Grimké Sisters: Rise of the Abolitionists and Feminists

Gilfillan 1 Introduction The Grimké sisters, Sarah and Angelina, are two names recognizable to most in this day and age, but void of any substantial historical significance. Nearly two hundred years following the nineteenth century abolition movement, their once infamous names have subsided to brief mention in most American History textbooks. Rather, most discussions concerning abolition center around key male figures such as Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, or Thomas Lloyd Garrison. Categorizing myself as a female modern-day abolitionist, I took great interest in these two women from the South and how they earned that spot (however small) in my textbooks. In the midst of “The Cult of True Womanhood,” Angelina and Sarah Grimké were able to “arouse…mothers, daughters and sisters…to a sense of duty on that great subject” of slavery. i In this paper, I argue that the Grimké sisters’ involvement in and approach to the abolition movement inevitably led to the formation of new conception of true womanhood. Their dominant, public voice and the rhetoric of their writing challenged the traditional ‘sphere of woman’ and created a passage for women to find empowerment not only for the enslaved, but for their own sex as well.

Research and Methodology In preparing for this study, I primarily used document-based sources to compile my research. I consulted several of the Grimké sisters’ first hand accounts such as diaries, corresponding letters, lectures, and pamphlets. Angelina Grimké’s diary and “Appeal to Christian Women of the South,” in addition to publications by both Sarah and Angelina in abolition newspapers such as The Liberator, all proved extremely beneficial and informative throughout the course of my research. From these primary sources, I obtained a better understanding of the words used to captivate the country (both women and men). In addition, I

Gilfillan 2 consulted various biographies on the two sisters such as “The Grimké Sisters” by Catherine H. Birney or “The Emancipation of Angelina Grimké” by Katharine Du Pre Lumpkin. These provided me with historical context surrounding the Grimké sister’s original publications to better understand the implications of their words and challenges set forth by these two striking women.

My research perhaps was weakened by the disproportionate amount of works by each sister. Although I have consulted accounts from both sisters, Angelina’s contributions were far more public and numerous than Sarah’s. Whereas Angelina gave many lectures and had many articles published in well-known newsletters, Sarah preferred her authority to be displayed through the written word.ii Despite this perceived setback, I find this occurrence to be a fairly accurate portrayal of the actual circumstances of their relevance in public society. Furthermore, this provided me with an improved conception of the ways in which the sisters found their voice both communally and individually under such trying circumstances.

Historical Background Sarah and Angelina Grimké had a unique upbringing compared to most abolitionists of their time. They were raised in a wealthy, South Carolinian household, by a leading State Supreme Court judge. Typical of most affluent southern families in the nineteenth century, the Grimké family owned several slaves. Moreover, due to their father’s affluence, the family’s land spanned more than two hundred miles and the girls were more than accustomed to the hundreds of slaves on the streets of Charleston.iii At the young age of five, Sarah witnessed a slave being whipped to death and developed an internal discomfort with the enslavement of other persons.iv Angelina, thirteen years younger, shared this same discomfort with slavery in the South, but it

Gilfillan 3 wasn’t until the sisters moved to Philadelphia and converted to Quakerism that their passion for the abolition movement was fully realized. Although their interaction with the Society of Friends (Quakers) was temporary, the sisters’ involvement with human rights continued.v In addition, during the time of the Grimké’s upbringing, “The Cult of True Womanhood” was a widely accepted notion that women ought to be cooperative, pious, moral, submissive, and domestic. They were viewed as emotional and irrational.vi This idea of the ‘true woman’ was popularized and portrayed in novels and magazines across the country- further isolating women within their homes.

The sisters’ southern, slave-holding background provided them with a unique platform that, until now, was unheard of. Rather than Abraham Lincoln speaking from his experience as a President trying to unite the nation as one, or Frederick Douglass speaking from his personal experience as an African-American slave, Angelina and Sarah were two white, southern women who had direct interaction with slavery and despised the institution as a whole.vii Argument The initial decision for Sarah and Angelina Grimké to join the abolition movement was one that had been stirring in them for quite some time. Angelina Grimké’s diary reveals that she felt confined by her sex and was unconvinced that her passion could make any substantial difference in the lives of American slaves. In fact, much of her diary is self-persuading in affirming the rationality of her feelings towards the institution of slavery.viii Not knowing what else to do, Angelina constructed a personal letter of support to Thomas Lloyd Garrison (a radical abolitionist at the time) that, unknowingly to her, would soon be published in the Liberator.

