"Many jurists," says Kent, vol. 2, p. 88, "are of opinion that the adultery of the husband ought not to be noticed or made subject to the same animadversions as that of the wife, because it is not evidence of such entire depravity, nor equally injurious in its effects upon the morals, good order, and happiness of domestic life. Montesquieu, Pothier, and Dr. Taylor all insist that the cases of husband and wife ought to be distinguished, and that the violation of the marriage vow, on the part of the wife, is the most mischievous, and the prosecution ought to be confined to the offense on her part.--"Esprit des Loix," tom. 3, 186; "Traite du Contrat de Mariage," No. 516; "Elements of Civil Law," p. 254.
Say you, "These are but the opinions of men"? On what else, I ask, are the hundreds of women depending, who this hour demand in our courts a release from burdensome contracts? Are not these delicate matters left wholly to the discretion of courts? Are not young women from the first families dragged into the public courts--into a.s.semblies of men exclusively--the judges all men, the jurors all men?--no true woman there to shield them by her presence from gross and impertinent questionings, to pity their misfortunes, or to protest against their wrongs?
The administration of justice depends far more on the opinions of eminent jurists, than on law alone, for law is powerless when at variance with public sentiment.
Do not the above citations clearly prove inequality? Are not the very letter and spirit of the marriage contract based on the idea of the supremacy of man as the keeper of woman"s virtue--her sole protector and support? Out of marriage, woman asks nothing at this hour but the elective franchise. It is only in marriage that she must demand her rights to person, children, property, wages, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. How can we discuss all the laws and conditions of marriage, without perceiving its essential essence, end, and aim? Now, whether the inst.i.tution of marriage be human or divine, whether regarded as indissoluble by ecclesiastical courts, or dissoluble by civil courts, woman, finding herself equally degraded in each and every phase of it, always the victim of the inst.i.tution, it is her right and her duty to sift the relation and the compact through and through, until she finds out the true cause of her false position. How can we go before the Legislatures of our respective States, and demand new laws, or no laws, on divorce, until we have some idea of what the true relation is?
We decide the whole question of slavery by settling the sacred rights of the individual. We a.s.sert that man can not hold property in man, and reject the whole code of laws that conflicts with the self-evident truth of that a.s.sertion.
Again I ask, is it possible to discuss all the laws of a relation, and not touch the relation itself?
Yours respectfully, ELIZABETH CADY STANTON.
HORACE GREELEY in _The New York Tribune_, May 14, 1860.
_One Thousand Persons Present, seven-eighths of them Women, and a fair Proportion Young and Good-looking_.--Whether the Woman"s Rights Convention will finally succeed or not in enlarging the sphere of woman, they have certainly been very successful in enlarging that of their platform. Having introduced easy Divorce as one of the reforms which the new order of things demands, we can see no good reason why the platform should not be altogether replanked. We respectfully suggest that with this change of purpose there shall also be a change in name, and that hereafter these meetings shall be called not by name of Woman, but in the name of Wives Discontented. Hitherto we have supposed that the aim of this movement related to wrongs which woman suffered as woman, political and social inequalities, and disabilities with which she was mightily burdened. A settlement of the marriage relation, we conceive, does not come within this category. As there can be no wives without husbands, the subject concerns the latter quite as much as it does the former. One of the wrongs which it is charged woman suffers from man, is that he legislates for her when she is not represented. We acknowledge the justice of that plea, and, for that very reason, complain that she, under the name of Woman"s Rights, should attempt to settle a question of such vital importance to him where he is supposed to be admitted only on suffrance. We believe in woman"s rights; we have some conclusions(?) on the rights of husbands and wives; we are not yet, we confess, up to that advanced state which enables us to consider the rights of wives as something apart from that of husbands.
On the subject of marriage and divorce we have some very positive opinions, and what they are is pretty generally known. But even were they less positive and fixed, we should none the less protest against the sweeping character of the resolutions introduced at the Woman"s Rights Convention on Friday by Mrs.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton. We can not look upon the marriage relation as of no more binding force than that which a man may make with a purchaser for the sale of dry-goods, or an engagement he may contract with a schoolmaster or governess. Such doctrine seems to us simply shocking.
The intimate relation existing between one man and one woman, sanctified by, at least, the memory of an early and sincere affection, rendered more sacred by the present bond of dependent children, the fruit of that love, hallowed by many joys and many sorrows, though they be only remembered joys and sorrows, with other interests that can be broken in upon only to be destroyed--such a relation, we are very sure, has elements of quite another nature than those which belong to the shop or the counting-house. In our judgment, the balance of duty can not be struck like the balance of a mercantile statement of profit and loss, or measured with the calculations we bestow on an account current. Such a doctrine we regard as pernicious and debasing. We can conceive of nothing that would more utterly sap the foundations of sound morality, or give a looser rein to the most licentious and depraved appet.i.tes of the vilest men and women.
