The History of Woman Suffrage Volume I Part 64

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto man; neither shall a man put on a woman's garment; for all that do so are an abomination to the Lord thy G.o.d.

Mrs. Gage's reply, in the absence of the editor, appeared in _The Star_, in whose columns Rev. Mr. Sunderland's sermon had been given the public, calling forth the following letter:

WAs.h.i.+NGTON, _Nov. 20, 1852_.

The readers of _The Star_ are aware that the editor does not sanction the ridiculous stuff which appeared in the issues of the 17th and 18th insts. over the signature of "M" upon the subject of "Woman's Rights," nor does he approve of its admission in the columns of the paper, and hereby disclaims having authorized the publication of any such emanations from the pit during his absence from home. When at his post he sometimes gives publicity to such communications for the purpose of showing up the fallacy of the positions taken, but never does he intend, so long as he has control of its columns, to allow _The Star_ to become the medium of disseminating corrupt and unwholesome doctrines. Such doctrines have found and will continue to find means enough with which to do their duty in Syracuse without the aid of a _reputable_ newspaper in their behalf; and the editor indeed is greatly surprised that those who temporarily fill his place, should lend _The Star_ to so base purposes. We trust that these words (if discretion does not) will prevent further encroachment upon our good nature.

_The Carson League_, quoting the above editorial, says:

It is the first paragraph of the above letter that is noticeable.

_The Star_ is the organ of a certain cla.s.s of ministers. Messrs.

Sunderland and Ashley and _The Star_ nestle in a common sympathy.

It is significant of the character of their published sermons, that _The Star_ stands alone in their defence. More significant still that _The Star_ negates all replies to them, even by a lady. "_Put out the light_," says the thief. "_Put out the light_," says the a.s.sa.s.sin. "_Put out the light_," says _The Star_; and verily if these gentlemen had their way, the light would go out in Egyptian darkness. It is wholesome doctrine, in the opinion of _The Star_, to deny woman's rights and negro's rights and the right of free discussion, to maintain them is to countenance "corrupt and unwholesome doctrines."

The subject of woman's rights somehow is attracting general attention. Rev. Mr. Sunderland, of this city, in a published sermon, sought to bring the whole matter into contempt under cover of the ridicule of the Bloomer dress. His position is, that if G.o.d made man a little lower than the angels, He made woman a little lower still. His sermon we gave last week. This week we give a woman's reply to it. n.o.bly has she shown him up. We like her review. She treats his argument gravely, and answers it logically. She has touched the tender in him. He will begin to think women are somebody after all. We think he should have measured his _calibre_ before making such a tilt.... Regarding his condition as rather awkward, and finding it difficult to be quiet, he appears in the Friday _Star_ with the following equivocal communication:

_The Woman's Rights Question._--Mr. Editor: The last two numbers of _The Star_ contain an article purporting to review my Sermon from Deut. xxii. 5, but the author does not appear. The article in question contains inaccuracies which should be noticed for the author's future benefit. If the author should turn out to be a man, I should have no objection to point out those inaccuracies through your columns. But if the writer is a lady, why, I really don't know yet what I shall do. If I thought she would consent to a personal interview, I should like to see her.

Very truly, B. SUNDERLAND.

_Syracuse, Nov. 18_.

Some other person, under the head of "A Reader," addressed the following to _The Star_, which, in the editor's absence, was published:

How is this, Mr. Editor? A few days since I read in your papers a sermon, on woman's rights by Rev. Byron Sunderland. In your numbers of Wednesday and Thursday I found an able and respectful Review of that discourse--a Review which, in some points, is unanswerable, especially in the matter of Scripture and female dress. The dominie appealed to Scripture, and the reviewer "has him fast." I have heard it more than once intimated that the writer of this able, and in some instances most eloquent, review, is a lady of this city. Are we to understand that it is an article in the code of anti-progressive ethics, that the same article written by a man, will be answered by Mr. Sunderland, but if written by a woman, will not be answered? I may have misunderstood Mr. Sunderland's note in this morning's _Star_, but I so understood it. If correctly understood no comment is necessary.

A READER.

