“Woman. Essay I.” Liberal Press, 1:6 (Sept. 13, 1828): 89-90. The editor begins, “I base all the positions I mean to advance, on this one broad and general principle; the capabilities of mind; that there is not – that there cannot be mentally, any sexual distinction or inequality – that the natural helplessness, and ignorance, are the same in female and in male; and that the medium of communicating knowledge, and the powers of intellect are the same.”
R.D.O. “Independence of Women.” The Free Enquirer, 1:46 (Sept. 9, 1829): 364-65. Owen argues that “pecuniary dependence is the chief cause why women are often exposed to the capricious tyranny, and sometimes to the brutal ill usage, of men . . . [and] that it ought to be a woman’s . . . first endeavor, if she have not pecuniary independence, to obtain it; and that, if she have it, it should be her care, in case she marries, to secure her property, by a marriage settlement, to herself.”
A letter to the editor from “Sybil.” Cleveland Liberalist, 1:20 (Jan. 28, 1837): 158. The author writes, “I am already a Free Enquirer and low, and mean, and priest ridden, as many of you gentlemen sometimes think us poor “weaker vessels,” women think as well as men. You can scarce imagine how many women read your paper, and secretly rejoice in its success.”
Letter to the editor from “Sybil.” Cleveland Liberalist, 1:36 (May 20, 1837): 282. The author asks “why are women deprived of the right of suffrage in this land of freedom?” to which Underhill responds that a woman’s “right to vote ought to be as secure as any other rights. No good argument can exist against it, and everything is in favor of it.”
Paul Brown. “Examination of Objections and Arguments Opposed to the Equality of the Sexes.” The Boston Investigator, 695 (Sept. 11, 1844): 1. Brown concludes “Our first step towards elevating the character of females and qualifying them to be institutors of mankind in the principles of self-government, is to enroll them with the electors. The next is, to alter the boundaries of female education; making it equal with that of males, in all solid accomplishments. And until these things shall be done, a human republic will not exist upon earth.”
“The Tyranny of Man over Woman.” The Regenerator, 47 (Jan. 12, 1846): 188. The author commands reformers to “Free him [the African slave] my son; elevate him civilly and morally, I shall not be jealous; but at least allow thy mother to stand on a level with him. Permit her on his redeemed day to shake hands with him as his equal, not as his inferior!”
Crito. “To the Females of the United States of America.” The Boston Investigator, 815 (Jan. 6, 1847): 1. Lamenting that women are so far behind men in freedom and knowledge, Crito writes, “That so is so, is no reproach to her intellectual capacity; to man alone is it entirely attributable- to his apathy and blindness to State and Priestcraft, and the fashionable hypocrisy of the present age; and it is apparent to all strict observers, that in all the relations of domestic life, he has proved himself as great a tyrant as a king or priest in olden time, that is, in withholding from Woman her natural rights.”
Angelique Le Petit Martin. “To Moralists,” “First Conundrum,” “Second Conundrum,” and “Oppression of Women.” The Regenerator, 109, 112-114 (July 1, Aug. 15- Sept. 15, 1848): 67, 116, 132, 148. Under these titles are a series of short articles written from the Trumbull Phalanx in Braceville, Ohio in which Martin asks and answers questions such as “When is a woman like one declared insane by a court of justice? Answer – When she becomes a wife. For both are, by the law, deprived of the control of their own person, property and will – doomed to a civil death.”
“Woman’s Rights.” The Boston Investigator, 901 (Aug. 30, 1848): 4. Features a reprint of the Declaration of Sentiments adopted at the Women’s Rights Convention in Rochester, August 2, 1848.
Angelique Le Petit Martin. “A Curious Fact.” The Regenerator, 116 (Oct. 15, 1848): 182. Martin begins “If it is true that in proportion as a tribe or nation is coarse, brutal and cruel, the women are degraded and oppressed, our Saxon ancestors, of whom our American brothers make such a boast, must have been the most barbarous and most brutal of all the human race – judging by the very names they bestowed on them or associated them with.” Martin then provides the etymology of the words: wo-man, spinster, miss, wife, and husband.
