Eighty Years and More; Reminiscences 1815-1897
Mr. Stanton and Mr. Birney belonged to the other branch, called
political abolitionists. To me there was no question so important as the
emancipation of women from the dogmas of the past, political, religious,
and social. It struck me as very remarkable that abolitionists, who felt
so keenly the wrongs of the slave, should be so oblivious to the equal
wrongs of their own mothers, wives, and sisters, when, according to the
common law, both classes occupied a similar legal status.
Our chief object in visiting England at this time was to attend the
World's Anti-slavery Convention, to meet June 12, 1840, in Freemasons'
Hall, London. Delegates from all the anti-slavery societies of civilized
nations were invited, yet, when they arrived, those representing
associations of women were rejected. Though women were members of the
National Anti-slavery Society, accustomed to speak and vote in all its
conventions, and to take an equally active part with men in the whole
anti-slavery struggle, and were there as delegates from associations of
men and women, as well as those distinctively of their own sex, yet all
alike were rejected because they were women. Women, according to English
prejudices at that time, were excluded by Scriptural texts from sharing
equal dignity and authority with men in all reform associations; hence
it was to English minds pre-eminently unfitting that women should be
admitted as equal members to a World's Convention. The question was
hotly debated through an entire day. My husband made a very eloquent
speech in favor of admitting the women delegates.
When we consider that Lady Byron, Anna Jameson, Mary Howitt, Mrs. Hugo
Reid, Elizabeth Fry, Amelia Opie, Ann Green Phillips, Lucretia Mott, and
many remarkable women, speakers and leaders in the Society of Friends,
were all compelled to listen in silence to the masculine platitudes on
woman's sphere, one may form some idea of the indignation of
unprejudiced friends, and especially that of such women as Lydia Maria
Child, Maria Chapman, Deborah Weston, Angelina and Sarah Grimké, and
Abby Kelly, who were impatiently waiting and watching on this side, in
painful suspense, to hear how their delegates were received. Judging
from my own feelings, the women on both sides of the Atlantic must have
been humiliated and chagrined, except as these feelings were outweighed
by contempt for the shallow reasoning of their opponents and their
comical pose and gestures in some of the intensely earnest flights of
their imagination.
The clerical portion of the convention was most violent in its
opposition. The clergymen seemed to have God and his angels especially
in their care and keeping, and were in agony lest the women should do or
say something to shock the heavenly hosts. Their all-sustaining conceit
gave them abundant assurance that their movements must necessarily be
all-pleasing to the celestials whose ears were open to the proceedings
of the World's Convention. Deborah, Huldah, Vashti, and Esther might
have questioned the propriety of calling it a World's Convention, when
only half of humanity was represented there; but what were their
opinions worth compared with those of the Rev. A. Harvey, the Rev. C.
Stout, or the Rev. J. Burnet, who, Bible in hand, argued woman's
subjection, divinely decreed when Eve was created.
One of our champions in the convention, George Bradburn, a tall
thick-set man with a voice like thunder, standing head and shoulders
above the clerical representatives, swept all their arguments aside by
declaring with tremendous emphasis that, if they could prove to him that
the Bible taught the entire subjection of one-half of the race to the
other, he should consider that the best thing he could do for humanity
would be to bring together every Bible in the universe and make a grand
bonfire of them.
It was really pitiful to hear narrow-minded bigots, pretending to be
teachers and leaders of men, so cruelly remanding their own mothers,
with the rest of womankind, to absolute subjection to the ordinary
masculine type of humanity. I always regretted that the women themselves
had not taken part in the debate before the convention was fully
organized and the question of delegates settled. It seemed to me then,
and does now, that all delegates with credentials from recognized
societies should have had a voice in the organization of the convention,
though subject to exclusion afterward. However, the women sat in a low
curtained seat like a church choir, and modestly listened to the French,
British, and American Solons for twelve of the longest days in June, as
did, also, our grand Garrison and Rogers in the gallery. They scorned a
convention that ignored the rights of the very women who had fought,
side by side, with them in the anti-slavery conflict. "After battling so
many long years," said Garrison, "for the liberties of African slaves, I
can take no part in a convention that strikes down the most sacred
rights of all women." After coming three thousand miles to speak on the
subject nearest his heart, he nobly shared the enforced silence of the
rejected delegates. It was a great act of self-sacrifice that should
never be forgotten by women.
Thomas Clarkson was chosen president of the convention and made a few
remarks in opening, but he soon retired, as his age and many infirmities
made all public occasions too burdensome, and Joseph Sturge, a Quaker,
was made chairman. Sitting next to Mrs. Mott, I said:
"As there is a Quaker in the chair now, what could he do if the spirit
should move you to speak?"
"Ah," she replied, evidently not believing such a contingency possible,
"where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty."
