Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

do bless God that ladies are in this house to-day engaged in this cause, and let them, wherever they go, exert their influence at home, abroad, and in a little while you will perceive the most benign and blessed results. Let infidels scoff, let the wicked triumph, because ladies join us, it is the same argument that infidels use against the church of Jesus Christ. I move, therefore, sir, with all my heart, that we welcome, as most important and powerful coadjutors in the glorious cause of emancipation, the females of our country."

But this Mrs. Child, whose melting notes moved upon the minds of the people like the voice of mercy from Calvary, and Angelina E. Grimke, who immortalized herself by her letters to the Southern ladies, were both denied a voice in the proceedings of the society; and a man that could not speak ten words intelligibly on the subject of human liberty, enjoyed all the rights and privileges of the society. His vote would have as much weight in influencing its proceedings as that of the most intelligent; his animal structure was his only passport. What inconsistent conduct for anti-slavery men! associated together for the purpose of breaking off yokes from the physical necks of men and women, and at the same time placing a yoke on the moral and intellectual neck, a more degrading one than even slavery itself, as far as principle is concerned, as our moral and intellectual faculties are far superior to our physical. Some said it was opposed to the constitution of the society for women to be active members, although the constitution said "all persons holding the principle of immediate and unconditional emancipation, and who were not slave-holders, and contributed to the funds of the society, were entitled to membership." Others said, that although there were no restrictions expressed in the constitution, it was considered as implied; as "the customs of society, and the decencies of civilized life, had imposed these restrictions on women."

So it seems that the customs of society, according to our seceding anti-slavery brethren's opinion, are of more importance than constitutional guarantees. What "queer" beings women must be. The United States government is said to be a government from the people, yet our wise and consistent politicians exclude women from all political rights, consequently women are not people! Our seceding anti

slavery brethren say, that although persons were mentioned in the constitution of the American Anti-slavery society, it did not embrace women, consequently, women are not persons. So we have it from high authority, that women are neither people nor persons—the government of our country denies that women are people, and our seceding brethren say that women are not persons-hence they must be things!! In like manner, the rights guarantied in the United States constitution to human beings, under the title of people, or persons, are denied to three millions of our inhabitants who are denominated slaves, which our anti-slavery brethren say is a shameful inconsistency, and horrible tyranny. Oh, consistency! hast thou departed from our world? And however grievous woman might feel her degradation to be, our seceding brethren can do nothing that would tend to elevate her. They say, "however grievous some women might find the yoke imposed by the opinions usually entertained on the subject of female modesty and decorum, that was not the yoke abolitionists associated together to break." What dangerous opinions to hear promulgated on the subject of women's rights from a society whose professed object is to enlighten public sentiment on human liberty, that one-half of the human family has less rights than the other half, making public opinion the standard of these rights; and that words are no signs of the things signified when women's rights are under review-that constitutional guarantees are empty sounds with respect to women. These gentlemen said that they did not associate together to break off the yoke which some women found grievous. But did they associate together to teach women modesty and decorum? There were no yokes to break off the necks of their members, for there were none on, as all persons appeared on the platform in the character of abolitionists. Women did not go in there yoked more than men. All yokes, that have no better reasons for their imposition than the opinions of society, are men's yokes; they are always grievous, from whatever pretexts they are imposed-whether it is from the opinions of society on modesty and decorum, or because the individuals "cannot take care of themselves." And the anti-slavery society was emphatically formed for the express purpose of breaking off a most grievous yoke from the necks

of women, which had been imposed by the customs of society, and society as refined as ours-this yoke is particularly imposed on poor degraded woman, and on men in consequence of their relation to her; as the child follows the condition of the mother, and does so truly. The world will never enjoy true liberty until woman, the mother of mankind, is emancipated from her thraldom, for she is a slave in kind, if not in degree, civilly, politically, domestically, morally, religiously, and intellectually. Slavery is often palliated, nay, even justified, because women suffer a great many deprivations of rights in common with slaves.

The time is fast approaching when there must be better reasons given for the imposition of yokes than the opinions of society on "modesty and decorum." God is about to sweep from existence, as with a "besom of destruction," many of the opinions of society. "He whose fan is in his hand will thoroughly purge his floor." He is about to "overturn, overturn, overturn!" not only the opinions of society, but the opinions of nations, and the opinions of the church, so far as they contravene His opinions or prerogatives, whose only right it is to reign. Then the whole human family will be invested with their rights-then kings, (or civil rulers,) will become nursing fathers to the church, and queens will be permitted to become nursing motherswoman will then be unchained from the car of public opinion-woman will then not be ordered into a sequestered corner-man, her equal, will not arrogate to himself the whole government of the world, and say to her in an authoritative manner, "Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: hitherto shalt thou come, (or go,) and no farther."

