New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-02-11
SIR. II. Jane. on Individuali~u.

declined controversy with your correspo,.
dent, Mr.. 5. p. Andrews, not because Of Az
personal disrespect for him, but chiefly for "a.
reason stated at the time, tina; his obiectnr.
10 my views of Divorce were trivial, fallacioa,
and disipgenuous. l may now further a,
that bis general opinions on the subject in al,
eussion between Tks O5serrsr and myself dS
not. besides, seem 10 me OF sufficient weight 10
invite a public refutston. | may have been
mistaken. but such was, and such continues tn
be, NV conviction. liz is accordingly morn
amusing than distressing 10 observe, thar your
correspondents vanity has converted VIA,
was simply indifference on my part, into dread
of his vast abilities But lest any OF yoar
readers should partake this delusion, let NE
say a few words in yndication of my coaIs
ton.
We all know that marriage is the union,l
oally ratified, of one man with one woman fo
HE. And we sll know, moreover that mny Of III
subjects Of this union And themselves in very unhsp,y
relations TO each other and guilty of recsprocLa
taeltes and barbaritcs in consequence, which ksp,
society in a perpetual ccmmotson. Now in speaAat
of these infdelities and baibAriiies have a~ayssi
that thew appeared q me entirely durable ey eurpx
the grounds Of divorce For holding As dc thS, u.
hurnsp heart is the destined home Of constancy aai
every courteous affection | cannot but believe thsh
will sbourd in these fruits precisely As e hcouss
prsctically honored or eit 20 is own cutirssd In
stipcts Thus have insisted that If you alovsdsxs
rsr.o,s who were badly assorted 20 separate vpoa
their Joint application TO the state for leave and spsa
giving due securities for the maintenance OF their Of
spring you would be actually taking away one great
existing s,imulant 10 eonjuga Inconsistency and gvs<
this very couple the most powerful OF all motives
renewed affection For unqucstionably every one q.
init. that he does not cheeruly obey compulsior ba,
ON the contrary evsdes it at every opportunity and
IL q matter of daily observation that mere legal
bondage secures conuga fidelity, where mutual love
and respec, are wanting between the parties Yon in.
stipctyey feel also that corjug fidelity which sAssl
obey that motive chiefly would be rcproach 10 the
name You feel tina, all mans relations to hi' 'sovs
and especially to woman, should be baptized soa
above or acknowledge an ideal sanction before al
hings ard that where this sanction Is absent cons
oueny the relation Is either strictly iniante or eie
nhuman. In respect to this higher sanction and bcnd
Of conugsl fidelity. you call the legal bond Inferior
or base As serving and promoting the former, one
deems the latter excellent and honorable but ~ csa
ing any longer do so, you deem II low and oesoa
Row have SIMPLY insisted that the legal sanctonsd
marriage should, by due ehsr OF ne sioanas
of divorce be kept strictly nhseryient and niinrsa
~ the higher or spiritual sanction having for my own
mart not the shadow OF doubt that IN that case con
stsucy would speedily svouch tse the LAC OF the con
iugal relation instead Of n now the rare exception
In this state of things your correspondent appears on
the scene processing amidst many other small nsoences
and puere aectsfons, not To be cruel 10 me- and yet
betrnyng crude apprehension OF the INTO
which be is ambitious 10 thrust himself that he actually
confounds nv denunciatiOn OF base and unworthy mo
tyes In marriage, with denunciation of the marriage
institution Itself have simply and uniformly said that
the man who tulhs the duties OF his conuga relation
from no tenderer OF humaner ground the law whose
penalties him immunity In the enjoyment OF that
relation proves himself the subject OF base legal or
outward slavery merely instead OF noble and rennns
sentiment And hereupon your sagacious ana alarming
correspondent cries out that resolve the whole and
sole substance of marriage into legal bond or outward
force which Is diaboca and should be wholly aboHhf
and dispensed with" Surely your correspondent mus
admit that when a man and woman invoke the sAne.
ton OF society 10 their union, neither they nor any
one else look upon socetys action In the premises a.
constrsnt, as aeompulsion Why Because society
is doing the precise thing they want Il to do.
With united hearts they beg OF society 70
sanction their union, and society does so Your CORE
spondent cannot accordingly be so dull a. o LOOK upon
societys nitiatory action compulsory lhe marriage
pertners this period united by Affection and they
derde the conception Of compulsory union. But noS
suppose that this affection, from whatever cause, ho
ceased while the legal sanction Of their union remains
unchanged your correspondent understand thu
/ the tie which now binds them might seem, In coripst
son with the pure and elevated one which had lapsed
"a base legal bondage, mere outward forcer' ~
point ind piece Of private property say purse
money which the law under certain penalties forbds
me TO appropriate Out OF regard 70 hese penalties
I restore Il 10 the owner Hereupon my spiritual 81
wiser while approving my act denounces the motved
IL az derogatory 10 true manhood which would have 10
stored the purse from the sheer delight OF doing nSt
thing or what Is equivalent the sheer loathng o dong
az dirty one. What now would your correspondent
think OF verdant gentleman who In ths state OF thn
should charge my adyier with destroying the insun'
ton Of private property, with resolving Il into bes
legal bondage, and booming IL 10 an incontnsnt sboh
ton Would he not think that this verdant sentemsns
interference had been slightly superhuOusi But what
ever he thinks, thing Is clear, which h. that NE
realm OF logic will not for moment tolerate your cor
respondents notion OF individual Sovereignty who'd
violates the OF this dcspotc realm by the EXHIBIT
ton of any private sovereignty finds himself Instantly
relegsied by infexibc Nemesis and In spite Of aay
amount Of sonor0us self complacency back 10 the d.
jected sphere which he lie qualified % sdorn and from
which he has meanwhile unhandsomely absconded.
that IL IL only this foolish notion u The
sovereignty of the individual" which obscures your cor
respondents mother wit call the molten foolAa, b.
cause as find It here propounded IL Is uncommonD
foolsh As well as master It's contents 10 rlnstha
That every has right TO do be pleases PROVIDED
he Will acceptthe consequences Of so doing ThepcP-
ostion Is strkingy true although IL anything but new
Thus you at liberty and have been since the oun
daton OF the world 10 eat green apples provided you
will accept consequent cOilc without wncing Orya
liberty prostitute by dishonest arts your ndsh
bors daughter provided you are willing 10 encounter p
60 doing the scofn Of every honest nature Or me ma
Is at liberty TO steal provided he win bear the eonss
quences Of doing and the liar 10 lie, provided be WI
sccept the consequences lying All these are instances
of individual sovereignty" They illustrate the doc
trne more than they commend IT, For while rogge
doubted his perfect freedom 10 swinde on eona
ton of his accepting ts consequences, take IND no
rogue such goose 10 view that conditbss
self a satisfactory exhibition Of his sovereignty. As
general thing rogues shrewd folk and suspect yea
would all Sing Sing before you wouldlgnt upgo
genius original To regard his four nrdfagsn~
walls as many arguments of his individual sovereignty
To think OF apreposterous handful OF men 10 m
nineteenth century Of the Christian era "seespuJ