The Declaration of Sentiments was signed at Seneca Falls on July 20, 1848. It states that all men and women are created equal. It was the first national convention for women’s equal rights. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott were the primary activists. Frederick Douglass chose to argue at the convention for the inclusion of women’s suffrage. To the degree that this event was a groundswell, it deeply informs the cultural background of The Compromise. The teachers, students, and staff of Columbian Female Academy, the setting for much of the novel, were living out the arguments for and against women’s rights at this formative time.
Photo: The group portrait monument was sculpted by Adelaide Johnson (1859-1955) in Carrara, Italy. The sculpture depicts three leaders of the woman suffrage movement: Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony and Lucretia Mott. Image by DawesDigital. Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal
Women and girls recite much of the document in the Declaration of Sentiments Video
The Declaration of Sentiments authored by Elizabeth Cady Stanton listed among the “injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman:
He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead. He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns. He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes of divorce, in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given; as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of the women— the law, in all cases, going upon a false supposition of the supremacy of a man, and giving all power into his hands.
- Why did suffrage take so long? The women’s rights movement began at the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848. American women did not win suffrage until the passage of the 19th Amendment on July 20, 1920, only two years before my mother was born. Three generations of women worked for sufferage and did not gain the right to vote.
Enmesh or Empower
The struggles take place in the American family.
Cherished American themes stitch together the two stories in The Compromise: the struggles against oppression for moral equality and civil rights. The struggles take place in an American family with its racial and gender dimensions. Mariah’s primary conflict comes out of the denial to women of property rights by most U.S. states until after 1850. She works without incentive and can own nothing of value. Property laws were passed to avoid extreme poverty for women and children. Otis was born into slavery fifty years before emancipation. His story is based on the legal and large-scale denial of equality and rights to Americans with African lineage. He lives with hypocrisies and good intentions of abolitionism in authoritarian times.
My fictional characters, Mariah and Otis find different paths to fight against the political and social systems that oppress them. First it happens in the family relationships that can enmesh or empower them. Otis becomes a brave activist, but his liberation only begins. In U.S. history it will take generations of work and sacrifice for legal civil rights. Mariah’s path is ongoing, discovered in my life and the lives of my forbearers.
The philosophers of democracy and the framers of the Constitution believed in their work for posterity. My novel ends far before the work is done, and I hope it shows how we sometimes work against ourselves. In this scene from The Compromise, Mariah is quizzed to determine her readiness to learn to read. They discuss equality.
“Is equality a good thing or a real thing?”
The Compromise “The Liberator 1840”
“Look at me, dear. Listen to these words by Thomas Jefferson and tell me if you agree: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.’ Do you agree, child?”
I heard small gasps from the girls, but I had ideas about these words.... “Mostly I agree with Mr. Jefferson, Ma’am. It means God gave each of us equal powers to know His love and work for good.”
I heard another sigh of relief. Even Eliza looked at me with approval. We had listened to recitations and heard Pa and Otis speak on this topic. I had reviewed it in my mind, and I knew it was the best answer.
“For a girl who cannot read, you are thoughtful and brave,” said Mrs. Pulitzer.
“Thank you, Ma’am.” I tucked in my chin and dipped a small curtsey.
“Who taught you these things?” she asked.
“Every year in our town on the Fourth of July. We called it ‘truth holding.’ We held the truths out loud like everybody else does, I expect, on the Fourth. ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident’ and so forth.”
“Very good. You listened to men talk on this subject.... Are there any ways you would question Mr. Jefferson?”
“Well, yes. There’s something about equality.”
Her face looked wary. “What could that be?”
“Is equality a good thing or a real thing? I mean, do we have to pursue it because it’s good, or can we find it already there? Seeing as it comes from the Almighty Creator, can’t we find equality in our own selves. That would make it a real and natural thing. Like opening a door that God gave us, no matter what other people say or do to us?”
I heard murmurs of doubt. Mrs. Pulitzer looked above my head. She said, “I hear no ignorance in what you say, Mariah. Is there anything else you would say to Mr. Jefferson? Imagine he is alive among us.”
“Yes, Ma’am. But only if its okay for the words mean more than one thing.
“Speak up, dear!” Mrs. Starr made it a direct order.
“Well, Mr. Jefferson did not include women, not exactly. Can’t we also say that women are equal to men or at least to each other?”
2. Mariah is illiterate in 1840, yet she is thoughtful and schooled in an oral tradition. Would women like her have had the ability to interpret and question the Declaration of Independence?
A woman’s interpretation of her duty to family and society has always been subject to moral argument.
Mariah’s progressive sentiment is challenged. Mrs. Wallace presents a different approach to duty. I derived her argument from Women’s Rights (1867) by John Todd. He wrote against women’s suffrage and equal rights.
We heard the clatter of a teacup on its saucer and the rustle of heavy taffeta. The girls made way for another tall white-haired woman who had been seated by the mantle. Mrs. Wallace in a snowy white bonnet above a mountain of black taffeta, strode towards me. Her face reddened with anger as she swept her piercing gaze around the room. She cried out, “Ladies of the Academy, remember your duty!” Her voice was sharp with outrage. “Your duty is to your family, not yourself!”
Several older girls nodded and murmured agreement.
“Men and women are each incomplete without the other. Never forget that woman is weak to make man strong. Would you make yourself a hermaphrodite instead of what God made you to be? Political equality is exactly what you should never have. It would dirty and disgrace the highest, holiest, most precious gift we have.”
There was concurrence among the girls, and Mrs. Wallace returned to her place on by the mantle as if she had won the battle. Some girls shifted their positions in the room to align with her. Before she sat down, she pointed at me. “Consider the source of malignant attitudes. Consider the source.”
3. I hypothesize that women in the 19th century, even isolated in rural communities, could have the native wits and wisdom to pursue equality and self-determination. Is this possible?
Microaggression
In this scene, I tried to reveal microaggressions in various ways: the design of the dress, the stride, the piercing gaze, the moral turn of argument, and the pointing finger. In fact, microaggressions can be far more subtle. Mrs. Walace positions herself as favoring family, nature, and God’s will. Then she points to a poor illiterate girl as the source of threat. Will Mariah’s political voice survive? This finger of blame threatens her into silence and self-doubt. Women’s interpretations of their duty to family and society have always been subject to moral argument.
Is the novelist’s job to reveal sociopolitical contexts in dialogue and description?
Yes. I want readers to find sociopolitical context in the dialogue and description. To me, dialogue that reveals asymmetries in power is full of conflict. It contains information about how the world works that we can all recognize and interpret in our own ways. Though the historical fiction of The Compromise is set in a fancy parlor at a girl’s school more than a hundred and sixty years ago, the text of the interaction might enable Critical Discourse Analysis and apply some of the concepts in Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent. Critical Discourse Analysis maintains that social practice and linguistic practice constitute one another and that societal power relations are established and reinforced through language use. Do readers recognize language used to reveal microaggressions as a form of action? I do.