She had not much faith in the sincerity of abolitionists who, while
eloquently defending the natural rights of slaves, denied freedom of
speech to one-half the people of their own race. Such was the
consistency of an assemblage of philanthropists! They would have been
horrified at the idea of burning the flesh of the distinguished women
present with red-hot irons, but the crucifixion of their pride and
self-respect, the humiliation of the spirit, seemed to them a most
trifling matter. The action of this convention was the topic of
discussion, in public and private, for a long time, and stung many women
into new thought and action and gave rise to the movement for women's
political equality both in England and the United States.
As the convention adjourned, the remark was heard on all sides, "It is
about time some demand was made for new liberties for women." As Mrs.
Mott and I walked home, arm in arm, commenting on the incidents of the
day, we resolved to hold a convention as soon as we returned home, and
form a society to advocate the rights of women. At the lodging house on
Queen Street, where a large number of delegates had apartments, the
discussions were heated at every meal, and at times so bitter that, at
last, Mr. Birney packed his valise and sought more peaceful quarters.
Having strongly opposed the admission of women as delegates to the
convention it was rather embarrassing to meet them, during the intervals
between the various sessions, at the table and in the drawing room.
These were the first women I had ever met who believed in the equality
of the sexes and who did not believe in the popular orthodox religion.
The acquaintance of Lucretia Mott, who was a broad, liberal thinker on
politics, religion, and all questions of reform, opened to me a new
world of thought. As we walked about to see the sights of London, I
embraced every opportunity to talk with her. It was intensely gratifying
to hear all that, through years of doubt, I had dimly thought, so freely
discussed by other women, some of them no older than myself--women, too,
of rare intelligence, cultivation, and refinement. After six weeks'
sojourn under the same roof with Lucretia Mott, whose conversation was
uniformly on a high plane, I felt that I knew her too well to sympathize
with the orthodox Friends, who denounced her as a dangerous woman
because she doubted certain dogmas they fully believed.
As Mr. Birney and my husband were invited to speak all over England,
Scotland, and Ireland, and we were uniformly entertained by orthodox
Friends, I had abundant opportunity to know the general feeling among
them toward Lucretia Mott. Even Elizabeth Fry seemed quite unwilling to
breathe the same atmosphere with her. During the six weeks that many of
us remained in London after the convention we were invited to a
succession of public and private breakfasts, dinners, and teas, and on
these occasions it was amusing to watch Mrs. Fry's sedulous efforts to
keep Mrs. Mott at a distance. If Mrs. Mott was on the lawn, Mrs. Fry
would go into the house; if Mrs. Mott was in the house, Mrs. Fry would
stay out on the lawn. One evening, when we were all crowded into two
parlors, and there was no escape, the word went round that Mrs. Fry felt
moved to pray with the American delegates, whereupon a profound silence
reigned. After a few moments Mrs. Fry's voice was heard deploring the
schism among the American Friends; that sol many had been led astray by
false doctrines; urging the Spirit of All Good to show them the error of
their way, and gather them once more into the fold of the great Shepherd
of our faith. The prayer was directed so pointedly at the followers of
Elias Hicks, and at Lucretia Mott in particular, that I whispered to
Lucretia, at the close, that she should now pray for Mrs. Fry, that her
eyes might be opened to her bigotry and uncharitableness, and be led by
the Spirit into higher light. "Oh, no!" she replied, "a prayer of this
character, under the circumstances, is an unfair advantage to take of a
stranger, but I would not resent it in the house of her friends."
In these gatherings we met the leading Quaker families and many other
philanthropists of different denominations interested in the
anti-slavery movement. On all these occasions our noble Garrison spoke
most effectively, and thus our English friends had an opportunity of
enjoying his eloquence, the lack of which had been so grave a loss in
the convention.
We devoted a month sedulously to sightseeing in London, and, in the line
of the traveler's duty, we explored St. Paul's Cathedral, the British
Museum, the Tower, various prisons, hospitals, galleries of art, Windsor
Castle, and St. James's Palace, the Zoological Gardens, the schools and
colleges, the chief theaters and churches, Westminster Abbey, the Houses
of Parliament, and the Courts. We heard the most famous preachers,
actors, and statesmen. In fact, we went to the top and bottom of
everything, from the dome of St. Paul to the tunnel under the Thames,
just then in the process of excavation. We drove through the parks,
sailed up and down the Thames, and then visited every shire but four in
England, in all of which we had large meetings, Mr. Birney and Mr.
Stanton being the chief speakers. As we were generally invited to stay
with Friends, it gave us a good opportunity to see the leading families,
such as the Ashursts, the Alexanders, the Priestmans, the Braithwaites,
and Buxtons, the Gurneys, the Peases, the Wighams of Edinburgh, and the
Webbs of Dublin. We spent a few days with John Joseph Gurney at his
beautiful home in Norwich. He had just returned from America, having
made a tour through the South. When asked how he liked America, he said,
"I like everything but your pie crust and your slavery."
Before leaving London, the whole American delegation, about forty in
number, were invited to dine with Samuel Gurney. He and his brother,
John Joseph Gurney, were, at that time, the leading bankers in London.
Someone facetiously remarked that the Jews were the leading bankers in