The Papers of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony

Address by ECS to the New York Legislature

    Editorial note: On the evening of 14 February 1854, at theYoung Men's Association Hall in Albany, ECS read her speech about New York's laws to the woman's rights convention. She did not, as is often stated, speak to the legislature. Rather, on the motion of William Channing, the convention adopted her speech as its collective address to the legislature and ordered the text printed. On 20 February, senators and assemblymen received copies when the women's petitions were presented and referred to select committees in both houses. The first printings— in the Albany Atlas, 15 February 1854, that received by legislators, and the text used by the Una and the Lily to set their type in March and April— have not been found. In May 1854 SBA published the address as a tract, and that is the source text. It remained in print for many years, sometimes advertised as "The Position of Woman as Woman, Wife, Widow, Mother." Years later ECS created the confusion over audience; in recounting a dramatic scene with her father, to whom she read the address in advance of going to Albany, she called this "my first speech for the New York legislature." Not until 1860, however, did she speak to the legislature. (Albany Evening Journal, 15 February 1854, and SBA to L. Stone, 23 May 1854, in Film, 7:1040-46;Journal of the New York Assembly, 20 February 1854, p. 320; Journal of the New York Senate, 20 February 1854, p. 228; Eighty Years, 187-89.)
The thinking minds of all nations call for change. There is a deep-lying struggle in the whole fabric of society; a boundless, grinding collision of the New with the Old.
The tyrant, Custom, has been summoned before the bar of Common Sense. His Majesty no longer awes the multitude— his sceptre is broken— his crown is trampled in the dust— the sentence of death is pronounced upon him. All nations, ranks and classes have, in turn, questioned and repudiated his authority; and now, that the monster is chained and caged, timid woman, on tiptoe, comes to look him in the face, and to demand of her brave sires and sons, who have struck stout blows for liberty, if, in this change of dynasty, she, too, shall find relief.
Yes, gentlemen, in republican America, in the 19th century, we, the daughters of the revolutionary heroes of '76, demand at your hands the redress of our grievances— a revision of your state constitution— a new code of laws. Permit us then, as briefly as possible, to call your attention to the legal disabilities under which we labor.
1st. Look at the position of woman as woman. It is not enough for us that by your laws we are permitted to live and breathe, to claim the necessaries of life from our legal protectors— to pay the penalty of our crimes; we demand the full recognition of all our rights as citizens of the Empire State. We are persons; native, free-born citizens; property-holders, tax-payers; yet are we denied the exercise of our right to the elective franchise. We support ourselves, and, in part, your schools, colleges, churches, your poor-houses, jails, prisons, the army, the navy, the whole machinery of government, and yet we have no voice in your councils. We have every qualification required by the constitution, necessary to the legal voter, but the one of sex.[1] We are moral, virtuous and intelligent, and in all respects quite equal to the proud white man himself, and yet by your laws we are classed with idiots, lunatics and negroes; and though we do not feel honored by the place assigned us, yet, in fact, our legal position is lower than that of either; for the negro can be raised to the dignity of a voter if he possess himself of $250; the lunatic can vote in his moments of sanity, and the idiot, too, if he be a male one, and not more than nine-tenths a fool; but we, who have guided great movements of charity, established missions, edited journals, published works on history, economy and statistics; who have governed nations, led armies, filled the professor's chair, taught philosophy and mathematics to the savans of our age, discovered planets, piloted ships across the sea, are denied the most sacred rights of citizens, because, forsooth, we came not into this republic crowned with the dignity of manhood! Woman is theoretically absolved from all allegiance to the laws of the state. Sec. 1, Bill of Rights, 2 R.S., 301, says that no authority can, on any pretence whatever, be exercised over the citizens of this state but such as is or shall be derived from, and granted by, the people of this state.[2]
Now, gentlemen, we would fain know by what authority you have disfranchised one-half the people of this state? You who have so boldly taken possession of the bulwarks of this republic, show us your credentials, and thus prove your exclusive right to govern, not only yourselves, but us. Judge Hurlbut, who has long occupied a high place at the bar in this state, and who recently retired with honor from the bench of the Supreme Court, in his profound work on human rights, has pronounced your present position rank usurpation.[3] Can it be that here, where are acknowledged no royal blood, no apostolic descent, that you, who have declared that all men were created equal— that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, would willingly build up an aristocracy that places the ignorant and vulgar above the educated and refined— the alien and the ditch-digger above the authors and poets of the day— an aristocracy that would raise the sons above the mothers that bore them? Would that the men who can sanction a constitution so opposed to the genius of this government, who can enact and execute laws so degrading to womankind, had sprung, Minerva-like, from the brains of their fathers,[4] that the matrons of this republic need not blush to own their sons! Woman's position, under our free institutions, is much lower than under the monarchy of England. "In England the idea of woman holding official station is not so strange as in the United States. The Countess of Pembroke, Dorset and Montgomery held the office of hereditary sheriff of Westmoreland, and exercised it in person. At the assizes at Appleby, she sat with the judges on the bench. In a reported case, it is stated by counsel, and substantially assented to by the court, that a woman is capable of serving in almost all the offices of the kingdom, such as those of queen, marshal, great chamberlain and constable of England, the champion of England, commissioner of sewers, governor of work house, sexton, keeper of the prison, of the gate house of the dean and chapter of Westminister, returning officer for members of parliament, and constable, the latter of which is in some respects judicial. The office of jailor is frequently exercised by a woman. In the United States a woman may administer on the effects of her deceased husband, and she has occasionally held a subordinate place in the post office department. She has therefore a sort of post mortem, post mistress notoriety; but with the exception of handling letters of administration and letters mailed, she is the submissive creature of the old common law." [5] True, the unmarried woman has a right to the property she inherits and the money she earns, but she is taxed without representation. And here again you place the negro, so unjustly degraded by you, in a superior position to your own wives and mothers; for colored males, if possessed of a certain amount of property and certain other qualifications, can vote, but if they do not have these qualifications they are not subject to direct taxation; wherein they have the advantage of woman, she being subject to taxation for whatever amount she may possess. (Constitution of N.Y., article 2, sec. 2.)[6] But, say you, are not all women sufficiently represented by their fathers, husbands and brothers? Let your statute books answer the question.
