Women's Heroism, Women in Authority

My Dear Sister,—It seems necessary to glance at the conduct of women under circumstances which place them in juxtaposition with men, although I regard it as entirely unimportant in proving the moral equality of the sexes; because I condemn, in both, the exercise of that brute force which is as contrary to the law of God in men as in women; still, as a part of our history, I shall notice some instances of courage exhibited by females.

My Dear Sister, it seems necessary to consider how women have acted in situations that put them alongside men. However, I consider this entirely unimportant to proving the moral equality of the sexes. I condemn the use of brute force by both men and women. It is just as contrary to the law of God for men as it is for women. Still, as part of our history, I will mention some examples of courage shown by women.

‘Philippa, wife of Edward III., was the principal cause of the victory gained over the Scots at Neville Cross. In the absence of her husband, she rode among the troops, and exhorted them to “be of good courage.”’ Jane, Countess of Mountfort, and a contemporary of Philippa, likewise possessed a great share of physical courage. The history of Joan of Arc is too familiar to need repetition. During the reign of James II. a singular instance of female intrepidity occurred in Scotland. Sir John Cochrane being condemned to be hung, his daughter twice disguised herself, and robbed the mail that brought his death warrant. In the mean time, his pardon was obtained from the King. Instances might be multiplied, but it is unnecessary. I shall therefore close these proofs of female courage with one more fact. ‘During the revolutionary war, the women shared in the patriotism and bravery of the men. Several individuals carried their enthusiasm so far as to enter the army, where they faced all the perils and fatigues of the camp, until the close of the war.’

‘Philippa, wife of Edward III., was the main reason for the victory over the Scots at Neville Cross. While her husband was away, she rode among the troops and urged them to “be of good courage.”’ Jane, Countess of Mountfort, who lived at the same time as Philippa, also had a great deal of physical courage. The story of Joan of Arc is too familiar to need repeating. During the reign of James II., a remarkable example of female courage occurred in Scotland. Sir John Cochrane was sentenced to be hanged. Twice, his daughter disguised herself and robbed the mail carrying his death warrant. Meanwhile, his pardon was obtained from the King. Many more examples could be given, but that is unnecessary. I will therefore end these proofs of female courage with one more fact. ‘During the revolutionary war, women shared the patriotism and bravery of men. Several women were so enthusiastic that they joined the army. There they faced all the dangers and hardships of camp life until the war ended.’

When I view my countrywomen in the character of soldiers, or even behold them loading fire arms and moulding bullets for their brethren to destroy men’s lives, I cannot refrain a sigh. I cannot but contrast their conduct at that solemn crisis with the conduct of those women who followed their Lord and Master with unresisting submission, to Calvary’s Mount. With the precepts and example of a crucified Redeemer, who, in that sublime precept, ‘Resist not evil,’ has interdicted to his disciples all war and all violence, and taught us that the spirit of retaliation for injuries, whether in the camp, or at the fire-side, is wholly at variance with the peaceful religion he came to promulgate. How little do we comprehend that simple truth, ‘By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.’

When I see my fellow countrywomen acting as soldiers, I cannot help sighing. I sigh even when I see them loading firearms and molding bullets for their brothers to kill men. I cannot help contrasting their conduct at that solemn crisis with the conduct of the women who followed their Lord and Master to Calvary’s Mount without resisting. The crucified Redeemer gave us his teachings and example. In the sublime command, ‘Do not resist evil,’ he forbade his disciples all war and violence. He taught us that the desire to retaliate for injuries is completely at odds with the peaceful religion he came to spread. This is true whether the retaliation takes place in a military camp or at home. How little we understand the simple truth, ‘Everyone will know that you are my disciples if you have love for one another.’

Women have sometimes distinguished themselves in a way more consistent with their duties as moral beings. During the war between the Romans and the Sabines, the Sabine women who had been carried off by the Romans, repaired to the Sabine camp, dressed in deep mourning, with their little ones in their arms, to soften, if possible, the feelings of their parents. They knelt at the feet of their relatives; and when Hersilia, the wife of Romulus, described the kindness of their husbands, and their unwillingness to be separated from them, their fathers yielded to their entreaties, and an alliance was soon agreed upon. In consequence of this important service, peculiar privileges were conferred on women by the Romans. Brutus said of his wife, ‘I must not answer Portia in the words of Hector, “Mind your wheel, and to your maids give law,” for in courage, activity and concern for her country’s freedom, she is inferior to none of us.’ After the fatal battle of Cannæ, the Roman women consecrated all their ornaments to the service of the state. But when the triumvirs attempted to tax them for the expenses of carrying on a civil war, they resisted the innovation. They chose Hortensia for their speaker, and went in a body to the market-place to expostulate with the magistrates. The triumvirs wished to drive them away, but they were compelled to yield to the wishes of the people, and give the women a hearing. Hortensia pleaded so well the cause of her sisters, who resolved that they would not voluntarily aid in a civil war, that the number of women taxed was reduced from 1400 to 400.

