During the debate Rev. Junius Hatch, a Congregational minister from Ma.s.sachusetts, made a speech so coa.r.s.e and vulgar that the president called him to order. As he paid no attention to her, the men in the audience choked him off with cries of "Sit down! Shut up!" His idea of woman's modesty was that she should cast her eyes down when meeting men, drop her veil when walking up the aisle of a church and keep her place at home. Miss Anthony arose and stated that Mr. Hatch himself was one of the young ministers who had been educated through the efforts of women, and she had always noticed those were the ones most anxious for women to keep silence in the churches. This finished Mr. Hatch.

A young teacher by the name of Brigham also attempted to define the spheres of Mrs. Mott, Mrs. Stanton[15] and the other great advocates of woman's freedom and declared: "Women ought to be keepers at home and mind domestic concerns; he had no doubt the true object of this meeting was not so much to acquire any real or supposed rights as to make the speakers and actors conspicuous; he wished to urge upon them to claim nothing masculine for women, for even in animals the spheres were different. He had no objections to woman's voice being heard, but let her seek out the breathing-holes of perdition to do her work." Mr.

Brigham was badly worsted in the argument which followed, and at the next session he sent in a protest, declaring he had not had "justice."

He evidently did not see the satire of this complaint, since he himself had been loudest in his refusal to do justice to woman.

A heated discussion was called out by a resolution offered by Rev.

Antoinette L. Brown declaring that "the Bible recognizes the rights, privileges and duties of woman as a public teacher, as in every way equal with those of man; that it enjoins upon her no subjection that is not enjoined upon him; and that it truly and practically recognizes neither male nor female in Christ Jesus." Mrs. Rose closed the discussion by saying:

I can not object to any one's interpreting the Bible as he or she thinks best; but I do object that such interpretation go forth as the doctrine of this convention, because it is a mere interpretation and not even the authority of the Book; it is the view of Miss Brown only, which is as good as that of any other minister, but that is all. For my part I reject both interpretations. Here we claim human rights and freedom, based upon the laws of humanity, and we require no written authority from Moses or Paul, because those laws and our claim are prior even to these two great men.

Miss Brown's resolution was not adopted. Susan B. Anthony spoke briefly but earnestly in behalf of the People's College and also of the Woman's State Temperance Society, for which she asked their endors.e.m.e.nt. She then read the resolutions sent by Mrs. Stanton, all but one of which were adopted. The Syracuse Journal commented: "Miss Anthony has a capital voice and deserves to be made clerk of the a.s.sembly." The Syracuse Standard said of this convention: "It was attended by not less than 2,000 persons. The discussions were characterized by a degree of ability that would do credit to any deliberative body." The Journal said: "No person can deny that there was a greater amount of talent in the woman's rights convention than has characterized any public gathering in this city during the last ten years, if ever before. The appearance of all the ladies was modest and una.s.suming, though prompt, energetic and confident. Business was brought forward, calmly deliberated upon and discussed with unanimity and in a spirit becoming true women, which would add an unknown dignity to the transactions of public a.s.sociations of the 'lords.'" The Syracuse Star, however, took a different view:

The women of the Tomfoolery Convention, now being held in this city, talk as fluently of the Bible and G.o.d's teachings in their speeches as if they could draw an argument from inspiration in maintenance of their woman's rights stuff.... The poor creatures who take part in the silly rant of "brawling women" and Aunt Nancy men are most of them "ismizers" of the rankest stamp, Abolitionists of the most frantic and contemptible kind and Christian (?) sympathizers with such heretics as Wm. Lloyd Garrison, Parker Pillsbury, O.C. Burleigh and S.S. Foster. These men are all woman's righters and preachers of such d.a.m.nable doctrines and accursed heresies as would make demons of the pit shudder to hear. We have selected a few appropriate pa.s.sages from G.o.d's Bible for the consideration of the infuriated gang at the convention.

The New York Herald, under the elder Bennett, which from the beginning of the demand had been the inveterate foe of equal rights for women, contained the following editorial, September 12, 1852:

The farce at Syracuse has been played out. We publish today the last act, in which it will be seen that the authority of the Bible, as a perfect rule of faith and practice for human beings, was voted down, and what are called the laws of nature set up instead of the Christian code. We have also a practical exhibition of the consequences that flow from woman leaving her true sphere, where she wields all her influence, and coming into public to discuss morals and politics with men. The scene in which Rev. Mr. Hatch violated the decorum of his cloth and was coa.r.s.ely offensive to such ladies present as had not lost that modest "feminine element"

on which he dwelt so forcibly, is the natural result of the conduct of the women themselves who, in the first place, invited discussion about s.e.xes, and, in the second place, so broadly defined the difference between the male and the female as to be suggestive of anything but purity to the audience. The women of the convention have no right to complain, but for the sake of his clerical character, if no other motive influenced him, he ought not have followed so bad an example. His speech was sound and his argument conclusive, but his form of words was not in the best taste. The female orators were the aggressors, but to use his own language he ought not to have measured swords with a woman, especially when he regarded her ideas and expressions as bordering upon the obscene.