Again we demand, in criminal cases, that most sacred of all rights, trial by jury of our own peers.[7] The establishment of trial by jury is of so early a date that its beginning is lost in antiquity; but the right of trial by a jury of one's own peers is a great progressive step of advanced civilization. No rank of men have ever been satisfied with being tried by jurors higher or lower in the civil or political scale than themselves; for jealousy on the one hand, and contempt on the other, has ever effectually blinded the eyes of justice. Hence, all along the pages of history, we find the king, the noble, the peasant, the cardinal, the priest, the layman, each in turn protesting against the authority of the tribunal before which they were summoned to appear. Charles the First refused to recognize the competency of the tribunal which condemned him: For how, said he, can subjects judge a king?[8] The stern descendants of our Pilgrim Fathers refused to answer for their crimes before an English Parliament: For how, said they, can a king judge rebels?[9] And shall woman here consent to be tried by her liege lord, who has dubbed himself law-maker, judge, juror, and sheriff, too?— whose power, though sanctioned by Church and State, has no foundation in justice and equity, and is a bold assumption of our inalienable rights. In England a parliament-lord could challenge a jury where a knight was not empanneled. An alien could demand a jury composed half of his own countrymen; or, in some special cases, juries were even constituted entirely of women. Having seen that man fails to do justice to woman in her best estate, to the virtuous, the noble, the true of our sex, should we trust to his tender mercies the weak, the ignorant, the morally insane? It is not to be denied that the interests of man and woman in the present undeveloped state of the race, and under the existing social arrangements, are and must be antagonistic. The nobleman cannot make just laws for the peasant; the slaveholder for the slave; neither can man make and execute just laws for woman, because in each case, the one in power fails to apply the immutable principles of right to any grade but his own. Shall an erring woman be dragged before a bar of grim-visaged judges, lawyers and jurors, there to be grossly questioned in public on subjects which women scarce breathe in secret to one another? Shall the most sacred relations of life be called up and rudely scanned by men who, by their own admission, are so coarse that women could not meet them even at the polls without contamination? and yet shall she find there no woman's face or voice to pity and defend? Shall the frenzied mother, who, to save herself and child from exposure and disgrace, ended the life that had but just begun, be dragged before such a tribunal to answer for her crime? How can man enter into the feelings of that mother? How can he judge of the mighty agonies of soul that impelled her to such an outrage of maternal instincts? How can he weigh the mountain of sorrow that crushed that mother's heart when she wildly tossed her helpless babe into the cold waters of the midnight sea? Where is he who by false vows thus blasted this trusting woman? Had that helpless child no claims on his protection? Ah, he is freely abroad in the dignity of manhood, in the pulpit, on the bench, in the professor's chair. The imprisonment of his victim and the death of his child, detract not a tithe from his standing and complacency. His peers made the law, and shall law-makers lay nets for those of their own rank? Shall laws which come from the logical brain of man take cognizance of violence done to the moral and affectional nature which predominates, as is said, in woman? Statesmen of New-York, whose daughters, guarded by your affection, and lapped amidst luxuries which your indulgence spreads, care more for their nodding plumes and velvet trains than for the statute laws by which their persons and properties are held— who, blinded by custom and prejudice to the degraded position which they and their sisters occupy in the civil scale, haughtily claim that they already have all rights they want, how, think ye, you would feel to see a daughter summoned for such a crime— and remember these daughters are but human— before such a tribunal? Would it not, in that hour, be some consolation to see that she was surrounded by the wise and virtuous of her own sex; by those who had known the depth of a mother's love and the misery of a lover's falsehood; to know that to these she could make her confession, and from them receive her sentence? If so, then listen to our just demands and make such a change in your laws as will secure to every woman tried in your courts, an impartial jury. At this moment among the hundreds of women who are shut up in prisons in this state, not one has enjoyed that most sacred of all rights— that right which you would die to defend for yourselves— trial by a jury of one's peers.
