Marital Power Exemplified in Mrs. Packard's Trial, and Self-Defence from the Charge of Insanity Part 17

After thinking a moment, the Doctor simply replied, "Your son had a _right_ to visit his mother!"

O, the joy I felt at this announcement! It seemed as if a mountain had been lifted from me, so relieved was I of my burden. With a light heart I sought my sobbing boy, and encircling my arms about his neck, exclaimed, "Cheer up! my dear child, you had a _right_ to visit your mother! so says the Doctor."

Why was this struggle with our consciences? Was it not that we had trained them to respect paternal authority? Can testimony, however abundant, change this truth into a falsehood?

That principle of self-defence, which depends wholly on certificates and testimonials, instead of the principle of right, truth and justice, is not able to survive the shock which the revelation of truth brings against it.

A lie, however strongly fortified by testimonials and certificates, can never be transformed into a truth. Neither can the truth, however single, and isolated, and alone, be its condition, can never be transformed into a lie, nor crushed out of existence. No. The truth will stand alone, and unsupported. Its own weight, simply, gives it firmness to resist all shocks brought against it, to produce its overthrow. Like the house built upon a rock, it needs no props, no certificates, to sustain it. Storms of the bitterest persecution may beat piteously upon it, but they cannot overthrow it, for its foundation is the rock of eternal truth. But lies, are like the house built upon the sand. While it does stand, it needs props or certificates on all sides, to sustain it. And it cannot resist the storm even of a ventilating breeze upon it, for it must and will fall, with all its acc.u.mulated props, before one searching investigation; and the more props it has so much the more devastation is caused by its overthrow.

And here I wish to add, that it was not because Mr. Packard was a minister, that bigotry had power thus to triumph over his manliness, but because he was a man, liable to be led astray from the paths of rect.i.tude as other human beings are. The ministerial office does not insure men against the commission of sins of the darkest hue, for the ministry is composed of men, who are subject to like frailties and pa.s.sions as other men are; and ministers, like all other men, must stand just where their own actions will place them, not where their position ought always to find them. They ought to be men whose characters should be unimpeached. But they are not all so. Neither are all other men what they should be in their position. It is as much the duty of the minister to be true to himself--true to the instincts of his G.o.d-like nature, as it is other men.

And any deviation from the path of rect.i.tude which would not be tolerated in any other man, ought not to be tolerated in a minister. In short, ministers must stand on a common level with the rest of the human race in judgment. That is, they, like others, must stand just where their own conduct and actions place them. If their conduct ent.i.tles them to respect, we should respect them. But if their conduct makes them unworthy of our respect and confidence, it is a sin to bestow it upon them; for this very respect which we give them under such circ.u.mstances, only countenances their sins, and encourages them in iniquity, and thus puts their own souls in jeopardy, as well as reflects guilt on those who thus helped them work out their own destruction, when they ought to have helped them work out their own repentance for evil doing.

AN APPEAL TO THE GOVERNMENT.

As my case now stands delineated by the foregoing narrative, all the States on this continent can see just where the common law places all married women. And no one can help saying, that any law that can be used in support of such a persecution, is a disgrace to any government--Christian or heathen. It is not only a disgrace, a blot on such a government, but it is a crime, against G.o.d and humanity, to let confiding, trusting woman, be so unprotected in law, from such outrageous abuses.

Mr. Packard has never impeached my _conduct_ in a single instance, that I know of; neither has he ever charged me guilty of one insane _act_--except that of teaching my children doctrines which I believed, and he did not!

This is all he ever alleges against me. He himself confirms the testimony of all my friends, that I always did discharge my household duties in a very orderly, systematic, kind, and faithful manner. In short, they maintain that I, during all my married life, have been a very self-sacrificing wife and mother, as well as an active and exemplary co-worker with him in his ministerial duties.

Now I have mentioned these facts, not for self-glorification, but for this reason, that it may be seen that _good conduct_, even the best and most praiseworthy, does not protect a married woman from the most flagrant wrongs, and wrongs, too, for which she has no redress in the present laws.

