On taking the chair, Mrs. Davis said:
The reformation we propose in its utmost scope is radical and universal. It is not the mere perfecting of a reform already in motion, a detail of some established plan, but it is an epochal movement--the emanc.i.p.ation of a cla.s.s, the redemption of half the world, and a conforming reorganization of all social, political, and industrial interests and inst.i.tutions. Moreover, it is a movement without example among the enterprises of a.s.sociated reformations, for it has no purpose of arming the oppressed against the oppressor, or of separating the parties, or of setting up independence, or of severing the relations of either.
Its intended changes are to be wrought in the intimate texture of all societary organizations, without violence or any form of antagonism. It seeks to replace the worn-out with the living and the beautiful, so as to reconstruct without overturning, and to regenerate without destroying.
Our claim must rest on its justice, and conquer by its power of truth. We take the ground that whatever has been achieved for the race belongs to it, and must not be usurped by any cla.s.s or caste. The rights and liberties of one human being can not be made the property of another, though they were redeemed for him or her by the life of that other; for rights can not be forfeited by way of salvage, and they are, in their nature, unpurchasable and inalienable. We claim for woman a full and generous invest.i.ture of all the blessings which the other s.e.x has solely, or by her aid, achieved for itself. We appeal from man"s injustice and selfishness to his principles and affections.
It was cheering to find in the very beginning many distinguished men ready to help us to the law, gospel, social ethics, and philosophy involved in our question. A letter from Gerrit Smith to William Lloyd Garrison says:
PETERBORO, N. Y., _Oct. 16, 1850_.
MY DEAR SIR:--I this evening received from my friend H. H. Van Amringe, of Wisconsin, the accompanying argument on woman"s rights. It is written by himself. He is, as you are aware, a highly intellectual man. He wishes me to present this argument to the Woman"s Convention which is to be held in Worcester. Permit me to do so through yourself.
My excessive business engagements compel me to refuse all invitations to attend public meetings not in my own county. May Heaven"s richest blessings rest on the Convention.
Very respectfully and fraternally yours, GERRIT SMITH.
Mr. Van Amringe"s paper on "Woman"s Rights in Church and State" was read and discussed, and a large portion of it printed in the regular report of the proceedings.
The papers read by the women, in style and argument, were in no way inferior to those of the men present.
Letters were read from Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Rev. Samuel J. May, L.
A. Hine, Elizur Wright, O. S. Eowler, Esther Ann Lukens, Margaret Chappel Smith, Nancy M. Baird, Jane Cowen, Sophia L. Little, Elizabeth Wilson, Maria L. Varney, and Milfred A. Spaford.[43]
Mrs. Abby H. Price, of Hopedale, made an address on the injustice of excluding girls from the colleges, the trades and the professions, and the importance of training them to some profitable labor, and thus to protect their virtue, dignity, and self-respect by securing their pecuniary independence.
She thought the speediest solution of the vexed problem of prost.i.tution was profitable work for the rising generation of girls. The best legislation on the social vice was in removing the legal disabilities that cripple all their powers. Woman, in order to be equally independent with man, must have a fair and equal chance. He is in nowise restricted from doing, in every department of human exertion, all he is able to do. If he is bold and ambitious, and desires fame, every avenue is open to him. He may blend science and art, producing a competence for his support, until he chains them to the car of his genius, and, with Fulton and Morse, wins a crown of imperishable grat.i.tude. If he desires to tread the path of knowledge up to its glorious temple-summit, he can, as he pleases, take either of the learned professions as instruments of pecuniary independence, while he plumes his wings for a higher and higher ascent. Not so with woman. Her rights are not recognized as equal; her sphere is circ.u.mscribed--not by her ability, but by her s.e.x. If, perchance, her taste leads her to excellence, in the way they give her leave to tread, she is worshiped as almost divine; but if she reaches for laurels they have in view, the wings of her genius are clipped because she is a woman.
Dr. Harriot K. Hunt, of Boston, the first woman who practiced medicine in this country, spoke on the medical education of women.
Sarah Tyndale, a successful merchant in Philadelphia, on the business capacity of woman.
Antoinette L. Brown, a graduate of Oberlin College, and a student in Theology, made a logical argument on woman"s position in the Bible, claiming her complete equality with man, the simultaneous creation of the s.e.xes, and their moral responsibilities as individual and imperative.
The debates on the resolutions were spicy, pointed, and logical, and were deeply interesting, continuing with crowded audiences through two entire days. In these debates Lucy Stone, Lucretia Mott, Wendell Phillips, William Henry Channing, Ernestine L. Rose, Frederick Dougla.s.s, Martha Mowry, Abby Kelly and Stephen Foster, Elizabeth B.
Chase, James N. Buffam, Sojourner Truth, Eliab Cap.r.o.n, and Joseph C.
Hathaway, took part. As there was no phonographic reporter present, most of the best speaking, that was extemporaneous, can not be handed down to history.
Among the letters to the Convention, there was one quite novel and interesting from Helene Marie Weber,[44] a lady of high literary character, who had published numerous tracts on the Rights of Woman.