_November 19, 1852._

Upon the expression of Mr. Sunderland's desire to meet the reviewer of his sermon, if a lady, and his willingness to continue the controversy, _The Star_ finally opened its columns to Mrs. Gage, although delaying the publication of her articles, sometimes for weeks, to suit the dominie's convenience, and allowing his reply to appear in the same issue of the paper with her answer to his preceding article. Mr. Sunderland's reply to "A Reader" was characteristic of the spirit of the clergy, not only of their intolerance, but of their patronizing and insulting manner toward all persons who presumed to question either their authority or learning.

The impertinence of "A Reader" is quite characteristic. That individual probably knows as much about the Bible as a wild a.s.s'

colt, and is requested at this time to keep a proper distance.

When a body is trying to find out and pay attention to a lady, it is not good manners for "A Reader" to be thrust in between us.

Rev. Mr. Ashley, rector of St. Paul's, the first Episcopal Church of Syracuse, also preached a sermon against woman, which was published in pamphlet form, and scattered over the State. This sermon was reviewed by a committee of ladies appointed by the Ladies' Lyceum. It was an able and lengthy doc.u.ment from the pen of the chairman of the committee, a member of the Episcopal Church, and was a significant sign of woman's growing independence of clerical authority. This sermon and its reply was also published by the city press; the Church, the press, and the fireside all aiding in the continued dissemination of the woman's rights discussion.

The publication of the proceedings of the Convention in pamphlet form gave _The Star_ occasion for a new fulmination which not only farther showed the base character of this sheet, but which shocked all devout minds by its patronizing tone toward the Deity. Both in the Convention and its following debate, Syracuse well maintained its character for radicalism.

MOB CONVENTION IN NEW YORK.

BROADWAY TABERNACLE, _Sept. 6 and 7, 1853_.

This week as already stated was one of unusual excitement in the city of New York, as representatives of all the unpopular reforms were holding their several conventions. The fact that the Anti-Slavery Society held a meeting on Sunday morning, and Antoinette Brown preached to five thousand people the same evening, called out the denunciations of the religious press, which intensified the mob spirit, culminating at last in the Woman's Rights Convention. That portion of the secular press which had shown the most bitter opposition to the anti-slavery cause, now manifested the same spirit toward the enfranchis.e.m.e.nt of woman.

The leading papers in the United States were _The Tribune_, _The Herald_, _The Times_, _The Evening Post_, and _The Express_, which gave tone to the entire press of the country. All these journals were edited by men of marked ability, each representing a different cla.s.s of thought in the community. _The Tribune_ was independent, and fearless in the expression of opinions on unpopular reforms; its editor, Horace Greeley, ever ready for the consideration of new ideas, was on many points the leader of liberal thought.

_The Herald_ was recognized by reformers as at the head of the opposition, and its diatribes were considered "Satanic." Its editor, James Gordon Bennett, pandered to the lowest tastes in the community, not merely deriding reforms, but holding their advocates up to the ridicule of a cla.s.s too degraded to understand the meaning of reform.

_The Times_ held a middle position; established at a much later date, its influence was not so great nor extended as either _The Tribune_ or _The Herald_. It represented that large conservative cla.s.s that fears all change, and accepts the conditions of its own day and generation, knowing that in all upheavals the wealthy cla.s.s is the first and greatest loser. From this source the mob spirit draws its inspiration. Violence being the outgrowth of superst.i.tion and despotism; the false morality and philosophy taught by the press and the pulpit are ill.u.s.trated by the lower orders in hisses, groans, and brick-bats. Although far below Horace Greeley in sagacity, intelligence, and conscience, Henry J. Raymond claimed for his paper a position superior in respectability. Having originated the present system of reporting, and thereby acquired his first reputation, Mr.

Raymond prided himself upon reportorial sharpness, even at the expense of veracity and common self-respect. That woman so long degraded should dare to speak of injustice, so long defrauded of her social, civil, and political rights, should dare to demand some rest.i.tution, was to Mr. Raymond so fit a subject for ridicule that he could not refrain from making even such women as Lucretia Mott and Ernestine L.

Rose targets for his irony.

_The Empress_, an organ of the Democratic party, was in its debas.e.m.e.nt on a par with _The Herald_ and _Times_, though each had different styles, more or less refined, of doing the same thing. Encouraged by these three papers, the mob element held high carnival through that eventful week. Starting in the anti-slavery and temperance meetings, they a.s.sembled at every session in the Woman's Rights Convention.

