Because thou hast done this, is G.o.d"s preface to the announcement. The results are the effects of sin. Can woman then receive evil from this rule, and man receive good? Man should be blessed in exercising this power, if he is divinely appointed to do so; but the two who are one flesh have an ident.i.ty of interests, therefore if it is a curse or evil to woman, it must be so to man also. We mock G.o.d, when we make Him approve of man"s thus cursing himself and woman.
The submission enjoined upon the wife in the New Testament, is not the unrighteous rule predicted in the Old. It is a Christian submission due from man towards man, and from man towards woman: "Yea, all of you be subject one to another" (1 Pet. v. 5; Eph. v.
21; Rom. xii. 10, etc.) In I Cor. xvi. 16, the disciples are besought to submit themselves "to every one that helpeth with us and laboreth." The same apostle says, "help those women which labored with me in the Gospel, with Clement also, and with other of my fellow-laborers."
Man is the head of the woman. True, but only in the sense in which Christ is represented as head of His body, the Church. In a different sense He is head of all things--of wicked men and devils. If man is woman"s head in this sense, he may exercise over her all the prerogatives of G.o.d Himself. This would be blasphemous. The mystical Head and Body, or Christ and His Church, symbolize oneness, union. Christ so loved the Church He gave Himself for it, made it His own body, part and parcel of Himself. So ought men to love their wives. Then the rule which grew out of sin, will cease with the sin.
It is said woman is commanded not to teach in the Church. There is no such command in the Bible. It is said (1 Cor. xiv. 34), "Let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak." This injunction, taken out of its connection, forbids singing also; interpreted by its context, woman is merely told not to talk unless she does teach. On the same principle, one who has the gift of tongues is told not to use it in the Church, unless there is an interpreter. The rule enforced from the beginning to the end of the chapter is, "Let all things be done unto edifying." Their women, who had not been previously instructed like the men, were very naturally guilty of asking questions which did not edify the a.s.sembly. It was better that they should wait till they got home for the desired information, rather than put an individual good before the good of the Church. Nothing else is forbidden. There is not a word here against woman"s teaching. The apostle says to the whole Church, woman included, "Ye may all prophesy, one by one."
In 1 Tim. ii. 12, the writer forbids woman"s teaching over man, or usurping authority over him; that is, he prohibits dogmatizing, tutoring, teaching in a dictatorial spirit. This is prohibited both in public and private; but a proper kind of teaching is not prohibited. Verse 14--a reference to Eve, who, though created last, sinned first, is merely such a suggestion as we would make to a daughter whose mother had been in fault. The daughters are not blamed for the mother"s sin, merely warned by it; and cautioned against self-confidence, which could make them presume to teach over man. The Bible tells us of many prophetesses approved of G.o.d. The Bible is truly democratic. Do as you would be done by, is its golden commandment, recognizing neither male nor female in Christ Jesus.
ERNESTINE L. ROSE: If the able theologian who has just spoken had been in Indiana when the Const.i.tution was revised, she might have had a chance to give her definitions on the Bible argument to some effect. At that Convention Robert Dale Owen introduced a clause to give a married woman the right to her property. The clause had pa.s.sed, but by the influence of a minister was recalled; and by his appealing to the superst.i.tion of the members, and bringing the whole force of Bible argument to bear against the right of woman to her property, it was lost. Had Miss Brown been there, she might have beaten him with his own weapons.
For my part, I see no need to appeal to any written authority, particularly when it is so obscure and indefinite as to admit of different interpretations. When the inhabitants of Boston converted their harbor into a teapot rather than submit to unjust taxes, they did not go to the Bible for their authority; for if they had, they would have been told from the same authority to "give unto Caesar what belonged to Caesar." Had the people, when they rose in the might of their right to throw off the British yoke, appealed to the Bible for authority, it would have answered them, "Submit to the powers that be, for they are from G.o.d." No! on Human Rights and Freedom, on a subject that is as self-evident as that two and two make four, there is no need of any written authority. But this is not what I intended to speak upon. I wish to introduce a resolution, and leave it to the action of the Convention:
_Resolved_, That we ask not for our rights as a gift of charity, but as an act of justice. For it is in accordance with the principles of republicanism that, as woman has to pay taxes to maintain government, she has a right to partic.i.p.ate in the formation and administration of it. That as she is amenable to the laws of her country, she is ent.i.tled to a voice in their enactment, and to all the protective advantages they can bestow; and as she is as liable as man to all the vicissitudes of life, she ought to enjoy the same social rights and privileges. And any difference, therefore, in political, civil, and social rights, on account of s.e.x, is in direct violation of the principles of justice and humanity, and as such ought to be held up to the contempt and derision of every lover of human freedom.
