VICE-PRESIDENTS.--Lucretia Mott, Philadelphia; Frances D. Gage, Missouri; Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Ma.s.sachusetts; Martha C.
Wright, New York; Thomas Garrett, Delaware; Hannah Tracy Cutler, Illinois; Robert Purvis; Pennsylvania; John O. Wattles, Indiana; Marenda B. Randall, Vermont; George Sunter, Canada.
SECRETARIES.--Joseph A. Dugdale, Abby Kimber, Hannah M.
Darlington.
BUSINESS COMMITTEE.--Lucy Stone, William Lloyd Garrison, Myra Townsend, Mary P. Wilson, Sarah Pugh, Lydia Mott, Mary Grew.
FINANCE COMMITTEE.--Susan B. Anthony, James Mott, Ruth Dugdale, Rebecca Plumbly.
Mrs. Rose, on taking the chair, said:
There is one argument which in my estimation is the argument of arguments, why woman should have her rights; not on account of expediency, not on account of policy, though these too show the reasons why she should have her rights; but we claim--I for one claim, and I presume all our friends claim--our rights on the broad ground of human rights; and I for one again will say, I promise not how we shall use them. I will no more promise how we shall use our rights than man has promised before he obtained them, how he would use them. We all know that rights are often abused; and above all things have human rights in this country been abused, from the very fact that they have been withheld from half of the community.
By human rights we mean natural rights, and upon that ground we claim our rights, and upon that ground they have already been conceded by the Declaration of Independence, in that first great and immutable truth which is proclaimed in that instrument, "that all men are created equal," and that therefore all are ent.i.tled to "certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Our claims are based upon that great and immutable truth, the rights of all humanity. For is woman not included in that phrase, "all men are created free and equal"? Is she not included in that expression? Tell us, ye men of the nation, ay, ye wise law-makers and law-breakers of the nation, whether woman is not included in that great Declaration of Independence? And if she is, what right has man to deprive her of her natural and inalienable rights? It is natural, it is inherent, it is inborn, it is a thing of which no one can justly deprive her. Upon that just and eternal basis do we found our claims for our rights; political, civil, legal, social, religious, and every other.
But, at the outset, we claim our equal political rights with man, not only from that portion of the Declaration of Independence, but from another, equally well-established principle in this country, that "taxation and representation are inseparable."
Woman, everybody knows, is taxed; and if she is taxed, she ought to be represented.
I will simply here throw out a statement of these principles upon which our claims are based; and I trust each separate resolution will be taken up by this Convention, fully canva.s.sed and commented upon, so as to show it not only an abstract right, but a right which can be wisely made practical.
Again, it is acknowledged in this country, and it is eternally true, that "all the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed." If so, then, as woman is a subject of government, she ought to have a voice in enacting the laws. If her property is taxed to maintain government, she ought to have a voice in forming that government. If she has to pay taxes to maintain government, she ought to have a voice in saying how those taxes shall be applied.
On these grounds we make our claims, on natural, humane, eternal, and well-recognized laws and principles of this republic. On these grounds we ask man to meet us, and meet us in the spirit of inquiry, in the spirit of candor and honesty, as rational human beings ought to meet each other, face to face, and adduce arguments, if they can, to convince us that we are not included in that great Declaration of Independence; that although it is a right principle that taxation and representation are inseparable, yet woman ought to be taxed, and ought not to be represented; and that although it is an acknowledged principle that all just power of government is derived from the consent of the governed, yet woman should be governed without her consent. Let them meet us fairly and openly; let them meet us like rational men, men who appreciate their own freedom, and we will hear them. If they can convince us that we are wrong, we will give up our claims; but if we can convince them that we are right in claiming our rights, as they are in claiming theirs, then we expect them in a spirit of candor and honesty to acknowledge it.
Joseph Dugdale read several letters, which, as usual, seemed to be something of a bore to the audience. When he finished, Lucretia Mott suggested that if there were any more lengthy epistles to be read, it would be well for the secretaries to look them over, and omit all that in their wisdom might not be worth reading.
Lucy Stone, from the Business Committee, read a series of resolutions,[70] and as some one from the audience called, "Louder!"
she remarked that if ladies would keep their bonnets tied down over their ears, they must not ask others to find lungs of sufficient power to penetrate the heavy pasteboard and millinery over them. She spoke briefly on the resolutions, and the steadily increasing interest in the subject of woman"s rights.
Hannah Tracy Cutler gave a report of Illinois, Frances Dana Gage of Missouri, and Susan B. Anthony of New York.