If a man had suffered a t.i.the of the wrongs which I have suffered, the laws stand ready to give him redress, and thus s.h.i.+eld him from a repet.i.tion of them. But not so with me. I must suffer not only this t.i.the, with no chance of redress, but ten times this amount, and no redress then.

I even now stand exposed to a life-long imprisonment, so long as my husband lives, while I not only have never committed any crime, but on the contrary, have ever lived a life of self-sacrificing benevolence, ever toiling for the best interests of humanity.

Think again. After this life of faithful service for others, I am thrown adrift, at fifty years of age, upon the cold world, with no place on earth I can call home, and not a penny to supply my wants with, except what my own exertion secures to me. Why is this? Because he who should have been my protector, has been my robber, and has stolen all my life-long earnings. And yet the law does not call this stealing, because the husband is legally authorized to steal from the wife without leave or license from her! Now, I say it is a poor rule that don't work both ways. Why can't the wife steal all the husband has? I am sure she can't support herself as well as he can, and the right of justice seems to be on our side, in our view.

But this is not what we want; we don't wish to rob our husbands, we only want they should be stopped from robbing us. We just ask for the reasonable right to use our own property as if it were our own, that is, just as we please, just according to the dictates of our own judgment. And when we insist upon this right, we don't want our husbands to have power to imprison us for so doing, as my husband did me. It was in this manner that I insisted upon my right to my property, with this fatal issue resulting from it.

While the discussions in our Bible-cla.s.s were at the culminating point of interest, Mr. Packard came to my room one day and made me the following proposition: "Wife," said he, "how would you like to go to your brother's in Batavia, and make a visit?"

Said I, "I should like it very well, since my influenza has in some degree prostrated my strength, so that I need a season of rest; and besides, I should like an excuse for retiring from this Bible-cla.s.s excitement, since the burden of these discussions lies so heavily upon me, and if it is not running from my post of duty, I should like to throw off this mental burden also, and rest for a season at least."

He replied, "You have not only a perfect right to go, but I think it is your duty to go and get recruited."

"Very well," said I, "then I will go, and go, too, with the greatest pleasure. But how long do you think I had better make my visit?"

"Three months."

"Three months!" said I, "Can you get along without me three months? and what will the children do for their summer clothes without me to make them?"

"I will see to that matter; you must stay three months, or not go at all."

"Well, I am sure I can stand it to rest that length of time, if you can stand it without my services. So I will go. But I must take my baby and daughter with me, as they have not fully recovered from their influenzas, and I should not dare to trust them away from me."

"Yes, you may take them."

"I will then prepare myself and them to go just as soon as you see fit to send us. Another thing, husband," said I, "I shall want ten dollars of my patrimony money to take with me for spending money." (This patrimony was a present of $600.00 my father had recently sent me for my especial benefit, and I had put it into Mr. Packard's hands for safe keeping, taking his note on interest as my only security, except with this note he gave me a written agreement, that I should have not only the interest, but any part of the princ.i.p.al, by simply asking him for it whenever I wanted it. When he absconded he took not only all this my money patrimony with him, but also stole all my notes and private papers likewise.)

"This you can't have," said he.

"Why not? I shall need as much as this, to be absent three months with two sick children. I may need to call a Doctor to them, and, besides, my brother is poor, and I am rich comparatively, and I might need some extra food, such as a beef-steak, or something of the kind, and I should not like to ask him for it. And besides, I have your written promise that I may have my own money whenever I want it, and I do want ten dollars of it now; and I think it is no unreasonable amount to take with me."

"I don't think it is best to let you have it. I shan't trust you with money."

"Shan't trust me with money! Why not? Have I ever abused this trust? Do not I always give you an exact account of every cent I spend? And I will this time do so; and besides, if you cannot trust it with me, I will put it into brother's hands as soon as I get there, and not spend a cent but by his permission."

"No, I shall not consent to that."

"One thing more I will suggest. You know Batavia people owe you twelve dollars for preaching one Sabbath, and you can't get your pay. Now, supposing brother 'dun' and get it, may I not use this money if I should chance to need it in an emergency; and if I should not need any, I won't use a cent of it? Or, I will write home to you and ask permission of _you_ before spending a dollar of it."

"No. You shall neither have any money, nor have the control of any, for I can't trust you with any."

