June 1866 — Connecticut Legislature, Legislative Hall, New Haven State House, New Haven CT

 

Gentlemen of the Judiciary Committee:

In compliance with the kind invitation your gallantry has prompted you to extend to me, to meet yon here in session, to consider the merits of the “Petition for the Protection of the Rights of Married Women,” which the General Assembly has respectfully referred for your consideration, I have come to plead in its defense.

And here, gentlemen of the Judiciary Committee, allow me first to extend to yon my thanks, for allowing me the high honor and privilege of defending so noble a cause as woman — and to defend it, too, in the presence of intelligent, manly gentlemen, whose God-like natures predispose and capacitate you to view this subject from tills most favorable stand-point.

Indeed, gentlemen, just consider for one moment the noble position you now occupy. Here are the names of two hundred and fifty men, citizens of the first character and standing in this city, who have sent up a petition in behalf of the rights of married women and ask you, the law-makers of this Republic, to consider, and, if possible, to so ameliorate married woman’s legal position, as to remove some of her many legal disabilities.

Really is not this fact of itself, a speaking proof of the principle, that man is woman’s protector? And does he not ever esteem it his highest honor thus to identify himself with this most God-like principle.? And have not we, women, everything to hope for, from this instinctive uprising of the manly element in our defense?

We do not desire, nor ask, for the privilege of defending ourselves.

No, neither do our petitioners give us any occasion for go doing; for they have anticipated us, in thus proposing to ameliorate our legal position, without even waiting for us to ask them to do so.

Again, men are not only our petitioners, but they have asked the men, not us, to devise how this can be done. They do not ask us to frame their laws for our protection, but have even volunteered to do it for us.

All that they have thus left us to do, is, to fulfill woman’s appointed mission — to bless and sanctify home, by her refined influence, and leave it wholly to the men to protect us, in this our hallowed sphere.

Is it not an honor, much to be coveted, in us natural women, to live in Connecticut, where the manliness of our protectors not only allows us the high privilege of fulfilling the duties of our heaven-appointed sphere, but also proposes to protect us in this sphere, so long as our good conduct deserves such protection?

Yes, for one, I rejoice that man is the law maker of this Republic, fully satisfied as I am that woman’s cause could not be in better or safer hands, were she allowed to be her own protector. Nature and the Bible, both harmonize with this most manly feature of Connecticut’s espousal of woman’s cause, and thus being in the track of Nature, we are sanguine of ultimate success.

Yes, sanguine, that Connecticut is to secure to herself Use high honor of being the van of this great American Republic, by being the pioneer State in woman’s Emancipation.

“Woman’s Emancipation! What! Is woman a slave in Connecticut? Have we not emancipated all our slaves long ago?

Yes, thank heaven! Connecticut was one of the pioneer states in negro emancipation, and she now intends to secure to herself the highest kind of honor, as a State, in being the honored pioneer in emancipating woman from the chains of married servitude!

“Chains of married servitude! Are our women, in Connecticut, in chains?

“Away with such an idea! Our wives are our companions, our partners, the best part of ourselves, how then is it, Mrs. Packard, that you can call them our slaves?”

Bear with me, my gallant brothers, and I will tell you, for your ignorance is a sure passport to your gallantry, in that you have never used your power, as a master, over your slave. “They are, socially, as you say, your companions, your partners, your better halves; but legally, they are your slaves, and it is to break their fetters, to legally emancipate woman, that your petitioners have sent up this petition.

Let us test this question. What is a slave?

A slave is a dependent, one emancipated to a master, one in the power of another, one who has lost the power of resistance; and married woman, being legally a “nonentity,” on the principle of “common law,” throughout the United States, is therefore an American slave, while she is a married woman, in that she loses all power of resistance when she becomes, legally, a wife; for henceforth, she is wholly at the mercy and will of one man, with no sort of legal power to resist this will, than the slave has to resist the will of his master. He has the same legal power to subject his wife, that the master has to subject his slave.

And now, since America has emancipated the negro slave from bondage to a one man power, we married slaves fondly hope that our emancipation draws near — yea, may quickly follow in the wake of negro emancipation!

