PROCEEDINGS.

Pursuant to a call previously issued, a Convention to consider the Rights, Duties, and Relations of Women, met at Brinley Hall, Worcester, Mass., on Wednesday, October 23, at 10 o'clock.

The Convention was called to order by Sarah H. Earle, of Worcester.

On motion of Mary A. W. Johnson, of Ohio, Joseph C. Hathaway, of Western New York, was chosen President, pro tem.

On motion of Phebe Goodwin, of Pennsylvania, Eliza J. Kenney, of Massachusetts, was chosen Secretary, pro tem.

On motion of Eliza Barney, of Massachusetts, a Nominating Committee was appointed by the Chair, namely:— Eliza Barney, of Massachusetts; C.I.H. Nichols, of Vermont; Asa Foster, of New Hampshire; Charles C. Burleigh, of Connecticut; Lydia Dennett, of Maine; Pliny Sexton, of New York; M.A.W. Johnson, of Ohio; Rebecca Plumley, of Pennsylvania; Susan R. Harris, of Rhode Island.

The Call of the Convention was then read by the President, pro tem, as follows:—

ADDRESS.

Usage assigns to the Chair of such Conventions as this, the duty of stating the objects of the meeting. But the published call under which we are convened presents such a summary of our objects as may suffice for mere statement; and the subject matters to be submitted, the points to be discussed, and the action contemplated by this Convention, are equally familiar to us all.

This leaves me at liberty to occupy your attention for a few moments with some general reflections upon the attitude and relations of our movement to our times and circumstances, and upon the proper spirit and method of promoting it.

I do not even intend to treat these topics formally, and I do not hope to do it successfully; for nothing less than a complete philosophy of reform could answer such inquiries, and that philosophy, it is very certain, the world has not yet discovered.

Human rights, and the reasons on which they rest, are not difficult of comprehension. The world has never been ignorant of them, nor insensible to them; and human wrongs and their evils are just as familiar to experience and as well understood; but all this is not enough to secure to mankind the possession of the one, or to relieve them from the felt burden and suffering of the other. A creed of abstract truths, or a catechism of general principles, and a completely digested list of grievances, combined, are not enough to adjust a practical reform to its proper work, else Prophets and Apostles and earnest world-menders in general would have been more successful, and left us less to wish and to do.

It is one thing to issue a declaration of rights or a declaration of wrongs to the world, but quite another thing wisely and happily to commend the subject to the world's acceptance, and so to secure the desired reformation. Every element of success is, in its own place and degree, equally important; but the very starting point is the adjustment of the reformer to his work, and next after that is the adjustment of his work to those conditions of the times which he seeks to influence.

0097

Those who prefer the end in view to all other things, are not contented with their own zeal and the discharge of their duty to their conscience. They desire the highest good for their follow-beings, and are not satisfied with merely clearing their own skirts; and they esteem martyrdom a failure at least, if not a fault, in the method of their action. It is not the salvation of their own souls they are thinking of, but the salvation of the world; and they will not willingly accept a discharge or a rejection in its stead. It is their business to preach righteousness and rebuke sin, but they have no quarrel with “the world that lieth in wickedness,” and their mission is not merely to judge and condemn, but to save alike the oppressor and the oppressed. Right principles and conformable means are the first necessities of a great enterprise, but without right apprehensions and tempers and expedient methods, the most beneficent purposes must utterly fail. Who is sufficient for these things?

Divine Providence has been baffled through all the ages of disorder and suffering for want of fitting agents and adapted means. Reformations of religion have proved but little better than the substitution of a new error for an old one, and civil revolutions have resolved themselves into mere civil insurrections, until history has become but a monument of buried hopes.

The European movement of 1848 was wanting neither in theory nor example for its safe direction, but it has nevertheless almost fallen into contempt.

We may not, therefore, rely upon a good cause and good intentions alone, without danger of deplorable disappointment.

The reformation which we purpose, in its utmost scope, is radical and universal. It is not the mere perfecting of a progress already in motion, a detail of some established plan, but it is an epochal movement—the emancipation of a class, the redemption of half the world, and a conforming re-organization of all social, political, and industrial interests and institutions. Moreover, it is a movement without example among the enterprises of associated reformations, for it has no purpose of arming the oppressed against the oppressor, or of separating the parties, or of setting up independence, or of severing the relations of either.

Its intended changes are to be wrought in the intimate texture of all societary organizations, without violence, or any form of antagonism. It seeks to replace the worn out with the living and the beautiful, so as to reconstruct without overturning, and to regenerate without 0108destroying; and nothing of the spirit, tone, temper, or method of insurrection, is proper or allowable to us and our work.

Human societies have been long working and fighting their way up from what we scornfully call barbarism, into what we boastfully call modern civilization; but, as yet, the advancement has been chiefly in ordering and methodizing the lower instincts of our nature, and organizing society under their impulses. The intellect of the masses has received immense development, and the gentler affections have been somewhat relieved from the dominion of force; but the institutions among men are not yet modelled after the highest laws of our nature. The masterdom of the strong hand and bold spirit is not yet over, for men have not yet established all those natural claims against each other, which seem to demand physical force and physical courage for their vindication. But the age of war is drawing towards a close, and that of peace (whose methods and end alike are harmony) is dawning, and the uprising of womanhood is its prophecy and foreshadow.

The first principles of human rights have now for a long time been abstractly held and believed, and both in Europe and America whole communities have put them into practical operation in some of their bearings. Equality before the law, and the right of the governed to choose their governors, are established maxims of reformed political science; but in the countries most advanced, these doctrines and their actual benefits are as yet enjoyed exclusively by the sex that in the battle-field and the public forum has wrenched them from the old time tyrannies. They are yet denied to Woman, because she has not yet so asserted or won them for herself; for political justice pivots itself upon the barbarous principle that “Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow.” Its furthest progress toward magnanimity is to give arms to helplessness. It has not yet learned to give justice. For this rule of barbarism there is this much justification, that although every human being is naturally entitled to every right of the race, the enjoyment and administration of all rights require such culture and conditions in their subject as usually lead him to claim and struggle for them; and the contented slave is left in slavery, and the ignorant man in darkness, on the inference that he cannot use what he does not desire. This is indeed true of the animal instincts, but it is false of the nobler soul; and men must learn that the higher faculties must be first awakened, and then gratified, before they have done their duty to their race. The ministry of angels to dependent humanity is the 0119method of Divine Providence, and among men the law of heaven is, that the “elder shall serve the younger.” But let us not complain that the hardier sex overvalue the force which heretofore has figured most in the world's affairs. “They know not what they do,” is the apology that crucified womanhood must concede in justice and pity to the wrong doers. In the order of things, the material world was to be first subdued. For this coarse conflict, the larger bones and stronger sinews of manhood are especially adapted, and it is a law of muscles and of all matter that might shall overcome right. This is the law of the vegetable world, and it is the law of the animal world, as well as the law of the animal instincts and of the physical organization of men; but it is not the law of spirit and affection.They are of such a nature as to charge themselves with the atonement for all evils, and to burden themselves with all the sufferings which they would remove.

This wisdom is pure, and peaceable, and gentle, and full of mercy and of good fruits.

Besides the feebler frame, which under the dynasty of muscles is degraded, there remains, even after justice has got the upper hand of force in the world's judgments, a mysterious and undefined difference of sex that seriously embarrasses the question of equality; or, if that is granted in terms, of equal fitness for avocations and positions which heretofore have been the monopoly of men. Old ideas and habits of mind survive the facts which produced them, as the shadows of night stretch far into the morning, sheltered in nooks and valleys from the rising light; and it is the work of a whole creation-day to separate the light from the darkness.

The rule of difference between the sexes must be founded on the traits which each estimates most highly in the other; and it is not at all wonderful that some of woman's artificial incapacities and slaveries may seem to be necessary to some of her excellencies; just as the chivalry that makes man a butcher of his kind still glares like a glory in the eyes of admiring womanhood, and all the more because it seems so much above and unlike her own powers and achievements. Nature does not teach that men and women are unequal, but only that they are unlike; an unlikeness so naturally related and dependent that their respective differences by their balance establish, instead of destroying, their equality.

Men are not in fact, and to all intents, equal among themselves, but their theoretical equality for all the purposes of justice is more easily seen and allowed than what we are here to claim for women. Higher 01210views, nicer distinctions, and a deeper philosophy are required to see and feel the truths of woman's rights; and besides, the maxims upon which men distribute justice to each other have been battle-cries for ages, while the doctrine of woman's true relations in life is a new science, the revelation of an advanced age, — perhaps, indeed, the very last grand movement of humanity towards its highest destiny, — too new to be yet fully understood, too grand to grow out of the broad and coarse generalities which the infancy and barbarism of society could comprehend.

The rule of force and fraud must be well nigh overturned, and learning and religion and the fine arts must have cultivated mankind into a state of wisdom and justice tempered by the most beneficent affections, before woman can be fully installed in her highest offices. We must be gentle with the ignorance and patient under the injustice which old evils induce. Long suffering is a quality of the highest wisdom, and charity beareth all things for it hopeth all things. It will be seen that I am assuming the point that the redemption of the inferior, if it comes at all, must come from the superior. The elevation of a favored caste can have no other providential purpose than that, when it is elevated near enough to goodness and truth, it shall draw up its dependents with it.

But, however this may be in the affairs of men as they are involved with each other, it is clearly so in the matter of woman's elevation. The tyrant sex, if such we choose to term it, holds such natural and necessary relations to the victims of injustice, that neither rebellion nor revolution, neither defiance nor resistance, nor any mode of assault or defence incident to party antagonism, is either possible, expedient, or proper. Our claim must rest on its justice, and conquer by its power of truth. We take the ground, that whatever has been achieved for the race belongs to it, and must not be usurped by any class or caste. The rights and liberties of one human being cannot be made the property of another, though they were redeemed for him or her by the life of that other; for rights cannot be forfeited by way of salvage, and they are in their nature unpurchasable and inalienable.

We claim for woman a full and generous investiture of all the blessings which the other sex has solely or by her aid achieved for itself. We appeal from men's injustice and selfishness to their principles and affections.

