You are on page 1of 148

9(34

UC-NRLF

K4

$B 2bfl bM2

FUEE LO^E
OR, A PHILOSOPHICAL DEMONSTRATION OF

THE

NON-EXCLUSIVE NATUBI3
OF.'.
,',

CONNUBIAL LOVE,

A REVIEW OF THE EXCLUSIVE FEATURE OF THE FOWLERS, ADIN BALLOU, H. C. WRIGHT, AND ANDREW JACKSON DAVIS ON MARRIAGE.

BY AUSTIN KENT.

.PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR.


1867.

HOPKINTON.

N. T.

tA

Entered according

to

Act of Congreas, in the year

1?57,

by

AUSTIN KENT,
In the Clerk'a Office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio.

CORRECTION.
48th page, 15 lines from bottom insert
vharity and not.
is
l)et\^

70th page, 7
tionah

line.i

from top,

for practical

read/r

75th page, middle, for nominal read harmonial.

88th page, 2d line from bottom, tween which and is.


I

insert

icitli

Mn

136th page, 11 lines from top, for carelessly


causelessly.

1>.

Other

less errors omitted.

PREinA.OE.
We have
plain that

mistake

meant to make the title of our book so no thoroughly conservative mind could and so waste his money in purchasing it.

We
our

last twenty years of and time to the world, ** without money and without price ;" and if we should find it necessary,
life

have given much of the

or for any reason think

it

best to let our httle


its

work

partly bear the expense of

own

publication,
it.

we

wish no one

to

be deceived in getting

We
;

have

BO thought

of any material remuneration for our

own

labors.

Reader, this

is

very radical
first to

and we
wake any

confess to a choice not to be the

who, with
the past.

all

the influences of the nineteenth century

about them, are yet soundly asleep upon the lap of

We

do not wish such to be too suddenly


spiritual
to the

brought into travailing pains for their own

and mental birth

future

even

though we

know

these must sooner or later come. Some milder and more gradual dose might be better as a first

stimulant.

We

took our pen mainly for the benefit

of reformers, and for those

whom

nature has given

iVTiM7iG

IV

PREFACE.

some ability to be such. These are more than welcome we invite them to read us critically The subject of Love and Marriage will ever be one

it

of vast

importance to

our
it

race

we can hardly
Between

conceive

possible to rate

too highly.

1837 and 1840 Theophilus R. Gates published a


series

of radical tracts, called the

**

Battle Axe.'*

This stirred the waters of orthodoxy.


inserted a letter from
clares, that,
*'

In these, he

John H. Noyes, which de-

in a state of heavenly holiness on earth, Every dish is free to every guest." The context put his meaning beyond question. All of this, then,

amounted

to but little

In 1849, Mr.

more than prophecy. Noyes came out with a full expo-

sition and defence of his principles in his *' Bible Argument." This was an able, but small, work on Free Love for all saved and redeemed humanity. Not far from this time we simply write the date

from memory

the
**

Fowlers (L. N. and 0. S.) wrote

each a book on

Marriage.''
it

They taught
to dual order

was marriage, but confined

that love
to pairs.

On

the whole,

these last books were elevating in

their tendency

among

the

mass of minds

**

In 1850, Henry James wrote to good effect in his Moralism and Christianity.'*

In

852, Dr. Lazarus published

riage." This book

the time,

was

**

'* Love vs. Marwas of the Fourier cast and, for written without gloves." It was a
;

most lovely and lovable book, but not so argumen-

PREFACE.
tative as

y
it.

some which have succeeded


Greeley

It

must
the

have put many minds In 1853, Horace


**

into a right train of thought.

published,

in

Tribune/* a part of a discussion between Henry


in a tract,

James, Stephen Pearl Andrews, and himself.

whole came out afterwards


drews.

The by Mr. An-

This must have been deeply interesting to


all

minds on

sides of the questions.

In 1854,

Henry
year,

C. Wright and

Dr. Nichols

each published a

fair sized

book on

*'

Marriage."

The present
on the same
of Fourier,

we have Andrew Jackson Davis

subject.

We have long had the We

writings

Owen, and
all

others on the Affections,

We
None

consider
of

of these books most valuable.

them are superfluous.

think
it

Mr.

Wright

elevates connubial love as high as

can be
teaches

elevated in exclusive dual marriage.


that love
is

He

marriage, and sticks


it.

by

nature, as he

understands
Dr.

Nichols (his

wife
for

wrote a portion of the


his guide, but denies its
is

book) takes nature


exclusiveness.

His book

very instructive

and

favors the Free

Love

doctrine.

Mr. Davis,

in the

main, teaches the philosophy of marriage with great


clearness and beauty, but contends that connubial

love

is

monogamic

in

its

highest manifestations.

Before closing our book, I intend to review this


exclusive phase in Mr. Wright and Mr. Davis, so I
will not

add more here.

Several of these last books

VI
liave

PREFACE.

seemed

to

multiplied the

come almost simultaneously. It has number of readers, on the subject of


;

which they
tively,
is

treat, tenfold

and yet

it

has, comparaIt
fire

but just begun to agitate the public mind.


destined to be thoroughly discussed.
will

now

The

IS

already kindled which


the traditions, with

bring to the judg-

ment

the imperfect institutions,


*'

of the past, and burn up the

hay, wood, and stub-

ble" which are found in them.

On

the whole, I

am
did.

not sorry that these

late

authors took, in the

main, the several and diverse positions which they

is

We are in an age of active thought, and truth more deeply planted in the understandings and hearts of men by this friendly opposition and
discussion.

Truth

is

always safe in such discussions.


such a mental refiner,

So

far as

we hold

opinions not based in truth, these

may and
article of

will suffer a loss in

but absolute truth never can.


great
utility,

When we

get an

we

are apt to feel a sort of

wonder how we could so long do without it. So I felt on reading most of these late works on marriage. Yet probably the world was not prepared I will add for them before. to my mind, they all seem to have come in about the right order.

We

repeat

none of these
to the
list,

are superfluous.

The

isubject is

not yet exhausted.

We

hold the pen to

add another book


cot promise that

and we

promise the

reader, that ours shall not be superfluous.


it

We

do

shall

be agreeable

to his

mental

PREFACE.
taste,

tI!

unless
we

his

taste

Las

been

harmoniously
in the past.
this,

adjusted to

We

some of the most radical come in defence of Free Love.


are sure

We

do

because

we

find

it

in nature, in its

most

exalted and harmonious manifestations.

On
refer
'*

the subject of morals and marriage, there has


in

been a great advance

a short space of time.

more
''

specially to reformers.

little

time ago,

Moses

was the standard.


first,

marriages were
secondary.

love

and

Outward and legal harmony were

Then obedience

to simple legal morality

was

virtuous.

Now

all this

has changed.

Among

all

of these writers, except Mr.

nature

is

the standard.
;

Noyes and Mr. Gates, Nature is the Infallible and


Mr. Noyes defends
spiritual

Inspired Book

and

its

normal promptings are the

law of virtue and of morals.


his positions both

from nature, and the

and

higher teachings of the


then, there
is

New

Testament.

Here,
radical,

no controversy among these


is

reformatory writers, as to what


truth, or as to

the standard of
is

where the law of marriage


to the

to

be
in,

found

none as

propriety

of,

or chastity

obeying these laws.


the

These writers do
of nature's

differ as to

proper

reading

laws.

Fourier,

Owen, the Fowlers, James, Lazarus, Nichols, Andrews, Wright, and Davis, agree that true love is marriage. The Fowlers, Wright, and Davis
contend that connubial love,
in
its

highest develop*
latter

ment,

is

exclusively dual.

Here the

agree,


riH

PREFACE.
in other respects, of

though
they
drews,

much
the

less importance,

differ

widely.
Nichols,

Fourier,

Owen, Noyes, Anevidence


of the
less
last

and

deny

exclusive nature of this love, and teach

more or
These

the

modern

doctrines

of Free Love.

differ

on other points among themselves.

am happy

to

find

the

controversy so

much

shortened in space

in

extent of range.

We
;

all

teach that the laws of


that these laws
sense,

mind are our guide

and
this

must be absolutely free.


and attractions

In

we

all

contend aUke for Free Love.


affinities

We

agree

that healthy

must reign
tell

supreme.
that this

But Mr. Wright, and some others,


healthy attraction will,

us

and must,

in its

nature, be always exclusive.

I hear some,

on the

other hand,
**

say to Mr. Wright and his friends,


opinions off
!

Hands and

Allow us the freedom

to settle the nature of our

own
is

attractions.

Admit-

ting

you may know what


for yourself

most healthy, elevating,

and pure
all

do not
of

measure

all
!

men and
'*

women by your
Mr. Wright,
if

owrn affectional stature

I say

to

you see a law of mind as mind

or the highest law

mind

as such,

it

is

not

impertinent for you to speak out that law.


think

We

of mind, and

we know and see some of the unalterable laws we claim the right to so far expose
If others
differ

and defend these laws.

from us,

we

not only leave

truth,

them free to live their views of but we respect them in it. All of us, it is

PREFACE.
probable, are as yet comparatively in but the
**

IX

abbs

*'

of mental Philosophy.

I will never attempt to live


it.

any law farther than I think I see are very near Mr. W.*s opposite.
though men
differ

Reader,

we
in

much

very

We

believe that

much,
in the

none,

entire freedom,

and uninfluenced
or
present,

past and

present by other minds or institutions in the bond-

age

of

the

past

would
position,
all

ever

be

absolutely exclusive in any of the manifestations of

connubial

love.
if it

This

is

our

and our

extreme

be an extreme.

We

agree in the

positive nature

and

force of these

laws of mind.

Some

of us believe these laws can be demonstrated*


finds this connubial love to be
**

Mr. Wright
no power
**

a law of

attraction superior to our wills,


to

and which we have create or destroy." Again he says


substance, as
truly as
electricity,

Our

souls, I believe, are


light,

are

air,

and magnetism.
fully

The

same law of
with
this
all

creation governs souls that governs all

other material bodies."


of this.
to

Mr. Davis
the

harmonizes
all

am most
shorten

thankful for
labor

of

agreement

of

future

discussions.

The Book

of the

Law, and

the

power and binding


I here record

nature of the law,

is

equally settled.

my

gratitude to
to

all

much

elevate

who have done marriage over the power of myof those writers

thology and legal bondage,

though they are our

opponents as to the main doctrine of our book.

They

X'

PREFACE.
to

have each written up


elevation of their

the mental and

moral
shall

own

understandings.

We
The

write our highest perceptions of truth.

develall

oping mind of the future


us;

will better
faults.

understand
will

of
all

and better see our

They

do us
Witli

iustice.

For though,
will

**

round and round we go,


the

truth
fullest

at

last

come uppermost.''
entire

and most
book

assurance,

commit

my

radical

to present

and coming humanity.

Austin Kent.
Hopkintoii,
St.

Lawrence Co. N. Y,

CONTENTS,
Preface
ill

CHAPTER
Introduction

I.

13

CHAPTER
Definition of Position

n.
of our

Words and Phrases. Statement The Argument Commenced

19

CHAPTER
The Argument Continued

III.

28
IV.

CHAPTER
The Fowlers

The Argument from Analogy


CHAPTER
V.

34

Mr. Ballou An Explanation Rejoinder

Part of his
VI.

Reply

in

my
41

CHAPTER
Mr. Ballou Continued

His Book

58

CHAPTER VII. Mr. Henry C. Wright A Review " What is Marriage ? "
CHAPTER
Review of Mr. Wright continued
VIII.

74

98
IX.

CHAPTER
Andrew Jackson Davis from his Book
Appendix

General Remarks Quotations


109
,

135

CHAPTER
INTRODUCTION.

I.

As

mucli as our age professes to be in favor of

free discussion,

partial reformers,

dispassionately,

we find a large class, even among who can hardly look at and read
or have any patience with an argufreedom in love, from a harrowing:

ment

in favor of

fear of the real or

imaginary consequences of the


are honest

immediate possible success and spread of such views.

Some

of these, though of "little


fears.

faith,**

in love, and the would one day in the future of human progression be safe, and be the order of sexual harmony, is it wise to promulgate these sentiments now, when the race is yet so awfully perverted, and often make even truth a admitting These taay add, Saviour of death ?

"

hearted in these
If
it

Such minds

will say to us

were true that freedom

modern

principles of Free Love,

' '

'

'

'

entire

freedom, and a

'

variety

'

is

consistant with

a perfect state of Society, do not


restraining in

men

yet Deed

some things which in themselves would be right ? Did not the learned and wise Paul Bee some things in the 'third heavens' of the
2
13

FREE LOVE.

future glory of tne church on earth,

which he did

not consider
utter ?
'

it

expedient/ or

lawful for

him

to

And did not a

greater than Paul withhold

even from his well beloved disciples, that which he well knew they could not as yet bear ?" We may
furthur be reminded of the case of our
spired writer, A. J. Davis, in
still

modern Inreis

postponing his

ply to the question, "

What and Where

God "
!

in

view of the present


Reader,

state of the public

mind.

we

admit, understand, and appreciate this

respectable weight of testimony.

Nature and th
little,

Bible both reveal truth


**

little

by

and hold a

veil

" over the rest for the time.

Nothing can be

plainer than this fact.

But, in reply,

we

will pre-

sent another phase of the subject, equally plain and

undeniable.
fore

Jesus, Paul, and every Reformer be-

and since their day, have taught truths in advance of their respective ages. Such truths have always more or less been used to promote bad ends.

We

think no sudden and great change, which, on

the whole, was of

much
This

utility,

ever came in our

world, without bringing with


ent evils for a time.

it its

immediate pres-

is often

true of scientific

as well as moral changes.


is often

An

increase of suffering

the

first

effect of

important and useful in-

ventions.

I will refer to the first effect

poor on the
machines.

introduction of factories
is

upon th and sewing

Society
its

of very large dimensions, and

complex in

parts,

and

it

is

not an easy matter


INTRODUCTION.
to re-adjust
it

i'S

after a great
it.

change.

This

is

true of

every phase of

In

my

opinion,

man

can never be

freed, mentally ancf^morally, without

an increase of

Yet man never can be saved All must learn more or less without such freedom.
immediate suffering.

by

experience,

and,

in this experience,

be *'made impos-

perfect through suffering."

It is naturally

manhood or They must be womanhood, without freedom. trusted to go alone, and **at their own cost."
sible for a child to develop into entire

Abolishing the law of imprisonment for debt, in our


state,

caused more or less immediate embarassment


It

to

both the rich and the poor.


all

has

now

greatly

benefited
to

classes.

It also

removed a hinderence
in

the

development

of

mind

moral honesty.

That "the law makes nothing perfect"


found any where, or
-in

is

a truth
of the

any Book.
in
is

Many

books

to

which we have alluded

our Preface
marriage,

even such as simply teach that love

we we
ion

believe, will not at first serve to lessen

human
it.

suffering, in their love relations,

but add

to

If

are correct in this

the
pass.

we only

state it as

our opin-

same may be more true of


Yet
all

ours.

We

flatter

no man.

of these books, with ours,

will only hasten a crisis,

must

There

is

no

through which the world no affectional salvation

real or perfect

manhood,

this side of

it.

The most
The

inveterate and deepest seated must be probed. The lance

disease of civilization
will be painful.

16

FREE LOVE.
will feel the shock.
it

whole body

But
will

it

must come

I have not one doubt but that

end

in greater
real purity

health to the Patient.

It will

promote

and chastity and so an increase of peace, and a Woman can never rise to more perfect harmony.
her entire

womanhood without
as to the time
is

it.

The question
shall

when a higher truth


It is

be published,

one of expediency.
first

important, but not of the

importance.
to

Honest
it.

and good men may

differ

in relation

The

Love have differed here. We should seek to be guided by a wise and holy But no mind is prepared to judge expediency. correctly upon it, till he is at least thoroughly awake
most true
friends of Free
to a

true

sense

of the
in

terrible

and wide -spread


as hell.

bondage and suffering


Its

our present state of society.

wrongs are as high as heaven and as deep


sees this, will feel the need of

Whoever
change

some

radical

for the better.

The

real conservative

would
look,

never change.
judge, and act.

The Reformer
I

alone

must

was born through a long line of orthodox ancestry of New England Congregational**

ism; and trained,

orthodox religion
ministry.
It

way I should go,'' to an and was once in the orthodox


in the

has taken

me

a long time to lay off


I

the unreal of the past.


lished in

Long after

became estab-

my

present views of Free Love, I could

sympathize with Mr. Greeley and Mr. Ballon, in a


dread
to see

these

principles spread

among

the

INTRODUCTION.
masses.

if

But since

have laid
faith in

off

many

of

my

con-

servative views,

increased.

My

humanity has greatly confidence in the power and safety

my

of truth has alike increased.

We

add further

the

friends of Free

Love are not


history of

alone responsible for the general spread of the more


radical phases of these principles.

The

the past plainly

never

let

shows that our opponents would us alone. Mr. Noyes was not allowed to

rest in peace, in the retirement of his


select friends,

own
So
it

private or

and his own

society.

has ever

But so far from regretting the influence which has been brought to bear upon us, we are, at least, most grateful to a kind and wise
been with myself. Providence
for

in this

way

freeing us from the


believe

lingering remains of
false conservatism.

what we now

was
is

But, reader, the time has


necessity for

come when
fairly

there

every phase of this question to be


It is

thoroughly discussed.
public mind.

up

before the

All sides have been broached, and

more or
is fully

less defended.

Mind cannot be

staid

till

it

canvassed.

Men do

not now, as in the past,

follow simple instinct, or unenligTiferied passion or


love.
will

They demand mental instruction, and they it. They ask for something more than They ask surface teachers, and human opinions. " The supfor philosophy, and they will have it. The true mind ply will be equal to the demand."
have

2*

18

FREE LOVE.

desires to see every possible objection urged against


his

most cherished

positions.

When

these

fail

to

stand the ordeal of any amount of the most searching


criticism,

he has no longer any confidence

in,

or

However sure he may be that he has the truth, he is more sure of the real power of truthy and of its entire ability to sustain itself. Such a mind knows, too, that truth is advanced by repulsion as well as by attraction that every active mind puts it forward, whether in love with, or in
respect for them.
;

opposition to
to
it,

it.

If he stands in the latter relation

he
is

is

a repelling power.

We

only mean, while


will

man
true.

on the plane of haired


will

hatred

work

utility in his progress.

As God

lives, this

must he

When
?

men more

generally

arrive at a

proper confidence in the power of truth, and of

God
laid.

Till this subject


sides,

marriage
faith

is

thoroughly

handled on loth

man's

can not be deeply

Every effort of a true mind will lay the truth more and more fully upon the eternal rock of ages
nature.

of

We always
fair

hail with pleasure the

promise

any able and

writer to review and criticise


faith.

our most cherished

We

never

fail

to

buy

such books.
in truth,

If our opponents have like confidence


feel as

and
it,

we
as

do, that

any agitation must


effort,

advance

they will cordially welcome our


for
it,

and thank us

we do them

for theirs.

In our age, active minds have

little

time to parley

with moral and mental cowards.

We

welcome the

DEFINITION OP WORDS AND PHRASES.

19

coming war

the

"bloodless war/' which

we have
work
for,

long seen gathering.

We

shall pray for,

and welcome the crisis, and glory that it will end in good.

in the assurance

CHAPTER

II.

DEFINITION OF WORDS AND PHRASES STATEMENT OF OUR POSITION THE ARGUMENT COMMENCED.

Before introducing the reader


tive letters,

to

our argumenta-

we

shall first define

some of the more


be likely to use,

important terms which

we

shall

and so make our exact moral whereabouts more


clearly understood.

By

connubial love, I

mean a
exclu-

normal development of the sexual attraction of our


nature, in all of its phases.
siveness, I

By

denying

its

deny
will

that, in

such a harmonious devel-

opment,
of
its

it

be absolutely confined, in any form


non-exclusive,

manifestations, to one of the opposite sex.

When we

write

absolutely exclusive

no
the

we mean not

more.

By

promiscioua,

we sometimes mean no more than


entire exclusiveness
it
:

the opposite of

context will

show when
absolute

means more.
or,

We
To

do not teach an entire non-exis

clusiveness,

what

the

same, an

promiscuity.

us, this is

equally absurd with

$0
entire exclusiveness.

yREB LOVE.
Yarious shades of preference
Different

are natural

and so proper.

minds
is

differ as
its

to their leanings

opposite
less

absolute

towards entire exclusiveness, or


promiscuity.

This

more or

true on every plane of sexual

or connubial

love.

What we

declare to be true of this love is

true of every other love.

No man

or

woman

is

absolutely promiscuous in their social


attractions.

or adhesive

exclusive.

Nor is any one absolutely dual and The reader will find the same law to
through
all

prevail, with various modifications,

the

lower and

all

the higher loves.

Benevolence, the
of our

crowning
Great

faculty,

and the
its

personification

moral manhood, has


Teacher,
universal charity
partiality,

shades of variation.
highest pattern

The
of

though the

and benevolence, showed much preference for the "brethren;** and he

had his "beloved disciple*' among the twelve of the more choice of these. His moral teachings are very emphatic, and often repeated, in enjoining this
special regard for our brethren.

Paul bade us

**

do

good

to all

men, but especially


this,

to the household of

faith.**

In

Jesus and Paul acted and taught in

harmony with the laws of mind.


understood.

But enough, I
all

am

Truth impells us to regard

accord-

ing to their real value, and our ability to appreciate


it.

The former would be a


as near as

true estimate, the latter


it.

is

we can

practically reach
to lay

Because
for ono

truth

may

require

me

down

my life

DEFINITION OF WORDS AND PHRASES.

21

man,

it

may not

for another.

Of

course, in choosing

a partner in marriage, we should not be governed in

our selection by an estimate of the real worth of


the person, but of his or her relative worth and
fitness for

such a relation to
points, to

us.

I write thus full

on

some of these

make

clear

what

I consider

some of the

true principles of mental philosophy,

and so to prepare the way for my mental argument. I have been full, at the expense of some repetition, to
save the reader, if possible, from the misconceptions which experience has shown me too often pursue such an expose as this, on so radical a theme.

In what I have written, the reader will perceive


tliat I

have not, and he

may

be assured that I shall


not carried

not, undertake to oppose

the doctrine of a special


it is

and
of

*'ideal

mate," when, and so far as

to absolute
its

and

entire

exclusiveness, in any phase

amative monopolies.

In other words, and

more

correctly, I shall only review

and oppose the


I approve of

entire, exclusive feature of the system of dual mating.

Further explanation
the
**

In the main,

and nature'* of what Swedenborg, the Fowlers, Wright, and others of their like, call connubial love but I deny that such disinterestedspirit
;

ness, such purity, such oneness of soul, such moral


elevation

and chastity in sexual

love, is exclusive, or

confined to one.