But, gentlemen, in securing our emancipation you will have to encounter the same pro-slavery arguments and spirit, as their emancipators did, viz.:

“That the slaves are better off as they now are — that they are taken better care of by their masters than they could take of themselves — that the interest of the master demands the good treatment of his slave — that public sentiment is a sufficient law of protection to the slave’s interest — that the subjection of the wife is the Bible law of marriage — and besides, there is not one married woman in a thousand who even knows that she is a slave.

Blissful ignorance! Would that there were no exceptions! But alas! the exceptions are fast becoming the rule, looking from the stand-point of applications for a divorce.

Indeed, gentlemen, there is a cause for this terrible upheaving of the social element. Our divorce laws are destroying the very structures of civilized society. Yes, the monogamic principle of Christianity and civilization is being rapidly supplanted by the polygamic principles of barbarism.

And you know, gentlemen, that it is an infallible principle of ethics, that all effects have a cause, somewhere. And now I wish to present this one great question to you — the lawmakers of this Republic for your candid, calm consideration, viz.:

Does not the radical cause for these divorces lie in the nonentity principle of the wife? that is — in your holding her legally, as a slave, with no power of resistance to this “one man power,” and no protection, from its abuse, except the law of divorce? And, besides, since the principle of slavery is wrong, and the principle of freedom is right, is it not right in itself, that woman should be legally emancipated?

The only right I came here to claim for woman is her right to be protected by our man government. Not protected as a slave, wholly dependent upon the will of one man: but protected as a woman, as a companion of her husband, as one who has rights, as a woman equally dear and sacred to her, as man has rights, as a man equally dear and sacred to himself. Our rights are not man’s rights, neither are man’s rights woman’s rights. Both are different, yet both are inalienable, and both equally sacred.

Man has rights as the head of the family which the wife has not. Even nature and the Bible both teach, that man is the head of the marriage firm.

As I view the subject, the different spheres of man and woman are definitely defined in the Bible. It seems to me to be the appointment of God, that man should bear the toil, and woman bear the children.

Now, if man is made the responsible head of the family so far as providing for its pecuniary interests are concerned, it seems to me he should be the head of finance, in the family realm, and every woman should consider it beneath the dignity of her nature to dictate to her husband in this department, in any such sense as to trammel his own reason and judgment in this matter. The man’s reason should dictate his business, not his wife, and the manhood of that man’s God-like nature, is yet in an undeveloped state, where he will consent to be dictated to, by his wife, in defiance of his own reason and judgment.

I say dictated — not influenced by his wife — for, I say further, that a man is less than a man who will not be influenced by his wife through his affection and reason, if her reasons are sound and logical, and her affections pure and chaste.

A being, in the form of a man, who will despise a sound argument — a truth — merely because a woman was its medium to him, is a being fit only to be despised; and deserves to be ranked among the woman haters of society.

But, thank God! this perverted class of human kind, are the exceptions, not the rule — for, in most cases, the manliness of his nature will prompt him to consult his wife’s feelings and wishes as his better half — his junior partner even, in his family interests; but, the ultimate decision in this department must, and should be left with the husband — the senior partner of the firm, as the responsible head of the financial department.

And it should be the first and paramount duty of this responsible senior, to provide a suitable home for his dependent family, and so secure it to them, that any financial failure on his part, would not endanger the family homo. Then the wife conid safely trust her fortune, where she could herself, knowing that her department of the finance — her home — is safe, and beyond the reach of his financial misfortunes to alienate.

And here, in this family home, made secure to her by the Government, she should be the legally constituted mistress, in this, her heaven-appointed sphere. And here too, she should be the legally appointed head of her own special department — viz — rearing the children. Here the Government should protect the mother as the natural guardian of her own children.

And the paternal power should be enforced as the natural protective power which the mother seeks as her own right by nature. And should any degree of depravity tempt him to betray tills most manly of all trusts, the protection of the maternity to his own wife, let the Government enforce it, as an obligation.

