwell]

Impatient to get on with the work, Susan chafed at the delay and when

Lucy wrote her, "I shall not assume the responsibility for another

convention until I have had my ten daughters,"[99] Susan was beside

herself with apprehension. When Lucy told her that it was harder to

take care of a baby day and night than to campaign for woman's rights,

she felt that Lucy regarded as unimportant her "common work" of hiring

halls, engaging speakers, and raising money. This rankled, for

although Susan realized it was work without glory, she did expect Lucy

to understand its significance.

Mrs. Stanton sensed the makings of a rift between Susan and these

young mothers, Lucy and Antoinette, and knowing from her own

experience how torn a woman could be between rearing a family and work

for the cause, she pleaded with Susan to be patient with them. "Let

them rest a while in peace and quietness, and think great thoughts for

the future," she wrote Susan. "It is not well to be in the excitement

of public life all the time. Do not keep stirring them up or mourning

over their repose. You need rest too. Let the world alone a while. We

cannot bring about a moral revolution in a day or a year."[100]

But Susan could not let the world alone. There was too much to be

done. In addition to her woman's rights and antislavery work, she gave

a helping hand to any good cause in Rochester, such as a protest

meeting against capital punishment, a series of Sunday evening

lectures, or establishing a Free Church like that headed by Theodore

Parker in Boston where no one doctrine would be preached and all would

be welcome. There were days when weariness and discouragement hung

heavily upon her. Then impatient that she alone seemed to be carrying

the burden of the whole woman's rights movement, she complained to

Lydia Mott, "There is not one woman left who may be relied on. All

have first to please their husbands after which there is little time

or energy left to spend in any other direction.... How soon the last

standing monuments (yourself and myself, Lydia) will lay down the

individual 'shovel and de hoe' and with proper zeal and spirit grasp

those of some masculine hand, the mercies and the spirits only know. I

declare to you that I distrust the powers of any woman, even of myself

to withstand the mighty matrimonial maelstrom!"[101]

To Elizabeth Stanton she confessed, "I have very weak moments and long

to lay my weary head somewhere and nestle my full soul to that of

another in full sympathy. I sometimes fear that _I too_ shall faint by

the wayside and drop out of the ranks of the faithful few."[102]

* * * * *

Susan thought a great deal about marriage at this time, about how it

interfered with the development of women's talents and their careers,

how it usually dwarfed their individuality. Nor were these thoughts

wholly impersonal, for she had attentive suitors during these years.

Her diary mentions moonlight rides and adds, "Mr.--walked home with

me; marvelously attentive. What a pity such powers of intellect should

lack the moral spine."[103] Her standards of matrimony were high, and

she carefully recorded in her diary Lucretia Mott's wise words, "In

the true marriage relation, the independence of the husband and wife

is equal, their dependence mutual, and their obligations

reciprocal."[104]

Marriage and the differences of the sexes were often discussed at the

many meetings she attended, and when remarks were made which to her

seemed to limit in any way the free and full development of woman, she

always registered her protest. She had no patience with any

unrealistic glossing over of sex attraction and spurned the theory

that woman expressed love and man wisdom, that these two qualities

reached out for each other and blended in marriage. Because she spoke

frankly for those days and did not soften the impact of her words with

sentimental flowery phrases, her remarks were sometimes called

"coarse" and "animal," but she justified them in a letter to Mrs.

Stanton, who thought as she did, "To me it [sex] is not coarse or

gross. If it is a fact, there it is."[105]

Susan B. Anthony Rebel, Crusader, Humanitarian · 第 6 / 30 段