2d. Look at the position of woman as wife. Your laws relating to marriage— founded as they are on the old common law of England, a compound of barbarous usages, but partially modified by progressive civilization— are in open violation of our enlightened ideas of justice, and of the holiest feelings of our nature. If you take the highest view of marriage, as a Divine relation, which love alone can constitute and sanctify, then of course human legislation can only recognize it. Man can neither bind nor loose its ties, for that prerogative belongs to God alone, who makes man and woman, and the laws of attraction by which they are united. But if you regard marriage as a civil contract, then let it be subject to the same laws which control all other contracts. Do not make it a kind of half-human, half-divine institution, which you may build up but cannot regulate.[10] Do not, by your special legislation for this one kind of contract, involve yourselves in the grossest absurdities and contradictions.
So long as by your laws no man can make a contract for a horse or piece of land until he is twenty-one years of age, and by which contract he is not bound if any deception has been practiced, or if the party contracting has not fulfilled his part of the agreement— so long as the parties in all mere civil contracts retain their identity and all the power and independence they had before contracting, with the full right to dissolve all partnerships and contracts for any reason, at the will and option of the parties themselves, upon what principle of civil jurisprudence do you permit the boy of fourteen and the girl of twelve, in violation of every natural law, to make a contract more momentous in importance than any other, and then hold them to it, come what may, the whole of their natural lives, in spite of disappointment, deception and misery?[11] Then, too, the signing of this contract is instant civil death to one of the parties. The woman who but yesterday was sued on bended knee, who stood so high in the scale of being as to make an agreement on equal terms with a proud Saxon man, to-day has no civil existence, no social freedom. The wife who inherits no property holds about the same legal position that does the slave on the southern plantation. She can own nothing, sell nothing. She has no right even to the wages she earns; her person, her time, her services are the property of another.[12] She cannot testify, in many cases, against her husband. She can get no redress for wrongs in her own name in any court of justice. She can neither sue nor be sued. She is not held morally responsible for any crime committed in the presence of her husband, so completely is her very existence supposed by the law to be merged in that of another.[13] Think of it; your wives may be thieves, libellers, burglars, incendiaries, and for crimes like these they are not held amenable to the laws of the land, if they but commit them in your dread presence. For them, alas! there is no higher law than the will of man. Herein behold the bloated conceit of these Petruchios of the law, who seem to say:
Nay, look not big, nor stamp, nor stare, nor fret,
I will be master of what is mine own;
She is my goods, my chattels; she is my house,
My household stuff, my field, my barn,
My horse, my ox, my ass, my anything;
And here she stands, touch her whoever dare;
I'll bring my action on the proudest he,
That stops my way, in Padua.[14]
How could man ever look thus on woman?— She, at whose feet Socrates learned wisdom— she, who gave to the world a Saviour, and witnessed alike the adoration of the Magi and the agonies of the Cross.[15] How could such a being, so blessed and honored, ever become the ignoble, servile, cringing slave, with whom the fear of man could be paramount to the sacred dictates of conscience and the holy love of Heaven? By the common law of England, the spirit of which has been but too faithfully incorporated into our statute law, a husband has a right to whip his wife with a rod not larger than his thumb, to shut her up in a room, and administer whatever moderate chastisement he may deem necessary to insure obedience to his wishes, and for her healthful moral development![16] He can forbid all persons harboring or trusting her on his account. He can deprive her of all social intercourse with her nearest and dearest friends. If by great economy she accumulates a small sum, which for future need she deposit, little by little, in a savings bank, the husband has a right to draw it out, at his option, to use it as he may see fit.
"Husband is entitled to wife's credit or business talents (whenever their intermarriage may have occurred); and goods purchased by her on her own credit, with his consent, while cohabiting with him, can be seized and sold in execution against him for his own debts, and this, though she carry on business in her own name."— 7 Howard's Practice Reports, 105, Lovett agt. Robinson and Witbeck, sheriff, & c.[17]
"No letters of administration shall be granted to a person convicted of infamous crime; nor to any one incapable by law of making a contract; nor to a person not a citizen of the United States, unless such person reside within this state; nor to any one who is under twenty-one years of age; nor to any person who shall be adjudged incompetent by the surrogate to execute duties of such trust, by reason of drunkenness, improvidence, or want of understanding, nor any married woman; but where a married woman is entitled to administration, the same may be granted to her husband in her right and behalf."[18]
There is nothing that an unruly wife might do against which the husband has not sufficient protection in the law. But not so with the wife. If she have a worthless husband, a confirmed drunkard, a villain or a vagrant, he has still all the rights of a man, a husband and a father. Though the whole support of the family be thrown upon the wife, if the wages she earns be paid to her by her employer, the husband can receive them again. If, by unwearied industry and perseverance, she can earn for herself and children a patch of ground and a shed to cover them, the husband can strip her of all her hard earnings, turn her and her little ones out in the cold northern blast, take the clothes from their backs, the bread from their mouths; all this by your laws may he do, and has he done, oft and again, to satisfy the rapacity of that monster in human form, the rumseller.
