Legal Restrictions on Women

My Dear Sister,—There are few things which present greater obstacles to the improvement and elevation of woman to her appropriate sphere of usefulness and duty, than the laws which have been enacted to destroy her independence, and crush her individuality; laws which, although they are framed for her government, she has had no voice in establishing, and which rob her of some of her essential rights. Woman has no political existence. With the single exception of presenting a petition to the legislative body, she is a cipher in the nation; or, if not actually so in representative governments, she is only counted, like the slaves of the South, to swell the number of law-makers who form decrees for her government, with little reference to her benefit, except so far as her good may promote their own. I am not sufficiently acquainted with the laws respecting women on the continent of Europe, to say anything about them. But Prof. Follen, in his essay on ‘The Cause of Freedom in our Country,’ says, ‘Woman, though fully possessed of that rational and moral nature which is the foundation of all rights, enjoys amongst us fewer legal rights than under the civil law of continental Europe.’ I shall confine myself to the laws of our country. These laws bear with peculiar rigor on married women. Blackstone, in the chapter entitled ‘Of husband and wife,’ says:—

My Dear Sister, few things stand in the way of women's progress more than the laws that destroy their independence and crush their individuality. These laws prevent women from rising to their proper place of usefulness and duty. Though the laws govern women, women had no voice in making them. The laws also rob women of some of their essential rights. Woman has no political existence. She can petition the legislature, but otherwise she counts for nothing in the nation. Or, if she is not entirely without standing in representative governments, she is counted only to increase the number of lawmakers. In this, she is like the slaves of the South. These lawmakers make laws to govern her, with little regard for her benefit, except where her good may advance their own. I do not know enough about the laws concerning women on the continent of Europe to discuss them. But Prof. Follen, in his essay ‘The Cause of Freedom in our Country,’ says, ‘Woman fully possesses the rational and moral nature that is the foundation of all rights. Yet among us she enjoys fewer legal rights than under the civil law of continental Europe.’ I shall confine myself to the laws of our country. These laws are especially harsh toward married women. Blackstone, in the chapter entitled ‘Of husband and wife,’ says:

Here now, the very being of a woman, like that of a slave, is absorbed in her master. All contracts made with her, like those made with slaves by their owners, are a mere nullity. Our kind defenders have legislated away almost all our legal rights, and in the true spirit of such injustice and oppression, have kept us in ignorance of those very laws by which we are governed. They have persuaded us, that we have no right to investigate the laws, and that, if we did, we could not comprehend them; they alone are capable of understanding the mysteries of Blackstone, &c. But they are not backward to make us feel the practical operation of their power over our actions.

Here, a woman's very existence, like that of a slave, is absorbed into her master's. All contracts made with her are legally worthless, like those made by slave owners with their slaves. Our kind defenders have passed laws stripping us of almost all our legal rights. In the true spirit of such injustice and oppression, they have kept us ignorant of the very laws that govern us. They have persuaded us that we have no right to examine the laws. They say that even if we did, we could not understand them. They alone can understand the mysteries of Blackstone and the like. But they are quick to make us feel the effects of their power over our actions.

Yet a man may spend the property he has acquired by marriage at the ale-house, the gambling table, or in any other way that he pleases. Many instances of this kind have come to my knowledge; and women, who have brought their husbands handsome fortunes, have been left, in consequence of the wasteful and dissolute habits of their husbands, in straitened circumstances, and compelled to toil for the support of their families.

Yet a man may spend the property he acquired through marriage at the pub, at the gambling table, or however else he pleases. I have learned of many such cases. Women who brought their husbands substantial fortunes have been left in financial hardship because of their husbands’ wasteful and reckless habits. As a result, they have been forced to work hard to support their families.

The wife’s property is, I believe, equally liable for her husband’s debts contracted before marriage.

I believe a wife’s property is equally liable for debts her husband incurred before marriage.

This law that ‘a wife can bring no action,’ &c., is similar to the law respecting slaves, ‘A slave cannot bring a suit against his master, or any other person, for an injury—his master, must bring it.’ So if any damages are recovered for an injury committed on a wife, the husband pockets it; in the case of the slave, the master does the same.

The law that “a wife cannot bring a lawsuit,” and so on, is similar to the law concerning slaves: “A slave cannot sue his master or anyone else for an injury. His master must bring the suit.” So if damages are awarded for an injury to a wife, her husband pockets the money. In the case of a slave, the master does the same.

It would be difficult to frame a law better calculated to destroy the responsibility of woman as a moral being, or a free agent. Her husband is supposed to possess unlimited control over her; and if she can offer the flimsy excuse that he bade her steal, she may break the eighth commandment with impunity, as far as human laws are concerned.