... But we call upon the law-makers and law-breakers of the nation, to defend themselves for violating the fundamental principles of the Republic, or disprove their validity. Yes! they stand arrayed before the bar, not only of injured womanhood, but before the bar of moral consistency; for this question is awakening an interest abroad, as well as at home. Whatever human rights are claimed for man, moral consistency points to the equal rights of woman; but statesmen dare not openly face the subject; knowing well they can not confute it, and they have not moral courage enough to admit it; and hence, all they can do is to shelter themselves under a subterfuge which, though solidified by age, ignorance, and prejudice, is transparent enough for the most benighted vision to penetrate. A strong evidence of this, is given in a reply of Mr. Roebuck, member of Parliament, at a meeting of electors in Sheffield, England. Mr. R., who advocated the extension of the franchise to the occupants of five-pound tenements, was asked whether he would favor the extension of the same to women who pay an equal amount of rent? That was a simple, straight-forward question of justice; one worthy to be asked even in our republican legislative halls. But what was the honorable gentleman"s reply? Did he meet it openly and fairly? Oh, no! but hear him, and I hope the ladies will pay particular attention, for the greater part of the reply contains the draught poor, deluded woman has been accustomed to swallow--Flattery:
"There is no man who owes more than I do to woman. My education was formed by one whose very recollections at this moment make me tremble. There is nothing which, for the honor of the s.e.x, I would not do; the happiness of my life is bound up with it; mother, wife, daughter, woman, to me have been the oasis of the desert of life, and, I have to ask myself, would it conduce to the happiness of society to bring woman more distinctly than she now is brought, into the arena of politics? Honestly I confess to you I believe not. I will tell you why. All their influences, if I may so term it, are gentle influences. In the rude battle and business of life, we come home to find a nook and shelter of quiet comfort after the hard and severe, and, I may say, the sharp ire and the disputes of the House of Commons. I hie me home, knowing that I shall there find personal solicitude and anxiety. My head rests upon a bosom throbbing with emotion for me and our child; and I feel a more hearty man in the cause of my country, the next day, because of the perfect, soothing, gentle peace which a mind sullied by politics is unable to feel. Oh! I can not rob myself of that inexpressible benefit, and therefore I say, No."
Well, this is certainly a nice little romantic bit of parliamentary declamation. What a pity that he should give up all these enjoyments to give woman a vote! Poor man! his happiness must be balanced on the very verge of a precipice, when the simple act of depositing a vote by the hand of woman, would overthrow and destroy it forever. I don"t doubt the honorable gentleman meant what he said, particularly the last part of it, for such are the views of the unthinking, unreflecting ma.s.s of the public, here as well as there. But like a true politician, he commenced very patriotically, for the happiness of society, and finished by describing his own individual interests. His reply is a curious mixture of truth, political sophistry, false a.s.sumption, and blind selfishness. But he was placed in a dilemma, and got himself out as he could. In advocating the franchise to five-pound tenement-holders, it did not occur to him that woman may possess the same qualification that man has, and in justice, therefore, ought to have the same rights; and when the simple question was put to him (simple questions are very troublesome to statesmen), having too much sense not to see the justness of it, and too little moral courage to admit it, he entered into quite an interesting account of what a delightful little creature woman is, provided only she is kept quietly at home, waiting for the arrival of her lord and master, ready to administer a dose of purification, "which his politically sullied mind is unable to feel." Well! I have no desire to dispute the necessity of it, nor that he owes to woman all that makes life desirable--comforts, happiness, aye, and common sense too, for it"s a well-known fact that smart mothers always have smart sons, unless they take after their father. But what of that? Are the benefits woman is capable of bestowing on man, reasons why she must pay the same amount of rent and taxes, without enjoying the same rights that man does?