Gentlemen and ladies alike who attempted to speak were interrupted by shouts, hisses, stamping, and cheers, rude remarks, and all manner of noisy demonstrations. The clergy, the press, and the rowdies combined to make those September days a disgrace to the metropolis, days never to be forgotten by those who endured the ridicule and persecution.

Although the Mayor with a large police force at his command made no show even of protecting the right of free speech, the editor of _The Tribune_ sent forth his grand fulminations against bigotry, hypocrisy, and vulgarity in every issue of his journal. William Cullen Bryant, editor of _The Post_, one of the purest men that ever stood at the head of a daily paper, also spoke out grandly against mob law, and for the rights of woman. We have made this brief episode on the press, that our readers may see how characteristic are the comments of each paper that we give here and there in this chapter.

This Convention, interrupted throughout by the mob, has an unique and historic value of its own. It was the first overt exhibition of that public sentiment woman was then combating. The mob represented more than itself; it evidenced that general masculine opinion of woman, which condensed into law, forges the chains which enslave her. Owing to the turmoil we have no fair report of the proceedings; it was impossible for the representatives of the press to catch what was said, hence their reports, as well as the one issued by our Central Committee, are alike fragmentary. And yet with such a brilliant array of speakers of both men and women, it should have been one of our most interesting and successful Conventions. The Tabernacle, holding three thousand persons, was packed long before the hour announced. At ten o'clock Lucy Stone called the Convention to order, and presented a list of officers[117] nominated at a preliminary meeting, which was adopted. In this list we find England, Germany, and eleven States represented. The Rev. William Henry Channing opened the meeting with prayer. After which Mrs. Mott made a few appropriate remarks. Lucy Stone read a series of resolutions[118] which were accepted and laid on the table for discussion.

Charles Burleigh and Lydia A. Jenkins spoke briefly on the many grounds of opposition to this movement, which in all respects commends itself as one of the greatest reforms of the age.

Mr. GARRISON said: The first pertinent question is, what has brought us together? Why have we come from the East and from the West, and from the North? I was about to add, and from the South; but the South, alas! is so cursed by the spirit of slavery, that there seems to be no vitality left there in regard to any enterprise, however good; hence the South is not represented on an occasion like this. It is because justice is outraged. We have met to protest against proud, rapacious, inexorable usurpation.

What is this usurpation? What is this oppression of which we complain? Is it local? Does it pertain to the city of New York, or to the Empire State? No! It is universal--broader than the Empire State--broader than our national domains--wide as the whole world, weighing on the entire human race. How old is the oppression which we have met to look in the face? Is it of to-day? Is it young in years, or is it as old as the world itself? In all ages men have regarded women as inferior to themselves, and have robbed them of their co-equal rights. We are, therefore, contesting h.o.a.ry tyranny--universal tyranny. And what follows, as a natural result?

That the land is beginning to be convulsed. The opposition to the movement is a.s.suming a malignant, desperate, and satanic character; every missile of wickedness that can be hurled against it is used. The pulpit is excited, the press is aroused; Church and State are in arms to put down a movement on behalf of justice to one-half of the whole human race. (Laughter and cheers). The Bible, revered in our land as the inspired Word of G.o.d, is, by pulpit interpreters, made directly hostile to what we are endeavoring to obtain as a measure of right and justice; and the cry of infidelity is heard on the right hand and on the left, in order to combine public opinion so as to extinguish the movement.

Now, beloved, let us not imagine that any strange thing has happened to us. We are but pa.s.sing through one of the world's great crises; we, too, in our day, are permitted to contend with spiritual wickedness in high places--with princ.i.p.alities and powers. What reform was ever yet begun and carried on with any reputation in the day thereof? What reform, however glorious and divine, was ever advocated at the outset with rejoicing? And if they have called the Master of the house Beelzebub, how much more them of his household? (Cheers and stamping).

I have been derisively called a "_Woman's Rights Man_." I know no such distinction. I claim to be a HUMAN RIGHTS MAN, and wherever there is a human being, I see G.o.d-given rights inherent in that being whatever may be the s.e.x or complexion.