But all this is the natural result of woman placing herself in a false position. As Rev. Mr. Hatch observed, if she ran with horses she must expect to be betted upon. The whole tendency of these conventions is by no means to increase the influence of woman, to elevate her condition or to command the respect of the other s.e.x....

How did woman first become subject to man, as she now is all over the world? By her nature, her s.e.x, just as the negro is and always will be to the end of time, inferior to the white race and, therefore, doomed to subjection; but she is happier than she would be in any other condition, just because it is the law of her nature....

What do the leaders of the woman's rights convention want? They want to vote and to hustle with the rowdies at the polls. They want to be members of Congress, and in the heat of debate subject themselves to coa.r.s.e jests and indecent language like that of Rev.

Mr. Hatch. They want to fill all other posts which men are ambitious to occupy, to be lawyers, doctors, captains of vessels and generals in the field. How funny it would sound in the newspapers that Lucy Stone, pleading a cause, took suddenly ill in the pains of parturition and perhaps gave birth to a fine bouncing boy in court! Or that Rev. Antoinette Brown was arrested in the pulpit in the middle of her sermon from the same cause, and presented a "pledge" to her husband and the congregation; or that Dr. Harriot K. Hunt, while attending a gentleman patient for a fit of the gout or fistula in ano found it necessary to send for a doctor, there and then, and to be delivered of a man or woman child--perhaps twins.[16] A similar event might happen on the floor of Congress, in a storm at sea or in the raging tempest of battle, and then what is to become of the woman legislator?

For months after this convention the discussions and controversies were kept up through press and pulpit. The clergymen in Syracuse and surrounding towns rang the changes on the cry of "infidel" as the surest way of neutralizing its influence. Rev. Byron Sunderland, a Congregational minister of Syracuse and afterwards chaplain of the United States Senate, preached a sermon on the "Bloomer Convention."

Rev. Ashley, of St. Paul's Episcopal Church, Syracuse, also preached a sermon against equality for woman, which was put into pamphlet form and scattered throughout the State. It called forth many protests, some from the women of his own church. The clergymen selected the Star, the most disreputable paper in the city, for the publication of their articles. Rev. Sunderland was ably answered by Matilda Joslyn Gage over the signature of "M." and replied in the Star: "If the author should turn out to be a man, I should have no objection to point out his inaccuracies through your columns, but if the writer is a lady, why, really, I don't know what I shall do. If I thought she would consent to a personal interview, I should like to see her." Some man, signing himself "A Reader," having criticised him in a perfectly respectful manner for making the above distinction, the reverend gentleman replied to him through the Star: "His impertinence is quite characteristic. He probably knows as much about the Bible as a wild a.s.s' colt, and is requested at this time to keep a proper distance. When a body is trying to find out and pay attention to a lady, it is not good manners for 'A Reader' to be thrust in between us." In all the speeches and articles in favor of woman's rights there was not one which was not modest, temperate and dignified. Almost without exception those in opposition were vulgar, intemperate and abusive.

No more brilliant galaxy of men and women ever a.s.sembled than at this Syracuse convention, and the great question of the rights of woman was discussed from every conceivable standpoint. Hundreds equally able have been held during the last half century, and these extensive quotations have been made simply to show that fifty years ago the whole broad platform of human rights was as clearly defined by the leading thinkers, and in as logical, comprehensive and dignified a manner, as it is today. There was as much opposition among the ma.s.ses of both men and women against _all_ that they advocated as exists today against their demand for the ballot, perhaps more; yet the close of the century finds practically all granted except the ballot; the full right to speak in public; nearly the same educational and industrial opportunities; in many States almost equal legal rights, and not one State now wholly under the English common law, which everywhere prevailed at that time. The prejudice against all these innovations is rapidly disappearing but it still lingers in regard to the yielding of the suffrage, except in the four States where this also has been given.

In not one instance have these concessions been made in response to the "voice of the people," but only because of the continued agitation and unceasing efforts of a few of the more advanced and progressive thinkers of each generation.

