|
BENT, BUT UNBROKEN - WOMAN UNDER
SUFFERING
The Tender Ivy Plant
|
|
Go here for more about
 Ernestine
Rose.
Go here for more about
Ernestine
Rose's The Tender Ivy Plant speech.
Picture above:
Library of Congress
It follows the full text transcript of
Ernestine L. Rose's speech before the Women's
Rights Convention, delivered at Worcester, Massachusetts -
October 15, 1851. |
 |
After having heard
the letter read from our poor incarcerated |
sisters of France,
well might we exclaim, Alas, poor France! where
is thy glory? Where the glory of the Revolution
of 1848, in which shone forth the pure and
magnanimous spirit of an oppressed nation
struggling for Freedom? Where the fruits of that
victory that gave to the world the motto,
"Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity"? A motto
destined to hurl the tyranny of kings and
priests into the dust, and give freedom to the
enslaved millions of the earth.
Where, I again
ask, is the result of those noble achievements,
when woman, ay, one-half of the nation, is
deprived of her rights? Has woman then been idle
during the contest between "right and might"?
Has she been wanting in ardor and enthusiasm?
Has she not mingled her blood with that of her
husband, son, and sire? Or has she been recreant
in hailing the motto of liberty floating on your
banners as an omen of justice, peace, and
freedom to man, that at the first step she takes
practically to claim the recognition of her
rights, she is rewarded with the doom of a
martyr?
But right has not yet asserted her prerogative,
for might rules the day; and as every good cause
must have its martyrs, why should woman not be a
martyr for her cause? But need we wonder that
France, governed as she is by Russian and
Austrian despotism, does not recognize the
rights of humanity in the recognition of the
rights of woman, when even here, in this
far-famed land of freedom, under a Republic that
has inscribed on its banner the great truth that
"all men are created free and equal, and endowed
with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness"—a declaration borne,
like the vision of hope, on wings of light to
the remotest parts of the earth, an omen of
freedom to the oppressed and down-trodden
children of man—when, even here, in the very
face of this eternal truth, woman, the mockingly
so-called "better half" of man, has yet to plead
for her rights, nay, for her life. For what is
life without liberty, and what is liberty
without equality of rights? And as for the
pursuit of happiness, she is not allowed to
choose any line of action that might promote it;
she has only thankfully to accept what man in
his magnanimity decides as best for her to do,
and this is what he does not choose to do
himself.
Is she then not included in that declaration?
Answer, ye wise men of the nation, and answer
truly; add not hypocrisy to oppression! Say that
she is not created free and equal, and therefore
(for the sequence follows on the premise) that
she is not entitled to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness. But with all the audacity
arising from an assumed superiority, you dare
not so libel and insult humanity as to say, that
she is not included in that declaration; and if
she is, then what right has man, except that of
might, to deprive woman of the rights and
privileges he claims for himself? And why, in
the name of reason and justice, why should she
not have the same rights? Because she is woman?
Humanity
recognizes no sex; virtue recognizes no sex;
mind recognizes no sex; life and death, pleasure
and pain, happiness and misery, recognize no
sex. Like man, woman comes involuntarily into
existence; like him, she possesses physical and
mental and moral powers, on the proper
cultivation of which depends her happiness; like
him she is subject to all the vicissitudes of
life; like him she has to pay the penalty for
disobeying nature's laws, and far greater
penalties has she to suffer from ignorance of
her more complicated nature; like him she enjoys
or suffers with her country. Yet she is not
recognized as his equal!
In the laws of the land she has no rights; in
government she has no voice. And in spite of
another principle, recognized in this Republic,
namely, that "taxation without representation is
tyranny," she is taxed without being
represented. Her property may be consumed by
taxes to defray the expenses of that unholy,
unrighteous custom called war, yet she has no
power to give her vote against it. From the
cradle to the grave she is subject to the power
and control of man. Father, guardian, or
husband, one conveys her like some piece of
merchandise over to the other.
At marriage she loses her entire identity, and
her being is said to have become merged in her
husband. Has nature thus merged it? Has she
ceased to exist and feel pleasure and pain? When
she violates the laws of her being, does her
husband pay the penalty? When she breaks the
moral laws, does he suffer the punishment? When
he supplies his wants, is it enough to satisfy
her nature? And when at his nightly orgies, in
the grog-shop and the oyster-cellar, or at the
gaming-table, he squanders the means she helped,
by her co-operation and economy, to accumulate,
and she awakens to penury and destitution, will
it supply the wants of her children to tell them
that, owing to the superiority of man she had no
redress by law, and that as her being was merged
in his, so also ought theirs to be? What an
inconsistency, that from the moment she enters
that compact, in which she assumes the high
responsibility of wife and mother, she ceases
legally to exist, and becomes a purely
submissive being. Blind submission in woman is
considered a virtue, while submission to wrong
is itself wrong, and resistance to wrong is
virtue, alike in woman as in man.