But the wife who is so fortunate as to have inherited property, has, by the new law in this state, been redeemed from her lost condition.[19] She is no longer a legal nonentity. This property law, if fairly construed, will overturn the whole code relating to woman and property. The right to property implies the right to buy and sell, to will and bequeath, and herein is the dawning of a civil existence for woman, for now the "femme covert" must have the right to make contracts. So, get ready, gentlemen; the "little justice" will be coming to you one day, deed in hand, for your acknowledgment. When he asks you "if you sign without fear or compulsion," say yes, boldly, as we do.[20] Then, too, the right to will is ours. Now what becomes of the "tenant for life?"[21] Shall he, the happy husband of a millionaire, who has lived in yonder princely mansion in the midst of plenty and elegance, be cut down in a day to the use of one-third of this estate and a few hundred a year, as long as he remains her widower? And should he, in spite of this bounty on celibacy, impelled by his affections, marry again, choosing for a wife a woman as poor as himself, shall he be thrown penniless on the cold world— this child of fortune, enervated by ease and luxury, henceforth to be dependent wholly on his own resources? Poor man! He would be rich, though, in the sympathies of many women who have passed through just such an ordeal. But what is property without the right to protect that property by law? It is mockery to say a certain estate is mine, if, without my consent, you have the right to tax me when and how you please, while I have no voice in making the tax-gatherer, the legislator or the law. The right to property will, of necessity, compel us in due time to the exercise of our right to the elective franchise, and then naturally follows the right to hold office.
3d. Look at the position of woman as widow. Whenever we attempt to point out the wrongs of the wife, those who would have us believe that the laws cannot be improved, point us to the privileges, powers and claims of the widow. Let us look into these a little. Behold in yonder humble house a married pair, who, for long years, have lived together, childless and alone. Those few acres of well-tilled land, with the small white house that looks so cheerful through its vines and flowers, attest the honest thrift and simple taste of its owners. This man and woman, by their hard days' labor, have made this home their own. Here they live in peace and plenty, happy in the hope that they may dwell together securely under their own vine and fig tree for the few years that remain to them, and that under the shadow of these trees, planted by their own hands, and in the midst of their household gods, so loved and familiar, here may take their last farewell of earth. But, alas for human hopes! the husband dies, and without will, and the stricken widow, at one fell blow, loses the companion of her youth, her house and home, and half the little sum she had in bank. For the law, which takes no cognizance of widows left with twelve children and not one cent, instantly spies out this widow, takes account of her effects, and announces to her the startling intelligence that but one-third of the house and lot, and one-half the personal property, are hers.[22] The law has other favorites with whom she must share the hard-earned savings of years. In this dark hour of grief, the coarse minions of the law gather round the widow's hearthstone, and, in the name of justice, outrage all natural sense of right; mock at the sacredness of human love, and with cold familiarity proceed to place a moneyed value on the old arm chair, in which, but a few brief hours since, she closed the eyes that had ever beamed on her with kindness and affection; on the solemn clock in the corner, that told the hour he passed away; on every garment with which his form and presence were associated, and on every article of comfort and convenience that the house contained, even down to the knives and forks and spoons— and the widow saw it all— and when the work was done, she gathered up what the law allowed her and went forth to seek her another home! This is the much talked of widow's dower. Behold the magnanimity of the law in allowing the widow to retain a life interest in one-third the landed estate, and one-half the personal property of her husband, and taking the lion's share to itself! Had she died first, the house and land would all have been the husband's still. No one would have dared to intrude upon the privacy of his home or to molest him in his sacred retreat of sorrow.[23]
How, I ask you, can that be called justice, which makes such a distinction as this between man and woman?
By management, economy and industry, our widow is able, in a few years, to redeem her house and home. But the law never loses sight of the purse, no matter how low in the scale of being its owner may be. It sends its officers round every year to gather in the harvest for the public crib, and no widow who owns a piece of land two feet square ever escapes this reckoning. Our widow, too, who has now twice earned her home, has her annual tax to pay also— a tribute of gratitude that she is permitted to breathe the free air of this republic, where"taxation without representation," by such worthies as John Hancock and Samuel Adams,[24] has been declared "intolerable tyranny." Having glanced at the magnanimity of the law in its dealings with the widow, let us see how the individual man, under the influence of such laws, doles out justice to his helpmate. The husband has the absolute right to will away his property as he may see fit. If he has children, he can divide his property among them, leaving his wife her third only of the landed estate, thus making her a dependent on the bounty of her own children. A man with thirty thousand dollars in personal property, may leave his wife but a few hundred a year, as long as she remains his widow.
The cases are without number where women, who have lived in ease and elegance, at the death of their husbands have, by will, been reduced to the bare necessaries of life. The man who leaves his wife the sole guardian of his property and children is an exception to the general rule. Man has ever manifested a wish that the world should indeed be a blank to the companion whom he leaves behind him. The Hindoo makes that wish a law, and burns the widow on the funeral pile of her husband;[25] but the civilized man, impressed with a different view of the sacredness of life, takes a less summary mode of drawing his beloved partner after him; he does it by the deprivation and starvation of the flesh, and the humiliation and mortification of the spirit. In bequeathing to the wife just enough to keep soul and body together, man seems to lose sight of the fact that woman, like himself, takes great pleasure in acts of benevolence and charity. It is but just, therefore, that she should have it in her power to give during her life, and to will away at her death, as her benevolence or obligations might prompt her to do.