Angelique Le Petit Martin. “A Voice from Nature.” The Regenerator, 122 (Feb. 1, 1849): 276-77. In this article, Martin conveys her views via a conversation between a woman and nature. Nature states “Does not common sense tell you both, that man, like all males, being called to the reproduction of his own species, by a transient act, which leaves no consequences with him, can not be the most important of the two sexes, and his considering himself superior to thee is a conceit befitting the times of barbarous ignorance, but not this enlightened age in which he prides in submitting everything to the investigation of his reason.”
Angelique Le Petit Martin. “We are not a Free Nation.” The Regenerator, 123-24, 126 (Feb. 15- Mar. 1, Apr. 1, 1849): 292, 312, 340. Martin asks, “Is your mother free? Does she enjoy the rights of republicans?” and “Are not renowned celebrity, public respect and gratitude, honors, wealth, grandeur, as gratifying to woman’s feelings as a man’s?” and concludes “when you established what you call your republic, your having, in our absence, the full control of the laws and social regulations, you were pleased to reduce us, all in a lump to a degraded caste, unworthy of exercising any national rights. The very name of a free woman is made an opprobrium to our sex!”
Susan. “Woman’s Rights.” The Boston Investigator, 928 (Mar. 7, 1849): 1. Susan reminds the editors of “a very important omission in your list of laws that Infidels want- namely, a law making woman equal to man, a law recognizing her as a being possessed of rights, instead of being as she is now, a non-entity.”
“Address by Mrs. Rose.” Monthly Beacon, 2:9 (Apr. 1849): 108-11. Rose remarks, “While we gratefully remember all that Thomas Paine has done for the rights of man, we must also remember that to us is left to achieve that greater task – the Rights of Woman! – without which, even the works of Thomas Paine, I greatly fear, will be useless, for man can never be truly free until woman has her rights as his equal, until she becomes elevated as an intellectual, independent, moral being.”
Judge E.P. Hurlbut. “The Rights of Woman.” Age of Reason, 2:30, 35 (Apr. 15, June 24, 1849): 118-20, 197-98. Extracts from E.P. Hurlbut’s Essays on Human Rights.
Anna. “The Women’s Rights Convention.” The Boston Investigator, 1016 (Nov. 13, 1850): 1. The author argues “There is but little hope for woman as long as she considers the church her best friend. If she would break away from the church and clergy, use her reason instead of regarding old traditions as sacred, emancipation in other things would speedily follow.”
“Women’s Rights Convention.” The Regenerator, 146 (Dec. 1850): 276-77. Held at Worcester, Mass., October 23-24; features letters from Elizur Wright, Samuel J. May, and L.A. Hine, which were read at the convention. The convention “Resolved, That Women are clearly entitled to the right of suffrage” and “That civil and political rights acknowledge no sex, and therefore the word “male” should be stricken from every Constitution.” In his letter, Hine observes, “If the respective spheres of man and woman are different, surely man has no right to assume the prerogative of describing her spheres by law and of compelling her to walk therein.”
Elizabeth Cady Stanton. “Spheres of Action for Women.” The Regenerator, 153 (Aug. 1851): 2-3. Here featured is a letter sent by Stanton to a Women’s convention in Akron, Ohio. On educating girls, Stanton suggests, “Teach her to go alone, by night and day, if need be, on the lonely highway, or through the busy streets of the crowded metropolis. The manner in which all courage and self-reliance is educated out of the girl- her path portrayed with dangers and difficulties that never exist, is melancholy indeed.”
A Looker On. “The Rights of Women.” The Boston Investigator, 1127 (Dec. 29, 1852): 1. The author states that “the male and female sex being different, their duties are also different; and we cannot make the later the same without abrogating the former- in other words, without destroying the order of Nature, which cannot be done, and should not be attempted nor desired, for Nature is wiser than “conventions” or any of the efforts of irrational reformers.”
H.R.H. “Women’s Rights” The Boston Investigator, 1130 (Jan. 19, 1853): 2. Responding to the argument that women should not possess the same political rights as men because of their inability to perform certain political duties, such as work as a police officers, constables, or watchmen, the author suggests commencing a movement to deprive “all those men who are rather weakly in body, of their political rights.”
A Looker On. “The Rights of Women- H.R.H.” The Boston Investigator, 1136 (Mar. 2, 1853): 1-2. The author argues that “equality of civil, social, and political rights, in the sexes, must be accompanied with the ability to perform all the duties which those rights enjoin- in other words, women must be able to perform those duties as well as men.”