For some centuries now, the best of them have been asserting, with their lives, the liberties and rights of the race; and it is not for the 01311few endowed with the highest intellect, the largest frame, or even the soundest morals, that the claim has been maintained, but broadly and bravely and nobly it has been held that wherever a faculty is given, its highest activities are chartered by the Creator, and that all objects alike — whether they minister to the necessities of our animal life or to the superior powers of the human soul and so are more imperatively needed, because nobler than the bread that perishes in the use — are, of common right, equally open to ALL; and that all artificial restraints, for whatever reason imposed, are alike culpable for their presumption, their folly, and their cruelty.

It is pitiable ignorance and arrogance for either man or woman now to prescribe and limit the sphere of woman. It remains for the greatest women whom appropriate culture, and happiest influences shall yet develope, to declare and to prove what are woman's capacities and relations in the world.

I will not accept the concession of any equality which means identity or resemblance of faculty and function. I do not base her claims upon any such parallelism of constitution or attainment. I ask only freedom for the natural unfolding of her powers, the conditions most favorable for her possibilities of growth, and the full play of all those incentives which have made man her master, and then, with all her natural impulses and the whole heaven of hope to invite, I ask that she shall fill the place that she can attain to, without settling any unmeaning questions of sex and sphere, which people gossip about for want of principles of truth, or the faculty to reason upon them.

But it is not with the topics of our reform and the discussion of these that I am now concerned. It is of its position in the world's opinion, and the causes of this, that I am thinking; and I seek to derive hints and suggestions as to the method and manner of successful advocacy, from the inquiry. Especially am I solicitous that the good cause may suffer no detriment from the theoretical principles its friends may assume, or the spirit with which they shall maintain them. It is fair to presume that such causes as have obscured these questions in the general judgment of the governing sex, must also more or less darken the counsels of those most anxious for truth and right. If our demand were simply for chartered rights, civil and political, such as get acknowledgment in paper constitutions, there would be no ground of doubt. We could plead our common humanity, and claim an equal justice. We might say that the natural right of self-government is so clearly due to every human being alike, that it needs no argument 01412to prove it; and if some or a majority of women would not exercise this right, this is no ground for taking it from those who would. And the right to the control and enjoyment of her own property and partnership in all that she helps her husband to earn and save, needs only to be stated to command instant assent. Her appropriate avocations might not be so easily settled that a programme could be completed on theoretical principles merely; but we need discuss no such difficulties while we ask only for liberty of choice, and opportunities of adaptation; and the question of her education is solved by the simple principle, that whatever she can receive is her absolute due.

Yet all these points being so easily disposed of, so far as they are mere matters of controversy, the advocates of the right need none the less the wisest and kindest consideration for all the resistance we must encounter, and the most forbearing patience under the injustice and insolence to which we must expose ourselves. And we can help ourselves to much of the prudence and some of the knowledge we shall need, by treating the prejudices of the public as considerately as if they were principles, and the customs of society as if they once had some temporary necessity, and so meet them with the greater force for the claim to respect which we concede to them. For a prejudice is just like any other error of judgment, and a custom has sometimes had some fitness to things more or less necessary, and is not an utter absurdity, even though the reason on which it was based is lost or removed. Who shall say that there is nothing serious, or respectable, or just, in the repugnance with which our propositions are received? The politician who knows his own corruption may be excused for an earnest wish to save his wife and daughter from the taint, and he must be excused, too, for not knowing that the corruption would be cured by the saving virtue which he dreads to expose to risk.

There may be real though very foolish tenderness in the motive which refuses to open to woman the trades and professions that she could cultivate and practice with equal profit and credit to herself. The chivalry that worships womanhood is not mean, though it at the same time enslaves the objects of its overfond care.

And it is even possible that men may deprive women of their property and liberties, personal and political, with the kindly purpose of accommodating their supposed incapacities for the offices and duties of human life. Harsh judgments and harsh words will neither weaken the opposition, nor strengthen our hands. Our address is to the highest sentiment of the times; and the tone and spirit due to it and 01513becoming in ourselves, are courtesy and respectfulness. Strength and truth of complaint, and eloquence of denunciation, are easy of attainment; but the wisdom of affirmative principles and positive science, and the adjustment of reformatory measures to the exigencies of the times and circumstances, are so much the more useful as they are difficult of attainment. A profound expediency, as true to principle as it is careful of success, is, above all things, rare and necessary. We have to claim liberty without its usually associated independence. We must insist on separate property where the interests are identical, and a division of profits where the very being of the partners is blended. We must demand provisions for differences of policy, where there should be no shadow of controversy; and the free choice of industrial avocations and general education, without respect to the distinctions of sex and natural differences of faculty.

In principle these truths are not doubtful, and it is therefore not impossible to put them in practice, but they need great clearness in system and steadiness of direction to get them allowance and adoption in the actual life of the world. The opposition should be consulted where it can be done without injurious consequences. Truth must not be suppressed, nor principles crippled, yet strong meat should not be given to babes. Nor should the strong use their liberties so as to become a stumbling block to the weak. Above all things, we owe it to the earnest expectation of the age, that stands trembling in mingled hope and fear of the great experiment, to lay its foundations broadly and securely in philosophic truth, and to form and fashion it in practical righteousness. To accomplish this, we cannot be too careful or too brave, too gentle or too firm; and yet with right dispositions and honest efforts, we cannot fail of doing our share of the great work, and thereby advancing the highest interests of humanity.

Lucretia Mott spoke at length upon the condition of women, and the duties devolving upon this Convention, that it may do its part toward her elevation.

On motion of M.A.W. Johnson, the Nominating Committee were appointed to nominate a Business Committee, who reported the following names, which were approved by the Convention:—

M.A.W. Johnson, of Ohio; Wm. Lloyd Garrison, of Massachusetts; Ernestine L. Rose, of New York; Harriet K. Hunt, 01614of Massachusetts; Lucretia Mott, of Pennsylvania; Lucy Stone, of Massachusetts; W.H. Channing, of Massachusetts; E.W. Capron, of Rhode Island; Abby H. Price, of Massachusetts; Wm. Fish, of Massachusetts, Samuel May, Jr., of Massachusetts; Susan Sisson, of Rhode Island; Anna Q.T. Parsons, of Massachusetts; Frederick Douglass, of New York.

On motion of S.S. Foster, all persons present were invited to take part in the discussions, but those only who enrolled their names as members were allowed to vote.

J.C. Hathaway read letters from Elizur Wright, E.A. Lukens, L.A. Hine, and Elizabeth Wilson.

On motion, adjourned.

CENTRAL COMMITTEE.

PAULINA W. DAVIS, Providence, R.I., Chairman.

SARAH H. EARLE. Worcester, Mass., Secretary.

WENDELL PHILLIPS, Boston, Mass., Treasurer.

MARY A.W. JOHNSON, Salem, Ohio.

WILLIAM H. CHANNING, Boston, Mass.

GERRIT SMITH, Peterboro', N.Y.

JOHN G. FORMAN, West Bridgewater, Mass.

MARTHA H. MOWRY, Providence, R.I.

LUCY STONE, West Brookfield, Mass.

JOSEPH C. HATHAWAY, Farmington, N.Y.

ABBY K. FOSTER, Worcester, Mass.

PLINY SEXTON, Palmyra, N.Y.

J. ELIZABETH JONES, Salem, Ohio.

WILLIAM ELDER, Philadelphia, Penn.

WILLIAM STEDMAN, Randolph, Stark Co., Ohio.

EMILY ROBINSON, Marlborough,

ABBY H. PRICE, Hopedale, Mass.

WILLIAM L. GARRISON, Boston, Mass.

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION.

ELIZA BARNEY, Nantucket, Mass., Chairman.

MARIAN BLACKWELL, Cincinnati, Ohio, Secretary.

ELIZABETH C. STANTON, Seneca Falls, N.Y.

ELIZA TAFT, Dedham, Mass.

C.I.H. NICHOLS, Brattleboro', Vt.

CALVIN FAIRBANKS, Maine.

HANNAH DARLINGTON, Kennet Square, Penn.

ANN ELIZA BROWN, Brattleboro', Vt.

02119COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRIAL AVOCATIONS.

CHARLES F. HOVEY, Boston, Mass.,Chairman.

PHILINDA JONES, Worcester, Mass., Secretary.

HARRIET K. HUNT, Boston, Mass.

ELIZABETH BLACKWELL, London, England.

BENJAMIN S. TREANOR, Boston, Mass.

EBENEZER D. DRAPER, Hopedale, Milford, Mass.

PHEBE GOODWIN, Delaware Co., Penn.

ALICE JACKSON, Avondale, West Chester Co., Penn.

MARIA WARING, Dublin, Ireland.

COMMITTEE ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL FUNCTIONS.

ERNESTINE L. ROSE, New York, Chairman.

LUCY STONE, West Brookfield, Mass., Secretary.

WENDELL PHILLIPS, Boston, Mass.

HANNAH STICKNEY, Philadelphia, Penn.

SARAH HALLOCK, Milton, N.Y.

ABBY K. FOSTER, Worcester, Mass.

CHARLES C. BURLEIGH, Plainfield, Conn.

ELIZABETH C. STANTON, Seneca Falls, N.Y.

WILLIAM L. GARRISON, Boston, Mass.

COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL RELATIONS.

LUCRETIA MOTT, Philadelphia, Penn., Chairman.

WILLIAM H. CHANNING, Boston, Mass., Secretary.

ANNA Q.T. PARSONS, Boston, Mass.

WILLIAM H. FISH, Hopedale, Milford, Mass.

REBECCA PLUMLEY, Philadelphia, Penn.

ELIZABETH B. CHASE, Valley Falls, R.I.

JOHN G. FORMAN, West Bridgewater, Mass.

HENRY FISH, Hopedale, Milford, Mass.

MARY GREW, Philadelphia, Penn.

COMMITTEE OF PUBLICATION.

PAULINA W. DAVIS,

WILLIAM L. GARRISON,

WILLIAM H. CHANNING.

02220

LETTERS.

From Mrs. Elizabeth C. Stanton. Seneca Falls, Sunday, Oct. 20.

My Dear Friend:— As you have handed over to me the case of those women who have fears in regard to the propriety of woman's exercising her political rights, I would gladly embrace this opportunity to address them through your Convention.