4th. Look at the position of woman as mother. There is no human love so generous, strong and steadfast as that of the mother for her child; yet behold how cruel and ruthless are your laws touching this most sacred relation.
Nature has clearly made the mother the guardian of the child; but man, in his inordinate love of power, does continually set nature and nature's laws at open defiance. The father may apprentice his child, bind him out to a trade or labor, without the mother's consent— yea, in direct opposition to her most earnest entreaties, her prayers and tears. [26]
He may apprentice his son to a gamester or rumseller, and thus cancel his debts of honor. By the abuse of this absolute power, he may bind his daughter to the owner of a brothel, and, by the degradation of his child, supply his daily wants; and such things, gentlemen, have been done in our very midst. Moreover, the father, about to die, may bind out all his children wherever and to whomsoever he may see fit, and thus, in fact, will away the guardianship of all his children from the mother. The Revised Statutes of New-York provide that "every father, whether of full age or a minor, of a child to be born, or of any living child under the age of twenty-one years, and unmarried, may by his deed or last will, duly executed, dispose of the custody and tuition of such child during its minority, or for any less time, to any person or persons, in possession or remainder." 2 R.S., page 150, sec. 1.[27]
Thus, by your laws, the child is the absolute property of the father, wholly at his disposal in life or at death.
In case of separation, the law gives the children to the father; no matter what his character or condition.[28] At this very time we can point you to noble, virtuous, well educated mothers in this state, who have abandoned their husbands for their profligacy and confirmed drunkenness. All these have been robbed of their children, who are in the custody of the husband, under the care of his relatives, whilst the mothers are permitted to see them but at stated intervals. But, said one of these mothers, with a grandeur of attitude and manner worthy the noble Roman matron in the palmiest days of that republic, I would rather never see my child again, than be the medium to hand down the low animal nature of its father, to stamp degradation on the brow of another innocent being. It is enough that one child of his shall call me mother. If you are far sighted statesmen, and do wisely judge of the interests of this commonwealth, you will so shape your future laws as to encourage woman to take the high moral ground that the father of her children must be great and good.
Instead of your present laws, which make the mother and her children the victims of vice and license, you might rather pass laws prohibiting to all drunkards, libertines and fools, the rights of husbands and fathers. Do not the hundreds of laughing idiots that are crowding into our asylums, appeal to the wisdom of our statesmen for some new laws on marriage— to the mothers of this day for a higher, purer morality?
Again, as the condition of the child always follows that of the mother, and as by the abuse of your laws the father may beat the mother, so may he the child.[29] What mother cannot bear me witness to untold sufferings which cruel, vindictive fathers have visited upon their helpless children? Who ever saw a human being that would not abuse unlimited power? Base and ignoble must that man be, who, let the provocation be what it may, would strike a woman; but he who would lacerate a trembling child is unworthy the name of man. A mother's love can be no protection to a child; she cannot appeal to you to save it from a father's cruelty, for the laws take no cognizance of the mother's most grievous wrongs. Neither at home nor abroad can a mother protect her son. Look at the temptations that surround the paths of our youth at every step; look at the gambling and drinking saloons, the club rooms, the dens of infamy and abomination that infest all our villages and cities— slowly but surely sapping the very foundations of all virtue and strength.
By your laws, all these abominable resorts are permitted. It is folly to talk of a mother moulding the character of her son, when all mankind, backed up by law and public sentiment, conspire to destroy her influence. But when woman's moral power shall speak through the ballot-box, then shall her influence be seen and felt; then, in our legislative debates, such questions as the canal tolls on salt, the improvement of rivers and harbors, and the claims of Mr. Smith for damages against the state, would be secondary to the consideration of the legal existence of all these public resorts, which lure our youth on to excessive indulgence and destruction.
Many times and oft it has been asked us, with unaffected seriousness, "what do you women want? What are you aiming at?" Many have manifested a laudable curiosity to know what the wives and daughters could complain of in republican America, where their sires and sons have so bravely fought for freedom and gloriously secured their independence, trampling all tyranny, bigotry and caste in the dust, and declaring to a waiting world the divine truth that all men are created equal. What can woman want under such a government? Admit a radical difference in sex and you demand different spheres— water for fish, and air for birds.
It is impossible to make the southern planter believe that his slave feels and reasons just as he does— that injustice and subjection are as galling as to him— that the degradation of living by the will of another, the mere dependent on his caprice, at the mercy of his passions, is as keenly felt by him as his master. If you can force on his unwilling vision a vivid picture of the negro's wrongs, and for a moment touch his soul, his logic brings him instant consolation. He says, the slave does not feel this as I would. Here, gentlemen is our difficulty: When we plead our cause before the law makers and savans of the republic, they cannot take in the idea that men and women are alike; and so long as the mass rest in this delusion, the public mind will not be so much startled by the revelations made of the injustice and degradation of woman's position as by the fact that she should at length wake up to a sense of it.
If you, too, are thus deluded, what avails it that we show by your statute books that your laws are unjust— that woman is the victim of avarice and power? What avails it that we point out the wrongs of woman in social life; the victim of passion and lust? You scorn the thought that she has any natural love of freedom burning in her breast, any clear perception of justice urging her on to demand her rights.