Once her letter was published in this controversial newsletter, Angelina Grimké was an

Gilfillan 4 abolitionist and a public figure. In this gone-viral letter, Angelina expressed her support of ‘immediate emancipation’ that stressed the urgent need for emancipation- no matter the cost. She states, “If persecution is the means which God has ordained for the accomplishment of this great end, Emancipation; then…I feel as if I could say, Let it come; for it is my deep, solemn, deliberate conviction, that this is a cause worth dying for.”ix “No longer did she ‘belong’ to anyone.”x Furthermore, supporting such a radical stance and welcoming the idea of suffering was extremely contradictory to the popularized model of ‘true womanhood’. She very quickly rejected reserved womanhood in making such a bold proclamation. By writing this one letter, Angelina had thrust herself into the spotlight of the country and found her authoritative voice.

Sarah, on the other hand, was not as eager to make her sentiments a public display.

Whereas Angelina was skeptical towards all man-made institutions that challenged the “dictates of her conscience,” Sarah had long been “a Quaker of strict belief and practices.”xi The Quakers adhered strictly to non-violence, and were abhorred by Angelina’s published letter. Unlike Angelina, Sarah experienced deep conviction at the thought of splitting from the Quakers to pursue abolition by means of ‘immediate emancipation.’ Nevertheless, both women joined the women’s Anti-Slavery Society in Boston to advocate for abolition. Soon thereafter, Elizur Wright of the Office of the American Anti-Slavery Society invited the sisters to lecture on abolition to women’s groups in New York.xii This venture into advocacy is crucial to understand the development of the Grimké sisters’ conception of womanhood. Their original decision was not made to be a statement about women’s roles, but was made in response to the undeniable need for action on behalf of slaves. In the beginning, the sisters constantly had to remind themselves that “God chose the weak of this world wherewith to confound the wise.”xiii Moreover, Angelina did not view her course as a decision at all. Rather, “her principles required

Gilfillan 5 it, so she had no choice.”xiv Essentially, the sisters did not take up the cause of the enslaved because of their womanhood, but in spite of it.

From the onset of their public associations with Anti-Slavery Societies, the sisters experienced much criticism and resistance that forced them to defend their position early on. The sisters developed rhetoric that incorporated religious conviction, freedom, and empowerment simultaneously. In a letter to a friend, Angelina confides, “As a servant of Jesus Christ, I have no right to bow down thus to the authority of man.”xv While still acknowledging submission as a positive quality for women, Angelina argues that submission should not be to simply any male figure, but to God alone. She ventures as far as to say that submitting to earthly authority degrades God’s authority in the hearts of women. This distinction made by Angelina implies that submission is the not the result of women’s lack or gender inequality, but is the result of respect for higher authority (which, she argues, is a position that can only be reserved for God).

One of the most prominent publications of Angelina’s writing was her Appeal to Christian Women of the South, in which she sought to use her own southern, Christian background to encourage action and opposition to slavery among women remaining in the position she had formerly occupied. The pamphlet is explicitly targeted towards women through its appeal to emotion. Upon introducing the topic, Angelina affirms that she did not write “in the heat of passion or prejudice, but in that solemn calmness which is the result of conviction and duty.”xvi These qualities only serve to comfort her audience by confirming her ‘true femininity’.

Conviction and duty were both highly desirable compared to the passion and prejudice that, for many, connoted blasphemous and radical action in the north on behalf of the abolition movement. Angelina’s attempt to gain the support of women (who essentially had no say in policy change) made this a very unique argument at the time. She states, “I know you do not

Gilfillan 6 make the laws, but I also know that you are the wives and mothers, the sisters and daughters of those who do; and if you really suppose you can do nothing to overthrow slavery, you are greatly mistaken.”xvii She very quickly dismisses not having political rights as an excuse to remain passive in the midst of something so contrary to morality. Throughout the work, she appeals to women’s traditional roles as caregivers in the ‘private sphere’ of the home by revealing the pain and plight of enslaved families. She speaks of children being separated from their families and daughters being worked until death. She stresses that, in this work, she is not seeking to destroy the woman’s role as caregiver, but to emphasize it and expand it to include care for those outside the woman’s own immediate home. She clarifies: Have I been seeking to magnify the sufferings, and exalt the character of women, that she ‘might have praise of men?’ No! no! my object has been to arouse you, as the wives and mothers, the daughters and sisters, of the South, to a sense of your duty as women, and as