But the justice of the case was not considered. The honorable gentleman was only concerned about the "happiness of society."
Society! what does the term mean? As a foreigner, I understand by it a collection or union of human beings--men, women, and children, under one general government, and for mutual interest.
But Mr. Roebuck, being a native Briton and a member of Parliament, gave us a parliamentary definition, namely; society means the male s.e.x only; for in his solicitude to consult "the happiness of society," he enumerated the benefits man enjoys from keeping woman from her rights, without even dreaming that woman was at all considered in it; and this is the true parliamentary definition, for statesmen never include woman in their solicitude for the happiness of society. Oh, no! she is not yet recognized as belonging to the honorable body, unless taxes are required for its benefit, or the penalties of the law have to be enforced for its security.
Thus, being either unwilling or afraid to do woman justice, he first flattered her, then, in his ignorance of her true nature, he a.s.sumed that if she has her rights equal with man, she would cease to be woman--forsake the partner of her existence, the child of her bosom, dry up her sympathies, stifle her affections, turn recreant to her own nature. Then his blind selfishness took the alarm, lest, if woman were more independent, she might not be willing to be the obedient, servile tool, implicitly to obey and minister to the pa.s.sions and follies of man; "and as he could not rob himself of these inexpressible benefits, therefore he said, No."
The speech of Antoinette Brown, and the resolution she presented opened the question of authority as against individual judgment, and roused a prolonged and somewhat bitter discussion, to which Mrs.
Stanton"s letter,[111] read in a most emphatic manner by Susan B.
Anthony, added intensity. It continued at intervals for two days, calling out great diversity of sentiment. Rev. Junius Hatch, a Congregational minister from Ma.s.sachusetts, questioned the officers of the Convention as to their belief in the paramount authority of the Bible, saying the impression had gone abroad that the Convention was infidel in character. The President ruled that question not before the Convention.
Thomas McClintock[112] said, to go back to a particular era for a standard of religion and morality, is to adopt an imperfect standard and impede the progress of truth. The best minds of to-day surely understand the vital issues of this hour better than those possibly could who have slumbered in their graves for centuries. Mrs. Nichols, whom the city press spoke of as wielding a trenchant blade, announced herself as having been a member of a Baptist church since the age of eight years, thus sufficiently proving her orthodoxy. Mrs. Rose, expressing the conviction that belief does not depend upon voluntary inclination, deemed it right to interpret the Bible as he or she thought best, but objected to any such interpretation going forth as the doctrine of the Convention, as, at best, it was but mere opinion and not authority.
The debate upon Miss Brown"s resolution was renewed in the afternoon, during which the Rev. Junius Hatch made so coa.r.s.e a speech that the President was obliged to call him to order.[113] Paying no heed to this reprimand he continued in a strain so derogatory to his own dignity and so insulting to the Convention, that the audience called out, "Sit down! Sit down! Shut up!" forcing the Reverend gentleman to his seat. The discussion still continued between the members of the Convention; Miss Brown sustaining her resolution, Mrs. Rose opposing it.
Mrs. MOTT, vacating the chair, spoke in opposition to the resolution, and related her anti-slavery experience upon the Bible question; one party taking great pains to show that the Bible was opposed to slavery, while the other side quoted texts to prove it of divine origin, thus wasting their time by bandying Scripture texts, and interfering with the business of their meetings. The advocates of emanc.i.p.ation soon learned to adhere to their own great work--that of declaring the inherent right of man to himself and his earnings--and that self-evident truths needed no argument or outward authority. We already see the disadvantage of such discussions here. It is not to be supposed that all the advice given by the apostles to the women of their day is applicable to our more intelligent age; nor is there any pa.s.sage of Scripture making those texts binding upon us.
A GENTLEMAN said: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of G.o.d, and profitable, etc." Does not this apply to the latest period?
