Marital Power Exemplified in Mrs. Packard's Trial, and Self-Defence from the Charge of Insanity Part 9

Fidelity to the truth requires me to add one more melancholy fact, in order to make this narrative of events complete, and that is, that Mr.

Packard has made merchandise of this stigma of Insanity he has branded me with, and used it as a lucrative source of gain to himself, in the following manner. He has made most pathetic appeals to the sympathies of the public for their charities to be bestowed upon him, on the plea of his great misfortune in having an insane wife to support--one who was incapable of taking care of herself or her six children--and on this false premise he has based a most pathetic argument and appeal to their sympathies for pecuniary help, in the form of boxes of clothing for himself and his dest.i.tute and defenceless children. These appeals have been most generously responded to from the American Home Missionary Society. So that when I returned to my home from the Asylum, I counted twelve boxes of such clothing, some of which were very large, containing the spoils he had thus purloined from this benevolent society, by entirely false representations.

My family were not dest.i.tute. But on the contrary, were abundantly supplied with a supernumerary amount of such missionary gifts, which had been lavished upon us, at his request, before I was imprisoned. I had often said to him, that I and my children had already more than a supply for our wants until they were grown up. Now, what could he do with twelve more such boxes? My son, Isaac, now in Chicago, and twenty-one years of age, told me he had counted fifty new vests in one pile, and he had as many pants and coats, and overcoats, and almost every thing else, of men's wearing apparel, in like ratio. He said I had a pile of dress patterns acc.u.mulated from these boxes, to one yard in depth in one solid pile. And this was only one sample of all kinds of ladies' apparel which he had thus acc.u.mulated, by his cunningly devised begging system.

Still, to this very date, he is pleading want and dest.i.tution as a basis for more charities of like kind. He has even so moved the benevolent sympathies of the widow d.i.c.kinson with whom he boarded, as to make her feel that he was an honest claimant upon their charities in this line, on the ground of poverty and dest.i.tution. She accordingly started a subscription to procure him a suit of clothes, on the ground of his extreme dest.i.tution, and finally succeeded in begging a subscription of one hundred and thirteen dollars for his benefit, and presented it to him as a token of sympathy and regard.

Another fact, he has put his property out of his hands, so that he can say he has nothing. And should I sue him for my maintainance, I could get nothing. His rich brother-in-law, George Hastings, supports the three youngest children, mostly, thus leaving scarcely no claimants upon his own purse, except his own personal wants. His wife and six children he has so disposed of, as to be almost entirely independent of him of any support.

And it is my honest opinion, that had Sunderland people known of these facts in his financial matters, they would not have presented him with one hundred and thirteen dollars, as a token of their sympathy and esteem.

Still, looking at the subject from their stand-point, I have no doubt they acted conscientiously in this matter. I have never deemed it my duty to enlighten them on this subject, except as the truth is sought for from me, in a few individual isolated cases. I do not mingle with the people scarcely at all, and have sold none of my books among them. Self-defence does not require me to seek the protection of enlightened public sentiment now that the laws protect my personal liberty, while in Ma.s.sachusetts.

But fidelity to the cause of humanity, especially the cause of "Married Woman," requires me to make public the facts of this notorious persecution, in order to have her true legal position known and fully apprehended. And since my case is a practical ill.u.s.tration of what the law is on this subject--showing how entirely dest.i.tute she is of any legal protection, except what the will and wishes of her husband secures to her--and also demonstrates the fact, that the common-law, everywhere, in relation to married woman, not only gravitates towards an absolute despotism, but even protects and sustains and defends a despotism of the most arbitrary and absolute kind. Therefore, in order to have her social position changed legally, the need of this change must first be seen and appreciated by the common people--the law-makers of this Republic. And this need or necessity for a revolution on this subject can be made to appear in no more direct manner, than by a practical case such as my own furnishes. As the need of a revolution of the law in relation to negro servitude was made to appear, by the practical exhibition of the Slave Code in "Uncle Tom's" experience, showing that all slaves were _liable_ to suffer to the extent he did; so my experience, although like "Uncle Tom's," an extreme case, shows how all married women are _liable_ to suffer to the same extent that I have. Now justice to humanity claims that such liabilities should not exist in any Christian government. The laws should be so changed that such another outrage could not possibly take place under the sanction of the laws of a Christian government.

As Uncle Tom's case aroused the indignation of the people against the slave code, so my case, so far as it is known, arouses this same feeling of indignation against those laws which protect married servitude. Married woman needs legal emanc.i.p.ation from married servitude, as much as the slave needed legal emanc.i.p.ation from his servitude.