It would be hard to devise a law better suited to destroy a woman's responsibility as a moral being or free agent. Her husband is assumed to have unlimited control over her. If she offers the flimsy excuse that he told her to steal, she may break the eighth commandment without punishment under human law.

Such a law speaks volumes of the abuse of that power which men have vested in their own hands. Still the private examination of a wife, to know whether she accedes to the disposition of property made by her husband is, in most cases, a mere form; a wife dares not do what will be disagreeable to one who is, in his own estimation, her superior, and who makes her feel, in the privacy of domestic life, that she has thwarted him. With respect to the nullity of deeds or acts done by a wife, I will mention one circumstance. A respectable woman borrowed of a female friend a sum of money to relieve her son from some distressing pecuniary embarrassment. Her husband was from home, and she assured the lender, that as soon as he returned, he would gratefully discharge the debt. She gave her note, and the lender, entirely ignorant of the law that a man is not obliged to discharge such a debt, actually borrowed the money, and lent it to the distressed and weeping mother. The father returned home, refused to pay the debt, and the person who had loaned the money was obliged to pay both principal and interest to the friend who lent it to her. Women should certainly know the laws by which they are governed, and from which they frequently suffer; yet they are kept in ignorance, nearly as profound, of their legal rights, and of the legislative enactments which are to regulate their actions, as slaves.

Such a law speaks volumes about how men have abused the power they have placed in their own hands. A wife is still questioned privately to learn whether she agrees to her husband’s disposal of property. But in most cases, this questioning is a mere formality. A wife dares not do anything that will displease a man who considers himself her superior. In the privacy of their home, he makes her feel that she has thwarted him. As for the invalidity of deeds or acts done by a wife, I will mention one case. A respectable woman borrowed money from a female friend to relieve her son of a distressing financial difficulty. Her husband was away from home. She assured the lender that he would gratefully pay the debt as soon as he returned. She gave the lender a note promising repayment. The lender did not know that the law does not require a man to pay such a debt. She had actually borrowed the money herself and lent it to the distressed and weeping mother. When the father returned home, he refused to pay the debt. The lender had to pay both the principal and the interest to the friend who had lent her the money. Women should certainly know the laws that govern them and under which they often suffer. Yet they are kept almost as ignorant as slaves of their legal rights and the laws that regulate their actions.

What a mortifying proof this law affords, of the estimation in which woman is held! She is placed completely in the hands of a being subject like herself to the outbursts of passion, and therefore unworthy to be trusted with power. Perhaps I may be told respecting this law, that it is a dead letter, as I am sometimes told about the slave laws; but this is not true in either case. The slaveholder does kill his slave by moderate correction, as the law allows; and many a husband, among the poor, exercises the right given him by the law, of degrading woman by personal chastisement. And among the higher ranks, if actual imprisonment is not resorted to, women are not unfrequently restrained of the liberty of going to places of worship by irreligious husbands, and of doing many other things about which, as moral and responsible beings, they should be the sole judges. Such laws remind me of the reply of some little girls at a children’s meeting held recently at Ipswich. The lecturer told them that God had created four orders of beings with which he had made us acquainted through the Bible. The first was angels, the second was man, the third beasts; and now, children, what is the fourth? After a pause, several girls replied, ‘WOMEN.’

What a humiliating proof this law gives of how women are regarded! A woman is placed completely in the hands of a person who, like her, is subject to outbursts of passion. He is therefore unworthy of being trusted with power. Perhaps I will be told that this law is no longer enforced, as I am sometimes told about the slave laws. But that is not true in either case. The slaveholder does kill his slave through moderate correction, as the law allows. And many a poor husband uses the right the law gives him to degrade a woman by physically punishing her. Among the higher ranks, husbands may not actually imprison their wives. But husbands who are not religious often prevent their wives from attending worship. They also prevent them from doing many other things. As moral and responsible beings, they should be the sole judges of those things. Such laws remind me of the answer some little girls gave at a children’s meeting recently held at Ipswich. The lecturer told them that God had created four orders of beings known to us through the Bible. He said, “The first was angels, the second was man, the third beasts. And now, children, what is the fourth?” After a pause, several girls replied, ‘WOMEN.’