For

The opinions of society on the position that women are to occupy, are too fastidious a guide to be depended on. example, a female is at the head of both church and state in Great Britain, one of the most powerful and enlightened nations in the world, with many other similar incongruities which might be mentioned—it is hard for a woman to know when she is in her sphere.

Man is composed of a congeries of inconsistencies, and in no instance does he manifest this so glaringly and shamefully as in the treatment of woman. Women were denied a seat as delegates in the world's anti-slavery convention on

account of their sex, although they were accredited agents from the American Anti-slavery society, women who were eminently qualified to discharge their duties as delegates, thus placing a yoke on their moral and intellectual faculties, the God-like attributes of their nature. This was done in the metropolis of Great Britain, where a young and inexperienced woman was sitting on the throne clothed with all the pompous regalia of a sovereign of Great Britain, at the head of both the church and state of that enlightened and powerful nation.

We will take the liberty here to make a proposition, though we may be considered as "out of our sphere," to call a convention of the would-be "lords of creation;" or a delegated assembly, to prescribe the duties of this inferior creature who has been thrown on their care, as "they are her law." To be serious, if woman has fewer rights than man, the line of demarkation ought to be legibly drawn. Shall one half of mankind peremptorily prescribe the other half's pursuit of happiness? Our anti-slavery brethren could not conscientiously give women the rights of humanity; it would disorganize society, it would involve their participation in the sacred ministry, the elective franchise, and their entire independence in the conjugal relation (!) What analogy is there between her standing in the anti-slavery society, and in those other organizations? We have already said that woman's supposed standing in these three grand divisions of society, is made the standard of her position in all other relations of life; all arising out of this husbandly authority, and it does not change the matter, whether she is married or not; it lies like an incubus upon her efforts for the promotion of any good. Abby Kelly, who was placed on a committee, was an unmarried woman, and the anti-slavery society was not the church, nor was it a political body, nor was it the domestic society. Our brethren reason from analogy.

We will select the position they have assigned her in the family relation. Were she to receive the rights under consideration, it would necessarily involve her entire independence in the conjugal relation, to wit, she would look for the same privileges in the family, namely; a right of originating, debating, and voting on questions which might come before the family, and be eligible to office. Now, what is the legitimate inference to be drawn from this? Either that

she does not enjoy these rights in the family, or, if she does enjoy them, she is not morally entitled to them. A person would suppose they had gone to the Bashaw's family for their picture. What difference is there between her position and that of the slave's? Has woman no official standing in the family? Has she not the right of originating, debating, and voting on questions which come before the family? We say, has she not a right to suggest what she thinks would be for the good of the family, and show by argument, why it should be adopted? That is all the authority any member would have in the anti-slavery society; they have no authority to command. The virtuous woman in the 31st chapter of Prov. exercised all these rights. We truly pity the man who has selected a wife not capable of acting in this manner, and we pity the woman who is capable, but who has so despotic a husband that he will not permit her to exercise this right; we pity him for not accepting the "help-meet" God has provided for him-for "two are better than one." We entreat our brethren not to follow woman in her retreat into the family, destroying her influence there-insinuating_that she sits there as a governed being, without authority. They are certainly wounding the interests of society in a very vital part. However they may disparage her assistance in public affairs, she nevertheless is a very important member of the family. It is both wicked and unwise to try to weaken her influence. Consider the effects it will have on the rising generation, particularly the male part. The young lord will soon become restive under the government of a being whom he considers his inferior, and nothing but a mere subordinate in the family. If this system of the wife's subordination were carried out, "it would exert an influence adverse to domestic order and happiness, and would unhinge society, and would be truly inconsistent with the precepts of the gospel." This opinion is not visionary, for it must necessarily be so.

If any part of the community could be supposed to have clear views on human liberty, we should look for it from anti-slavery men, particularly abolitionists, who profess to enlighten the community on the subject of human rights. They ought certainly to have pulled the beam out of their own eyes, to clear their vision, before they attempt to extract the beam out of their neighbour's. We suppose there is no

« FöregåendeFortsätt »