Eighty Years and More; Reminiscences 1815-1897
interim_ alimony and money to sustain the suit, is not regarded as
a strict right in her, but of sound discretion in the court.'
('Bishop on Divorce,' p. 581.)
"'Many jurists,' says Kent, 'are of opinion that the adultery of
the husband ought not to be noticed or made subject to the same
animadversions as that of the wife, because it is not evidence of
such entire depravity nor equally injurious in its effects upon the
morals, good order, and happiness of the domestic life.
Montesquieu, Pothier, and Dr. Taylor all insist that the cases of
husband and wife ought to be distinguished, and that the violation
of the marriage vow, on the part of the wife, is the most
mischievous, and the prosecution ought to be confined to the
offense on her part. ("Esprit des Lois," tom. 3, 186; "Traité du
Contrat de Mariage," No. 516; "Elements of Civil Law," p. 254).'
"Say you, 'These are but the opinions of men'? On what else, I ask,
are the hundreds of women depending, who, this hour, demand in our
courts a release from burdensome contracts? Are not these delicate
matters left wholly to the discretion of courts? Are not young
women from the first families dragged into our courts,--into
assemblies of men exclusively,--the judges all men, the jurors all
men? No true woman there to shield them, by her presence, from
gross and impertinent questionings, to pity their misfortunes, or
to protest against their wrongs?
"The administration of justice depends far more on the opinions of
eminent jurists than on law alone, for law is powerless when at
variance with public sentiment.
"Do not the above citations clearly prove inequality? Are not the
very letter and spirit of the marriage contract based on the idea
of the supremacy of man as the keeper of woman's virtue--her sole
protector and support? Out of marriage, woman asks nothing, at this
hour, but the elective franchise. It is only in marriage that she
must demand her right to person, children, property, wages, life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. How can we discuss all the
laws and conditions of marriage, without perceiving its essential
essence, end, and aim? Now, whether the institution of marriage be
human or divine, whether regarded as indissoluble by ecclesiastical
courts or dissoluble by civil courts, woman, finding herself
equally degraded in each and every phase of it, always the victim
of the institution, it is her right and her duty to sift the
relation and the compact through and through, until she finds out
the true cause of her false position. How can we go before the
legislatures of our respective States and demand new laws, or no
laws, on divorce, until we have some idea of what the true relation
is?
"We decide the whole question of slavery by settling the sacred
rights of the individual. We assert that man cannot hold property
in man, and reject the whole code of laws that conflicts with the
self-evident truth of the assertion.
"Again, I ask, is it possible to discuss all the laws of a
relation, and not touch the relation itself?
"Yours respectfully,
"Elizabeth Cady Stanton."
The discussion on the question of marriage and divorce occupied one
entire session of the convention, and called down on us severe
criticisms from the metropolitan and State press. So alarming were the
comments on what had been said that I began to feel that I had
inadvertently taken out the underpinning from the social system. Enemies
were unsparing in their denunciations, and friends ridiculed the whole
proceeding. I was constantly called on for a definition of marriage and
asked to describe home life as it would be when men changed their wives
every Christmas. Letters and newspapers poured in upon me, asking all
manner of absurd questions, until I often wept with vexation. So many
things, that I had neither thought nor said, were attributed to me that,
at times, I really doubted my own identity.
However, in the progress of events the excitement died away, the earth
seemed to turn on its axis as usual, women were given in marriage,
children were born, fires burned as brightly as ever at the domestic
altars, and family life, to all appearances, was as stable as usual.
Public attention was again roused to this subject by the
McFarland-Richardson trial, in which the former shot the latter, being
jealous of his attentions to his wife. McFarland was a brutal,
improvident husband, who had completely alienated his wife's
affections, while Mr. Richardson, who had long been a cherished
acquaintance of the family, befriended the wife in the darkest days of
her misery. She was a very refined, attractive woman, and a large circle
of warm friends stood by her through the fierce ordeal of her husband's
trial.
Though McFarland did not deny that he killed Richardson, yet he was
acquitted on the plea of insanity, and was, at the same time, made the
legal guardian of his child, a boy, then, twelve years of age, and
walked out of the court with him, hand in hand. What a travesty on
justice and common sense that, while a man is declared too insane to be
held responsible for taking the life of another, he might still be
capable of directing the life and education of a child! And what an
insult to that intelligent mother, who had devoted twelve years of her
life to his care, while his worthless father had not provided for them
the necessaries of life!