When

these

men

write directly of

pure and

elevating love, in opposition to impurity


self in love, or "lust," I

and a predominance of


22

FREE LOVE.

Jiarmonize with them.

When
it.

they say ttat such

iove as they have described, cannot seek a variety,


in entire health, I
fthe

deny

When

they write upon


its

nature and spirit of lust and

effects, I

har-

monize with them.


attraction

But when they say that all towards a variety, is of such a nature, I
I think I

deny

it.

must be understood by
This, too,
I

all

who
very

have carefully read their books.


important
to

is

a clear understanding.

positivly

deny
really

that these writers are


constitutes a pure

my opponents,

as to

what

attraction,

and elevating love and or an impure and debasing one. We all

admit that man


tliat

may lust
and

after

one or many.

I insist

he

may
first

love one and

many.

I write to prove

my

last position,

to disprove its opposite.

Our
tbree

and main argument

will be presented in

letters,

the substance of which were written


in the
fall

in 1853,

and published

and winter of

1854-5, in the "Practical Christian.''

We
we

shall

^mit nothing in these letters which


essential to our present purpose.

consider

the argument. Friend Ballou


:

me

I thankfully accept your hospitality in allowing a place in your paper, to express my dissent from
to record

your views on the subject of Free Love, and

my

reasons for that dissent.

Free Love and Marriage are fast becoming (he All classes will soon see tbia feet, whatever view they mav take of it in other
question of the age.

THE ARGUMENT.
respects.

%^

It has been about the last to ask, and will perhaps be the last to receive, a full and fair hearing. It will have it soon in the Press and in the Lecture room. Since I suggested, (last fall,) the propriety of a discussion with yourself, it has been brought

before the public, and called forth more attention I refer mainly to the two than for years previous. one by Mr. Wright, and the other books written which have been by Dr. Nichols and his wife

extensively advertised, and more generally read than anything before this. I might add, the introduction and agitation of it through some few spiritual medi-

Mr. Wright and Dr. Nichols harmonize on on others they are diametrically opposed. I am glad to find that some few letters which I wrote last fall (with the intention of sending them sooner to your paper) are confined entirely and as appropriate as I to this main difference, It will be remembered, those could now write. books were not then published. I am glad of the delay in my letters, as many more minds will be I will take the liberty especially prepared for them. to ask those who have read those books, to read my I have many years since taken my position, letters I and I really believe I can demonstrate its truth. wish to come to the vital question, and make my exposition and discussion as short as possible and do the subject justice. I have no health, ability, or desire to hold a long controversy, and yet I esteem it a great privilege to record what seems essential, and to commit myself to the age in defence of what and the most to me is the most absolute truth elevated. I have such confidence in the power of truth and such faith in the real good arising from free discussion, that I prefer to do this in the im-

ums.

many

points


24
frep: love,

mediate presence of an opponent Ike


Ballon.

mj

friend

The question which I propose to discuss is Does Sexual Chastity confine every man and every

to the ''pairing*' order, or to be exclusively dual in the ultimates of love ? Does normal and pure love require this ? Or, still more abridged, and just as well understood as now explained Should marriage ahoays he exclusive and dual?'* I take the negative of the last question as now Before proceeding to the argument, let me stated. remind the reader that I came first to my present views of the subject from a careful study of the great "fundamental doctrine '* of the Christ, as found in In his love the sum of all revealed commands. doctrines (See Matt. xxii. 37 Secondly, I 40.) found the same in studying the laws of the mind and My own the nature of love, as read in the mind. choice seems to incline me to make the last first, and the first last so I will first argue from the mind. In the argument, I intend to show, to a mental and moral demonstration, that normal and truthful love cannot be exclusive or dual. I shall then draw tlie inference as one self-evident, that the ultimates of love should harmonize with, and fairly represent That the outward manifestations of their source. love should truly represent its inward life and attrac-

woman

tions.

By normal and
is

truthful love, I

the

mind

perfectly balanced,

mean, when and the mental in


affeetional

freedom of wisdom controls the


least the

or

at

properly balanced by and harmonizes with the mental. I trust this carefulness in explanation will save much misunderstanding and much repetition in the future. I say, then, in reasoning from the laws of mind.
affeetional is

THE ARGUMENT.

25^^

I cannot find truth at the bottom of the common Marriage doctrine. For convenience, let me speak

sentiments and an attraction to and affinity for other persons. I find the nature and intensity of this love or affinity to depend upon two thing's two persons myself and I am, in the sense in which I am the object loved. speaking, comparatively a fixed fact in always loving and having an affinity for certain attributes of other human beings. I love mentality. Some minds more than others, because their mentality is more in harmony with the particular development of mine but I can love no one mind exclusively. For every other person shares in a degree in the same faculties. If I love mind, to love one mind exclusively from another is impossible. All mind is more or less alike. As minds vary, my love may
as
if

personal

as

I develop in

my

faculties, I find

myself possessed of love

'

vary. Absolute, exclusive love, in this case, if it were possible, would be a natural, more properly an unnatural, Msehood. Truth, or the nature of the mind requires me to love every like attribute of mind with like lovey and the intensity should be governed by the size of the attribute, and my ability to appreciate
it.

This would be truth for me.

I love morality, spirituality

the
in

and religion here too same law prevails. I am bound to be impartial my love up to my ability. Truthfulness, as well

as the nature of the mind, forbids that I should concentrate entirely and exclusively upon any one Nature did not moralist, spiritualist, or religionist. make me sectarian. At least I cannot be when I am finished and perfected. Again I say here, I can-

nor can I pernot love all alike all are not alike fectly appreciate all. Yet 1 cannot love with a rational,

26
truthful love the

FREE LOVE.
same moral or religious
attrihule,

found in the same quantity, more in one than, in another. It would be unnatural and fiilse. I have adhesiveness, so I love all persons socially all, male and but here I cannot love all alike, and yet I female must from necessity love all like attributes alike.

Truth requires impartiality. I cannot be exclusive, all have like social attributes. I have araativeness, so I love woman possibly I may love her, in this sense, exclusively from man; she is possessed of something different from man mentally, spiritually and physically. But I cannot love any one woman exclusively from any other I love all women as such woman. not alike in mental, spiritual or physical sexuality far from it nor can 1 be exclusive and concentrate my affections, except I do violence, first to my reason, and then to my affections. My love may vary towards different women, as they vary in their mental, spiritual, religious, social and physical womanhood, and as I have more or less ability to appreciate them, or as they are more or less in harmony with either or all these points with my own particular taste but I cannot love one in the many exclusively from her
since

sisters.

My

ojpjponents

harmonize with me^ in precept


will

at least, in relation to all these manfestations of love,


except the physical.
eral

They

commend

this gen-

and universal state of the affections, and condemn partiality and exclusiveness. But when the whole man develops into harmony with itself, and with every other man and every other woman when the same universal law is allowed to prevail through all the affections, they are shocked with the impropriety and yet it is as unnatural to exclusively

concentrate the love of the physical as

it

is

that of


THE ARGUMENT.
any other part of the mind.
is

27

In this our attractions a natural impossibility to We must first annihilate or uncreate what God has created. In this sen.se man is attracted to woman as such, and the same of woman to man. This love for the physical of the
vary, but I insist, it make them exclusive.

opposite sex, and attraction to it, is alike universal in its nature with every other love. As all my previous arguments to sustain the necessary universality of love, apply equally here, I will not repeat them. There are laws to govern mind, as absolute as those to govern matter. The forest tree can be bent by some material cause so can the affections, by a power of mind or will but the crooked tree, or the contracted and warped affections, are excep;
;

tional
us.

nature, as the

harmonious. I find no marriage in law of marriage has ever been taught I dofind the marriage of man to woman. " They
less

and

twain make one flesh,*' says Nature, in all her teaching on this subject. The Good Book, in its higher meaning, responds to Nature's lessons. JSTo truth can be more clearly taught. Without this oneness, this union, either man or woman is but a fraction a most unnatural fraction. This must always be true in the next world as well as in this unless we are to be partially annihilated to fit us for an entrance there. This to us is the extreme of folly. So our reason in this harmonizes with the Revelations of Swedenborg and the Spirits. I agree with Mr. Ballou and others, that without marriage, the material union of the sexes is more or less adulterous; that conjugal, or, as Swedenborg would write it, **conjugial love," is essential to the I accept of the latter's purity of such relations. description of this love, of its nature, but I deny

FREE LOVE.
or necessarilj that such love is confined to the one I believe a well developed man may and exclusive. should love woman in general, so far as she is the woman of creation, and upright and lovely, (and he could not truthfully love the one without this,) more purely, more justly, more disinterestedly and more conjugally than the most devoted dual lover often
feels. I accept of the Love Doctrines of marriage from my inmost soul, having known, and knowing them, but I deny that they are exclusive.

CHAPTER

III.

the argument continued.

Friend Ballou
I proceed in

reasoning from the nature of I may^and am required to love a man the mind. I may **as myself," with the same kind of love. love another man more or less than myself, in
If he is on tbo degree, according to what he is. not so good a man, I should not love him as much for I am not required to be partial Nature hioios no false humility or either way. If he is better than false modestyy hut only truth. myself, and I have the ability to know and appreciate goodness beyond my absolute goodness, then I may, and normal and well-developed mind requires and prompts me to, love and regard him better than Tliis is possible and natural myself. it is truth. Any state but this is so far falsehood. But if I

my

whole

THE ARGUMENT CONTINUED.

29

have not the ability to know and measure his goodness, beyond my own goodness, then 1 can not love him better than myself. My standard of love, in either or any case, is never absolute truth for another, but simply obeying the command of nature Another should vary in accordance with his to me. ability, God does not require any two men to love Him alike in degree. Each is to love with his whole heart, and mind, etc. That is, up to this capacity. The same law prevails as to my love for woman; and more. I should not only love her as myself, but differently perhaps exclusively from myself and if I may not, as a general rule, love her better pr more than myself, I have a greater ability to be useful to her than to myself, and in this I promote my own greatest felicity. I may love some one man more than any other man, but I should not, I can not love him exclusively from every other man so of woman. I may love some one man religiously or socially more than any other man in the same sense so of woman. It is naturally possible, (but perhaps never a truth as a fact in Providence,) for me to love some one man more, mentally, religiously and socially, than any other man, hut never to love any of these parts exclusively from the same parts in other men : so of woman. We some times, as a fact, love some one woman mentally or socially, or amatively, more than any other woman in the same sense and were it ever a fact, as it can be conceived naturally possible to be, for us to love one woman in all these particulars more than any other, it would be unnatural and impossible to love such a person exclusively from her sisters, from others of her sex. We can not do it in either or all of these phases of love. Then where in nature is exclusive marriage ? Noy ;
:
:

3*

FREE LOVE.
!

10
where

I think I am understood here, and invite the closest scrutiny. All of these loves for man or
in man and woman, may be in a very perverted and impure state or they may all be the most pure and chaste. My religious love may be religious selfishness and sectarianism. My sexual love may be the greater love for sexual self, or what is the same thing, lust. My affinities, from the highest to the lowest, may be all adultery in some of its definitions, But the form or order of their manifestations does not necessarily indicate their purity or impurity. Normal love is pure and chaste in its origin, in its living action, and as much so in all its ultimates. And the ultimates of love should If love cannot be correctl}^ represent their cause. exclusive in the mind, it should not be held to be in

woman, and

its manifestations in its consummations. The outgoing or ultimates of love should image forth its
life. The reader will observe that in these thus far, I have aimed to prove 1 IMiat our lore for others cannot he exclusive on any one point towards any one person. 2. I draw the inference, as a self-evident proposition, and as one which I believe is universally that the manifestation of love should be admitted, a true image of itself. This will be the case, when

interior
letters,

is left entirely and absolutely free. Does the fact of experience or the consciousness of the mind sustain our position ? Many desire to receive this exclusive love, and the lowest of the race, who regard love in any proper way, are the most tenacious in this desire. Such persons are nearly equally jealous of all the love of a mate religious and mental as well as sexual. But these

nature

persons are not as ready to return this exclusive

THE ARGUMENT CONTINUED.


love.

81

of these neither see the necessity nor propriety of confining their affections, except as they find it enjoined and enforced in the law of marriage, and in the public sentiment which marriage With these the demand is unjust, has created. and selfish, and proves them in a state of disease of the affections at least they are unbalanced and Many others the number is more inharmonious. than is generally supposed ask no exclusive love. They desire none. These, in the average, have a more elevated phrenological development than the first I leave room in this statement for the class named. many exceptions. Some of these last would suffer as much with a mate who should be disposed to bestow all her life on him, as the man of the opposite desire would with one w^ho withheld it. Let elevated humanity judge which is the more noble and truthful I add, man is conscious of the same state of mind. ability to be attracted to the opposite sex in general, as much in physical amativeness, as in the menUil and spiritual. He has the power in a great degree So he has the to concentrate all the affections. power, in nearly or quite the same degree, to confine If he be well balanced or well discior direct all.
feel the
;

Many

plined,

he

may

suspend, indefinitely,

all

his own any woman This is possible for some minds, wife not excepted. placed in almost any conceivable circumstances, and without all the safeguards of the Shakers. But all

desire or attraction towards

amative

this is not normal, or natural.

It is

not truthful or

in a normal state of the affections, we are conscious of their universality j and not of i\i^\x entire exclusivcness in any one particular.

commendable.

I repeat

Our

ability to control, confine or suspend their inward or outward action towards the many, or the

32
one, does not consciousness.
I

FREE LOVE.
stifle,

or

silence the

voice of this

most respectfully

invite the friends of exclusive

marriage,

who
its

believe that the

mind

is

God's Book,
his

and that
preceding
to

healthy attractions

are

laws,

to

carefully observe the


letters,

main arguments in the two and to bear with what may seem

them, too

much

repitition.
all

My proposition stands
It is the

in the

gap between

contending parties.

main hinge on which

this great question turns.

am
The

not touching the doctrine of expediency for dis-

eased man, or giving any counsel concerning him.


latter is

an after and side question.


or "misdirection,*'

back of

all disease,

I aim to go and forward

to the full health of

progression and

final

manhood.

It is not a question of lust,


attraction.

but of Love
detain
I

of normal

It is of vast importance,

and cannot be
the

longer evaded.

going too
even at

reader, by must be full here, the expense of some repetition. I must leave

I will not

much

into side issues.

no possible chance
I have suffered too

for misconception.
is

It will

only
;

protract the discussion, which

sure to

come

and

much from misconception already.


the inquiry upon the mind of
Is love on
Is
it

We

shall, then, press

the candid reader.


lutely exclusive ?

any one point absoIs it

so in amativeness ?

more so in amativeness than in adhesiveness ? or in any diflferent sense ? If our opponent says yes, and
^he

must

will

he give us

fiilly

and

clearly his phil-


THE ARGUMENT CONTINUED.
osophy

33
said no,
reply.

his

we

believe

mind argument ? We have we have demonstrated our


;

and

court honest and manly criticism

no other.

aver that
truth.

We
to

we

are not seeking personal victory,

but
any
place

We We

do not know

how

to argue with
;

man
it

prove that two and two make four

we

before the man. of figures, and


it.

help seeing

So,

we

believe,

we think he cannot we have placed the

laws of the mind, before the reader's mental vision,

and we think he cannot help seeing them.


tract ALIKE
;

We think

he cannot help seeing, that minds alike will at-

and
and

that 50 far as minds are alikcy

they will attract alike.

That

this

must be true of

mind

as mind,

so true of all its parts.


letters,

(We

have

not argued in the preceding

by the analogy,
was non-exclu.
that for a cominar

that because one faculty of the brain


sive, so

another must be.


So, as all

We
are

left

letter.)

minds

and as each faculty

in one

more mind

or less alike,
is

some hke the


no en-

same faculty
tire

in another mind, there can be

exclusiveness:

and

as each and every man, and


like

each and every woman, are more

every other

man and

every other woman, than they are unlike

them, a general attraction, union, and love, must


be the rule, in a healthy state of the race.
sion ''(or hatred) is
less attraction.
It
is
**

negative;

Repul-

it

represents

a lesser power in mind

is

the exception, as to
its

and follows the same law with

love,

non-exclusiA^eness.

34

FREE LOVE.

CHAPTER
THE FOWLERS

IV.

THE ARGUMENT FROM ANALOGY.

Should the Marriage of the sexes be exclusive and dual? So far as I know, the Fowlers, of New York, have done more, for the last fifteen years, to support exclusive and dual marria^ey than any or all writers in They profess to find it in the mind, the same time. That as they read the science of phrenology. science is now popular, and they are among its first There is no way that I can better expounders. communicate my own views, so far as I wish todoi^ connected with this science, than by giving their Let me views, and presenting my own in contrast. If phrenology teaches exclusive and premise. The friends of Free Love dual marriage, it is safe. Such will find themselves in an unequal warfare. of my readers as are any way solicitous for morals, and harmonize with the Fowlers, and the present laws of civilization, may rest in the most perfect
safety.

The

writer of these letters will surrender

when he

finds that the true readings of

are against him.

By

this statement

phrenology he implies no

present doubt on the subject. The Fowlers divide the human mind into about forty faculties. They subdivide these into as many more. "Amativeness,*' or sexual love, they divide into the "upper and lower,'* or the "spiritual, They do and do not exclumental, and physical.'* pWely marry the spiritual and mental of amativeness.

Mr. 0.

S.

Fowler,

in

his

work on "Love and


ARGUMENT FROM ANALOGY.
Parentage/* very plainly, to

36

my

mind, teaches the

entire concentration of all sexual life or love on one,


in perpetuity and without interruption or deviation through natural life. Again, he and his brother do They do not marry, or exclusively not teach this. cofifine the '* spiritual and mental ** of sexual love

of amativeness.

In their delineations of character, they always speak of love for woman in general, and they never pass a with a sort of approbation great man, in whom this sentiment is prominent, without noticing it to his credit. So of all other Phrenological writers. In this, these men harmonize exactly with the oge, and with all good writers on man. They are most " orthodox/' Mr. Wright, in his late work on Marriage, leaves out so much of sexual He says, ** the atlove from the exclusive yoke. traction of men and women to each other, as such, has its privileges, and its fixed, just laws to govern This general regard for woman, as such, is it.'' sexual, and doubtless what Mr. 0. S. Fowler calls the This, then, I spiritual and mental of amativeness. think, civilization doQ3 not intend to marry in her The feelings of many husexclusive dual bonds. bands and wives among us are much disturbed by this general freedom in a partner, and with such, if liberty is taken, it causes jealousies and complainings, but public opinion, instead of condemning such freedom as licentious, where it is not carried too far, or beyond a common degree of spiritual and mental amativeness, takes the side of liberty, and condemns the complaining party. The lattfer are It^is plain, considered narrow minded and selfish. ^and society in general, then, that the Fowlers, even the Shakers, allow more or less freedom to a None of these attempt to portion of amativeness,
;

3^

FREE LOVE.
general plane and

entirely confine or suppress the

higher manifestations. Even the Head Shaker must have his spiritual female mate. Now for the contrast. I do not separate the faculties, and free a part, and confine a part. I do not separate the sentiment amativeness and free a part and confine a part. Ifree the whole. The whole man and the whole woman. I demand more plain and philosophical reasons for such an inconsistency. I
actions of
its

deny that there are any rational and substantial reasons for this to govern a normal mind. Society does not exclusively marry the greater part of its sexual love. I would not so marry any part of it. Civilization has advanced one step from certain heathen nations who consider it a crime for their women to be exposed to the general gaze, and freed a portion of this part of the brain. I and my Free Love brethren, would free the remainder, and we are as sure that we shall be approved by the future, as we are that civilization
is justified

in her advances thus far. I repeat the contrast in various forms to get the consistency, or inconsistency, before the mind of the reader. To me this comparison is the strongest of arguments.

The Fowlers, and our dual marriage friends, do not marry in their exclusiveness any one of these forty faculties of the mind. They do marry in this manner, one-third of one of the forty, this general freedom to
der,

and no more. All and ]pure. I do not thus marry that fractional part of one. Rea-

them

is

chaste

We
is

mark the contrast,Cnd the astounding oflPense. are told that the effect of freedom, in all the

former,

is good and elevating, while in the latter it most injurious and debasing. What but depravity ever first taught such distinctions and such philosophy? '* To the pure all things are pure.'* The

ARGUMENT FROM ANALOGY.

37

freedom of the entire man is pure and elevating. To the impure all things are impure and debasing. To such all freedom is evil so far as they are impure. pure and holy emotion is pure and holy, whether it concentrates on one object, or many. An impure emotion, or passion, is impure, whether in confinement or freedom. Allfree ninety -nine ^^arU of the

human

hraln,
wiit.

I moke
I

it

one hundredj and leave the

man

am

told that ninety-nine parts of the

affections can choose a variety in purity,

and with

but that the very fact of this hundreth part so choosing, is proof positive, in the nature of the case, that it is impure and lustful. I deny this out and out, in the name of all consistency, and common sense. I admit that those who are attracted by lust to the one, may be the more so to the many -but those who have attained to connubial love to the one, may attain to and possess it to more. There is nothing in the nature of this, more than in all other loves, which is exclusive. But Mr. Fowler supposes he has found this very marriage in the brain. He calls it "love of one only." ''Duality in Marriage." I positively deny that there is any such faculty in the human brain. There may be a sentiment in the lower part of the brain, designed to concentrate and intensify all the lower sentiments, but not one anything like his readings, or deserving the name which he gives it nothing can be more unnatural and unphilosophical. Mr. Fowler locates this supposed sentiment by the side of amativeness, and appoints it to hold an entire and exclusive control over the lower part, or ** physical," of amativeness, and no more. He never gives it any other office. He could not do this consistently without
propriety,
;

changing

its

name, and
4

all

his past remarks

upon

it.


38
FREE LOVE.
in the strongest concentrated loves between persons of the same sex ^as between David and Jonathan, ** whose love passed thao of woman*' or between two females, he never refers to this sentiment, but places such concentrated loves, if their love is so strong that its rupture ends in death to one of the parties, under the head of adhesiveness. The bare statement of this sufficiently shows its

Even

absurdity.

down

to

Never was science more plainly brought meet the prejudices of a still undeveloped

age. If adhesiveness can be so concentrated without the aid of a particular sentiment for that end, ama-

tiveness can be

in its formation

more so, as there is one more faculty and concentration. Mr. Fowler never makes any allusion to his ex-

marrying sentiments, except connected with then it must be sexual, and a part of amativeness This he does not intend to teach. amativeness. Again, my objection to this exclusive marriage doctrine, whether it be found in Mr. Fowler's readings of Phrenology, or in the moral teachings of the Practical Christian, is, that it gives a lower law the lowest of this lower law, admitting the existence of such a law absolute and entire control over a higher law. All will tell us, Mr. F. and the P. C. not excepted, that the higher sentiments of the brain should be uppermost, control the entire man, and that all lower sentiments should harmonize with the higher. This doctrine makes the lower, on this point, govern, and requires the higher to harmonize with it. Here is one of our main objections to it. If there is an exclusive tendency (I do not admit it) in the lower sentiments, the higher all prompt to universality and the more, as they are more fully developed. I admit, there
clusive

ARGUMENT FROM ANALOGY.