No one denies our right to the elective franchise, unless we except those who go against all human governments, and the non-resistant, who condemns a government of force, though I think the latter might consistently contend for the right, even if she might not herself choose to exercise it. But to those who believe in having a government — to those who believe that no just government can be formed without the consent of the governed — to them would I appeal, and of them do I demand some good reason why one half of the citizens of this Republic have no voice in the laws which govern them.

The right is one question, and the propriety of exercising it quite another. The former is undeniable, and against the latter I have never heard one solid objection that would not apply equally to man and woman.

Some tell us that if woman should interest herself in political affairs, it would destroy all domestic harmony. What, say they, would be the consequence, if husband and wife should not agree in their views of political economy? Because, forsooth, husband and wife may chance to differ in their theological sentiments, shall woman have no religion? Because she may not choose to worship at the same altar with her liege lord, must she of necessity do up all her worshipping in private, in her own closet? Because she might choose to deposit her vote for righteous rulers — such as love justice, mercy, truth, and oppose a husband, father, or brother, who would, by their votes, place political power in the hands of unprincipled men, swearing, fighting, leaders of armies, rumsellers and drunkards, slaveholders and 05452prating northern hypocrites, who would surrender the poor panting fugitive from bondage into the hands of his blood-thirsty pursuers — shall she not vote at all? It is high time that men learned to tolerate independence of thought and opinion in the women of their household.

It would not make much difference in man's every day life, in his social enjoyments, whether his wife differed with him as to the locality of hell, the personality of the devil, or the comparative altitude of the saintships of Peter and Paul; as to one's right to as much air, water, light, and land as he might need for his necessities; as to the justice of free trade, free schools, the inviolable homestead, and personal freedom — provided the husband had a great head and heart, and did not insist upon doing up all the thinking and talking in the establishment himself, or the wife was not a miserable formalist, like Mrs. Swisshelm's Deborah Elmsley. Much of this talk about domestic harmony is the sheerest humbug. Look around among your whole circle of friends, and tell me, you who know what transpires behind the curtain, how many truly harmonious households have we now. Quiet households we may have, but submission and harmony produce very different states of quietness. There is no true happiness where there is subordination — no harmony without freedom.

But, say some, would you have women vote? What, refined, delicate women at the polls, mingling in such scenes of violence and vulgarity! By all means, where there is so much to be feared for the pure, the innocent, the noble, the mother surely should be there to watch and guard her sons who are to encounter such stormy, dangerous scenes at the tender age of twenty-one. Much is said of woman's influence: might not her presence do much toward softening down this violence, refining this vulgarity? Depend upon it, that places which, by their impure atmosphere, are rendered unfit for woman cannot but be dangerous to her sires and sons. But if woman claims all the rights of a citizen, will she buckle on her armor and fight in defence of her country? Has not woman already often shown herself as courageous in the field, as wise and patriotic in counsel, as man? Have you not had the brave Jagello in your midst, and vied with each other to touch but the hem of her garment? But for myself, I believe all war sinful; I believe in Christ; I believe that the command, “Resist not evil,” is divine; I would not have man go to war; I can see no glory in fighting with such weapons as guns and swords, while man has in his possession the infinitely superior and more effective ones of righteousness and truth.

05553

But if woman votes, would you have her hold office? Most certainly would we have woman hold office. We would have man and woman what God intended they should be, companions for each other, always together, in counsel, government, and every department of industry. If they have homes and children, we would have them stay there, educate their children, provide well for their physical wants, and share in each other's daily trials and cares. Children need the watchful care and wise teachings of fathers as well as of mothers. No man should give up a profitable business, leave his wife and children month after month, and year after year, and make his home desolate for any false ideas of patriotism, for any vain love of display or ambition for fame and distinction. The highest, holiest duty of both father and mother is to their children and each other, and when they can show to the world a well-developed, wisely-governed family, then let the State profit by their experience. Having done their duty at home, let them together sit in our national councils. The violence, rowdyism, and vulgarity which now characterize our Congressional Halls, show us clearly that “it is not good for man to be alone.” The purifying, elevating, softening influence of woman is a most healthful restraint on him at all times and in all places. We have many noble women in our land, free from all domestic incumbrances, who might grace a Senate chamber, and for whose services the country might gladly forego all the noise, bluster, and folly of one-half the male dolts who now flourish there and pocket their eight dollars a day. The most casual observer can see that there is some essential element wanting in the political organization of our Republic. The voice of woman has been silenced, but man cannot fulfil his destiny alone — he cannot redeem his race unaided. There must be a great national heart, as well as head; and there are deep and tender chords of sympathy and love that woman can touch more skillfully than man. The earth has never yet seen a truly great and virtuous nation, for woman has never yet stood the equal with man. As with nations, so with families. It is the wise mother who has the wise son, and it requires but little thought to decide, that as long as the women of this nation remain but half developed in mind and body, so long shall we have a succession of men dwarfed in body and soul. So long as your women are mere slaves, you may throw your colleges to the wind — there is no material to work upon. It is in vain to look for silver and gold from mines of copper and brass. How seldom now is the father's pride gratified in the budding genius of his son? The wife is degraded, made the mere 05654creature of his tyranny and caprice, and now the foolish son is heaviness to his heart. Truly are the sins of the father visited upon the children. God, in his wisdom, has so linked together the whole human family, that any violence done at one end of the chain is felt throughout its length.Adieu.

Yours truly, E. C. STANTON.

Paulina Wright Davis.

From Rev. Samuel J. May.

To the Woman's Rights Convention to be held at Worcester, Mass., October 23 and 24.

Syracuse, Tuesday, Oct. 22.

My Dear Friends: — I sincerely regret that I cannot be present at the Convention to-morrow and next day. It is a gathering to which I have looked forward with earnest expectation. But I am ill able, at any time, to afford the expense of long travel; and now all my spare funds are put in requisition to meet the demands that are almost every day made upon me, to aid the wretched men and women who are fleeing from this tyrannical Republic; or in some other way, to withstand the cruel despotism, which glares upon us in the infernal Fugitive Law, recently enacted by our Government, which has become the supple tool of oppression.

For years I have been contending, directly or indirectly, for the great objects your Convention has in view. Never will their rights be accorded to women until the rights of Humanity are appreciated and respected. In the very beginning of the Anti-Slavery enterprise I was lecturing in Providence. The earnest attention of a very intelligent woman of that city, Miss Ruth Olney, continually arrested my eye. So soon as I left the pulpit I went to speak with her. “I have listened to you,” said she, “with an interest which only a woman can feel. I suspect that you do not apprehend how much of your description of the helpless dependence of the Slaves applies equally well to the condition of the whole female sex.” By a few rapid hints she ran the parallel, and then first my eyes were opened to the Wrongs of Women. I promised Miss Olney that the subject should not be dismissed 05755from my regard; and it never has been. I have seen, and rejoice to see, that whatever causes the rights of humanity to be respected, will tend more or less to improve the condition of women. But I have felt that their rights ought to be directly and distinctively urged, and have accordingly often spoken and preached and published somewhat in their behalf.

Women have natural rights no less than men; and because natural they are also inalienable, and can never be set at nought or disregarded with impunity. It will be good for man no less than woman, when her rights are appreciated and secured. Their true welfare is one and inseparable. Humanity is dual; and yet when perfected it is one. The true relations of life can be established only in the union of both. Marriage is a divine ordination from the beginning; and just so far as the sexes are divorced from each other, by inequalities of condition or culture, do adulterous consequences follow. A perfect character in either a man or a woman is a compound of the virtues and graces of each. The excellences which each sex most needs are objective to it in the other sex. In Jesus, the dearly beloved of God, we see as much of feminine as masculine grace.

Now, what we see to be perfect in the individual would be likewise perfect in the community, that is, the entire union of male and female. The true family is the type of the true State. It is the absence of the feminine from the conduct of the Governments of earth, that makes them more or less savage. If there be any institutions, departments, or customs in the State, in which we see and feel it would be unbecoming for women to participate, then are those institutions, departments, or customs only half human. The very acknowledgment we so often hear, that the machinery of the political parties is such that it would defile woman to touch it, is an acknowledgment that men, in the prosecution of their partisan purposes, are continually doing what they ought to be ashamed of. This surely is no reason why women should continue to be excluded from their rightful participation in the management of the State, as well as of the family. It is reason enough why men should repent, be converted, and become more temperate, just, honorable, honest, in their political relations and conduct; that they may no longer be shocked at the idea of having their mothers and wives associated with them. The State now is in the condition of half orphanage. There are fathers of the public, but no mothers. Yours truly,

SAMUEL J. MAY.

05856

From L. A. Hine. Cincinnati, October 15, 1850.

Mrs. P. W. Davis.

Esteemed Friend: — When I received your generous invitation to write some word to the Woman's Rights Convention, about to be held in Boston, I intended to write at length on the various questions of Reform, in which woman is so deeply interested; but being unexpectedly enlisted in the political campaign of this County, which has been waged with great severity, my attention was diverted from your reform; and had not my political opponents endeavored to excite prejudice against me, by speaking of my advocacy of Woman's Rights and Female Suffrage, I might have delayed this letter until too late a day for your Convention.

Begging your pardon for this apology, I will come directly to the question, and very briefly give my views.

In the first place, in order to meet the caviling of those conservators who sneer at the idea of woman's going to the polls with the rabblecitizens, of her shouldering the musket in defence of the country, etc., let me remark, that it is my deliberate opinion that any act wrong in woman is equally wrong in man, — that if it be right for man to fight, it is also right for woman to fight, if it be right for man to tolerate rowdyism at the polls, in Congress, in the coffee-house, it is right for woman to mingle in it and contribute her share to this kind of righteousness. Woman has often assisted in the defence of her country, and no laws of disfranchisement have been able to diminish the ardor of her patriotism, or her well known courage in the hour of danger. But the enemies of progress can be assured of this fact — to wit; that when man shall become sufficiently humanized to give woman her true position, then there will be an end of war, and peace will smile through all the walks of life.