Again, all slaves did not suffer under negro slavery, neither do all married women suffer from this legalized servitude. Still, the principle of slavery is wrong, and the principle of emanc.i.p.ation is right, and the laws ought so to regard it. And this married servitude exposes the wife to as great suffering as negro servitude did. It is my candid opinion, that no Southern slave ever suffered more spiritual agony than I have suffered; as I am more developed in my moral and spiritual nature than they are, therefore more capable of suffering. I think no slave mother ever endured more keen anguish by being deprived of her own offspring than I have in being legally separated from mine. G.o.d grant that married woman's emanc.i.p.ation may quickly follow in the wake of negro emanc.i.p.ation!

MISCELLANEOUS QUESTIONS ANSWERED.

In canva.s.sing for my books various important questions have been propounded to me, which the preceding Narrative of Events does not fully answer.

FIRST QUESTION.

"Why, Mrs. Packard, do you not get a divorce?"

Because, in the first place, I do not want to be a divorced woman; but, on the contrary, I wish to be a married woman, and have my husband for my protector; for I do not like this being divorced from my own home. I want a home to live in, and I prefer the one I have labored twenty one years myself to procure, and furnished to my own taste and mind. Neither do I like this being divorced from my own children. I want to live with my dear children, whom I have borne and nursed, reared and educated, almost entirely by my own unwearied indefatigable exertions; and I love them, with all the fondness of a mother's undying love, and no place is home to me in this wide world without them. And again, I have done nothing to _deserve_ this exclusion from the rights and privileges of my own dear home; but on the contrary, my untiring fidelity to the best interests of my family for twenty-one years of healthful, constant service, having never been sick during this time so as to require five dollars doctor's bill to be paid for me or my six children, and having done all the housework, sewing, nursing, and so forth, of my entire family for twenty-one years, with no hired girl help, except for only nine months, during all this long period of constant toil and labor. I say, this self-sacrifizing devotion to the best interests of my family and home, deserve and claim a right to be protected in it, at least, so long as my good conduct continues, instead of being divorced from it, against my own will or consent. In short, what I want is, _protection in my home_, instead of a divorce from it. I do not wish to drive Mr. Packard from his own home, and exclude him from all its rights and privileges--neither do I want he should treat me in this manner, especially so long as he himself claims that I have _always_ been a most kind, patient, devoted wife and mother. He even claims as his justification of his course, that I am so _good_ a woman, and he _loves_ me so well, that he wants to save me from fatal errors!

It is my opinions--my religious opinions--and those alone, he makes an occasion for treating me as he has. He frankly owned to me, that he was putting me into an Asylum so that my reputation for being an insane person might destroy the influence of my religious opinions; and I see in one letter which he wrote to my father, he mentions this as the chief evidence of my insanity. He writes: "Her many excellences and past services I highly appreciate; but she says she has widely departed from, or progressed beyond, her former religious views and sentiments--and I think it is too true!!" Here is all the insanity he claims, or has attempted to prove.

Now comes the question: Is this a crime for which I ought to be divorced from all the comforts and privileges of my own dear home?

To do this,--that is, to get a divorce--would it not be becoming an accomplice in crime, by doing the very deed which he is so desirous of having done, namely: to remove me from my family, for fear of the contaminating influence of my new views? Has a married woman no rights at all? Can she not even think her own thoughts, and speak her own words, unless her thoughts and expressions harmonize with those of her husband? I think it is high time the merits of this question should be practically tested, on a proper basis, the basis of truth--of facts. And the fact, that I have been not only practically divorced from my own home and children, but also incarcerated for three years in a prison, simply for my religious belief, by the arbitrary will of my husband, ought to raise the question, as to what are the married woman's rights, and what is her protection? And it is to this practical issue I have ever striven to force this question. And this issue I felt might be reached more directly and promptly by the public mind, by laying the necessities of the case before the community, and by a direct appeal to them for personal protection--instead of getting a divorce for my protection. I know that by so doing, I have run a great risk of losing my liberty again. Still, I felt that the great cause of married woman's rights might be promoted by this agitation; and so far as my own feelings were concerned, I felt willing to suffer even another martyrdom in this cause, if so be, my sisters in the bonds of marital power might be benefited thereby.

I want and seek protection, _as a married woman_--not divorce, in order to escape the abuses of marital power--that is, I want protection from the abuse of marital power, not a divorce from it. I can live in my home with my husband, if he will only let me do so; but he will not suffer it, unless I recant my religious belief. Cannot religious bigotry under such manifestations, receive _some_ check under our government, which is professedly based on the very principle of religious tolerance to all?