But it will be said that the husband provides
for the wife, or in other words, he feeds,
clothes, and shelters her! I wish I had the
power to make every one before me fully realize
the degradation contained in that idea. Yes! he
keeps her, and so he does a favorite horse; by
law they are both considered his property. Both
may, when the cruelty of the owner compels them
to, run away, be brought back by the strong arm
of the law, and according to a still extant law
of England, both may be led by the halter to the
market-place, and sold. This is humiliating
indeed, but nevertheless true; and the sooner
these things are known and understood, the
better for humanity. It is no fancy sketch. I
know that some endeavor to throw the mantle of
romance over the subject, and treat woman like
some ideal existence, not liable to the ills of
life. Let those deal in fancy, that have nothing
better to deal in; we have to do with sober, sad
realities, with stubborn facts.
Again, I shall be told that the law presumes the
husband to be kind, affectionate, and ready to
provide for and protect his wife. But what
right, I ask, has the law to presume at all on
the subject? What right has the law to entrust
the interest and happiness of one being into the
hands of another? And if the merging of the
interest of one being into the other is a
necessary consequence on marriage, why should
woman always remain on the losing side? Turn the
tables. Let the identity and interest of the
husband be merged in the wife. Think you she
would act less generously toward him, than he
toward her? Think you she is not capable of as
much justice, disinterested devotion, and
abiding affection, as he is? Oh, how grossly you
misunderstand and wrong her nature! But we
desire no such undue power over man; it would be
as wrong in her to exercise it as it now is in
him. All we claim is an equal legal and social
position. We have nothing to do with individual
man, be he good or bad, but with the laws that
oppress woman. We know that bad and unjust laws
must in the nature of things make man so too. If
he is kind, affectionate, and consistent, it is
because the kindlier feelings, instilled by a
mother, kept warm by a sister, and cherished by
a wife, will not allow him to carry out these
barbarous laws against woman.
But the estimation she is generally held in, is
as degrading as it is foolish. Man forgets that
woman can not be degraded without its reacting
on himself. The impress of her mind is stamped
on him by nature, and the early education of the
mother, which no after-training can entirely
efface; and therefore, the estimation she is
held in falls back with double force upon him.
Yet, from the force of prejudice against her, he
knows it not.
Not long ago, I
saw an account of two offenders, brought before
a Justice of New York. One was charged with
stealing a pair of boots, for which offense he
was sentenced to six months' imprisonment; the
other crime was assault and battery upon his
wife: he was let off with a reprimand from the
judge! With my principles, I am entirely opposed
to punishment, and hold, that to reform the
erring and remove the causes of evil is much
more efficient, as well as just, than to punish.
But the judge showed us the comparative value
which he set on these two kinds of property. But
then you must remember that the boots were taken
by a stranger, while the wife was insulted by
her legal owner! Here it will be said, that such
degrading cases are but few. For the sake of
humanity, I hope they are. But as long as woman
shall be oppressed by unequal laws, so long will
she be degraded by man.
We have hardly an adequate idea how all-powerful
law is in forming public opinion, in giving tone
and character to the mass of society. To
illustrate my point, look at that infamous,
detestable law, which was written in human
blood, and signed and sealed with life and
liberty, that eternal stain on the statute book
of this country, the Fugitive Slave Law. Think
you that before its passage, you could have
found any in the free States—except a few
politicians in the market—base enough to desire
such a law? No! no! Even those who took no
interest in the slave question, would have
shrunk from so barbarous a thing. But no sooner
was it passed, than the ignorant mass, the
rabble of the self-styled Union Safety
Committee, found out that we were a law-loving,
law-abiding people! Such is the magic power of
Law. Hence the necessity to guard against bad
ones. Hence also the reason why we call on the
nation to remove the legal shackles from woman,
and it will have a beneficial effect on that
still greater tyrant she has to contend with,
Public Opinion.
Carry out the republican principle of universal
suffrage, or strike it from your banners and
substitute "Freedom and Power to one half of
society, and Submission and Slavery to the
other." Give woman the elective franchise. Let
married women have the same right to property
that their husbands have; for whatever the
difference in their respective occupations, the
duties of the wife are as indispensable and far
more arduous than the husband's. Why then should
the wife, at the death of her husband, not be
his heir to the same extent that he is heir to
her?
In this inequality
there is involved another wrong. When the wife
dies, the husband is left in the undisturbed
possession of all there is, and the children are
left with him; no change is made, no stranger
intrudes on his home and his affliction. But
when the husband dies, the widow, at best
receives but a mere pittance, while strangers
assume authority denied to the wife. The
sanctuary of affliction must be desecrated by
executors; everything must be ransacked and
assessed, lest she should steal something out of
her own house: and to cap the climax, the
children must be placed under guardians. When
the husband dies poor, to be sure, no guardian
is required, and the children are left for the
mother to care and toil for, as best she may.
But when anything is left for their maintenance,
then it must be placed in the hands of strangers
for safe keeping! The bringing-up and safety of
the children are left with the mother, and safe
they are in her hands. But a few hundred or
thousand dollars can not be entrusted with her!