Second. Again it is said that woman would be out of her place in the Legislative Hall, while she has a family demanding her attentions. This is but a quibble, and did not quibbles go further with the thoughtless than truth and sound logic, it would not be worthy of notice. In answer to this, let me remark, that it looks to me as though man as well as woman had duties to discharge to his family; that it is no less wrong for him to leave his wife and children, than it is for her to leave her husband and her little ones. The care and solicitude of both parents are demanded by the children, and nature forbids 05957either to desert them. But let no one be alarmed; parental affection is stronger in woman than in man, because of these social customs that have established unnatural distinctions between the sexes. There is little danger of any mother deserting her family station for the political arena. Man will do so because he has long been accustomed to impose those duties upon woman, that are obstacles in the path of his ambition. When man as well as woman shall feel his first and highest obligations to be due to his family, he will think it as wrong for him to desert them, as he now thinks it wrong for her to do so.

For my part, I heartily wish woman was allowed to vote; I wish she might exercise the right too — for by her influence politics would be delivered from the degradation to which they are reduced. Almost every moral man revolts at the corruptions of politics, and very few men who are worthy to represent the People, and able to honor their country by their virtue and talent, can be prevailed upon to engage in political strife.

In the third place, I believe that much of the immorality that now desolates society is due to the exclusion of woman from a free and full companionship with man. Let it be impressed upon all, that she has a right to accompany man wherever he may rightfully go; and I apprehend that the haunts of vice and shame, now sustained by the “sterner sex,” would soon be broken up. Should our ladies insist upon the right to attend their husbands, brothers, and fathers to the coffee-house, the house of shame, the gambling hell, etc., etc.; how promptly would man discontinue his visits to these wicked haunts, and unite with his companion in advancing their mutual improvement in all that is good and true? But the legal distinctions now maintained between the sexes are the basis of all social distinctions which are so unfortunate for the moral welfare of the community; abolish the former and the latter will cease to exist.

In the fourth place, I will announce the propositions on which I advocate your movement. This would probably have been more appropriate at the head of this letter.

I. Under a true system of education — a system in which education will not be distinguished by gender — man and woman will find their respective spheres in life; and that too, by the free direction of their own inclinations. If, then, the conservative is solicitous about the preservation of the male and female spheres, let him join with us in establishing a correct system of education for both sexes, and on abolishing all legal distinctions, to the end that nature may be free to 06058maintain her own order. In Educational improvement I suggest, 1. The union of both sexes in all our Schools. 2. The amalgamation of male and female Academies. 3. The equal participation of woman in collegiate advantages. 4. The pursuit of the same studies, especially all those branches that tend to mental development. I have not now time to discuss this fruitful theme, but hope you will appoint a committee to report elaborately upon this subject.

II. If the respective spheres of man and woman are different, surely man has no right to assume the prerogation of describing her sphere by law and of compelling her to walk therein. It looks to me as though the female part of humanity has as much right to prescribe man's sphere, as he has to mark out hers. It seems like the most brazen presumption and egotism in him to assume such authority. And yet, man stands aside and laughs at your attempts to overthrow this egotistic legislation in order that both sexes may enjoy the full freedom of nature, and be permitted to find their own true positions.

III. It is most unpardonable presumption in man, to say nothing of selfishness, for him to assume all authority over woman's person and property. In this he declares woman incapable of taking care of herself, and enacts himself as her gallant and generous guardian. How gallant he is can be seen from a few facts as to the property. 1. When a woman marries, all her personal estate is absolutely the property of her husband, and she loses all control over it; and the possession of all her real estate belongs to him as long as she lives, and if she dies, leaving issue, he holds it for life. 2. If her real estate be sold after marriage and she suffers her husband to handle the proceeds but for an instant, it becomes absolutely his. 3. All property acquired after marriage is his, and she has no legal authority over it until after his death; in this the law tempts the wife to desire the husband's death. 4. When real estate is sold by the husband, the wife must sign the deed to convey the interest that would accrue to her on his death. I notice this as an example of the humiliating subjection to which woman is reduced; she must be led before a magistrate and solemnly swear that her seal and signature is her own free act and deed, without any compulsion on the part of her husband! Is not this a proud position for a woman? and is it a wonder that those who have some spirit cry out against the servility that is imposed upon them? Let the wife's authority over all the property of the family be equal to that of the husband.

06159

With an apology for writing so long a letter, after promising a brief one, I subscribe myself

Yours, for Humanity, L. A. HINE.

From Elizur Wright. Boston, Oct. 22, 1850.

Mrs. Paulina Wright Davis.

Dear Madam: — I am sorry it is not in my power to accept your invitation to be present at the Convention in behalf of Woman's Rights, to be held in Worcester to-day. You are not mistaken in supposing that I regard the subject matter of it with serious intent. I am quite ashamed of that want of manhood — of that palpable puppyhood, in fact — in my own sex, which inclines so many of them to speak with derision of any efforts of yours to share in political rights and responsibilities. These efforts, I am persuaded, you make not so much for your own sakes as for ours. The element of the gentler and more right-feeling sex is sadly needed in the politics of our day. We want a counterpoise of the right-hearted to set off against the preponderance of the wrong-headed. Poorly cultivated as the hearts of either sex are, were both united in politics, it would be impossible for an act so heartless and atrocious as that for the extradition of fugitive slaves to disgrace the National Statute Books. I therefore pray, labor, and even hope for the day, when the vote of woman will contribute to soften, strengthen, and sweeten the laws, in the humanity and rectitude of which she must always be even more deeply interested than the stronger and coarser sex.

While I see no immediate prospect of your attaining these rights, which your sex generally so little values or desires, and which ours is so stupidly bent on monopolizing, I see none the less cause for agitating the subject, but all the more. Your business is to launch new ideas. Not one of them will ever be wrecked or lost. Under the dominion of these ideas, right practice must gradually take the place of wrong, and the first we shall know, we shall find the social swallowing up the political, and the whole governing its parts.

With genuine respect, Your cordial Co-worker, ELIZUR WRIGHT.

06260

From O. S. Fowler.

To the Officers of the Woman's Convention, Worcester, Mass.:—

Professional appointments at the West will prevent my complying with the invitation of the Committee to be present during the deliberations of your body, and I therefore take this opportunity to express to you a few of my sentiments touching the general subject of your Convention.

To say that I regard the elevation of woman and putting her in her prope r position as the most important work — a work more potential on the destinies of man than any other, and more absolutely necessary to the progress of the race—is but to express a truism, uttered a thousand times before, not by myself merely, but by all who take any interest in bettering the condition of man.

As in agriculture, every month brings its particular kind of labor, so every period of the world's destiny, and every age, brings its particular kind of work in order to promote progression; and the work of this age is to perfect woman, and thereby the race. It is a great work, greater than any which has yet claimed the attention of mankind; a more important, aye, a more imperious one—one which must positively and absolutely be accomplished, and by the present generation; and your movement shows that you have appreciated this general fact, and set yourselves at work for its performance.

But by what means can so necessary a work be accomplished? For in proportion to the value and importance of the work, is it necessary that just the right means, and they alone, should be employed, and in just the right manner. Far be it from me to dictate to your body touching this head; but pardon me if, from the inexpressibly deep interest I have in this subject, I offer for your consideration the following suggestions.

The two sexes, in their collective capacity, bear precisely the same relations to each other which the individual husbands and wives sustain to one another. This is a fundamental truth, and embodies those landmarks which furnish infallible guides as to the best means of improving the condition of woman. Your Convention is based on the pre-supposition that woman occupies a position inferior to what actually belongs to her, and inquires, by what means can she be elevated to her proper sphere? Suppose, then, a wife occupies a position below that of her husband, by whom and by what instrumentalities can she most 06361effectually be elevated? It is not for her alone to complain of her inferior position, nor is it for her, by her own exertions alone, to make herself what she should be. In this matter, the husband has quite as much interest as the wife, and has more to do. As the improvement of the wife should come more from the husband than from herself, and as the improvement of the husband should be originated and accomplished more by the wife than by the husband; or, more properly, as every husband should consult his wife how he and she together can most effectually improve her condition and character, and as every wife should consult with her husband how she, in conjunction with his own exertions, can most effectually perfect him, so it is not for women to meet together in convention alone, to consult and labor for the elevation of their sex; for it is even more proper for man to meet in convention, and inquire, “How can we elevate the female sex?” and then labor for that end. But the true method is for man and woman to meet together in counsel, each putting the wisdom of the one and the warm aspirations of the other together, in the search after female perfection, at the same time that other conventions may properly be called of both sexes, inquiring how the masculine can be purified, developed, and perfected.

This law passes a slight criticism on your convention's being conducted wholly by females; better even that, than to allow the subject to be wholly neglected. Still, your effort would not stand in the way of a convention of both sexes, having the same inquiry which now occupies your philanthropic body; and I trust the day is not far distant when such conventions shall be frequent, and their deliberations most effectual in the promotion of the great and glorious end you seek, for I regard no object to be accomplished as at all comparing in importance, or in moral sublimity and beauty, with the perfection of your sex.

The plain fact is this: all conventions of deliberation of woman without man are just as defective as the unmarried woman at fifty; just as all deliberations of men, either political, religious, mechanical, agricultural, or whatever they may be, are exactly like a bachelor at seventy. Or thus, as in the economy of nature, no man can be a man until he has become thoroughly identified and incorporated with a female companion, and no woman can put on either the beauties or glories of the feminine until she has become devoted to and assimilated with one of the opposite sex, so none of the common ends of society, accomplished by either sex individually, without the assistance of the 06462other, can be otherwise than most lame and imperfect. In other words, man has certain qualities which require to be infused into everything appertaining to the public, and the respective qualities of the feminine require also to be infused and incorporated into the same measure.

Nothing emanating from the masculine can be perfect, unless it has superadded to it the qualities of the feminine; and nothing emanating from woman can be perfect, unless incorporated with the masculine. Anything coming from man alone is like a social party of men without women, comparatively destitute of refinement, and all the nicer, more exquisite susceptibilities of humanity; while whatever proceeds from woman alone is like a company of females, requiring that strength and power which it is the province of the masculine to confer.

