Library Collections: Document: Full Text

"But Mrs. Packard, these principles would be subversive of all family government; for, the government of the family is vested entirely in the husband, the wife has no right to her identity; she must live, move and have her being in him alone."

"I admit that the recognition of her identity will endanger the overthrow of a family despotism, because the marital power will then be so limited as to compel a respectful regard to the inalienable rights of the wife; for, on this principle the husband must have the power to ignore all her rights or he cannot be 'lord over all' in his family!

"I claim that every family established on such a basis ought to be overthrown, as well as all other despotisms; and it is this principle which is at the present day sending devastation throughout the whole social fabric of society.

"Despotism cannot live on freedom's soil.

"Divorce and disunion are demonstrating this fact, and they will continue to demonstrate and remonstrate too, against family despotism, until this government will extend the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, to the wives of the government as well as the husbands.

"Married woman has as good a right to her moral accountability as a married man; and God is her sovereign as well as he is man's sovereign. Man has no more right to interfere with her allegiance to Christ's government, than she has to interfere with his. Both must be judged independently before this highest tribunal, therefore each should be morally free to live up to their highest convictions of right."

"Mrs. Packard, what is meant by 'Wives, obey your husbands?'"

"It means to obey them in what is right, and not in what is wrong."

"What is meant by the husband being the 'head of the wife?'"

"It means that he is the head, or the senior partner of the firm, and the wife the junior partner, or companion. He has this headship assigned to him instead of the wife, because he is the best fitted in nature to defend and protect the wife and children. He is the head, to protect, but not to subject the rights of the other members of the household. This headship gives him no more right to become the despot, than the junior position of the wife allows her to become his slave. Being associated as partners, does not confer on either the right of usurpation."

"But what shall be done, 'when, on a point of common interest, they cannot agree?"

"The junior must yield her views to the senior's."

"But supposing the wife feels that the husband's plans will bring disaster upon the family interests?"

"It is her duty to yield, notwithstanding, after she has urged all her strong reasons against it, for unless she does, she trespasses on his right as a 'head' of the firm. The risk must be assumed by some one, and as the 'head' is compelled to bear this responsibility, he ought to be allowed to act in accordance with his own judgment, after the opinions of his junior partner have been candidly weighed. Then, if disaster follows, she has no right to complain, for this is one of the indispensable liabilities of a co-partnership relation. Understanding this principle when she entered the firm, she would be domineering over an inalienable right of her partner to do otherwise. Unless this principle of justice can be peaceably conceded, there is no alternative but a peaceable dissolution, or a civil war."

It is with a kind of patriotic pride that I can at this age chronicle one State as having already engrafted this just principle of legislation into their laws, and also add, that its application is pacific in its influence upon the social fabric.

Finding that Iowa was in advance of all the other States in this Union in removing the legal disabilities of common law in relation to married woman, and that she lacked only one more provision to render all the rights and responsibilities of the husband and wife equal before the law, I therefore, during my nine months labors in Iowa, in 1871-2, made a specialty of this defect, by obtaining thirty-six hundred names of patrons who consented to have their names used with their Legislature as those who wished to have this defect remedied. Therefore, in the winter of 1872, I sent to the Legislature the following Bill, together with these thirty-six hundred names as patrons in its support, viz.:

"Where the parents of children live separate and apart from each other, without fault of the wife, whether divorced or not, the Circuit-Court sitting as a court of Chancery shall have jurisdiction to regulate the custody and maintenance of the children, and determine with which of the parents the child or children shall remain, and who shall be entitled to the earnings, and liable for the support of the same -- and the rights of the parents, in the absence of misconduct, shall be equal."

In reply came the intelligence that there had been a committee appointed to revise the statutes of Iowa and that they had reported that they would recommend to the Legislature to adopt this principle into their laws, for this reason, that as in all other respects the rights of the husband and wife were equal, they saw no reason why in relation to parentage they should not be equal also.