She contended that the physical development of woman was impossible in her present costume, and that her consequent enfeebled condition made her incapable of entering many of the most profitable employments in the world of work. Miss Weber exemplified her teachings by her practice. She usually wore a dress coat and pantaloons of black cloth; on full-dress occasions, a dark blue dress coat, with plain flat gilt b.u.t.tons, and drab-colored pantaloons. Her waistcoat was of buff ca.s.simere, richly trimmed with plain, flat-surfaced, gold b.u.t.tons, exquisitely polished; this was an elegant costume, and one she wore to great advantage. Her clothes were all perfect in their fit, and of Paris make; and her figure was singularly well adapted to male attire.
No gentleman in Paris made a finer appearance.
One of the grand results of this Convention was the thought roused in England. A good report of the proceedings in the New _York Tribune_, for Europe, of October 29, 1850, was read by the future Mrs. John Stuart Mill, then Mrs. Taylor, and at once called out from her pen an able essay in the _Westminster and Foreign Quarterly Review_, ent.i.tled "Enfranchis.e.m.e.nt of Woman." This attracted the attention of many liberal thinkers, and foremost of these, one of England"s greatest philosophers and scholars, the Hon. John Stuart Mill, who became soon after the champion of woman"s cause in the British Parliament. The essayist in speaking of this Convention says:
Most of our readers will probably learn, from these pages, for the first time, that there has risen in the United States, and in the most Civilized and enlightened portion of them, an organized agitation, on a new question, new not to thinkers, nor to any one by whom the principles of free and popular government are felt, as well as acknowledged; but new, and even unheard of, as a subject for public meetings, and practical political action. This question is the enfranchis.e.m.e.nt of women, their admission in law, and in fact, to equality in all rights, political, civil, social, with the male citizens of the community.
It will add to the surprise with which many will receive this intelligence, that the agitation which has commenced is not a pleading by male writers and orators _for_ women, those who are professedly to be benefited remaining either indifferent, or ostensibly hostile; it is a political movement, practical in its objects, carried on in a form which denotes an intention to persevere. And it is a movement not merely _for_ women, but _by_ them....
A succession of public meetings was held, under the name of a "Woman"s Rights Convention," of which the President was a woman, and nearly all the chief speakers women; numerously reinforced, however, by men, among whom were some of the most distinguished leaders in the kindred cause of negro emanc.i.p.ation....
According to the report in the _New York Tribune_, above a thousand persons were present, throughout, and "if a larger place could have been had, many thousands more would have attended."
In regard to the quality of the speaking, the proceedings bear an advantageous comparison with those of any popular movement with which we are acquainted, either in this country or in America.
Very rarely in the oratory of public meetings is the part of verbiage and declamation so small, and that of calm good sense and reason so considerable.
The result of the convention was in every respect encouraging to those by whom it was summoned; and it is probably destined to inaugurate one of the most important of the movements toward political and social reform, which are the best characteristic of the present age. That the promoters of this new agitation take their stand on principles, and do not fear to declare these in their widest extent, without time-serving or compromise, will be seen from the resolutions adopted by the Convention[45].
After giving an able argument in favor of all the demands made in the Convention with a fair criticism of some of the weak things uttered there, she concludes by saying:
There are indications that the example of America will be followed on this side of the Atlantic; and the first step has been taken in that part of England where every serious movement in the direction of political progress has its commencement--the manufacturing districts of the north. On the 13th of February, 1851, a pet.i.tion of women, agreed to by a public meeting at Sheffield, and claiming the elective franchise, was presented to the House of Lords by the Earl of Carlisle.
William Henry Channing, from the Business Committee, suggested a plan for organization and the principles that should govern the movement.
In accordance with his views a National Central Committee was appointed, in which every State was represented[46]. Paulina Wright Davis, Chairman; Sarah H. Earle, Secretary; Wendell Phillips, Treasurer.
This Convention was a very creditable one in every point of view. The order and perfection of the arrangements, the character of the papers presented, and the sustained enthusiasm, reflect honor on the men and women who conducted the proceedings. The large number of letters addressed to Mrs. Davis show how extensive had been her correspondence, both in the old world and the new. Her wealth, culture, and position gave her much social influence; her beauty, grace, and gentle manners drew around her a large circle of admiring friends. These, with her tall fine figure, her cla.s.sic head and features, and exquisite taste in dress; her organizing talent and knowledge of the question under consideration, altogether made her so desirable a presiding officer, that she was often chosen for that position.
THE SECOND NATIONAL CONVENTION IN WORCESTER.
In accordance with a call from the Central Committee, the friends of Woman Suffrage a.s.sembled again in Brinley Hall, Oct. 15th and 16th, 1851. At an early hour the house was filled, and was called to order by Paulina Wright Davis, who was again chosen permanent President.
This Convention was conducted mainly by the same persons who had so successfully managed the proceedings of the previous year. Mrs. Davis, on taking the chair, gave a brief _resume_ of the steps of progress during the year, and at the close of her remarks, letters were read from Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry Ward Beecher, Horace Mann, Angelina Grimke Weld, Frances D. Gage, Estelle Anna Lewis, Marion Blackwell, Oliver Johnson, and Eliza Barney, all giving a hearty welcome to the new idea. Mrs. Emma R. Coe, of the Business Committee, called upon Wendell Phillips to read the resolutions[47] prepared for the consideration of the Convention.
