ROCHESTER, JUNE 1 and 2, 1853.
_The Rochester Advertiser_ gives the following report: In Corinthian Hall yesterday, at ten o"clock, a large audience a.s.sembled. The Society was called to order by Mrs. E. C. Stanton, who said if any one present desired to offer vocal prayer, there was now an opportunity. Prayer was then offered by a young man in one of the side seats. The platform was occupied by Mrs. Stanton, Emily Clark, Lucy Stone, Mrs. Vaughan, Dr. Harriot Hunt, Mrs.
Nichols, Mrs. Fish, Mrs. Albro, Mrs. Alling, Elizabeth C. Wright, and Mrs. Lydia F. Fowler.
The attendance at this opening session is much larger this year than last, and a more hopeful spirit prevails. There are several of the notabilities of the Woman"s Rights cause present, and a fair sprinkling of Bloomers is scattered through the audience.
There were many out, attracted by curiosity, though probably the most are earnest friends of the Society. The proceedings were of a deeply interesting character, both from their novelty and their importance. After the prayer was concluded, Mrs. Stanton gave her opening address, as follows:
MRS. STANTON"S ADDRESS.
A little more than one year ago, in this same hall, we formed the first Woman"s State Temperance Society. We believed that the time had come for woman to speak on this question, and to insist on her right to be heard in the councils of Church and State. It was proposed at that time that we, instead of forming a society, should go _en ma.s.se_ into the Men"s State Temperance Society. We were a.s.sured that in becoming members by paying the sum of $1, we should thereby secure the right to speak and vote in their meetings.
We who had watched the jealousy with which man had ever eyed the slow aggressions of woman, warned you against the insidious proposition made by agents from that Society. We told you they would no doubt gladly receive the dollar, but that you would never be allowed to speak or vote in their meetings. Many of you thought us suspicious and unjust toward the temperance men of the Empire State. The fact that Abby Kelly had been permitted to speak in one of their public meetings, was brought up as an argument by some agent of that Society to prove our fears unfounded. We suggested that she spoke by favor and not right, and our right there as equals to speak and vote, we well knew would never be acknowledged. A long debate saved you from that false step, and our predictions have been fully realized in the treatment our delegates received at the annual meeting held at Syracuse last July, and at the recent Brick Church meeting in New York.
In forming our Society, the ma.s.s of us being radical and liberal, we left our platform free; we are no respecters of persons, all are alike welcome here without regard to sect, s.e.x, color, or caste. There have been, however, many objections made to one feature in our Const.i.tution, and that is, that although we admit men as members with equal right to speak in our meetings, we claim the offices for women alone. We felt, in starting, the necessity of throwing all the responsibility on woman, which we knew she never would take, if there were any men at hand to think, act, and plan for her. The result has shown the wisdom of what seemed so objectionable to many. It was, however, a temporary expedient, and as that seeming violation of man"s rights prevents some true friends of the cause from becoming members of our Society, and as the officers are now well skilled in the practical business of getting up meetings, raising funds, etc., and have fairly learned how to stand and walk alone, it may perhaps be safe to raise man to an entire equality with ourselves, hoping, however, that he will modestly permit the women to continue the work they have so successfully begun. I would suggest, therefore, that after the business of the past year be disposed of, this objectionable feature of our Const.i.tution be brought under consideration.
Our experience thus far as a Society has been most encouraging.
We number over two thousand members. We have four agents who have traveled in various parts of the State, and I need not say what is well known to all present, that their labors thus far have given entire satisfaction to the Society and the public. I was surprised and rejoiced to find that women, without the least preparation or experience, who had never raised their voices in public one year ago, should with so much self-reliance, dignity, and force, enter at once such a field of labor, and so ably perform the work. In the metropolis of our country, in the capital of our State, before our Legislature, and in the country school-house, they have been alike earnest and faithful to the truth. In behalf of our Society, I thank you for your unwearied labors during the past year. In the name of humanity, I bid you go on and devote yourselves humbly to the cause you have espoused. The n.o.ble of your s.e.x everywhere rejoice in your success, and feel in themselves a new impulse to struggle upward and onward; and the deep, though silent grat.i.tude that ascends to Heaven from the wretched outcast, the wives, the mothers, and the daughters of brutal drunkards, is well known to all who have listened to their tales of woe, their bitter experience, the dark, sad pa.s.sages of their tragic lives.
