NAWSA General Correspondance Lloyd, Mercy My dear sister Lucy: Considerable time has again elapsed since your more than acceptable letters were received I read with affectionate interest, your fetching description of the home of your childhood and the many changes that time and death had wrought upon it. It awakened a melancholy sympathy in my bosom, that rendered you dearer if possible than before. And how I wished my dear sister I could have held you in my embrace in [??] upon your cheek loving kiss. But I am happy in the consciousness that we know and love each other; and humbly trust that each succeeding development of character and sentiment may tend to enhance the ties that already exist your experience in a religious capacity has been in a measure, mine. I too am a natural worshiper. I have large veneration and as I have often told you, of a rather sober and thoughtful cast of mind -- but dear Lucy I cannot say with you, that I have "come to where the true light shines" I love the God of nature, but the God of revelation I do not understand, I mean of course as his character is disclosed in the Old and New Testament. I see therein many many contradictions and difficulties that I cannot reconcile, and if reconciled with each other, would conflict with what the God of nature teaches me, are the attributes of Deity. I know not what your position may be in reference to this matter, but as far as I am concerned, I have never [*some of the difficulties that have so long darkened my mind. Another thing I want to know, and that is this. What do you make or from what to you deduce your standard of moral right. We have been having some interesting lectures and discussions here recently - some on the [??] of temperance, others on the development of creation and one on Physiology and Phrenology showing the impropriety of physical force in the training of children and the cause of the majority of diseases that are [?] upon the human family and what do you think that cause was chiefly sexual indulgence The lecturer was a physician been able to see that the Scriptures of the New Testament rest upon any higher authority than those of the Old. Either they are both of Divine authenticity, as nine tenths of prophyseying Christians claim that they are, or neither of them. If both, then it seems to me, they must harmonize. because they are both true, and I cannot concieve of one truth conflicting with another, but is this so? In the old testament we are commanded to worship a God of war, slavery, and every species of injustice and wrong, in the new the meek and lowly Jesus who came to preach "peace on earth, and good will to men" but say the defenders of the Bible, the Old testament was not written for us, but for those in a comparatively barbarous age, admit it: and what do we prove? That truth is not eternal but is modified or changed according to the circumstances under which it is manifested. I can see no escape from this position. The mind of man was not different in nature three thousand years ago from what it is now, it was only in a state of inferior development. Now what would be our course of treatment toward a mind of such inferior order Take for instance a Hottentot. Would we first go to work and teach him the rites and ceremonies of the Jewish church preparatory to becoming a Christian? Would we teach him to overcome his enemies with the sword, and make them slaves of the nations round about him. Oh no, this would not be thought Christian, or the right plan for making Christians. But why not? Simply because such teaching could never develop his nobler nature. It would only tend to develop those [??] that already degraded him. If then this is not true, was it not true [was it not true] at the time of the Mosaic dispensation? If so, then [either] God was not the author of that entire dispensation which as I said before rests upon the same authority as the new testament. If it is true that the mind is not subject to the same laws of development that it was in ages past, then is he a changeable being and we cannot rely with any degree of certeinty upon a single law that governs our being. If the difference in the doctrines of the Old and New dispensations were merely in extension then I would not object to it for as the mind becomes developed we are enabled to perceive laws that in an inferior state we were not conscious of, but we will not find that those laws conflict with laws that we had known before. I do not wish you to understand that I reject either the new or old testament in toto but I do not believe in their infallibility. I read them as I read other works believing all that looks reasonable - or I will even go farther and say that I do not dis [??] anything in them that does not conflict with what I know to be true. But their exception as of Divine origin has I believe done more to perpetuate the war making slavery making spirit in the land, than every other work combined.--I do not know that Christ has inculcated a single doctrine that I do not believe when actionally construed, and I think they will all admit of such construction. But the popular idea of the object of his mission and the nature of the precepts he taught & [??] by others. but I have not now time to dwell upon this. I said as much as I have chiefly for the sake of information. I inferred from what you said that you could now see harmony between the revelations of nature and those of the Bible and if so would be willing to remove [*who has quit [? tising] because he said he could not be sustained in that capacity and speak the truth. I never heard such a free and fearless [?]*] [*of the truth and what most surprised me was that he was listened to by a large and promiscuous audience with the most profound attention and respect - who would have believed it but oh a glorious day is dawning. when legitimately exercised. To suppose that love has its origin in any other source would be to admit a difference in a moral and intellectual point of view which I for one cannot do. Believing then that this is its origin I infer that its development is subject to the direction and control of the higher feelings. Where this is not the case true love cannot exist. I think we may feel a momentary attachment to an unworthy object but such attachment deserves not the name of love unless matured by true and perfect sympathy and that the reason why there are so many unhappy marriages is that persons yield to this first impulse without waiting for it to be matured. I want to talk a heap more but have not room. Affect. yours M. Lloyd [*Loydsville O 10 Mar 12 Lucy Stone North Brookfield Massachusetts*] [*Mercy Lloyd 1847 March 10*] Jane has probably given you her theory on the nature of the attachment between husband and wife which I think is little different from mine. That the attachment is both stronger and different I freely admit but I still think this difference results from the fact that in the married state all our feelings are gratified whereas in the single they are not. I cannot concieve of there being anything degrading in the natural or rational indulgence of the animal feelings I do not think we possess a single faculty that is not ennobling Lloydsville Dec. 12th, 17 My very dear sister It is now Sunday and nearly a week since Jane wrote you. I have determined for the present to forsake