3t

is strictly no lower law, when every lower sentiment of the brain really harmonizes with the higher. They are sanctified by them, and are most exalted. But this is just in proportion as they are submissive to, and governed by, the higher. When they assume to reign over the higher, they become debased. We and our opponents agree in one thmg that man in the past, either from his fall or "misdirection," or from his yet youthful and undeveloped state has been governed by his lower sentiments and propensities and we are agreed in general, that this should not, and will not, always be so. Exclusive dual marriage is a great improvement, from the entire absence of all real marriage. So it is, on the whole, from a state of polygamy. So is American slavery a better state of society, than a worse, which has existed in the past, when there was no motive not even a selfish one, as in slavery for the stronger to protect the weaker and so stronger tribes and nations, would destroy and completely exterminate other weaker tribes and nations. But none of these states of society are in harmony with man's higher may leave all unwept for a better sentiments. not for a worse. To go below exclusive marriage

We

go above such marriage is better. So where the people will not fall back to a worse state of society. The Jews had a sort of slavery, but I think their So we extermination of the Canaanites was worse. in a little more slow, and possibly on the whole, in a more mild way, exterminate the Indians, or original Americans. I expect to see the race rise above both Slavery and Marriao-e as it now exists.
is

worse

to

it is

better to emancipate the slave,

Reader, you

now have my argument from

analogy.


40
FREE LOVE.
I argue, that as every other faculty of the brain

and two-thirds of the one under discussion, is nonexclusive the presumpsion is that the other third is
;

non-exclusive
possible
for

also.

And

I confess I cannot see

it

any mind

to reply

directly to this

by

sound argument, and without sophistry or evasiveness.


I believe

any mind might as well deny and

attempt to disprove a truth in mathematics.


the circumstances,
it

Under
of

justly rests

upon the friends

exclusive marriage, to prove their exception, or give


it

longer protect any Institution.

we demand Again, should or


up

this

of them.

Age

will

not

should not the higher


in each

sentiact,

ments control the whole man,


in

and every

harmony with

their non-exclusive laws ?

Are
Are

not the physical rights of amativeness, as well as


the social, mental, and spiritual, of real utility?

not the former a real good

a valuable power
may

And
of
?

so should not this be as such, at the

command

our

higher manhood

Justice

and Benevolence

My

questions are fully and plainly put, with the

desire that the enlightened reader

understand
evil,

their import.

No

real or

imaginary fears of

which
full

it

may be

tliought will follow these principles,

will be a fair reply to

them.

The

slave-holder

is

of these, and of such arguments, in defense of


social

his

system.

Will the friends

of exclusive

marriage, ape the former in his fears, and in his


replies ?

So

far

many

of

them have done

this

and


AN EPXLANATION.
ONLY
this.

41

In

this,

we hope
for

for a

reform

among
;

reformers.

We

hope

something better

for a

more

fair,

condid, direct and rational reply

or none.

CHAPTER V.
MR. BALLOU

AN EXPLANATION PART OF IN MY REJOINDER.

HIS REPLY

In

my

discussion with Mr. Ballon, 1 was to write

a series of letters in defense of Free Love. lou was to reply,

to rejoin,

and he was

Mr. Balto follow

and

close.

I wrote five letters, (the last

two on the

Bible

not here

inserted).

expected.

I rejoined at

Mr. B. replied, as was some length in four letters.


rejoinder,

Mr. B. replied to
closing letter.
I have

my

first

and then

in

no thought of giving any thing


side.

like a full

view of that discussion, on either


I will

But as

wish to review Mr. Ballou, as well as some others,


simply insert that part of

my rejoinder which
I will then

contains the substance of his main argument on the

mind, against

my letters

look into Mr. B.'s Book

" Christian
I

on the mind.

Socialism,''

and see what we can


our proposition.
In justice to Mr.

find there directly related to

Ballou,

would remark

He

4*

42

FREE LOVE.

professed to understand me, in


to

my

first

two

letters,

reason from

"analogy,'' and

replied
I

accord-

ingly, to

destroy that analogy.

did intend to

reason from analogy in


imderstanding* of me,
replied to
it

^adopted

my

third, so I accepted his

the

analogy, and

as mine.

I shall insert

but a portion

of

my

second and third

letters in rejoinder.

Mr. Ballou's argument against mine, begins, Sexual love, as involving sexual coition, is radically an instinctive animal appetite. Man has it in com-* mon with the whole animal kingdom. It is not of the nature of Benevolence, or Friendship, or any other truly spiritual love. As an animal propensity, it craves mainly its own gratification, just like the propensity for food, sleep, etc. It does not go abroad seeking opportunities to confer blessings on friend or foe. This propensity, then, is primarily and Withessentially animal. It has its use and place. in its own proper limits it may be gratified innocently. Allowed to break bounds, it becomes criminal and pestilent. This is the truth of the case. Is it so with the spiritual loves ? with love to God, to virtue, and our neighbor ? Not at all. Away, then, with all false analogies arguments founded on such analogies are utterly flillacious and worthless." We agree with Mr. Ballou that when this propensity '-'breaks bounds,'' it is very evil but not more But let so than higher propensities and sentiments. us keep to the point. What are its hoimds? We have proved them non-exclusive, and we are now to answer Mr. Ballou's arofuments ao-ainst us. What are these arguments? This coitionary propensity, he tells us, is ''radically an animal appetite," the
*

AN EXPLANATION.
same as
in all animals, or " in

43
other

common with
mainly
its

animals."

As such

it

" craves

own

does not go abroad seeking to perform deeds of charity and kindness. Still it may be allowed a narrow sphere of action ** innocently,'* and safely, not so with the higher sentiments. The reader can judge whether I have done him justice in this abridgment. I may mistake his meaning. I hope, for the honor For if this, as I of humanity, that I do mistake it. read it, is considered "innocent" in dual marriage, we have fairly come to the main stone which too often paves the hell of misdirected minds in our Is it considered innocent exclusive marriages. for married pairs to acton this matter, '^ mainly^* from the cravings of, and to satisfy, mere animal and This may be proper for a fleshly gratification ? beast, for aught I know, but is it for a man ? Reader, but if he does I may not understand Mr. Ballou not mean just this what can be the force of this
It

gratification/' like the desire for food, etc.

excommunicate most wonHe "puts it away" "with a venderful manner. geance." If I understand him, I should call such

argument?

He

certainly seems to

this part of the brain

from the

rest in a

not love. the sexual aflfections, lust Are not the higher sentiments so to control the whole, as to humanize them, and raise Is not the all parts practically above the beast? man to sanctify the animal, in every fibre of his naSo we read ture, and in every act of that nature ? humanity so we read the man. Nothing short of Is any part of the man to be set apart this is man. from so put away from, the real man, or whole

a state

of

What is man ?

man, and placed under laws inharmonious with his leading manhood ? So long as this is done, this

.44

FREE LOVE.

part will remain an enemy to, and often successfully reio'n over the best interests of that hio:her man-

hood.
in

There is one partially redeeming suggestion Mr. Baliou's argument. He compares the desire

with the desire for food, sleep, etc. Its comparison with that for food is in part truthful, and with that for sleep is, at least, very innocent. But
for coition

us attend to the consistency or inconsistency with himself and the good Book which he reverences, in this comparison, while he so degrades it.
let

The Book enjoins upon man


and drink
to

not the beast "

to eat

God's glory. *' " Whether therefore ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.** This command is to the man, to control all his propensities and their uses, in harmony with But where is Mr. Charity and the Higher Law. If Mr. B. will Baliou's consistency with himself? admit the same non -exclusive action, as being the law of the mind, and so proper in this propensity that he allows in alimentiveness and every other lower propensity, I will at once lay down my pen That moment we are one. or seek an opponent. Mr. Ballou knows this. If he will allow Benevolence and Justice to control, and call to their aid the eMire use of this faculty, as he does allow them to control, and so call to their aid every other faculty of the man, every other sentiment and propensity of the man, I can write no more, we are one. This would be an entire surrender to the whole meaning of all my previous arguments. I would rejoice over his conversion. But no he does not mean this. Then what does he mean ? What Let him throw no random shot,s at this with a mere fowling piece but make himself consistent with himself, and it possible with any
;
!

AN EXPLANATION.
rational

46
of
the

and

pliilosophical

interpretation

mind.

But coitronary desire, when it "breaks bounds/* " criminal and pestilent, which is not the case So argues our friend, and with the spiritual loves." seems virtually to chailange a reply. It shall be
is

coming. It is more true of the spiritual love. There no faculty or part of a faculty in God's creation of jmind, that works evil in a strictly healthy stale, and within its own proper bounds. Sexual love does not, in or out of legal marriage. In an unhealthy state, and out of these bounds, all sentiments,
'

is

work more or less evil and are criminal and pestilent.'' The higher sentiments have power in man to be more so than the lower. So says nature. So says experience. So says the Good Book. My friend asks, "Is it so with the spiritual?" Most certainly. Nothing can be more true. All the human blood shed upon heathen altars, to appease the wrath of imaginary gods, has been controlled by these faculties in both a diseased All state, and widely out of their true bounds. religious wars have been largely supplied from this spiritual fountain of man's mind. This has been the foundation of the Inquisition and all kindred institutions. The Catholics believed it to be their business In this the religious to defend religion in this way.
and
all

propensities
less
**

more or

faculties

were shockingly diseased, and were quite

out of their proper bounds, even if they had been All in health. So in all Protestant persecutions. of these were often as truly acting from the spiritual or religious faculties of the mind, ia their professed zeal for morals and religion, as is the lustful husband acting from amativeness, when gratifying himself at the expense of another, under tho cloak of connu-

46

FREE LOVE.

These spiritual whoredoms, we say, are bial love. as truly the fruits of diseased spiritualism, as are the oft repeated sexual rapes, in or out of dual maramativeness. These believed they were acting from love to virtue and the neighbor, and they were doing so in about the same sense, and in no other, that these sexual "criminal and pestilent" acts are from real connubial love. I am understood an challenge a Because one sentiment of the mind is differreply. ent in its nature from, and perhaps vastly higher
riage, the results of diseased

religious

men

than another, it does not follow that such sentiments are not alike non-exclusive. I have ** shown that
coitionary sexual love
its nature,
'' is equally non-exclusive in as " piety, benevolence and friendship,"

and that all of these loves are pure and chaste in a healthy and normal state, and that in an abnormal and perverted state, all are " criminal and pestilent." Who will assume to pronounce God's works in nature, or the fruits of his cleansing grace, " common
and unclean ? " Mr. Ballou " contends that
love, out of true dual wedlock,
all
is,

coitionary

sexual,

per

se,

adulterous."

I believe he has not argued directly to prove this proposition. He has argued against analogies which he supposed were designed to disprove it. should like to read an argument upon the nature of directly/ to for the mind is God's Book the mind prove that all such acts were adultery. That an act that would be pure and chaste in dual order, and which act, out of that order, would be impure and unchaste. Can he not make plain the nature of the

We

change which such act would undergo in this change of circumstances ? Will Mr. Ballou give us a specimen of his mental logic, in an argument to

AN EXPLANATION.

47

prove tliat all deviation from the dual order is, per se, adulterous? We wait for it. If a man varies from one, or dual marriage, while his one mate lives to her exclusive pledge, bis act is, But if she commit adultery, then per se, adulterous. he may get a divorce from her and seek another. jHe may now innocently embrace another in purity. |If this one proves untrue, *' he may proceed as before all in chastity" and so on indefinitely. He jreally enjoys a variety through the infidelity of his But his motives are good, and irepeated selections. Iso his act, in its change, is not adultery, per se. This is civilization, and the extreme doctrine of dual imarriage. Mr. Greeley, and perhaps Mr. Ballou, would bolt from this to them apparent looseness in morals, were it not for their great reverence for the and many of these Christ. In civilization, death has and does often jare the slow murders of lust jfree men to a great amount of variety in amativeness Though it be jbut this, too, is not, per se, adultery. But if a man the tenth wife, it is dual wedlock still. but thrice in a lifetime idtimate his love, and does this in harmony with the Higher Law of Free Love, This is a monster of jhe is, per se, an adulterer. And we have a right to look for its inconsistency. retraction, or its overwhelming proof, if such a In such a case the proof thing were possible. should come from a source which cannot mislead or If Mr. be misunderstood, to command respect. Ballou does not admit that the motive sanctifies the act in this succession of wives, by what law does
j

he justify these as pure, and condemn a less variety under the head of Free Love ? We press this call. He has multiplied his statements that the coitionary act is only lawful and pure in dual marriage, but he

48

FREE LOVE.

has not attempted to give any proof of tliis except by separating amativeness from the man, and degrading it to the animal. This manner of handling it, if it were proper, proves nothing as to the order of its
manifestations, as to duality or promiscuity. In the following we come more fully to Mr. Ballou's

reply to ours, No. two. " Mr. Kent continues to confound things and terms which ought to be discriminated, as radically dissimilar. I cannot consent to it. He makes no distinction between veneration and benevolence. He talks of loving a person's mentality, spirituality, and morality just as if tiiis were loving the individual being.'* Really, reader, Mr. Ballou I did suppose that is too profound for me here. loving all the parts or attributes of a being was loving the individual being. But let us attend to him. " But, admiring, venerating and delighting in these is wholly different from loving the individual being, in the sense of the second commandment." The idea is good and truthful after all. It amounts to this, Benevolence or Charity not like any other
faculty in the

human
;

brain, as to the object or motive

of

its

desire or love

and that the second command

refers

directly to this as being the highest moral

sentiment of the man. All good and truthful. We have not hinted one word to the contrary. There are no two sentiments of the brain that are alike iu They are every one unlike another. this sense. Again. "Other loves [than benevolence] are he names more or less limited and exclusive" *' Alimentiveness, Acquisitiveness," etc., etc. I deny the truth of this, in the sense in which I have argued for the non-exclusiveness of amativeness. Benevolence In that sense they are non-exclusive. is the feeling of mercy and goodness towards every

AN EXPLANATION.

49

>bject which is capable of receiving such goodness, and being benefited by it. It is exclusive to such :objects or to such being, So alimentiveness gives a taste for suitable food, no more. In a healthy state (suitable food is the object it desires and takes pleasure
lin.

It

may

vary
;

its

amount of
it

delight in

these

jvarious articles
rtaste

but

can never delight in the

than
nor

of one article, in exclusion from, or more or less in another article, which is exactly like the fii-st

can the eater be benefited by the one and This is impossible. injured by the other. The rSame course of reasoning holds good towards every
jlother

faculty.

So
if

forbear.

I
it

pronounce
in

[statement untrue,

he means

the

his sense in
letters.

jwhich I have argued the opposite iu

all

my

come now to the argument in Mr. Bailouts reply to our letter on the Fowlers. He states that
in man has two radical charactermanifestations, a sensual and a spiritual." That the *' sensual manifestation is rightful and jinnocent only in true dual marriage;'' *'but that its imental and spiritual manifestation, besides having one sacred connubial center, has various legitimate concentric spheres.'* To prove the above proposiThat sensual Amativeness is not " cotion, viz extensive with its spiritual," and that the former manifestation can be '* rightful and innocent only in dual marriage,'' he proceeds, as in a former letter, to divorce a fractional part of amativeness, and to put it on the plane with the animal. I give his
[**

We

Amativeness

listic
I

** Amativeness, as to its lower developwords ments and sensual manifestations, is properly an


:

the

animal propensity. lower animals.

Man

has it in common with all Amativeness, in its highest

SQi

FREE LOVE.

developments and manifestations, is proper to man The animals as a spiritual and moral intelligence.

The more are incapable of spiritual amativeness. animal-humans are capable of it only in a low degree, and many have scarcely a conception of it, much less a decent appreciation. It is plain, then, that sensual amativeness exists and ultimates itself
without spiritual amativeness, as in beasts and very Really, if these statements are sensual humans.'* true, some persons, who are in the form of men. are Either they were not, correctly speaking, men. never finished, or they have become so diseased Nothing but that their manhood is dead and gone. the beast-man remains to animate the material form. The breath of God, which was to stamp his image, But what has this essence of lust to do is gone. Must we come with the doctrines of Free Love ? Shall into this for our analogies and arguments ? humans and beasts be summoned upon the stand to settle the higher law of progressed and healthy humanity ? We are convinced that Mr. Ballou is serious in this kind of analogy, and we submit to Such reasoning as this has been so far his follow. We have replied to it first and main argument. We will e part, when found in a former letter. deavor to do it justice here. First, then, we consent, for the sake of the argument, to the putting awa}'' of sensual amativeness. (To do which we believe to be a natural impossibility and if it were possible, in man, it would be adultery, per se/) What does Mr. Ballou gain in this argument ? He separates the lower of amativeness from, the higher, and puts it under laws inharmonious with the higher, because If this were proper, it might the former is animal. in part destroy my argument from analogy, but it
;

'

AN EXPLANATION.

51

Iould
)e

iiothing

prove nothing against my doctrine, and in favor of his. Let us see where his malogy, in comparing man on this point with the )east, will carry him. However distasteful this may
to us,
it

or to the

more

refined

feelings

of the

be necessary, and so we hope it nay prove profitable. We consent then, Mr. BaUou, ;o go with you into the field of animal life. We are
*eader,

seems

to

and order of the love look into the laws of their ,toarriage. find here, if we take the whole ["ange, that variety is the rule of love, and at the baost a partial duality is the exception. God has so jbreated, and we will not arraign his wisdom. Realer, we are now in the presence of beasts and birds, life that walks, and life that flies. There is no iidultery here. If any man think evil, the evil is in
i^ound to look into the nature
relations

of animal

to

We

himself.

These, God's creatures, are right. imativeness an upper and leading faculty,
'or
50

We
all

find

right

beasts.
in

So

its

action

is

right for beasts.

Not

In him it is behind and below in pie brain, and so should not lead and control. Then is the analogy we are pursuing truthul ? We think not. But we are pledged to bllow it to the bottom of our friend's argument. We 3ress the inquiry, then, upon our friend. Are the ove ultimations of animals generally exclusive and lual ? We expect a catagorical reply and its proo'*. 3ur opponent, we hope, will be consistent with his mimal analogies. Again, are these ultimations of ove or passion less elevated and less proper, when hej are in the order of variety, and so in harmony mth what seems to be the rule of their natures, ihan when they manifest themselves in a partially, md perhaps sometimes entirely in an exclusively

man.

62

FREE LOVE.

be

dual order, and so in harmony with what seems t at least the law of exception, even among animals Our friend has insisted on taking us to the animal t settle the laws for man and we now wish to hay full justice done to his arguments, so we urge thesj questions upon him. If we draw any inference from the animal analogy, it is that man will com pre hend all orders, or every variety of order, unless h has outgrown the exceptional law of animals. ^ a fact, man in his nature does comprehend the entii natures of all below him. So says science. Hi analogy, carried out, if it were truthful, would favc our views vastly more than his. But we have n( felt the need of such aid. It is the love relations q man which we wish to elevate and harmonize, an we think this should be settled solely by the laws o man's mind. Any truthful appeal to the analogy the law of animal creation, can never favor exclusiv We pledge ou dual marriage, but its opposite.

selves to sustain this proposition


called for.
I return

when

it is

furthe

now

to

say to the reader, th^

this whole argument of two radical and diveri^ manifestations of amativeness in man, is unphilc sophical and absurd. If such a separation wei; possible, it would leave the man in a perverted an* abnormal state. But it is not true that any ma

ever ultimates love entirely disconnected with spiritual element. I will demonstrate this statemeni
ii

the race in h< If God had made this possible propagations might so retrograde as to become beasts, tsTi or something like them, and so on still lower. In this case there would be an absolute law of retrogression, instead of a law of progression in man. The offspring of such coition could not be* human ; as like will beget its like. Does the reader

AX EXPLANATION.
ask for more
?

53

hopes of humanity,

are most glad to know, for the that such a separation of a faculty, or of the faculties, is impossible, and so the proceed in our quotations idea is most absurd. '' Sexual coition is the natural, universal, uniform

We

We

ultimate of sensul amativeness." with spiritual amativeness ? It may descend into, blend with, and santify sensual Amativeness as in the case of the true dual marriage. But sexual coition is not its own proper and ineviWe wait almost impatiently for table ultimate." proof that this spiritual love may not sanctify the In non-exclusive manifestations of this sexual love. every reply Mr. Ballou assumes the only point to be proved on his part. We tell the reader that this higher lore will more fully sanctify the lower, when the lower acts behind and in harmony with the laws of the higher, and we argue directly to prove it. We let the lower strengthen the higher, and receive absolute submission to the laws its blessing by its of the higher, and not the higher come down to bless the flesh, by submissionn and conformity to the lower law, or to the supposed lower law. We now come to deny our brother's main proposition in the We contend that coition is a natural quotation. ultimate of spiritual love. That the leading attribute of conjugal love, in a healthy state, is spiritual

and

inevitable

**But

how

is it

non-exclusive, and that it is naturally Sensual love is someits ultimates. times and in some cases partially satisfied by various It often little love manifestations short of coition. is comparatively so, without any material manifestaSo spiritual love is often It is in youth. tions. comparatively satisfied without the act of coition.
that
it

is

coitionary in

But no sexual love


6*

in

any of

its

phases can be

full

64

FREE LOVE.

and complete without its coitionary ultimate. Witb out this it never attains to its hight, perfection ani entireness. Mr. Ballou represents the spiritual at descending to bless and sanctify the sensual in duall marriage. Will he deny that the spiritual love is atl home in, and is a leading attribute in the conjugal ?l Will he deny that spiritual love is its very essencol and inner hfe ? His language plainly conveys thisl This is a vital point. idea that it is not. j hope our friend and the reader will bear with the! closeness with which we pursue this subject, if \t\ does occupy some space. have meant to so write our proposition for this discussion that we and our opponent should be obliged to grapple with the very heart of the whole controversy, with the age, and with reformers, touching this subject of submarriage. must not pass it superficially. jects certainly understand our opponent to deny the vital and essential relations of spiritual amativeness, in constituting the leading substance of coitionI think he does not ary and so connubial love. harmonize on this with the Fowlers with Swedenborg he does not, and many others of his dual order, but much nearer with the Shakers. I^o matter. What is truth ? With us, connubiality is not synonymous with sensuality. promise thfe reader that when we are converted to this doctrine, we shall join the Shakers, at once, on this subject. But in the name of humanity, we protest against the whole of it. Coition, for its most material object should be, in its the procreation of offspring leading substance and features, spiritual. As man is a unit, and as he is more spiritual than animal or sensual, so in his act to beget his like, it should be more spiritual than sensual. I speak of the true
;

We

We

We

We

We

AN EXPLANATION.
man, and I

66

man

still insist on the analogy, that the lower should keep behind, and harmonize with, the If Mr. Ballou still insists that my human higher. analogy is false can he not give us a better substitute in disproving it than his analogy of man and animals in common ? We have read his replies with our utmost care, and read them asrain and ap-ain, and we affirm that there is not one word of direct argument to prove the impropriety of a variety in connubial love. He repeats the statements of his belief that coitionary love should only be in true dual marriage and tries to destroy my analogy by introducing another. But were I to admit the force of his animal analogy, and every word of real argument in his letters, even then he has not taken the first step to prove his proposition, and his exclusively dual order. Where is the proof of his *' adultery, Not a line ]per se,''' in a variety in love ultimates? can I find. In behalf of the friends of Free Love, whose doctrine and practice he has formerly declared
;

to be the foulest of the foul, I ask

and adultery by

itself,

him

to

before this

prove his position in season for a reply discussion closes. In view of his past

and of his present position, as an opponent of Frfee Love, it is not enough that
relations to this subject,

he

ments.

simply replying to my arguwas proposed as a mutual ajQfair, between friends, to promote the cause of truth, each of us believing, as I trust, that truth would be elicited by it, whether our opinions were all saved or not. By proof I mean more especially direct argument from the laws of mind, not mere inferences from history. I have not ti'oubled the reader with the foul history of dual marriage, as a presumptive argument for the trial of Free Love.
satisfy himself in

The

discussion

56

FREE LOVE.