LUCRETIA MOTT: If the speaker will turn to the pa.s.sage he will find that the word "_is_," being in italics, was inserted by the translators. She accepted it as in the original, "All Scriptures _given_ by inspiration of G.o.d, is profitable, etc." She was somewhat familiar with the Scriptures, and at a suitable time would have no objection to discuss the question. She concluded by moving that the resolution be laid on the table, which was unanimously carried.
On the morning of the last day the President stated that the subject of organizing a National Society was to be discussed, and at her suggestion Mr. May read a long and interesting letter from Angelina Grimke Weld, from which we give the salient points:
"Organization is two-fold--natural and artificial, divine and human. Natural organizations are based on the principle of progression; the eternal law of change. But human or artificial organizations are built upon the principle of crystallization; they _fix_ the conditions of society; they seek to daguerreotype themselves, not on the present age only, but on future generations; hence, they fetter and distort the expanding mind.
Organizations do not protect the sacredness of the individual; their tendency is to sink the individual in the ma.s.s, to sacrifice his rights, and immolate him on the altar of some fancied good.
It is not to organization that I object, but to an _artificial society_ that must prove a burden, a clog, an inc.u.mbrance, rather than a help. Such an organization as now actually exists among the women of America I hail with heartfelt joy. We are bound together by the natural ties of spiritual affinity; we are drawn to each other because we are attracted toward one common center--the good of humanity. We need no external bonds to bind us together, no c.u.mbrous machinery to keep our minds and hearts in unity of purpose and effort we are not the lifeless staves of a barrel which can be held together only by the iron hoops of an artificial organization.
The present aspect of organizations, whether in Church, or State, or society at large, foretokens dissolution. The wrinkles and totterings of age are on them. The power of organization has been deemed necessary only because the power of Truth has not been appreciated, and just in proportion as we reverence the individual, and trust the unaided potency of Truth, we shall find it useless. What organization in the world"s history has not enc.u.mbered the unfettered action of those who created it? Indeed, has not been used as an engine of oppression.
The importance of this question can hardly be duly magnified. How few organizations have ever had the power which this is destined to wield! The prayers and sympathies of the ripest and richest minds will be ours. Vast is the influence which true-hearted women will exert in the coming age. It is a beautiful coincidence, that just as the old epochs of despotism and slavery, Priestcraft and Political intrigue are dying out, just as the spiritual part of man is rising into the ascendency, Woman"s Rights are being canva.s.sed and conceded, so that when she becomes his partner in office, higher and holier principles of action will form the basis of Governmental administration.
ANGELINA GRIMKe WELD.
The reading of Mrs. Weld"s letter was followed by a spirited discussion, resulting in the continuance of the Central Committee, composed of representative men and women of the several States, which was the only form of National Organization until after the war.
MARY SPRINGSTEAD moved that the Convention proceed to organize a National Woman"s Rights Society.
Mrs. SMITH and Mrs. DAVIS did not like to be bound by a Const.i.tution longer than during the sessions of the Convention.
Both recommended the formation of State Societies.
Dr. HARRIOT K. HUNT spoke as a physician in deeming spontaneity as a law of nature.
ERNESTINE L. ROSE declared organizations to be like Chinese bandages. In political, moral, and religious bodies they hindered the growth of men; they were incubi; she herself had cut loose from an organization into which she had been born[114]; she knew what it had cost her, and having bought that little freedom for what was dearer to her than life itself, she prized it too highly to ever put herself in the same shackles again.
LUCY STONE said, that like a burnt child that dreads the fire, they had all been in permanent organizations, and therefore dread them. She herself had had enough of thumb-screws and soul screws ever to wish to be placed under them again. The present duty is agitation.
Rev. SAMUEL J. MAY deemed a system of action and co-operation all that was needed. There is probably not one woman in a thousand, not one in ten thousand who has well considered the disabilities, literary, pecuniary, social, political, under which she labors.
Ample provision must be made for woman"s education, as liberal and thorough as that provided for the other s.e.x.
Mrs. C. I. H. NICHOLS favored organization as a means to collect and render operative the fragmentary elements now favoring the cause.
Rev. ABRAM PRYNE, in an able speech, favored National and State organization.