H.R.H. “Women’s Rights- A Looker On.” The Boston Investigator, 1138 (Mar. 16, 1853): 1. The author clarifies, “what we ask is, that women may have precisely the same rights as men in all respects- the right to vote, to hold office, &c; the right to choose their own profession exactly as men do, with no interference of law or public opinion.”
A Looker On. “Woman’s Rights- Once More.” The Boston Investigator, 1144 (Apr. 27, 1853): 2. The author contends that nature “has plainly denoted a different sphere of action for the sexes. We may frustrate this plan; think we can improve upon it; and adopt a system of an opposite character; but the end of attempting to improve upon Nature, will be to reap the disappointment that always attends on folly.”
“H.R.H. “Women’s Rights- The End.” The Boston Investigator, 1147 (May 18, 1853): 1. The author asserts that “Every human being should have a voice in the affairs of government, for if one-half the race is deprived of this right they are so far slaves.”
H.R.H. “Women’s Rights- Begun Again.” The Boston Investigator, 1152 (June 22, 1853): 1. The author argues that those fundamental principles recognized as the “rights of man” should likewise be recognized as the rights of women, namely, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the right to vote and be voted for, the exclusive right to their own property, and earnings, and the right to choose their own employment in life, uncontrolled by law or public opinion.
P.I.B. “The Sphere of Woman.” The Boston Investigator, 1155 (July 13, 1853): 2. Blacker contends that “the first step for woman to take is to assert her right to self-ownership. This will give her the right to select her occupation and choose her own sphere. As to voting and legislating, I have seen women sit in conventions, fill offices, and take part in debates, and acquit themselves with credit; and there would be no more impropriety in going to the polls to deposit a ballot, than there is in going to the Post Office and depositing and getting a letter.”
“Address of Mrs. E. L. Rose, Before the People’s Sunday Meeting, in Cochituate Hall.” The Boston Investigator, 1067 (Nov. 5, 1851): 4. A lecture on woman’s rights delivered Oct. 19, 1851.
“Letter from Harriett Martineau.” The Boston Investigator, 1068 (Nov. 12, 1851): 4. A letter sent to the President of the Woman’s Rights Convention held at Worcester from Cromer, England, dated Aug. 3, 1851. Martineau writes, “Whether we regard the physical fact of what women are able to do, or the moral fact of what women ought to do, it is equally necessary to abstain from making any decision prior to experiment.”
Ernestine L. Rose. “Review of Horace Mann’s Two Lectures. Delivered in New York, Feb, 17th and 29th.” The Boston Investigator, 1091-92 (Apr. 21-28, 1852). Rose comments on a series of lectures by Horace Mann entitled “Hints to a Young Woman.” Also featured is a letter from Rose to Mann.
“A Speech by Mrs. E. L. Rose, at the Late Woman’s Right Convention at Syracuse (N.Y.).” The Boston Investigator, 1116 (Oct. 13, 1852): 1. Commenting on a resolution in favor of the bible, presented by Miss Brown, Rose remarks, “All the hatred and persecutions between sect and sect, man and man, have arisen from the different interpretations of [biblical] passages which can have no meaning in themselves, or there could be no doubt on the subject, each interpreter claiming to be the true oracle. The Pope, claiming to be the greatest, instituted an inquisition against every other interpreter. A book that is so ambiguous as not to convey any definite idea, can furnish no authority to this convention.”
General Intelligence: “Petition for Women’s Rights.” The Boston Investigator, 1344 (Feb. 25, 1857): 3. Reprint of a petition submitted to the Massachusetts legislature by Antoinette L. Brown, Ernestine L. Rose and Lucy Stone.
“Women.” The Boston Investigator, 1375 (Sept. 30, 1857): 2. Addressing Christians’ notions of the proper “sphere” of women, the editor remarks, “Since the human mind belongs to no sex in particular, and as every individual should do what lies in his or her power to benefit humanity, we should suppose that the “sphere” of every woman was preciously that condition or situation in which she could be useful, herself being the judge of what the “sphere” shall be.”
“Woman’s Rights.” The Boston Investigator, 1468 (July 13, 1859): 93. The editor identifies Francis Wright and Ernestine L. Rose as early advocates of woman’s rights and concludes, “We are aware that such women as Lucretia Mott, Abby Kelley Foster, and others have labored long and well for this reform, but we believe that the honor of its origin can be fairly set down to the credit of Infidels.”