Thomas Wentworth Higginson, of Ma.s.sachusetts, said he had a matter of business to present. Mrs. Paulina Wright Davis being too ill to attend the Convention, Mr. Higginson read a letter from her sister, Mary K.
Spaulding, suggesting the establishment of a newspaper in the city of New York as "the national organ" of the Woman"s Rights movement. He doubted the wisdom of such a step, and after setting forth the expense of a central organ and the great danger of its creating a schism, he offered the following resolutions:
_Resolved_, That in the opinion of this Convention it is not expedient, at present, to establish a newspaper as The National Organ of the Woman"s Rights Movement.
_Resolved_, That it is expedient to appoint a Committee who shall provide for the preparation and publication, in widely circulated journals, facts and arguments relating to the cause.
Mrs. MOTT approved of the resolutions, and said they had arrived at a similar conclusion in the Syracuse Convention; she fully concurred in the views of Mr. Higginson.
WILLIAM LLOYD GARRISON replied, that if organization for any good cause be right, it was right for this. Every reform movement needs an organ of its own. And this cause needs a paper of the most radical character; that shall make no compromises with popular prejudices; far above the paralyzing influences of Church and State.
Mrs. MOTT said she did not oppose organization, but was in favor of individual freedom and responsibility. _The Liberator_, Mr.
Garrison"s paper, has done far more good than _The Anti-Slavery Standard_, the organ of the Anti-Slavery movement.
Mr. GARRISON said _The Liberator_ was not simply an anti-slavery paper, but an advocate of general reform.
Remarks were made on this point by Elizabeth Paxton, Susan H. c.o.x, George P. Davis, and George Sunter, of Canada.
LUCY STONE advocated the resolutions; her experience in the anti-slavery cause had taught her a lesson of wisdom for this movement. We are rich in principle and enthusiasm, but not in silver and gold, and therefore should avoid taking on our shoulders a national organ. Widely circulated journals are now open to us, in which we can express our opinions with freedom and without expense. There is nothing so strong as individual purpose and freedom to carry it out. The papers established by Mrs.
Davis and Mrs. Bloomer are good, and she hoped the friends would give generously to their support.
The resolutions were unanimously adopted, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, of New York; Paulina Wright Davis, of Rhode Island; Thomas Wentworth Higginson and Lucy Stone, of Ma.s.sachusetts; and Oliver Johnson, of New York, were appointed as the Committee to superintend the work.
LUCY STONE said she had a new item of business to propose. She knew that those who came to these Conventions went away feeling stronger and better. She held in her hand a pamphlet containing five tracts; one from Wendell Phillips, one from Theodore Parker, one from _The Westminster Review_, by Mrs. John Stuart Mill, one from Mr. Higginson, and last, but not least, one from Mrs. C. I.
H. Nichols, which should be distributed. They were able papers, and all interested in the movement should exert themselves to circulate them. The people only wanted light.
Another mode of disseminating the principles was by stories ill.u.s.trating the wrongs of women under the present laws. The right of a woman to what she earns; to the custody of her person; to the guardianship of her children, and all of her other rights, should be ill.u.s.trated in fiction. Prizes should be offered for the best stories upon these subjects. She pledged herself to raise $500 for the purpose. She pointed to "Uncle Tom"s Cabin" to show what fiction could accomplish, and trusted that action would be taken upon the subject before the Convention adjourned.
Mr. GARRISONarose to say "ditto to Lucy Stone." In regard to "Uncle Tom"s Cabin," it was known that Mrs. Stowe was induced to write it from a request of Dr. Bailey, of _The National Era_, to write a story for his paper. And he thought that such an offer might now call forth something to aid the cause of woman. He praised the tracts to which Miss Stone alluded.
The PRESIDENT appointed Wendell Phillips, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Mary Channing Higginson, the Committee on prize tracts.[71]
Mrs. TRACY CUTLER read an invitation from the Female Medical College for the members of the Convention to visit that inst.i.tution and attend its lectures, and took the opportunity to compliment Philadelphia as being the first city, not only in the United States, but in the world, to establish a Medical College for Women.
Dr. ANN PRESTON gave an interesting report of The Woman"s Medical College; of all the persecutions women had encountered in securing a medical education and entering that profession. She noted the signs of a growing liberality with satisfaction.
