Charles W. Stuart to Frederick Douglass, March 20, 1855
For Frederick Douglass' Paper.
Letter from Captain Charles Stuart.
Lora. Thornbury P.O. Collingwood}
Grey County, Canada West.}
FREDERICK DOUGLASS, ESQ.:—Though I have no intention of pursuing a protracted
controversy on what is called "Woman's Rights," and ever lament the deep wound which the intrusion of that question has inflicted upon harmony amongst the friend at the slave, I yet feel sometimes constrained to express my opinions publicly, in defense of what I believe to be truth and duty; and I endeavor to do so with a frankness which spurns compromise, and with a kindness which admits of no ill will.
I find by your paper of March 2d, that I have seriously provoked B.D. Hawks, by some of my opinions, as fairly published by you. I am not surprised at it, for our opinions on this subject are totally obnoxious to each other; and however hurtful or erroneous I deem hers, I see no reason to doubt the rectitude and benevolence of her intentions.
Now a few words on her letter to you—She asks, "What proof has Captain Stuart, that the inner law of our lives is not the same now as at the first hour of its creation?" The Bible, I reply, is my proof. Look to the character and condition of man, as therein recorded before he sinned, and look to it subsequently, as therein recorded—cowardice, hypocrisy and mutual recriminations, immediately taking place of holy truth, and reverent and mutual law; and since, as we read, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked." - Jer. xvii.9 Then, contemplate the history of man, and what does it present to us but one vast scene of impurity, tears and blood, here, and there a few occasional beams of original rectitude, gloriously, though feebly, breaking thro' the darkness. And, if further proof be wanting, the words of Him who spake as never man spake—Himself, perfect and everlasting-truth and love ring in my ears. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."—John iii.3.
I completely agree with this lady, in the fundamental truth, that man is sinful, because he has violated the laws of his being—not because those laws are become less just and holy. In fact, nothing deserves the name of law, in the highest and holiest sense (the only unalterably true sense) except what is really just and holy.
The lady asks, as it now a law of being to love liberty and to hate slavery? I reply, it was before Eve sinned. But as the divinely inspired Paul says, "I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members."—Paul vii.23. And again, "Because the carnalmind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be" - Rom. viii. 7
And what does the history of man evince? What but that is licentiousness; (that is, its own ungoverned volitions;) not liberty, which man loves, and whatever earnestly conflicts with his own cherished proferences, that he hates; as far as the renewed heart, this grace is capable of hating any being
B.D. Hawks and I read and interpret our Bibles differently, and this is no wonder.—Her solemn appeal to the Bible is pleasant to me; but my own convictions of its divine import and truth, are in no measure moved by hers, however sincere and well meant they may be.
The value of woman to the world and to man, cannot be overrated. In all moral and religous aspects, I acknowledge no distinction between woman and man. But that, therefore, no distinction in other respects exists between them, such as physical, social and political rights and duties seems to me a notion as insane as it is pernicious. B.D. Hawkes accuses me of very modestly hinting that woman is commanded to be in subjection to her husband." I have no such modesty; but rest on God's own infallible words, "Ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; while they behold your chaste conversation couples with fear."—1st Peter., iii. 1
B.D. Hawks accuses me of uttering a blasphemous sentiment. That she all other men and women, as perfect as she, should think so, and hurl it upon my head, is quite in character. My mind is, to pity and pray for all such. But, at the same time, I seek earnestly to preserve the real dignity, and beauty, and holy influence of woman, as well as the anti-slavery cause, (the sound cause of impartial liberty, and truth, and love,) from being deprived of that mighty influence, by the aberrations, intentionally upright as they may be, and as in some, or in many individual cases. I fully believe they are, amidst all their egregious and pernicious errors.
The noble, pure, and scriptural pursuit of the immediate and thorough restoration of the American slave to his unforfeited and inalienable rights, by peaceful and lawful legislation, according to the law of God, and the glorious Constitution of the United States, divested of the enormously false and treasonable perversions of it by the pro-slavery faction, is incapable of admitting, with out inquiry, the wild and lawless notion of "Woman's Rights," such as is advocated by the "Woman's Rights" party. Nor have the real glory, and beauty, and holy power of woman, so fundamental to human happiness and virtue, ever been more insanely assailed.
Let the claim stand alone, in its own intrinsic beauty or deformity, as honestly regarded by those who admire or who spurn it, and let it be advocated or opposed by all the lawful zeal of its advocates and opposers.
But oh! that it would cease from foisting itself into the sacred cause of the slave—all outraged and suffering slave.
In B.D. Hawk's concluding prayer, I concur with all my heart, "that the dark pall of oppression may be lifted form every heart."
CHARLES STUART
March 20th, 1855