“A Letter from Mrs. Tamar Davis, to the Liberal Convention.” The Boston Investigator, 1487 (Nov. 23, 1859): 242. Davis argues that women are the slaves of bigotry and priestly intolerance and that “the first step towards the eradication of superstition should be attempts to disenthrall the female mind.”
“Female Reformers – A Speech by Mrs. Rose.” The Boston Investigator, 1532 (Oct. 3, 1860): 187. Delivered at a Woman’s Rights Convention in New York. Rose remarks, “I said some years ago when laying our claims before the Legislature, “I know you are not prepared to give us all we ask, but we claim all our rights. We ask for no more; we can be satisfied with no less. Yet we will take what you are prepared to give us, and then claim the rest.” That is the only position for a reformer to take. The Anti-Slavery Society, the Garrisonian Society, is consistent. It declares that principle does not admit of compromise. It asks all, or none. We ask all, but we differ from that society in this, that we are ready to take as much as we can get, for we know that society is not prepared to give the whole at once.”
“Political Rights of Woman.” The Boston Investigator, 1804 (Jan. 10, 1866): 284. Reprinted from the last issue of The Liberator, a petition for universal suffrage written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, to which the editor comments there can be no “reasonable objection.”
R.D. Editorial. New Harmony Gazette, 3:31 (May 28, 1828): 246. The editor declares that “indissoluble marriage is an immoral institution; producing, sometimes indifference; sometimes disgust; sometimes hatred; and only in a few favored exceptions failing to excite hard feelings and grating squabbles, petulant irritation or cold distaste.”
R.D. “On Constancy.” New Harmony Gazette, 3:33 (June 11, 1828): 262-63. Owen comments, “For a race of Gods, who should know all things, indissoluble marriage were perhaps well enough adapted; for if it did no good, it could at least, do no harm; but for erring, fallible men, who learn only by experience and become wise from their own errors, an institution that shuts the door upon returning experience, and blocks up the retreat from a false path, is peculiarly inappropriate.”
F.W. “On the Rights and Wrongs of Women.” The Free Enquirer, 1:27 (Apr. 29, 1829): 213. Wright asks “every father not absolutely dead to all human feeling, how he can permit his daughters blindly to immolate all their rights, liberties, and property by the simple utterance of a word, and thus place themselves in their tender, ignorant, and unsuspecting youth, as completely at the disposal and mercy of an individual, as is the negro slave when bought for gold in the market of Kingston or New Orleans?”
R.D.O. “Marriage.” The Free Enquirer, 1:2 (Nov. 5, 1828):12-13. Owen asks, “Whence does the discord of married life derive its sharpest sting, if not from the law that stamps its permanency?”
Vindicia. On Marriage” followed by F.W. “In Answer to Vindicia.” The Free Enquirer, 1:5 (Nov. 26, 1828): 39- 40. Wright asks, “What matter is it to the state, to the people at large, individually or collectively, whether two human beings seek their happiness in union or separation?”
R.D.O. “On Matrimonial Dependence.” The Free Enquirer, 1:15 (Feb. 4, 1829): 117-18. Owen concludes, “Money, unfortunately is the passport to influence, even to independence of body and mind. When we debarred you, as wives, from the right to acquire and possess it, we struck at the root of your social and political rights. Until we repeal that injustice, you will never occupy the rank that in equity belongs to you.”
R.D.O. “Of Divorces Domestic and Governmental.” The Free Enquirer, 4:18 (Feb. 25, 1832): 141. Owen asks, “Are not all women “endowed with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?” Are not governments (both matrimonial and legal) “instituted among men, to secure these rights?” Do not marriages as well as governments “derive their just powers from the consent” of the contracting parties? “Whenever any marriage” (be it of a king to his subjects or a husband to his wife) “becomes destructive of these ends; is it not right that it should be dissolved?” Has not “all experience shown that women (and subjects) are more disposed to suffer while evils are endurable than to right themselves, by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed?” And is not the abolition of these forms often right, desirable, a virtuous wish? Is not a divorce, is not a revolution, a virtuous act, when kings and husbands play the despot?”
Robert Dale Owen. The Boston Investigator, “Marriage.” 64 (June 15, 1832): 1. Owen explains why he has chosen to marry, that he will do so without the aid of a religious cleric, and that he intends to morally divest himself of any rights over his future wife’s person or property.
