As my primary research interest is in Quaker history, I was intrigued by the possible implications of the M'Clintock side of this collaboration. Tis not for man the Spirit to control, Nor stop the heav'nly bodies when they roll. The traditional Quaker defense of women's preaching was focused on women's role in the church, and did not necessarily infer a similar role in secular society. However, contemporary observers did note Quaker women's independence within the family and community. This staid and self-relying character in Quaker women I attribute to the fact that they share equally with men in the management of all business of the society.
Frivolous pursuits make frivolous characters.
The Biblical justification for women speaking had been invoked in the 1830s during the debate over the role of women in the abolitionist movement, and the arguments from that debate had been refreshed at the Woman's Rights Convention in Rochester in August 1848. Where the connection between women's spiritual and churchly authority and her secular position may have been inherent in Quaker doctrine, it was the experience of women in the abolitionist movement that explicitly applied the religious doctrine to secular society. However, this original research was probably made easier by the ready accessibility of Quaker and abolitionist literature in the M'Clintock household. But Stanton and M'Clintock's appeal was not solely to scriptural authority. Here I think it is worth exploring the attitude toward the Bible of Thomas M'Clintock and the more radical Quakers.