And farther, all the avails of her labor are absolutely in the power of her husband. All that she acquires by her industry is his; so that she cannot, with her own honest earnings, become the legal purchaser of any property. If she expends her money for articles of furniture, to contribute to the comfort of her family, they are liable to be seized for her husband’s debts: and I know an instance of a woman, who by labor and economy had scraped together a little maintenance for herself and a do-little husband, who was left, at his death, by virtue of his last will and testament, to be supported by charity. I knew another woman, who by great industry had acquired a little money which she deposited in a bank for safe keeping. She had saved this pittance whilst able to work, in hopes that when age or sickness disqualified her for exertion, she might have something to render life comfortable, without being a burden to her friends. Her husband, a worthless, idle man, discovered this hid treasure, drew her little stock from the bank, and expended it all in extravagance and vicious indulgence. I know of another woman, who married without the least idea that she was surrendering her rights to all her personal property. Accordingly, she went to the bank as usual to draw her dividends, and the person who paid her the money, and to whom she was personally known as an owner of shares in that bank, remarking the change in her signature, withdrew the money, informing her that if she were married, she had no longer a right to draw her dividends without an order from her husband. It appeared that she intended having a little fund for private use, and had not even told her husband that she owned this stock, and she was not a little chagrined, when she found that it was not at her disposal. I think she was wrong to conceal the circumstance. The relation of husband and wife is too near and sacred to admit of secrecy about money matters, unless positive necessity demands it; and I can see no excuse for any woman entering into a marriage engagement with a design to keep her husband ignorant that she was possessed of property. If she was unwilling to give up her property to his disposal, she had infinitely better have remained single. The laws above cited are not very unlike the slave laws of Louisiana.

Furthermore, all the proceeds of her labor are entirely under her husband's control. Everything she earns through her own work belongs to him. So she cannot legally buy any property with her own honest earnings. If she spends her money on furniture to make her family comfortable, it can be seized for her husband's debts. I know of a woman who worked and saved to scrape together a modest living for herself and her do-nothing husband. When he died, his will left her dependent on charity. I knew another woman who had earned a little money through hard work and deposited it in a bank for safekeeping. She had saved this small sum while she was able to work. She hoped it would provide some comfort when age or illness prevented her from working, without making her a burden to her friends. Her husband, a worthless, idle man, discovered her hidden treasure. He withdrew her little savings from the bank and spent all of it on extravagance and vice. I know of another woman who married without the slightest idea that she was surrendering her rights to all her personal property. She went to the bank as usual to collect her dividends. The person who paid her knew her personally as an owner of shares in the bank. But when he noticed the change in her signature, he took back the money. He told her that if she was married, she no longer had the right to collect her dividends without an order from her husband. She had intended to keep a small fund for her private use. She had not even told her husband that she owned the shares. She was more than a little upset to learn that the money was not hers to use. I think she was wrong to conceal the shares. The bond between husband and wife is too close and sacred to allow secrecy about money, unless it is absolutely necessary. I can see no excuse for a woman to enter a marriage intending to keep her husband ignorant of her property. If she was unwilling to give him control of her property, she would have been far better off remaining single. The laws cited above are not very different from the slave laws of Louisiana.

And this taxation, without representation, be it remembered, was the cause of our Revolutionary war, a grievance so heavy, that it was thought necessary to purchase exemption from it at an immense expense of blood and treasure, yet the daughters of New England, as well as of all the other States of this free Republic, are suffering a similar injustice—but for one, I had rather we should suffer any injustice or oppression, than that my sex should have any voice in the political affairs of the nation.

And remember, taxation without representation was the cause of our Revolutionary war. It was such a heavy burden that freedom from it was considered worth an immense cost in blood and treasure. Yet the daughters of New England, like those of all the other States of this free Republic, suffer a similar injustice. But I, for one, would rather that we suffer any injustice or oppression than that my sex have any voice in the nation’s political affairs.

The laws I have quoted, are, I believe, the laws of Massachusetts, and, with few exceptions, of all the States in this Union. ‘In Louisiana and Missouri, and possibly, in some other southern States, a woman not only has half her husband’s property by right at his death, but may always be considered as possessed of half his gains during his life; having at all times power to bequeath that amount.’ That the laws which have generally been adopted in the United States, for the government of women, have been framed almost entirely for the exclusive benefit of men, and with a design to oppress women, by depriving them of all control over their property, is too manifest to be denied. Some liberal and enlightened men, I know, regret the existence of these laws; and I quote with pleasure an extract from Harriet Martineau’s Society in America, as a proof of the assertion. ‘A liberal minded lawyer of Boston, told me that his advice to testators always is to leave the largest possible amount to the widow, subject to the condition of her leaving it to the children; but that it is with shame that he reflects that any woman should owe that to his professional advice, which the law should have secured to her as a right.’ I have known a few instances where men have left their whole property to their wives, when they have died, leaving only minor children; but I have known more instances of ‘the friend and helper of many years, being portioned off like a salaried domestic,’ instead of having a comfortable independence secured to her, while the children were amply provided for.

