"The charge against Parker Pillsbury and the reformers of the School to which he belongs, that they insist "that our starving seamstresses shall not strike for higher wages unless they put in a protest in favor of the boot-blacks -- that woman shall not strike off her shackles until she can liberate every man that wears one," and so forth is mere rant and fustian, for which nothing that they have said or done either in the Convention or out of it, affords any justifiable pretext. They have no desire to see the cause of Woman's Rights linked with that of the Slave in one and the same general movement."
. . . . . . . . . . . .
"The Convention did not link the two subjects together in its action at all. Acknowledging a certain philosophical relation between them, it yet took the Woman question by itself, and confined its action exclusively to it. It made no "bundle," but did precisely as the father told the boy to do with his carrots."
. . . . . . . . . . . .
"In seeking a basis for the Equality of Woman, the Convention naturally and instinctively went back to first principles -- principles applicable alike to every human being. It could have found solid ground nowhere else. It was impossible for it to make out a charter for woman without at the same time making one of universal application. It could not erect a platform on which she could stand securely without building it wide enough for every child of God, of whatever caste or complexion. We thank God that this is so -- that the interests of man are every where one and the same -- that each human being, whether rich or poor, learned or ignorant, bond or free, male or female, is
"Part and proportion of our wondrous whole; This fraternizes man - this constitutes Our charities and bearings."
In these extracts Mr. Johnston [Antislavery Bugle editor] declares the Convention did not do what it could not help doing. It could not get a platform for woman without getting all the world on it -- could not act for her without taking care of the Hottentots, and yet it did its work and did not meddle with these greasy fellows. If they could not get a platform for woman without making one for all the rest of mankind, why did they not issue their call for a general transaction of business for every child of God!
Here is the resolution to which we objected as irrelavent, and our opinion still is that it broke up more ground than will be harrowed this century.
"The Convention Resolved "that every human being of full age, and resident for a proper length of time on the soil of the nation, who is required to obey the law, is entitled to a voice in its enactment; that every such person, whose property or labor is taxed for the support of the government is entitled to a direct share in such government; therefore, that women are clearly entitled to the right of suffrage, and to be considered eligible to office, the omission to demand which, on their part, is a palpable recreancy to duty; and the denial of which is a gross usurpation on the part of man -- no longer to be endured -- and that every party which claims to represent the humanity and progress of the age, is bound to inscribe on its banners, Equality before the law, without distinction of sex or color."
Now, if that resolution does not make up a 'bundle,' we should be at a great loss to know a bundle when we saw it made up. But Mr. Johnston goes on to urge the necessity of this mixture to which we object. Hear him:
"Catch the slaveholders, whose contempt for woman's equality is equalled only by that they feel for their 'niggers' -- catch them attending a Woman's Convention! Talk of making such a Convention 'as acceptable' to them as to the people of Massachusetts! **** The movement for Woman's elevation sprang up in a more genial soil, in a healthier moral atmosphere than that of the South. It is in good part an outgrowth from the great tree of Liberty planted by Abolitionists, watered with their tears and consecrated by their toils and prayers. It was not born until Anti-Slavery had made an atmosphere in which it could live and breathe. Its cradle was not in the saloon of a Georgia planter, but in the manger of Anti-Slavery. Its nurses were not the dashing belles of the South, nor fashionable ladies at the North, who faint at sight of the word 'color,' but maids and matrons who had learned in the school of Anti-Slavery the lesson of Universal Freedom, and acquired in the stern conflict with Slavery the courage to utter the truths they felt, e'en while
'A world's reproach around them burned.'
"The idea of woman's equality had indeed been cherished and even promulgated by individual minds at a much earlier day, but there was no concerted movement towards its realization until the Grimkes, the Motts, the Abby Kelleys, and their associates, in their efforts to free the women of the plantation became conscious of the slavery of their sex, and by their bold words and bolder deeds opened up before them the highway of freedom. If a movement thus originated is not 'respectable' enough to secure the co-operation of negro-haters, it will have to get along as it best can with the aid of abolition ultras and fanatics. We guess it will make quite as good headway in their hands as it could under the guidance of those whose delicate sensibilities are shocked at the word 'color,' and who affect a sympathy for the wrongs of woman while their hearts are steeled to the cry of the slave. However, if there are those who think differently, who imagine the cause would triumph more speedily under other auspices, the field is wide -- let them try the experiment."
Well, if the Convention did not link the two questions, Mr. Johnston has supplied the deficiency, and claims an almost exclusive right for Abolitionists to manage the matters after their own fashion. As to his assertions about the hostility of southerners to the equality of the sexes, he might know the South has taken the lead in this matter, by being the first to grant to married women the right to hold property. Years before any such law existed in Pennsylvania or New York, it was established in the wilds of Arkansas and cotton fields of Louisiana; but if they are so bitterly opposed as he represents, we know no reason why that opposition should be multiplied by all their other prejudices.
As to our preferring "the company of slaveholders," and desiring to win "the co-operation of those who sell women in the shackles," our leaning that way must be a very remarkable characteristic. We certainly have courted the approbation of slaveholders very assiduously, and when we succeed in winning their favor, if we find no more toleration for a difference of opinion than we have found amongst their opponents, we intend preferring our next suit to the Grand Bashaw. And now we beg leave to repeat the truth as it has been revealed to us, "The color question has no right to a hearing in that Convention."