The Rev. HENRY GREW, of Philadelphia, then appeared upon the platform, and said he was sorry to differ from the general tone of the speakers present, but he felt it to be his duty to give his views on the questions under consideration. His opinions as to woman"s rights and duties were based on the Scriptures. He quoted numerous texts to show that it was clearly the will of G.o.d that man should be superior in power and authority to woman; and a.s.serted that no lesson is more plainly and frequently taught in the Bible, than woman"s subjection.
Mrs. CUTLER replied at length, and skillfully turned every text he had quoted directly against the reverend gentleman, to the great amus.e.m.e.nt of the audience. She showed that man and woman were a simultaneous creation, with equal power and glory on their heads, and that dominion over the fowl of the air, the fish of the sea, and every creeping thing on the earth was given to them, and not to man alone. The time has come for woman to read and interpret Scripture for herself; too long have we learned G.o.d"s will from the lips of man and closed our eyes on the great book of nature, and the safer teaching of our own souls. It is a pity that those who would recommend the Bible as the revealed will of the all-wise and benevolent Creator, should uniformly quote it on the side of tyranny and oppression. I think we owe it to our religion and ourselves to wrest it from such hands, and proclaim the beautiful spirit breathed through all its commands and precepts, instead of dwelling so much on isolated texts that have no application to our day and generation.
Mrs. MOTT said: It is not Christianity, but priestcraft that has subjected woman as we find her. The Church and State have been united, and it is well for us to see it so. We have had to bear the denunciations of these reverend (irreverend) clergymen, as in New York, of late. But if we look to their authority to see how they expound the text, quite likely we shall find a new reading.
Why, when John Chambers returned to Philadelphia from the World"s Temperance Convention at New York, he gave notice that he would give an address, and state the rights of woman as defined by the Bible. Great allowance has been made by some of the speakers in this Convention, on account of his ignorance, and certainly this was charitable. But I heard this discourse. I heard him bring up what is called the Apostolic prohibition, and the old Eastern idea of the subjection of wives; but he kept out of view some of the best ideas in the Scriptures.
Blame is often attached to the position in which woman is found.
I blame her not so much as I pity her. So circ.u.mscribed have been her limits that she does not realize the misery of her condition.
Such dupes are men to custom that even servitude, the worst of ills, comes to be thought a good, till down from sire to son it is kept and guarded as a sacred thing. Woman"s existence is maintained by sufferance. The veneration of man has been misdirected, the pulpit has been prost.i.tuted, the Bible has been ill-used. It has been turned over and over as in every reform.
The temperance people have had to feel its supposed denunciations. Then the anti-slavery, and now this reform has met, and still continues to meet, pa.s.sage after pa.s.sage of the Bible, never intended to be so used. Instead of taking the truths of the Bible in corroboration of the right, the practice has been, to turn over its pages to find example and authority for the wrong, for the existing abuses of society. For the usage of drinking wine, the example of the sensualist Solomon, is always appealed to. In reference to our reform, even admitting that Paul did mean preach, when he used that term, he did not say that the recommendation of that time was to be applicable to the churches of all after-time. We have been so long pinning our faith on other people"s sleeves that we ought to begin examining these things daily ourselves, to see whether they are so; and we should find on comparing text with text, that a very different construction might be put upon them. Some of our early Quakers not seeing how far they were to be carried, became Greek and Hebrew scholars, and they found that the text would bear other translations as well as other constructions. All Bible commentators agree that the Church of Corinth, when the apostle wrote, was in a state of great confusion. They fell into discussion and controversy; and in order to quiet this state of things and bring the Church to greater propriety, the command was given out that women should keep silence, and it was not permitted them to speak, except by asking questions at home. In the same epistle to the same Church, Paul gave express directions how women shall prophesy, which he defines to be preaching, "speaking to men," for "exhortation and comfort." He recognized them in prophesying and praying. The word translated servant, is applied to a man in one part of the Scripture, and in another it is translated minister. Now that same word you will find might be applied to Phebe, a deaconess. That text was quoted in the sermon of John Chambers, and he interlarded it with a good many of his ideas, that women should not be goers abroad, and read among other things "that their wives were to be teachers." But properly translated would be "deaconesses."
It is not so Apostolic to make the wife subject to the husband as many have supposed. It has been done by law and public opinion since that time. There has been a great deal said about sending missionaries over to the East to convert women who are immolating themselves on the funeral pile of their husbands. I know this may be a very good work, but I would ask you to look at it. How many women are there now immolated upon the shrine of superst.i.tion and priestcraft, in our very midst, in the a.s.sumption that man only has a right to the pulpit, and that if a woman enters it she disobeys G.o.d; making woman believe in the misdirection of her vocation, and that it is of divine authority that she should be thus bound. Believe it not, my sisters. In this same epistle the word "prophesying" should be "preaching"--"preaching G.o.dliness,"
etc. On the occasion of the first miracle which it is said Christ wrought, a woman went before Him and said, "Whatsoever he biddeth you do, that do." The woman of Samaria said, "Come and see the man who told me all the things that ever I did."