Women have sometimes distinguished themselves in ways more consistent with their duties as moral beings. During the war between the Romans and the Sabines, Romans carried off Sabine women. The women went to the Sabine camp dressed in deep mourning, with their little ones in their arms. They hoped, if possible, to soften their parents’ feelings. They knelt at their relatives’ feet. Hersilia, the wife of Romulus, described the kindness of their husbands and the women’s unwillingness to be separated from them. Their fathers gave in to their pleas, and an alliance was soon agreed upon. In recognition of this important service, the Romans granted women special privileges. Brutus said of his wife, ‘I must not answer Portia in Hector’s words, “Mind your wheel, and give orders to your maids,” for in courage, energy, and concern for her country’s freedom, she is inferior to none of us.’ After the disastrous battle of Cannæ, Roman women dedicated all their ornaments to the service of the state. But when the triumvirs tried to tax them to pay for a civil war, the women resisted this new measure. They chose Hortensia as their speaker and went together to the marketplace to protest to the magistrates. The triumvirs wanted to drive them away, but they had to give in to the people’s wishes and hear the women. Hortensia argued so well for her sisters that the number of women taxed fell from 1400 to 400. The women had resolved that they would not voluntarily help support a civil war.

In the wars of the Guelphs and the Ghibbelines, the emperor Conrad refused all terms of capitulation to the garrison of Winnisberg, but he granted the request of the women to pass out in safety with such of their effects as they could carry themselves. Accordingly, they issued from the besieged city, each bearing on her shoulders a husband, son, father, or brother. They passed unmolested through the enemy’s camp, which rung with acclamations of applause.

During the wars of the Guelphs and the Ghibbelines, Emperor Conrad refused all terms of surrender to the garrison of Winnisberg. But he granted the women’s request to leave safely with whatever belongings they could carry themselves. So they left the besieged city, each carrying a husband, son, father, or brother on her shoulders. They passed unharmed through the enemy’s camp, which rang with cheers of approval.

During our struggle for independence, the women were as exemplary as the men in various instances of self-denial: they refused every article of decoration for their persons; foreign elegances were laid aside, and they cheerfully abstained from luxuries for their tables.

During our struggle for independence, women showed as much self-denial as men in many ways. They refused to wear any personal decorations and put aside foreign finery. They also cheerfully gave up luxuries at their tables.

English history presents many instances of women exercising prerogatives now denied them. In an action at law, it has been determined that an unmarried woman, having a freehold, might vote for members of Parliament; and it is recorded that lady Packington returned two. Lady Broughton was keeper of the gatehouse prison. And in a much later period, a woman was appointed governor of the house of correction at Chelmsford, by order of the court. In the reign of George II. the minister of Clerkenwell was chosen by a majority of women. The office of grand chamberlain in 1822 was filled by two women; and that of clerk of the crown, in the court of king’s bench, has been granted to a female. The celebrated Anne, countess of Pembroke, held the hereditary office of sheriff of Westmoreland, and exercised it in person, sitting on the bench with the judges.

English history offers many examples of women exercising rights now denied to them. A court ruled that an unmarried woman who owned a freehold could vote for members of Parliament. Records also show that Lady Packington elected two members. Lady Broughton was keeper of the Gatehouse Prison. Much later, a court ordered the appointment of a woman as governor of the house of correction at Chelmsford. During George II’s reign, a majority of women chose the minister of Clerkenwell. In 1822, two women held the office of grand chamberlain. A woman has also been granted the office of clerk of the crown in the Court of King’s Bench. The celebrated Anne, Countess of Pembroke, held the hereditary office of sheriff of Westmoreland. She carried out its duties in person, sitting on the bench with the judges.

I need hardly advert to the names of Elizabeth of England, Maria Theresa of Germany, Catharine of Russia, and Isabella of Spain, to prove that women are capable of swaying the sceptre of royalty. The page of history proves incontestibly, not only that they are as well qualified to do so as men, but that there has been a comparatively greater proportion of good queens, than of good kings; women who have purchased their celebrity by individual strength of character.

I hardly need to mention Elizabeth of England, Maria Theresa of Germany, Catharine of Russia, and Isabella of Spain. Their names prove that women are capable of ruling. History proves beyond doubt that women are as well qualified to rule as men. It also shows that a greater proportion of queens than kings have been good rulers. These women earned their fame through their own strength of character.

I mention these women only to prove that intellect is not sexed; that strength of mind is not sexed; and that our views about the duties of men and the duties of women, the sphere of man and the sphere of woman, are mere arbitrary opinions, differing in different ages and countries, and dependant solely on the will and judgment of erring mortals.

I mention these women only to prove that intellect and strength of mind have no sex. I also mention them to prove that our views about the duties and proper roles of men and women are merely arbitrary opinions. These opinions differ across ages and countries. They depend solely on the will and judgment of human beings, who can make mistakes.

As moral and responsible beings, men and women have the same sphere of action, and the same duties devolve upon both; but no one can doubt that the duties of each vary according to circumstances; that a father and a mother, a husband and a wife, have sacred obligations resting on them, which cannot possibly belong to those who do not sustain these relations. But these duties and responsibilities do not attach to them as men and as women, but as parents, husbands, and wives.

As moral and responsible beings, men and women have the same scope for action and the same duties. But no one can doubt that each person’s duties vary with their circumstances. Fathers and mothers, husbands and wives, have sacred obligations that cannot possibly belong to those who do not have these relationships. But these duties and responsibilities belong to them not as men and women, but as parents, husbands, and wives.

Thine in the bonds of womanhood,

Yours in the bonds of womanhood,