Library Collections: Document: Full Text

Mr. Packard did not, however; now seem to care any more what his wife had to eat, than where she had to sleep, for so long as he stayed at the Asylum he was the guest of Dr. McFarland, whose table was always spread with the most tempting viands and luxuries the season or the markets could afford. Mr. Packard did not even allow me the honor of an invitation to sit with him at this table; although the night before, a special meal had to be ordered for us both, he took his at the Doctor's table, while I had to be sent to the ward, to eat my warm biscuits and butter there alone.

I felt these indignities, these neglects, these inattentions, just as any other affectionate, sensitive wife would naturally feel under such circumstances. But, for twenty-one years I had been schooling myself to keep under subjection to my reason and conscience, the manifestation of those indignant emotions which are the natural, spontaneous feelings which such actions must inevitably germinate in a true, confiding wife. Therefore, I made no manifestation of them under these provocations.

At a very early period in my married life, had I learned the sad truth that it was impossible for Mr. Packard to appreciate or understand my womanly nature; therefore I had habituated myself to the exercise of charitable feelings towards him in my interpretation of such manifestations. I had tried to school myself to believe that his heart was, not so much at fault as his education, and, therefore, I could sincerely pray the Lord to forgive him, for he knows not what he does -- he does not know how to treat a woman.

I knew that the least manifestation of these indignant emotions would be misconstrued by him into feelings of anger, instead of a natural, praiseworthy resentment of wrong doing. And the laudable manifestation of these feelings under such circumstances, would tend to lessen, instead of increasing my self-respect.

He held me in such relation towards himself as my father did towards himself, so that any resistance of his authority was attended with the same feeling of guilt which I would have felt in resisting my father's authority. And I, like a natural child, had always felt an almost reverential respect for my father's authority, and nothing to me seemed a greater sin than an act of disobedience to his commands; my conscience even demanded that I yield unquestioning submission to even the denial of my most fondly cherished hopes and anticipations.

Mr. Packard had been introduced into our family when I was but ten years old, and he had been my father's ministerial companion for eleven years, and when I married him he had been my lover or suitor for only a few months. Previous to this time I had only looked upon him as my father's companion and guest, but never as even a social companion of his daughter, who had always been taught to be a silent listener to her father's social guests.

This parental training of reverential feeling towards my father's ministerial guests, had capacitated me to become an unresisting victim to Mr. Packard's marital power or authority. And as Mr. Packard's education had led him to feel that this marital authority was the foundation stone of the marriage union, he, of course, conscientiously claimed, what I was too willing to grant, viz.: subjection to his will and wishes.

But undeveloped as I then was, my true nature instinctively revolted at this principle as wrong; but wherein, it was then difficult for me to demonstrate, even to my own satisfaction. But I can now see that my nature was only claiming its just rights, by this instinctive resistance to this marital authority. It was the protection of my identity or individuality which I was thus claiming from my husband, instead of its subjection, as he claimed. The parental authority, I admit, has a subjective claim, to a degree; but the marital has only the authority of protection.

I believe that the moment a Husband begins to subject his wife, that moment the fundamental law of the marriage union is violated. Both parties are injured by this act -- the husband has taken the first step towards tyranny, and the injured wife has inevitably taken her first step towards losing her natural feeling of reverence towards her husband. Slavish fear is conjugal love's antagonistic foe -- the purest and most devoted woman's love vanishes before it, as surely as the gentle dew vanishes before the sun's burning rays. Fortify this love ever so strongly, this principle of slavish subjection will undermine and overthrow the most impenetrable fortresses, and take the victim captive at its will.

So had my conjugal love been led into a most unwilling captivity by my husband's tyranny, and all the charitable framework which woman's forgiving nature could throw around it, could not prevent this captivity, nor redeem the precious captive, so long as the tyranny of subjection claimed its victim!

But to the triumph of God's grace I can say it, that during these twenty-one years of spiritual captivity, I do not know that I ever spoke a disrespectful word to my husband. I endured the soul agonies of this blighting, love strangling process silently, and for the most part uncomplainingly. I could, and cheerfully did do my duty to this usurper, as I would have done to a husband. But these duties had to be done from the dictates of settled principle, rather than from the impulse of true conjugal love.