I hope this, our first year, is prophetic of a happy future of strong, united, and energetic action among the women of our State. If we are sincere and earnest in our love of this cause, in our devotion to truth, in our desire for the happiness of the race, we shall ever lose sight of self; each soul will, in a measure, forget its own individual interests in proclaiming great principles of justice and right. It is only a true, a deep, and abiding love of truth, that can swallow up all petty jealousies, envies, discords, and dissensions, and make us truly magnanimous and self-sacrificing. We have every reason to think, from reports we hear on all sides, that our Society has given this cause a new impulse, and if the condition of our treasury is a test, we have abundant reason to believe that in the hearts of the people we are approved, and that by their purses we shall be sustained.
It has been objected to our Society that we do not confine ourselves to the subject of temperance, but talk too much about woman"s rights, divorce, and the Church. It could be easily shown how the consideration of this great question carries us legitimately into the discussion of these various subjects. One cla.s.s of minds would deal with effects alone; another would inquire into causes; the work of the former is easily perceived and quickly done; that of the latter requires deep thought, great patience, much time, and a wise self-denial. Our physicians of the present day are a good type of the ma.s.s of our reformers.
They take out cancers, cut off tonsils, drive the poison which nature has wisely thrown to the surface, back again, quiet unsteady nerves with valerian, and by means of ether infuse an artificial courage into a patient that he may bravely endure some painful operation. It requires but little thought to feel that the wise physician who shall trace out the true causes of suffering; who shall teach us the great, immutable laws of life and health; who shall show us how and where in our every-day life, we are violating these laws, and the true point to begin the reform, is doing a much higher, broader, and deeper work than he who shall bend all his energies to the temporary relief of suffering. Those temperance men or women whose whole work consists in denouncing rum-sellers, appealing to legislatures, eulogizing Neal Dow, and shouting Maine Law, are superficial reformers, mere surface-workers. True, this outside work is well, and must be done; let those who see no other do this, but let them lay no hindrances in the way of that cla.s.s of mind, who, seeing in our present false social relations the causes of the moral deformities of the race, would fain declare the immutable laws that govern mind as well as matter, and point out the true causes of the evils we see about us, whether lurking under the shadow of the altar, the sacredness of the marriage inst.i.tution, or the a.s.sumed superiority of man.
1. We have been obliged to preach woman"s rights, because many, instead of listening to what we had to say on temperance, have questioned the right of a woman to speak on any subject. In courts of justice and legislative a.s.semblies, if the right of the speaker to be there is questioned, all business waits until that point is settled. Now, it is not settled in the ma.s.s of minds that woman has any rights on this footstool, and much less a right to stand on an even pedestal with man, look him in the face as an equal, and rebuke the sins of her day and generation. Let it be clearly understood, then, that we are a woman"s rights Society; that we believe it is woman"s duty to speak whenever she feels the impression to do so; that it is her right to be present in all the councils of Church and State. The fact that our agents are women, settles the question of our character on this point.
Again, in discussing the question of temperance, all lecturers, from the beginning, have made mention of the drunkards" wives and children, of widows" groans and orphans" tears; shall these cla.s.ses of sufferers be introduced but as themes for rhetorical flourish, as pathetic touches of the speaker"s eloquence; shall we pa.s.sively shed tears over their condition, or by giving them their rights, bravely open to them the doors of escape from a wretched and degraded life? Is it not legitimate in this to discuss the social degradation, the legal disabilities of the drunkard"s wife? If in showing her wrongs, we prove the right of all womankind to the elective franchise; to a fair representation in the government; to the right in criminal cases to be tried by peers of her own choosing, shall it be said that we transcend the bounds of our subject? If in pointing out her social degradation, we show you how the present laws outrage the sacredness of the marriage inst.i.tution; if in proving to you that justice and mercy demand a legal separation from drunkards, we grasp the higher idea that a unity of soul alone const.i.tutes and sanctifies true marriage, and that any law or public sentiment that forces two immortal, high-born souls to live together as husband and wife, unless held there by love, is false to G.o.d and humanity; who shall say that the discussion of this question does not lead us legitimately into the consideration of the important subject of divorce?