I need not apply this general law by way of defining what the position of woman should be as regards politics, public speaking, etc. It explains itself. It says, in language not to be mistaken, that politics and government require the participation of woman in some form, as much as of man; and till it has that, to all intents and purposes, will it be marred by all the imperfections of the old bachelor. And so of religion, the pulpit included; and so of the lecture-room, for science recognizes in its development the female mind quite as much as the male; whereas now it has mainly the latter; though, thank Heaven! woman is beginning to study, and will ultimately add to science those female influences just shown to be requisite in everything that concerns humanity. Of course, then, it is not only proper, but absolutely necessary, that we have female lecturers on science, and female speakers on all those subjects which belong to or interest humanity.

This general law, applied to individuals, passes high encomiums on the noble stand taken by Lucretia Mott and some others of her sex, who, nobly breaking away from the trammels of aristocracy, which points the finger of scorn and ridicule at female speakers, have practically exemplified the law in question, by speaking before large bodies of both sexes. Their doctrines we do not now either commend or disapprove, but congratulate society on the fact that they opened their mouths in public, and with such ability as to have given respectability to a custom before disreputable, and broken the ice so that others can now follow in their noble footsteps.

To run out the great principle here developed in detail, and to apply it to the decisions of thousands of those subjects and questions which come within the consideration of your honorable body, is not 06563necessary, because the general law here developed is too unequivocal and its application too plain to require it.

One single additional application must suffice. That the race is not always to remain what it is and has been, but that the imperfect reality of the past and the present is to be superseded by that almost celestiality “which kings and prophets waited for, and sought, but never found;” that, in short, society is to be regenerated, and a millenium with all its glories is soon to be established, and the race become perfected far beyond what we have seen or heard, or it “hath entered into the heart of man to conceive,” is a truth, written, not upon the page of prophecy alone, but upon the nature of man, and as clearly evinced by those throes of society and transitions through which it is so rapidly passing, as the first dawning of the sun evinces the prospective coming of its noon-time glory.

When God made man, He did not trifle. It was his last work, his greatest work. All the power, all the wisdom, all the benevolence, in short, every characteristic of the Deity was brought into the most infinitely intense state of activity and power in the creation of man. To have the race always continue to be what it thus far has been, would be disreputable to its author.

The evils of the past and present will only contrast the more gloriously with the beauties and perfections of the future. But this ordination and perfection of the race is to be accomplished by means; for God always works by instrumentalities, and in this case, human instrumentalities are to be the direct agencies for bringing about this infinitely glorious change.

Now, are those agencies to be put forward by man alone? No, for he is inadequate to the task; nor, for a like reason, can they be put forth by woman alone.

In short, the relations of the masculine and feminine to each other, and those laws which govern this whole subject, show that in the regeneration of the race, female agencies and influences are to be quite as efficacious and efficient as those of man; and if the world, as a whole, cannot be regenerated without both the masculine and feminine efforts combined, then individual societies cannot be changed from bad to good by either sex singly. As children cannot be completely aducated by either the mother alone or the father, so, in training race after race for higher and still higher achievements, it will require both the masculine influences of all the fathers, husbands, and brothers, of every nation and town under heaven, as 06664well as all the mothers, sisters, and wives; for every generation stands exactly in the same relation to the next generation, which the fathers and mothers stand in to individual families of children.

Do not, however, understand me, as to this general law, to criticise the movements of your body, because they come exclusively from women. Man has not heretofore done what he can do for woman. It is better that woman try to do alone, than that nothing be done; but it is to be hoped that your convention will provoke man to rise in all the interest which man should feel in the perfection of the feminine, and join with woman in devising and executing those ways and means which shall place woman in the position she was originally created to occupy; for, let it be remembered, that woman was created perfect, and that her nature is all that even a God could make it, both for her own happiness and for the happiness of society; and when we ascertain what her natural sphere is, and place her in it, we shall do the very thing exactly for the perfection of not her alone, but of all mankind.

Whilst, therefore, I pray with all my soul for spiritual influences to overshadow and guide the deliberations of your assembly, I remain, as I long have been,

Yours, for the perfection of Woman, O. S. FOWLER. New York, Oct, 14, 1850.

From E. A. Lukens.

New Garden, Ohio, October, 1850.

Dear Friend:—You have kindly invited me to address a letter to the Convention about to assemble at Worcester, for the purpose of discussing the claims and condition of women; and as it is now impossible for me to be there in person, I hasten to comply. Deeply, however, do I regret this alternative, as I belong to that very large class, whose activity is indicated only by excessive pleasure in seeing others labor; and gladly would I, on this occasion, sit at your feet, (if that were not too humble an attitude,) and be taught of the way, instead of writing at this distance from you, and without anything to communicate but simple and heartfelt wishes for the fulfilment, in your case, of the beautiful promise, “As thy day is, so shall thy strength be.”

06765

Perhaps the women of Ohio never astonished themselves more than when they found themselves first in the grandest and boldest progressive movement of the age; the first, at least, to meet in Convention to consider a subject which involves the deepest, dearest, and most vital interests of human life; while Massachusetts, our older, stronger, and more enlightened sister, was listening dreamily to the rising murmur against wrongs which all the ages have heaped upon woman, and nodding over it, as she would over a rather dull novel.

We remember that upon your coast lies Plymouth Rock; that upon your soil perished the last remnant of the ancient race of martyrs, and from thence arose again their spirit, to be incarnated anew in the persons of the “twelve,” and marvel that you did not long ago call upon us, and all other true friends, for aid again to “launch our Mayflower, and steer boldly through the desperate winter sea.”

It is useless to exaggerate the amount of difficulty to be encountered, and quite as much so to conceal the fact that mountain waves of opposition must be met, and icebergs of indifference. I may have exaggerated in calling this “the grandest movement of the age;” but what error is older and therefore more formidable than that of classing woman among the mere cares and dependencies of man? what thought more thoroughly incorporated into all the laws and arrangements of society? The system of chattel slavery is, of course, fouler and more horrible; therefore will have fewer advocates, and be sooner thrown off as a loathsome excrescence from the rapidly renovating body of society. No poet will wreathe the monster's brow with flowers; no sculptor will steal for its chiselled type the grace and spirituality that belong to immortal beauty; while poet, painter, and sculptor, preacher, lawgiver, and man of science, all unite in crowning tyranny and voluptuousness, weakness and ignorance, when they appear masked as protection on one side, as religious, graceful, and chaste submission on the other.

Our wrongs as women are few, compared with those of the slave; but well may we claim the right now to speak in his defence, as well as our own, while the treachery to both of great and powerful men stalks abroad and vaunts itself. Well may we pause to reprove those who would strike down the arm upraised to “undo the heavy burdens.”

This is peculiarly an age of increasing labor, desperate struggle, and “high endeavor,” on the part of reformers. All men are awake, and it is useless to lay weights upon the eyes of women any longer, or give her sleeping potions. It is no time, if any other has been, when she 06866should be restricted, in her hours of respite from household labor, to the ornamenting of her person, and gossip over the tea-table; or, for employment to her mind and pen, to magazine stories, which in general are only refined gossip, while her father, husband, and brother, are sternly engaged in life's high conflicts, always in arms, like the Knights of Branksome, who “Carved at the meal with gloves of steel, And drank the red wine through the helmet barred.” There will doubtless be female Don Quixottes and American George Sands—who can imitate her in everything but her transcendent power and genius—to bring ridicule upon this enterprise; but we should not thereby be deterred from urging forward this movement now.

I rejoice that your Convention will not be marked by the unpleasant feature in ours, which gave offence to many — the exclusion of men from your deliberations. I think we should, as far as possible, take a definite position, and especially avoid everything that has the appearance of antagonism to man. Our interests are emphatically one in this matter, and we shall never take a decided step in advance, without moving harmoniously. The “spheres” of man and woman continually intersect each other and blend together, so that it is impossible to move in one without affecting the other.

Once more, dear sister, may all blessed and strengthening influences be upon your Convention! And I pray that words of love and power may go out therefrom, that shall set free the long chained and benumbed soul of woman, (as, in olden time, words of magic were said to,) and give it an impulse toward perfect development that shall be felt through ages yet to come.

Yours, truly, E. A. LUKENS. P. W. Davis.

From Margaret Chappelsmith. New Harmony, Ill., Sept. 20, 1850.

I believe that among the women of this country, there is a much larger number of elevated minds than are to be found among the women of my own country; and I should rejoice in the introductions 06967that you so temptingly offer me, but I must wait some other opportunity.

I have long noticed, with great pleasure, that women here are induced by their education to study all subjects; that they are not frightened from certain topics by the fear of being called “blue stockings,” or “female pedants;” and I have hoped, and still have some hope, that men here, unlike the generality of the men of England, have faith that a woman of cultivated intellect, capable of depending on her own exertions, may make a loving wife, a trusty partner, and a mother worthy to be trusted with the important charge of offspring; but my hope of this being much more general here than in England, is somewhat abated by the observation (limited, I admit) that I have made during my stay here. I have some fear that the principal advance in this respect, in this country, is a universal respect for female talent as a source of national pride; but that men, even men of sound knowledge in other respects, are so miserably deficient in knowledge on this subject, are such bad observers of facts in every way surrounding them, that they prefer taking to their bosoms the pretty creature whose ignorance makes her dependent, and whose submission is mistakenly calculated on as being more certain because she cannot reason on her duties, or on how to promote the best happiness of life. In England, it appeared to me to be necessary to convince the men of their folly and degradation in this respect, before there could be any hope of effecting reforms among the women; for I fear that so long as men prefer timid women, who shrink from having an opinion of their own, so long will the majority of women insensibly mould themselves to what the men desire. Mothers will not have the courage to doom their daughters to an unmarried life, by making them beings that men would be afraid to love; — though, had mothers a firm conviction in the consolations and in the powers of intelligence, they would defy the folly of men, and would educate daughters who would, at last, vanquish men's prejudices, and bestow a happiness that ignorance, however loving and submissive, can never give. I do not, at present, know enough of society here to say that my fears are well-founded. I shall be most happy to find they are not. I care not for that education which gives merely literary talent; I covet that which gives independence of thought, which will fit a woman to examine all subjects before she adopts a belief regarding them, and which will enable her to assert an unpopular opinion, if her convictions lead her to hold that opinion rather than any other. Truth can exist only in such a 07068course; intellect can have a healthy action only in such a course; and it is only the women who can do this that will be mothers of independent, honest, and intellectual sons. I earnestly hope to find many such women in the United States.

