NAWSA  GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE   Sturge, Adolphus

Oberlin, July 19, 1845
To Miss L. Stone
I write these few lines to express my friendship,
and the great gratification we all felt at your
literary meeting the other evening. I had no
idea that the intellectual faculties of the "Ladies"
took so high a range, and were so capable
of inculcating such excellent precepts.......
Believe me Miss Stone,
Your friend
Adolphus Sturge.

(Lucy Stone to Mr. Sturge)
1845.
Mr. Sturge.
I feel desirous on account of some things
in your review of my article, of making a
brief reply. I would love to dwell on many
points to which I shall be able only to allude.
I will pass entirely you first remark that
slaves can take as long breaths as they please
in your country, and also that in reference
to the New Factory Bill, which last corresponds with what I admitted, viz.: that through
the efforts of English philanthropists the system
is not so rigorous as formerly, and will pass
to the next which would prove that the English
as a nation are not avaricious, and that
her capitalists have not an inordinate love
of money. The first argument to prove that
they are not so is, that the vicissitudes of
fortune, and the variableness of the times prevent
this. We have seen in our own country

and presume Mr. Sturge has in his, that 
the most sudden and frequent reverses of 
fortune are neither a cure or preventive 
of avarice. Again, so far from its being your 
great Englishmen, who put such a spirit into 
the cotton-market, it was our countrymen who 
first aroused yours to the advantages of this 
trade between the countries. Again neither 
America or her revenue would suffer more 
by non-interchange between the countries than 
England would herself suffer from the same 
source. England is not the only country 
with which we trade. Our ships are on every 
ocean, and they visit every shore. Again England 
it is true, loaned money to Massachusetts, 
(which I am happy to say is my native State) 
to complete her railroads, but does it follow that 
she is not avaricious? Who, having money, 
would be so foolish as not to lend when 
she might receive as security the mortgage 
of an entire State? I think if Mr. Sturge had 
not lived with his benevolent uncles, and 
always associated with the best men in his 
country, and if he were not a little blinded 
by love of country, he would not fail to see, 
from historical facts that it is a characteristic 
of the English that they are great lovers of money. 
I make individual exceptions of course, for 
I know that in your country there are noble men 
and women as the sun ever looked upon, who 
are as far removed from avarice as the east is 
from the west. I am happy to make exceptions. 
I would there were more. But for what did England 
directly lay claim to so large a portion 
of this country after its discovery? Why did she attempt 
to tax the colonists and (passing over many years) 
why did she lay her aggressive hand upon the 
Chinese? Is not the cause for all these things 
found in her love of money? To me it does 
not seem quite clear that they have not

this love, because she loaned money to a foreign 
power when she received ample security and 
large interest, or because times vary, or because 
the capitalists introduced a milder system of 
rules into the operation when it was for their 
interest to do so, just as it is the interest of 
the slave-holder to feed his slave well.

Again, from your account, their moral 
education, to say nothing of their literary, 
seems to be sadly neglected, for you say, that 
on a Saturday when they receive their pay they 
expend half a dollar for confectionary, and still 
more for gay dress, mock jewelry, &c. How degraded 
must that mind be which never rises 
higher than to ornament the frame and supply 
its physical wants. How sad to find one 
made in the image of his Creator so prone, 
so sensual, as to neglect utterly the mind, 
Godlike in its origin, capable of endless 
expansion, and in its duration designed 
to run parallel with the duration of Jehovah himself. 
But the ladies set the example of gayety, and the 
poor, ignorant things are not willing to be outdone. 
Again you say that there is very little 
deformity among the operations. I collected 
the facts in reference to this from Charlotte 
Elizabeth who represents it as being almost universal. 
(I found it was less at Manchester, where 
you are acquainted.) It was from her too, that 
I learned the facts in reference to the schools 
for the children, to the women being driven by 
their husbands in the coal mines, to the extreme 
poverty and degradation of the operatives, to the law 
taking the side of the oppressor against the 
oppressed, and from her I learned the composition 
of Godfrey (for I have never examined 
it). She says expressly that it is a compound 
of molasses and laudanum and that little 
boys in the druggists' shops often [?] it. 
She knows nothing of the strength of the