But why attack the Church? We do not attack the Church; we defend ourselves merely against its attacks. It is true that the Church and reformers have always been in an antagonistic position from the time of Luther down to our own day, and will continue to be until the devotional and practical types of Christianity shall be united in one harmonious whole. To those who see the philosophy of this position, there seems to be no cause for fearful forebodings or helpless regret. By the light of reason and truth, in good time, all these seeming differences will pa.s.s away. I have no special fault to find with that part of humanity that gathers into our churches; to me, human nature seems to manifest itself in very much the same way in the Church and out of it. Go through any community you please--into the nursery, kitchen, the parlor, the places of merchandise, the market-place, and exchange, and who can tell the church member from the outsider? I see no reason why we should expect more of them than other men.
Why, say you, they lay claim to greater holiness; to more rigid creeds; to a belief in a sterner G.o.d; to a closer observance of forms. The Bible, with them, is the rule of life, the foundation of faith, and why should we not look to them for patterns of purity, goodness, and truth above all other men? I deny the a.s.sumption. Reformers on all sides claim for themselves a higher, position than the Church. Our G.o.d is a G.o.d of justice, mercy, and truth. Their G.o.d sanctions violence, oppression, and wine-bibbing, and winks at gross moral delinquencies. Our Bible commands us to love our enemies; to resist not evil; to break every yoke and let the oppressed go free; and makes a n.o.ble life of more importance than a stern faith. Their Bible permits war, slavery, capital punishment, and makes salvation depend on faith and ordinances. In their creed it is a sin to dance, to pick up sticks on the Sabbath day, to go to the theater, or large parties during Lent, to read a notice of any reform meeting from the altar, or permit a woman to speak in the church. In our creed it is a sin to hold a slave; to hang a man on the gallows; to make war on defenseless nations, or to sell rum to a weak brother, and rob the widow and the orphan of a protector and a home. Thus may we write out some of our differences, but from the similarity in the conduct of the human family, it is fair to infer that our differences are more intellectual than spiritual, and the great truths we hear so clearly uttered on all sides, have been incorporated as vital principles into the inner life of but few indeed.
[Ill.u.s.tration: AMELIA BLOOMER (with autograph).]
We must not expect the Church to leap _en ma.s.se_ to a higher position. She sends forth her missionaries of truth one by one.
All of our reformers have, in a measure, been developed in the Church, and all our reforms have started there. The advocates and opposers of the reforms of our day, have grown up side by side, partaking of the same ordinances and officiating at the same altars; but one, by applying more fully his Christian principles to life, and pursuing an admitted truth to its legitimate results, has unwittingly found himself in antagonism with his brother.
Belief is not voluntary, and change is the natural result of growth and development. We would fain have all church members sons and daughters of temperance; but if the Church, in her wisdom, has made her platform so broad that wine-bibbers and rum-sellers may repose in ease thereon, we who are always preaching liberality ought to be the last to complain. Having thus briefly noticed some of the objections to our movement, I will not detain the audience longer at this time.
An able report of the Executive Committee was then read by Mrs.
Vaughan.
The President, on motion, appointed the various Committees,[98] and read a letter from Gerrit Smith to Susan B. Anthony:
PETERBORO, _May 7, 1853_.
DEAR MADAM:--I thank you for your letter. So constantly am I employed in my extensive private concerns, that I can attend none of the anniversaries this spring. I should be especially happy to attend yours; and to testify by my presence, if not by my words, that woman is in her place when she is laboring to redeem the world from the curse of drunkenness.
