The Grimke Sisters Part 13

"1st. It is to reject with indignation the wild and guilty phantasy that man can hold _property_ in man.

"2d. To pay the laborer his hire, for he is worthy of it.

"3d. No longer to deny him the right of marriage, but to let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband, as saith the apostle.

"4th. To let parents have their own children, for they are the gift of the Lord to them, and no one else has any right to them.

"5th. No longer to withhold the advantages of education, and the privilege of reading the Bible.

"6th. To put the slave under the protection of equitable laws.

"Now why should not _all_ this be done immediately? Which of these things is to be done next year, and which the year after? and so on.

_Our_ immediate emanc.i.p.ation means doing justice and loving mercy _to-day_, and this is what we call upon every slave-holder to do....

"I have seen too much of slavery to be a gradualist. I dare not, in view of such a system, tell the slave-holder that he is 'physically unable to emanc.i.p.ate his slaves.'[6] I say _he is able_ to let the oppressed go free, and that such heaven-daring atrocities ought to cease _now_, henceforth, and forever. Oh, my very soul is grieved to find a Northern woman 'thus sewing pillows under all arm-holes,'

framing and fitting soft excuses for the slave-holder's conscience, whilst with the same pen she is _professing_ to regard slavery as a sin. 'An open enemy is better than such a secret friend.'

"Hoping that thou mayst soon be emanc.i.p.ated from such inconsistency, I remain until then,

"Thine _out_ of the bonds of Christian abolitionism.

"A.E. GRIMKe."

[6] The plea made by many of the apologists was that, as the laws of some of the States forbade emanc.i.p.ation, the masters were physically unable to free their slaves.

The last letter, which Angelina says she wrote in sadness and read to her sister in tears, ends thus:--

"After endeavoring to show that woman has no moral right to exercise the right of pet.i.tion for the dumb and stricken slave; no business to join, in any way, in the excitement which anti-slavery principles are producing in our country; no business to join abolition societies, etc., thou professest to tell our sisters what they are to do in order to bring the system of slavery to an end. And now, my dear friend, what does all thou hast said in many pages amount to? Why, that women are to exert their influence in private life to allay the excitement which exists on this subject, and to quench the flame of sympathy in the hearts of their fathers, husbands, brothers, and sons. Fatal delusion! Will Christian women heed such advice?

"Hast thou ever asked thyself what the slave would think of thy book if he could read it? Dost thou know that, from the beginning to the end, not a word of compa.s.sion for _him_ has fallen from thy pen?

Recall, I pray, the memory of hours which thou spent in writing it.

Was the paper once moistened by the tear of pity? Did thy heart once swell with sympathy for thy sister in _bonds_? Did it once ascend to G.o.d in broken accents for the deliverance of the captive? Didst thou even ask thyself what the free man of color would think of it? Is it such an exhibition of slavery and prejudice as will call down _his_ blessing on thy head? Hast thou thought of _these_ things? or carest thou not for the blessings and prayers of these our suffering brethren? Consider, I entreat, the reception given to thy book by the apologists of slavery. What meaneth that loud acclaim with which they hail it? Oh, listen and weep, and let thy repentings be kindled together, and speedily bring forth, I beseech thee, fruits meet for repentance, and henceforth show thyself faithful to Christ and His bleeding representative, the slave.

"I greatly fear that thy book might have been written just as well, hadst thou not had the heart of a woman. It bespeaks a superior intellect, but paralyzed and spellbound by the sorcery of a worldly-minded expediency. Where, oh, where in its pages are the outpourings of a soul overwhelmed with a sense of the heinous crimes of our nation, and the necessity of immediate repentance? ... Farewell!

Perhaps on a dying bed thou mayst vainly wish that '_Miss Beecher on the Slave Question_' might perish with the mouldering hand which penned its cold and heartless pages. But I forbear, and in deep sadness of heart, but in tender love though I thus speak, I bid thee again, farewell. Forgive me if I have wronged thee, and pray for her who still feels like

"Thy sister in the bonds of a common sisterhood.

"A.E. GRIMKe."

While Angelina was writing these letters, Sarah was publis.h.i.+ng her letters on the "Province of Woman" in the _Spectator_. This was a heavier dose than Boston could stand at one time; harsh and bitter things were said about the sisters, notices of their meetings were torn down or effaced, and abolitionism came to be so mixed up in the public mind with Woman's Rights, that anti-slavery leaders generally began to feel anxious lest their cause should suffer by being identified with one to which the large majority of abolitionists was decidedly opposed. Even among them, however, there was a difference of opinion, Garrison, H.C. Wright and others, non-resistants, encouraging the agitation of Woman's Rights. A few lines from one of Angelina's letters will best define the position taken by herself and Sarah.

"Sister and I," she writes, "feel quite ready for the discussion about women, but brothers Whittier and Weld entreat us to let it alone for the present, because it will involve topics of such vast importance,--a paid ministry, clerical domination, etc.,--and will, they fear, divert our attention and that of the community from the anti-slavery cause; and that the wrongs of the slave are so much greater than the wrongs of woman, they ought not to be confounded. In their letters, received last week, they regret exceedingly that the letters in the _Spectator_ had been written. They think just as we do, but believe that, for the time being, a persevering, practical a.s.sertion of woman's right to speak to mixed audiences is the best one we can make, and that we had better keep out of controversies, as our hands are full. On the other hand, we fear that the leaven of the Pharisees will be so a.s.siduously worked into the minds of the people, that if they come to hear us, they will be constantly thinking it is a _shame_ for us to speak in the churches, and that we shall lose that influence which we should otherwise have. We know that _our_ views on this subject are quite new to the _ma.s.s_ of the people of this State, and I think it best to throw them open for their consideration, just letting them have both sides of the argument to look at, at the same time. Indeed some wanted to have a meeting in Boston for us to speak on this subject now, and we went into town on purpose to hold a conference about it at Maria Chapman's. She, Mary Parker, and sister were against it for the present, fearing lest it would bring down such a storm upon our heads, that we could not work in the country, and so Henrietta Sargent and I yielded, and I suppose this is the wisest plan, though, as brother Stanton says, I am ready for the battle _now_. I am still glad of sister's letters, and believe they are doing great good. Some n.o.ble-minded women cheer her on, and she feels encouraged to persevere, the brethren notwithstanding. I tell them that this is _a part_ of the great doctrine of Human Rights, and can no more be separated from emanc.i.p.ation than the light from the heat of the sun; the rights of the slave and of woman blend like the colors of the rainbow. However, I rarely introduce this topic into my addresses, except to urge my sisters up to duty. Our _brethren_ are dreadfully afraid of this kind of amalgamation. I am very glad to hear that Lucretia Mott addressed the Moral Reform Society, and am earnest in the hope that _we_ are only pioneers, going before a host of worthy women who will come up to the help of the Lord against the mighty."

The letters of Whittier and Weld, alluded to by Angelina, are so good and so important that I feel no reluctance in giving them here almost entire. The first is Whittier's, and is dated: "Office of Am. A.S.

Soc., 14th of 8th Mo., 1837,"--and is as follows:

"MY DEAR SISTERS,--I have been waiting for an opportunity to answer the letter which has been so kindly sent me. I am anxious, too, to hold a long conversation with you on the subject of _war_, human government, and church and family government. The more I reflect on this subject, the more difficulty I find, and the more decidedly am I of opinion that we ought to hold all these matters far aloof from the cause of abolition. Our good friend, H.C. Wright, with the best intentions in the world, is doing great injury by a different course.

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_.'