Upon the physiological and psychological laws which govern generation, we do not care here to enter, even if Mrs. Stanton leads the way; but we believe that the progress of the world, springing out of connections formed under such a dispensation of humanity as is here indicated, with so little of duty or conscience, with so little hope or expectation of abiding affection, with so little intention of permanency as must necessarily belong to them, would be more monstrous than the world has ever dreamed of. For such a rule of married life contemplates no married life at all, and no parental relation. It destroys the family; it renders the dearest word in the Saxon tongue (home) a vague and unmeaning term; it multiplies a thousand-fold and renders universal all the evils which in the imperfections of human nature are now occasional under the binding force of a moral sense, the duty of continency, and the remnant of nothing else is left of love.
There are some other things besides in these resolutions to which we might object on the score of truth, some things which we rather marvel, modest women should say, and that modest women, in a mixed a.s.sembly, should listen to with patience. But these are secondary matters. The thought--more than them all--that the marriage tie is of the same nature as a mere business relation, is so objectionable, so dangerous, that we do not care to draw attention from that one point.
In a.s.serting that marriage is an equal relation for husbands and wives, Mr. Greeley, like Mr. Phillips, begs the whole question. If it is legitimate to discuss all laws that bear unequally on man and woman in woman"s rights conventions, surely those that grow out of marriage, which are the most oppressive and degrading on the statute-book, should command our first consideration. There could be no slaveholders without slaves; the one relation involves the other, and yet it would be absurd to say that slaves might not hold a convention to discuss the inequality of the laws sustaining that relation, and incidentally the whole inst.i.tution itself, because the slaveholder shared in the evils resulting from it. There never has been a woman"s convention held in which the injustice suffered by wives and mothers has not been a topic for discussion, and legitimately so. And if the only way of escape from the infamous laws by which all power is placed in the hands of man, is through divorce, then that is the hospitable door to open for those who wish to escape. No proposition contained in Mrs.
Stanton"s speech on divorce, viewed in any light, can be a tenth part so shocking as the laws on the statute-books, or the opinions expressed by many of the authorities in the English and American systems of jurisprudence.
It is difficult to comprehend that the release of the miserable from false relations, would necessarily seduce the contented from happy ones, or that the dearest word in the Saxon tongue (home) should have no significance, after drunkards and villains were denied the right to enter it. It is a pleasant reflection, in view of the dolorous results Mr. Greeley foresees from the pa.s.sage of a divorce law, that the love of men and women for each other and their children in no way depends on the Statutes of New York. In the State of Indiana, where the laws have been very liberal for many years, family life is as beautiful and permanent as in South Carolina and New York, where the tie can be dissolved for one cause only. When we consider how little protection the State throws round the young and thoughtless in entering this relation, stringent laws against all escape are cruel and despotic, especially to woman, for if home life, which is everything to her, is discordant, where can she look for happiness?
APPEAL TO THE WOMEN OF NEW YORK.
WOMEN OF NEW YORK:--Once more we appeal to you to make renewed efforts for the elevation of our s.e.x. In our marital laws we are now in advance of every State in the Union. Twelve years ago New York took the initiative step, and secured to married women their property, received by gift or inheritance. Our last Legislature pa.s.sed a most liberal act, giving to married women their rights, to sue for damages of person or property, to their separate earnings and their children; and to the widow, the possession and control of the entire estate during the minority of the youngest child. Women of New York! You can no longer be insulted in the first days of your widowed grief by the coa.r.s.e minions of the law at your fireside, coolly taking an inventory of your household goods, or robbing your children of their natural guardian.
While we rejoice in this progress made in our laws, we see also a change in the employment of women. They are coming down from the garrets and up from the cellars to occupy more profitable posts in every department of industry, literature, science, and art. In the church, too, behold the spirit of freedom at work. Within the past year, the very altar has been the scene of well-fought battles; women claiming and exercising their right to vote in church matters, in defiance of precedent, priest, or Paul.
Another evidence of the importance of our cause is seen in the deep interest men of wealth are manifesting in it. Three great bequests have been given to us in the past year. Five thousand dollars from an unknown hand,[171] a share in the munificent fund left by that n.o.ble man of Boston, Charles F. Hovey, and four hundred thousand dollars by Mr. Va.s.sar, of Poughkeepsie, to found a college for girls, equal in all respects to Yale and Harvard.