I know not why it is not as much the duty of your s.e.x, as it is of mine, to establish newspapers, write books, and hold public meetings for the promotion of the cause of temperance. The current idea, that modesty should hold women back from such services, is all resolvable into nonsense and wickedness. Female modesty! female delicacy! I would that I might never again hear such phrases. There is but one standard of modesty and delicacy for both men and women; and so long as different standards are tolerated, both s.e.xes will be perverse and corrupt. It is my duty to be as modest and delicate as you are; and if your modesty and delicacy may excuse you from making a public speech, then may mine excuse me from making one.
The Quakers are the best people I have ever known--the most serious and chaste, and yet the most brave and resisting. But there is no other people who are so little concerned, lest man get out of his sphere, or lest woman get out of hers. No people make so little difference as they do, between man and woman.
Others appear to think that the happiness and safety of the world consist in magnifying the difference. But when reason and religion shall rule the world, there will be felt to be no other difference between man and woman, than that of their physical const.i.tutions. None will then be acknowledged in respect to the intellect, the heart, or the manners.
Very respectfully, your friend, GERRIT SMITH.
The attendance at this Convention was larger than the year previous, and the debates more interesting, as Mrs. Nichols, William Henry Channing, Lucy Stone, Antoinette Brown, and Frederick Dougla.s.s all took an active part in the proceedings. During one of the sessions quite a heated discussion took place on the subject of Divorce, Mrs.
Stanton and Lucy Stone taking the ground that it was not only woman"s right, but her duty, to withdraw from all such unholy relations, Mrs.
Nichols and Miss Brown taking the opposite position.
As it was decided at this second convention to admit gentlemen, a schism was the immediate result. By their party tactics, in which they were well versed, they took the initiative steps to scatter the forces so successfully gathered. The Society, with its guns silenced on the popular foes, lingered a year or two, and was heard of no more. It was the policy of these worldly wise men to restrict the debate on temperance within such narrow limits as to disturb none of the existing conditions of society. They said, treat it as a purely moral and religious question; "pray over it," it being too knotty a problem to be solved on earth, they proposed to have the whole case adjusted in the courts of Heaven: very much as the wise men to-day think best to dispose of the temperance reform.
Thus these politic gentlemen manipulated the a.s.sociation, eliminated the woman"s rights element _per se_, which, having been educated in the anti-slavery school of morals, could not be blinded with any male sophistries or considerations of policy. It was the universal plea then as now, in advocating reforms, "Sacrifice principle to numbers, if you would secure victory," forgetting that one company of brave men could clear their path to the enemy quicker than a battalion of cowards. A mult.i.tude of timid, undeveloped men and women, afraid of priests and politicians, are a hindrance rather than help in any reform. When Garrison"s forces had been thoroughly sifted, and only the picked men and women remained, he soon made political parties and church organizations feel the power of his burning words. The temperance cause has had no organized body of fearless leaders. Psalm singing and prayer it was supposed would accomplish what only could be done by just laws, enlightened public sentiment, and pure religion, applied to the practical interests of mankind. When abolitionists left parties and churches, because of their pro-slavery codes and creeds, they began alike to purify their organizations in order to win back that n.o.ble army of patriots. Women were urged to enroll themselves as members of men"s a.s.sociations, pay their initiation fee of one dollar, gather pet.i.tions, do all in their power to rouse enthusiasm; but they must not presume to sit on the platform, nor speak, nor vote in the meetings. Those women who had no proper self-respect accepted the conditions; those who had, tested their status on the platform, and not being received as equals, abandoned all temperance organizations, as the same proper pride that forbade them to accept the conditions of a proscribed cla.s.s in men"s conventions, also prevented their affiliation with women who would tolerate such insults to the s.e.x. The long, persistent struggle at last culminated in the World"s Temperance Convention, which may be called our Waterloo in that reform.
BRICK CHURCH MEETING.
