The History of Woman Suffrage Volume I Part 104

CHAPTER IX.

INDIANA.

_Dublin Convention, October, 1851._

RESOLUTIONS.

_Resolved_, That all laws and customs having for their perpetuation the only plea that they are time-honored, which in any way infringe on woman's equal rights, cramp her energies, cripple her efforts, or place her before the eyes of her family or the world as an inferior, are wrong, and should be immediately abolished.

_Resolved_, That the avenues to gain, in all their varieties, should be as freely opened to woman as they now are to man.

_Resolved_, That the rising generation of boys and girls should be educated together in the same schools and colleges, and receive the same kind and degree of education.

_Resolved_, That woman should receive for equal labor, equal pay with man.

_Resolved_, That as the qualification for citizens.h.i.+p in this country is based on capacity and morality, and as the s.e.xes in their mental condition are equal, therefore woman should enjoy the same rights of citizens.h.i.+p with man.

An a.s.sociation was organized and a const.i.tution was adopted, to which the following names were appended: Amanda M. Way, Minerva Maulsby, Jane Morrow, Agnes Cook, Rebecca Shreves, Rebecca Williams, Wilson D.

Schooley, Samuel Mitch.e.l.l, Elda Ann Smith, Dr. O. P. Baer, Mrs. O. P.

Baer, Hannah Birdsall, Melissa J. Diggs, Hannah Hiatt, Jas. P. Way, B. F. Diggs, Mary B. Birdsall, f.a.n.n.y Hiatt, Henry Hiatt, Thomas Birdsall, Elizabeth Hoover, Elijah C. Wright, Elizabeth Wright, A. W.

Pruyne, Dr. Mary F. Thomas, Dr. Owen Thomas, Emi B. Sw.a.n.k, Joel P.

Davis. Lydia P. Davis, Thursey A. Way, Rebecca A. C. Murray.

CHAPTER X.

PENNSYLVANIA.

SAXE, DANA, AND GRACE GREENWOOD.

MR. SAXE not long since, in a poem, satirized literary women very keenly, upon which Grace Greenwood wrote a severe criticism on his volume, which was published in _The Evening Post_. Mr. Saxe, after seeing the criticism, wrote a note to the editor of the _Post_, in which he makes an exception in favor of Grace. This calls forth another letter from her, from which we make the following extract:

NEW BRIGHTON, _Jan. 22, 1850_.

GENTLEMEN:--....At the time of my writing, I was feeling peculiarly sensitive in regard to my womanly, as well as literary position. The grandpapaish lectures of Mr. Dana had troubled and discouraged me. I said, "If so speak and write our poets, surely the age is on the backward line of march." I had become impatient and indignant for my s.e.x, thus lectured to, preached at, and satirized eternally. I had grown weary of hearing woman told that her sole business here, the highest, worthiest aims of her existence were to be loving, lovable, feminine, to win thus a lover and a lord whom she might glorify abroad and make comfortable at home.

We have had enough of this. Man is not best qualified to mark out woman's life-path. He knows, indeed, what he desires her to be, but he does not yet understand all that G.o.d and nature require of her. Woman should not be made up of love alone, the other attributes of her being should not be dwarfed that this may have a large, unnatural growth.

Hers should be a distinct individuality, an independent moral existence--or, at least, the dependence should be mutual. Woman can best judge of woman, her wants, capacities, aspirations, and powers.

She can best speak to her on the life of the affections, on the loves of her heart, on the peculiar joys and sorrows of her lot. She can best teach her to be true to herself, to her high nature, to her brave spirit; and then, indeed, shall she be constant in her love and faithful to her duties, all, even to the most humble. Woman can strengthen woman for the life of self-sacrifice, of devotion, of ministration, of much endurance which lies before her.

A woman of intellect and right feeling would never dream of pointing out the weak and unfilial Desdemona as an example to her s.e.x in this age; would never dare to hold up as "our destined end and aim," a one love, however romantic and poetical, which might be so selfishly sought and so unscrupulously secured.

Thank Heaven, woman herself is awaking to a perception of the causes which have hitherto impeded her free and perfect development, which have shut her out from the large experiences, the wealth and fullness of the life to which she was called. She is beginning to feel, and to cast off the bonds which oppress her--many of them, indeed, self-imposed, and many gilded and rarely wrought, covered with flowers and delicate tissues, but none the less bonds--bonds upon the speech, upon the spirit, upon the life.

There surely is a great truth involved in this question of "Woman's Rights," and agitated as it may be, with wisdom and mildness, or with rashness and the bold, high spirit which shocks and startles at the first, good will come out of it eventually, great good, and the women of the next age will be the stronger and the freer, aye, and the happier, for the few brave spirits who stood up fearlessly for unpopular truth against the world.

I know that I expose myself to the charge of being unfeminine in feeling, of ultraism. Well, better that than conservatism, though conservatism were safer and more respectable. Senselessness is always safety, and a mummy is a thoroughly respectable personage.