Would to God you could know the burning indignation that fills woman's soul when she turns over the pages of your statute books, and sees there how like feudal barons you freemen hold your women. Would that you could know the humiliation she feels for her sex, when she thinks of all the beardless boys in your law offices, learning these ideas of one-sided justice— taking their first lessons in contempt for all womankind— being indoctrinated into the incapacities of their mothers, and the lordly, absolute rights of man over all women, children and property, and to know that these are to be our future Presidents, Judges, Husbands and Fathers; in sorrow we exclaim, alas! for that nation whose sons bow not in loyalty to woman. The mother is the first object of the child's veneration and love, and they who root out this holy sentiment, dream not of the blighting effect it has on the boy and the man. The impression left on law students, fresh from your statute books, is most unfavorable to woman's influence; hence you see but few lawyers chivalrous and high-toned in their sentiments towards woman. They cannot escape the legal view which, by constant reading, has become familiarized to their minds: "Femme covert," "dower," "widow's claims," "protection," "incapacities," "incumbrance," is written on the brow of every woman they meet.
But if, gentlemen, you take the ground that the sexes are alike, and, therefore, you are our faithful representatives— then why all these special laws for woman? Would not one code answer for all of like needs and wants? Christ's golden rule is better than all the special legislation that the ingenuity of man can devise: "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."[30] This, men and brethren, is all we ask at your hands. We ask no better laws than those you have made for yourselves. We need no other protection than that which your present laws secure to you.
In conclusion, then, let us say, in behalf of the women of this state, we ask for all that you have asked for yourselves in the progress of your development, since the May Flower cast anchor side Plymouth rock; and simply on the ground that the rights of every human being are the same and identical. You may say that the mass of the women of this state do not make the demand; it comes from a few sour, disappointed old maids and childless women.
You are mistaken; the mass speak through us. A very large majority of the women of this state support themselves and their children, and many their husbands too. Go into any village you please, of three or four thousand inhabitants, and you will find as many as fifty men or more, whose only business is to discuss religion and politics, as they watch the trains come and go at the depot, or the passage of a canal boat through a lock; to laugh at the vagaries of some drunken brother, or the capers of a monkey, dancing to the music of his master's organ. All these are supported by their mothers, wives or sisters.
Now, do you candidly think these wives do not wish to control the wages they earn— to own the land they buy— the houses they build? to have at their disposal their own children, without being subject to the constant interference and tyranny of an idle, worthless profligate? Do you suppose that any woman is such a pattern of devotion and submission that she willingly stitches all day for the small sum of fifty cents, that she may enjoy the unspeakable privilege, in obedience to your laws, of paying for her husband's tobacco and rum? Think you the wife of the confirmed, beastly drunkard would consent to share with him her home and bed, if law and public sentiment would release her from such gross companionship? Verily, no! Think you the wife, with whom endurance has ceased to be a virtue, who through much suffering has lost all faith in the justice of both Heaven and earth, takes the law in her own hand, severs the unholy bond and turns her back forever upon him whom she once called husband, consents to the law that in such an hour tears her child from her— all that she has left on earth to love and cherish? The drunkards' wives speak through us, and they number 50,000. Think you that the woman who has worked hard all her days, in helping her husband to accumulate a large property, consents to the law that places this wholly at his disposal? Would not the mother, whose only child is bound out for a term of years, against her expressed wishes, deprive the father of this absolute power if she could?
For all these, then, we speak. If to this long list you add all the laboring women, who are loudly demanding remuneration for their unending toil— those women who teach in our seminaries, academies and common schools for a miserable pittance; the widows, who are taxed without mercy; the unfortunate ones in our work houses, poor houses and prisons; who are they that we do not now represent? But a small class of fashionable butterflies, who, through the short summer days, seek the sunshine and the flowers; but the cool breezes of autumn and the hoary frosts of winter will soon chase all these away; then, they too will need and seek protection, and through other lips demand, in their turn, justice and equity at your hands.
Address to the Legislature of New-York, Adopted by the State Woman's Rights Convention, Held at Albany, Tuesday and Wednesday, February 14 and 15, 1854 (Albany, 1854). Also in Lily, 15 March 1854, and Una, April and May 1854. Published as well in History, 1:595-605.
    [1.] The constitution specified that white male voters be twenty-one years of age, citizens for at least ten days, state residents for one year, and county residents for four months. Men "of color" could vote if they had resided in the state for three years and possessed two hundred and fifty dollars of property for at least one year. ECS also refers below to the provision that no man would lose his right of suffrage "while kept at any almshouse or other asylum, at public expense" or "while confined in any public prison."(N.Y. Const. of 1846, art. II, secs. 1, 3.)
    [2.] The quotation from the 1852 edition of the Revised Statutes of the State of New-York, 1:301, begins at "no authority," and ECS added the emphasis. ECS also cites earlier editions of the statutes, evidence perhaps that several collaborators supplied her examples.
    [3.] Elisha P. Hurlbut wrote that men and women were equal before men took rights away from women. "Her submission exalts the throne of his power: her legal insignificance elevates his dignity, and her lost rights are appropriated to himself." (Essays on Human Rights, 148.)