Is it not strange that women of wealth are constantly giving large sums of money to endow professorships and colleges for boys exclusively--to churches and to the education of the ministry, and yet give no thought to their own s.e.x--crushed in ignorance, poverty, and prost.i.tution--the hopeless victims of custom, law, and Gospel, with few to offer a helping hand, while the whole world combine to aid the boy and glorify the man?
Our movement is already felt in the Old World. The n.o.bility of England, with Lord Brougham at their head, have recently formed a "Society for Promoting the Employments of Women."
All this is the result of the agitation, technically called "Woman"s Rights," through conventions, lectures, circulation of tracts and pet.i.tions, and by the faithful word uttered in the privacy of home. The few who stand forth to meet the world"s cold gaze, its ridicule, its contumely, and its scorn, are urged onward by the prayers and tears, crushed hopes and withered hearts of the sad daughters of the race. The wretched will not let them falter; and they who seem to do the work, ever and anon draw fresh courage and inspiration from the n.o.blest women of the age, who, from behind the scene, send forth good words of cheer and heartfelt thanks.
Six years hence, the men of New York purpose to revise our State Const.i.tution. Among other changes demanded, is the right of suffrage for women--which right will surely be granted, if through all the intervening years every woman does her duty.
Again do we appeal to each and all--to every cla.s.s and condition--to inform themselves on this question, that woman may no longer publish her degradation by declaring herself satisfied in her present position, nor her ignorance by a.s.serting that she has "all the rights she wants."
Any person who ponders the startling fact that there are four millions of African slaves in this republic, will instantly put the question to himself, "Why do these people submit to the cruel tyranny that our government exercises over them?" The answer is apparent--"simply because they are ignorant of their power."
Should they rise _en ma.s.se_, a.s.sert and demand their rights, their freedom would be secure. It is the same with woman. Why is it that one-half the people of this nation are held in abject dependence--civilly, politically, socially, the slaves of man?
Simply because woman knows not her power. To find out her natural rights, she must travel through such labyrinths of falsehood, that most minds stand appalled before the dark mysteries of life--the seeming contradictions in all laws, both human and divine. But, because woman can not solve the whole problem to her satisfaction, because she can not prove to a demonstration the rottenness and falsehood of our present customs, shall she, without protest, supinely endure evils she can not at once redress? The silkworm, in its many wrappings, knows not it yet shall fly. The woman, in her ignorance, her drapery, and her chains, knows not that in advancing civilization, she too must soon be free, to counsel with her conscience and her G.o.d.
The religion of our day teaches that in the most sacred relations of the race, the woman must ever be subject to the man; that in the husband centers all power and learning; that the difference in position between husband and wife is as vast as that between Christ and the church; and woman struggles to hold the n.o.ble impulses of her nature in abeyance to opinions uttered by a Jewish teacher, which, alas! the ma.s.s believe to be the will of G.o.d. Woman turns from what she is taught to believe are G.o.d"s laws to the laws of man; and in his written codes she finds herself still a slave. No girl of fifteen could read the laws, concerning woman, made, executed, and defended by those who are bound to her by every tie of affection, without a burst of righteous indignation. Few have ever read or heard of the barbarous laws that govern the mothers of this Christian republic, and fewer still care, until misfortune brings them into the iron grip of the law. It is the imperative duty of educated women to study the Const.i.tution and statutes under which they live, that when they shall have a voice in the government, they may bring wisdom and not folly into its councils.
We now demand the ballot, trial by jury of our peers, and an equal right to the joint earnings of the marriage copartnership.
And, until the Const.i.tution be so changed as to give us a voice in the government, we demand that man shall make all his laws on property, marriage, and divorce, to bear equally on man and woman.
{ E. CADY STANTON, _President_.
{ LYDIA MOTT,[172] _Sec. and Treas_.
_New York State Woman"s Rights { ERNESTINE L. ROSE.
Committee_. { MARTHA C. WRIGHT.
{ SUSAN B. ANTHONY.
_November, 1860._
N. B.--Let every friend commence to get signatures to the pet.i.tion without delay, and send up to Albany early in January, either to your representative or to Lydia Mott.
How can any wife or mother, who to-day rejoices in her legal right to the earnings of her hands, and the children of her love, withhold the small pittance of a few hours or days in getting signatures to the pet.i.tion, or a few shillings or dollars to carry the work onward and upward, to a final glorious consummation.
CONVENTION IN ALBANY AND HEARING BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IN THE a.s.sEMBLY CHAMBER.
