Part 13 (2/2)
He is making the anti-slavery party responsible in a great degree, for his, to say the least, startling opinions. I do not censure him for them, although I cannot subscribe to them in all their length and breadth. But let him keep them distinct from the cause of emanc.i.p.ation. This is his duty. Those who subscribe money to the Anti-Slavery Society do it in the belief that it will be spent in the propagation, not of Quakerism or Presbyterianism, but of the doctrines of Immediate Emanc.i.p.ation. To employ an agent who devotes half his time and talents to the propagation of 'no human or no family government' doctrines in connection--_intimate connection_--with the doctrines of abolition, is a fraud upon the patrons of the cause. Just so with papers. Brother Garrison errs, I think, in this respect. He takes the 'no church, and no human government' ground, as, for instance, in his Providence speech. Now, in his prospectus, he engaged to give his subscribers an anti-slavery paper, and his subscribers made their contract with him on that ground. If he fills his paper with Grahamism and no governmentism, he defrauds his subscribers.
However, I know that brother Garrison does not look at it in this light.
”In regard to another subject, '_the rights of woman_,' you are now doing much and n.o.bly to vindicate and a.s.sert the rights of woman. Your lectures to crowded and promiscuous audiences on a subject manifestly, in many of its aspects, _political_, interwoven with the framework of the government, are practical and powerful a.s.sertions of the right and the duty of woman to labor side by side with her brother for the welfare and redemption of the world. Why, then, let me ask, is it necessary for you to enter the lists as controversial writers on this question? Does it not _look_, dear sisters, like abandoning in some degree the cause of the poor and miserable slave, sighing from the cotton plantations of the Mississippi, and whose cries and groans are forever sounding in our ears, for the purpose of arguing and disputing about some trifling oppression, political or social, which we may ourselves suffer? Is it not forgetting the great and dreadful wrongs of the slave in a selfish crusade against some paltry grievance of our own? Forgive me if I have stated the case too strongly. I would not for the world interfere with you in matters of conscientious duty, but I wish you would weigh candidly the whole subject, and see if it does not _seem_ an abandonment of your first love. Oh, let us try to forget everything but our duty to G.o.d and our fellow beings; to dethrone the selfish principle, and to strive to win over the hard heart of the oppressor by truth kindly spoken. The Ma.s.sachusetts Congregational a.s.sociation can do you no harm if you do not allow its splenetic and idle manifesto to divert your attention from the great and holy purpose of your souls.
”Finally, dear sisters, rest a.s.sured that you have my deepest and warmest sympathy; that my heart rejoices to know that you are mighty instruments in the hands of Him who hath come down to deliver. May the canopy of His love be over you, and His peace be with you!
”Your friend and brother,
”JNO. G. WHITTIER.”
Weld's first letter, written the day after Whittier's, begins by defining his own position on the disturbing question. He says: ”As to the rights and wrongs of woman, it is an old theme with me. It was the first subject I ever discussed. In a little debating society, when a boy, I took the ground that s.e.x neither qualified nor disqualified for the discharge of any functions, mental, moral, or spiritual: that there is no reason why woman should not make laws, administer justice, sit in the chair of State, plead at the Bar, or in the pulpit, if she has the qualifications, just as much as man. What I advocated in boyhood, I advocate now--that woman, in every particular, shares, equally with man, rights and responsibilities. Now that I have made this statement of my creed on this point, to show you that we fully agree, except that I probably go much further than you do, I must say I do most deeply regret that you have begun a series of articles in the papers on the rights of woman. Why, my dear sisters, the best possible advocacy which you can make is just what you are making day by day. Thousands hear you every week who have all their lives held that women must not speak in public. Such a practical refutation of the dogma which your speaking furnishes has already converted mult.i.tudes.”
He then goes on to urge two strong points:--
1st. That as Southerners, and having been brought up among slaveholders, they could do more to convince the North than twenty Northern women, though they could speak as well, and that they would lose this peculiar advantage the moment they took up another subject.