"Well, husband, if I can't be trusted with ten dollars of my own money under these circ.u.mstances, and with all these provisions attached to it, I should not think I was capable of being trusted with two sick children three months away from home wholly dependent on a poor brother's charities. Indeed, I had rather stay at home and not go at all, rather than go under such circ.u.mstances."

"You shall not go at all;" replied he, in a most excited, angry, tone of voice. "You shall go into an Insane Asylum!"

"Why, husband!" said I; "I did not suspect _such_ an alternative. I had rather go to him penniless, and clotheless even, than go into an Asylum!"

"You have lost your last chance. You _shall_ go into an Asylum!"

And so it proved. It was my last chance. In a few days I was kidnapped and locked up in my Asylum prison for life, so far as _he_ was concerned.

Now, I ask any developed man, who holds property which is rightfully his own, and no one's else, how he would like to exchange places with me, and be treated just as I was treated. Now, I say it is only fair that the law makers should be subject to their own laws. That is, they should not make laws for others, that they would not be willing to submit to themselves in exchange of circ.u.mstances. Just put the case to yourselves, and ask how would you like to be imprisoned without any sort of trial, or any chance at self-defence, and then be robbed of all your life earnings, by a law which women made for your good (?) as your G.o.d appointed protectors! O, my government--the men of these United States--do bear with me long enough to just make our case your own for one moment, and then let me kindly ask you this question.

Won't you please stop this robbery of our inalienable right to our own property, by some law, dictated by some of your n.o.ble, manly hearts? Do let us have a _right_ to our own home--a _right_ to our own earnings--a _right_ to our own patrimony. A right, I mean, as _partners_ in the family firm. We do not ask for a separate interest. We want an identification of interests, and then be allowed a legal right to this common fund as the _junior partners_ of this company interest. We most cheerfully allow you the rights of a senior partner; but we do not want you to be senior, junior, and all, leaving us no rights at all, in a common interest.

Again, we true, natural women, want our own children too--we can't live without them. We had rather die than have them torn from us as your laws allow them to be. Only consider for one moment, what your laws are, in relation to our own flesh and blood. The husband has all the children of the married woman secured to himself, to do with them just as he pleases, regardless of her protests, or wishes, or entreaties to the contrary; while the children of the single women are all given to her as her right by nature! Here the maternal nature of the single woman is respected and protected, as it should be; while the nature of the married woman is ignored and set at naught, and the holiest instinct of woman is trampled in the dust of an utter despotism. In other words, the legitimate offspring of the wife are not protected to her, but given to the husband, while the illegitimate offspring of the unmarried women are protected to her. So that the only way to be sure of having our maternity respected, and our offspring legally protected to us, is to have our children in the single instead of the married state!

With shame I ask the question, does not our government here offer a premium on infidelity? And yet this is a Christian government! Why can't the inalienable rights of the lawful wife be _as much_ respected as those of the open prost.i.tute? I say, why? Is it because a woman has no individuality, after she is joined to a man? Is her conscience, and her reason, and her thoughts, all lost in him? So my case demonstrates the _law_ to be, when practically tested.

And does not this legalized despotism put our souls in jeopardy, as well as our bodies, and our children? It verily does. It was to secure the interests of my immortal soul, that I have suffered all I have in testing these despotic laws. I would have succ.u.mbed long ago, and said I believed what I did not believe, had it not been that I cared more for the safety of my own soul, that I did the temporal welfare of my own dear offspring.

I could not be true to G.o.d, and also true to the mandates of a will in opposition to G.o.d. And whose will was to be my guide, my husband's will, or G.o.d's will? I deliberately chose to obey G.o.d rather than man, and in that choice I made s.h.i.+pwreck of all my earthly good things.

And one good thing I sorely disliked to lose, was my fair, untarnished reputation and influence. This has been submerged under the insane elements of this cruel persecution. But my character is not lost, thank G.o.d! nor is it tarnished by this persecution. For my character stands above the reach of slander to harm. Nothing can harm this treasure but my own actions, and these are all guided and controlled by Him, for whose cause I have suffered so much. Yes, to G.o.d's grace alone, I can say it, that from the first to the last of all my persecutions, I have had the comforting consciousness of duty performed, and an humble confidence in the approval of Heaven. Strong only in the justice of my cause, and in faith in G.o.d, I have stood _alone_, and defied the powers of darkness to cast me down to any destruction, which extended beyond this life. And this desperate treason against manliness which has sought to overwhelm me, may yet be the occasion of the speedier triumph of my spiritual freedom, and that also of my sisters in like bondage with myself.