[Footnote 11: The Tribune, at this time, was the only paper in New York, and, with few exceptions, the only large newspaper in the country, which treated the question of woman's rights in any but a contemptuous, abusive manner.]

[Footnote 12: They may have been preceded by the Moral Reform Societies for the Rescue of Fallen Women, which originated in New York City, and by a few Female Anti-Slavery Societies.]

[Footnote 13: At the first Woman's Rights Convention in 1848, Mrs. Mott and Mrs. Stanton were so opposed to having a woman for chairman that they came near leaving the hall. Four years later Mrs. Mott is herself the presiding officer.]

[Footnote 14: Several of the speakers had weak, piping voices which did not reach beyond a few of the front seats and, after one of these had finished, Miss Anthony said: "Mrs. President, I move that hereafter the papers shall be given to some one to read who can be heard. It is an imposition on an audience to have to sit quietly through a long speech of which they can not hear a word. We do not stand up here to be seen, but to be heard." Then there was a protest. Mrs. Davis said she wished it understood that "ladies did not come there to screech; they came to behave like ladies and to speak like ladies." Miss Anthony held her ground, declaring that the question of being ladylike had nothing to do with it; the business of any one who read a paper was to be heard. Mr.

May, always the peacemaker, said Miss Anthony was right; there was not a woman that had spoken in the convention who if she had been in her own home would not have adjusted her voice to the occasion. "If your boy were across the street you would not go to the door, put your head down and say in a little, weak voice, 'Jim, come home;' but you would fix your eye on him and shout, 'Jim, come home!' If the ladies, instead of looking down and talking to those on the front seats, would address their remarks to the farthermost persons in the house, all between would hear."]

[Footnote 15: Mrs. Mott was the mother of six and Mrs. Stanton of seven children. Both were devoted mothers and noteworthy housekeepers.]

[Footnote 16: No one of these ladies was married.]

CHAPTER VI.

TEMPERANCE AND TEACHERS' CONVENTIONS.

1852--1853.

Miss Anthony came away from the Syracuse convention thoroughly convinced that the right which woman needed above every other, the one indeed which would secure to her all others, was the right of suffrage.

She saw that it was by the ballot men emphasized their opinions and enforced their demands; she realized that without it women exercised small influence upon law-makers and had no power to reward friends or punish enemies. A sense of the terrible helplessness of being utterly without representation came upon her with crushing force. The first great cause of the injustice which pressed upon women from every point was clearly revealed to her and she understood, as never before, that any cla.s.s which is compelled to be legislated for by another cla.s.s always must be at a disadvantage. She went home with these thoughts burning in her soul, and again took up her work for temperance, but much of her enthusiasm was gone. She felt that she was dealing with effects only and was shut out from all influence over causes. She still was loyal to her State society but the desire was growing strong for a larger field.

In January, 1853, she arranged for a meeting to be held in Albany to secure a hearing before the Legislature and present pet.i.tions for a Maine Law. Lucy Stone, whom she urged to make an address, wrote: "I can't in conscience speak in favor of the Maine Law. It does not seem to me to be based upon sound philosophy. Such a law will not amount to much so long as there is not a temperance public sentiment behind it.

G.o.d bless your earnest and faithful spirit, Susan. I am glad the temperance cause has so devoted and judicious a friend." She then invited Rev. Antoinette Brown, who gave several reasons why she did not think best to deliver the address and concluded: "But there is a better way; you yourself must come to the rescue. You will read the appeal, you can fit the address to it and you will do it grandly. Don't hesitate but, in the name of everything n.o.ble, go forward and you shall have our warmest sympathy."

It was very hard to coax Miss Anthony into a speech in those days and she finally persuaded the Reverend Antoinette to make the address.

There was a ma.s.s-meeting of all the temperance organizations in the State at Albany, January 21, and as the women made no attempt to take part in the men's meetings there was no disturbance. History is silent as to what the men did at that time, but the women held crowded sessions in the Baptist church, and in the a.s.sembly chamber at night, Miss Anthony presiding, and a number of fine addresses were made. The rules were suspended one morning and the ladies invited to the speaker's desk. Mrs. Vaughn read Mrs. Stanton's eloquent appeal praying the Legislature to do one of two things: either give women a vote on this great evil of intemperance, or else truly represent them by enacting a Prohibitory Law. It was accompanied by the pet.i.tion of 28,000 names which had been collected by a few women at immense labor and expense during the past year.

