Marital Power Exemplified in Mrs. Packard's Trial, and Self-Defence from the Charge of Insanity

by E. P. W. Packard

And as a very natural prelude to this answer, it seems to me not inappropriate to answer one other question often put to me first, namely: “has he not some other woman in view?”

I can give my opinion now, not only with my usual promptness, but more than my usual confidence that I am correct in my opinion. I say confidently, he has not any other woman in view, nor never had; and it was only because I could not fathom to the cause of this “Great Drama,” that this was ever presented to my own mind, as a question. I believe that if ever there was a man who practically believed in the monogamy principle of marriage, he is the man. Yes, I believe, with only one degree of faith less than that of knowledge, that the only Bible reason for a divorce never had an existence in our case.

And here, as the subject is now opened, I will take occasion to say, that as I profess to be a Bible woman both in spirit and practice, I cannot conscientiously claim a Bible right to be divorced. I never have had the first cause to doubt his fidelity to me in this respect, and he never has had the first cause to doubt my own to him.

But fidelity to the truth of God’s providential events compel me to give it as my candid opinion, that the only key to the solution of this mysterious problem will yet be found to be concealed in the fact, that Mr. Packard is a monomaniac on the subject of woman’s rights, and that it was the triumph of bigotry over his manliness, which occasioned this public manifestation of this peculiar mental phenomenon. Some of the reasons for this opinion, added to the facts of this dark drama which are already before the public, lie in the following statement.

In looking over the correspondence above referred to, I find the “confidential” part all refers to dates and occasions wherein I can distinctly recollect we had had a warm discussion on the subject of woman’s rights; that is, I had taken occasion from the application of his insane dogma, namely, that “a woman has no rights that a man is bound to respect,” to defend the opposite position of equal rights. I used sometimes to put my argument into a written form, hoping thus to secure for it a more calm and quiet consideration. I never used any other weapons in self-defence, except those paper pellets of the brain. And is not that man a coward who cannot stand before such artillery?

But not to accuse Mr. Packard of cowardice, I will say, that instead of boldly meeting me as his antagonist on the arena of argument and discussion, and there openly defending himself against my knockdown arguments, with his Cudgel of Insanity, I find he closed off such discussions with his secret “confidential” letters to my relatives and dear friends, saying, that he had sad reason to fear his wife’s mind was getting out of order; she was becoming insane on the subject of woman’s rights; “but be sure to keep this fact a profound secret—especially, never let Elizabeth hear that I ever intimated such a thing.”

I presume this is not the first time an opponent in argument has called his conqueror insane, or lost to reason, simply because his logic was too sound for him to grapple with, and the will of the accuser was too obstinate to yield, when conscientiously convinced. But it certainly is more honorable and manly, to accuse him of insanity to his face, than it is to thus secretly plot against him an imprisonable offence, without giving him the least chance at self-defence.

Again, I visited Hon. Gerrit Smith, of Peterborough, New York, about three years before this secret plot culminated, to get light on this subject of woman’s rights, as I had great confidence in the deductions of his noble, capacious mind; and here I found my positions were each, and all, indorsed most fully by him. Said he, “Mrs. Packard, it is high time that you assert your rights, there is no other way for you to live a Christian life with such a man.” And, as I left, while he held my hand in his, he remarked, “You may give my love to Mr. Packard, and say to him, if he is as developed a man as I consider his wife to be a woman, I should esteem it an honor to form his acquaintance.” So it appears that Mr. Smith did not consider my views on this subject as in conflict either with reason or common sense.

Again, his physician, Dr. Fordice Rice, of Cazenovia, New York, to whom I opened my whole mind on this subject, said to me in conclusion—“I can unravel the whole secret of your family trouble. Mr. Packard is a monomaniac on the treatment of woman. I don’t see how you have ever lived with so unreasonable a man.”

I replied, “Doctor, I can live with any man—for I will never quarrel with any one, especially a man, and much less with my husband. I can respect Mr. Packard enough, notwithstanding, to do him good all the days of my life, and no evil do I desire to do him; and moreover, I would not exchange him for any man I know of, even if I could do so, simply by turning over my hand; for I believe he is just the man God appointed from all eternity to be my husband. Therefore, I am content with my appointed portion and lot of conjugal happiness.”