Again, no man should be allowed to lord it over and dictate to his wife in this, her God-assigned sphere, any more than the wife should be allowed to dictate to her husband, in his God-appointed sphere. But the true woman, like the true man, will naturally consult the wishes and feelings of her husband, in this matter, as he does hers, in his department. But the ultimate decision in this department, must be left to the wife.

In other words the wife should be the legally constituted Queen at home, in the same sense in which the husband is the King abroad.

Again, the husband is the “head of the wife;” for God says, “he shall rule over.” Now this husband’s rule over the wife is, as I view it, the rule of protection and love — not the rule of subjection and hate. For the practice of subjection in this conjugal sphere, is as inseparably connected with the feeling of hate, toward the one he has subjected, as the feeling of love is identified with the practice of protection towards the wife.

Our feelings grow out of our actions. If we act wrong, we shall feel wrong — if we act right, we shall feel right. And there is no other way to develop the feeling but by action.

For example, the only possible way for one to have a liar’s feelings is to tell a lie, and then he will be sure of feeling like a liar — let him steal, and he can’t help feeling like a thief. So also to know what it is to have a good, kind, generous, benevolent feeling, let him perform some good, kind, generous, benevolent deeds; these correspondent feelings are the inevitable result of his good actions.

So if this rule of the husband over the wife is confined to the rule of protection, his feelings will be confined to the love sphere. But if he can, and does subject his wife, his feelings pass directly on the opposite sphere of hate, and no power can prevent it; for God’s laws are immutable.

So the only possible way to insure love and harmony in the marriage union, is to secure the natural order God has established, as its only inflexible, enduring basis.

The Government then, whose chief intent and purpose is, to protect the weak against the usurpation of the strong, should not allow the husband to rule over the wife in any other sense than that of protection.

This protection of her interests should belike that exercised by the sun, in his protecting his moon in her orbit. He should not be allowed to so exercise his compripetal (sp) power, as to draw the moon entirely out of her God-appointed orbit, and so completely absorb her into himself, as to leave her no orbit at all.

No, he should be satisfied to be the King of the day, and let her remain the Queen of the night, ruling with her soft and gentle influences, the mighty train of brilliant stars which God has assigned her, as her own most fitting companions and associates.

In short, all that we ask for woman is, that her natural rights, as a woman, such as a right to herself, a right to her children, a right to be the mistress of her own house, be as well protected, by law, after she is married, as they are when she is single, with this difference, only, viz: that after she is married, this protection come to her through her husband, the natural protector of his wife, instead of directly from the Government, as before marriage. And in case the husband fails in his obligations to his wife as her protector, let the Government hold him responsible for the discharge of these obligations, as his duty.

Then let two equally protected identities form one union, which neither can have cause for dissolving, without an illegal trespass upon each others’ rights.

As the case now stands, the husband, being the only legally protected partner in the union, can legally usurp all the rights of the wife, leaving her no chance for self-defense, except that of leaving the union, by secession or divorce.

What we want is, protection in the union, not a separation or a divorce from it. Or in other words, we want protection from the cause of divorce.

No lady wants to be a divorced woman, but she wants to be a married woman, and protected as a married woman. So long as her good conduct deserves it, she wants protection for herself, and her children, in the home their joint interests have provided for them. She don’t want to be driven into a divorced state in order to secure the protection of her natural rights, against the usurping power of her husband.

Now, gentlemen, I am sorry to own it, this seems to be the tendency of the legislation of the present day, in respect to the marriage union. And it seems to me to be very unjust legislation. For, as woman’s case now stands, good conduct, even the best, is no sort of guarantee of protection for her, while in the marriage union; since you have licensed her husband with almost almighty power to oppress her, without giving her the least chance for self-defense from this power, while in the union.

Gentlemen — representatives of our manly Government — we would not upbraid you for placing us in this legal position. Indeed, it is not you who have done it, it is the antiquarians of by-gone days, who subjected woman as the mere slave of her husband, who have assigned us our present legal position.

And since the law of love protects the wife in most instances, our Government may have felt that no modification of the nonentity principle of the wife, was needed, as a self-defensive measure. They have doubtless considered the husband as the only protection which the married woman needed, since the God-like principle of manliness would prompt a true man to protect his wife, even sooner than lie would himself.