Cannot there be laws enacted by which a married woman can stand on the same platform as a married man--that is, have an equal right, at least, to the protection of her inalienable rights? And is not this our pet.i.tion for protection founded in justice and humanity?

Is it just to leave the weakest and most defenceless of these two parties wholly without the shelter of law to s.h.i.+eld her, while the strongest and most independent has all the aid of the legal arm to strengthen his own?

Nay, verily, it is not right or manly for our man government thus to usurp the whole legal power of self-protection and defence, and leave confiding, trusting woman wholly at the mercy of this gigantic power. For perverted men will use this absolute power to abuse the defenceless, rather than protect them; and abuse of power inevitably leads to the contempt of its victim. A man who can trample on all the inalienable rights of his wife, will, by so doing, come to despise her as an inevitable consequence of wrong doing. Woman, too, is a more spiritual being than a man, and is therefore a more sensitive being, and a more patient sufferer than a man; therefore she, more than any other being, needs protection, and she should find it in that government she has sacrificed so much to uphold and sustain.

Again, I do not believe in the divorce principle. I say it is a "Secession" principle. It undermines the very vital principle of our Union, and saps the very foundation of our social and civil obligations.

For example. Suppose the small, weak and comparatively feeble States in our Union were not protected by the Government in any of their State rights, while the large, strong, and powerful ones had their State rights fully guaranteed and secured to them. Would not this state of the Union endanger the rights of the defenceless ones? and endanger the Union also?

Could these defenceless States resort to any other means of self-defence from the usurpation of the powerful States than that of secession? But secession is death to the Union--death to the principles of love and harmony which ought to bind the parts in one sacred whole.

Now, I claim that the Marriage Union rests on just this principle, as our laws now stand. The woman has no alternative of resort from any kind of abuse from her partner, but divorce, or secession from the Marriage Union.

Now the weak States have rights as well as the strong ones, and it is the rights of the weak, which the government are especially bound to respect and defend, to prevent usurpation and its legitimate issue, secession from the Union. What we want of our government is to prevent this usurpation, by protecting us equally with our partners, so that we shall not need a divorce at all.

By equality of rights, I do not mean that woman's rights and man's rights are one and the same. By no means; we do not want the man's rights, but simply our own, natural, womanly rights. There are man's rights and woman's rights. Both different, yet both equally inalienable. There must be a head in every firm; and the head in the Marriage Firm or Union is the man, as the Bible and nature both plainly teach. We maintain that the senior partner, the man, has rights of the greatest importance, as regards the interests of the marriage firm, which should not only be respected and protected by our government, but also enforced upon them as an obligation, if the senior is not self-moved to use his rights practically--and one of these his rights, is a right to protect his own wife and children. The junior partner also has rights of equal moment to the interests of the firm, and one of these is her right to be protected by her senior partner.

Not protected in a prison, but in her own home, as mistress of her own house, and as a G.o.d appointed guardian of her infant children. The government would then be protecting the marriage union, while it now practically ignores it.

To make this matter still plainer, suppose this government was under the control of the female instead of the male influence, and suppose our female government should enact laws which required the men when they entered the marriage union to alienate their right to hold their own property--their right to hold their future earnings--their right to their own homes--their right to their own offspring, if they should have any--their right to their personal liberty--and all these rights be pa.s.sed over into the hands of their wives for safe keeping, and so long as they chose to be married men, all their claims on our womanly government for protection should be abrogated entirely by this marriage contract. Now, I ask, how many men would venture to get married under these laws? Would they not be tempted to ignore the marriage laws of our woman government altogether? Now, gentlemen, we are sorry to own it, this is the very condition in which your man government places us. We, women, looking from this very standpoint of sad experience, are tempted to exclaim, where is the manliness of our man government!

Divorce, I say, then, is in itself an evil--and is only employed as an evil to avoid a greater one, in many instances. Therefore, instead of being forced to choose the least of two evils, I would rather reject both evils, and choose a good thing, that of being protected in my own dear home from unmerited, unreasonable abuse--a rest.i.tution of my rights, instead of a continuance of this robbery, sanctioned by a divorce.

In short, we desire to live under such laws, as will _oblige_ our husbands to treat us with decent respect, so long as our good conduct merits it, and then will they be made to feel a decent regard for us as their companions and partners, whom the laws protect from their abuse.

SECOND QUESTION.