To the excellence of the movement G.o.d has given witnesses in abundance, on the right hand and on the left. Show me a cause anathematized by the chief priests, the scribes, and the pharisees; which politicians and demagogues endeavor to crush, which reptiles and serpents in human flesh try to spread their slime over, and hiss down, and I will show you a cause which G.o.d loves, and angels contemplate with admiration. Such is our movement. Do you want the compliments of the satanic press, _The New York Times_, _Express_, and _Herald_? (Roars of laughter). If you want the compliments of such journals, you will be bad enough to take a place among the very vilest and lowest of the human race. They are animated by a brutal, cowardly, and devilish spirit. Let us rejoice at the manifestation! Not for the wickedness, but at the evidence thus afforded by G.o.d, that our cause is of Heaven, and therefore has on its side all the power and might of G.o.d, and in due season is destined to have a glorious triumph!

CHARLES C. BURLEIGH said: There is a feeling to-day that woman has some rights, that she has some reason to complain of the present relation in which she is placed. In this country we congratulate ourselves that woman occupies a higher position than elsewhere, although some think it would be a calamity to improve her condition still further, and mere fanaticism to raise her still higher.

The cry is--"unnatural!" The aspiration of woman for a better lot, say her oppressors, is not natural, it is abnormal! So they say; but why not hear her on the matter? Is she, the most interested party, to have no voice in the solution of a question which is to her of such overwhelming interest? I ask, did G.o.d give woman aspirations which it is a sin for her to gratify?

Abnormal! No, it is to be found everywhere. The man whose soul is so callous that he can hold his fellow-man as a slave, cries out (as in excuse) that the slave is contented. The autocrat exclaims that it is only a turbulent Kossuth or a factious Mazzini who feels that uneasy discontent which preys not on the hearts of his millions of legal slaves. Will that be, to us, an argument that the tyrant is in the right? No! the aspirations to liberty and justice are universal, and ever though the volcanic blaze breaks into the air only through the loftiest mountain peaks, the volcano is in itself an index to the ocean of molten fire that boils inaudibly beneath it. And so the deep discontent of humble millions breaks through the mountain-minds of their great leaders. Woman is a part of the human commonwealth; why deprive her of a voice in its government? Woman herself, a component part of the community, must be called into the councils which direct it, else a wrong is done her, the responsibility of which lies heavily on those who do it. We ask rights for woman, because she has a human nature, and it is not only ungenerous and unmanly, but in the highest degree unjust to banish her from the discussion of questions which so nearly and dearly concern her, and in which nature, reason, and G.o.d have announced that she should have a voice.

Either there is a distinction between the sphere of man and that of woman, or there is not. If there is, it is unfair to have one determine both; if there is not, why does tyrannous custom separate her? The dilemma is clear, and can not be escaped. Both should be called into counsel, every note in the scale of harmony should be sounded; and to say that hers, because an octave higher, should not be heard, is downright nonsense. (Rousing cheers and laughter). We claim for woman simply the right to decide her own sphere, or, in conjunction with man, to determine what should be the relative position of both.

W. H. CHANNING said: When I was returning from the first Woman's Rights Meeting at Worcester, a friend said to me, "I intend getting up a Man's Rights Society; you misunderstand the matter; all the efforts of society are for the elevation of woman, and man has to perform the drudgery. The consequence is, the women are far better educated than the men." The answer was obvious.

"If women are, according to your admission, fitted for the higher plane, why keep them on the lower?" My friend then went on to say, that the whole of this scheme was considered to be of the most morally visionary character, and the proof of this feeling was the slight opposition it met, "for," said he "if it were looked on by society as serious, it would be at once, and forcibly, opposed in the church, by the press, in all public a.s.semblies and private circles." Now, the object of this, and all such conventions, is to prove that we have made up our minds as regards operation and method; that we have looked clearly into the future; and that we have at heart this movement, as we have no other of the day, believing that out of this central agitation of society will come healthful issues of life. The inhabitants of Eastern India speak of a process for gaining immortality, namely, churning together the sea and the earth. They say the G.o.ds had the serpent by the head, and the devils had it by the tail, and out of the churning of the foam came the waters of immortality.

The movement we are engaged in, may be typified by the Indian allegory; and out of the commotion we make shall be drawn a new principle which shall be one of immortal growth to all society.

(Stamping, cheers, and laughter).