But, say they, "in case of a second marriage,
the children must be protected in their
property." Does that reason not hold as good in
the case of the husband as in that of the wife?
Oh, no! When he marries again, he still retains
his identity and power to act; but she becomes
merged once more into a mere nonentity; and
therefore the first husband must rob her to
prevent the second from doing so! Make the laws
regulating property between husband and wife,
equal for both, and all these difficulties would
be removed.
According to a late act, the wife has a right to
the property she brings at marriage, or receives
in any way after marriage. Here is some
provision for the favored few; but for the
laboring many, there is none. The mass of the
people commence life with no other capital than
the union of heads, hearts, and hands. To the
benefit of this best of capital, the wife has no
right. If they are unsuccessful in married life,
who suffers more the bitter consequences of
poverty than the wife? But if successful, she
can not call a dollar her own. The husband may
will away every dollar of the personal property,
and leave her destitute and penniless, and she
has no redress by law. And even where real
estate is left she receives but a life-interest
in a third part of it, and at her death, she can
not leave it to any one belonging to her: it
falls back even to the remotest of his
relatives. This is law, but where is the justice
of it? Well might we say that laws were made to
prevent, not to promote, the ends of justice.
In case of separation, why should the children
be taken from the protecting care of the mother?
Who has a better right to them than she? How
much do fathers generally do toward bringing
them up? When he comes home from business, and
the child is in good humor and handsome trim, he
takes the little darling on his knee and plays
with it. But when the wife, with the care of the
whole household on her shoulders, with little or
no help, is not able to put them in the best
order, how much does he do for them? Oh, no!
Fathers like to have children good natured,
well-behaved, and comfortable, but how to put
them in that desirable condition is out of their
philosophy. Children always depend more on the
tender, watchful care of the mother, than of the
father. Whether from nature, habit, or both, the
mother is much more capable of administering to
their health and comfort than the father, and
therefore she has the best right to them. And
where there is property, it ought to be divided
equally between them, with an additional
provision from the father toward the maintenance
and education of the children.
Much is said about the burdens and
responsibilities of married men.
Responsibilities indeed there are, if they but
felt them; but as to burdens, what are they? The
sole province of man seems to be centered in
that one thing, attending to some business. I
grant that owing to the present unjust and
unequal reward for labor, many have to work too
hard for a subsistence; but whatever his
vocation, he has to attend as much to it before
as after marriage. Look at your bachelors, and
see if they do not strive as much for wealth,
and attend as steadily to business, as married
men. No! the husband has little or no increase
of burden, and every increase of comfort after
marriage; while most of the burdens, cares,
pains, and penalties of married life fall on the
wife. How unjust and cruel, then, to have all
the laws in his favor! If any difference should
be made by law between husband and wife, reason,
justice, and humanity, if their voices were
heard, would dictate that it should be in her
favor.
No! there is no reason against woman's
elevation, but there are deep-rooted,
hoary-headed prejudices. The main cause of them
is, a pernicious falsehood propagated against
her being, namely, that she is inferior by her
nature. Inferior in what? What has man ever
done, that woman, under the same advantages,
could not do? In morals, bad as she is, she is
generally considered his superior. In the
intellectual sphere, give her a fair chance
before you pronounce a verdict against her.
Cultivate the frontal portion of her brain as
much as that of man is cultivated, and she will
stand his equal at least. Even now, where her
mind has been called out at all, her intellect
is as bright, as capacious, and as powerful as
his. Will you tell us, that women have no
Newtons, Shakespeares, and Byrons?
Greater natural
powers than even those possessed may have been
destroyed in woman for want of proper culture, a
just appreciation, reward for merit as an
incentive to exertion, and freedom of action,
without which, mind becomes cramped and stifled,
for it can not expand under bolts and bars; and
yet, amid all blighting, crushing
circumstances—confined within the narrowest
possible limits, trampled upon by prejudice and
injustice, from her education and position
forced to occupy herself almost exclusively with
the most trivial affairs—in spite of all these
difficulties, her intellect is as good as his.
The few bright meteors in man's intellectual
horizon could well be matched by woman, were she
allowed to occupy the same elevated position.
There is no need of naming the De Staëls, the
Rolands, the Somervilles, the Wollstonecrofts,
the Sigourneys, the Wrights, the Martineaus, the
Hemanses, the Fullers, Jagellos, and many more
of modern as well as ancient times, to prove her
mental powers, her patriotism, her
self-sacrificing devotion to the cause of
humanity, and the eloquence that gushes from her
pen, or from her tongue. These things are too
well known to require repetition.
And do you ask for
fortitude, energy, and perseverance? Then look
at woman under suffering, reverse of fortune,
and affliction, when the strength and power of
man have sunk to the lowest ebb, when his mind
is overwhelmed by the dark waters of despair.
She, like the tender ivy plant bent yet unbroken
by the storms of life, not only upholds her own
hopeful courage, but clings around the
tempest-fallen oak, to speak hope to his
faltering spirit, and shelter him from the
returning blast of the storm.
More History
|
|