Because all of the higher and spiritual faculties are more or less non-exclusive, and in that sense universal in their nature, it does not follow as a practical fact that they should ultimate themselves
This is naturally impossible. I brotherhood, non-exclusively, as I have used this latter word in this discussion, yet I pass multitudes with a bare recognition. I carry out no particular acts of kindness, or *' special and kind It is not necessary or called for. attentions.'* So a man may love woman as such, with a true universal, or non-exclusive connubial love, and it be impossible and undesirable to so universally consummate this love while absolute exclusiveness would be unnatural in either case in any of the There are mental laws and circumstances loves. which should harmoniously settle each man*s actual and more intimate associates, in his acts of social enjoyment, or acts of charitable utility. And yet he is not absolutely exclusive in any or all of these faculties. The well-developed mind is never universal or absolutely exclusive as to his associates in relation to the human brotherhood or in any of the social or love relation. These remarks have had reference to some part of Mr. Bailouts reply, which I thought it not necessary to quote. By the better laws of civihzation, with woman in general, I may bow the knee before God in social prayer in freedom I may enjoy mental repasts with her in freedom. Benevolence may give to her the fruits of acquisitiveness in freedom; charity and justice may call to their aid all the power and utility in destructiveness and combativeness for the protection and defense of all women in freedom ; I may gratuitously supply the wants of inhabit! veness and
to the

same
the

extent.

love

all

human

AN EPXLANATION.
;

67

alimentiveness in her in freedom I may give tlie adhesive kiss to all in freedom I may supply any child from my paternal fount in freedom I may supply my own paternal desire by the caressing or adoption of any child in freedom. What may we not do and enjoy innocently in freedom, by the laws of the Fowlers, Mr. Ballou and civilization? Every thing except a fractional part of a sentiment called amativeness, all else is non-exclusive, or absolutely free in a healthy state, or under the control of the higher man. For every other freedom is allowed to be health, and health is allowed to be freedom. For every other absolute exclusiveness is considered a disease. For this fraction of the brain, anything but This fraction entire exclusiveness is disease, per se. is cut off from its other and higher half, and held in bonds as a criminal. *'It has been a criminal.** Well, why not put the whole man in bonds ? Every faculty, and every part of a faculty, has been woWhy not rush back to slavery and fully criminal. ** All men, the dark ages for our laws of safety ? except those who govern the rest, are, per se, dangerous in freedom !'* It requires strong proof to sustain such monstrous inconsistency. The past, with her pall of blackness still hanging over her, cannot prove it. The future will laugh at it with pity and
; :

astonishment.

58

TREK LOVB.

CHAPTER VI.
MR. BALLOU CONTINUED.
HIS BOOK.

" Mr. Ballou asks, in our discussion, what " need *' " will come what good ^and there is of Free Love,

of

it

Even admitting

my mind

argument, of the

non-exclusive nature of the connubial attraction,


utility will come of such free^ dom. Others, who read us, will ask the same question. 'We reply the normal action of every faculty and

he virtually asks what

-every law of mind,

is

always of

utility.

A
free
is

similar

-"need*'

exits,

and a similar "good*'

will follow the

.freeing of this,

which

results

from the

action

of every other faculty.


.

Such freedom
elevating.

always

strengthenings refining ^

and

It is so,

and

-will

be so on

this, in its

temperate, healthy, and free

action.

bring untold
ilive

The diseased action of any faculty may evil. One man, or one woman, may

alone

a hermit.
live

So one

man and
from
is

one woall

man may
society
;

in

entire

isolation

other
It

but such dual hermitage


less starves all the

not natural.
faculties.

more or
state

human

That

of

mind which, from


is

choice, selects such a

situation,

sickly

and contracted.

woman can
easily,
i

progress,
fully, in

and as

No man and and elevate themselves, as such disconnection from all


every feature of

others.

A varietv in the action of


MR. BALLOU.

69
Love

connubial love,

is refining

and elevating.

always elevates and


this

refines.

Of

course, a variety in

should be governed by the most exalted wis-

dom.

So should the action, and the variety

in

adhesiveness.
it

When, and
its

so far as, the latter

is

not,
its

dissipates

and debases.

Each

faculty has

proper laws, and

^'natural restraints y'^ but not to

absolute exclusiveness.
state, require

Some minds,
"
line

in a healthy

more

society than others.

I will be
line

understood,

if

I have to write

upon
that,

precept upon precept."

We

insist

as our
is

philosophy deals alike with every faculty, and

in

harmony with
does not

itself,

while that of our opponents

and

is not,

it is

for those

who make
urge

the

exceptloriy to

prove

their exception.

And we

we

entreat the
less

friends of

exclusive

marriage, to

deal

with uncertain

consequences^

and more

with God's eternal laws of order," as read in the


philosophy of mind.
hope, for
all,

We

here say

we do

once, and

we

not consider mere inferences

from history, especially any history which we can


obtain, as

direct argument, or as sufficient to meet


settled or sure princples of

and refute the

mind.

One more
to

allusion to the discussion,

and we pass

Mr. Bailouts book.

We

record a noticable cointo destroy our

cidence.

While Mr. B. was laboring

analogy between the


the act of coition

human faculties, by comparing in man " with animals in com-

mon,*' his friend Hewitt was arguing in his (Mr.

60

FREE LOVE.

Hewitt's) paper, in opposition to certain supposed or


real

Free Love defenders,


it

that

because animals

were promiscuous,
to

was no evidence that man

should be. Not one word does Mr. H. write directly

prove his

own

dual order.
for

shall this

always be taken
there

granted ?)

(On what grounds A Lady

steps in here,

and intimates,

animals,

if man was like the would be no good objection to a

"variety.''

favor us with

Our unknown her name)

fair one,

writes,

"Remove

(she does not the


love,

restraints of reason

and conscience imposed by

and there
tion of

is

no reason

why

animal passion should


this is

not claim a variety."

To us

an entire nega-

Mr. Ballou's analogy,

and yet he becomes her


Where
shall

very ready endorser.


1854.)

(See P. Christian, Dec. 30,

So does Mr. Wright.

we

find

our opponents in relation to this animal argument?

We

hope their whereabouts

will be better settled

on

so important a point, before

we have

occasion to

print another edition of our book.

It will so

much

shorten our labor.

We

did not allude to the animal^

except in reply to Mr. Ballou.


it

We

did not consider


Still it

necessary in a discussion about man.

was

not improper.

We
We

ask our opponents then what


is to

position the animal

hold in the future of this


It is

controversy.

choose at present io follow.

not

fair

that the same opponent should

hang on

to

these opposite horns at the same time, or change as

seeming necessity requires.

MR. BALLOU.
Reader, in making the use wliich I have of
discussion,

^I
tlie

have taken the utmost care not


injustice,

Mr. Ballou any

and
I

if,

in

do any thing, or in
to

any statement, he thinks

am

incoorrect,

I ask
I'c-

him

to point

it

out to me, and I will explain or

tract, as the

truth

may
I

require.

Though
I

"\ve

are
his

wide apart as professed reformers,


personal friend, and

am

still

suppose him to be a friend to

me.
to

We

both deal sharply with what we conceive

be the errors and faults of our friends.


felt it to

Mr.

Ballou had

be his duty, as a leader and re-

former, (I consider

him a law

reformer), to arraign

and condemn
I could
lation to

all

Free Love doctrines and practices.

This became more frequent and severe, in his paper.

and did sympathise with him

in part, in re-

some of the

evils

connected with Free Love,

as with dual marriage, in the present undeveloped

and perverted
exception.

state of the
to

race.
feel

But he made no
himJelf called in
it,

He seemed
all

conscience to do what he could to exterminate


a whole, and in
of
its

as

parts.

I visited him.

We
and

spent hours in friendly, but in private discussion.


I asked hini, if ever
fair

he gave the subject a

full

hearing in his paper, as he had before this


interest,

given ever}^ other question of great


discuss
it

to

with me.

When

he thought the time had


so,

come, and was at leasure to do


friendly challenge,

he accepted

my

and the discussion followed.

I fully admit there are

many

evils

now connected

a
with Free Love.
its

FREE LOVE.
Injustice
is

sometimes done under


*

cloak.

But

I believe its friends will

learn wisrise to

dom by
riseii.

the things

which they suffer," and


I

a
so

greater and better harmony.

know some have


loss

So

far,

the various efforts at

community
of property.

have caused great suffering and

Perhaps some half a million has been expended, and some over twenty societies failed, during the last
twenty years.

And

yet

we

think the effort has been

worth

all it

has cost. Free Love has not done as bad,

Community and Free Love, in some places. The real good in both will be saved, and rise. The chaff should be blown away by the winnowing of
or been more a failure.
are both aUve

and

in

good health

Providence.

So

let it

be.

We

were some disaphis fault.

pointed in Mr. Ballou on the subject of our discussion,


after
all,

but

it

was not

always been a frank and open spoken


subjects

He had man on all

which he met.

But

to his book. in

We did

not allude to Mr. Ballou,

when speaking
marriage.

our prefece of refiyrm writers on

We

considered him, on this subject, and


nearly allied to the past.

many others, more

In most

of his writings he stereotypes to the teachings of

an age, almost two thousand years ago, and seldom to the higher law and more spiritual truths of that.
Still farther

back, he

**

builds tabernacles to
*'

Moses

and

Ellas,'* as well as to

Christ."

This he does

to the

law phase of Christ's teachings.

For Christ

MR. BALLOU.

6$
it,

"was made unaer


in parables.

the law/* and spoke under


**

and

He wore the veil/* as did Moses, to still hide from the many the higher glories of the comHe still preached law to the " lawless ing gospel.
and disobedient.**
real y

(I

presume Mr. Ballou


compliment
to him.

will con-

sider the above as a

And

it

stand so in the eyes of the majority.)

But

we

shall

proceed to our views of his case, and his

course.

He

talks

much

in

his

book

of going
real

back
of

to

"fundamental

principles.**

The

import

this, to us, is

simply his opinion as to the main

truths of the Bible.

To me, he seems wholly


all

in-

capable of going below and above the absolute laws of of


all

opinions, to

mind

incapable of going back


it
;

revealed religion, to the Author of

of sim-

ply reading nature in nature's book.


called
**'

He

has been

the logician.**

He

is

comparativly logical

in discussing theology,

so called, but never

upon

the deep principles of philosophy.

and never

at

home,

in the latter.

He is superficial, On turning to the


I

pages of his book (see 361) on which he records


his objections to Free Love, I

was disappointed.
first

had forgotten
argument

that,

after

so fully denouncing our

views, he did not even write the


to disprove

sentence of

If such is there,
it is,

them from the laws of mind. we have failed to see it. Such as
it

I will give

a passing notice.
book,
if it

And

yet, I

should not, in

my present

had emanated

from an author of less note.

64
Mr. Ballou,
in
**

FREE LOVE.
1,

Gives his objections to Polygamy,


to agree with

which we are happy


2,

him.
is

Promiscuity of intimate sexual communion

revolting and degrading to pure


is

minded

loves.

It

unnatural.

It

comes from perverted amativeness,


education,
sophistication,

despotism,

artificial

or

arbitrary custom.*'

By

*'

promiscuity,**

Mr. B. means the


siveness.
tion.

least deviation

from entire exclunot absolutely

More

of the .same sort follows our quota-

We simply reply to it all, there is

and necessarily one word of truth in it. Lust ** revolting** always **toa pure minded Lover;

is
**

Love never. We give assertion for assertion. " 3, Sexual promiscuity inevitably tends to moral

and

social disorder.

It sophisticates,

perverts and

demoralizes

its practitioners.

It stimulates

and con-

firms the lust of variety.**

We
nounce

are

not required to do more than to pro-

all this false.

Mr. Ballou always and everydifference

where takes the whole point of

between

him and the friends of Free Love for granted. Namely That the attraction for a variety is lust ** The lust of variety.'* Before this, he has taken
:

his position, and

pronounced every such act of


se.''

variety "adultry, per

Here, in

the

presence

of his book, I again challenge

him or

his friends, to

show

the

first line

of his, of direct
;

argument of any

kind, to prove his position

or to

show one sentence

where

it

is

not taken for granted.

He begs

the


MR. BALLOU.
entire question.

^
we

In view of his position in the age

as a professed reformer,

and of his long and repeated

denunciation of our principles on this subject,

have a right to ask and expect more.

He

has written what he, and perhaps some of his

friends,

may

consider argument.

In justice to him,
of men.

the reader should

know

that he has abundantly ap-

pealed to the feelings and instincts

To

what we

shall call, to a greater

or less extent, un^

developed, sicMy,

and perverted mind.


and pronounces
it

He becomes
pure.
it,'*

sponsor for

this,

**The

natural instincts of true love are against

against
tell

non-exclusiveness, or our freedom.

He

asserts that

this "instinct is not selfish, but implanted


to ensure

moral and social order."

We

by God him

that a

lute "purity,** or

morbid sickly state of mind knows no absoan entirely normal development of "love.** We admit that the undeveloped "instincts"

of a misguided amativeness, are sometimes against

our views.

We

find

men on
evil

this, as
;

he finds them
him, in

on war, and resistance of


to us

and he echoes back


arguments
to

on

this all of their old

defence of war, or an injurious resistance.


tell

They

him, the " instincts

*'

of

man

are against him,

or are in favor of resisting to the death,


sary,

when neces-

That this instinct of self-preservation, is "unselfish, and from God," and shows his will as to the true manner of keeping
an
intruding

enemy.

order."

This injurious resistance

is

more

often re-

6*

Q^

FREE LOVE.

sorted to in defence of Mr. B.'s exclusive " instinct'


in marriage, than

him

in this case

the marriage question on " amativeness,


like all

any where

else.

We

congratula

I'

find-

ing himself with the majority, and entirely on the


2'>opular side.

But
True.

to his

book

the pas-

sional appetites, has

no inherent self-government."
''safety lies in subordinating

am-

ativeness strictly to

reason and the moral


is

senti-

ments."

True,

it

always

in

a strictly healthy

mind Look
pares

in a perfect

development of connubial love.


!

at

Mr. B.*s consistency


to
all

He
the

truthfully

com-

amativeness

other

"passional

appetites."

His "reason and moral sentiments,"


w^zcfer

put every other "passion and appetite "


exclusive laws
;

non-

and he would consider the man as


who
Then he
places
it,

void of both " reason and moral sentiments,"

should think of doing otherwise.


amativeness, or a part of
law.
It is

under entire exclusive


1

Reader, look at the depth and logic in this


" simply contemptible."

An

appeal to sickly
so irrational a
it

instinct is not sufficient

to justify

position.
all.

Eeason and a healthy instinct repudiates


at

Mr. Ballon goes on


views of the
terrible

some length,

to give his

consequences, which, he thinks

must follow the spread of Free Love. As to this, we know more about it than our friend. He excommunicates his sexual
slaves,

who

rebel

under

MR. BALLOU.
the

OT

marriage yoke.''*

ours from that yoke.


society of our

We have long since freed We know something of the


anti-exclusive Jamaica's.
*ff

Again

"

modern

4,

Sexual promiscuity must degrade and


Reader,
in

oppress woman.''

the book, there

is

nearly two pages, following the above proposition,


of his sort of argument.

Having

settled

it

in his

own mind

that all deviation from dual order is the


lust,

promptings of

he goes on to describe and

dis-

cuss the sure consequences of an entire reign of


lust.

Admitting his premises, his conclusions are


If

safe.

any reader has


from the
these

his book,

he can turn to

it.

(It is aside

first

intention of our
still

book

to

give

all

of

secondary, but

important

questions, a full place.

Others have written upon


do,

them

better than

we could

and we must

refer

the reader to them.

We

do not desire to supercede


us.

any other publication which has gone before

We

refer the reader to a Tract,

containing a dis-

cussion

between

"Stephen
letters

P. Andrews, Henry

James, and Horace Greeley," and published by Mr.

Andrews
nal.

and

to

since published

in

the

Tribune, and Mr. Andrew's reply in Nichols' Jour-

Nowhere

else

can both sides be found better


to

handled.

I ought

add

Mr.

Nichols' book on

Marriage, replies at some length to such conservative objections as

we

find in

Mr. Ballou's book.


in dismissing

I
a

* I simply member.

refer to

an act of his society


IP
FREE LOVE.

iwoula meet them with pleasure, in any paper open


<to

me. But I am set against making my present work too long. I confess it to be a book of " one and But it is a central, a pivotal, idea idea.*' the one on which the main hinge of civilization

hangs.

first

Mr. Ballon does not diiSfer as much from us as at sight it would appear, in view of our contraHe, in every
:

dictions of him.
writinof of

line,

diseased amativeness

Davis

calls

"Extremeism.''

me
call

to

have the most distant

what Mr. He does not seem to conception of what I


of

is in

truth,

entire health.

He

always, or nearly always^

degrades amativeness.

We
Still

confess, in the past, it

has degraded

itself.

we

write of a healthy

mind

of a healthy attraction.

We
is

write of love,

not lust.
of the

Love

is

healthy, and

under the control

wisdom of reason, and the moral sentiments ; and not under " carnality." The reign of sexual
selfishness,

we do

not call a healthy connubial love.

We deprecate
faculty.
rible for

the morbid

and irregular action of any


often terrible.

Such

fruits are

Too

ter-

human pen
all

to describe.

Mr. Ballou and

ourselves agree that as a matter of fact, amativeness,


as well as
are,

other sentiments, have been, and


less diseased.

still

more or

cept through law,


for its

the law of exclusive marriage


If
it

He

leaves

no room, ex*
first

coming

health.

were here our

object to discuss the

way

of salvation for so sickly a


MR. BALLOU.
race,
little

9i

we, most certainly, should propose to


gospel freedom with our remedies.

mix a
insists

He

that any deviation from absolute exclusiveness will


increase the malady.

And,
for
its

like the

Physician,

who
upon

should advise

to

the gratification of the craving of


cure,

a dispeptic stomach

he

insists

compliance
cravings
as a
lie

with

what

to

us

are

the

immoral

of

a worse

than

dispeptic

" instinct,"

means

to its desired health.

Perhaps even
little

does not

mean

all

this.
;

He may have

hope of a coming cure


stay
its

and so labors more

to

further encroachments.
is

In one point of

view he

consistent with himself.

Though

resistant,

he believes

in confining criminals,

a non^dan-

gerous criminals.
a criminal.

He

finds amativeness to be such


it

So

it is

at least wise to confine I

to the
little
it is

exclusive marriage yoke.

sympathy with him in this, thus ungovernable and dangerously


discipline.
is

must confess when, and so

to

no

far as

criminal.

am
It

not disposed to quarrel with the past for her sexual

Not

in the main, with the

shakers.
in favoring,

even possible, that Jesus was right

in

literal

speaking favorably of a man's making himself a " Eunuch for the kingdom of heaven's sake,"

This, or the sake of purity, peace, and happiness. was truly an unnatural remedy, to meet a very bad and posand perhaps really an unnatural disease Perhaps sibly better than the entire reign of lust.
;

better than to commit,

and be hung

for rape.

This


70

FREE LOVE.
literally

was

removing, an ''offending"
in

member.

I say then,

view of the

terrible diseases of the

past, I will not

judge the sufferer too harshly, for

her equally terrible remedies, though they


to

may seem

me

unnatural and unphilosophical.

They could

not do as

we can
life,

do.

I will respect Jesus in living

a practical

like the sect of


;

Esses of his day,


if,

and not marrying in any form


considered
it

on the whole, he
to

wise and best

so

do.

His

life

lacked a wholeness andentirenessin development and


experience.

then do.

But perhaps it was the best he could So we judge not the past. My great
is,

objection to Mr. Ballou

that he does not leave

room
sion

in his

marriage teachings for man's progres;*'

and "restoration

for all

which
if

is

really his

present and coming health.

Even

the exclusive

dual instinct in the marriages of civilization has,

on the whole, been the best


tion

for

the plane of civiliza-

of
'*

this

we

are not sure,


to,

and so do not judge,


So,
if

that instinct is

not adapted

or suitable for the harit.

mony
Ballou
**

of the future.
still feels it

It will fall before

Mr.

to

be his duty to represent the

Moses

of this age, and

make

laws, and write for

man, I would room in his faith, and in his propositions, for me and my friends, to write in defence of freedom for the God-man. God bless the Moses of each a^e. But a double blessinor will ever attend the Christ and the Christs of each as-o.
fain

the confinement of the "animal*'

persuade

him

to leave

MR. BALLOF.

ff

Ishmael should not war against Isaac,


Isaac be unjust to Ishmael
;

even

nor should

though the one

does represent bondage, and the other freedom.


In short, Mr.
B.,

on

the subject of exclusive

marriage, writes as
servative

we might suppose any good


I

con-

mind would have done, during the past


suppose he, as well as we,
it

few hundred years.


consider

safe to follow

"fundamental principles,"
all

or the " eternal laws of order," over

consequences.

We
man

wish to
is

call

him back

to the original
of,

concerned

source
1st,

so far as
for,

and

to the

search

these laws.