FEBRUARY 7TH AND 8TH, 1861.
The last Convention before the War was held in Albany. Ernestine L.
Rose, Lucretia Mott, William Lloyd Garrison, Rev. Beriah Green, Aaron M. Powell, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony were the speakers. They had a hearing also before the Judiciary Committee on the bill then pending asking divorce for various causes.[173] The interest in the question was intense at this time, owing to several very aggravated cases among leading families, both in this country and England. The very liberal bill pending in the Legislature had drawn special attention to it in the Empire State, which not only made the whole question of marriage and divorce a topic of conversation at every fireside, but of many editorial debates in our leading journals.
Among others, Horace Greeley, in _The New York Tribune_, had a prolonged discussion with the Hon. Robert Dale Owen,[174] in which it was generally thought that the weight of argument rested with Mr.
Owen; but it was evident that Mr. Greeley did not think so, as he afterward republished the whole controversy at his own expense. _The Albany Evening Journal_ also took strong grounds against the bill. But the opponents invariably discussed the question on the basis that marriage was an _equal_ relation, in which man suffered as much as woman, ignoring the fact that _man_ had made the laws governing it, and all to his own advantage.
From the following letter of Lucretia Mott, we see how clear she was as to the merits of the position we had taken in the discussion of this vital question:
ROADSIDE, near Philadelphia, 4th Mo., 30th, "61.
MY DEAR LYDIA MOTT:--I have wished ever since parting with thee and our other dear friends in Albany to send thee a line, and have only waited in the hope of contributing a little "substantial aid" toward your neat and valuable "depository." The twenty dollars enclosed is from our Female Anti-Slavery Society.
I see the annual meeting in New York is not to be held this spring. Sister Martha is here, and was expecting to attend both anniversaries. But we now think the Woman"s Rights meeting had better not be attempted, and she has written Elizabeth C. Stanton to this effect.
I was well satisfied with being at the Albany meeting. I have since met with the following from a speech of Lord Brougham"s, which pleased me, as being as radical as mine in your stately Hall of Representatives:
"Before woman can have any justice by the laws of England, there must be a total reconstruction of the whole system; for any attempt to amend it would prove useless. The great charter, in establishing the supremacy of law over prerogative, provides only for justice between man and man; for woman nothing is left but common-law, acc.u.mulations and modifications of original Gothic and Roman heathenism, which no amount of filtration through ecclesiastical courts could change into Christian laws. They are declared unworthy a Christian people by great jurists; still they remain unchanged."
So Elizabeth Stanton will see that I have authority for going to the root of the evil.
We had a delightful golden-wedding on the 10th inst. All our children and children"s children were present, and a number of our friends hereaway. Our sister Mary W. Hicks and her grand daughter May were all of James"s relatives from New York. Brother Richard and daughter Cannie could not feel like coming. Brother Silas and Sarah Cornell could not come.
Love to all, LUCRETIA MOTT.
In 1861 came "the war of the rebellion," the great conflict between the North and the South, the final struggle between freedom and slavery. The women who had so perseveringly labored for their own enfranchis.e.m.e.nt now gave all their time and thought to the nation"s life; their patriotism was alike spontaneous and enduring. In the sanitary movement, in the hospitals, on the battle-field, gathering in the harvests on the far-off prairies--all that heroic women dared and suffered through those long dark years of anxiety and death, should have made "justice to woman" the spontaneous cry on the lips of our rulers, as we welcomed the return of the first glad days of peace. All specific work for her own rights she willingly thrust aside. No Conventions were held for five years; no pet.i.tions circulated for her civil and political rights; the action of State Legislatures was wholly forgotten. In their stead, Loyal Leagues were formed, and pet.i.tions by the hundred thousand for the emanc.i.p.ation of the slaves rolled up and sent to Congress--a measure which with speech and pen they pressed on the nation"s heart, seeing clearly as they did that this was the pivotal point of the great conflict.
Thus left unwatched, the Legislature of New York amended the law of 1860, taking from the mother the lately guaranteed right to the equal guardianship of her children, replacing it by a species of veto power, which did not allow the father to bind out or will away a child without the mother"s consent in writing. The law guaranteeing the widow the control of the property, which the husband should leave at death, for the care and protection of minor children, was also repealed. This cowardly act of the Legislature of 1862[175] is the strongest possible proof of woman"s need of the ballot in her own hand for protection. Had she possessed the power to make and unmake legislators, no State a.s.sembly would have dared thus to rob the mother of her natural rights. But without the suffrage she was helpless.