Letter 4: Abigail Adams to Mercy Otis Warren, 27 April 1776
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Letter 4: Abigail Adams to Mercy Otis Warren, 27 April 1776 This excerpt is from the one letter in this lesson that Abigail wrote to someone other than her husband; she wrote to her good friend Mercy Otis Warren. She discusses her husband’s response to the “Remember the Ladies” letter and flatly states that laws are needed to protect women. He [John Adams] is very sausy to me in return for a List of Female Grievances which I transmitted to him. I think I will get you to join me in a petition to Congress. I thought it was very probable our wise Statesmen would erect a New Goverment and form a new code of Laws. I ventured to speak a word in behalf of our Sex, who are rather hardly dealt with by the Laws of England which gives such unlimitted power to the Husband to use his wife Ill. I requested that our Legislators would consider our case and as all Men of Delicacy and Sentiment are averse to Excercising the power they possess, yet as there is a natural propensity in Humane Nature to domination, I thought the most generous plan was to put it out of the power of the Arbitary and tyranick to injure us with impunity by Establishing some Laws in our favour upon just and Liberal principals. I believe I even threatned fomenting a Rebellion in case we were not considerd, and assured him we would not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we had neither a voice, nor representation. In return he tells me he cannot but Laugh at My Extrodonary Code of Laws. That he had heard their Struggle had loosned the bands of Goverment, that children and apprentices were dissabedient, that Schools and Colledges were grown turbulent, that Indians slighted their Guardians, and Negroes grew insolent to their Masters. But my Letter was the first intimation that another Tribe more numerous and powerfull than all the rest were grown discontented. This is rather too coarse a complement, he adds, but that I am so sausy he wont blot it out. Close Reading Questions 18. In this letter Abigail specifically writes about the laws which she thinks should be changed. Which laws are those? She believes that the laws of England give unlimited power to the husband to “use his wife ill” and she wants to make sure that the new American government does not adopt these types of laws. 19. Why does she think these laws to protect women are necessary? She says that even though some men would not treat their wives badly, she believes that “there is a natural propensity in Humane Nature to domination….” Abigail states that men have a natural instinct toward domination, and laws would help them remember not to treat women in abusive ways. 20. Why does Abigail believe women must be protected from men who are “arbitrary and tyranick”? She believes men who are arbitrary tyrants, unreasonable and unpredictable, display man’s “natural propensity in Humane Nature to domination.” Abigail is reminding her husband that laws must protect women against men who cannot control this natural propensity to domination which might strike at any time. 21. What was John’s tone in his response to Abigail’s ideas? Cite evidence from the text. His tone was derisive and mocking. He laughed at her suggestions, stating that the current state of rebellion had led to a lessening of respect for laws in a number of groups (children, apprentices, students, Indians, and Negroes) and that he would now add women to that list. 22. Why does John Adams characterize women as the most powerful of the discontented “tribes”? John Adams is alluding to the familiar and often invoked power-behind-the-throne argument, which holds that, for all their seeming power, husbands really follow the dictates of wives. In his response to Abigail he wrote, “Although they [systems of masculine power] are in full force, you know they are little more than theory. We dare not exert our power in its full latitude. We are obliged to go fair and softly, and, in practice, you know we are the subjects. We have only the name of masters…[giving up power] would completely subject us to the despotism of the petticoat….” .