With much respect for yourself, and for the other ladies engaged in the good cause, I am, my dear madam,

Yours sincerely, MARGARET CHAPPELSMITH.

To Mrs. P. W. Davis.

From Nancy M. Baird. To the Woman's Rights Convention:

Dear Friends: — Though I cannot be present with you in person on this most important and deeply interesting occasion, my spirit will mingle with you in deep sympathy and fervent prayer for the success of the holy enterprise in which you have embarked.

The obscurity of my position, and the few qualifications I possess of rendering any efficient aid in this great work, almost induced me to remain silent, and withhold all expression of feeling; but a further consideration of the subject has led me to change that opinion. I feel persuaded that your Convention, being composed, as it will be, of persons of the highest wisdom and purest feelings, the true “salt of the earth,” will not overlook, or regard with indifference, sympathy, even from the most humble source. Your noble, but arduous work, being no less than a war with “principalities and powers, and wickedness in high places,” a war with profound ignorance and longcherished prejudice, and the fiercest passions of the selfish, unsanctified human heart, will need all the sympathy and all the aid of the friends of the cause, great and small. I pray that God may prosper and bless this great and good work, and I believe He will. I believe it is an inspiration from Himself, and that the instruments He has raised up for its accomplishment will receive his constant guidance and direction. To wake up a slumbering world, a “world dead in trespasses and sins,” is a great work; but greater is He who is for you than those who are against you; and as Jesus said to the sisters of Lazarus, if we will believe, we shall see the glory of God.

07169

I trust these few poor words of sympathy may reach you, and that you may be cheered on by expressions of it from many and higher sources.

Yours, very truly, NANCY M. BAIRD. Virginia.

Extracts of a Letter from Jane Cowen. Logansport, Indiana.

Dear Sister: — * * * After studying on woman's position for fifteen years, without divulging my thoughts to any person, taking the Bible for my guide, I have come to the conclusion that this great evil has its original root in the Church of God. I do not mean a particular church, but all the different denominations, (Quakers excepted,) taken as a body. I am of the opinion, that if the Church would allow woman the privileges that God has given her, in both the Old and New Testaments, an education equal with the male sex, and every right that belongs to her, would follow.

Let us go to the Bible, and examine for ourselves whether God has forbidden woman from reading the Law, either in public or private. It was Moses's mother who instructed him and formed his character; the law being written in her heart, for the law was not written at that time. We read in Exodus, 15th chapter, 20th verse, of Miriam leading the choir, to celebrate on the banks of the Red Sea, the overthrow of Pharaoh, 1491, B. C.; and in Micah, 6th chapter, 14th verse, God says to the Israelites, by the mouth of the prophet, “I sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.” Their mission was to rule, instruct, and guide the people in piety and virtue. In Judges, 4th chapter, 4th verse, we have recorded the song of a woman, and an account of her judging Israel for years in righteousness, about 1294, B. C. It was woman that defeated the wicked counsels of Haman, and saved the Jews from destruction. In 2 Kings, 22d chapter, 14th verse, we read of Huldah, the Prophetess, who lived contemporaneously with Jeremiah and Zephaniah, 624, B. C. I heard an intelligent, and, I believe, a pious clergyman, say, not long since, that there were instances recorded in the Old Testament of females being chosen to fill the important station of a prophet; Judge G. saying 07270that, in the New Testament dispensation, females were not allowed this privilege, but are commanded to keep silence in the churches, etc. There is a possibility of even good men being mistaken, owing to the prejudice of education.

Let us now go to the New Testament, and see if he be correct. If I mistake not, Joel prophesied, 726 years B. C. — Joel, 2d chapter, 28th and 29th verses — “And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophecy, and your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions; and also upon the servants and upon the handmaidens in those days will I pour out my Spirit.” In the Acts of the Apostles, 18th chapter, 18th verse, we have an account of Aquila, and his wife Priscilla, travelling in company with Paul, and most probably they labored with him in the Gospel. In Romans, we have an account of Phebe, who was a deaconess of the church at Cenchrea, A. D. 58. 1 Corinthians, 9th chapter, we have an account of Paul reproving the Corinthians for their unbecoming manner of conducting public worship, the men praying or prophesying with their heads covered, and the women with their heads uncovered. It was a custom among the Greeks and Romans, and among the Jews — an express law — that no woman should be seen abroad without a veil. The several commentators agree that prophesying, in this passage, signifies to speak to others to edification, exhortation, and comfort, and this comprises all we understand by exhortation, or even preaching; that whatever may be the meaning of praying or prophesying in respect to the man, they have precisely the same meaning in respect to the woman. This is the kind of prophesying that was predicted by Joel, and referred to by Peter — Acts, 2:11. It is evident that had there not been such gifts bestowed upon woman, the prophecy could not have its fulfilment. That gifts are bestowed on females in our day, the same as on men, we do not doubt; but they are suppressed by the wretched laws of both Church and State. Nothing can be more plain than that it was to the foolish and disorderly to whom the apostle addressed himself, and not to those on whom God had poured out his Spirit.

JANE COWEN

07371

From Sophia L. Little. Pawtucket, Oct. 9, 1850.

Dear Friends: — Though unable to be with you, I sympathize with you in this movement.

Be earnest, be prayerful, and remember, “without Christ ye can do nothing.” May this Convention send forth a pure, unadulterated expression of woman's mind. May every sister be impressed with the importance of the questions to be discussed. Is woman in her true position? If she is not, what are the most direct means of her elevation? These questions require thorough investigation. I believe that the higher moral nature of woman is not merely the result of a retired education, but a native feature of her mind: and that the Almighty designed that men and women should act as one, the deficiencies of each being made up by the other.

I could say much on these subjects if with you; but not believing in the right to inflict long letters on a Convention which is to sit so short a time, I will only add my hearty wishes for a prosperous Convention, and am,

Very truly, dear sisters, Yours, for the truth, SOPHIA L. LITTLE.

To the Woman's Convention

Extracts of a Letter from Elizabeth Wilson. Cadiz, Ohio, Sept. 27, 1850.

Dear Friends and Fellow-Laborers: — On the part of woman, the position in society which she occupies has a tendency to paralyze her energies, physical, moral, and intellectual — lower her independence and self-respect, and render her a servile, frivolous, insignificant, useless member of community. What a powerfully deleterious influence these evils of our social system must necessarily produce in society! That many men and women surmount every obstacle, and prove beyond dispute that they are in possession of and exercise every attribute that would adorn and elevate humanity, we gladly admit; but that their position in society has the evil tendencies we have specified, we think there are few, who consider the subject, will deny. 07472Hence the question has heavy claims on the Christian philanthropist. The phrase, “Woman's Rights,” conveys a very inadequate idea of the magnitude of this question.

A great part of our moral and theological teachings give perverted views of the Bible, on this question, consist of a mere play on words, and are powerful obstacles, together with legal enactments, in the way of woman's elevation.

It has been my earnest desire to use the mental powers God has given me, however feeble, to remove this slander from the book of God. We call on man to produce his testimony from the Bible, showing his authority to govern woman, or to stand before the world as an arrogant usurper. It may be said, the wife's duty to obey implies the husband's right to command. Obey what? He should “nourish and cherish her,” as she is his own body, “as the Lord the Church.” Her obedience must correspond to his duty; her obedience is passive, not active. He must treat her in the manner he would wish himself to be treated, were she head and he body. Does he suppose it would have any tendency to cheer and gladden his heart for her to rule him? Every human being has an inherent love of liberty, and cannot be happy without its enjoyment; consequently, the husband, in the performance of his duty, as “nourisher and cherisher,” cannot deprive the wife of her liberty. There is not an example or record, in Scripture, of husbands ruling their wives. Wives acted as freely in family government as did husbands.

Supposing it true, that the husband has authority from the Bible to rule his wife, which we utterly deny, how does that constitute men collectively a great hereditary aristocracy, with plenary power to rule all women? Nor will a majority of women's tame submission, and saying they have all the rights they want, (a very convenient way to throw off responsibility,) give men a right to rule. Women cannot alienate their natural rights more than men, and for the same reason, because the duties they impose are unchangeable. As woman is endowed with the power of self-government equal with man, it is an unmistakable indication that she was intended by her Creator to govern herself, and she succeeds equally well with man in the use of this power.

It is a despicable, pitiful thing to hear a woman representing herself as lower in the scale of creation than man, having fewer rights; thus dishonoring her Creator, who “made her in His own image, and crowned her head with glory and honor, and set her over the works of 07573his hands,” equally with man. Women are to be pitied. This low, servile, cringing disposition is the legitimate fruit of a perverted social organization, which has governed them from their birth. But, thanks to our great Creator, a love of liberty in woman, as well as in man, is inherent; it may be paralyzed, but not eradicated, and woman does love liberty as well as man. We believe there are few women who do not think they are unjustly dealt with, though a majority are afraid to say so; they fear the sneers, and sarcasms, and menaces of men, and the sneers and no less bitter sarcasms of a number of their own sex, who profess they “have all the rights they want.” There is generally little complaining under a despotism, though great suffering may be experienced. Nor is it peculiar to women to become so degraded by bondage that they would prefer to live in comparative slavery, rather than encounter the perils and contumely attendant on their emancipation. Nor is this any indication that God designed them for slaves.

The Jews (whose history is a transcript of human nature) preferred the bondage of Egypt, with its flesh-pots and the comparative quiet they enjoyed there, to the turmoil and privations consequent upon the obtaining of their liberty, and proposed to make a captain and return to their bondage, and talked of stoning Moses, their great liberator, for his instrumentality in their emancipation. Notwithstanding their low, servile longings, the sequel of their history demonstrates that they were not designed to be slaves.

The laborers in the promotion of the “Woman's Rights” reform may expect to encounter persecution. Both men and women will appear as antagonists, equipped with their warlike implements. Menace, persecution, detraction, ridicule, opprobrium, and bitter sarcasm will be brought into requisition. And as the cause progresses, it may be found necessary for them to call in the aid of their faithful ally, the mob, with its heavy artillery, charged with brickbats and rotten eggs. But truth is invulnerable. Woman's education is an up-hill business, and will require all the exertions of its friends for its consummation. But the interest awakened in the community on this question is cheering. Persevere, and your efforts will be crowned with success. The friends of this cause have good reason to report progress.

