Library Collections: Document: Full Text

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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