She married Mr. Richardson on his deathbed. The ceremony was performed
by Henry Ward Beecher and Rev. O.B. Frothingham, while such men as
Horace Greeley and Joshua Leavitt witnessed the solemn service. Though
no shadow had ever dimmed Mrs. Richardson's fair fame, yet she was
rudely treated in the court and robbed of her child, though by far the
most fitting parent to be intrusted with his care.
As the indignation among women was general and at white heat with regard
to her treatment, Miss Anthony suggested to me, one day, that it would
be a golden opportunity to give women a lesson on their helplessness
under the law--wholly in the power of man as to their domestic
relations, as well as to their civil and political rights. Accordingly
we decided to hold some meetings, for women alone, to protest against
the decision of this trial, the general conduct of the case, the tone of
the press, and the laws that made it possible to rob a mother of her
child.
Many ladies readily enlisted in the movement. I was invited to make the
speech on the occasion, and Miss Anthony arranged for two great
meetings, one in Apollo Hall, New York city, and one in the Academy of
Music, in Brooklyn. The result was all that we could desire. Miss
Anthony, with wonderful executive ability, made all the arrangements,
taking on her own shoulders the whole financial responsibility.
My latest thought on this question I gave in _The Arena_ of April, 1894,
from which I quote the following:
"There is a demand just now for an amendment to the United States
Constitution that shall make the laws of marriage and divorce the
same in all the States of the Union. As the suggestion comes
uniformly from those who consider the present divorce laws too
liberal, we may infer that the proposed national law is to place
the whole question on a narrower basis, rendering null and void the
laws that have been passed in a broader spirit, according to the
needs and experiences, in certain sections, of the sovereign
people. And here let us bear in mind that the widest possible law
would not make divorce obligatory on anyone, while a restricted
law, on the contrary, would compel many, marrying, perhaps, under
more liberal laws, to remain in uncongenial relations.
"As we are still in the experimental stage on this question, we are
not qualified to make a perfect law that would work satisfactorily
over so vast an area as our boundaries now embrace. I see no
evidence in what has been published on this question, of late, by
statesmen, ecclesiastics, lawyers, and judges, that any of them
have thought sufficiently on the subject to prepare a well-digested
code, or a comprehensive amendment to the national Constitution.
Some view it as a civil contract, though not governed by the laws
of other contracts; some view it as a religious ordinance--a
sacrament; some think it a relation to be regulated by the State,
others by the Church, and still others think it should be left
wholly to the individual. With this wide divergence of opinion
among our leading minds, it is quite evident that we are not
prepared for a national law.
"Moreover, as woman is the most important factor in the marriage
relation, her enfranchisement is the primal step in deciding the
basis of family life. Before public opinion on this question
crystallizes into an amendment to the national Constitution, the
wife and mother must have a voice in the governing power and must
be heard, on this great problem, in the halls of legislation.
"There are many advantages in leaving all these questions, as now,
to the States. Local self-government more readily permits of
experiments on mooted questions, which are the outcome of the needs
and convictions of the community. The smaller the area over which
legislation extends, the more pliable are the laws. By leaving the
States free to experiment in their local affairs, we can judge of
the working of different laws under varying circumstances, and thus
learn their comparative merits. The progress education has achieved
in America is due to the fact that we have left our system of
public instruction in the hands of local authorities. How
different would be the solution of the great educational question
of manual labor in the schools, if the matter had to be settled at
Washington!
"The whole nation might find itself pledged to a scheme that a few
years would prove wholly impracticable. Not only is the town
meeting, as Emerson says, 'the cradle of American liberties,' but
it is the nursery of Yankee experiment and wisdom. England, with
its clumsy national code of education, making one inflexible
standard of scholarship for the bright children of the
manufacturing districts and the dull brains of the agricultural
counties, should teach us a lesson as to the wisdom of keeping
apart state and national government.
"Before we can decide the just grounds for divorce, we must get a
clear idea of what constitutes marriage. In a true relation the
chief object is the loving companionship of man and woman, their
capacity for mutual help and happiness and for the development of
all that is noblest in each other. The second object is the
building up a home and family, a place of rest, peace, security, in
which child-life can bud and blossom like flowers in the sunshine.
"The first step toward making the ideal the real, is to educate our
sons and daughters into the most exalted ideas of the sacredness of
married life and the responsibilities of parenthood. I would have
them give, at least, as much thought to the creation of an immortal
being as the artist gives to his landscape or statue. Watch him in
his hours of solitude, communing with great Nature for days and
weeks in all her changing moods, and when at last his dream of
beauty is realized and takes a clearly defined form, behold how