We
:

say, then, if

he
to

will
all

once more
of the fol-

take his pen, and attempt either or

lowing things

ment

of the non-exclusive nature of the


human

To reply

my mind

argu-

attraction

of each and every part of the

brain, (as I
that propofirst

have made
sition)
sition,
;

my

meaning understood on

or 2nd, If he should admit

my

propo-

show

the higher or lower law in mind,


it

which

should confine any part of


tion
;

over

its

normal attrac-

or 3d, Give the

position

that all variety


I say, if

mind law which proves his is, '^per se, more or less
Mr. B.
will
to

adulterous.'*

do

either, or all

of the above, I will meet


render.
It is

him

reply, or to sur-

Till then, I respectfully take leave of

him.

high time the friends of exclusive marriage


their

were put directly upon the defence of


system.
it

own

Though

their possession has been long,

has never been entirely "peaceable," but under


72

FREE LOVE.

more or

In every past age, it has been repeated protests. As a friend of Free Love, less " in law."

we summon

our opponents before the higher court of

mental philosophy.

The reader
civilization

will bear

with a

little illustration

of the
in

general tone and style of the conservative

mind
It

towards the rising Free Love.

comes
to

in

my

'^Liberator,'*

and

is

so short, and so

much

the point, I cannot resist the temptation to copy


" LIBERTY A UNIVERSAL CURSE."

it.

Hear the language of the Richmond Enquirer


" Crime, f^imine, ignorance, anarchy,
infidelity,

and

revolution, stare the reader in the face on every page single season of want in Ireof universal liberty.

land and Scotland will exhibit more human suffering than a Mrs. Stowe could glean from the annals of slavery through all time and through all countries.

The South owes it to herself to throw free society on the defensive. Slave society is co-extensive with man It must be natural, or man must in time and space. be an unnatural being. It is recognized and authorized
Bible, and was ordained of God. Free a little experiment, a departure from nature, that claims no Divine authority, and very little of human authority.

by the
is

society

**

We

put the question

to all abolitionists

What
?

have been the results of


is

this little

experiment

yourselves not us. Human experience, and practice, and divine authorYou must make out a strong ity are on our side. case, in order to justify the injustice of such authorities. Instead of southern men beinof called out to

you who should defend

It

MR. BALLOU.
lecture in defence

73

of slavery, northern be invoked to defend their institutions."


Re.'illy,

men
it

should

the application

is

so plain, that

hardly

needs any aid from us.

The reader can only sub"universal liberty;**

stitute /r^<? love in the place of

"south;'* love for "society;** the marriage institution for " slave society ;*' free loveites
civilization

for

for "abolitionists,**

etc.

Please read our extract

again with the above substitutions, and


\t

we promise

will

make a

perfect

fit

for

nearly every con-

servative writer against Free Love.

But we are among the impertinent and meddlesome "abolitionists'* free loveites and deny all We have returned, in our exclusive titles to sex. book, the demand upon civilization, and called upon her to defend herself against the coming light and Her age is admitted, but her rights of Free Love. character for peace and purity has not been the best, and she must and will make room for a larger " ex;

periment** in sexual freedom. 7

74

FREE LOVE.

CHAPTER
MR.

VII.
"

HKNRY

C.

WRIGHT A REVIEW* MARRIAGE?"


little

WHAT

IS

I SHALL quote very


the above question.

of Mr. Wright's reply to

It is

not necessary.

I repeat,

my my
to

book

is

not designed to be a substitute for any


it.

which has preceded

I take

it

for

granted that

readers have read these several books.


not, will not, of course, find

Those

who have

my reference
they will not
urge
if

them of

as

much

interest.

Still,

be lost to such.

I cannot too strongly

my
they

readers to read these books on Marriage,

have not.

There
sort

is

too

None can afford to do without them. much real value in them and of that
;

which is generally most needed. Mr. Wright's book was written to elevate love and marriage, and o to elevate the offspring of marriage. It was written for, and suited to, diseased and undeveloped humanity and nothing is more needed. Comparatively, it was nobly executed. Mr. Wright does seem to reach, to some extent, the true
;

features of connubial love.


call the first

He

reaches what I will

germ, or the childhood of marriage.


in

This

is

much
;

advance of the large class


all

for

whom
With

he wrote

and perhaps

they could bear.


book.

* See part

II. Letter 2, of his

MR. HENRY

C.

WRIGHT.

TS
its

nearly every feature of his love -marriage, except


exclusiveness, I can harmoinze.
line,

But

in

most every

he seems

to

suppose this exclusive feature to

be inseparable from the very nature of such love.

He

does not see that his real connubial love can be


till it

enlarged

bursts

its

exclusive

shell,

and so be
all

enhanced, purified and ennobled.

He

says, virtually,

"Here unto have we


thou
go.**

come,'* and then like

con-

servatives in the past, he adds his " no farther shalt

Yet we have no doubt his book

will

do

more
wife.

to spread the principles of free love,

than any

other book written, except that of Dr. Nichols and

Perhaps we ought
latter is

also to except

Mr. Davis,

though the
marriage.

alike

exclusive in his nominal

The reader

will

understand, that these

men

are not responsible for this opinion of ours.

They, Mr. Wright and Mr. Davis, have certainly done what they could to confine marriage to pairs. But they elevate love and free it from law. Their
exceptional doctrines will prove weak.

We know

something of the
But,

eflfect

of such free

and elevating

truths as those books contain.

"What

is

marriage

"

Mr. Wright's " defi-

"the incarnation of God to her husband. The great Invisible and Intangible made visible and tangible in the deepest and most intense and potent living relation. I speak calmly, knowing
nition of wife,*'
is,

the

full

import of the words I use.

No

phrase so

76
fully expresses

FREE LOVE.

what thou

art to

me

as this

Th

incarnation of God."

The reader should know


a male and a female

that Mr.

Wright conrepresenting

veys his sentiments in a series of

letters,

man and

his wife

com*
is

municatinof each to the other his and her views and


feelings as to the marriage relation.

The language of the above


strong,

quotation

very

but I have no controversy with what I


its
is

believe to be

meaning.
a necessity of

" Worship

my

being.

must
every

worship sometlvng; so must every

man and

woman.
and
them.

My

soul cannot stoop to worship times

places, stations

and

titles.

I see

no God in

They are

all

the works of men's hands.

But

I worship thee, without one shrinking doubt as to

my

right to do so, or as to whether

God

will accept

this devotion to the

embodiment of

my

highest con-

ception of his attributes, as being paid to him.**

All this

is

very strong

but I only object to

it

from
one.

its

exclusive concentration of worship upon


till

Let such a soul enlarge

it

knows and

enjoys a more expansive w^orship.

I should not

have supposed so large a soul as Mr. Wright's could have penned so narrow and confined a sphere of
worship.

However, it is only carrying the worship which nearly all christians have concentrated upon the head of Jesus, into exclusive and dual marriagfe,
" In thee,

God

is

manifest in the

flesh.'*

Brother


MR.

HENRY

C.

WRIGHT.

77

Wright, we worship

men

**

many
all

^all

Saviours and
all real

Christs and many wowomen and we do not


;

dispute that

women

are Saviours,

and are
men.
that has

Gods

manifest in the flesh/'

So are

real

Then do not
fiiveness, to

confine an enlarged soul

one
all

outgrown the shackels of sectarianism and excluworship one individual object, and upon
altar, to the

one individual

exclusion of

others.

But we are thankful


past.

for

even this progress from the

Man, in a low and undeveloped state, has always held low views of woman, and of the objects

made for the gr^ification of his The change is refreshing. Man has held woman below himself. Even the wise Paul wise for his day, tells us ** the woman was made
of her creation, as

lower nature.

for the

man, not

the

man for

the woman.'*

Nothing

can be more

false to

nature than the last clause,

We almost wonder mind could not sooner break from such debasing traditions. But such views are passing away. Woman is becoming man's equal verily
which we have emphasized.
that such a

his object of worship.

If the conservative reader

is

offended with

my

friend

and myself on

this,

can he

not pardon something for the ultra effects of reaction.

or less
it

The man has always been worshiped more by the woman, and he has loved to have
I differ

so.

from Mr. Wright

in

that.

would

not worship one

woman

in exclusion from all others.


it

And

I confess to finding

agreeable

to

receive

7*

78 worship
to

? from

FREK LOVB.

more than one.


other

Nor do
The

I desire

receive this worship from even the one, in exall

clusion from

men.

expansion of

heart and mind, which would lead the

woman

of

my

preference

to

love

and worship other

men,
I'or

equally deserving with myself, with the same kind


of love and worship, only endears her to me.
they, too, are a part of me, they are

my

brethren,

and "

all flesh is

one

flesh.''

My

benevolence and

adhesiveness are the greater, and the higher, and so


control

and baptise
I

in their fount

my

entire

con-

nubial love.

do not allow even here the higher


in,

sentiments to be absorbed
lowest of the lower.

and controlled by, the

Mr. Wright, deepen and en-

large the spirit of your theology in

human

brother-

and worship is insipid and childish. In connubial manhood, truth, even in a mate, is both desirable and lovely and
hood.
this exclusive spirit
;

To me,

truth

is just.

Justice can never be absolutely ex-

clusive.

More from Mr. Wrightand a feminine soul


into the other.

**

A masculine soul
absorbed each

in marriage, are

The essence
fills

of each enters into the


it,

other

permeates,

and

thrills

leaving to neito

ther a separate

existence.
will,

Thought responds
* * *

thought, will to

heart to heart.

The
as

entrance of two souls, each into the other, thus making of two one perfect being this is marriage,

my heart

defines

it.

I cannot feel

MR. HENRY

C.

WRIGHT.

7^

that I have an existence apart from thee.

Without
In thee I
in thee
in

thee I can do nothing.


lire,

am
I

nothing.

move, and have

my

being.

To dwell

to dwell in love, in ings,

God.

have no hopes, no longapart from thee.*'

no aspirations, no
a

life,

Really,

woman

is

the whole saviour of

friend's theology

for a

man

and

mr
the

a
:

man

is

whole saviour for a woman. More She is thi* whole of society, to her husband, which he can possibly desire or receive. Each is entirely *' absorbed
'*

by the

other.

But we think we underlike to clip his

stand Mr. Wright, through these long expression*

of love, and

we do not

wings of

connubial affection.

We
it.

are entirely in love with

the real substance of the union here described.

We
if

only wish to enlarge

We

would not care


if,

oh how glorious
all

it

would be

in the progress of
all

the race, the time should come,

when

men

feel to

women, and all women feel to all men, This would be heaven, verily. Methinks
to live

like this.

I should

like

in

such a day.

No,

am

not yet pure

and expanded
love

in soul enough for that. would then " work no evil to his

But, surely,
neighbor,'' or
quot?

to his neighbor's

wife.

promised not to
it

much from

was not directly conBut its real meaning nected with our difference. was too rich. I could not pass it. Yet I tell th reader the book is full of more like it, and as good.
this chapter, as

I rejoice to

know

that

when men

attain

to

such

CO

FREE LOVE

views as this book contains, they will not stop here.

When man
for the one,

has really advanced to such love as this

many
will

he will go on till he reaches it to the and the harmony and consequent happiness be just so much greater. Then, "every old man
;

every old woman, my I meet will be my father, mother every young man I meet will be my broif ther, and every young woman will be my sister need be, my wife. All children will love me, and I
;

will love

and embrace them.


!

They

will

be mine."
for

How
by
will

glorious that day

day so long prayed

all

the pious

of earth.

In this heaven, there

be no exclusive marriage, or giving in mar-

riiige.

But we

shall all be as the

real
!

and higher
let
it

angels.

We
it

say, let that

day come
in a

come

though

should over turn and over turn,

and
all

sanctify,

purify
Let
all

sift

and burn,

preceding judgof the past,

ment, and bury in one


sectarinism and
all

common grave

exclusive marriage, and land


!

our race in one ocean of love and union


jealously
!

and hate go to its own place All this will do no harm, but untold good. We confess to some little dread (for others, not for ourselves,

we think we have Hved passed

it)

of the coming
we know our
for

storm on this subject, when, and as


prayers, and the prayer of Mr.
spirit of his

Wright,
will be

the

prayer

is like

ours,

it

answered.

We
will

do not

dread, but glory in the moral calm


it.

which

succeed

Then

will the

will

of

God be

MR. HENRY

C.

WRIGHT.
in

t%

done upon earth, as


be as the angels.

it is

done

heaven/*

We
the

shall

We
to

have no doubt but exclusive

marriage prevails
spheres.

some

extent,

in

lower

But we do not call these angels of heaven. " The husband is the ideal actualized. No other
is like

man

him, or ever can be.

He

is

stronger,

nobler, truer,

more

tender,

more

perfectly adapted to
all

the wife's delicate intuitions than any or

other

men.'*
fool of

**

Nobler, truer.'*
?

Should marriage make a

woman
?

Shall she believe


is

what may be
prevalent.

a falsehood

This
is

contending for perpetuity of


altogether too

a disease, which

now

But

if
it

every word of Mr. Wright's statement was


does not prove his entire exclusive feature in

true,

There is no evidence of the absolute most of it. This entire monopoly of sexual love over all other loves, is untruthful and
marriage.
of
trutli

sickly.

Mr. Wright, in his book, truthfully defines

connubial love to be sexual love, and yet he every

where seems to give this lower monopolize and control all above
at the expense of
all

faculty
it.

power
exalts

to
it

He

above

it.

In a truthful bar-

mony,

it

should be below other loves, and never act


Instead of harmonizing this
bi^ain,

at the expense of any.

with other loves in the


der,

each in their true or-

he attempts,

virtually, in all his writings

on the

subject, to concentrate all other loves in this.

To us
but

this is abnormal,

and we never

call

such a

state of
It is

mind

healthy, or the true connubial love.


82
fractionally so.

"

PRKK LOVE.
Mr. Wright,
mind, though
in this

way, lowers

manhood and womanhood.


faculties of the

Still,
it

as he marries th

bo unnatural marit is

riage, placing the

lower above the higher,

much

better,

and

in

advance of the past.

We
**

nearly harmonize with Mr.

perpetuity of love,*' except that


not, in

Wright in th we go further,

and would

any way, hint that it was possible make any change with it. Perhaps we do not differ much with him in his exception, that an unequal development after marriage might end,
for death to

at least, in a

(partial) divorce.

We

believe

this

often comes, in marriage entered into

on some of the

lower planes. Mr. Davis believes in nature's divorce,


as well as in nature's marriage.
resents the

Mr. Wright rep


mate, "

husband as saying

to his
if

Thou

eans't not continue to love

me

able."

This

is

good philosophy.
all

become unlovNo more can a

normal mind help loving

which

is to it lovable.

Mr. Wright.

to the direct issue between us and In the question which he puts **IS EXCLUSIVENKSS A FIXED LaW OF MaRRIAGE ?
:

We

come now

We have said no Mr. W. says yes.

See Letter

lY. page 125.)

"VARIETY IN LOVE, OR POLIGAMY,"


**ISrina,'*

(the
is

name of Mr. W.'s


settled

ideal lady re*

spondent,) "it

between us that our onenese

MR. HENRY
will

C.

WRIGHT.

69

be eternal,

if
;

our present desires and vrants are


also,

that the perpetuity of our oneness depends on our knowledge of and fidelity to the natural laws by which marriage is desio-ned to

truly answered

be regulated.

The question
?

arises
I

"

Is exclusive-

ness a fixed law of mind

ask not should either

marry

after the death of the other.''

This loosnesa

in relation to a surviving partner, after the death of

his or her mate,

is

entirely inconsistent with his

whole defence of exclusive marriage. By his philosophy, any such marriage could be nothing but
adultery.
It is

not necessarily a crime to die before

one's mate
naturally

and so love, which we

both contend

is

eternal,

cannot be sundered

by

death.

numberless inconsistencies is every man who engages in the defence of error. *^But can woman be the wife of more than one man ? and can the relation of husband be truly susto

But

driven,

more than one woman, at the same time ? heart and my head give a negative ansvrer. Keason and affection assure me that polygamy is unnatural, and therefore wrong." We shall make no entire defence of polygamy. On the whole, it is more unnatural than exclusive dual marriage. It is all one sided and unjust. Extained to

To

this

my

clusive dual marriage aims to monopolize the entire

heart of one.

one
of

perhaps many.
exclusive

Polygamy does the same by more than Of course I cannot approve


and
monopolizing phase of
it.

the

84

FREE LOVB
there are

When

more females than males, so


is

fur ae

provision for these

concerned,

it

is

better than

our present

civilization.

But mixing up polygamy

with "a variety in love," as Mr.


illogical
latter.

W.

has done,

is

very

and improper.

It does not belong with the

We
it

believe Mr.

Wright knows

this,

but

leave

with

the reader to judge


to this course.

of the motives

which prompted

*'What says the heart? Is there a husband whose love is concentrated on one woman as a wife,

who
all

can willingly allow another


is ?

wife w^hat he
others,

He

loves her

her alone above

man

to

be to his

and he earnestly desires that she should


aflPection.'*
if

return his
Really,

he concentrates his love on her alone, at but just that she should do the same
it

her

call, it is

by him.
is

If he simply loves her above all others,

just that she should do the

same by him.

We

gay, let the friends of exclusive marriage be just,


w^iile

they choose, and are in that order.


it

When

they can endure

no longer,
if

let

them

relax their

demand
**

first.

**Be just
fall.

the heavens fall," and

then they will not

The very

fact that

another can claim her interest

or win her affections, enough to


attractive,

make

marriage
lover's

strikes a death-blow to a true

peace.

It is equally

true of w^oman.

origin of that expression of feeling

Hence the commonly called

jealousy."

MR. HENRY

C.

WRIGHT.

86

Mr.

W.

here seems again to mix up polygamy

with the doctrine of a "variety/'

We

have

(lis*

missed his polygamy.


If Mr.

W.

means, in the above,


is

to teach, that the


feel-

exclusive feeling

hurt by a lack of exclusive


it.

ing in a mate,

we admit
is

But we
is

still

deny that
in its

such an exclusive feeling


fulness.
It

*'true

love'*

and abnormal; and its action causes the "jealousies'* to which Mr. VV. is
fractional

disposed to be merciful.

He should

be.

But a

normal action of Free Love never produces these


jealousies
in

normal

and

healthy minds.

The
Mr,

reader will permit


singular,

me

here to record a somewhat

and yet not very uncommon anomaly.

Wriofht has lono* been accustomed to find himself in

a very lean minority on nearly every subject which

he introduces.

I speak

it

to

his credit.

He

has

seldom found men's feelings and instincts with his own, and with what he considered to be the truth.
This has been true in his position on war and
opposite
its

non-resistance,

slavery,

woman's

rights,

exclusive marriage, in

and woman's sphere, sectarianism, etc. Here, on which the race are as corrupt
first

as on any other subject, his

and

last,

and his

only arguments are no arguments, but appeals to


the feelings and instincts, and even 'jealousies' of

men

in general.

than elsewhere.

rected" feeling
8

Such appeals are not better here We should go back of "misdito the laws of mind, to right up an

86

FREE LOVE.
Is this
all

already careening ship.

that Mr.
?

W.

can
it

produce in defense of his dual marriages


his best kind of proof?

Is

We

were not required to

do more than by our counter testimony pronounce


it

untrue, and pass

it.

We have
men

and mean

to follow

him, and reply to such as we


subject,

find.

On

every other

he pronounces
is

selfish

and perverted.

Here he
defend

disposed to tread with care over the com-

plainings of an unnatural demand, or to allow and


its

morbid claim.
are true to ourselves

"Ifwe

and
I

to

each other,

neither can outgrow the other.

can never seek an

enlargement of soul that cannot be shared by thee.

The fixed object of our harmony between us.'*


All good, except a
this is

lives

must be

to perfect the

little

savoring of law.

But

good instruction

for those for

whom
With

he wrote.

The well developed and healthy


and harmony
will

will

do right sponthese, love

taneously, from the right in them.

always take care of themselves.

True love will live by its own inherent nature. " In every step of my course, the wife of my soul

must stand by
station,

my

side.

I can desire

no honor, no
If

no heaven apart from thee.

thou art
are one
it

delayed I must be delayed with thee.


in love, in will, in purpose, in destiny.

We
Be

ours to

eternize this oneness.

We

will

stand,

go back, or

forvard, together.*'

Mr. Wright, probably, does not mean to " stand "

MR. IIENRT

C.

WRIGHT.
evils.

0f*

from progression, or to go back into


glorious time
it

will

and every woman


all

be

when

the race

every man
all

What a
spirit

shall be

deluged in such a

of love and oneness, each to the other, and


;

to

when every man


With

shall love his neighbor


wife.

as

himself,
**

and his neighbor's wife as his own


this fulness of satisfaction
?

in thee,
is

how
can

can I desire another as a wife


for another in

There

no room
all
it

my

nature

it

finds in

thee

receive from

any woman

in

marriage, and

repels

the thought of any other in this relation.


istence of the desire
for

The

ex-

a second person in the


first

marriage union, while the

one
it

lives,

proves that
It

the first relation has ceased, if

ever existed.
is,

seems to

me
the

that marriage-love

in

its

very

essence, exclusive."

"While

first

one

lives.'*

This looseness

is

unpardonable.

It destroys all force in

much
**

of his

previous argument.

He

has said that

true love

"
;

was

in its nature "eternal," as well as

monogamic
sense

that death

would not weaken

it.

He and we

believe

that none of us will ever die in any


affects love.
fiTia^e as the

which

Then why does he


above.
If

repeat such lan-

Mr.

W.

has his true mate,

and by some accident he falls first, will he feel it any more right for her to be joined to " another as a husband ? " Will it appear any more " pure and chaste" to him ? It is impossible for her to love
the
last,

or cease to love Mr.

W.

He

is

no

less

88
"loveable,**

FREE LOVE.

and has committed no

offense.

Mr.

Wright, give up the defense of exclusive monogamio


relation, or

come up

to

the

courage

to

be more

consistent,

and manfully stand your ground.


adopt Mr. Wright's views, I
tell

When

the

reader, I will carry

them out

consistently.

I will

never wink at adulteries with a second mate, after


the departure of the true and eternal mate.
I think

Mr. Wright must have intended the

first

part of our last quotation as an argument.

The

last

sentence but one

is

mere statement of
is

his opinion.

His closing inference has no relation His implied argument


in the one
;

to the

argument.
quote him,

a "fullness of satisfaction"

**no

room

for another.'*

We

farther
'*

Men and women have

a nature that can be shared


in the ties of friend-

by every other man and woman


ship, in perfect accordance with

the law that binds

men and women


this general

together, as such.

But in marriage,
all

tendency of each to the opposite sex,

concentrates itself in one, and therefore excludes

others from the privileges and endearments of marriage.