Christian women, on that great subject, which has already shaken our

country.xviii Fascinatingly, Angelina originally sought to nurture Southern womanhood as a means to achieve abolition. She viewed woman’s necessary piety and morality not as an inhibition, but as an aid in the abolition movement. She encouraged women to use their current place in society to advocate for change. It was not necessary to her, at this time, for women to be in the public spotlight.

Rather, it was sufficient for women to change the sentiments regarding slavery within the ‘private sphere’ of the home.

Up until this point, many people were strongly opposed to women speaking in any public place. In fact, when Sarah and Angelina began their ‘crusade’, “it was an almost unheard of thing

Gilfillan 7 for a woman to raise her voice in any but a church prayer-meeting.”xix Still, the women’s popularity continued to steadily increase as evidenced by their growing audiences. While the sisters were still speaking to entirely female audiences, men had begun to sneak into the lectures to listen to the women’s lecture. Eventually, men began to occupy a large portion of the audience, “even following them from one place to another, and giving them loud and honest applause.”xx Audiences of both men and women were referred to as “promiscuous audiences” and were widely intolerable. In fact, their audiences- that they had no control over- caused the Grimké sisters to be considered immodest, and their “conduct [to be] denounced as unwomanly and demoralizing.”xxi Interestingly, the men who attended these lectures offered nothing but positive feedback on the sisters’ lectures. Prominent men began to offer public commentary on their thoughts of the sister’s lectures. Wendell Phillips, a prominent lawyer and abolitionist, reflects on his experience of attending Angelina’s lecture, “Gifted with rare eloquence, she swept the chords of the human heart with a power that has never been surpassed…such as never then had been heard from a woman.”xxii Similarly, Mr. Lincoln, a pastor, shared, “Never before or since have I seen an audience so held and so moved by any public speaker, man or woman; and never before or since have I seen a Christian pulpit so well filled, nor in the pews seen such absorbed hearers.”xxiii Moreover, Garrison published in the Liberator that, “We listened for the first time to a lecture by Angelina E. Grimké on the subject of slavery… a perfect and admirable performance.”xxiv Thus, it was no longer an acceptable assumption that women were incapable of affecting the public in the same way as men, because the sisters were holding audiences of up to three thousand hearers “thoroughly captivated,” even when most in attendance were men.xxv Furthermore, what made Angelina’s speeches so effective were not only her commanding presence, but also the

Gilfillan 8 harnessing of her feminine qualities- her appeal to emotion and her eloquent speech. Thus, not only was it proven that women were capable of lecturing to “promiscuous audiences,” but that some women were also far more effective than men.

Ironically, as the Grimké sister’s popularity rose, the sentiment against them grew more severe as well. Angelina in particular soon “learned what it was to have halls refused because she was a woman, to see herself attacked in the public press, to know she was upbraided from many church pulpits, and to read and hear the epithets that were hurled at her person.”xxvi Amos Phelps, the New York Representative at the time, wrote to the sisters asking permission to publish a (false) statement that the sisters preferred female only audiences. The sisters responded that, while Phelps could publish anything he felt right, the sisters could not consent to his saying it in their names. Shortly after, Angelina confided in friend Jane Smith that to consent to such a thing, would be to “surrender a fundamental principle,” because the sisters believed that “as moral beings it [was their] duty to appeal to all moral beings on this subject without any distinction of sex.”xxvii Fueled by the opposition to their public addresses to mixed audiences, Sarah and Angelina began to fully develop this idea of women’s morality. They began to realize, and in turn expose the contradiction presented in “The Cult of True Womanhood” that women were to be moral and pious creatures, but could not speak on the great moral challenge of their time.

While originally Angelina never thought about introducing anything about the prejudice of her speaking in all spaces, the sisters began to speak openly about their new idea of a ‘true woman’ alongside the rights of the enslaved African Americans. The debate became extremely personal for the sisters once their right to publicly advocate was called into question. Still, they responded confidently, “We are actuated by the full conviction that if we are to do any good in the Anti-

Gilfillan 9 Slavery cause, our right to labor in it must be firmly established…on the only firm basis of human rights, the Bible.”xxviii Those in objection to their public role within the abolition movement were now left without any grounds on which to object, because the sisters had based their defense on the very source used by those opposed to women’s rights-the Bible.