The emancipation car will roll on to its desired goal. God has work for woman to do, as a free moral agent, in every department of life. She is God's servant, not man's.

Dear brothers and sisters, I bid you adieu.

ELIZABETH WILSON.

07674

From Maria L. Varney. Norwalk, Conn., Oct. 20, 1850.

Friends: — I have read the call for the Convention at Worcester, “to consider the Rights, Relations, and Duties of Woman,” with no common interest. It meets with my warmest approbation and heartiest wishes for its success. Would that I could he with you to hear your words of wisdom. Since this is denied me I cannot refrain from adding my mite of influence and sympathy. Would that I were competent to teach. This subject would surely make me eloquent. If it is treated openly, freely, fearlessly, as we have every reason to suppose it will be, then indeed will it be instructive to listen, and much good will result therefrom. But if it be only an attempt to patch up the things that be, to amputate a few of the prominent excrescences, without treating the malady systematically, it will be found a tangled question, and very little benefit will be realized from this effort. I can but hope that every one who attends this Convention will divest herself as much as possible of the powerful influence of a false public opinion which permeates and discolors all our rights and relations in society. We have no need of hostile weapons. We wish only to divest ourselves of prejudice, and to be open to the truth. Our motto should be, “What is true?”

Woman's rights are the rights of a human being, and must never be reduced below this standard. Any system or theory erected on any other platform must necessarily be false. Then we must begin fundamentally with the question, what are the rights, relations, and duties of a human being? This is well answered in the Declaration of American Independence, when qualified as follows: “A right to life,” — including a right to the earth and natural elements, “Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” These are evidently our first great rights, and must be kept inviolate. This, then, seems to be the great object of this Convention, viz., to inquire whether these rights are respected at present? and if not, what change is necessary in society in order that these rights shall be respected?

Have we now the right to live? Is not our occupation, locality, immediate health — in a word, is not our very life in the hands and at the disposal of others! A right to life implies, not only a right to the means of a livelihood, but a right to one's own person and property. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness certainly imply a choice of location, occupation, and self-government. Hence, any 07775law which makes woman a slave, is unjust and oppressive, and ought to be repealed immediately. Any law which deprives woman of the ownership and disposal of her own person and property at all times, is unjust, and should be repealed. Any law which separates representation from taxation, is unjust, and should be repealed. Any law which recognizes a difference between man and woman should be forthwith repealed. All law should be made without regard to sex, either in the governor or the governed.

With these few fundamental propositions, which must be the starting point, I leave the subject, without attempting to point out the offensive laws which do now oppress and degrade us below the standard of human beings. Abler minds will, I trust, follow out the subject in all its bearings, and come to conclusions which will be honorable to themselves and us. Success attend you. Farewell.

MARIA L. VARNEY.

[We print the following letters, which were not acted upon by the Convention, not because we agree with the views presented in them, but because we think the subject discussed — Woman's Dress — an all important one. There is neither time nor room to treat it fitly now; no doubt future Conventions will devote to it the thorough consideration which it merits. For ourselves we will simply express the hope, — that in discarding the inconvenient, unhealthy, untidy, graceless attire now conventionally appropriated to women by the fashions of civilized States, reformers will not feel driven to adopt the stiff, awkward, heavy, ill-shaped costumes in which men are encased. We are well convinced, that a Style of Dress can be invented, far more convenient for use, more easily modified to meet changes in circumstances, climate, or duties, and every way more appropriate and beautiful than any now worn by either sex. — Pub. Com.]

From Mildred A. Spafard. New York, Sept. 2, 1850.

My Dear Madam: — I take the liberty of enclosing you an extract from a long epistle I have just received from Helene Marie Weber. It speaks of matters which are interesting to us all, and I ask of you the favor to submit it to the Convention.

Very few of our American women seem to understand Miss Weber; they confound her with the Dudevants and others of that erratic order. This is doing her great injustice. Miss Weber, as a literary character, 07876stands in the front rank of essayists. She has labored zealously in behalf of her sex, as her numerous tracts on subjects of reform bear testimony. No writer of the present age, perhaps, has done more, with the pen, to exalt woman, than she has by her powerful essays. My personal knowledge of Miss Weber enables me to speak confidently of her private character. It is utterly false that she is a “masculine woman.” Her deportment is strictly lady-like, modest, and unassuming; and her name is beyond reproach. She is a protestant of the Lutheran order — exemplary in all her religious duties, and unaffectedly pious and benevolent.

She is, as you are doubtless aware, a practical agriculturist. The entire business of her farm is conducted by herself; and she has been eminently successful. She has proved the capacity of woman for business pursuits. Her success in this vocation is a practical argument, worth a thousand theories.

I find no fault with her because she dresses like a man. Her dress has not changed her nature. Those who censure her for abandoning the female dress, make up their judgment without proper reflection. She has violated no custom of her own country, and has merely acted according to the honest dictates of her mind. “Honi soit qui mal y pense.”

Miss Weber is now about twenty-five years of age. She is a ripe scholar, and has a perfect command of the English language. I am decidedly of opinion that her visit among us will do a vast deal of good to our cause, and we ought to give her a hearty welcome when she comes. I can assure our most rigid friends that they will all be reconciled to her attire on five minutes' acquaintance.

With my best wishes for the success of the cause, and for harmony in the Convention, I remain, dear madam,

Yours sincerely, MILDRED A. SPAFARD.

Extract of a Letter from H. M. Weber. La Pelouse, 3d Aug., 1850.

The delicate state of my dear mother's health requires my constant attendance here, and places it entirely out of my power to visit America during the present season. I feel the disappointment most severely, 07977because I had promised myself the pleasure of interchanging greetings with our co-laborers in America, at the proposed Worcester Convention, and, if agreeable to them, to deliver a short lecture on several subjects in which I feel a deep interest. Though I have a horror of speech-making, I deem a public explanation of my motives for exchanging the female for the male garb, to be a necessary preliminary to my favorable reception by your countrywomen. The newspapers, both of America and England, have done me great injustice. While they have described my apparel with the minute accuracy of professional tailors, (to which I have not the slightest objection, so long as they continue to report it accurately,) they have seen fit to charge me with a disposition to undervalue the female sex and to identify myself with the other. Such vile calumnies are extremely annoying to me. I have never wished to be an Iphis — never, for a moment, affected to be anything but a woman; and I do not think any one ever mistook me for a man, unless it may have been some stranger who slightly glanced at me while passing along the street or the highway. I adopted male apparel as a measure of convenience in my business, and not through any wish to appear eccentric, or to pass for one of the male sex; and it has ever been my rule to dress with the least possible ostentation consistent with due neatness.* I have never had cause to regret my adoption of male attire, and never expect to return to a female toilette. I am fully aware, however, that my dress will probably prejudice the great body of our friends in America against me, while present impressions on that subject exist; and it was with the view of allaying this feeling that I wished to address the assembly at Worcester. By this means I think I could satisfy any liberal-minded person, of either sex, that there is no moral or political principle involved in this question, and that a woman may, if she like, dress in male habiliments without injury to herself or others.

* Miss Weber usually wears a dress-coat and pantaloons of black cloth — on full dress occasions, a dark blue dress-coat with plain, flat, gilt buttons, and drab colored pantaloons. Her waistcoat is of buff cassimere, richly trimmed with plain, flat-surfaced, gold buttons, exquisitely polished; this is an elegant garment, and one which she wears to great advantage. Her clothes are all perfect in their fit, and of Paris make; and her figure is singularly well adapted to male attire. No gentleman makes a finer appearance. — M. A. Spafard.

This question I believe is not mooted in America. In the resolutions of the Ohio Convention, (which you sent me in May,) almost 08078every topic connected with woman's position is touched upon, except that of attire. Possibly it was intended to be embraced in the eighth resolution, under the general head of “social customs and institutions,” but the allusion is entirely too vague to arrest attention. It can serve no useful purpose to keep this question in the background; it must come forward eventually. Those who suppose that woman can be “the political, social, pecuniary, and religious equal of man,” without conforming to his dress, deceive themselves and mislead others who have no minds of their own. While the infinite superiority of the male dress, for all purposes of business and recreation, is universally conceded, it is absurd to argue that we should not avail ourselves of its advantages.

There are no well-founded objections to women dressing, as we term it, en cavalier. The only two I have heard are these: “To do so is contrary to law, both divine and human” — and “the male dress is outre, and less graceful than our own.” These objections may be answered in a few words. The human statutes on this subject should be repealed, as they surely will be in due time; or be regarded as they now are in European States, as dead letters. The practice is not contrary to divine law. The alleged prohibition, as contained in the fifth book of Moses, had reference to a religious custom of the Amorites; and was limited in its application to the children of Israel, who had, by Divine command, dispossessed that pagan nation of their territory, and destroyed their temples of idolatrous worship. The context will show two other prohibitions on this subject. In the eleventh and twelfth verses of the same chapter, (twenty-second of Deuteronomy,) it is forbidden to “wear garments of divers sorts, as of woolen and linen together,” and to “wear fringes” on the vesture. These prohibitions are all of the same character, and had an obvious reference to the ceremonies used by the pagans in their worship of idols. If one of these prohibitions be binding upon nations of the present age, the others are not less so. To the second objection, it may be said, that beauty and grace in matters of dress are determined by no rules; and if the fashion of men's clothes be awkward, it can easily be improved. Women who prefer the gown should, of course, consult their own pleasure by continuing to wear it; while those whose preference is a male dress, ought not to be blamed for adopting it.

I close this homily by recording my predication, that in ten years time, male attire will be generally worn by the women of most civilized countries, and that it will precede the consummation 08179of many great measures which are deemed to be of paramount importance.

I hope to have it in my power to visit America next year. Thanks to the invention of steam! a voyage across the ocean is now a mere bagatelle. I have not much of the spirit of travel remaining. My agricultural pursuits confine me at home nearly the whole year; but my captivity is a delightful one.