May 12th, 1853, the friends of temperance a.s.sembled in New York to make arrangements for a World"s Temperance Convention. The meeting was held in Dr. Spring"s old Brick Church, on Franklin Square, where the _New York Times_ building now stands. It was organized by nominating the Hon. A. C. Barstow, of Rhode Island, chairman; the Rev. R. C.
Crampton, of New York, and the Rev. George Duffield, of Pennsylvania, secretaries. The meeting opened with prayer, "asking G.o.d"s blessing on the proceedings."[99] A motion was made that all gentlemen present be admitted as delegates. Dr. Trall, of New York, moved an amendment that the word "ladies" be inserted, as there were delegates present from the Woman"s State Temperance Society. The motion was carried, and credentials received, and every man and woman became members of the convention. A business committee of one from each State was appointed.
A motion was made that Susan B. Anthony, Secretary of the Woman"s State Temperance Society, be added to the business committee. Then the war commenced in earnest. D.D."s, M.D."s, and Honorables were horrified. Speech followed speech in rapid succession, with angry vehemence. As the committee was already full, the motion was ruled out of order. Thomas Wentworth Higginson asked that he be excused from serving on the committee, and moved that Lucy Stone be added in his place. Then the confusion was increased. Abby Kelly Foster arose and tried to explain, but shouts of "order" drowned her voice, and after persisting in her attempt to speak for ten minutes the uproar was frightful, and she was compelled to sit down. Emily Clark made a similar attempt, with the same result.
Hon. Bradford R. Wood, of Albany, then moved, that as there was a party present determined to introduce the question of woman"s rights, and to run it into the ground, that this convention adjourn _sine die_; but on request he withdrew it, and moved that a committee on credentials be appointed to decide who were members of the convention.
This committee, consisting of Rev. John Chambers, of Philadelphia, Hon. B. R. Wood, of Albany, and Dr. Condit, of New Jersey, were absent fifteen minutes, and then reported that, as in their opinion, the call for this meeting was not intended to include female delegates, and custom had not sanctioned the public action of women in similar situations, the credentials of the ladies should be rejected. The report was received, and after a disgraceful contest on the part of those from whom we look for honor, truth, and n.o.bleness, and every Christian virtue, on account of their sacred calling and high position, it was adopted by a vote of 34 to 32, ten of those voting in the negative being women. During the progress of the discussion--if discussion it could be called, where all the women who attempted to speak were silenced, and the men who attempted to speak for them were almost as rudely treated--Mayor Barstow twice requested the appointment of another chairman in his stead, stating that he would not preside over a meeting where woman"s rights were introduced, or women allowed to speak. Having finally silenced them, he was henceforward content to wear the honors of his temporary office.
Mr. Higginson protested against the action of the meeting as disgraceful to the leaders, and tendered his resignation as one of the business committee. He then stated that all persons favorable to calling a _whole_ world"s temperance convention were invited to meet at Dr. Trall"s office at 2 o"clock. The ladies present, and the gentlemen who had contended for their admission as delegates, then withdrew. Another disgraceful scene occurred on a protest from Dr.
Townsend against the action of the convention, and a motion to pay the expenses of the ladies who had come some distance as delegates and been excluded. The motion was seconded. Again shouts of "order,"
"order," arose, and the confusion was worse than ever. Dr. T. finally withdrew his motion, on being told that the ladies would accept no such favor at the hands of a convention of rowdies.
Several speeches then followed, mostly from, clergymen; all condemning the public action of women in any reforms, and defending the position of the convention, quoting Scripture and the Divine Will to sanction their injustice. One Rev. gentleman stated that he would have nothing to do with the women. Rev. John Chambers said, for one, he rejoiced that the women were gone; they were now rid of the sc.u.m of the convention!! Other clergymen spoke in the same strain. A motion was made by Dr. Snodgra.s.s that the committee a.s.sign some part of the work of the World"s Convention to women, which called out from Mr. Barstow some remarks too indecent for repet.i.tion. The motion was withdrawn.