The glory

of marriage is

its

exclusiveness

The

soul, conscious

of refinement, purity and dig-

nity, will shrink

from sharing the relation with moro^


every part of the mind,
is

than one.'*

Mr. Wright here


except the connubial

frees

which

a part of the sexual.

And

yet,

with

all

the importance

which he attaches

MR. HENRY
to
tliis

C.

WRIGHT.
In

89
a

subject, he

is

perfectly indefinite.

general

manner, he

states a distinction, but in

no

way

does he ever define the line of demarkation.

No
all

other faculty should be concentrated.

Connubial love
it

should always be on one,


others." It
is

''

therefore

excludes

impossible for Mr.

Wright to
**

define this

unreal, untrue, and indefinable distinction.

But the

argument continues the same, a


room'*
**

fulness,'* or

"no

for
**

more.

Eeally,

we do not

see the special If this


is

glory

in

exclusiveness for such a reason.

is

not intended to be the argument, then there


;

none

it

is all

mere testimony

mere
it

opinion.

He

always assumes the superior "refinement, purity,

and dignity
of this

*'

of this exclusiveness.

We will
is

accept

when he has proved

that

in

harmony
then be

with

the laws of mind.

Its purity will

self-evident.

But

let

us attend

to

for another.**

When
it

the argument; "no room any thing is full it can contain

no more.
fills

In the same sense in which one object


cannot hold more.

any thing,

This

is

not

bad philosophy. We believe in a law of mind, with more or less power to control the action of mind
that
is,

in a degree of

agency.*'

what we shall call " free That a man has some power to "keep *'

or give

" the doors of his heart to her that lieth in

his bosom.'*

We
;

have said the man could not be


he could,

in

a normal state, absolutely exclusive in his affections

on any thing

and that

if

it

would be

false.

8*

90
That
she
if

PRBE LOVE.

love another

man was in love with one woman, he would woman who was like her, or so far ae was like the first. But we also said, a well
a
life,

developed mind had more or less power to control


the action of his love or
trating or diflfusing.
carries his belief,
in

confining, concen-

We

know

of no

man who
main
to

in this power, farther than we. in our

This, the reader

must have observed


it

argument, as we there stated


control, one
love.

plainly.
in

Perhaps

Mr. Wright denies the natural power

mind
he

way

or the other, the concentrations of


does.
If so, in this
ie

We

some thhik he

again inconsistent with himself, as he fully teaches


free agency, in its preservation or destruction.

In

our

last extract

from him, and in

all

of them, h

represents his male lover as having concentrated th


entire
life,

action or flow of his connubial love

on

one woman, and of having exclusively monopolized her entire connubial soul.
satisfaction
in'' her.

So he has a
is

*'

fulness of
for

So there
all

"no room

another.**

So he

is

spending

he has. and receivthis stat

ing

all

he can contain.

Should we admit

entirely possible
'

admit the fact and the philosophy

there is no shadow of proof here that this is the most healthy, normal, refined, purified and elevated
state of connubial love.

Mr. Wright's book

is

a real emanation from his


in his testimony,

own

soul.

We

believe
its

him honest

id do not dispute

correctness, only as

we deny

MR. HENRY
\he entire distinction

C.

WRIGHT.

91

which he makes between that all men and all women, and that which he confines to the one.
sexual love which he allows between

Sexual love

is

one.

It has, like
all

other loves, a variety

of manifestations, but
law.

are governed

by the same

In

its

higher manifestations, Mr.


it,

W.

but parit.

In its lower action, he entirely confines and concentrates it


This, reader, is all there is to his unde finable distinction.

tially confines

but partially concentrates

Adhesiveness

may

be concentrated.
Jonathan."

It

was so
lov

between
ter

"David

and

Their

"passed the love of woman," in general.

The

wri-

has know^n this concentration upon two of his


sex.

own

An inequality of subsequent

development
think, in an

has given us a natural divorce.

We

improved

state of society, there will

be more adhe-

sive love, but less exclusive


is

concentration.
love.
It is

There
s'mply

no mystery about connubial

the development of sex to


in a true

manhood and womanhood


of the loves above
in
it.

harmony with
or

all

So

it

must be of tremendous power, whether


tration,

concen-

partial

diffusion.

If adhesiveness

between the same sex can

be, sometimes,

stronger

than death, what must be the power of

love,

when
is

another faculty, another strand of great strength

added
exes.

to the cord, as

it is

between those of opposite

Added to this, the entire power of the tremenduous and despotic institution of civilized marriage, goes to concentrate

and dualize the lore between

92
the sexes.

FREE LOVE.
In
civilization, all are

shut up to this

exclusive dualism under pain of entire sexual starvation, or loss

of caste

and character.

Law
it.

is

perpetually invoked to protect and enforce

If

any of the

fair sex,

who

are not allowed to institute

means

to provide

even

for their

own acknowledged

rights in her exclusive law marriages


to obtain

them

and

so

fail

are at last impelled, from whatever

motives, to seek and partially obtain those rights out

of her order and her law, they are pursued by a


spirit of persecution
elties of direct

which has more than the crumurder in it. It lingeringly torments


its

without freeing

victim.

soon find freedom in death.

Though these sometimes But we tell the friends


Mr. Wright
is

of exclusive marriage, the day of her damning injustice


is

and cruelty
reader
will

is

passing away.
all

not responsible for


the

this.

He

in

part,

by our further quotaHe slanderously condemns all love out of tions. exclusive dual order, but does not hold any to the forms of outward law. The day is not far distant when the race will look back upon our law, in the place of love, to marry and to keep together married pairs, with as much wonder and contempt, as we now look upon the past hanging of witches. The
as
see

requirement of obedience on the part of the


will

woman

then appear alike ridiculous and inhuman. They will exclaim, " What keep men and women in love, in
!

married

relations,

by law ?

*'

They will read

that this

>

MR. HENRY

C.

WRIGHT.

93

was then (now) thought necessary


and
safety of society
1

for the protection

They

will in their imperti?

nence, ask

how

could society be in fear of love


it all.

History will explain

Before proceeding to further quotations, the reader


will bear

with a further

illustration of

our

last.

A man enters an orchard of delicious


He

fruit.

Some

particular tree attracts his attention above all others.

enters beneath its boughs, and supplies his alisurfeit,

mentiveness to a
continues to do
ness," and has
so.

and from time

to

time
**

He

continues to feel a

ful-

"no

room*-* for more.

He

casts a

general and even appreciative look at other trees,

but he desires none of their

fruit.

In this

state,

his

a
the
for

stomach "repels'' the thought of eating from them. Very likely But does this prove that he has a taste
!

lore for the fruit of that tree only ?

And who

will assert that

he acts wiser, and more in harmony


preference
for

with even his nature, or health of his stomach, than

man who, though he may have some


some
tree or trees of the orchard,

more than

all, still, to

some extent, supplies

his equally

normal

appetite from several ?

"Much

is

said about a variety in love.

It is said

that the passional nature of

man

needs a fuller
;

satis-

faction than a single object can afford

that

some

men must suffer unless they live with more than one woman as a wife. But the history of polygamy under whatever name, and by whatever and by whom-

"94

FREE LOVB.
it

soever sanctioned, demonstrates that


'isince its

is

unnatural,
evil.

consequences are

evil,

and only
soul,

It

Tenders

men

imbecile, in

body and

and tendi
can never

to a disproportion of the sexes.

Woman

attain

nor keep her true position in a state of polyg-

amy.

The only marriage which commends


and the heart
is

itself to

'the instinct, the reason

exclusive,

and

therefore, this alone will elevate

and purify mam


te

.and woman.'*
It is plain to

us that Mr. Wright intends

still

-confound Free Love with Polygamy.


glander of the former.

This

is

gross
lies

Mr. Wright's marriage

between Free Love and polygamy.


;all

Free Love frees

women.

Polygamy
to

is

exclusive marriage extendare sure that

ed from one

many.

We
write

Mr. Wright
benefit of

must

see this.

We

more

for the

woman

than

for

man, as we believe woman suffers

^units, or

more than man, whether she be bound to the man in by tens or by hundreds, as in the case of Polygamy is not 'David and Solomon, and others. better than dual marriage, but worse, only wher
there is a redundance of females.

So

far "its conse-

quences" are not entirely evil. We have no particular sympathy


"variety," in our last quotation.

for the plea for

a
is

At

the best

it

n unjust remedy
"Such
is

for diseased

and undeveloped mind.

not the argument of Free Love.

But as
see

4}ad as

we

think this argument,

we do not

how
it.

^civilized

marriages can, with sober face, oppose

MR. HENRY

C.

WRIGHT.
it

9f

Let us look at their system as


to
it.

stands in opposition

It

may not be

unprofitable.

What

then

is

the

fact as to present society ?

In the marriage bed,

there are not less than thirty thousand females sacrificed annually in the

United States, upon the

altar

of Inst, or intemperate amativeness.

(No

enlight-

ened physician

will dispute

the entire

truthfulness

any should, we covet the privilege of discussing it with him, in any place which can be opened to us.) Added to the above,
of this statement.
If

are a large class in our cities

way

who go

in the

same

if

possible worse, out of law

in spite of law-

While

this is being enacted

on one

side,

on the other

side, there are an equal

number

of both sexes, dying

annually of sexual starvation, from necessary amative fasting, and from the " solitary vice " which

eometimes follows such a


abstinence.
riage,
it

life

of entire and unnatural

Many
prove

dare not take the step in maris

knowing there

no reprieve

no

mercy,

if

should

unfortunate,

short of death, or
loss of charac-

adultery
ter.

so called

and consequent
often delay long,
fractional
life,

Such, at

least,

and so there

are

many

in single

need their just rights in love.


to

when they most In this we refer more


lo

females.

Males are vastly more addictc'd

"solitary vice."

lished

physician who has just puba book on the " Physiology of Marriage,"

testifies that this vice ia


Is

on the increase, and that

it

worse

for the race

than " fornification."

96

FREE LOVE.
Civilization has never yet

dreamed

least

aloud,

at

of

any thing
if

like a successful

remedy
is

for all,

or for any of these evils, and yet she


sions of fear,
lest

in convul-

any man proposes a radical change, she should be plunged into something worse.
is

Our
So

friend Ballou

always in this state of mind.

is

Mr. Greeley.

We

do not wonder

at this.

We
have

sympathise with them to some extent.


reproach her, for she
if

We

not referred to the real character of civilization, to

she truly sees her disease, and

available

But we insist, knows of no remedy, she should be more lenient with


is

our mother.

her children,

who may

think they have found, and


Still

are determined to apply one.


creates her fear, but

her very disease

we cannot consult it. We have sounded the thing till we are sure there is no saviour
in
civilization

for civilization.

She has
it still.

tried

law
shall

and bonds.

We

leave her to try

We

try gospel and freedom.

We
Love.

respect the motives of some


Still

who

oppose Free

a very large class of those

who make

the greatest opposition act from unworthy motives

from an unwillingness
gods.

to give

up

their household
afraid to

These prefer the law, as they are

trust their sexual interests in a state of absolute

freedom of woman.
children

These are

**

wiser than

the

of seemingly more li^^ht," and see

and

know

that the real principles

of

Free Love will


flesh.

bring no gratification to their abnormal

Wo-

MR. IIEKRY

C.

WRIGHT.

JT

man
the

will not

then be compelled to meet and surfeit


life,

demand

of lust, at the cost of

as she

now

is.

We

do not intend to fully discuss, or reply


ill

to all the

fears of the

consequences of our views.


to help

We

think

we say enough
his fears.
suffice,

every enlightened reader out of


key.
If that does not
to

We

give

him the

we must

again refer

him

Messrs. Noys,

Andrews, and Nichols.


Reader, we did not take our pen with a
sire to
first

de-

hasten the downfall of the institution of


its

exclusive marriage, even in

lowest and law phases,

much
it.

less in its

highest spiritual developments.


ill

We

are not conscious of harboring any

will towards

We

have

felt

the

power of
it.

its

persecuting arm,

but we have long since out-rode

its iron

sway, and
for his

thoroughly forgiven
connubial order.
riage rights, nor will

We judge

co

man

We

encroach upon no man*s marsuffer another to judge, or

we
at

trespass

upon our freedom.


fall.

stand or

We

go

our

To our own master we own cost, and we al-

low

all

others to do the same.

We
feel

respect every
light,

man

in living to his clearest

and highest
but

be

that light

more or

less.

We
sex.

little

more

than sympathy for the


perversion

many

monsters of amative

harm

among our own but much good.

Wc

wish them no

We
choose

did take the pen to illustrate and defend the

principles of freedom in love, in


it,

and

to

and for those who weaken the despotic power and per-

secuting spirit of the marriage institution.

9Z

FREE LOVE.

CAAPTER

YIII.

REVIEW OF MR. WRIGHT CONTINUED.

We
may
there

return to Mr. Wright's book.

"

The

ideal of

love and marriage, in every

young

heart, is with one,

never with more than one. Social discord and wron<r


introduce other notions, but I understand a
for

deep signification in the old story that

Adam

was but one Eve

created.*'

Whether
first

the statement be true or false, that the

development of any young mind towards conis

nubial love
portance.

to

one,

is

comparatively of no im-

The mind,

in

developing to any

new

thought or feeling towards woman, may generally


be so enlarged, while
it is

on some person in

whom

some thing thoughts and feelings.


there is

to create,

or call forth such

Besides,

by precept and ex-

ample, every person from his earliest thoughts of

marriage love,

is

made

to

understand that his only


is

chance of honorable participation,


only one.

with one, and

However

general his entire love


to the

may
in

be,

he knows well, as he develops

normal desires
his

and
and

calls of

manhood, that he must remain

fractional state, or
free loves,

more or

less call in his scattering

he certainly
lays, all

may

and Concentrate them on one. And as well do this, for if he long deone
after

corresponding loves,

another,

will be leaving

him from a

like necessity

on the part

REVIEW OF MR. WRIGHT.


of others.

99

Exclusive marriage, by her process of

sexual draining, absorbs to itself almost the entire


love atmosphere,
sity or otherwise

and so leaves

all

who from

neces-

remain out of her bonds,


to her rule

in a state

of

double
to

starvation.

In this way she has had

power

compel compliance
it is

and order.

In our day,

wiser for most

what to But who, from all of these causes, knows the power of mind over mind, in the dualizing and concentrations of love or the power of habit in leading to it ? Mr. Wright would appreciate
to submit, or choose

men and women them may be the least

of two evils.

the full force of

all

these influences

if

brought to

bear on his side of the controversy.

Mr. Wright

is

the last

man whom we should have


*'

supposed would have referred for his support, to


the mythological
are glad of
it.
**

story
little

of

Adam
it

while ago,

and Eve. was a first

We
ar-

gument
just

in the

minds of nine-tenths of the


Admitting
to

sticklers

for dual marria^^e.

this "story** taught


it, it is

what Mr. W. wishes


six

draw from

going
as

back
to

thousand years

for the testimony of

men

marriage.

What would any


?

reformer think of a

man who should go back


man

so far to settle the order

of society in other reepects

Mr.

W.

would pro-

very nounce such a well what he would think, if I were to cite him back to feudalism, back to savagism, for arguments Mr. W. so we think to defend any moral question
beside himself.
!

He knows

100
of you in this case
!

FREE LOYE.

Even

this

would be
pair.

less

than
is

halfway back

to his

supposed dual

Truth

never so straightened for foreign aid.

literal

But admitting every word of Genesis to be a and truthful revelation from God, it does not help the friends of exclusive marriage. Every argument which Mr. Wright could bring from it, would be equally good in favor of an entire dual hermitage. Adam was as fully shut up by that
dual Providence of his creation, to one
cially,

woman

so-

was connubially. So of Eve to Adam. Each were shut up to one person. How long will real reformers for in some respects make it necessary for us to waste Mr. W. is one ink, pen, and time, in reply to such shallow and soadhesively, as he

phistical inferences as this ?


institution
to

Can not
to its
tell

so a^ed an

do better than referr us


respect
?

gray hairs

command our

We

the reader that

Mr. Wright will never allude, in this manner, to **Adam and Eve,*' in a public discussion with an opponent of good common sense. He is too wise

and too shrewd to risk himself in such a position. * * * "Is the marriage tie capable of extension ?
If a

man

finds in half a dozen


;

women

equally

powerful attractions to marriage

if

each exercises

an equally deep,
life
;

vitalising, elevating influence

on his

if

the union with each


his
life,

one would be enough

to bless

were

all

the others exterminated,

then he has a right,

if all

equally desire

it,

to

be the

>

REVIEW OF MR. WRIGHT.


husband of them
able.
It is
all!
?

101-

Ba^/ what -does experience

prove in this matter

The

case

is

not even sappos-

absurd in the statement."


fairly

Mr. Wright here


the marriage
sion
tie,

puts the question.

**l3

(connubial love,) capable of extenit

V*
it

But

his reply to

here

is

superficial,

and
it

to us

seems evasive.

Again, we say, admitting

every word of his answer to his

own

question,

does not prove anything in support of his exclusive


marriage. If true,
it

reveals an undeveloped state of

mind.

Let those

who

covet a state of

mind which

would be

entirely satisfied with the

one, **were all

the others exterminated," pray for


fully dissent

it.

We

respect-

from such a sentiment, and from such

an experience.

We

ask no alliance to one


filled

who

is

capable of being so

We
tity

by and absorbed in us. leave with Mr. Wright the entire glory, chasOur oppoand purity of such marriages.

nents need never be jealous of us.

We
feel

have no

attractions towards so confined an atmosphere.


It is not true that a
stronff

man may

not

an equally
It is

connubial recjard for more than one.


for

not

uncommon
The

some of the most


it

spiritually devel-

oped minds,
or more.

to find

diflScult to select

between two

idea is entirely possible in nature.

But the mandates of society must be obeyed One may be received selection must be made.
other

the
;

the

must be

cast

oflf.

Mr. Wright,

to

do justice

to his side of the subject,

should give his philosoph-

9*

102
ical

FREE LOVE.
leasonsfcr confiRii7g amativeness and not ad-

hesiveness, as both
preferences.

may and do

generally have their

" The sentiment of love finds satisfaction in one


object.

The

passional element,

which borrows the

holy name of love,

may

crave a wider range.

Whea

men

say they need a variety, they say, in other

words, that in them, the passion has the ascendency


over the sentiment.
exists,

The man

in

whom

the need

should not take the high social rank implied


for true marriage,

by the desire

but descend to that

level in creation

wherein criminal passion makes no

distinction in its objects,


in

and finds equal

satisfaction

them

all.

Men who

advocate a "variety,"
felt

know
more
other-

that true, pure marriage-love cannot be

to

than one

but they wish to

find, in

their various

attractions to

woman,

a sanction for

what were

wise unqualified brutality.'*

Reader, I almost owe an apology for the above


extract.
I

thought

it

expedient.

I have extolled

Mr. Wright's book as a whole. In a few words, I will do justice to this phase of it. On coming to a close, on this subject, Mr. Wright attempts to fill

up what has been wanting in sound, direct, and pertinent argument, by open-mouthed and foul slander
of his opponents.

In the unlimited and universal manner in which he has penned and left the above, it becomes aggravated falsehood. He, at least, ought to have ** known " this. If any reader, who knovrs

REVIEW OF MR. WRIGHT.

103

him even
us to do

something of the amount of falsehood in it, can give the apology of ignorance, he is bound in

charity to do so.
this.

We

confess to finding

it

difficult for

Again I say, I covet not that part of the head or heart which can so ''descend to the level '* of a lower manhood. His putting such slander into the mouth of his ideal lady, is not very tasteful
(so it stands in his book.) We will not give what would be a just retort, lest we seem to follow his example. The reader of his book will find some more like our last quotation, but we pass it. Had it emanated from a lower mind, and been disconnected

with so

much which was

really good, I
it.

should not
will

have thought of noticing

Such slander
it

always injure the cause which


upbuild
;

indirectly aims to
it

so

we can

afford to let

pass back to

its

own

side of the house.

If the only possible condition of connubial purity

and chastity
mate, as Mr.

is

with one, and that the one eternal


teaches, the world
it is

W.

is

necessarily in

a deplorable condition, for


for

naturally impossible

any

man

or any

woman
far

to

be sure of finding and


in life.

knowing
son can

that one,

till

advanced

No

per-

know their mate till, or any farther than, they know themselves. A man cannot know his own nature and power faster than it develops in or him. This, at the best, is only little by little gradually. Towards woman, he first develops to an
;

all-absorbing love for the feminine.

This

may be

to

104

FREE LOVE.

some particular woman, in whom ihe feminine element manifests itself most in accordance with his Perhaps his own spiritual and inideal of woman. tellectual powers are yet comparatively in embryo 80 these are secondary in their influence upon him.

He
his

marries on this plane of his development, and

experiences great felicity and harmony.

He
for

feels

cup comparatively
forth in the

full,

and "no room


little

more."

So does his chosen one.


to

In a

time, each begin


features of their

come

more important

religious character.

We
so,

will

suppose this to be

between twenty-five and


organized alike, and
apart
:

thirty.

Here they are not


is

from necessity, they grow

no

fault of theirs.

One

conservative, the

other reformatory.

One

looks religiously back, the

other forward.

We

say, this is
forty,

no fault of

theirs.

Again, from thirty to

each begins to really

know
go

his or her intellectual power.

Here too they


:

apart.

theirs.

One has less, the other more no fault of They still love and perhaps have no less
;

love,

but one's cup

is

not

now

full,

and they have

not entire harmony.

Perhaps one

is

now

far

from

the equal of the other.


less

Each may

suffer

more or
than once

from this inequality.

Neither complains of the

other.

We write

here what
fact,

we have more

seen as an actual
perienced in
the
first

and what we should have exour person, if Providence had not in

instance saved us from the act of actual


Still

marriage.

we

insist that marriage, in the case

REVIEW OF MR. WRIGHT.


described above,
is

106

not

false,
it

or against nature.
goes, in

a marriage
nature,

is,

so far as
chaste,

Such harmony with


Yet such a
first

and

is

on

its

own

plane.

couple could not live eternally in a

relation,

Nature leaves room for, as well as works her changes in such cases of unequal
growth.
not always absolute and entire.

each to the other.

She gives various degrees of divorce, but She also has her

degrees in marriage.
in

And

so far as any one keeps


all

harmony with her

varied promptings,
will be,

is well.

There need be, and there

no

collisions.

Adhesiveness has her degrees of concentration,

and her
fairly

like changes. We are sure Mr. W. cannot do away with the force of these suggestions. Mr. Davis agrees with us, in the main, as to the

past.