And so it is, and we most cheerfully admit, that it is only for the exceptional cases, that the legal identity of the wife is needed, as a means of self-defense.

But as you do in other cases, make laws for the exceptional cases; laws for criminals for example, do not imply that all need such a restraint, but some cases do need them, therefore they are made for the exceptional cases.

So in the exercise of this marital power, the cases where it is abused demand some restraint to protect the oppressed wife. And it certainly is very manly in our Government, to protect confiding woman against this form of oppression, as well as any other form of abuse.

Again, it is anti-Christian legislation. As we view it, there is but one law of divorce permitted by the Great Founder of the Christian dispensation; and so, in cases where this cause does not exist, there seems to be no Bible license for a divorce.

Thus the conscientious, Christian wife is compelled to do violence to her conscience, in consenting to be divorced, contrary to the principles of the divine law. And where human and divine laws conflict, what can she do?

Is she not compelled, either to do violence to her enlightened conscience, by getting a divorce; or continue to suffer that oppression and abuse which is, to her, a lingering, living death?

Gentlemen, the legal protectors of my sex, will you not furnish these worthy, confiding dependants upon your magnanimity, with some safe refuge, which can save both their consciences and themselves from violence?

To illustrate and enforce my argument, gentlemen, may I not be allowed to cite my own case, egotistical as it may seem to be? Gentlemen, I have exercised the dauntless courage of true woman, in daring to assert my right to my individuality, in defiance of the nonentity principle of this American legislation. I have simply claimed the right to my own thoughts. And what has been the result?

Gentlemen, I have had to make shipwreck of all the most sacred, dearest rights of womanhood. A right to my husband — a right to my children — a right to my person — a right to my furniture — a right to my money — a right to my wardrobe — a right to my home — a right to my liberty. And, as an equivalent for all this mighty sacrifice, I retain only the legal right of being imprisoned for life, as a State pauper in a State Lunatic Asylum!

Yes, ’tis true, this is the only right my legally appointed guardian allows me. And no man, woman, or child, has any right to say it shall not be so. I am legally helpless in the absolute power of this one man tyrant.

My God-like brothers, can you deliver me? Can you befriend me?

If so, you can deliver, you can befriend all the dear sisterhood whom I represent.

Brothers, I need your protection! I need emancipation!

All my life-earnings, yea! myself, is in the absolute power of this unjust and cruel man. I have naught that I once possessed, save my stainless character, my education, and my health. On this capital alone have I staked my liberty, my emancipation. With this battery I am battling for my freedom, for justice, for right.

And, Oh, my God! sustain Thou me in this terrible conflict.

And, if it is possible, spare, Oh! spare! my earthly father, till the victory is achieved! for he is the only protector of whom my persecutor stands in any fear.

Oh, my Connecticut brothers, let him fear your laws — let him fear your legislation —  and then your sisters will be delivered from liabilities like my own.

And will you not do it?

Can you consent to pass off the stage of action, and leave your darling daughter, your beloved sister, yea, even your better-half, legally exposed and liable to suffer all I have suffered, from this abuse of marital power? Will you not, for their sakes, cast your vote into the scales of woman’s emancipation, and thus enter your God-like protest against married servitude?

Gentlemen, my case, although an extreme one, may not be so rare an exception as you may strive to fondly imagine it to be.

No, God only knows how many a sainted wife and mother has been ground down and trampled into the very dust, crushed by the arbitrary power of perverted manhood.

My brothers, ’tis true, many a nobly endowed woman has been crushed, subjected to a tyrant’s control, and has been led to desire death, rather than such a life of cruel bondage.

Yea, God only knows how long is that train of living martyrs who have gone up to God’s throne and God’s tribunal to get their wrongs avenged on earth, because they had no protection, no claims for justice at their country’s tribunal. Have they appealed to this higher court in vain?

No. The Judge of all the earth will do right. And will not the claims of this host of martyred married slaves be exacted from that government which would not protect their identity from the usurpation of perverted manhood?

Yes, ’tis true, this Government has a long account to settle for protecting, by its laws, that most guilty of all oppressors, an oppressive husband.