2d. That almost any other women of their capacity and station could produce a greater effect on the public mind on that subject than they, because they were Quakers, and woman's right to speak and minister was a Quaker doctrine. Therefore, for these and other reasons, he urged them to leave the lesser work to others who could do it better than they, and devote, consecrate their whole souls, bodies, and spirits to the greater work which they could do far better than anybody else. He continues: ”Let us all first wake up the nation to lift millions of slaves from the dust and turn them into men, and then, when we all have our hand in, it will be an easy matter to take millions of women from their knees and set them on their feet; or, in other words, transform them from _babies_ into _women_.”
A spirited, almost dogmatic, controversy was the result of these letters. In a letter to Jane Smith, Angelina says: ”I cannot understand why they (the abolitionists) so exceedingly regret sister's having begun those letters. Brother Weld was not satisfied with writing us _one_ letter about them, but we have received two more setting forth various reasons why we should not moot the subject of woman's rights _at all_, but our judgment is not convinced, and we hardly know what to do about it, for we have just as high an opinion of Brother Garrison's views, and _he_ says, '_go on_.' ... The great effort of abolitionists now seems to be to keep every topic but slavery out of view, and hence their opposition to Henry O. Wright and his preaching anti-government doctrines, and our even writing on woman's rights. Oh, if I _only_ saw they were _right_ and _we_ were _wrong_, I would yield immediately.”
One of the two other letters from T.D. Weld, referred to by Angelina, is a very long one, covering over ten pages of the old-fas.h.i.+oned foolscap paper, and is in reply to letters received from the sisters, and which were afterwards returned to them and probably destroyed. I have concluded to make some extracts from this long letter from Mr.
Weld, not only on account of the arguments used, but to show the frank, fearless spirit with which he met the reasoning of his two ”sisters.” When we consider that he was even then courting Angelina, his hardihood is a little surprising.
After observing that he had carefully read their letters, and made an abstract on half a sheet of paper of the ”positions and conclusions found therein,” he continues:--
”This abstract I have been steadily looking at with great marvelling,
”1st. That you should argue at length the doctrine of Woman's Rights, as though I was a _dissentient_;
”2d. That you should so magnify the power of the New England clergy;
”3d. That you should so misconceive the actual convictions of ministers and Christians, and almost all, as to the public speaking of women;
”4th. That you should take the ground that the clergy, and the whole church government, must come down _before_ slavery can be abolished (a proposition which to my mind is absurd).
”5th. That you should so utterly overlook the very _threshold_ principle upon which alone any moral reformation can be effectually promoted. Oh, dear! There are a dozen other things--marvellables--in your letters; but I must stop short, or I can say nothing on other points.
”... Now, before we commence action, let us clear the decks; for if they are clogged we shall have foul play. _Overboard_ with everything that don't _belong on board_. Now, first, _what is the precise point at issue between us?_ I answer first _negatively_, that we may understand each other on all points kindred to the main one. 1st. It is _not_ whether _woman's_ rights are inferior to _man's_ rights.”
He then proceeded to state the doctrine of Woman's Rights very forcibly. Of _s.e.x_, he says:--
”Its _only_ design is not to give nor to take away, nor in any respect to modify, or even touch, rights or responsibilities in any sense, except so far as the peculiar offices of each s.e.x may afford less or more opportunity and ability for the exercise of rights, and the discharge of responsibilities, but merely to continue and enlarge the human department of G.o.d's government.”
For an entire page he continues in this manner of ”_negatives_” to ”_clear the decks_,” until he has shown through seven negative specifications what do _not_ const.i.tute the point at issue, and then goes on:--
”Well, waving further negatives, the question at issue between us _is_, whether _you_, S.M.G. and A.E.G., should engage in the public discussion of the rights of women as a distinct topic. Here you affirm, and I deny. Your reasons for doing it, as contained in your two letters, are the following:--
”1st. The _New England Spectator_ was _opened_; you were invited to write on the subject, and some of the Boston abolitionists _urged_ you to do so, and you say, 'We viewed this unexpected opportunity of throwing our views before the public, as _providential_.'
<script>