    [4.] Minerva, goddess of wisdom, was not born of a mother but sprang full grown, in armor, from the head of Jupiter.
    [5.] The passage comes from a footnote in Hurlbut, Essays on Human Rights, 126. He refers to a widow's right to administer the estate of her deceased husband if he left no will to instruct otherwise. Hurlbut's sentences about Anne Clifford, countess of Dorset, Pembroke, and Montgomery (1590-1676), who inherited the office of sheriff from her father in 1643, are taken from a note on page 326 of the 1832 edition of Edward Coke, The First Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England.
    [6.] ECS refers to article II, section 1 (not 2) about the qualifications of voters, which concluded: "And no person of color shall be subject to direct taxation unless he shall be seized and possessed of" real estate sufficient to make him a voter.
    [7.] The emphasis here is on "our own peers." The state's bill of rights guaranteed that the trial by jury be "inviolate forever" in all the courts of New York, but only male inhabitants could be returned as jurors. (N.Y. Const. of 1846, art. I, sec. 2; Revised Statutes of the State of New York, 1852, 2:656, sec. 5.)
    [8.] On trial for treason, Charles I (1600-1649), king of Great Britain and Ireland, refused to acknowledge the court's legitimacy because the House of Commons established it without the consent of either the king or the House of Lords. He was, nonetheless, condemned to death and executed.
    [9.] Probably a reference to the plight of Puritans omitted from the amnesty at the time of the Restoration, when Charles II came to the throne.
    [10.] ECS raises a difficulty in the law of marriage that plagued legal reformers and fueled intense debates about divorce. State law followed the common law in defining marriage as simply a civil contract, valid when entered into by two people willing and able to do so. But in practice, it was a contract like no other because the parties could not dissolve it by mutual consent. Blackstone acknowledged that common law addressed one legal dimension of marriage, while ecclesiastical law addressed another, "the holiness of the married state." In the sum of its parts, marriage was both civil contract and sacrament, but American society lacked the legal foundation for sacramental marriage. There were numerous critics of the legal inconsistency by 1854. In 1852 the Committee on the Judiciary of the New York Assembly noted, nothing in state law justified declaring marriage indissoluble. As the law stood, marriage was "entirely a matter of municipal regulation," and decisions about divorce should be matters of "expedience and policy" only. Writing in the same year, Henry Stanton's friend Joel Bishop urged that the model of contracting marriage be abandoned and replaced with a secular concept, derived from natural law, that bound two people into a unique civil status. Other critics tilted in the opposite direction, looking for marriage to be returned to the churches and made "a wholly divine institution and a sacrament of the church, a contract irrepealable except for infidelity." Thus one Albany newspaper responded to ECS's description of a "half-human, half-divine institution." That mix of human and divine law, the editors continued, reflected well marriage's special character. (Revised Statutes of the State of New York,1852, 2:321, sec. 1; Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1:345-46; "Report of the Committee on the Judiciary, on the Subject of Divorce," New York Assembly Documents, 2 March 1852, No. 73, p. 4; Bishop, Commentaries on the Law of Marriage and Divorce, 25; unidentified clipping, SBA scrapbook 1, Rare Books, DLC; Grossberg, Governing the Hearth, 17-24.)
    [11.] This comparison between the legal ages for contracting marriage and conducting business comes from Hurlbut, Essays on Human Rights, 152-53. New York, for a time, raised the age of consent to seventeen years for boys and fourteen years for girls, but the legislature repealed the law in 1830 and reverted to the provisions of the common law noted by ECS. (Revised Statutes of the State of New York, 1829, 2:138, sec. 2; Revised Statutes of the State of New York, 1836, 2:74; Reeve, Law of Baron and Femme, 200.)
    [12.] The target of criticism is the Married Women's Property Act of 1848 which provided woman no rights to her earnings while married nor to joint earnings acquired by husband and wife.
    [13.] ECS enumerates the legal consequences of marriage for women as spelled out in the common law. The list can be found in Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1:355-66.
    [14.] Taming of the Shrew, act 3, sc. 2, lines 217-24.
    [15.] Diotima, who taught Socrates, in Plato's Symposium, and Mary, the mother of Jesus, in Matt. 2:9 and John 19:25.
    [16.] Tapping Reeve thought it impossible to define precisely the husband's power over his wife's person in nineteenth-century America because the "refinements of modern times" were changing social customs and the law. He insisted that the laws recognized no right to chastise a wife, but he listed circumstances that allowed a husband to imprison her. As Elisha Hurlbut summed up the legal defense of male supremacy, the husband "may still lock her up in a closet; he may bind her with cords; but he may not whip her." (Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 1:366,; Reeve, Baron and Femme, 64-65; Hurlbut, Essays on Human Rights, 162-63; Glenn, Campaigns Against Corporal Punishment, 63-83.)