This was the first time in the history of New York that a body of women had appeared before the Legislature, and in their innocence they had full confidence that their request would be granted in a very short time.[17] While they were still in Albany their pet.i.tion was discussed and a young member made a long speech against it, declared that women were "out of their sphere" circulating pet.i.tions and coming before the Legislature, and closed by saying, "Who are these asking for a Maine Law? n.o.body but women and children!" Miss Anthony then and there made a solemn resolve that it should be her life work to make a woman's name on a pet.i.tion worth as much as a man's.

S.P. Townsend, who had made a fortune in the manufacture of sarsaparilla, happening to be at the Capitol, called upon the ladies and invited them to come to New York and hold a meeting, offering to advertise and entertain them. Miss Anthony, Mrs. Bloomer and Miss Brown accepted his invitation and were entertained at his elegant home, and also by Professor and Mrs. L.N. Fowler. He engaged Metropolitan Hall (where Jenny Lind sang) for February 7, and the ladies spoke to an audience of 3,000 at twenty-five cents admission. Mrs. Fowler presided, and on the platform were Horace Greeley, who made a strong address, Mrs. Greeley, Abby Hopper Gibbons and others. The Tribune and Post were very complimentary, saying it was the first time a woman had spoken within those walls and the meeting would compare favorably with any ever held in the building. After it was over Mr. Townsend divided the net proceeds among the three women. He also arranged for them to speak in Broadway Tabernacle and in Brooklyn Academy of Music, each of which was crowded to its capacity.

During March and April they made a successful tour of the princ.i.p.al cities in the State, Miss Anthony a.s.suming the management and financial responsibility. They went to Sing Sing, Poughkeepsie, Hudson, Troy, Utica, Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo and other places, greeted everywhere with large and attentive audiences attracted by the unusual spectacle of women speaking in public. They lectured chiefly on temperance, but asked incidentally for equal civil and political rights. While they received from most of the papers respectful treatment, they were sometimes viciously a.s.sailed. The Utica Evening Telegraph gave the following false and malicious report:

Miss SUSAN B. ANTHONY AND REV. A.L. BROWN ON THE STUMP.--Mechanics'

Hall was tolerably well filled last evening by persons wishing to hear the above-named ladies "spout" about temperance. Seven-eighths of the audience was composed of women, and there was noticeable an absence of all rank, fashion and wealth. The _ladies_ proper of Utica don't seem desirous of giving countenance to the silly vagaries disseminated by these strong-minded women. We conceived a very unfavorable opinion of this _Miss_ Anthony when she performed in this city on a former occasion, but we confess that, after listening attentively to her discourse last evening, we were inexpressibly disgusted with the impudence and impiety evinced in her lecture. Personally repulsive, she seems to be laboring under feelings of strong hatred towards male men, the effect, we presume, of jealousy and neglect. She spent some hour or so to show the evils endured by the mothers, wives and daughters of drunkards. She gravely announced that the evil is a great one, and that no remedy might hopefully be asked from licentious statesmen nor from ministers of the gospel, who are always well fed and clothed and don't care for oppressed women. Prominent among the remedies which she suggested for the evils which she alleges to exist, are complete enfranchis.e.m.e.nt of women, allowing them the run of the legislative halls, ballot-box, etc. With a degree of impiety which was both startling and disgusting, this shrewish _maiden_ counseled the numerous wives and mothers present to separate from their husbands whenever they became intemperate, _and particularly not to allow the said husbands to add another child to the family_ (probably no _married_ advocate of woman's rights would have made this remark). Think of such advice given in public by one who claims to be a _maiden_ lady!

Miss Anthony may be a very respectable lady, but such conversation is certainly not calculated to enhance public regard for her....

She announced quite confidently that wives don't de facto love their husbands if they are dissipated. Everyday observation proves the utter falsity of this statement, and if there is one characteristic of the s.e.x which more than another elevates and enn.o.bles it, it is the _persistency_ and intensity of woman's love for man. But what does Miss Anthony know of the thousand delights of married life; of the sweet stream of affection, of the golden ray of love which beams ever through life's ills? Bah! Of a like disgusting character was her advice to mothers about not using stimulants, even when prescribed by physicians, for the benefit of the young. What in the name of crying babies does Miss Anthony know about such matters?

In our humble judgment, it is by no means complimentary to wives and mothers to be found present at such discourses, encouraging such untruthful and pernicious advice. If Miss Anthony's ideas were practically applied in the relations of life, women would sink from the social elevation they now hold and become the mere _appendages_ of men. Miss Anthony concluded with a flourish of trumpets, that the woman's rights question could not be put down, that women's souls were beginning to expand, etc., after which she gathered her short skirts about her tight pants, sat down and wiped her spectacles.