But to return to Mr. Saxe. Our poet satirized rather keenly literary women, as a cla.s.s, in the poem on which I remarked, but afterwards, in his communication to the _Post_, most politely intimates that he excepts me as one of the "women of real talent." But I will not be excepted. I stand in the ranks, liable to all the penalties of the calling--exposed to the hot shot of satire and the stinging arrows of ridicule. I will not be received as an exception, where full justice is not done to the cla.s.s to which I belong.

Suppose, now, that I should write a poem to deliver before some "Woman's Rights Convention" or "Ladies' Literary a.s.sociation," on "The Times," which should come down sharp and heavy on the literary men of the day, for usurping the delicate employ by right and nature the peculiar province of woman, "the weaker vessel"; for neglecting their shops, their fields, their counting-houses, and their interesting families, and wasting their precious time in writing love-tales, "doleful ditties," and "distressful strains," for the magazines; for flirting with the muse, while their wives are wanting shoes, or perpetrating puns, while their children cry for "buns"! Suppose that, pointing every line with wit, I should hold them up to contempt as careless, improvident lovers of pleasure, given to self-indulgence; taking their Helicon more than dashed with gin; seekers after notoriety, eccentric in their habits and unmanly in all their tastes!

After this, should I very handsomely make an exception in favor of Mr.

Saxe, would he feel complimented?

As far as I have known literary women, and as far as they have been made known to us in literary biography, the unwomanly and unamiable, the poor wives, and daughters, and sisters, have been the rare exceptions. I mean not alone "women of genius," but would include those of mere talent, of mediocre talent even, devoted to letters as a profession, and who, by their estimable characters and blameless lives, are an honor to their calling.

I believe that for one woman whom the pursuits of literature, the ambition of authors.h.i.+p, and the love of fame have rendered unfit for home-life, a thousand have been made thoroughly undomestic by poor social strivings, the follies of fas.h.i.+on, and the intoxicating distinction which mere personal beauty confers.

GRACE GREENWOOD.

WESTCHESTER CONVENTION, JUNE 2 AND 3, 1852.

LETTER FROM MARY MOTT.

AUBURN, DE KALB COUNTY, INDIANA, _May 17, 1852_.

SISTERS:--You have called another Convention, and all who are the friends of equal rights are invited to attend and partic.i.p.ate in the deliberations. The invitation will probably meet the eye of thousands who would gladly encourage you by their presence, did circ.u.mstances permit them to do so. Your aim is the moral, physical, and intellectual elevation of woman, and through her to benefit the whole human race. Can a Convention be called for a n.o.bler purpose? Have men ever aimed so high? They have had Conventions without stint; old men and young men, Whigs, Democrats, Abolitionists, and Slaveholders, all have had Conventions; but how few have aimed at anything higher than political power for themselves and party. We have looked upon their contests without personal interest in their result. Some benefits might come to our husbands and brothers, but none to us. We are permitted to talk about liberty, but we may not enjoy it. We may water the tree with our tears, while our husbands pluck and enjoy the fruit.

Of what advantage is it to us to live in a Republic? Our social position is no better than it was in the days of Queen Elizabeth. Men have made great progress since that day; from being subjects they have become sovereigns, ruling, as she professed to rule, by _divine right_. True, many of these sovereigns have not a foot of ground, and but one subject, a wife; but then he has absolute control over that one. Yes, they have made progress; but for that progress they are much indebted to men who, being in possession of power, were only anxious to retain and extend it. The Great Charter was extorted from King John by the barons in order to consolidate their power; they attended to the interests of the common people (who then were in a state of villanage) just so far as they could clearly see would be for their own interest, and no further. The world is much indebted to those st.u.r.dy barons; they did more good than they ever thought of doing.

There were germs in that charter that have borne excellent fruit since that day.

Error delights in obscurity; surrounded with clouds and darkness, it is comparatively secure; but let these clouds be scattered, let the light of reason fall upon it, and it is dangerous no longer. Any act that causes men to think, is so far an advantage to society. The ideas will not be lost. When King James I talked and wrote upon the doctrine of the divine right of kings, he little thought it would result in the beheading of his son Charles, and the expulsion of his son James from the throne. Shrouded in mystery, it was approached with reverence, and seldom critically examined, until he lifted the veil and invited others to behold its beauty. What had been a mystery was a mystery no longer. He forgot what others remembered--that it might have different aspects for the sovereign and subject. It was judged unworthy of national homage, but very desirable as a household G.o.d. And men who thought Paul was in the dark when he wrote, "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, for there is no power but of G.o.d. The powers that be are ordained of G.o.d. Whosoever resisteth the powers resisteth the ordinance of G.o.d; and they that resist shall receive to themselves d.a.m.nation;" the men, I say, who could not and would not receive such doctrine from Paul, found him worthy of all praise when he said, "wives, obey your husbands." After a while England proposed taxing the Colonies. One party held that protection gave them the right of taxation. The other said the British Const.i.tution gave the Government no power to tax, unless the persons were represented in Parliament.