These things are worthy of note. I do not want to dwell too much upon Scripture authority. We too often bind ourselves by authorities rather than by the truth. We are infidel to truth in seeking examples to overthrow it. The very first act of note that is mentioned when the disciples and apostles went forth after Jesus was removed from them, was the bringing up of an ancient prophecy to prove that they were right in the position they a.s.sumed on that occasion, when men and women were gathered together on the holy day of Pentecost, when every man heard and saw those wonderful works which are recorded. Then Peter stood forth--some one has said that Peter made a great mistake in quoting the prophet Joel--but he stated that "the time is come, this day is fulfilled the prophecy, when it is said, I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy," etc.--the language of the Bible is beautiful in its repet.i.tion--"upon my servants and my handmaidens I will pour out my spirit and they shall prophesy." Now can anything be clearer than that?
Rev. HENRY GREW again quoted Scripture in reply to Mrs. Mott, and said the coming of Christ into the world did not restore man and woman to the original condition of our first parents. If the position a.s.sumed by the women be true, then must the Divine Word from Genesis to Revelation be set aside as untrue, that woman may be relieved from the, perhaps, unfortunate limitations that hold her back in this age of progress.
Mr. HIGGINSON related a story of an old Methodist clergyman who by chance stepped into a Quaker meeting where he heard a woman speaking, which so shocked him that he thought Anti-Christ was now bound to rule. He went home sad. He had four daughters, one of whom, at the age of sixteen, in a few minutes opened the eyes of his understanding after he had groped in darkness a long time, by showing him a pa.s.sage in the Testament describing a friend of Paul"s at Phillippi, who had four daughters that prophesied. This girl referred her father to the Greek Testament, and showed him that the original word, properly translated, means to preach instead of to prophesy. Before we resort to Scriptural texts we should be careful to ascertain that they are right, or all arguments founded on them must fall.
Mr. GREW did not consider that the story of the four daughters invalidated his position.
Mr. GARRISON said: Consulting the Bible for opinions as to woman"s rights, is of little importance to the majority of this Convention. We have gone over the whole ground, and placed our cause upon the decrees of nature. We _know_ that man and woman are equal in the sight of G.o.d. We know that texts and books are of no importance, and have no taste for the discussion of dry doctrinal points.
But with the American people the case is different. The ma.s.ses believe the Bible directly from G.o.d; that it decrees the inequality of the s.e.xes; and that settles the question. There is no doubt that there are many persons connected with the Protestant churches who would be with the movement were it not for the supposed Bible difficulty. They shudder at anything they think against the Bible, as against the will of G.o.d. Take away this incubus, and these persons would experience a change in their views; they would be with us.
In regard to Mr. Grew, Mr. G. said he had long known him and loved him. He was a man of purity and charity, and he was glad he had given his views. Yet this kindly man did not stand upon a solid foundation.
Why go to the Bible to settle this question? As a nation, we have practically ignored the Bible. The a.s.sertion of the equality and inalienability of the rights of man, in the Declaration of Independence, includes the whole of the human race. He would never attempt to prove to an American the right of any man to liberty. He a.s.serted the fact; and considered that in holding slaves while they proclaimed liberty to all men, the American people were hypocrites and tyrants. Mr. Grew goes to St. Paul to prove that woman is not equal to man. Why go to the Bible? What question was ever settled by the Bible? What question of theology or any other department? None that I ever heard of! With this same version of the Bible, and the same ability to read it, we find that it has filled all Christendom with theological confusion. All are Ishmaelites; each man"s hand against his neighbor.
The human mind is greater than any book. The mind sits in judgment on every book. If there be truth in the book, we take it; if error, we discard it. Why refer this to the Bible? In this country, the Bible has been used to support slavery and capital punishment; while in the old countries, it has been quoted to sustain all manner of tyranny and persecution. All reforms are anti-Bible. We must look at all things rationally. We find women endowed with certain capacities, and it is of no importance if any book denies her such capacities. Would Mr. Grew say that woman can not preach, in the face of such a preacher as LUCRETIA MOTT?