Wright encourages sudden and veheby the power which he gives ment it over the entire mental and moral manhood. He
I think Mr.
love attractions,

represents
leaves

its

action as uncontrollable, and hardly

real power of our free agency. But whatever maybe the amount of truth iti his statements, I must caution the inexperienced mind against an unnatural and sudden flow of abnormal
for the

room

attraction.

We

often see this rush of amative ness,

in its reactions

from the equally unnatural restraints

of law and bondage.

deplore

it.

I do not so much condemn as Though, under the circumstances, it is


its

not strange,

consequences are often very unfortu-

106
nate.

FREE LOVE.

Some very

strong love attractions are far

from being healthy.

Reason should never

fail

to

guide wisely and safely the souPs ship of love.

Let
emi-

me

illustrate.

physician of the very


the following case

first

nence, related to

me

pnder his observation.


standing in
love
'

"A

which came man of refinement and


himself *in

society,

suddenly found

with a lady of equal refinement.

The lady
over-pow-

reciprocated his attachment, and they were soon, as


is

common

in

such cases, absorbed in


(Mr.
its

this

ering love.*'

Wright's

book would most


**

certainly justify

extreme power.)

The man

had a
latest

But she was a real believer in the doctrine of Move over law,' and in 'obeying the
wife.

connubial

affinity.'

She did not wish


if

to

hinder

the testing of her husband's latest love,

the thing

could be managed wisely in view of the tongues of


out-siders.

The man moved with


relations,

his law wife, and

his lady love to a place


their love

where they could manage


society around

unharmed by
It

them.
love

In less than two months, this all-controlling

began

to

relax.

reacted to

indiflferenco,

coldness,

and a slight disgust, on both

sides.

All

extreme regard ceased.


in an

Of

course, they were

new
thorn

awkward dilemma.
*'

But we must leave


think of
it ?

here."

After relating, in substance, the above, the

Doctor said to me,


I said,
**

What do you

"

I think It

it

a case of partial disease of the


" That
is it,"

affections.

was an amative fever."

REVIEW OF MR. WRIGHT.


said he.
*'

10*7

It

begins,

comes
*'

to its crisis,

and ends

in

reaction, like disease.

When

the system loses

its

equilibrium,

when

the

blood rushes unnaturally from one part of the body


to another,

from head to heart, or from heart


it

to head,

wo

all

consider

more or

less disease.

It is a real

derangement of the physical man.


the whole
life

So when nearly
social,

and action of our entire loves,


affectional

moral, and intellectual, concentrate upon the connubial or amative, the


lost.

equilibrium
is

is

The mind

is

unbalanced, and

incapable of

judging or acting wisely.


disease, or abnormalism.
this, in religion, or

This

is

abnormal.

Re-

vivals almost always partake of the

same

religious

We fully

admit, that even

in connubial love, is

better

than stagnation

than

sometimes

moral

and sexual

death.
either.

But

life

and love are much better than

have no doubt, but such cases of unbalanced


have related above, will vastly increase
to

love, as I
for

some years

come.

The law bonds upon

love

are to be taken off;

and men are not yet

sufficiently

developed, and wise in experience, to use their free-

dom

without

liberty will

work
a

much wrong and suffering. its own cure. We rejoice


still

But
in the

assurance of
health.

larger

amount of returning

Men and women


calls "

are too deeply involved in

what Mr. Davis


to regain their

extremism and inversionism,"

health, without a season of these

W8
alternate chills

FREE LOVE.

and

fever.

These sudden and exciare


called
**

ted developments of love


love."
in
It often is

falling
is

in

falling in love.'' *'

It

better,

every step of our progress, to

rise in love.

A leading feature
is

in

Mr. Wright and Mr. Ballou

an expression of abhorrence of any deviation from


This sort

one in love; or of not receiving the entire love and

worship of the mate.


of argument.

of, to

us,

sickly

sentiment, always occupies more space than any sort

While we have the most

entire

respect for those who, for good reasons, live to their

exclusive bonds

we have none

belittleing feeling

for this narrow and which these writers so boastingly

hold in the fore-ground.

Mr. Wright urges the necessity of striving, by


careful cultivation, to perpetuate love.

This

is

good

instruction to the undeveloped, for

whom

he wrote.

But those who


to strive for.

are actually developed to their higher

plane of connubial love, have nothing to watch or

Such

love, in entire spontaneity, will

protect

itself.

All on that plane are beyond any

possible thought of jealousy, distrust, or fear, as to

the present integrity, or as to the future, of a mate.

Marriage makes one of two, and one of many.

So much

so, that either fraction in

the one will as

8oon be jealous of him or herself, as to have the

same
**

feeling towards

any other person


^'

in the unit, restless anxi-^

Perfect love casts out all fear

and

eties.

Each

loves the other, through

and through^

ANDREW JACKSON
as

DAVIS.

f/^
person

him

or herself.

in the two, or in the

Yet in many,
is

this state, each

lives his or her entire

individuality.

No

one

owned by
;

or

owns another.
to

Each
live

is

his

and her own

and each knows how


possible.
for

his individuality, so as

not to harm another.

Dear
There

reader, all of this

is

Perhaps not
real adults.

possible for children,


is

but possible

a lack of spontaneity in Mr. Wright*s love

marriages.

So does each
this

lose

much
to

in individuality.

But more of

when we come

Mr. Davis.

CHAPTER
ANDREW JACKSON DAVIS

IX.
QUO-

GENERAL REMARKS

TATIONS FROM HIS BOOK.

A.
justly

J.

Davis, as a Clairvoyant Medium,

is

the

miracle of the age.

We

think him, in some sense,

entitled to the appellation of

"head," as a

teacher of the Harmonial Philosophy.

We

say, as

a teacher,

for,

with Paul, we make a distinction befather,

tween a teacher and a

and we do not consider and moral


bles-

him

the laiter.

The mass
with
with
its

of spiritualism which has

since flooded us
sings,

intellectual

and

also

its

fanaticisms, has produced

nothing like him, as a whole.

Several minds in this


criticised

and in the other sphere, have successfully


10


Va
some
FREE LOVE.
parts of his works.
Wli'A

Many

of his moral writ-

ings are hke prophecy, far in advance of his


actual moral elevation.

own

Perhaps

this is

true, in

a degree, of

all

reformers.

Mr. Davis, as a teacher,

occupies a

field of vast extent,

and of overwhelming

importance.
voice to
to,

Through him, wisdom is uttering her He now writes directly the sons of men.
a large class of minds.

and

for,

Many

of these

minds, though of reformatory blood, are not yet past


the star-light of harmonial truth.

If there

was a
to the
for

Divine wisdom in the thing signified, by the **vail**


over the face of Moses,

when

giving the

Law

Jews,

and

I believe there was,

a like

wisdom,

like reasons,

may

hide from our seer and teacher

some of the higher freedom of the more glorious Mr. Davis, evidently to future, by its spiritual veil. us, does "not see to the end** of some of the law" phases, which still linger in the infancy of his harmonial philosophy. As a believer in a wise and holy expediency, we cannot complain of Mr. D.*s spirits
i

teachers for this

and they may be


fault
it

alike untaught,

We

in

no way find

with the Providence.

Even

the ancient Jesus found

necessary to leave the


of his highest percep-

world without revealing


ples

all

tions of truth to his dearest


;

and best beloved


in general.
it.'*

disci-

much

less to the

world

They
^

the disciples,

could

*^not bear

Moses, Jesus,
to

and every reformer

since,

were likely

be the best'

judges, each for himself in this matter.

We

only

ANDREW JACKSON
wish
to see all

DAVIS.

Ill

highly inspired minds so write as

not to cross the track of the future, and come directly in


collision

with

it.

But we wave

this desire or

seeming objection.

We
line

love Mr. Davis. Fromapartial diversity in our


is not our first mascuBut no other man living ever inmuch as he. We have been taught

mental "temperament ;" he

mental love.

structed us as

much

higher moral or spiritual truths by another.

We reverence A. J. Davis as a teacher. We now approach no written testimony with more reverence than we do his. We love and respect his
guiding angels.

But God has created

in all

of us

He will never respeak reverently. Nor should we ever call it I yield the first iota of it to any being below Him. When Mr. Davis writes to my understanding, new
our
separate individuality.
;

own

and

important

truths,

them.
oppose

When
it.

he, or

most thankfully receive I any other mind, writes what I


it,

cannot understand, I leave

but with care not to

But when he opposes what I know to be truth, I have no fear to review and criticise him. The reader will bear with my confidence. Such an assurance is not necessarily dogmatism. Every man knows some things. I, too, am a medium of over twenty year's steady growth and not only write in harmony with a legion of angels, but I write what I am identified with, by having traveled
;

all tlie

way

to

it.

am

responsible to the world for

112

FRKE LOVE.
book
;

my

yet I have leave of

my guiding

angels to
to

invite

Mr. Davis and his guiding angels

a full

discussion of the point of difference between us, in


the presence of the

men

of earth, and

the

men
add,

of

the spheres.

1,

and we, most respectfully challenge


discussion.

him and them


other reasons,

to the

And we
of,

if

this challenge shall be taken

no notice

without

we

shall not accuse these

opponents of

cowardice, or of other unworthy motives.

We

take

our position in

this,

but judge no other man's or an-

gePs duty or

privilege.

Mr. Davis' book on Marriage has

instructed us.

He goes deeper into the philosophy of much more liberal, on the whole, than
It

mind, and

is

Mr. Wrio-ht.

no

less elevates love.

Mr. Wright's book was


Mr. Davis' was
[\T\di

comparatively more from his heart.

more from
part of
it.

his head,

but from the upper


is

wisdom
less
in

In Mr. Davis, there

little

amount or volume of the magnetism of love, and vastly more in wisdom in higher truth. Mr. Davis

has his
the

''

seven phases of marriage," and contends for

naturalness of these

various forms

polygamy, and omnigamy,


planes of the

on
is

bigamy,

the several lower

mind

and so he

almost entirely free

from the bigotry and intolerance of the past and


present.

theme,

is

Such a spirit in a writer on so sensitive a most lovely, and entirely beyond this age,
testifies

Mr.

Davis

that on the harmonial


is

plane,

monogamy, or one man with one woman,

the only

ANDREW JACKSON
possible marriage.

DAVIS,

ll^

In his reply to Dr. Nichols he

argues against a "variety."


lasting gratitude to

He

repeats his " everfor

Mr. Wright

the exclusive

feature of his

book

and, like him, confounds ancient

and modern polygamy with modern Free Love. He and elevating principles of the latter, and associates it, sometimes with partly
entirely ignores the true

the same form, and sometimes with the

monopoly of

polygamy, which
the

is

a different form, but always with

undeveloped and sexual relations of the long

past, or of the far


this is

back

to

a rude age.

Whether

from the deepest ignorance of the whole sub-

ject or otherwise, I leave for the reader to judge.

Mr. Davis knows that the monogaraic, as well as


the omnigamic form extend back alike into the past.

And the "pot"


der the
color.
'*

kettle

of the past cannot successfully slan" of the same past, in relation to its

We

have never charged exclusive dual mar;

riage, as such, of sensualism

nor will our opponents


to

successfully

fasten the

latter

the car of Free

most inglorious. I The most chardid not expect it from Mr. Davis. itable conclnsion possible to put upon all this is, We have felt no that it is the fruit of ignorance. disposition to summon up the dead past to directly help our cause, or to wound our opponents though we might have just as truthfully done so. All forms
Love, as such.
effort is
;

The

of love have been more or less drunk with sensual-

ism

in the past.

Mr. Davis

tells

us this was more

10*

114

FREE LOVE.

"^^^^

natural in the infancy

of the race.
six

So I believe,

Mr. Wright goes back


pair to

thousand years to find a

support his dual order.

Mr. Davis would


it.

send Free Love back to degrade


this

(I do not say

was his motive.)


it

am

talking it for granted,

that the reader has seen Mr. Davis' book.

We

shall

be to

soon.

Gentlemen, we decline the journey

for either object.

We

disapproved of this in Mr.

Wright; and we have no need to go back for our support. Mind is with us, and we can read it, but if Free Love has so great an antiquity as Mr. D. gives
it,

we

respectfully ask all

who have
is

a peculiar re-

spect

for ancient institutions,

to let this

have
fair.

its.

proper weight in our favor. This

entirely

We

prophecy that the time

is

not far distant

when such

men

as Mr. Davis and Mr. Wright will be compelled

to see a distinction between our philosophy of sex-

ual freedom,

and

that of the past or present sensual


correctly, sensual bondage,

freedom,

or

more

as

and confess the vast distance between their exclusive marriage, and the general marriage of the
see

we

present,

and nearly the


will find

entire

past.

We

do them

justice, as

they do not us.

The reader
of

our

first

extract on page

297

Mr.

Davis'

book.

We

think this the most


to

appropriate,

and the nearest related

our subject

and argument of anything


love-department
is

in the book.

"I have shown," says Mr.

Davis, "that man's

divided into six separate actuating

ANDREW JACKSON
life-principles,

DAVIS.

^^
attraction

each having

its

own independent

mode
of
its

of being and doing.

Each has an

own, and therefore seeks a separate gratification*


these six loves there emanates six atmospheres.
is

From

Each atmosphere
manifestations.
less,

composed of

differently

shaped

atoms, having, consequently, different affinities and

But the

six emanations, neverthe-

commingle and blend

into

one atmosphere,
air sur-

which then environs the individual as the


rounds the earth. " This aromal sphere of the soul
natures
feel
is

what

sensitive

on the approach of different persons;


attraction or repulsion

realising an

being
is

affected

pleas iirably

or

otherwise,

without

perceiving

palpable

cause.

This atmosphere

a what a dog

smells in his master's path.


'*

Each

love has also a different-coZorec? atmosphere

this

fact in connection

with the

diflferent

shaped

atoms, constitutes and makes the individuality.

"
cles
feel

And each

love gravitates to its kind.


self-love are angular ;

The

parti-

composing

hence you can

the nettles of

selfishness.

Parental love is
;

composed of more spherical atoms hence children and horses, cats and dogs, feel the presence of its Animals are readily domesticated atmosphere. under the influence of this love.
"Strangers can
its

feel

the aroma of fraternal love;

atmosphere

is finer

and

its particles

more smooth

and

penetrative.

116

FREE LOVE.
can
feel, in

"And you
ter

certain persons, the charac;

of the

conjugal love

whether

it

be on the

subordinate scale, or elevated to the higher phases.


Its particles are gross or refined in shape in accord with its intrinsic

and

color
is,

growth.

Self-love

in

everything, a bigamist ;
pieces, a

it

invariably asks for two

common

expression of selfishness.
a.

" Parental love

is

polygarnist ;

it

calls for plurality

of pets or productions.

Its attractions lean

towards

many
by

children

and embraces many even


If children are

more

rapturously than one.


all, it is
**

not desired

mainly owing to external circumstances.

Fraternal, filial and universal loves are by nature


in their affinities.

omnigamic

They

love a countless

variety of objects and subjects.

In their rapturous

at once.

and ever-widening sympathies, they encircle millions It will be a glorious era, and exceedingly

peaceful,

when

these 'Moves** can have a practical

development.
**

But conjugal

love, the marriage principle,

when
the

in its juvenile or adolescent stages, includes all

preceeding forms
omnigamistj and

it

is

a bigamist, a polygamist, an
;

is

unsteady

but with maturity

and with

civility of

development comes the power to

love but ONE counterpart.

And when thus developed,


;

the atoms of conjugal love are spirally shaped

the

female interlocking with the male atmosphere


flowing into the other's being."

each

The above, we understand

to

be Mr. Davis*

clair-

ANDREW JACKSON
voyant testimony.

DAVIS.

117

To

us,

it

contains some of the

deepest and most clear mental philosophy which

we

some which we The entire think complex, uncertain and erroneous. distinctness and individuality of each faculty, and also their union and harmony, the various shaped
have ever seen
in

print; and

also

and colored atmospheres,


understanding.

all

commends
is

itself to

our
It is

All of this

very beautiful.

a real jewel.
are

That these loves


bigamist,*'

in their individuality^

one a

'*

one a
growth,

"polygamist,** and
sexual,

three "omnigamist,**

while the sixth, the


all

passes through, in

its

of these phases,

up

to,

or

down

to

the monogamist,

is

more doubtful.
could he not

We

do not

like to take the

room
it.

to

give our entire

objections to

some part of

Why

have informed us whether any other faculty changes This is left entirely in the its form in progression ?
dark for so important a subject.
is,

But the question


acting in the

what

are they, each

highest state of
one, as well as

when union and harmony ?


and
all,

For they are

many.

Conjugal love grows and


the atoms

develops to the "power to love but one counterpart/*

**And when thus developed,


"love are spirally shaped."

of

this

Now

this is a

tremenduous proposition.
It

This

is

the hinge on which civilization turns.

should not

have been passed so


proof
this

slightly

but testimony only.


will develop to

no

argument

no

We
an

have

testified that

love

ability

to love mcrre

118

FREE LOVE.
it.

than one, and we have argued to prove


are glad of so

But we
its free

much from Mr.


its

Davis.

It

seems that

sexual love has been right in the past, in

was acting to This not act like men.


loves.
It

nature.

Children should

is

quite a step gained.

Progression generally brings enlargement and an


increase of power.

But we
it

find connubial love con-

tracting in progression, decreasing in breadth

and

extent of power, as

advances.

How

remarkable

that every man, as he attempts to defend exclusive

marriage, reverses the order of every natural lawf

and never gives a substantial reason for so doing. They seldom give us any reason. Mr. Davis, do other loves change their form by progression ? If
so, in

what

direction ?

Do

they contract and cen


?

tralise, or

do they expand and enlarge

We
:

are

inquirers and learners.


their

As Mr. D.

said nothing of

change,

we
in

will

conclude they do not

we
its

mean, of course,

form of manifestation.

We

have

no evidence of

this

change

in

amativeness, in

separate individuality.

We

admit, that as progresit

sion brings a relative


faculties,

change between

so

its

action

may
how

to

the

and other same extent


its

change.

Admitting the "shape*' of the connubial


does this hinder
progressed opposites?

atmosphere does change,


fitting all alike

Does Mr. D.
is

mean

to teach

us that this atmosphere

so concenit

trated upon, so confined to, the one, that

has no

power

to get a release,

and

so stray elsewhere.

We

ANDREW

JACKSOil DAVIS.

119

do not believe in any permanent But we insist, that "to divide

release or suspension.
is

not to take away."


in

We
bial.

do not withdraw our adhesive love from one

order to love another.

No more
all

do we the connuof
the
it

Mr. Davis,

like

others of his faith, does not

marry, exclusively
atmosphere.

marry,

connubial
to act in

He

allows some part of

harmony with

the laws of the higher loves

with

the "universal loves. '*

As
call

a comparatively high
to this subject.

mental philosopher,

we

him back

His work
tlie

is

hardly begun.

He

is

bound, on every

principle of justice, to give us at least

law which separates


part.

this faculty,

some clue to and frees a part


part,
is

and confines a
his friends,

do not know what part


other parts cannot be.

(we and not ours,) can be non-exclusive, and


us

Show

why some

the
As

distinction

his,

he has

failed to

give us

any clue

we go in search of proof, but we If we take the outer man as an index fail to find it. of the inner, we are not relieved. We see nothing
to this,

more incompatible
higher.
this.

in this sense with the


in

omnigamic
other,

form in coitionary love, than

any

any

Mr. D. would and does virtually admit


insist, then, that

We
first,

we have

a right to call

for proof.

At
that

our opponents, like Mr. Ballou, contended

always

and everywhere, every act of


se,

vari-

ety was, per


since

"more

or less adulterous.*'

Long

many

of these have arrived nearly to Mr. D.*8

120

TREE LOVE,

HAHX

position, that various orders

in

the

past,

and possibly

to

might have been right some extent in the


lustily

present.

But these now contend

that "

any

how, they know the exclusively dual is the highest^ and the final of connubial love/' On the whole,,
this is a real gain in the right

direction.

We

took

our pen to rout them from this last stand point,

and we are sanguine of final success. Here is their last breast- w:ork, and here will come the death-struggle of exclusiveness.

Mr. Davis, a noble and an honwill never surrender this


left

orable leader, has taken his position in this gap.

We
to

liope

and believe he

post, while he has

any philosophical ammunition


court

defend

it.

We

ihe discussion of this last

question.

What

is

the highest order of connubial

love
to

This book contains our argumentative reply


question.

the

Will our opponents give us as


if.

thorough and as direct a defence of their position,


the thing
is

possible.
to

Mr. Davis defines marriage


the essence of two atoms.''

be " the union of


add, the union of
;

We
is

two or more atoms.


it is

There

a duality in marriage

between the two sides


I

atmospheres.
this duality.

and the female have no doubt but that Mr. D. sees


the male
sees a healthful

harmony in the woman. We see a still greater harmony in th marriage of many. Even much of the higher harmony of marriage, which he does teach, or foretell, he carries to tha>
Joining
ojf

He

the two

man and

ANDREW JACKSON
other sphere for
it,

DAVIS.

Hi
Yet
all

its practical

realization.

of

and more

will

be experienced here, and on this

Like Paul in his "third heavens," and earth. Swede nborg in his ** celestial spheres,*' he sees things there, which are but clairvoyant views of things to

come, and

to

be enjoyed here.

He

sets untruthful

bounds

to the present,

and coming attainments on


is

our earth.

"Repulsion," I believe,

considered by Mr. D.,

as a negative J or a less attraction, and designed to

regulate the various degrees of attraction.


this
is

At

least,

our view.

And

should we admit that those

on a widely
all

different plane

may

never be so far at-

tracted to each other, as to desire

and normally enjoy


it

of the rights of connubial love,

is

still

true

same plane, and of " like temperment," may. Such cannot in freedom, be entirely That which joins them to one, will join exclusive.
that those on the
to all

on the same

plain,

and of the same " temperaon the same plain and

ment."
of the

The

ability to appreciate the one, gives the

ability to appreciate all others

same temperament.
is, if

Mr. Davis teaches us that the best we can do at


present, in seeking a connubial mate,
to reach

possible,

the

spiritual plane,"

and see that the

"central temperaments" meet in harmony.

Then
any

by

effort,

and a careful culture,

all

others, or

less degree of repulsion,

can be brought into submission, and perhaps at last into love, and so render

122

.>IVy

FREE LOVE.

(aVik

the union eternal.

If these repulsions are healthy

and normal,

this course, so far destroys spontainety

and, like Mr. Wright, he, in this manner, detracts

from individuality,

for the sake of unity.

If these

repulsions are unhealthy,

we

give the same advice,

and add more to it.


these
little
all

We advise all to at least overcome


But never,
in

repulsions, so far as they are abnormal,

between

on the same plane.

any

case, or for

any reason,

to

suppress or oppress a

healthy repulsion.

Free Love neither requires nor


It leaves

allows any such sacrifice.

unabridged the

most

perfect spontaniety

and individuality.