On rising Mr. PHILLIPS said:
In drawing up some of these resolutions, I have used very freely the language of a thoughtful and profound article in the _Westminster Review_. It is a review of the proceedings of our Convention, held one year ago, and states with singular clearness and force the leading arguments for our reform, and the grounds of our claim in behalf of woman. I rejoice to see so large an audience gathered to consider this momentous subject, the most magnificent reform that has yet been launched upon the world. It is the first organized protest against the injustice which has brooded over the character and the destiny of one-half of the human race. Nowhere else, under any circ.u.mstances, has a demand ever yet been made for the liberties of one whole half of our race. It is fitting that we should pause and consider so remarkable and significant a circ.u.mstance; that we should discuss the questions involved with the seriousness and deliberation suitable to such an enterprise.
It strikes, indeed, a great and vital blow at the whole social fabric of every nation; but this, to my mind, is no argument against it.... Government commenced in usurpation and oppression; liberty and civilization at present are nothing else than the fragments of rights which the scaffold and the stake have wrung from the strong hands of the usurpers. Every step of progress the world has made has been from scaffold to scaffold, from stake to stake.... Government began in tyranny and force; began in the feudalism of the soldier and the bigotry of the priest; and the ideas of justice and humanity have been fighting their way like a thunderstorm against the organized selfishness of human nature.
And this is the last great protest against the wrong of ages. It is no argument, to my mind, therefore, that the old social fabric of the past is against us. Neither do I feel called upon to show what woman"s proper sphere is. In every great reform the majority have always said to the claimant, no matter what he claimed, "You are not fit for such a privilege." Luther asked of the Pope liberty for the ma.s.ses to read the Bible. The reply was that it would not be safe to trust the ma.s.ses with the word of G.o.d. "Let them try," said the great reformer, and the history of three centuries of development and purity proclaims the result.
The lower cla.s.ses in France claimed their civil rights; the right to vote, and to a direct representation in government, but the rich and lettered cla.s.ses cried out, "You can not be made fit."
The answer was, "Let us try." That France is not as Spain, utterly crushed beneath the weight of a thousand years of misgovernment, is the answer to those who doubt the ultimate success of the experiment.
Woman stands now at the same door. She says: "You tell me I have no intellect. Give me a chance." "You tell me I shall only embarra.s.s politics; let me try." The only reply is the same stale argument that said to the Jews of Europe: You are fit only to make money; you are not fit for the ranks of the army, or the halls of Parliament.
How cogent the eloquent appeal of Macaulay: "What right have we to take this question for granted? Throw open the doors of this House of Commons; throw open the ranks of the imperial army, before you deny eloquence to the countrymen of Isaiah, or valor to the descendants of the Maccabees."
It is the same now with us. Throw open the doors of Congress; throw open those court-houses; throw wide open the doors of your colleges, and give to the sisters of the De Staels and the Martineaus the same opportunity for culture that men have, and let the results prove what their capacity and intellect really are. When woman has enjoyed for as many centuries as we have the aid of books, the discipline of life, and the stimulus of fame, it will be time to begin the discussion of these questions: "What is the intellect of woman?" "Is it equal to that of man?" Till then, all such discussion is mere beating of the air. While it is doubtless true, that great minds make a way for themselves, spite of all obstacles, yet who knows how many Miltons have died, "mute and inglorious"? However splendid the natural endowments, the discipline of life, after all, completes the miracle. The ability of Napoleon--what was it? It grew out of the hope to be Caesar, or Marlborough; out of Austerlitz and Jena--out of his battle-fields, his throne, and all the great scenes of that eventful life.
Open to woman the same scenes, immerse her in the same great interests and pursuits, and if twenty centuries shall not produce a woman Charlemagne, or a Napoleon, fair reason will then allow us to conclude that there is some distinctive peculiarity in the intellects of the s.e.xes.
Centuries alone can lay a fair basis for the argument. I believe on this point there is a shrinking consciousness of not being ready for the battle, on the part of some of the stronger s.e.x, as they call themselves; a tacit confession of risk to this imagined superiority, if they consent to meet their sisters in the lecture halls, or the laboratory of science.
My proof of it is this, that the mightiest intellects of the race, from Plato down to the present time, some of the rarest minds of Germany, France, and England, have successively yielded their a.s.sent to the fact, that woman is not, perhaps, identically, but equally endowed with man in all intellectual capabilities. It is generally the second-rate men who doubt; doubt because, perhaps, they fear a fair field.
Suppose that woman is essentially inferior to man, she still has rights. Grant that Mrs. Norton[48] never could be Byron; that Elizabeth Barrett never could have written Paradise Lost; that Mrs. Somerville never could be La Place, nor Sirani have painted the Transfiguration. What then? Does that prove they should be deprived of all civil rights?
John Smith will never be, never can be, Daniel Webster. Shall he therefore be put under guardianship, and forbidden to vote?