Sarah, against much resistance, published the Letters on the Equality of the Sexes and the Condition of Women.xxix In much the same way as Angelina, she utilizes religious dialogue in her appeal to American women to make her argument more compelling. She declares: Women regard themselves, and are regarded by men, as pretty toys or as mere instruments of pleasure; and the vacuity of mind, the heartlessness, the frivolity which is the necessary result of this false and debasing estimate of women, can only be fully understood by those who… have been called from such pursuits by the voice of the Lord Jesus…that they may find something worthy of their immortal spirit, and their intellectual powers; that they may learn the high and holy purposes of their creation, and consecrate themselves unto the service of God; and not, as is now the case, to the pleasure of man.xxx Sarah presents the state of American women in much of the same way as the sisters had been presenting the case of the enslaved African Americans. She argues that the oppression of women is degrading, unnatural, and wrong. In addition, she presents Christianity as a means for women to escape this forced submission, not to cultivate it. She shares her deeply held belief that the Gospel is a message of freedom, and that religion should be a means to find meaning and react to that by engaging in service to God, not to act for “the pleasure of man.”xxxi While Sarah took more aggressively to the idea of fighting for women’s rights publicly,

Gilfillan 10 Angelina did share on more than one occasion her feelings on the topic. “I feel that it is not the cause of the slave only that we plead, but the cause of the woman as a moral, responsible being.”xxxii The sisters introduced the concept that morality is universal, not simply something that is possessed exclusively by one group of people. They felt that if morality was a desirable virtue, everyone should have access to ways that allow them to foster their morality. Angelina in particular took to this “principle of inclusiveness.”xxxiii She furthers this idea: My idea is that whatever morally right for a man to do is morally right for a woman to do.

I recognize no rights but human rights. I know nothing of men’s rights and women’s rights. For in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female…The rights of the slave and woman blend like the colors of the rainbow.xxxiv Once again, the sisters employ Biblical text to further their argument. Because much of the opposition they experienced was grounded in religious concepts, their use of the Bible in promoting women’s rights was imperative. It was especially revolutionary among abolitionists that opposed simultaneously advocating women’s rights. Because they too used the tactic of using the same ‘weapon’ (The Bible) as their opponents to reveal the sinful nature of slavery, they could not reject the sister’s argument.

Not surprisingly, the sisters received letters from numerous people objecting to their newly found conception of womanhood and the rights associated with such a notion. One such letter read, “You two are the only females in the free states who combine all these facilities for anti-slavery effort…Now can’t you leave the lesser work to others…and devote, consecrate your whole bodies, souls, and spirits to the greater work?”xxxv This objection to advocating women’s rights alongside abolition- on the grounds that it would take away from the efficiency of the abolition movement- was extremely common among dissenters. Many implored the sisters to

Gilfillan 11 abandon their campaign for women’s rights, but they remained firm in their stance. Angelina boldly asserted, “The time to assert a right is the time when that right is denied.”xxxvi In doing so, she rejected any notion of delaying a fight for fundamental human rights. Interestingly, while many saw advocating women’s rights as a stumbling block to emancipation, many argued that if women had more of a voice in government, then emancipation would come more quickly.

While the Grimké sisters did not originally intend to challenge women’s roles, the opposition that they faced and the nature of their work led them to foster their own concept of true womanhood and to explore the implications of such a concept. Through advocating for the rights of slavery victims, they realized and came to the conclusion that women, too, were oppressed. In order to live up to their full potential, they too needed emancipation. They realized they could not claim to be “pleading the cause of the poor and oppressed” and ignore the plight of women.xxxvii Their work in the antislavery movement provided the sisters with an ideological and a practical training in political activism for equal rights. Still, it would take the severe and harsh judgment cast upon them to lead them to apply these effective elements to women’s condition. To Sarah and Angelina, a true woman submits only to Jesus Christ, advocates in both the private and public sphere for morality, and is dignified of her God-given ability to reason.

They found no distinction between women and men’s spiritual, emotional, and intelligent capabilities, and therefore held that women should join men in this fight for equal rights for all.