They declared their resolution to pay no taxes without representation.

Much was said about the rights of man. And when at last a three-penny tax was laid upon tea, the men, being brimful of patriotism, cared nothing for the tax; it was the principle they cared for, and they would fight for their principles. How very sincere they were, let the millions of wives answer, whose very existence is ignored in law.

There was one thing women gained by that contest; they gained a clearer knowledge of their rights, a better understanding of their wrongs, which, according to Blackstone, are a deprivation of rights. A knowledge of these has produced a strong desire to seek a remedy.

Hence the call for a Woman's Convention. We must expect some difference of opinion as to the extent of the reforms proposed; but none who have carefully examined the subject will see reason to doubt that our rights run parallel with the rights of man. That being granted, we may then inquire into their expediency. Many things we have a right to do which are inexpedient; but it is for us to say what rights we will waive and what we will enjoy.

We claim that the professions should be open to woman, believing she can preach as acceptably, study the law as thoroughly, and practice medicine as successfully, as man. The business of a clerk seems to us to be peculiarly feminine, and we claim the right to choose any trade or business for which we have strength and capacity. If it is true that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, we would respectfully ask by what authority men legislate for us, and who gave them that authority? If the power is a just one, from what source did they derive it? Certainly not from the consent of the governed. We presume neither men nor women care for the privilege of voting, except as a means of securing the enjoyment of the rights with which they have been endowed by their Creator, and for the protection of which "Governments were first inst.i.tuted among men." The rights of women have been long in abeyance, but no lapse of time can deprive her of them; they are not transferable. She does not ask the law to confer upon her new rights. She only asks to have her just rights recognized and protected. A glance at the present position of women will show that the law does not effect this. It places minors, idiots, insane persons, and married women in the same category. Man takes all that the wife has to his own use, and such robberies are so common that they excite no indignation in the b.r.e.a.s.t.s of his fellow-men. He can spend all she has at the gaming-table, and who can hinder him? He can spend it in dissipation, while his deceived wife is suffering at home for the necessaries of life. The law gives him the property, and with that he can usually find tools to work out his designs. The law interposes no barriers between him and his victim. If a married woman had equal protection with her husband, she would be ambitious to acquire property by her own industry, and the habit of industry and forethought thus acquired, would be found valuable in the marriage relation, and she would not be compelled to enter matrimony as a house of refuge. But we are told that marriage is a contract, voluntarily entered into by competent parties, and by this contract the rights of the woman are transferred to the man. But _marriage is not a contract_, it is an union inst.i.tuted by G.o.d Himself, anterior to any contract whatever. Man was not p.r.o.nounced good until woman was created, and G.o.d said, Let us make man in our image after our own likeness, and let them _have dominion_. But some one may meet us here with the question, did He not say to the woman, after the fall, "Thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee?" Yes, the Bible says so; and in the next chapter we are told that Adam and Eve had two sons, the eldest called Cain, the youngest Abel; and G.o.d said to Cain when speaking of Abel, "Unto thee shall be his desire, and _thou shalt rule over him_." You see they are the very words used to Eve; therefore, if dominion was taken from the woman and given to the man, it was taken from all younger brothers and given to the first-born. If marriage be a contract, why is it not governed by the same rules that govern other contracts? A consideration is necessary to the existence of a contract. In marriage, the man offers love for love and hand for hand, but what is the consideration for those personal rights of which he dispossesses her? If a contract, why is there no remedy for its violation either in law or equity, as is the case with other contracts? The bridegroom says in the marriage service, "With all my worldly goods I thee endow." Those who framed that impressive service no doubt considered it but just that he who received all by the courtesy of England, should endow her as liberally, and they thus reminded every bridegroom of his duty, even before the altar; and what honest man will say he should not keep his word?

MARY MOTT.

LETTER FROM DR. ELIZABETH BLACKWELL.

NEW YORK, _May 27, 1852_.

MRS. DARLINGTON.--_Dear Madam_:---I thank you cordially for your very kind invitation, and would willingly attend your Convention did not my duties in New York prevent my leaving the city.

The Convention could not choose a more important subject than education for discussion, and great good will be done if public attention is roused to the imperfection of our present system, in which the _physical nature_ and the _duties of life_ are equally neglected. I believe that the chief source of the false position of women is, the _inefficiency of women themselves_--the deplorable fact that they are so often careless mothers, weak wives, poor housekeepers, ignorant nurses, and frivolous human beings. If they would perform with strength and wisdom the duties which lie immediately around them, every sphere of life would soon be open to them. They might be priests, physicians, rulers, welcome everywhere, for all restrictive laws and foolish customs would speedily disappear before the spiritual power of strong, good women.

In order to develop such women, our present method of educating girls, which is an injurious waste of time, must be entirely remodeled, and I shall look forward with great interest to any plan of action that may be suggested by your Convention.

With hearty sympathy in every aspiration, and the right hand of fellows.h.i.+p to every conscientious worker, believe me,