Eighty Years and More; Reminiscences 1815-1897
for other unhappy wives who might desire to follow her example. I had no
thought of the persecution I was drawing down on myself for thus
attacking so venerable an institution. I was always courageous in saying
what I saw to be true, for the simple reason that I never dreamed of
opposition. What seemed to me to be right I thought must be equally
plain to all other rational beings. Hence I had no dread of
denunciation. I was only surprised when I encountered it, and no number
of experiences have, as yet, taught me to fear public opinion. What I
said on divorce thirty-seven years ago seems quite in line with what
many say now. The trouble was not in what I said, but that I said it too
soon, and before the people were ready to hear it. It may be, however,
that I helped them to get ready; who knows?
As we were holding a woman suffrage convention in Albany, at the time
appointed for the hearing, Ernestine L. Rose and Lucretia Mott briefly
added their views on the question. Although Mrs. Mott had urged Mrs.
Rose and myself to be as moderate as possible in our demands, she quite
unconsciously made the most radical utterance of all, in saying that
marriage was a question beyond the realm of legislation, that must be
left to the parties themselves. We rallied Lucretia on her radicalism,
and some of the journals criticised us severely; but the following
letter shows that she had no thought of receding from her position:
"Roadside, near Philadelphia,
"4th Mo., 30th, '61.
"My Dear Lydia Mott:
"I have wished, ever since parting with thee and our other dear
friends in Albany, to send thee a line, and have only waited in the
hope of contributing a little 'substantial aid' toward your neat
and valuable 'depository.' The twenty dollars inclosed is from our
Female Anti-slavery Society.
"I see the annual meeting, in New York, is not to be held this
spring. Sister Martha is here, and was expecting to attend both
anniversaries. But we now think the woman's rights meeting had
better not be attempted, and she has written Elizabeth C. Stanton
to this effect.
"I was well satisfied with being at the Albany meeting. I have
since met with the following, from a speech of Lord Brougham's,
which pleased me, as being as radical as mine in your stately Hall
of Representatives:
"'Before women can have any justice by the laws of England, there
must be a total reconstruction of the whole marriage system; for
any attempt to amend it would prove useless. The great charter, in
establishing the supremacy of law over prerogative, provides only
for justice between man and man; for woman nothing is left but
common law, accumulations and modifications of original Gothic and
Roman heathenism, which no amount of filtration through
ecclesiastical courts could change into Christian laws. They are
declared unworthy a Christian people by great jurists; still they
remain unchanged.'
"So Elizabeth Stanton will see that I have authority for going to
the root of the evil.
"Thine,
"LUCRETIA MOTT."
Those of us who met in Albany talked the matter over in regard to a free
discussion of the divorce question at the coming convention in New York.
It was the opinion of those present that, as the laws on marriage and
divorce were very unequal for man and woman, this was a legitimate
subject for discussion on our platform; accordingly I presented a series
of resolutions, at the annual convention, in New York city, to which I
spoke for over an hour. I was followed by Antoinette L, Brown, who also
presented a series of resolutions in opposition to mine. She was, in
turn, answered by Ernestine L. Rose. Wendell Phillips then arose, and,
in an impressive manner pronounced the whole discussion irrelevant to
our platform, and moved that neither the speeches nor resolutions go on
the records of the convention. As I greatly admired Wendell Phillips,
and appreciated his good opinion, I was surprised and humiliated to find
myself under the ban of his disapprobation. My face was scarlet, and I
trembled with mingled feelings of doubt and fear--doubt as to the
wisdom of my position and fear lest the convention should repudiate the
whole discussion. My emotion was so apparent that Rev. Samuel
Longfellow, a brother of the poet, who sat beside me, whispered in my
ear, "Nevertheless you are right, and the convention will sustain you."
Mr. Phillips said that as marriage concerned man and woman alike, and
the laws bore equally on them, women had no special ground for
complaint, although, in my speech, I had quoted many laws to show the
reverse. Mr. Garrison and Rev. Antoinette L. Brown were alike opposed to
Mr. Phillips' motion, and claimed that marriage and divorce were
legitimate subjects for discussion on our platform. Miss Anthony closed
the debate. She said: "I hope Mr. Phillips will withdraw his motion that
these resolutions shall not appear on the records of the convention. I
am very sure that it would be contrary to all parliamentary usage to say
that, when the speeches which enforced and advocated the resolutions are
reported and published in the proceedings, the resolutions shall not be
placed there. And as to the point that this question does not belong to
this platform--from that I totally dissent. Marriage has ever been a
one-sided matter, resting most unequally upon the sexes. By it man gains
all; woman loses all; tyrant law and lust reign supreme with him; meek
submission and ready obedience alone befit her. Woman has never been
consulted; her wish has never been taken into consideration as regards
the terms of the marriage compact. By law, public sentiment, and
religion,--from the time of Moses down to the present day,--woman has
never been thought of other than as a piece of property, to be disposed
of at the will and pleasure of man. And at this very hour, by our
statute books, by our (so-called) enlightened Christian civilization,
she has no voice whatever in saying what shall be the basis of the
relation. She must accept marriage as man proffers it, or not at all.