Furthermore, women ought to embrace their deep emotional nature and act upon their convictions to better society. This, to the Grimké sisters, is true morality and femininity.

Conclusion This passion for freeing slaves in nineteenth century America that manifested itself in the hearts and minds of Angelina and Sarah Grimké instilled in them the desire for all people-

Gilfillan 12 regardless of race, status, or sex- to maintain equal rights. While entirely separate from the antislavery movement, the women’s rights movement largely stemmed from these radical reformers known as the abolitionists. The fervor that came to characterize the women’s movement that emerged in the latter half of the nineteenth century can largely be attributed to the spark lit by these two relentless Christian sisters from South Carolina. Once their role in the antislavery movement was challenged, they did not hesitate to question the morality concerning the current status of women in America. This pressing question would remain unanswered even past the victory of the abolition movement, until finally in 1920 when the nineteenth amendment was passed and women were granted the right to vote.

Still, there remain spheres of society that exclude women today. Disappointingly, Angelina and Sarah Grimké are largely overlooked and side swept while educating current generations, but the impact they had on American femininity and morality were pivotal. Much of their voice is still manifested in human rights issues today, although not always explicitly.

Personal Reflection As I mentioned earlier, I consider myself to be a modern-day female abolitionist. Thus, I have experienced first-hand the impact of Angelina and Sarah Grimké’s efforts. Because of women such as these, I am able to carry out my mission and goal of ending modern day slavery without experiencing direct opposition to my public advocacy. While the world has yet to embrace universal human rights, the Grimké sisters’ work progressed this challenge by allowing women to participate in and lead the movement. As a female in the same field, I have found their rhetoric extremely beneficial. However, I would perhaps expand upon their ‘principle of inclusiveness’ and universal morality to include both religious and irreligious people.xxxviii In my research I was challenged by this deficient universality. On the whole, I was empowered that

Gilfillan 13 even women from an explicitly oppressive era felt this religious and moral conviction that I feel, and felt it not desirable to do so, but necessary to do so. For these women, too, remaining passive was not an option, and that gives me hope.

Gilfillan 14

i

Angelina Grimké, Appeal to Christian Women of the South (American Anti-Slavery Society, 1836), 24. ii

It is important to note that Sarah did make an attempt at public speaking at the Odeon, and although she enjoyed public speaking, she humbly accepted advice from Anna Weston that her sister, Angelina, had a much more commanding presence. Katherine Du Pre Lumpkin, The Emancipation of Angelina Grimké (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1974), 142. iii

Katherine Du Pre Lumpkin, The Emancipation of Angelina Grimké (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1974), vii. iv

“The Grimké Sisters,” University of Texas at Austin Secondary Advanced Social Studies Methods, http://www.edb.utexas.edu/faculty/salinas/students/student_sites/Fall2005/Grimke_Sisters/ (accessed May 4, 2012). v

Catherine H. Birney, The Grimké Sisters (1885; repr., First Greenwood Reprinting, 1969), 94-96.

vi

Sara M. Evans, Born For Liberty (New York: The Free Press, 1989), 71.

vii

Katherine Du Pre Lumpkin, The Emancipation of Angelina Grimké (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1974), viii. viii

Charles Wilbanks, eds., Walking by Faith: The Diary of Angelina Grimké 1828-1835, (Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 2003), xv. ix

Angelina Grimké, “Letter to William Lloyd Garrison.” The Liberator, August 30, 1835.

x

Charles Wilbanks, eds., Walking by Faith: The Diary of Angelina Grimké 1828-1835, (Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 2003), xv. xi

Katherine Du Pre Lumpkin, The Emancipation of Angelina Grimké (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1974), 19-20. xii

Katherine Du Pre Lumpkin, The Emancipation of Angelina Grimké (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1974), 90. xiii

Katherine Du Pre Lumpkin, The Emancipation of Angelina Grimké (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1974), 86. xiv

Angelina Grimké, Diary [n.d.] 1835.

xv

Angelina Grimké to Jane Smith, quoted in Birney, Grimké Sisters, p. 152.

xvi

Angelina Grimké, Appeal to Christian Women of the South (American Anti-Slavery Society, 1836),

1. xvii

Angelina Grimké, Appeal to Christian Women of the South (American Anti-Slavery Society, 1836), 16.