Gentlemen of the Judiciary Committee, on you now rests the responsibility of continuing to shelter these oppressors, under such laws, as obliterate the personal identity of the largest and best part of our American citizens.

Henceforth, may we not fondly hope that married woman’s inalienable rights will be protected by the laws of Connecticut, so that on this great American continent there may be found one State where the married slave can find as safe a refuge from her oppressor as the negro slave once found in Canada?

Let the brave sons of Connecticut send forth their proclamation of freedom to woman! Then shall Connecticut’s envied territory henceforth be the home of the free, as well as the brave.

Again, I am still in danger of another kidnapping, and thereby our noble cause is jeopardized.

Yes, the same wicked spirit which has been, and still is, my persecutor, is now following this dear cause of woman’s emancipation, and is seeking its overthrow.

Gentlemen, have you not seen what a mighty avalanche of scandalous insinuations, and bare-faced lies, has just now been palmed off upon this credulous public, for the sole purpose of undermining my character as a sane person, knowing that just as soon as this public confidence in my sanity is destroyed, I shall be altogether helpless again, in the absolute power of my persecutor; and then he can kidnap me again and hide me for life in some lunatic asylum. And since no laws defend me, this may yet be done.

Should public sentiment — the only law of self-defense I have — endorse the statements of this terrible conspiracy, against the personal liberty and stainless character of an innocent woman, I may be yet again entombed to die a martyr for the Christian principle of the identity of a married woman.

Three long years of false imprisonment does not satisfy this lust for power to oppress the helpless!

No — nothing but a life-long entombment can satisfy the selfhood of my only legal protector!

Brothers, should the credulous public suffer me thus to die a martyr for woman’s cause, don’t let this precious cause be entombed with me. Oh! leave not this dear cause to the fickle decision of public sentiment, if you can afford me no other protection.

Public sentiment! What protection does that ensure to me?

Do you not see in our very midst, how very unstable is the verdict it renders me? Does it not one day cry, Hosannah! and the next, Crucify!

Oh! I do want laws to defend me; and as an American citizen, I not only ask, but I demand as my right, that my personal liberty shall depend upon the decision of a jury — not upon the verdict of public sentiment, or forged certificates either.

And here, I beg leave to enter my most solemn protest against the injustice of that legislation which suspends the personal liberty of any American citizen upon the certificate of any person, class, or oligarchy.

Again I say, my gallant brothers, he true to my cause, if false to me. Be true to woman! defend her, as your weak confiding sister, and heaven shall reward you.

This untimely bursting in upon our almost triumphant cause, of the spirit of this cruel conspiracy is designed by the woman-hating spirit which prompted it, to defeat the first progressive step of this new rallying army, in defense of woman’s emancipation.

But, my brothers — my dauntless brothers! be not afraid of this wicked host which is encamped against us. Be valiant for woman! God is on her side, and “he always wins who sides with God.”

Gentlemen of Connecticut Legislature, go forward! Emancipate woman! and put to flight this wicked host who have encamped against us. Fear not! Fear nothing so much as the sin of simply not doing your duty. Maintain your death grapple in defense of the heaven-born principles of liberty and justice to all human kind — especially to woman.

For above this cross hangs suspended a crown, of which, even our martyred Lincoln’s crown of negro emancipation is but a mere type and shadow, in brilliancy. And God grant! that this immortal crown of unfading honor may be the rightful heritage, the well earned reward, of Connecticut’s manly sons, as embodied in their Legislature of 1866, by the passage of the following bill, viz.:

“Any woman entering the marriage relation, shall retain the same legal existence which she possessed before marriage, and shall receive the same legal protection of her rights as a woman, which her husband does as a man. Should the husband’s power over the wife become an oppressive power, by any unjust usurpation of her natural rights, she shall have the same right to appeal to the Government for redress and protection that the husband has.”

 

 

Source: Modern Persecution, or Married Woman’s Liabilities, as Demonstrated by the Action of the Illinois Legislature, Vol. II, by Elizabeth P.W. Packard, (Hartford: 1873), pp. 393-406.