I believe the laws I have quoted are the laws of Massachusetts. With few exceptions, they are also the laws of all the States in this Union. ‘In Louisiana and Missouri, and possibly in some other southern States, a woman has a right to half her husband’s property at his death. She may also always be considered to possess half his earnings during his life, and has the power to leave that amount to others at any time.’ The laws generally adopted in the United States to govern women were framed almost entirely for men’s exclusive benefit. They were designed to oppress women by depriving them of all control over their property. This is too obvious to deny. I know that some open-minded and enlightened men regret these laws. I am pleased to quote a passage from Harriet Martineau’s Society in America as proof. ‘An open-minded Boston lawyer told me that he always advises people making wills to leave the largest possible amount to the widow, on the condition that she leave it to the children. But he said he felt ashamed that any woman should owe to his professional advice what the law should have secured as her right.’ I have known a few cases where men died leaving only minor children and left all their property to their wives. But I have known more cases where ‘the friend and helper of many years was given an allowance like a paid servant,’ instead of being assured a comfortable independence while the children were amply provided for.

As these abuses do exist, and women suffer intensely from them, our brethren are called upon in this enlightened age, by every sentiment of honor, religion and justice, to repeal these unjust and unequal laws, and restore to woman those rights which they have wrested from her. Such laws approximate too nearly to the laws enacted by slaveholders for the government of their slaves, and must tend to debase and depress the mind of that being, whom God created as a help meet for man, or ‘helper like unto himself,’ and designed to be his equal and his companion. Until such laws are annulled, woman never can occupy that exalted station for which she was intended by her Maker. And just in proportion as they are practically disregarded, which is the case to some extent, just so far is woman assuming that independence and nobility of character which she ought to exhibit.

These abuses exist, and women suffer intensely from them. In this enlightened age, every principle of honor, religion, and justice calls on our brothers to repeal these unjust and unequal laws. They must restore to women the rights they have taken from them. These laws are far too much like those slaveholders enacted to govern their slaves. They must tend to degrade and suppress the minds of women. God created woman as a suitable helper for man, or ‘helper like unto himself.’ He intended her to be his equal and companion. Until these laws are repealed, woman can never occupy the elevated position her Maker intended for her. To the extent that people disregard these laws in practice, as they do in some cases, woman is gaining the independence and nobility of character she ought to show.

The various laws which I have transcribed, leave women very little more liberty, or power, in some respects, than the slave. ‘A slave,’ says the civil code of Louisiana, ‘is one who is in the power of a master, to whom he belongs. He can possess nothing, nor acquire anything, but what must belong to his master.’ I do not wish by any means to intimate that the condition of free women can be compared to that of slaves in suffering, or in degradation; still, I believe the laws which deprive married women of their rights and privileges, have a tendency to lessen them in their own estimation as moral and responsible beings, and that their being made by civil law inferior to their husbands, has a debasing and mischievous effect upon them, teaching them practically the fatal lesson to look unto man for protection and indulgence.

The various laws I have copied give women little more freedom or power than a slave in some respects. The civil code of Louisiana says, ‘A slave is someone who is under the power of a master and belongs to him. He can own or acquire nothing that does not belong to his master.’ I do not mean to suggest that free women suffer or are degraded as slaves are. Still, I believe that laws denying married women their rights and privileges tend to make them think less of themselves as moral and responsible beings. I also believe that civil laws making them inferior to their husbands have a degrading and harmful effect on them. These laws teach them the fatal lesson to look to men for protection and favors.

Ecclesiastical bodies, I believe, without exception, follow the example of legislative assemblies, in excluding woman from any participation in forming the discipline by which she is governed. The men frame the laws, and, with few exceptions, claim to execute them on both sexes. In ecclesiastical, as well as civil courts, woman is tried and condemned, not by a jury of her peers, but by beings, who regard themselves as her superiors in the scale of creation. Although looked upon as an inferior, when considered as an intellectual being, woman is punished with the same severity as man, when she is guilty of moral offences. Her condition resembles, in some measure, that of the slave, who, while he is denied the advantages of his more enlightened master, is treated with even greater rigor of the law. Hoping that in the various reformations of the day, women may be relieved from some of their legal disabilities, I remain,

I believe that church bodies, without exception, follow the example of legislatures. They exclude women from any role in making the rules that govern them. Men make the laws and, with few exceptions, claim the right to enforce them on both sexes. In church courts, as in civil courts, women are tried and condemned not by a jury of their peers, but by beings who regard themselves as their superiors in the order of creation. Although women are viewed as intellectually inferior, they are punished as severely as men for moral offenses. Their condition resembles, in some ways, that of the slave. He is denied the advantages of his more educated master, yet the law treats him even more harshly. Hoping that the various reforms of the day may free women from some of their legal restrictions, I remain,