The

centrifugal force is as important as the centripetal,

and we would leave matter or in mind.

all

natural forces alike free in

Yet we

insist

even here, that as benevolence can


utility

do every other act of


repulsions, without
true, to

in

harmony with

its

general law of justice and mercy, over these lesser

harming them, so the same is some extent, on this subject. There are various good motives which may wisely lead to the ultimates of love. A degree of need, mutual and
normal enjoyment, and the creation of
offspring, are

among them.
if

In the

first

and second
done.

cases, at least,

the two do not

mix atmospheres any


is

farther than
is

they harmonize, no harm


possible.
to

This

sometimes

Not always.
it

As

I shall not take the

room

prove this last proposition, the reader can take or


it

leave

as

seems

to

be truth or otherwise to him.


II

ANDREW JACKSON
I

DAVIS.
tell

123
us that

am

sure Mr. Davis will not

ever

made two persons


attraction,

of the opposite sex,

God who were

entire

and no repulsion.

Then nature

never perfectly married two.

probably does, create


for all in the race
;

But nature may, and a perfect fitness for each and

then

why

not

let

each find that

supply in the race

Why

try to

improve upon his


?

works ?

Why

not allow a perfect spontaniety, and

not warp each individuality for the sake of unity

Why
more
iota

not allow the race to progress to a higher and


perfect

Why marry

harmony, in a perfect spontaniety? any man, real man, harmonial man, one
?

beyond his normal and spontaneous attractions


labor to assimilate the one to the other
is strictly

Why
than
differ
difi'er.

more
to

natural ?

Let each and every person

from

me

eternally, so far as they

were made

Universal love will harmonize and supply

all.

I shall find every

phase of marriage somewhere,


**

and every mental, moral and material want supplied.


I have no right to ask or expect a perfect
rest
*'

in

any one woman, but I have such a right in the race in woman. So I give myself to woman. If I find much more **rest" in some one woman, than in any other and this is natural I may and should

take

and enjoy

it.

On

page 411, Mr. Davis comes directly to the

question of a "variety'' in love.


in reply to Dr. Nichols.
it

But he does

this

unnecessary for
it.

me

to

For two reasons, I think quote much, or write much

in reviewinor

-fiM
First, I see

-^

'

FREE LOVE.

from ''Nichols' Journal" of last month,

that the Dr. has replied to


his

him

in a later edition of

work on marriage.

Second, Mr. Davis resolves

the question of a variety in love, into the question of the "fickleness, unsteadiness," or otherwise, of
love.

On

this, I certainly

have no controversy with

Mr. Davis.
all

doubt whether Dr. Nichols has.


love, in
I

We
some
love

admit that
fickle.

an undeveloped
it

state, is

times

am
I

sure

will not

be so in true

harmony.

Mark,
one.

only contend that


I

we may

more than

I think

do not favor divorce, in

the present state of the world, as


or Mr. Wright.
sion of persons
;

much

as Mr. Davis

They allow a variety by a succesI more by a succession of acts, but


I

without "putting away."

do not
a

like

"putting

away."

It often partakes of

much

greater degree

of injustice than entire exclusiveness.

Nature does

not often, after forming or permitting so entire a


union, absolutely and entirely put away.
I

never advised the separation of

As a fact, man and wife.

Perhaps, in a few cases, more wisdom might have


lead
ally

me

to

do

this.

On

the whole, I do not gener-

approve of too violently disturbing past and

present relations, to get to the better which


justly hold in promise.

we may
be wise.

Sometimes
?
is

it

may
is

Mr. Davis asks

" Does not every well developed,

person obey the law of harmony


but the unity of variety
of diversity? "

What

harmony
harmony,

that

the centralization

I only reply, a variety in

ANDREW JACKSON
is

DAVIS.

125

consistent with the action of every love of the

mind.

He

adds

Connubial love "centralises** on woman. " Every love, as I have hitherto affirmed, is
;
:

monogamio

speak

now

of the

regulated

soul.
its

When

the soul finds that occupation


it

which meets

attractions,

does not wish to be divorced therefrom,


I fully agree

but steadily loves and labors onward."


the use of the
to

with this sentiment, as I understand him here in

word "monogamic.*'
I said that

In

my

reply

Mr. Ballou,

every faculty was, in one

sense, confined to one desire

one

object.

But man,

in this "regulated'* state, finds this one desire

one
it

object,

met

in

many persons.

Even benevolence has


;

but one desire

it

desires but one object

still

takes a universe to supply


ification.

material

for its

grat-

" Alimentiveness " has but

*^

one desire,*' but

it

takes a variety of articles, and a variety of diverse

mixtures to fully supply

it.

**

But presently comes

a fatigue, a thought of monotony, a longing for novelty,'* in exclusive monogamic marriage. " Well,

have true lovers no other resources ? Let me think. * Society is accessible friends are to * * *
be visited and entertained, the imperative demands
of the remaining five affections are to be considered,

and

to all these varieties

may

be added an endless

programme of pleasurable
Mr. Davis has here 11*

efforts

and

realizable

aspirations for the world*s advancement.**


totally annihilated his entire

126
argument,

FREE LOVB.

if he meant it as an argument, from the monogamic nature of all the loves. Because, if that monogamic law confines connubial love to one

person,

it

alike confines every love

to

one person.
*'

So

all

of this "society," and these

many

friends,'*

are licentious.
all, like

That law, so carried out, would take

the mythological

Adam

and Eve, into a dual

hermitage.

Mr. Davis expresses his opinion of our views

somewhat
freedom

freely,

in error ?
free.'' is

but we pass it. *' Can there be " No, never. " The truth shall
Yes, always.
truth
?

make you
this

opponent, what
subject ?

Where

But we ask out is the truth on

and we take our present leave of his

slight argument,

(we

are not sure that he really

meant

it

as an argument,)

by

inviting

him back

to

the subject.

Mr. Davis refers to the testimony of Swedenborg,


as to
the dual

marriages of heaven

and

relates a

particular case of great glory, resplendent beauty,

and comparative
testified

loveliness.

Probably no testimony
this.

from the other spheres has gone past

Jesus

beyond it, but from what evidence, we do not know. In the nuptial pair which Swedenborg
describes,

much

of their beauty, to him,


clothing.

was from
of
tlw)

their beautiful

He

writes

much

coverings, or apparel of angels, as well as of their

marriages, and yet he barely drops the testimony, that


**

the innermost angels, go naked."

(I quote from

ANDREW JACKSON
memory.)

DAVIS.

]Wt
marAll

I testify that there is no exclusive

riage or clothing in the higher or real heavens.

exclusiveness, and

all

veils are there

taken away,

Nature

is

too pure

and too beautiful

to need, or be

But we should have supposed that even if they were naked, they might have appeared in clothing to his sight. It would have been
marred, by covering.
wise. Still we have no doubt but exclusive marriaore o and clothing may be common in Paradise, Purgatory and the Hells. I presume Swedenborg saw that

loving couple, in what I should call Paradise

or'
The

some of the lower heavens.


to the

Paul saw, in vision,


it

"third heavens,** but he thought


tell

not ex-

pedient then to

us what he saw there.

customs of heaven and of earth, on the same moral


plane, will be nearly alike.

But there is another interesting view of this case, which may be suggested, as it is so appropriate a Mr. Davis tells us in his book, reply to Mr. Davis. that it was "visions of the vulvar female extremist" which " supplied Swedenborg with material for his
infernal spheres."

We

saw, twelve years ago, that


**

the great seer's description of the


of heaven,

celestial angels*'

was nothing more than a

truthful view
It

of some of the celestial angels of our sphere.

did not exceed the truth of the moral or spiritual


elevation of

And we
was only

then thought

some minds of our mundane world. it more than probable that he


*'

relating "visions

of the future elevation of

128

FREE LOVE.

progressed humanity on our globe.


his
relations

With

this view,

of

the

glorious nuptials
tribute

of heaven

might have been simply a just


possibly the identical image of
in our friend Wright's mind.
to resort to

of prophesy

of Mr. Wright's and Mr. Davis' Love marriage, and


** Ernest and Nina'* But we have no need

such an exposition, believing, as we do,


foretells

that

what

exists here exists there.

Mr. Davis sees and

a coming war
:

**

bloodless war," on the subject of marriage

and yet

in his position, he seems compelled to entirely ignore

one of the

first, if

not the

champions

in this war,

first, great and honorable John H. Noyes. We tell Mr.

Davis, the hardest battle will come

when and where


monopolizing
feels that

men

are required to relinquish

their

grasp upon woman.


last vestige of what

When
is

the

man
less

the

has more or
giving

strengthened

his ownership of sex,

of coming truth, then and there


sation

way we
in

before the firea


shall see a sen-

which has not been equaled


in the past,

modern

times.

Man,

has rested upon deeds and marriage


lands and sexual
require
to

certificates for the protection of his

claims.

Our reformatory opponents


and some times

him

to

yield the certificate

consent to a

change of possession.

This, as Mr. Davis foresees,


shall

he will oppose.

But we

only see the

full

strength of his opposition,

when

the

demand comes
forever yield

home

to

him

to

unconditionally and

his entire personal

and exclusive grasp upon each

ANDREW JACKSON
and every womaa
;

DAVIS.

129

resting each

year, month, day,

hour, minute, of his

coming

future,

upon

his

own
mind
to

inherent lovliness to attract and supply his coming

wants.
is

This

is

a condition which undeveloped


;

far

from coveting

but

is

ever ready to seek

avoid.
entire
**

Our

non-exclusive principle,

added
is

to

our
will

and absolute freedom of woman,

what
If the

lay the axe into the root of the tree."

past
it is

teaches us any lesson


that as

and

we

think

it

does

man
with

has progressed,
its

this

man-power over

woman,

has become

less

monopoly of exclusive ownership, and less. Polygamy is a sort of

wholesale and one-sided sexual monopoly.

MonoIts

gamy
more
just,

is

an improvement
less,
;

in the
it

right direction.

monopolies are

and
it

is

more
far

just to

man and
The many to
years,

reciprocal

yet

is

from being entirely


to

even on

its

own

principles,

woman.
from

rich and the powerful have receded

one

so far as

they have lived to their covenant.


is

Marriage, in her present injustice y

old in

and strong in power. She seems to sit in comparative ease, and in her slumbers, as did slavery a few years since. But she sits upon a volcano of smothered and crushed affections, which will in a

coming

hour, break her slumbers and arouse her from her


lethargy.

The

fires

of a true and burning Love wil^

yet burn up and consume, as they are fanned by the


perpetual gales of truth, her exclusive and selfish connubiality.

Their powers are at work, and nothing


13<X

FREE LOVE.
Everything will forward and hasten The more narrow minded and seiually selfish
felt
it

can stay them.


it.

have always

keenly that they

were not

(permitted to carry their exclusive system into heav'-en


;

but the prophesy of their religion had taught


to

:them not

hope

minds

speak

jprophesy in
;

this. But when these lower what I know see that another the same book is to hare a fulfilment

for

that the will of Grod is to be done on esrth as

it

is

done in heaven
will

as the

higher angels do

it

they
and

howl

in their misery.

Such minds do

not,

can not at once enjoy the free spirit of angels.

We

should be glad of the assurance that the coming war

would be entirely
fear persmially.

*'

bloodless.''

Still

we have no

ISTor

have we a thought of living to


all

see

the

full
i

consummation of
slow at the best
;

of

which we speak*
it is

Progress
that

and doubtless

well

it is 'SO,

on the whole.
is

We
to

tell the,

as yet, un-

developed world, there

be a mighty change,

N^ow selfishness
lence
this.
is

is

the rule in everything.

Benevoall

the

exception.

Progress will change

AND
'.

Benevolence will one day be the rule, SELFISHNESS THE EXCEPTION. When man
fairly

has

grown

to

his

nothing lower than


past, for they

this.

manhood, he The marriages

will

be

of

Mr.

Wright 'and Mr. Davis are glorious, compared to the really and truly elevate love to the lower phases, or to the germ of spiritual and harmo*
mial connubiality.

But we prophesy

that even these,

ANDREW JACKSON

DAVIS.

131
'*

in the future, will have comparatively *'na glory,

by reason of the glory which will then so far exceed The fruition of a ripe, manly and womanly love will then comprehend and absorb all of the
them.

good

in all

below

it

then, in connubial love, benev-

olence will be the rule, and selfishness will be the

exception.

I glory
;

in the

hope and assurance of


hasten
all
it.

such a day
tion of

and in living

to

The

formait

man's brain promises


its

of this, and
lies.

will

not
will

lie.

Mental philosophy never


every
pledge.
to that "

Progression

redeem

sure.

We

come back

Nothing is more war " as we hope

"bloodless war."
that
ship,
it is

We
We,

agree with our opponents


in entire respect

coming.

and

friend-

yet solemnly, put

the

question

when

that

war fairly comes, in all its intensity, and aims its most deadly blows against our n on -exclusive principles, where will Mr. Wright and Mr. Davis be found ? That hour will try the souls of reformers.

We, in the commencement of this mental, and more than mental, stir, stand in defence of all, or nearly all, in which these opponents have parted from
the principles of the past.
the
crisis

more

fully

reaaches our

repeat

my

interrogatory
for,

Where will they camp ?

be
I

when
must

will they then be found,

on the whole,

or against us ?

We

aver that

we

are not anxious for ourselves, or for the cause

which we identify, as to the practical answer which the future may give to these questions. Each in his

132

FREE LOVE.
Will these
folly to
!

book, has classed us with the enemy.

men

ever retract that folly

Double

the

real cause

speak for

which they seek to promote I will not Mr. Wright, but I think Mr. Davis, if he

does not then directly favor free love, will be a mental

with entire respect.


ed.

and moral non-resistant towards it, and treat it We hope not to be disappointMore, we hope he will yet
rejoice,

and

feel
fi-

"everlasting thanks'* to a higher power, in the


nal fulness, as well as in the
infancy, of his

Har-

monial philosophy.

We

and our opponents

alike contend for the ab-

solute freedom of
is right that

woman.

This
**

is

well.

Then

it

she should be

allowed to choose the


here
tell

father of her children, ^^

We
their

our oppo-

nants
in

if

she, in freedom, shall continue to

do

this,

strict

harmony with

dual doctrines, we
it.

will

never reproach or condemn her for


if in

Are

they ready to meet us here,


shall, to

such freedom, she

any

extent, act in

harmony with our views?

We

have a

right,

of them.

We

and do demand as much as this ask Mr. Wright in the name of ev-

ery principle of justice and consistency, after having


so nobly defended the rights of

and keep

off his

hands from
the

all

woman, to take off women, and from

man

also.

I honor

man

or

woman who, from


or her dual
to

an honest
pledge.

faith, or belief, lives

to his

I have no heart in

me

reproach or

slander such.

We

ask,

and demand of our oppo-

ANDREW JACKSON
nents,

DAVIS.

133
act

who

talk freedom,

to feel

and

freedom

allow freedom.
If

we

philosophy,
to let

make them understand our mental will then meet, and appeal to them tooman h^free; and we covenant with them to
fail to

we

keep hands off

judgments and
practical

reproaches off
decision.

and
can

we

will abide

by her
This

We
test.

join issue here, if

they and we really mean the/reeis

iom of woman.
shall write

a good and

fair

We

our book as they have theirs, and then

wait with entire trust to the developments of the fu-

Woman will have her freedom. Truth will ^ow and prosper, and that shall be our final arbiter.
ture.

12

APPENDIX.
While we have been
city

writing our book,

New York

has been
not that
:

all astir

with a volcano of Free Love.

No

was a volcano of exclusive marby a free love match. (See city papers about the 20th of October.) The Tribune reissued its bulls and pledged itself anew to the deIt

riage,

touched

off

fence of the family.

Other editors

er to the less, even to the remote


spirit of the times,

towns
care

from the greatcaught the


alert

and were on the


of watchful

renewed

their

vows

and alike and kind re;

gards to their old mistress.

Seriously

what

has

happened
tution ?

to cause this

alarm in the marriage

insti-

Has

free love

encroached upon her just

and established
enticed

rights ?

Has

she

clandestinely

entered the sexual plantations of her neighbor,

and
is

away

his

body slave-mate

No

There

no evidence of
regulate her

that.

Has she taken


the

the liberty to

own

domestic concerns to her

own taste,

regardless of what might be

incidental effect

upon her old neighbor

We think

not even that.

She has spoken her mind of exclusive marriage, and

recommended

free love

She has talked about the 135

136
marriage institution.

APPENDIX.
It will not

do.

Something
in-

must be done. The power of the law must be She must send the noble Brisbane to voked city dungeon for a night, as a token of what
can and will do,
in Protestantism
if

hei
shei

her wishes are not regarded!

Shame on such despotism and cowardly persecution Shame on such inhumanity in


!

the light of this*age

When

an institution of so great age, and being


is

i _
ii

such an overwhelming majority,


carelessly set in such excited
is

so easily an&

and angry motion,

moral proof equal to a mathamatical demonstration

of her inherent weakness, and of her consciousnesi


of
it.

It

must be rotten

at heart,
it

and without a

foundation.

Like slavery,
!

quakes when touch'

Mr. Greeley, Mr. BalL Yea, when even looked at and others, would know how to appreciate such rJi flections as these, if connected with any subject noo
in

harmony with

their faith.

Our opponents

see thu

full force

of them,

when they
is

relate to slavery.

Gen

tlemen, consistency

a jewel.

If I were to fine

such a sensation on

my

side of the house,

from com

parativly so small a cause, even though our belovec


is
its

hardly through her teens, I should recommen(


friends to look again, and overhaul the

whol

concern, to lay a deeper foundation for their super


structure.

Mr. Greeley believes

in the entire safet]


it

of truth in free discussion,


institutions

when

relates

to

thi
h*

of his remote

neighbors,

but does

APPENDIX.
really dare to trust
it

137
?

and himself here

Has he
Still,

no

fear of the consequences here ?

From

his course
has.

with Mr. Andrews, and since,

we think he
it.

as he believes in a true expediency, he

may have
Perhaps
thank

thought the people would not yet bear


not.

We
for

do not complain of him, but

we do

him

what he has ventured in this hne. I have not done with Mr. Greeley, I wish to record my sincere gratitude to him for the good he has done to the cause which I advocate, as also to every other radical reform, in preparing the way for it and

them by his general efforts on the side of free discussion. Whatever may be his future course, I promise
never to forget his past services.

He

has made his

impress on the age, in favor of a degree of freedom.

Like the colter to the plow, he has cut the sod.


True, in
love
;

all this

he has never meant


child
is

to

advance free

and as
it.

this

being born, he would


his pledge to
it.

gladly slay

He has just renewed


it,

always pursue
suppose the

and

if possible

exterminate

(I

late

pledge in the Tribune to be his.


)

At

least

he stands in that position

To

the cause

of the most radical reform, Mr. Greeley's

name has

has come and John


;

now it is Herod. Christ no more needed. We think Herod is but we have np fear that he can do his successor any real harm. We most sincerly pray that he may not do by what has been the John
been John (the
baptist,)
is

in

himself,

as

the

Herod of old did with the

12*

138
baptist.'*

APPENDIX.

As one who

still

loves

liim

we have

feared this.

Mr. Greeley is still really devoted to the spread and advancement of free love never before half as much so as now. He has taken his position behind,
;

it, and by his opposition he will bringrj power of his tremenduous battery to drive^j it forward. The cause has able leaders enough, J and Mr. Greeley has taken the best possible position which he could take, and the only one which he is^ now prepared to occupy. Here he will act with zeal. Header, these were our reflections on reading the

in the rear of

the whole

late

pledge of perpetual opposition to our principles.!

in the Tribune.

As

paper

for relaxation, I

turned from my pen to that I was encouraged and strengthto oppose.

ened by that promise

do not beheve
will

that a truthful opposition will ever advance error.

But

do believe that an untruthful opposition

always advance truth.

[The author would say


delayed over a year since
it

to the reader that

from

unavoidable hinderances, this small work has been

was ready

for the press.]

;; :

ETERNAL JUSTICE.
The man is thought Or bigot, plotting
BY CHARLES MACKAY. a knave or
fool.

crime, Who for advancement of his kind Is wiser than his time. For him the hemlock shall distill For him the axe be bared ; For him the gibbet shall be built For him the stake prepared Him shall the scorn and wrath of men

Puraue with deadly aim malice, envy, spite, and lies, Shall desecrate his name. But truth shall conquer at the last For round and round we run, And ever the right comes uppermost,
;

And

And

ever

is justice

done.

Pace through thy cell, old Socrates, Cheerily to and fro ;


Trust
to the

impulse of thy soul.

the lamp of clay That holds the light divine, But tliey cannot quench tlie fire of thought By any such deadly wine They cannot blot thy spoken words From the memory of man, By all the poison ever was bruised Since Time his course began. To-day abhorred, to-morrow adored. So round and round we run,
;

And let the poison flow. They may shatter to earth

And ever the truth comes uppermost. And ever is justice done.
Plot in thy cave, gray anchorite. Be wiser than thy peers ; Augment the range of human power.

And
And

trust to

coming

years.

They may

wizard and monk accursed. load thee with dispraise ;


call thee

;;

KO

ETERNAL JtSTICB.
five hundred years too so For the comfort of thy days. But not too soon for human kind Time hatli reward in store And the demons of our stories become

Thou wert born

The saints that we adore. The blind can see, the slave is lord So round and round we run. And ever the wrong is proved to be wrocg,

And

ever justice

is

done.

Keep, Galileo, to thy thought, And nerve thy soul to bear

They may gloat o'er the senseless words tbey wiiog From trie pangs of thy despair They may veil their eyes, but they cannot hide The sun's meridian glow The heel of a priest may tread thee down. And a tyrant work thee woe But never a truth has been destroyed They may curse and call it crime ; Pervert and betray, or slander and slay
; :

Its teachers for a time.

But the sunshine aye will light the sky, As round and round we run. And truth shall ever come uppermost,

And justice

shall be done.

And

live there

now

such

men

as these

With thoughts

Many have And left their thought untold And many live, and are ranked as mad. And are placed in the cold world's ban.
For sending their bright, far-seeing souls Three centuries in the van
;

like the great of old ? died in their misrry,

They toil in penury and grief. Unknown, if not maligned

Forlorn, forlorn, bearing the scorn Of the meanest of mankind. But yet the world goes round and round, And the genial seasons run. And ever the truth comes uppermoBt, And ever is justice done.

PAMPHLET
Stoci.tl

B'

sv-'f

GENERAL LIBRARY

U.C.

BERKELEY

B0DD351SBI

HOA/IE

use

BOOICS
,

'AfrE,f7,

3405

-^S^^/iu.

^'^Siss^ ^^'^^^'^^^^^^figdvv"
/

You might also like