xviii

Angelina Grimké, Appeal to Christian Women of the South (American Anti-Slavery Society, 1836),

24. xix

Catherine H. Birney, The Grimké Sisters (1885; repr., First Greenwood Reprinting, 1969)

xx

Catherine H. Birney, The Grimké Sisters (1885; repr., First Greenwood Reprinting, 1969), 182.

xxi

Ibid., 182

xxii

[Weld], In Memory, 24.

xxiii

Catherine H. Birney, The Grimké Sisters (1885; repr., First Greenwood Reprinting, 1969), 190.

xxiv

Garrison, William Lloyd, Liberator, September 1, 1837. Quoted in Katherine Du Pre Lumpkin, The Emancipation of Angelina Grimké (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1974), 125. xxv

Katherine Du Pre Lumpkin, The Emancipation of Angelina Grimké (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1974), 141. xxvi

Katherine Du Pre Lumpkin, The Emancipation of Angelina Grimké (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1974), 120. xxvii

Angelina Grimké to Jane Smith, August, 10, 1837, telling of Phelp’s letter and the sisters’ reply.

Quoted in Katherine Du Pre Lumpkin, The Emancipation of Angelina Grimké (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1974), 119. xxviii

Weld to Angelina and Sarah, August 15, 1837, in Weld-Grimké Letters, 1:424, quoted in Katherine Du Pre Lumpkin, The Emancipation of Angelina Grimké (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1974), 121. xxix

Katherine Du Pre Lumpkin, The Emancipation of Angelina Grimké (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1974), 118. xxx

Sarah Grimké, “Letter VIII-On the Condition of Women in the United States,” Letters on the Equality of the Sexes (1837), http://faculty.smu.edu/rkemper/cf_3333/Grimke_on_the_Equality_of_the_Sexes.pdf (accessed May 5, 2012). xxxi

Ibid.

xxxii

Angelina Grimké to Jane Smith, June 1837, quoted in Catherine H. Birney, The Grimké Sisters (1885; repr., First Greenwood Reprinting, 1969), 178. xxxiii

Katherine Du Pre Lumpkin, The Emancipation of Angelina Grimké (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1974), 26. xxxiv

Angelina Grimké to Jane Smith, August 10, 1837, quoted in Katherine Du Pre Lumpkin, The Emancipation of Angelina Grimké (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1974), 120.

xxxv

Angelina to Theodore Weld and John Greenleaf Whittier, August 20, 1837, Weld-Grimké Letter, 1:428-32, quoted in Katherine Du Pre Lumpkin, The Emancipation of Angelina Grimké (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1974), 121. xxxvi

Ibid.

xxxvii

Angelina Grimké, Appeal to Christian Women of the South (American Anti-Slavery Society, 1836), 24. xxxviii

As Elizabeth Cady Stanton did later on. Not For Ourselves Alone, http://www.pbs.org/stantonanthony/ (accessed April 20, 2012).

Bibliography Primary Sources Garrison, William Lloyd, Liberator, September 1, 1837.

Grimké, Angelina. Appeal to Christian Women of the South. American Anti-Slavery Society, 1836.

Grimké, Angelina, “Letter to William Lloyd Garrison.” The Liberator, August 30, 1835.

Grimké, Sarah. “Letter VIII-On the Condition of Women in the United States,” Letters on the Equality of the Sexes (1837). http://faculty.smu.edu/rkemper/cf_3333/Grimke_on_the_Equality_of_the_Sexes.pdf (accessed May 5, 2012).

Wilbanks, Charles. eds., Walking by Faith: The Diary of Angelina Grimké 1828-1835. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2003.

Secondary Sources Birney, Catherine H. The Grimké Sisters. (1885; repr., First Greenwood Reprinting, 1969).

Evans, Sara M. Born For Liberty: A History of Women in America. (New York: The Free Press, 1989).

Lerner, Gerda. The Grimké Sisters from South Carolina: Pioneers for Woman’s Rights and Abolition.

New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1967).

Lumpkin, Katharine Du Pre. The Emancipation of Angelina Grimké. (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1974).

“The Grimké Sisters,” University of Texas at Austin Secondary Advanced Social Studies Methods, http://www.edb.utexas.edu/faculty/salinas/students/student_sites/Fall2005/Grimke_Sisters/ (accessed May 4, 2012).