Ruth, however, had already been making plans of her own. In 1846, she became engaged to Perry Frank Adams, a free black laborer who had also been born in Talbot County, Maryland, and was then living in Springfield, Massachusetts. If she wrote to Douglass in England to tell him about the marriage, the letter did not reach him. The letter in which she asked him to provide “a light silk dress – a wedding dress” did.
Shocked and infuriated, Douglass responded, “This is strange—passing strange. Something I cannot understand or account for…” He counseled her against any match, writing, “Marriage is one act of our lives – once performed It cannot be undone…it may lend to a life of misery and wretchedness for which you alone must be responsible.” He demanded to know the identity of the intended groom, writing, “I should like to know something about your lover previous to your getting married. I think this much due to me.” He sulked at having not been consulted in the match. “If I were absolutely certain that you were on the brink of destruction I might warn you,” he wrote, “if you had asked my advice.” “Now, My Dear Harriet,” he chastised her, “this is not treating me well, it is not treating me as a sister ought to treat a brother.”*
His seemed to have temporarily forgotten his parting promise in that letter, “Remember you need never be out of Doors while I have a house to shelter myself and family,”** as their quarrel escalated over the ensuing months. In the next surviving letter, Douglass wrote, “I have done you a serious injustice…and hope to be forgiven for it.” Continuing, he referred to some harsh words that he had written to her in a “letter asking you to leave my house.” “You know me too well and too long,” he wrote, “to imagine that I could take pleasure in harshly hurting you – in whom I have so long trusted, and have loved as a true friend, and even as a sister.” He then asked her to remain in his home, but only if she wished to do so. “You are your own woman,” he wrote, “seek your own happiness.”*** Their quarrel apparently was not permanent. Ruth granted Douglass’s request to wait until he returned from England to marry. He, in turn, gave her a white wedding dress and stood beside her during the ceremony.****
Ruth's letters to Douglass have not survived, so her half of the quarrel escapes analysis. Douglass's complicated responses to Ruth's announcement of her engagement, on the other hand, provide one of the rare glimpses into Douglass's emotional life. Unlike the controlled rage that infuses his public writings power, his anger in these letters vascillates between the jealousy of a jilted admirer and the indignation of a slighted father as he struggles to find the appropriate means of rationalizing his reactions. Furthermore, his hostility toward the institution of marriage opens a space for provacative speculation on his own wedded bliss.
He interprets his relationship to Ruth as one of father to daughter, big brother to little sister, wise elder to naif. In other words, his responses indicate that he believed that he had a paternalist relationship with Ruth, an interpretation that she may not have shared. She had violated the agreement of that unspoken paternalism by agreeing to marry without consulting him, which in turn led to his escalating frustration that culminated in her expulsion from his house.
Herein lies the importance of this friendship in understanding Douglass [and my struggle to give this whole article some sort of theoretical framework or relevance]. How does his interpretation of this relationship compare with those of other women, and then to those of men, with whom he shared a bond? How does this relationship with this African American woman compare to the relationships that he shared with other African American women, and how do those compare with his relationships to white women, both as intimates and as activists? Did he, in fact, have a paternalist attitude toward women in general, or toward only particular women whom he did see as being in his care? Furthermore, if he did see gender relationships as inherently paternalist, how did he negotiate that very common attitude with his developing awareness and support of Woman's Rights? How did he, the Woman's Rights Man, reconcile his personal understanding of gender relations with his political position? These questions are not to condemn him, but rather to explore the difficult and frustrating work of making radical reforms when he was very much a participant, and a willing participant in many ways, of the gender system that he sought to reform.
Ruth, meanwhile, had her own life to negotiate; and her own life brought her into a very different circle of abolitionists than that of Douglass.
* FD to HB/RCA, London, England, 18 August 1846, Douglass Papers, DLC.
** Ibid.*
***FD to HB/RCA, Kensington, England, 31 January 1847, Douglass Papers, DLC.
****FD to HB/RCA, London, England, 18 August 1846, Douglass Papers, DLC; Coffee, “Lest We Forget,” AMH, NSH; “Adams’ Escape,” Norfolk Weekly News, 7 March 1894. A strip of the wedding dress is part of the Alyce McWilliams Hall Collection in the Nebraska State Historical Society.
Posts
2 comments:
Clio,
This is a wonderful story and a great find. As a historian, I think the questions you ask at the bottom of this post are fascinating and relevant. It's perhaps not so surprising that Douglass would react negatively to the notion that Harriet/Ruth would leave his home to marry and join another household--I'm sure he had great affection for her, but it's also true that (according to your research) he and Anna got a lot of benefit from her living in their family, and they both depended on her for critical labor and assistance (he on H/R's literacy, and she on H/R's assistance with domestic work and the children.) It is interesting how he did see (and perhaps use) her paternalistically, replicating in some ways the exploitation of African American women's labor in his own home. (Unless you know she was paid a wage beyond room and board?)
This to me is a fascinating angle to pursue--how did formerly enslaved women take ownership of their labor and lives after they emancipated themselves? This is far out of my time period, but I would imagine that the vast majority of AA women in the North either depended on friends to shelter them, where they would have performed domestic labor for free, or they took servant positions where they worked as domestics for very little pay. You could flesh this out both historically and literarily speaking by comparing FD's letters to H/R to enslaved women's narratives of their first months and years of freedom. I think there might be some fascinating parallels to pursue in interdisciplinary fashion.
The story is also really interesting because of the alternative route and family history in which these documents are embedded--not in the Douglass family history and papers, but with her own descendants. This presumably is why we don't see her letters--they perhaps weren't saved by the Douglass family, whereas R/T and her descendants saved his letters. (This is so typical in women's history and biography--in so many cases, what must have been a lively correspondance is cut in half because only the "great man"'s letters are preserved, and those of his female correspondent are lost/destroyed.
I'd like to hear more about these letters, and the objects they were kept with. I'd also like to know more about the reconciliation 50-plus years later between H/R and FD. So many ways to go--I urge you to write this up and seek publication in a journal with an interdisciplinary reading audience (New England Q., American Q., etc.) Feel free to contact me directly if you like!
Historiann.com
Historiann, THANK YOU so much for commenting. That alternative route that you speak of was quite interesting since the Douglass items formed only the beginning of that family. They were quite self-conscious of their role as part of the "talented tenth," although they did not express it as such. The items -- well that's a whole other post unto itself. They include a beautiful sewing box and, my favorite piece, a daguereotype of Ruth herself. Unfortunately on Douglass's side, his house in Rochester burned down in 1872, and most historians beleive that all of his papers were lost in that fire. Even then, we don't know what actually survived to get to the fire in the first place.
I may take you up on your offer!
Post a Comment