A letter written to Miss Anthony by her father during this tour shows that even thus early he recognized the utter inability of women to effect great reforms without a vote: "I see notices of your meetings in mult.i.tudes of papers, all, with a few exceptions, in a rejoicing mood that woman at last has taken hold in earnest to aid in the reformation of the mighty evils of the day. Yet with all this 'rejoicing' probably not one of these papers would advocate placing the ballot in the hands of woman as the easiest, quickest and most efficient way of enabling her to secure not only this but other reforms. They are willing she should talk and pray and 'flock by herself in conventions and tramp up and down the State, footsore and weary, gathering pet.i.tions to be spurned by legislatures, but not willing to invest her with the only power that would do speedy and efficient work."

At this time interest in the study of phrenology was at its height and while Miss Anthony was in New York she had an examination made of her head by Nelson Sizer (with Fowler & Wells) who, blindfolded, gave the following character sketch:

You have a finely organized const.i.tution and a good degree of compactness and power. There is such a balance between the brain and the body that you are enabled to sustain mental effort with less exhaustion than most persons. You have an intensity of emotion and thought which makes your mind terse, sharp, spicy and clear.

You always work with a will, a purpose and a straightforwardness of mental action. You seldom accomplish ends by indirect means or circuitous routes, but unfurl your banner, take your position and give fair warning of the course you intend to pursue. You are not naturally fond of combat, but when once fairly enlisted in a cause that has the sanction of your conscience and intellect, your firmness and ambition are such, combined with thoroughness and efficiency of disposition, that all you are in energy and talent is enlisted and concentrated in the one end in view.

You are watchful but not timid, careful to have everything right and safe before you embark; but when times of difficulty and danger arrive, you meet them with coolness and intrepidity. You have more of the spirit of acquisition than of economy; you would rather make new things than patch the old. Your continuity is not large enough.

You find it at times difficult to bring the whole strength of your mind to bear upon a subject and hold it there patiently in writing or speaking. You are apt to seize upon fugitive thoughts and wander, unless it be a subject on which you have so drilled your intellect as to become master of it.

You have a full development of the social group. I judge that in the main you have your father's character and talents and your mother's temperament. You have the spirit of her nature, but the framework in the main is like the father. You have large benevolence, not only in the direction of sympathy but of grat.i.tude. You have frankness of character, even to sharpness, and you are obliged to bridle your tongue lest you speak more than is meet. You have mechanical ingenuity, the planning talent, and the minds of others are apt to be used as instruments to accomplish your objects. For instance, if you were a lawyer, you would arrange the testimony and the mode of argument in such a way that the best final result would be achieved. You judge correctly of the fitness and propriety, as well as of the power, of the means you have to be employed. You would plan a thing better than you could use the tools to make it. Your reasoning organs are gaining upon your perceptions. At fifteen your mind was devoted to facts and phenomena; of late years you have been thinking of principles and ideas. You are a keen critic, especially if you can put wit as a cracker on your whip; you can make people feel little and mean if they are so, and when you are vexed can say very sharp things.

You are a good judge of character. You have a full development of language devoted rather to accuracy and definiteness of meaning than volubility; and yet I doubt not you talk fast when excited--that belongs to your temperament. Your intellect is active and your mind more naturally runs in the channel of intellect than of feeling. It seeks an intellectual development rather than to be developed through the affections merely. You have fair veneration and spirituality but are nothing remarkable in these respects. Your chief religious elements are conscience and benevolence; these are your working religious organs, and a religion that does not gratify them is to you "as sounding bra.s.s and a tinkling cymbal."

Those who know Miss Anthony intimately will readily testify to the accuracy of this a.n.a.lysis. It seems remarkable in view of the fact that the examiner was in utter ignorance of the subject, and that, even if he had known her name, she had not, at the age of thirty-three, developed the characteristics which are now so familiar to the general public.

[Ill.u.s.tration:

SUSAN B. ANTHONY.

AT THE AGE OF 32, FROM A DAGUERREOTYPE.]

On this trip Miss Anthony was invited to spend an evening with Mr. and Mrs. Greeley and met for the first time Charles A. Dana, Alice and Phoebe Gary, Elizabeth F. Ellet, with a number of other literary men and women of New York. Mr. Greeley himself opened the door for them and sent them hunting through the house for a place to lay their wraps.