"What are your opinions, Mrs. Packard, which have caused all this rupture in your once happy family?"

My first impulse prompts we to answer, pertly, it is no one's business what I _think_ but my own, since it is to G.o.d alone I am accountable for my thoughts. Whether my thoughts are right or wrong, true or false, is no one's business but my own. It is my own G.o.d given right to superintend my own thoughts, and this right I shall never guarantee to any other human being--for G.o.d himself has authorized me to "judge ye not of your own selves what is right?" Yes, I do, and shall judge for myself what is right for me to think, what is right for me to speak, and what is right for me to do--and if I do wrong, I stand amenable to the laws of society and my country; for to human tribunals I submit all my actions, as just and proper matter for criticism and control. But my thoughts, I shall never yield to any human tribunal or oligarchy, as a just and proper matter for arbitration or discipline. It is my opinion that the time has gone by for thoughts to be chained to any creeds or oligarchys; but on the contrary, these chains and restraints which have so long bound the human reason to human dictation, must be broken, for the reign of individual, spiritual freedom is about dawning upon our progressive world.

Yes, I insist upon it, that it is my own individual right to superintend my own thoughts; and I say farther, it is not my right to superintend the thoughts or conscience of any other developed being. It is none of my business what Mr. Packard, my father, or any other developed man or woman believe or think, for I do not hold myself responsible for their views. I believe they are as honest and sincere as myself in the views they cherish, although so antagonistic to my own; and I have no wish or desire to hara.s.s or disturb them, by urging my views upon their notice. Yea, further, I _prefer_ to have them left entirely free and unshackled to believe just as their own developed reason dictates. And all I ask of them is, that they allow me the same privilege. My own dear father does kindly allow me this right of a developed moral agent, although we differ as essentially and materially in our views as Mr. Packard and I do. We, like two accountable moral agents, simply agree to differ, and all is peace and harmony.

My individuality has been naturally developed by a life of practical G.o.dliness, so that I now know what I do believe, as is not the case with that cla.s.s in society who dare not individualize themselves. This cla.s.s are mere echoes or parasites, instead of individuals. They just flow on with the tide of public sentiment, whether right or wrong; whereas the individualized ones can and do stem or resist this tide, when they think it is wrong, and in this way they meet with persecution. It is my misfortune to belong to this unfortunate cla.s.s. Therefore I am not ashamed or afraid to avow my honest opinions even in the face of a frowning world.

Therefore, when duty to myself or others, or the cause of truth requires it, I willingly avow my own honest convictions. On this ground, I feel not only justified, but authorized, to give the question under consideration, a plain and candid answer, knowing that this narrative of the case would be incomplete without it.

Another thing is necessary as an introduction, and that is, I do not present my views for others to adopt or endorse as their own. They are simply my individual opinions, and it is a matter of indifference to me, whether they find an echo in any other individual's heart or not. I do not arrogate to myself any popish right or power to enforce my opinions upon the notice of any human being but myself. While at the same time I claim that I have just as good a right to my opinions as Scott, Clark, Edwards, Barnes, or Beecher, or any other human being has to theirs. And furthermore, these theologians have no more right to dictate to me what I must think and believe, than I have to dictate to them what they must think and believe. All have an equal right to their own thoughts.

And I know of no more compact form in which to give utterance to my opinions, than by inserting the following letter, I wrote from my prison, to a lady friend in Mt. Pleasant, Iowa, and sent out on my "under ground railroad." The only tidings I ever got from this letter, was a sight of it in one of the Chicago papers, following a long and minute report of my jury trial at Kankakee. I never knew how it found its way there; I only knew it was my own identical letter, since I still retain a true copy of the original among my Asylum papers. The following is a copy of the original letter, as it now stands in my own hand-writing. The friend to whom it was written has requested me to omit those portions of the letter which refer directly to herself. In compliance with her wishes, I leave a blank for such omissions. In other respects it is a true copy. The candid reader can judge for himself, whether the cheris.h.i.+ng of such radical opinions is not a _crime_ of sufficient magnitude, to justify all my wrongs and imprisonment! Is not my persecutor guiltless in this matter?

COPY OF THE LETTER.

