in 1835 incited a mob. Similarly, American activists, such as Samuel J. May, Robert Purvis, James Forten, Jr., Charles C. Burleigh, and Benjamin Lundy, regularly addressed the society’s meetings. Second, in order to improve the condition of blacks in Philadelphia, the Philadelphia Female Anti-Slavery Society established a committee to visit African American schools and offer aid. By 1838, the Philadelphia Female Anti-Slavery Society had taken on financial responsibility for the school run by member Sarah Mapps Douglass. Finally, the Philadelphia Female Anti-Slavery Society continued the work begun by Philadelphia women in 1831, petitioning Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia and the territories, and to outlaw the interstate slave trade. One such petition declared slavery “a sin against God, and inconsistent with our declaration that equal liberty is the birth-right of all.”20
The Philadelphia Female Anti-Slavery Society also encouraged women to join the anti-slavery movement and to take on more public roles. In her initial role as corresponding secretary, Lucretia exchanged letters with women in other young anti-slavery societies, such as Lucy Williams of the Brooklyn, Connecticut, Female Anti-Slavery Society, who sought advice from an “elder” in the movement.21 In their own state, the Philadelphia Female Anti-Slavery Society published an address “To the Women of Pennsylvania” describing their “duty as a citizen of the United States” to leave the “hallowed precincts of the home” for the “halls of Congress.” They urged women to circulate and sign anti-slavery petitions. Adopting a strategy used by other anti-slavery women, the Philadelphia Female Anti-Slavery Society drew attention to free women’s obligations to enslaved women: “Yes, although we are women, we still are citizens, and it is to us, as women, that the captive wives and mothers, sisters and daughters of the South have a particular right to look for help in this day of approaching Emancipation.”22 When Angelina Grimké, the daughter of a prominent South Carolina slaveholding family and a new member of the society, became an agent of the American Anti-Slavery Society, the first woman to hold such position, the Philadelphia Female Anti-Slavery Society issued a public statement of approval. Describing Grimké’s path as a “new field of labor,” they acknowledged that she would receive “not only the sneers of the heartless multitude, which are the portion of every faithful abolitionist, but grave charges of infractions of the laws of female delicacy and propriety.” The Philadelphia Female Anti-Slavery Society urged anti-slavery societies around the country to give her “your support, your sympathy, and your prayers.”23
Angelina Grimké’s 1836–37 public speaking tour, which included an address to the Massachusetts Legislature, provoked immediate backlash. Congregational ministers in Massachusetts issued a Pastoral Letter that denounced women who adopted the male role of “public reformer” as “unnatural,” and recommended that churches close their doors to female speakers. Catharine Beecher, daughter of the eminent evangelical and colonizationist Lyman Beecher, published an Essay on Slavery and Abolitionism, with Reference to the Duty of American Females. Addressed to Angelina Grimké, the essay condemned female anti-slavery societies and petition campaigns (despite Beecher’s own activism on behalf of the Cherokee), instead advising that women use their influence not to “exasperate” but “for the purpose of promoting a spirit of candour, forbearance, charity, and peace.”24
In Philadelphia, Benjamin Lundy’s new journal, the National Enquirer, printed a series of responses to Catharine Beecher from “L.” “L” was undoubtedly a member of Philadelphia’s abolitionist community, and may have been Lucretia Mott. While Lucretia did not usually write for publication—she did not believe she had any particular talent for it—she did occasionally publish short letters or articles in anti-slavery newspapers. And as a defender of Angelina Grimké’s right to speak out against slavery, Mott believed that Beecher merited a thorough rebuttal. In her first article, L denied that colonizationists could properly be considered abolitionists. She defended William Lloyd Garrison from Beecher’s aspersions and suggested Beecher herself was a member of the “half-way” or “neutral” party (unacceptable to uncompromising Garrisonians). L also denied that the tactics of abolitionists were dangerous, inciting “envy, discontent, and revengeful feelings” in the black community. Instead, L pointed out that black abolitionists were “universally acknowledged to be kind, respectful, sober, and forgiving, and above slander, even from Miss Beecher.”25
Shortly after L began publishing her articles, Lundy printed Angelina Grimké’s responses to Beecher. Grimké defended the anti-slavery movement as the ultimate “school of morals in our land.” She argued that individuals had rights as moral beings, and that while the slave’s rights had been “plundered,” his “right and title to himself is as perfect now, as is that of Lyman Beecher.” Grimké made the same argument on behalf of her sex: “My doctrine then is, that whatever it is morally right for man to do, it is morally right for woman to do.” 26 Grimké defined equality as inherent to every human being, echoing Quaker belief in the inner light and William Ellery Channing’s “Idea of Right.” L probably concluded that Grimké’s response was much more effective than her own, as she stopped publication of her series. Still, not all Garrisonians agreed with Grimké’s assessment of women’s “right” to speak against slavery. As abolitionists deliberately and repeatedly violated the nation’s racial and sexual order, the outcry intensified.
As the controversy over women’s role in the anti-slavery movement grew, Mott took her place on the national stage. After the separation, Mott’s skills as a preacher made her an important ambassador from Philadelphia Friends to Quakers across the country. In 1833, she and her school friend Phebe Post Willis, a cousin of James from Long Island, traveled on a religious mission through New York and Massachusetts, ending in Mott’s birthplace of Nantucket, where Quakers were in a “tried state” following a series of disownments, further reverberations from the schism in Philadelphia. Despite these tensions, Mott relished her time with Phebe, writing “sisters could not have harmonized more entirely.” But the Orthodox journal The Friend pointed out that Lucretia was traveling under false pretenses by claiming she represented the Society of Friends. Classifying Mott as a Hicksite, they argued “the Society of Friends are in no way responsible for her doctrines or movements.” (“Have you seen how I am posted in ‘The Friend’?” Mott asked Willis).27
Though she still had young children, Lucretia’s calling meant that she was frequently away from home. In May 1834, after several of her children had recovered from scarlet fever, Lucretia left on a three week journey to Southern Quarterly Meeting. Anna Coffin lived with the Motts and helped with domestic duties, as did Lucretia’s older daughters. Nevertheless, James experienced her departure as an emotional as well as a practical trial, writing, “I am not a whit better reconciled to a separation than I was a year ago,—but must make the best of it.” The following spring Mott commented that “I have been less from home this winter than for several years past,” a turn of phrase that suggested she had traveled quite a bit. But the demands of childrearing also declined in the coming years. In 1836, eight-year-old Martha and eleven-year-old Elizabeth went to a school run by Anthony Sharp in Mt. Holly, New Jersey, where Lucretia’s cousin Rebecca Bunker was a teacher. In October of that year, eighteen-year old Maria married Edward M. Davis, a Quaker merchant, member of the Young Men’s Anti-Slavery Society of City and County of Philadelphia, and, in 1838, one of the founders of the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society, a state-wide organization affiliated with the American Anti-Slavery Society.28 Lucretia approved whole-heartedly of both her sons-in-law, who were as devoted to abolition as the rest of the family.
In 1836, in response to the emergence of female anti-slavery societies across New England and the mid-Atlantic, the Boston Female Anti-Slavery Society (BFASS) suggested the formation of an executive committee to oversee the various groups. Benjamin Lundy praised the idea, writing “Much good would doubtless result from the united exertions, of such minds as those of A. E. Grimké, Lucretia Mott, Mary Parker, Mary Clarke [sic], M. W. Chapman, L. M. Child” and others. Parker, Maria Weston Chapman, and Lydia Maria Child were all members