Affectionately yours, H. M. WEBER.

[Several other letters were received at too late a period to be presented to the Convention, which the limits of this pamphlet compel us to omit. — Pub. Com.]

Names.Residences. Hannah M. Darlington,Kennett Square, Pa. T.B. Elliot,Boston, Mass. Antoinette L. Brown,Henrietta, N.Y. Sarah Pillsbury,Concord, N.H. Eliza J. Kenney,Salem, Mass. M.S. Firth,Leicester, " Oliver Dennett,Portland, Me. Julia A. McIntyre,Charlton, Mass. Emily Sanford,Oxford, " H.M. Sanford," " C.D.M. Lane,Worcester, " Elizabeth Firth,Leicester, " S.C. Sargeant,Boston, " C.A.K. Ball,Worcester, " M.A. Thompson, " " Lucinda Safford, " " S.E. Hall, " " S.D. Holmes,Kingston, " Z.W. Harlow,Plymouth, " N.B. Spooner, " " Ignatius Sargent,Boston, " A.B. Humphrey,Hopedale, " M.R. Hadwen,Worcester, " J.H. Shaw,Nantucket, " Diana W. Ballou,Cumberland. Olive Darling,Millville, Mass. M.A. Walden,Hopedale, " C.M. Collins,Brooklyn, Ct. A.H. Metcalf,Worcester, " P.B. Cogswell,Concord, N.H. Sarah Tyndale,Philadelphia, Pa. A.P.B. Rawson,Worcester, Mass. Nathaniel Barney,Nantucket, " Sarah H. Earle,Worcester, " Parker Pillsbury,Concord, N.H. Lewis Ford,Abington, Mass. J.T. Everett,Princeton, " Loring Moody,Harwich, " Sojourner Truth,Northampton, " Pliny Sexton,Palmyra, N.Y. Rev. J. G. Forman,W. Bridgewater, Mass. Andrew Stone, M. D.,Worcester, " Sam'l May, Jr.,Leicester, " Sarah R. May, " " Frederick Douglass,Rochester, N.Y.08381Chas. Bigham,Feltonville, Mass. J.T. Partridge,Worcester, " Eliza C. Clapp,Leicester, " Daniel Steward,East Line, " E.B. Chase,Valley Falls, " Sophia Foord,Dedham, " E.A. Clarke,Worcester, " E.H. Taft,Dedham, " Olive W. Hastings,Lancaster, Pa. Rebecca Plumly,Philadelphia, " S.L. Hastings,Lancaster, " Sophia Taft, Anna E. Ruggles,Worcester, Mass. Mrs. A.E. Brown,Brattleboro', Vt. Janette Jackson,Philadelphia, Pa. Anna R. Cox, " Cynthia P. Bliss,Pawtucket, R.I. R.M.C. Capron,Providence, " M.H. Mowry, " " Mary Eddy, " " Mary Abbot,Chelmsford, Mass. Anna E. Fish,Hopedale, " C. G. Munyan, " " Maria L. Southwick,Worcester, " Anna Cornell,Plainfield, Ct. S. Monroe, " " S. Monroe, " " Anna E. Price, " " M.C. Monroe, " " F.C. Johnson,Sturbridge, Mass. Thomas Hill,Webster, " Elizabeth Frail,Hopkinton, " Eli Bolknap, " " M. M. Frail, " " Valontino Belknap, " " Phebe Goodwin,West Chester, Pa. Edgar Hicks,Brooklyn, N.Y. Ira Foster,Canterbury, N.H. Effingham L. Capron,Worcester, Mass. Frances H. Drake,Leominster, " Calvin Fairbanks, E.M. Dodge,Worcester, " Eliza Barney,Nantucket, " Lydia Barney, " " Alice Jackson,Avondale, Pa. G.D. Williams,Leicester, Mass. Marian Blackwell,Cincinnati, Ohio. Elizabeth Earle,Worcester, Mass. J.C. Hathaway,Farmington, N.Y. E. Jane Alden,Lowell, Mass. Elizabeth Dayton, " " Lima H. Ober,Boston, " Mrs. Lucy N. Colman,Saratoga Springs, N.Y. Dorothy Whiting,Clintonville, Mass. Emily Whiting, " " Abigail Morgan,Clinton, " Julia Worcester,Milton, N.H. Mary R. Metcalf,Worcester, Mass. R.H. Ober,Boston, "08482D.A. Mundy,Hopedale, Mass. Dr. S. Rogers,Worcester, " Jacob Pierce,Pa. Mrs. E.J. Henshaw,W. Brookfield, Mass. Edward Southwick,Worcester, " E.A. Merrick,Princeton, " Mrs. C. Merrick, " " Lewis E. Capen,Pa. Joseph Carpenter,New York. Martha Smith,Plainfield, Ct. Lucius Holmes,Thompson, " Benj. Segur, " " C.S. Dow,Worcester, Mass. S.L. Miller,Pa. Isaac L. Miller, " Buel Picket,Sherman, Ct. Josiah Henshaw,W. Brookfield, Mass. Andrew Wellington,Lexington, " Louisa Gleason,Worcester, " Paulina Gerry,Stoneham, " Lucy Stone,W. Brookfield, " Ellen Blackwell,Cincinnati, Ohio. Mrs. Chickery,Worcester, Mass. Mrs. F.A. Pierce, " " C.M. Trenor, " " R.C. Capron, " " Wm. Lloyd Garrison,Boston, " Emily Loveland,Worcester, " Mrs. S. Worcester, " " Phebe Worcester, " " Adeline Worcester, " " Joanna R. Ballou, " Abby H. Price,Hopedale, " B. Willard, " T. Pool,Abington, " M.B. Kent,Boston, " D.H. Knowlton, E.H. Knowlton,Grafton, " G. Valentino, " A. Prince,Worcester, " Lydia Wilmarth, " " J.G. Warren, " " Mrs. E.A. Stopwell, " " Martin Stowell, " " Mrs. E. Stamp, " " C.M. Barbour, " " Daniel Mitchell,Pawtucket, R.I. Alice H. Easton, Anna Q.T. Parsons,Boston, Mass. C.D. McLane,Worcester, " W.H. Channing,Boston, " Wendell Phillips, " " Abby K. Foster,Worcester, " S.S. Foster, " " Paulina W. Davis,Providence, R.I. Wm. D. Cady,Warren, Mass. Ernestine L. Rose,New York. Mrs. J. G. Hodgden,Roxbury, Mass.08583C.M. Shaw,Boston, Mass. Ophelia D. Hill,Worcester, " Mrs. P. Allen,Millbury, " Lucy T. Dike,Thompson, Ct. E. Goddard,Worcester, Mass. M.F. Gilbert,W. Brookfield, " G. Davis,Providence, R.I. A. H. Johnson,Worcester, Mass. W.H. Harrington, " " E.B. Briggs, " " A.C. Lackey,Upton, " Ora Ober,Worcester, " A. Barnes,Princeton, R.I. Thomas Provan,Hopedale, Mass. Rebecca Provan, " " A.W. Thayer,Worcester, " M.M. Munyan,Millbury, " W.H. Johnson,Worcester, " Dr. S. Mowry,Chepachet, R.I. G.W. Benson,Northampton, Mass. Mrs. C.M. Carter,Worcester, " H.S. Brigham,Bolton, " E.A. Welsh,Feltonville, " Mrs. J.H. Moore,Charlton, " Margaret S. Merritt, " " Martha Willard, " " A.N. Lamb, " " Mrs. Chaplin,Worcester, " Caroline Farnum, N.B. Hill,Blackstone, " K.H. Parsons,Worcester, " C. Jillson, " " E.W.K. Thompson, L. Wait,Boston, Mass. Mrs. Mary G. Wright,California. F.H. Underwood,Webster, Mass. Asa Cutler,Ct. J.B. Willard,Westford, Mass. Perry Joslin,Woreester, " S.H. Hallock,Milton, N.Y. Elizabeth Johnson,Worcester, Mass. Seneth Smith,Oxford, " Marian Hill,Webster, " Wm. Coe,Worcester, " E.T. Smith,Leominster, " Mary R. Hubbard, S. Aldrich,Hopkinton, Mass. M.A. Maynard,Feltonville, " S.P.R. " " Anna R. Blake,Monmouth, Me. Ellen M. Prescott, " " J.M. Cummings,Worcester, Mass. Nancy Fay,Upton, " M. Jane Davis,Worcester, " D.R. Crandell, " " E.M. Burleigh,Oxford, " Sarah Chafee,Leominster, " Adeline Perry,Worcester, "08684Lydia E. Chase,Worcester, Mass. J.A. Fuller, " " Sarah Prentice, " " Emily Prentice, " " H.N. Fairbanks, " " Mrs. A. Crowl, " " Dwight Tracy, " " J.S. Perry, " " Issac Norcross, " " M.A.W. Johnson,Salem, Ohio. Mrs. C.I.H. Nichols,Brattleboro', Vt. C.C. Burleigh,Plainfield, Ct. Gertrude R. Burleigh, " " E.A. Parrington,Worcester, Mass. Mrs. Parrington, " " Harriet K. Hunt,Boston, " Chas. F. Hovey, " " Lucretia Mott,Philadelphia, Pa. Susan Fuller,Worcester, Mass. Thomas Earle, " " Alice C. Earle, " " Martha B. Earle, " " Anne H. Southwick, " " Joseph A. Howland, " " Adeline H. Howland, " " O.T. Harris, " " Julia T. Harris, " " John M. Spear,Boston, " E.J. Alden, E.D. Draper,Hopedale, " D.R.P. Hewitt,Salem, " L.G. Wilkins, " " J.H. Binney,Worcester, " Mary Adams, " " Anna T. Draper, Josephine Reglar, Anna Goulding,Worcester, " Adeline S. Greene, Silence Bigelow, A. Wyman, L.H. Ober, Betsey F. Lawton,Chepachet, R.I. Emma Parker,Philadelphia, Pa. Olive W. Hastings,Lancaster, Mass. Silas Smith,Iowa. Asenath Fuller, Denney M.F. Walker, Eunice D.F. Pierce, Elijah Houghton.

MEMBERS OF THE CONVENTION.