"And then, again, on Mr. Phillips' own ground, the discussion is
perfectly in order, since nearly all the wrongs of which we complain
grow out of the inequality of the marriage laws, that rob the wife of
the right to herself and her children; that make her the slave of the
man she marries. I hope, therefore, the resolutions will be allowed to
go out to the public; that there may be a fair report of the ideas which
have actually been presented here; that they may not be left to the
mercy of the secular press, I trust the convention will not vote to
forbid the publication of those resolutions with the proceedings."
Rev. William Hoisington (the blind preacher) followed Miss Anthony, and
said: "Publish all that you have done here, and let the public know it."
The question was then put, on the motion of Mr. Phillips, and it was
lost.
As Mr. Greeley, in commenting on the convention, took the same ground
with Mr. Phillips, that the laws on marriage and divorce were equal for
man and woman, I answered them in the following letter to the New York
_Tribune_.
"_To the Editor of the New York Tribune_:
"Sir: At our recent National Woman's Rights Convention many were
surprised to hear Wendell Phillips object to the question of
marriage and divorce as irrelevant to our platform. He said: 'We
had no right to discuss here any laws or customs but those where
inequality existed for the sexes; that the laws on marriage and
divorce rested equally on man and woman; that he suffers, as much
as she possibly could, the wrongs and abuses of an ill-assorted
marriage.'
"Now it must strike every careful thinker that an immense
difference rests in the fact that man has made the laws cunningly
and selfishly for his own purpose. From Coke down to Kent, who can
cite one clause of the marriage contract where woman has the
advantage? When man suffers from false legislation he has his
remedy in his own hands. Shall woman be denied the right of protest
against laws in which she had no voice; laws which outrage the
holiest affections of her nature; laws which transcend the limits
of human legislation, in a convention called for the express
purpose of considering her wrongs? He might as well object to a
protest against the injustice of hanging a woman, because capital
punishment bears equally on man and woman.
"The contract of marriage is by no means equal. The law permits the
girl to marry at twelve years of age, while it requires several
years more of experience on the part of the boy. In entering this
compact, the man gives up nothing that he before possessed, he is a
man still; while the legal existence of the woman is suspended
during marriage, and, henceforth, she is known but in and through
the husband. She is nameless, purseless, childless--though a woman,
an heiress, and a mother.
"Blackstone says: 'The husband and wife are one, and that one is
the husband.' Chancellor Kent, in his 'Commentaries' says: 'The
legal effects of marriage are generally deducible from the
principle of the common law, by which the husband and wife are
regarded as one person, and her legal existence and authority lost
or suspended during the continuance of the matrimonial union.'
"The wife is regarded by all legal authorities as a _feme covert_,
placed wholly _sub potestate viri_. Her moral responsibility, even,
is merged in her husband. The law takes it for granted that the
wife lives in fear of her husband; that his command is her highest
law; hence a wife is not punishable for the theft committed in the
presence of her husband. An unmarried woman can make contracts, sue
and be sued, enjoy the rights of property, to her inheritance--to
her wages--to her person--to her children; but, in marriage, she is
robbed by law of all and every natural and civil right. Kent
further says: 'The disability of the wife to contract, so as to
bind herself, arises not from want of discretion, but because she
has entered into an indissoluble connection by which she is placed
under the power and protection of her husband.' She is possessed of
certain rights until she is married; then all are suspended, to
revive, again, the moment the breath goes out of the husband's
body. (See 'Cowen's Treatise,' vol. 2, p. 709.)
"If the contract be equal, whence come the terms 'marital power,'
'marital rights,' 'obedience and restraint,' 'dominion and
control,' 'power and protection,' etc., etc.? Many cases are
stated, showing the exercise of a most questionable power over the
wife, sustained by the courts. (See 'Bishop on Divorce,' p. 489.)
"The laws on divorce are quite as unequal as those on marriage;
yea, far more so. The advantages seem to be all on one side and the
penalties on the other. In case of divorce, if the husband be not
the guilty party, the wife goes out of the partnership penniless.
(Kent, vol. 2, p. 33; 'Bishop on Divorce,' p. 492.)
"In New York, and some other States, the wife of the guilty husband
can now sue for a divorce in her own name, and the costs come out
of the husband's estate; but, in the majority of the States, she is
still compelled to sue in the name of another, as she has no means
for paying costs, even though she may have brought her thousands
into the partnership. 'The allowance to the innocent wife of _ad