all care and spend at least a part of the day with you at Prof. Wilkins. It is one of those very dark, gloomy winter days but I shall forget the depressing influence of such weather in the sweet halo of affection that surrounds me. You are not less dear to us, nor the influence of your soul reviving letters less cheering and elevating than when you were here in Ohio. We think of you as often, and as earnestly long to be with you but as this cannot be for a time, we are contented and happy to know that you are doing good, that the "tenfold" influence of a corrupt church and clergy have not denied your hope or paralyzed your energy. We glory in your courage and unyielding resistance to wrong and oppression. The world would not long be unredeemed were it only in alliance with more such friends as you but I fear my dear sister we are not all like you. There are many of us who want to do good but we have not somehow learned your art of keeping our balance or rather we have not always faith enough. The faith of a Peter would not be more than sufficient in a world so nearly flooded with error. What then is to become of us? Both Phrenology and experience tell us we are deficient in this aspect. But is not my purpose to [*which I preferred Garrison or Lucretia and I do not exactly know yet but there was something in Garrisons pure angelic spirit that made more impression upon me than anything I have ever seen in mortal shape before or since. I shall never forget it nor never cease to rejoice that the suffering milions have so God-like an advocate. His influence in Ohio was immense, more greater [?] presume than most of the friends of truth are aware of, but the course of future events will award to him his full merit. His illness at Cleaveland occasioned much uneasiness and sorrow but he is now we hope restored to health and his anxious family. We were very very glad to hear of your public labors both for women and the slave murmur. We are not doing less or feel less like doing than heretofore. While more courageous, hopeful spirits go before we will follow in their train remembering what "man has done, men can do again." We have had many interesting and we think useful conversations on our much loved topick. Married women whom we thought of almost all other the least likely to see, or feel their degration, have acknowledged to us freely that their position was one of sinfulness and slavery but as you say they did not seem to know how to mend it. One lady told us she was "learning her husband to do right." Among the unmarried we have found some who seemed to prefer celibacy to marriage under existing circumstances but whether they will adhere to this preference in the hour of trial is questionable. With most people it requires a terrible effort to say "no" when they have what the world would call a "good chance." I must not forget to tell you that we have even gone so far as to discuss the whole subject with a man, a young physician with whom we have been long and intimately acquainted. It was with much hesitancy that we gave up to speak freely but our conviction of the elevated tones of his moral [feelings] sentiments, together with the deep and earnest interest he seemed to feel in the subject and the almost sacred regard he manifested for our feelings, wholly disarmed us of all fear or uneasiness, so that we talked with nearly as little restraint as if it had been you. He advocates the improvement and elevation of women, but when we came to marriage or the vital part of the subject he dissented from us -- said we were advo- [*they may not now be appreciated, but generations yet unborn will thank you for your devotion to truth. Never mind Mrs. Walkers "cautions" She may be a noble woman and yet be mistaken.*] cating doctrines that never could nor never would be practised or if practised or attempted to be by women would lead to open licentiousness on the part of men. Jane told him that would not be her look out that she was bound to carry out her convictions of right regardless of consequences. He said he did not doubt our sincerity but expressed a strong conviction that if we ever married we would change our views. We told him no and asked him why it was that men could not govern this passion as well after marriage as before? He paused a moment and then said They do or nearly so said he it is only the smallest no. of young men that are clear of the sin. This startled us somewhat for we had no idea of its general prevalence in the country though we knew it was quite common in the larger towns and cities. He admitted several that such indulgence was wrong -- that it was wrong for people to have more children than they wanted or could take proper care of, but seemed to regard it as an unavoidable wrong. We assured him in conclusion that instead of convincing us that we were wrong he only confirmed us in the belief that we were right -- that something must be done to stay the progress of the enormous evil and that nothing short of an uncompromising stand on the side of right would effect the change. I expressed some sentiments in relation to the object or design of the marriage institution in one of my letters to you last summer that I would like to explain more fully but I have neither time nor room -- one question however bearing on the subject I want to ask you and that is this. Is the attachment between husband and wife different from that which exists between persons of the same sex, and if so how, or in what way? --- Have you ever heard Lucretia Mott on womans rights: - She delivered a most excellent lecture in Salem on the subject. Oh how I wished dear Lucy that you had been there. Elizabeth Jones too, when she was just in the middle of her lecture turned to me and said, "how I wish Lucy were here." I did not give up all hope of seeing you until the morning of Garrisons meeting when Samuel told me you were gone though I feared my letter would not reach you. I had a very happy visit at Salem besides attending many interesting meetings. I came home nearly worn out but am now more fleshy and apparently more healthy than I have been for two or three years. -- I was for a long time at a loss to decide [*Write soon. We will not be so long silent again unless something vey unusual happens.*] rest assured of a "welcome back." My letter is not quite as long as the presidents message that I have just been reading but I trust it is more truthful. Did you ever see such a string of cool deliberate falsehoods before? It is worse than Henry Clays speech that Quincy used up so nicely last week. We have just sent for Hurburts work on human rights and Mrs Reids on womans education and influence have you seen them. Affectionately yours M.L. [*Mercy Lloyd 1847 Dec. 6*] [*Loydsville O 10 Dec 14 Lucy Stone North Brookfield Masachussetts*] I was deeply interested in the description you gave of your journey home I should loved to have been with you at the Falls but I shall not see them soon If I had money, I would be there one year from next spring but it is not likely I shall. You will be in Ohio again before that time I hope but if not the temptation to go east will be very strong. Samuel said in his last letter that you would probably be here. Come dear Lucy come you may Transcribed and reviewed by contributors participating in the By The People project at crowd.loc.gov.