    [17.] ECS quotes an unidentified digest of a decision rendered by Justice Willard of the New York Supreme Court in Lovett agt. Robinson and Witbeck. In order to satisfy the debts of Mr. Lovett, the sheriff of Rensselaer County seized millinery goods purchased by his wife for her business in Troy, and the court upheld the seizure. The court pointed out that the law of 1848 and the amendment of 1849, protecting the property of married women, applied only to inherited property and gifts or bequests, not to a wife's business. "Her credit, or business talents, belong to the husband," the justice concluded, and thus the goods were his and liable to seizure. (7 Howard's Practice Reports, 105 [1852].)
    [18.] A letter of administration appoints the executor of an estate; a married woman might be entitled to administration as a daughter or sister of the deceased. With minor alterations, ECS cites Revised Satutes of the State of New York, 1852, 2:260, sec. 32.
    [19.] The Married Women's Property Act of 1848 and amendments made to it in 1849.
    [20.] ECS threatens men with the demeaning encounter between a wife and the commissioner of deeds whenever property was to be sold. To protect the wife's dower rights, the commissioner needed her certification that she signed a deed of sale free from "fear and compulsion of her husband."
    [21.] The Married Women's Property Act of 1849 provided that wives could dispose of their separate property by will. Otherwise married women could write no wills to dispose of either real or personal property, and the will of a single woman was revoked by marriage. On the one hand, "All persons, except idiots, persons of unsound mind, married women, and infants, may devise their real estate, by a last will and testament, duly executed according to the provisions of this title." On the other hand, "Every male person of the age of eighteen years, or upwards, and every female not being a married woman, of the age of sixteen years, or upwards, of sound mind and memory, and no others, may give and bequeath his or her personal estate, by will in writing." If women write wills, ECS asks, will widowers find themselves limited as widows have been to gaining use of a spouse's property as a tenant for life rather than owner? Will he face all the same restrictions that men have imposed through their wills on their wives? (Revised Statutes of the State of New York, 1852, 2:241, sec. 1; 243, sec. 18; 246, sec. 37; 331, sec. 67.)
    [22.] Two conditions determine the experience of ECS's widow: her husband died intestate, or without writing a will, and she was childless. In the absence of a will, the law protected her right to the use of one-third of the real property owned by her husband at any time during their marriage (her widow's dower), and it allowed her to "tarry in the chief house of her husband, forty days after his death" without paying rent. Of his personal property, the law guaranteed her a life interest in one-half and distributed the other half to her late husband's next of kin. The laws exempted from the estate only a small number of personal items that the widow could retain outright, like her spinning wheel and loom, the family bible, her clothing, necessary dishes and kitchenware, and her bed. With only a life interest in the estate, the widow could not bequeath the property in her turn. (Revised Statutes of the State of New York, 1852, 2:149, sec. 1; 151, sec. 17; 269-70, secs. 9-10; 281-82, sec. 82.)
    [23.] No man could write a will that left his widow less than her dower right to his real estate, but he could dispose of his whole personal estate without leaving her anything save the items exempted for her personal use. If his children were minors, the widow had additional use of property in order to care for the children. (Revised Statutes of the State of New York, 1852, 2:269-70, secs. 9-11.)
    [24.] John Hancock (1737-1793) and Samuel Adams (1722-1803) of Boston were prominent advocates of rebellion against British colonial rule.
    [25.] Lydia Maria Child told of Hindu widows burning themselves on the funeral pile of their husbands. She explained it was not a religious duty but a custom based on the belief that a widow thus ensured eternal life with her husband. (History of the Condition of Women, 1:111-17.)
    [26.] The law required adult consent before males under twenty-one or females under eighteen could indenture themselves to work as clerks, apprentices, or servants, and it specified that the father should be that adult, provided he lived and was responsible for his family. In his absence the mother could consent, but if she refused, guardians and town officials could override her wishes. (Revised Statutes of the State of New York, 1852, 2:339, sec. 2.)
    [27.] ECS cites the Revised Statutes of 1829. In the edition of 1852, her quotation appears at 2:334, sec. 1.
    [28.] ECS overstates the law and judicial opinion in this instance, as if the common law rights of fathers to their children stood unchallenged. New York's revised statutes had opened the way for courts to award the custody of minor children to mothers and the courts moved in that direction. In People v. Chegaray, a case involving a mother's petition for custody after separation, a state supreme court justice thought, "it can hardly be doubted that the father is entitled to the custody of his infant children," and the case did not warrant "the interference of the court." But he also wrote that the father's rights were not absolute. In other cases decided before ECS wrote her address, judges interpreted their statutory authority to award custody of the children "as may seem necessary and proper" to mean custody decisions based on the welfare of children. They could decide, in the words of one judge, that the mother was an "unobjectionable" guardian. Given how personal and unpredictable the judges' decisions were, ECS may have sought clearer guidelines from the legislature. (Revised Statutes of the State New York, 1852, 2:330, sec. 63; 332-33, secs. 1-3; 18 Wendell's Reports 637 [1836]; Ahrenfeldt v. Ahrendfeldt, 1 Hoffman's Chancery Reports 497 [1840], and 4 Sandford's Chancery Reports 525 [1847]; Grossberg, Governing the Hearth, 234-56.)
    [29.] A man's "power of restraining" his wife was described in terms of that "moderation that a man is allowed to correct his apprentices or children." (Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1:366.)
    [30.] Matt. 7:12 and Luke 6:31.