As regards the differences between men and women, we say that out of them grows union, not separation. Every organ of the body is double; in the pulsations of the heart a double machinery is used, there is a double auricle and a double ventricle. It is so in the inspirations which flow from G.o.d to society; they must pa.s.s twice, once through the heart of man, once through the heart of woman; they must stream through the reforming and through the conservative organ; and thus, out of the very difference which exists between man and woman, arises the necessity for their co-operation. It has never been a.s.serted that man and woman are alike; if they were, where would be the necessity for urging the claims of the one? No; they differ, and for that very reason it is, that only through the action of both, can the fullness of their being find development and expression. We know that woman exerts an influence on man, as man does on woman, to call forth his latent resources. In the difference, we find a call for union. And to this union we perceive no limit; on the contrary, whatever necessity there is for the combination in the private, there is the same necessity for it in the public sphere. (Long continued stamping and cheers).

And now I will meet the two great objections made. It is not objectionable, it is said, that woman, in some spheres of life, should give an expression of her intellect; but, on the platform, she loses her character of woman, and becomes incidentally masculine. Just observe the practical absurdities of which society is guilty. The largest a.s.semblies greet with clamors Jenny Lind, when she enchains the ear and exalts the soul with the sublime strain, "I know that my Redeemer liveth"; but when Mrs. Mott or Miss Brown stands with a simple voice, and in the spirit of truth, to make manifest the honor due to our Redeemer, rowdies hiss, and respectable Christians veil their faces! So, woman can sing, but not speak, that "our Redeemer liveth." Again, the great men of our land do not consider it unworthy of their character to take from f.a.n.n.y Ellsler what she makes by the movement of her limbs, by a mere mechanical action,[119] to aid in erecting a column to commemorate our struggles for liberty.

The dollars are received and built into the column; but when Mrs.

Rose or Mrs. Foster, who feels the spirit of justice within her, and who has felt the injustice of the laws, stands up to show truth and justice, and build a spiritual column, she is out of her sphere! and the honorable men turn aside, and leave her to be the victim of rowdyism, disorder, and lawlessness! It is not out of character that f.a.n.n.y Kemble should read Shakespeare on the stage, to large circles. The exercise of the voice on the stage is womanly, while she gives out the thoughts of another; but suppose (and it is not unsupposable) a living female Shakespeare to appear on a platform, and utter her inspirations, delicacy is shocked, decency is outraged, and society turns away in disgust!

Such are the consistencies of the nineteenth century! (Great uproar).

This is simply and merely prejudice, and it reminds me of the proverb, "If you would behold the stars aright, blow out your own taper." I say there is a special reason why woman should come forward as a speaker; because she has a power of eloquence which man has not, arising from the fineness of her organization and the intuitive power of her soul; and I charge any man with arrogance, if he pretend to match himself in this respect with many women here, and thousands throughout our country. (Hissing).

I take it, the hissing comes from men who never had a mother to love and honor, a sister to protect, and who never knew the worth of a wife. Woman's power to cut to the quick and touch the conscience, is beautifully accompanied by her unmatched adaptation to pour balm into the wound; and though the flame she applies may burn into the soul, it also affords a light to the conscience which never can be dimmed.

There is an exquisite picture by Retsch, which represents angels showering roses on devils; to the angels they are roses, but the devils writhe under them as under fire. On sinful souls the words of women fall as coals from the altar of G.o.d. And here let me offer my humble grat.i.tude to the women who have borne the brunt of the test with the calm courage which women alone can exhibit; to the women who have taught us that, as daughters of G.o.d, they are the equals of His children everywhere on earth. (Cheers and stamping).

Let me add another word upon this interference, or, rather, entrance of woman into the sphere of politics. As a spiritual being, her duties are like those of man; but, inasmuch as she is different from man, man can not discharge them; and if there be any truth in holding (as our inst.i.tutions do), that the voice of the whole is the nearest approach we can make to eternal truth, we, of course, can not arrive at it till woman, as well as man, is heard in the search for it. G.o.d, not man, nor herself, made her woman; there is nothing arbitrary in the distinction; and let the true woman go where she may, she will retain her womanhood.

We wish to see her enter into politics, not to degrade herself, but to bring them up to her own level of simple-heartedness and purity of soul. Can man ever raise them to that lofty height?