“The Marriage Law.” Temple of Reason, 1:37, 40 (Jan. 30, Feb. 20, 1836): 293, 315-16. Speaking of marriage vows, the author writes, “Each party is to engage as with the solemnity of an affidavit, to take the other “for better or worse,” to be his or her constant companion, whom to love, honor, and obey, till parted by death! What a jaw-breaker! What an oath! What a wild plunge! What a headlong hazard! I do not conceive that any person of good sense can be very sincere, or honest, in making such an asseveration. Now if any person were to make so rash a bargain about any other sort of transaction, our laws would rate him non compos mentis, and from thence make the obligation void.”
John L. Smythe. “Marriage.” The Regenerator, 18 (Apr. 29, 1844): 70. Smythe highlights many of the parallels between married women and slaves, noting, “[slaves] have no right of property. Is not the married woman a thing, without right of property? The slave is to have no will but that of his master. The married woman must obey her husband in all things. The slave holder owns his slaves and their offspring. The husband owns his wife, and her services, and her offspring.”
Charles Lane. “Marriage.” The Regenerator, 21 (May 18, 1844): 81. Lane contends “Neither Association nor Property can be morally and securely arranged until human Marriage is rightly disposed of. If all desirable property were as abundant as the essentials, light and air, mankind would be no nearer happiness, if the basis of Marriage remained unchanged.”
George Taylor. “Marriage.” The Regenerator, 23 (June 1, 1844): 89. Taylor writes “Woman is treated but little better than a menial slave, to cater to the wants and pander to the incestuous desires of man. If indeed she sometimes escapes this degradation- if her energies are not destroyed by excessive toil and licentious intercourse, she is even then at best but little better than a breeder.”
“Marriage.” The Boston Investigator, 774 (Mar. 25, 1846): 2. The editor proposes making marriage “a voluntary transaction of their own formation, and liable, if the conditions cannot be performed, to a like voluntary dissolution.”
Angelique Le Petit Martin. “Marriage in Low Life” and “Marriage in High Life.” The Regenerator, 118-19, 121 (Dec. 1-15, Jan. 15, 1848): 212, 228-29, 260-61. Martin chronicles the multitude of ways in which the institution of marriage creates a master-slave relation between husband and wife.
O.M. “The Marriage Relation.” The Regenerator, 121 (Jan. 15, 1849): 259. Murray accuses Martin’s views on marriage as being “wild and extravagant,” and of “stirring jealousy and strife between the sexes.”
Angelique Le Petit Martin. “Reply from Sister Martin.” The Regenerator, 124 (Mar. 1, 1849): 312-13. Martin asserts, “I do not wish to array women against men; but unfortunately, men collectively have arrayed themselves against women, when in the present age, after the declaration of independence and of the natural rights of sentient beings, they have chosen to rule over them with laws enacted some thousand years ago . . . .”
John Ewen Jr. “Marriage Relation.” The Boston Investigator, 944 (June 27, 1849): 1. Ewen advocates the right of partners to a marriage to mutually dissolve their marriage contract.
Tyler Parsons. “The Marriage Relation.” The Boston Investigator, 946 (July 11, 1849): 1. Parsons claims that the view that a marriage may be dissolved when the parties to it mutually agree to separate is not a view “generally entertained or tolerated” by Infidels.
R.R. “Tyler Parsons – Marriage Relation.” The Boston Investigator, 951 (Aug. 15, 1849): 1. The author outlines some of the evils which may accompany marriage and suggests that “were marriage placed on the ground it ought to be, simply a social contract, leaving each to live together or separate as they pleased, dividing property and children between themselves, and making all personal violence and abuse as far as publicly penal in the domestic circle as in public, and you would have a natural exhibition of life.”
Correspondents review and comment on Thomas Low Nichols and Mary S. Gove Nichols advocacy of variety and absolute freedom in sexual relations in their book, Marriage: Its History, Character and Results.
P.I.B. “Dr. Nichols’s Book on Marriage.” The Boston Investigator, 1203 (June 14, 1854): 2. According to P.I.B., the Nichols’s “declare the absolute right of every man and woman to own themselves, and not to own others; that woman should take her stand on the ground of Individual Sovereignty; that she should sustain herself and not be dependent on man for home and subsistence, nor subject to his will or caprice; that she has a natural right to live up to her highest aspirations of a true life; that the improvement and happiness of the race is mainly to be secured by establishing the rights of choice or refusal as to who shall be the father of her child.”
