The Pastoral Letter of 1837 to the Congregational Churches of Massachusetts aims to speak against a movement that advocates for women’s rights and the involvement of many Christian women in abolitionist activities. The letter references Biblical evidence in order to support the agenda that women should not participate in actions attributed to men, such as speaking for freedom and rights. However, the Biblical rules are only a tool the writer of the letter utilizes in order to implement their desire to keep women submissive and dependent on their male counterparts. The letter itself indicates that the independence of women makes the care of men seem unnecessary.
The writer has a bias that is influenced by misogyny, conservative religion, and racism. The writer speaks out not only against the right of women to express themselves and lead their selected social movement but also believes that they should not partake in abolitionist activities. The bias of the writer is deeply rooted in religion as they relay that it is God’s will for women to behave a certain way. Essentially, the writer refuses any other reality in which women exist to be independent. This can best be seen in the section of the letter where the writer states that the ‘dependent, softening, and mild’ influence of a woman is more suitable for societal change.
The writer’s bias as well as the agenda of the letter is deeply rooted in the historical context. The letter was written a number of years before slavery was abolished throughout all states. Many white, male, and religious individuals greatly benefited from the economic and other advantages of slavery, and many reasons, from religious to utilitarian, were presented during the time period in order to maintain slavery. As such, I believe that the historical context which allowed if not promoted the advantages of slavery would influence the individuals that would benefit from it to rationalize its existence through a variety of means, including those that limited the rights of others through religious rhetoric.