_Jacksonville, Ill., Oct. 23d, 1861._

MRS. FISHER. MY DEAR OLD FRIEND:--

My love and sympathy for you is undiminished. Changes do not sever our hearts. I cannot but respect your self-reliant, independent, and therefore progressive efforts to become more and more a.s.similated to Christ's glorious image. I rejoice whenever I find one who dares to rely upon their own organization, in the investigation of truth. In other words, one who dares to be an independent thinker. * * *

Yes, you, Mrs. Fisher, in your individuality, are just what G.o.d made you to be. And I respect every one who respects himself enough not to try to pervert their organization, by striving to remodel it, and thus defile G.o.d's image in them. To be natural, is our highest praise. To let G.o.d's image s.h.i.+ne through our individuality, should be our highest aim. Alas, Mrs. Fisher, how few there are, who dare to be true to their G.o.d given nature!

That terrible dogma that our natures are depraved, has ruined its advocates, and led astray many a guileless, confiding soul. Why can we not accept of G.o.d's well done work as perfect, and instead of defiling, perverting it, let it stand in all its holy proportions, filling the place G.o.d designed it to occupy, and adorn the temple it was fitted for? I, for one, Mrs. Fisher, am determined to be a woman, true to my nature. I regard my nature as holy, and every deviation from its instinctive tendency, I regard as a perversion--a sin. To live a natural, holy life, as Christ did, I regard as my highest honor, my chief glory.

I know this sentiment conflicts with our educated belief--our Church creeds--and the honestly cherished opinions of our relatives and friends.

Still I believe a "thus saith the Lord" supports it. Could Christ take upon himself our nature, and yet know no sin, if our natures are necessarily sinful? Are not G.o.d's simple, common sense teachings, authority enough for our opinions? It is, to all honest souls.

Indeed, Mrs. Fisher I have become so radical, as to call in question every opinion in my educated belief, which conflicts with the dictates of reason and common sense. I even believe that G.o.d has revealed to his creatures no practical truth, which conflicts with the common instincts of our common natures. In other words, I believe that G.o.d has adapted our natures to his teachings. Truth and nature harmonize. I believe that all truth has its source in G.o.d, and is eternal. But some perceive truth before others, because some are less perverted in their natures than others, by their educational influences, so that the light of the sun of righteousness finds less to obstruct its beams in some than in others. Thus they become lights in the world, for the benefit of others less favored. * * *

You preceded me, in bursting the shackles of preconceived opinions and creeds, and have been longer basking in the liberty wherewith Christ makes his people free, and have therefore longer been taught of him in things pertaining to life and G.o.dliness. Would that I had had the mental courage sooner to have imitated you, and thus have broken the fetters which bound me to dogmas and creeds. O, Mrs. Fisher, how trammelled and crippled our consciences have been! O, that we might have an open Bible, and an unshackled conscience! And these precious boons we shall have, for G.o.d, by his providence, is securing them to us. Yes, Mrs. Fisher, the persecutions through which we are now pa.s.sing is securing to us spiritual freedom, liberty, a right, a determination to call no man master, to know no teacher but the Spirit, to follow no light or guide not sanctioned by the Word of G.o.d and our conscience--to know no "ism" or creed, but truthism, and no pattern but Christ.

Henceforth, I am determined to use my own reason and conscience in my investigation of truth, and in the establishment of my own opinions and practice I shall give my own reason and conscience the preference to all others. * * *

I know, also, that I am a sincere seeker after the simple truth. I know I am not willful, but conscientious, in my conduct. And, notwithstanding others deny this, I know their testimony is false. The Searcher of hearts knows that I am as honest with myself, as I am with others. And, although like Paul, I may appear foolish to others in so doing, yet my regard for truth, transcends all other considerations of minor importance. G.o.d's good work of grace in me shall never be denied by me, let others defame it, and stigmatize it as insanity, as they will. They, not I, are responsible for this sacrilegious act. G.o.d himself has made me dare to be honest and truthful, even in defiance of this heaven daring charge, and G.o.d's work will stand in spite of all opposition. "He always wins, who sides with G.o.d." Mrs. Fisher, I am not now afraid or ashamed to utter my honest opinions. The worst that my enemies can do to defame my character, they have done, and I fear them no more. I am now free to be true and honest, for this persecution for opinion and conscience' sake, has so strengthened and confirmed me in the free exercise of these inalienable rights in future, that no opposition can overcome me. For I stand by faith in what is true and right. I feel that I am born into a new element--freedom, spiritual freedom. And although the birth throes are agonizing, yet the joyous results compensate for all.

How mysterious are G.o.d's ways and plans! My persecutors verily thought they could compel me to yield these rights to human dictation, when they have only fortified them against human dictation. G.o.d saw that suffering for my opinions, was necessary to confirm me in them. And the work is done, and well done, as all G.o.d's work always is. No fear of any human oligarchy will, henceforth, terrify me, or tempt me to succ.u.mb to it.