Common Sense. “Marriage.” The Boston Investigator, 1204 (June 21, 1854): 2. The author asks, “Is marriage per se, or in itself, an evil? If it is, then Dr Nichols’s theory of “variety,” is correct; and all that a man or woman have to do, when sameness begets satiety, is to exchange partners. But if marriage is not an evil or wrong; if it is right, proper, or natural, for a man and woman to be faithful to each other through life, (as I contend it is) then constancy in love is a virtue, and “variety” is a vice. If the argument is not conclusive, let its fallacy be shown.”
Marie. “Dr. Nichols’s Book on “Marriage.”” The Boston Investigator, 1207 (July 12, 1854): 2. The author explains, “I understand Dr. Nichols to advocate liberty, perfect liberty, or the sovereignty of the individual, to be maintained at his or her own cost- that is, without encroaching upon the liberty of any other individual, and as each one may decide what then liberty would lead them to, it may be “promiscuous intercourse” to “Common Sense,” though to me a release from soul crushing, life destroying bondage.”
John Adams. “”Omnigamy” – Again.” The Boston Investigator, 1208 (July 19, 1854): 1. Adams writes that “Common Sense” “would have us believe that the Christians or religionists of the times defend this new doctrine of variety in love relations. If the clergymen of New England should chance to see his statement, methinks they would smile at his absurdities. The fact is, the clergy teach the same doctrine and agree with “Common Sense” – that is, they are both satisified with marriage as it is, that man and woman shall be bound together by laws, and however sad the mistakes may be which they may fall into, there is no redress but by crime or death, for only by committing crime will our laws tolerate separation.”
“Letter from Dr. Nichols.” The Boston Investigator, 1218 (Sept. 27, 1854): 1. Nichols argues that “The evils of marriage are- early passional starvation, of those who hesitate to enter upon so serious an engagement; the risk of perjury, in taking vows often impossible to keep; the fear of the fact of mistakes in the choice of partners; the risk of diseased offspring in consequence of an unfitness which cannot be remedied; the life-long punishment of being compelled to live in a false relation. Women also have to bear, in thousands of cases, the horrors of compulsory marital union, or legal rape- and compulsory, dreaded, and often murderous maternity.”
A Married Woman. “Marriage – Dr, Nichols.” The Boston Investigator, 1222 (Oct. 25, 1854): 1. The author agrees that married women often suffer at the hands of tyrannical husbands, but, nonetheless, argues that the law of marriage “tends to restrain the passions of men within the bounds of order and decency.”
“Marriage at the Sunday Institute.” The Boston Investigator, 1210 (Aug. 2, 1854): 1. This article reports the performance of two nonsectarian marriage ceremonies by Thomas Illman and includes his remarks made on the occasion.
“Marriage of Lucy Stone under Protest.” Murray’s Review, 185 (June 1855): 141. This article features a protest letter signed by Henry Blackwell and Lucy Stone which reads, in part, “we deem it a duty to declare that this act on our part implies no sanction of, nor promise of voluntary obedience to such of the present laws of marriage, as refuse to recognize the wife as an independent rational being, while they confer upon the husband an injurious and unnatural superiority, investing him with legal powers which no honorable man would exercise, and which no man should possess.”
“The Rutland Convention- Marriage.” The Boston Investigator, 1416 (July 14, 1858): 2. Commenting on the presses condemnation of the convention’s resolutions on marriage, the editor notes, “it is a fact that whenever anyone expresses a desire to alter the present marriage laws, making the more lenient and just towards woman, he is obliged to run the gauntlet, as it were, of misrepresentation and abuse; and if a female is found courageous enough and sufficiently devoted to the welfare of her sex to engage in this enterprise, though she is “chaste as ice, as pure as snow, she shall not escape calumny.””
Ernestine L. Rose. “Woman’s Rights.” The Boston Investigator, 1507 (Apr. 11, 1860): 401-02. This article features an Act on the Rights and Liberties of Husband and Wife” just adopted by the New York legislature, followed by Rose’s commentary.
 Mary Jane Robinson simply writes “I concur in these sentiments.”