The gall and bitterness, the ridicule and vulgarity of the Rev. D.D."s being expended on some of the grandest women our nation could boast, they adjourned, after deciding to hold a four days" convention, beginning the 6th of September. The other wing of the temperance army decided to do the same, and held a meeting of protest a few days after in the Tabernacle.
The _New York Tribune_ says of the meeting of protest, Sat.u.r.day evening, May 14, 1852: A grand Temperance demonstration was held in the Broadway Tabernacle Sat.u.r.day evening. There could not have been less than 3,000 persons present. The floor of the house, the aisles, the galleries, every inch of sitting and standing room was literally packed. The greatest enthusiasm prevailed throughout. The officers of the meeting were:
PRESIDENT--Susan B. Anthony.[100]
LUCY STONE, in a letter to _The Una_, says: Last week, at New York, we had a foretaste of what woman is to expect when she attempts to exercise her equal rights as a human being. In conformity with a resolution adopted by the Ma.s.s Convention recently held in Boston, a call was issued, inviting "the _friends of temperance_" to meet in New York, May 11th, and prepare for a "World"s Convention." Under that call, the Woman"s State Society of New York, an active and efficient body, sent delegates; but though regularly elected, their credentials were rejected with scorn. The chairman of the committee reported that those who called the meeting never intended to include women.
Think of it, a _World"s_ Convention, in which woman is voted not of the world!!
Rev. Dr. Hewitt affirmed it a burning shame for women to be there; and though it was entirely out of order, he discussed the question of "Woman"s Rights," taking the ground that women should be nowhere but at home. Rev. E. M. Jackson, gave it as his opinion, that "the women came there expressly to disturb." The Rev. Mr. Fowler, of Utica, showed the same contempt for woman that he did last year, at the N. Y. State Temperance Society, at Syracuse. Rev. Mr. Chambers was particularly bitter.
It would have been well for those women who accept the foolish flattery of men, to have been present to see the real estimate in which woman is held by these men who surely represent a large cla.s.s. The President of the meeting, Mayor Barstow, of your city, indignantly refused to put the motion made--that Susan B. Anthony should be on a committee, declaring "that he would resign rather than do it." He said it "was not fit that a woman should be in such places." After we left, if the papers reported him correctly, he used language which proved that he was not fit to be where decent people are. It was next to impossible for us or our friends to get a hearing. The "previous question" was called, or we were voted out of order, or half a dozen of the opposing party talked at once to keep us silent. Rev. T. W. Higginson declined serving on a committee from which women were excluded, and when it became apparent that only half of the world could be represented, he entered his protest, and invited those who were in favor of a _Whole_ World"s Temperance Convention to meet that afternoon at Dr. Trall"s. A large minority withdrew, including several ministers, and arranged for a Convention that shall know "neither male nor female," to be held in New York sometime during The World"s Fair.
A large and enthusiastic meeting was held at the Broadway Tabernacle, to protest against the above proceedings, and although twelve and a half cents were charged at the door, every seat was occupied, and much of the "standing room" also.
The same gentlemen who excluded us, held a meeting subsequently in Metropolitan Hall. There your Major Barstow said: "G.o.d has placed woman in the moral world where he has the sun in the physical, to regulate, enlighten, and cheer." C. C. Burleigh, alluding to this remark, in our meeting at the Tabernacle, said: "Thus he calls his Convention, in which Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Mercury, and Neptune are appointed a committee of arrangements, and says the Sun shall be excluded."
At this meeting, _ladies_ were especially invited to vote, as though they had a heart in it, and were urged also to give their money to aid these very men by whom every soul of us had been insulted. I am sorry to say some gave. But taught such lessons, by such masters, woman will one day be wiser. Yours, for humanity, without distinction of s.e.x, LUCY STONE.
After the Brick Church meeting was over, some of the actors being ashamed of themselves, the Rev. John Marsh tried to defend himself and his coadjutors, but Mr. Greeley very summarily brushed his sophistry aside, and placed all the actors in that disgraceful farce in their true colors.
_The New York Daily Tribune, Wednesday, May 18, 1853._