The laws of our government most significantly requires us, "to work out our own salvation with much fear and trembling," lest the iron will which would hold us in subjection, should take from us all our earthly enjoyments, if we dare to be true to the G.o.d principle within us. So bitter has been my cup of spiritual suffering, while pa.s.sing through this crucible of married servitude, that it seems like a miracle almost, that I have not been driven into insanity, or at least misanthropy by it. But a happy elasticity of temperament conspired with an inward consciousness of rect.i.tude, and disinterestedness, has enabled me to despise these fiery darts of the adversary, as few women could.

And I cherish such a reverence for my nature, as G.o.d has made it, that I cannot be transformed into a "man-hater." I thank G.o.d, I was made, and still continue to be, a "man-lover." Indeed, my native respect for the manhood almost approaches to the feeling of reverence, when I consider that man is G.o.d's representative to me--that he is endowed with the very same attributes and feelings towards woman that G.o.d has--a protector of the weak, not a subjector of them. It is the exceptions, not the ma.s.ses of the man race, who have perverted or depraved their G.o.d-like natures into the subjectors of the dependent. The characteristic mark of this depraved cla.s.s is a "woman-hater," instead or a "woman-lover," as G.o.d, by nature made him. This depraved cla.s.s of men find their counterpart in those women, who have perverted their natures from "men-lovers," into "men-haters." And man, with a man-hating wife, may need laws to protect his rights, as much as a woman, with a woman-hater for her husband. Laws should take cognizance of _improper actions_, regardless of s.e.x or position.

All we ask of our government is, to let us stand just where our actions would place us, without giving us either the right or power to harm any one, not even our own husbands. At least, give us the power to defend ourselves, legally, against our husband's abuses, since you have licensed him with almost Almighty power to abuse us. And it will be taking from these women-haters no right to take from them the right to abuse us. It may, on the contrary, do them good, to be compelled to treat us with justice, just as you claim that it will do the slave-holder good, to compel him to treat his slave with justice. It is oppression and abuse alone we ask you to protect us against, and this we are confident you will do, as soon as you are convinced there is a need or necessity for so doing. And I will repeat, it is for this purpose that I have, in this pamphlet, delineated a subjected wife's true, legal position, by thus presenting my own personal, individual, experience for your consideration.

In summing up this argument, based on this dark chapter of a married woman's bitter experience of the evils growing out of the law of married servitude, I would close with a Pet.i.tion to the Legislatures of all the States of this Union, that they would so revolutionize their statute laws, as to expunge them entirely from that most cruel and degrading kind of despotism, which identifies high, n.o.ble woman as its victim. Let the magnanimity of your holy, G.o.d-like natures, be reflected from your statute books, in the women protective laws which emanate from them. And may G.o.d grant that in each and all of these codes may soon be found such laws as guarantee to married woman a _right_ to her own home, and a _right_ to be the mistress of her own household, and a _right_ to the guardians.h.i.+p of her own minor children.

In other words, let her be the legally acknowledged mistress of her own household, and a co-partner, at least, in the interests and destiny of her own offspring. Let the interests of the maternity be _as much_ respected, at least, as those of the paternity; and thus surround the hallowed place of the wife's and mother's sphere of action, with a fortress so strong and invincible, that the single will of a perverted man cannot overthrow it.

For home is woman's proper sphere or orbit, where, in my opinion, G.o.d designed she should be the sovereign and supreme; and also designed that man should see that this sphere of woman's sovereignty should be unmolested and s.h.i.+elded from any invasions, either foreign or internal. In other words, the husband is the G.o.d appointed agent to guard and protect woman in this her G.o.d appointed orbit. Just as the moon is sovereign and supreme in her minor orbit, being guarded and protected there by the sovereign power of the sun, revolving in his mighty orbit.