material, and adds that the expense is very trifling. 
I used the term dozing instead of drenching. 
Again your account of the ill-health of the 
operatives agrees with that stated in my article, 
for you say that even in Manchester, where the 
air is purest, and where there is least confinement, 
the laborers are pale and wan. I 
do not quite understand how it becomes necessary 
for the humane gentlemen of the corporation to 
give blankets, coal, beef, &c., to those who are 
so well paid for labor, as to have all the 
comforts of life, and many of the luxuries, but 
no matter. You say again that the 
laborers require very little, since they only need 
a little fire at night, to boil the pot of potatoes, 
and bake the oaten cakes. I don't know how 
much of comfort or luxury Mr. Sturge would think 
he enjoyed, if his usual supper consisted of such 
materials.

Again in reference to the Quaker muse 
whose poetical effusion you are pleased to call 
doggerel, and to doubt whether the author ever 
existed, I will only say that it was an extract 
from a thrilling poem of William Hewitt, who, 
you are well aware, is one of England's noblest 
men, and sweetest poets. I would that 
all Englishmen were possessed of his 
true-heartedness and generosity, for if there 
were, no one would ever have occasion to 
wilt among their sins either avarice or 
oppression. In reference to British law, 
you say you apprehend that it is salutary, 
and that there is but one law for the rich 
and poor. I think if Mr. Sturge, or his 
sisters, had been compelled by the iron 
hand of poverty, to labor in the mills or 
coal mines, with rude women and ruder 
men, and had found that insults and 
blows were not taken cognizance of by British 
law, because British law provides that if 

complaint of abuse is not made to the inspector 
within 14 days after it is inflicted, it shall not 
regard it, when the fact is considered that the 
inspectors visit the mills only 2 or 3 times in 
a year, I think I say that he would hardly 
feel that the law was salutary, and that there 
was but one for all classes. Perhaps I am 
mistaken.

Again you say that the English are an 
enthusiastic people, active, lively, social, 
and possessing more energy than the Americans, 
and that they cannot fail to make good husbands 
and wives. We have no means of judging of 
your countrymen in this respect, only by those 
who live amongst us, and in reference to those 
we know, we have no hesitation in saying that 
they are active, lively and social. I do not doubt 
that they make good husbands and wives. In 
reference to the Oregon question, which I 
omitted reading; I would say that I have 
lost the document to which you refer, and agree 
with you that the treaty between England and 
America in regard to that territory ought to 
be binding, as every national treaty should, but 
if I do not very much miss-remember, that 
treaty limited our northern boundary by a parallel 
of latitude far north of the mouth of the Columbia 
to which the English lay claim. I think they 
should be bound by the law of honor to abide 
by the treaty. Your rhyme in reference to the 
Yankees, and repudiation, leads me to suppose 
that you are not aware that none but our 
slave-holding States are in favor of that 
monstrosity. The Yankees repudiate repudiation 
as much as you [can?].

You ask if I can consider the condition 
of the slaves, and that of the English 
operatives at all similar. I reply that 
so far as my own feelings are concerned 
I would sooner die a thousand times,

If it were possible than be either an operative in an English mill or a slave in my own guilty country. Your country I am happy to say has acted nobly in emancipating her slaves, and I would that my own would act as nobly, and no longer permit the mailing complaint of the slave to be bonne an every heart, and his sin avenging cry to rise to heaven. My country, I am sorry to say is a country of oppressors that if is mis-called a laud of Freedom, happy laud. But while I freely acknowledge the sins of my country, and as freely give England credit for having acted more nobly than me in one thing. I cannot but feel from the testimony of such men as your own high-souled, patriotic George Thompson, that your country too is verily guilty of the sin of [avarice], oppression, and the poor on her rock-girdled shove, are completed by her iron heel to mingle their deep with the millions of India suffering from the same source, and if 

there were not some righteous men in both notions as in Sodom it would not be strange if Slaves exterminating threats should [?] ys from existence  I do not write what I have [?] [written], nor what I had the other evening, because I love to find fault with England, for I do not. We regard England as our mother country, and with all her faults we love her still. But seems to me that Englishmen instead of concealing their sins, should unite in heartfelt prayer that your country and my country and all countries, may put away the sins which make them so abominable in the eyes of a God of Infinite purity.

Transcribed and reviewed by contributors participating in the By The People project at crowd.loc.gov.