Draft

The first seventeen endnotes from Chapter Nine

Draft of 2005.07.18

1

Generally these conventicles produced very many bastards, and the excuse they (the ministers) made for that, was, “where sin abounds the Grace of God super abounds; there is no condemnation in those that are in Christ.” Sometimes this: “The lambs of God may sport together; to the pure all things are pure.” Nay, generally they are of opinion that a man is never a true saint till he have a fall like that of David with Bathsheba, The true character of the Presbyterian Pastors and People of Scotland. Reign of King Charles II—and since the Revolution, p. 12.

2

Mr. Mott a member of the Salvation army in Syracuse, having led astray another member, a young girl of seventeen and being requested to do her the justice of marrying her, replies that he has a great mission converting the world and has no time for marrying. He took an active part in the salvation meeting the other night. He says he was doing as Jesus did, and was free from sin. He carried the flag in the streets and prayed three times. There was great disorder and indignation at Mott’s impudence in praying and speaking.—Syracuse Daily Standard. 1883.

3

The Book of Pitris.

4

Light on the Path.

5

Mrs. Gage, Chairman of the Resolution Committee.

6

Both Marie Weston Chapman, and Whittier, immortalized this letter in verse, Mrs. Chapman by a spirited poem entitled: “The Times that try Men’s souls,” and Whittier in one called “A Pastoral Letter.” This “Clerical Bull” was fulminated with special reference to those two noble South Carolina women, Sarah M. and Angelina E. Grimke, who were at that time publicly pleading for those in bonds as bound with them, while on a visit to Massachusetts. It was written by the Rev. Dr. Nehemiah Adams, of Boston author of “A South-side View of Slavery.”

7

No man who remembers 1837 and its lowering clouds will deny that there was hardly any contribution to the anti-slavery movement greater or more impressive than the crusade of these Grimke sisters from South Carolina through the New England States.—Wendell Phillips.

8

Who afterwards married Stephen Foster, one of the apostles of the anti-slavery cause.

9

Decomposed eggs, the contents of stables, and even of outhouses, were hurled at the speaker and those assembled to listen.

10

Rev. Samuel J. May first had his attention called to the wrongs of women under Church and State by a striking comparison of the two from the lips of a woman. Priestly opposition to new ideas, and to woman’s taking part in reform work, still continues to be manifest, as shown by the tour of General Weaver and Mrs. Lease, through the Southern States in the fall of 1892. “The notorious Mrs. Lease,” as she was termed, was met by hooting, howling, egg-throwing mobs, and in Atlanta “an eminent minister of the strongest religious denomination (Baptist) in the South” preached against the third party, September 18th, five days before that on which General Weaver and Mrs. Lease were to speak in that city. This sermon, reported by the Constitution, as a “red-hot roasting” declared against the political party that would employ women as speakers, “unsex American women,” as an evidence of the skepticism of the age. Nor is this the only recent instance of pulpit opposition to woman. After the formation of the woman’s National Liberal League, Washington, February 1890, clergymen in different portions of the country—Washington, Iowa, Massachusetts, etc., hurled their anathemas against this association, as inimical to Bible morality, and especially against the women leading in this step. In addition to these sermons, a Catholic Orphanage of seven hundred children, was instructed to pray against such demoralizing ideas; and beyond this, letters passing between influential women fell under United States supervision, and were opened in transit.

11

Lucretia Mott foremost among these delegates, after this rejection decided upon holding a Woman’s Rights Convention, upon her return to America, which should present the wrongs under which women suffered. This was done, 1848, at Seneca Falls, N. Y.

12

Through Senator Joseph E. Brown.

13

Several ladies well known for their work in the enfranchisement of their sex, attended this trial, the New York Sun facetiously referring to the presence of “those eminent Presbyterians, Lillie Devereux Blake, Matilda Joslyn Gage and Susan A. King.”

14

Report of the Washington D. C. “Republican.”

15

Ably reviewed each week as they appeared, by Mrs. Lillie Devereux Blake.

16

Lenten Lectures, p. 56-7-114.

17

WOMEN AND THEIR SPHERE! Rev. Dr. Dix, some weeks since, came to the front with a series of sermons in which, by unsupported assertion, he managed to demonstrate that women in the United States are no longer ornamental. The trouble in the mind of the reverend D.D. seems to be that women, having grown in the knowledge of the truth and of that liberty wherewith Christ maketh free, have concluded that their sphere is not to be man’s slave—his plaything, a human gewgaw, to be fondled, caressed, or kicked as the masculine mind may elect. If it is important for man to “know himself,” brave women have concluded that it is quite as essential for a woman to know herself, and with a heroism born of rights conferred by God Himself, women have in these latter days resolved to map out their own sphere independent of man’s dictation. They have made commendable headway. They have succeeded in shaking down a number of antiquated citadels where ignorance, superstition, prejudice, despotism and cruelty found refuge, and, as they tumbled, the breath of popular indignation has blown the fragments away like chaff in the grasp of a tornado. These brave women, finding out that—

“Life is real, life is earnest,”

set themselves about solving its problems for themselves and for their sex. Some of them asked for the ballot. Why? Because they wanted to obliterate from the statute books such laws as restricted their liberties and circumscribed their sphere. As wives they wanted to be the equals of their husbands before the law. Why not? As mothers they wanted to be the equal of their sons before the law. Why not? A thousand reasons have been assigned why not, but they do not answer the demand. What is wanted as prudent guarantees that the ballot will be wisely wielded by those upon whom the great right has been conferred? The answer is ready—intellect, education, a fair comprehension of the obligations of citizenship, loyalty to the Government, to republican institutions and the welfare of society. It is not contended that women do not possess these qualifications, but the right is withheld from them nevertheless, and by withholding this right a hundred others are included, every one of which when justice bears sway will be granted. This done woman’s sphere will regulate itself as does man’s sphere. The Boston Herald in a recent issue takes Dr. Dix to task for narrowness of vision and weakness of grasp in discussing “the calling of a Christian woman,” and then proceeds to outline its own views on the “sphere of capable women,” in which it is less robust than the reverend D.D. To intimate that the Infinite Disposer of Events favors the narrow, vulgar prejudices of Rev. Dr. Dix and his organ, the Boston Herald, is to dwarf the Almighty to human proportions and bring discredit upon His attributes in the midst of which justice shines with resplendent glory, but the demand is that women themselves shall determine for themselves the boundaries of their sphere. It is not a question of mere sentiment, it is not a matter of fancy or caprice. It is rugged question. It involves food, clothing, shelter. It means self-reliance. Women are not appealing to man’s gallantry, not to any quality of less importance than his sense of justice for their rights, Man is not likely to regard his mother with less affection and reverence because she is his father’s equal, and in in the past, when women were more degraded than at present, the best men have found in women inspiration for their best work, good men will not find less inspiration for good work when women are emancipated from the thraldom of vicious laws, and crowned man’s equal in all matters relating to “sphere,” shall, by laws relating to physical and mental organism, take their chances in the world’s broad field of battle, demanding and receiving for work done in any of the departments of human activities men’s pay when they perform men’s work.—Indianapolis Sentinel, May 13, 1883.

What just happened?

This is the complete contents of one page (and a bit of a second) from an 1893 book I just pulled to proofread over at Distributed Proofreaders. Fun stuff. “The lambs of God may sport together…” indeed.

I’ve found that pages of endnotes, as long as they’re not the minimalist Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. style (which wears so thin so quickly), make fine poems.

The reader is encouraged to identify the work from which my arbitrary extract is taken. It’s an important one.