The discussion was closed by the adoption of the following resolution, introduced by Paulina Wright Davis:
_Resolved_, That this National Convention earnestly recommends to those who are members of it from several States, and to those persons in any or all of our States, who are interested in this great reform, that they call meetings of the States or the counties in which they live, certainly as often as once a year, to consider the principles of this reform, and devise measures for their promulgation, and thus co-operate with all throughout the nation and the world, for the elevation of woman to a proper place in the mental, moral, social, religious, and political world.
It is impossible to more than give the spirit of the Convention, though glimpses of it and its partic.i.p.ants may be caught in the brief sketch of its proceedings. In accordance with the call, woman"s social, civil, and religious rights were all discussed. Lucy Stone made a brilliant closing address, the doxology was sung to "Old Hundred," and the Convention adjourned.
The character and influence of this Convention can best be shown by the reports of the city press.[115]
_The Standard, September 13, 1852_.
The WOMAN"S RIGHTS CONVENTION was in session during three days of last week in this city, and was attended by a large number of persons, not less, probably, than 2,000. Such a Convention, even in this city of conventions, was something new under the sun....
The discussions were characterized by a degree of ability that would do credit to any deliberative body in the country.... Some able letters were read to the Convention. Among the most noteworthy was that of Mrs. Stanton.... Mrs. Mott presided over the Convention with much dignity and ability.... If any of the natural rights belonging to women are withheld from them by the laws and customs of society, it is due to them that a remedy should be applied;.... those among them who are aggrieved should have an opportunity to give free expression to their opinions.
This will hurt n.o.body, and those who profess to be alarmed at the result, should dismiss their fears.
_The Daily Journal_ (_Whig_), _September 13, 1852_.
THE NATIONAL WOMAN"S RIGHTS CONVENTION--After a duration of three mortal days this August Convention came to a "happy and peaceful end" Friday evening.... All who attended any portion of the Convention, or the whole, will unite with us in p.r.o.nouncing it the most dignified, orderly, and interesting deliberative body ever convened in this city. The officers, and most especially the distinguished woman who occupied the president"s chair, evinced a thorough acquaintance with the duties of their station, and performed them in an admirable manner.... No person acquainted with the doings of the a.s.sembly and capable of pa.s.sing judgment in the matter, will deny there was a greater amount of talent in the Woman"s Rights Convention than has characterized any public gathering in this State during ten years past, and probably a longer period, if ever.... For compact logic, eloquent and correct expression, and the making of plain and frequent points, we have never met the equal of two or three of the number. The appearance of all before the audience was modest and una.s.suming, though prompt, energetic, and confident.
Business was brought forward, calmly deliberated upon, and discussed with unanimity, and in a spirit becoming true woman, and which would add an unknown dignity and consequent influence to the transactions of public a.s.sociations of the "lords."....
The appearance of the platform was pleasing and really imposing in the extreme. The galaxy of bold women--for they were really bold, indeed they are daring women--presented a spectacle the like of which we never before witnessed. A glance at the "good old lady" who presided with so much dignity and propriety, and through the list to the youngest engaged in the cause, was enough to impress the unprejudiced beholder with the idea that there must be something in the movement.... The audience was large and more impressive than has marked any convention ever held here....
We feel in a mood to dip lightly into a discussion of the Woman"s Rights question.... Our sober second thought dictates that a three days" enlightenment at the intellectual feast spread by Beauty and Genius, may have turned our brains, and consequently we desist.
The discussions of this Convention did not end with its adjournment; its _sine die_ had effect only upon the a.s.sembled body; for months afterward controversies and discussions, both public and private, took place. Clergymen of Syracuse and adjoining cities kept the interest glowing by their efforts to destroy the influence of the Convention by the cry of "infidel." A clergyman of Auburn not only preached against the Convention as "infidel," but as one holding authority over the consciences of his flock, boldly a.s.serted that "no member of his congregation was tainted with the unholy doctrine of woman"s rights."
Rev. Byron Sunderland, pastor of the Plymouth Congregational Church of Syracuse (since Chaplain of the United States Senate), characterized it in his sermon[116] as a "Bloomer Convention," taking for his text Deut. xxii. 5: