New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-07-03
tWrittsn for the New Orleans Republican,
DIVORCE On SLIGHT GROUNDS.

Written for the New Orleans Republiesn.1
DIVORCE ON SLI6HT
EDITOR REPUBLICAN,:
1 was much interested in an editoria
under the above heading. which appeared
in you paper of the 10Th ultimo, though
have not been so furtunate as TO. see thu
article from the New York Independent
therein referred to.
Differing from your views on SOM
material points, and believing you will no
close the door upon honest dissent, l ven
ture to ask q little space in your columns
I don't ask you, or any n of your reader
to agree with me, but only TO be credited
with the same consciousness which i
cheerfully accorded you and them. VIVA
is said may shock the more sensitive. Ma,
I ask such to remember that shocking ant
startling ideas have been incident to all thu
progress civilization has made! May l re-
mind them, for example, that but q few
years ago, comparatively speaking. a belle
in witches and witchcraft was a part of thu
creed of Christendom, and that he who ther
attacked this belief shocked the entire
church and actually jeopardized his person
al safely? So good a mar as John Wesley
said that she who denied the existence o
witches denied the authority Of Holy Writ!
Il give his idea, perhaps not his exac'
words), and thousands upon thousands o
men, women and children were tortured
burned TO death, drowned and hanged fol
sorcery or AS witches. The horseshoe;
on many a door sill in this city
testify that the superstition has
not yet died out, though mothers
and babes need no longer fear fagot and
flames, administered in the name of the
Saviour OF sinners. And notwithstanding
the bigoted few, it would GOV shock the
church for any one to insist upon Witchcraft
as a Bible theory. Yet is it true, that even
the whims of our fellow-men should be
treated tenderly, for we are all, in one re-
| spect or another, weak and erriDg.
He who needlessly wounds the feelings of
another is rude. He who does it 10 behalf
of his views of truth 10 himself the equal
sufferer, for it pains such all one to offend.
We live in an age when men aud m
| too, wi think and investigate each for him
or herself; and SO it is that now there is no
dogma, institution or rites so sacred that it
may claim exemption from criticism. As u
present consequence. many wild or crude.
theories are advocated. many venerable and
valuable Institutions seem to be in peril, but
the finale is certain, the gold will remain,
the dross pass away.
Nor is It my purpose to defend the chiefs
of the New York Tribune, Independent,
RepolutiOn, or the Free Lovists. The latter
can scarcely be apologiZed for, much less
defended, while as to Messr5. Greeley and
Tilton Il confess ignorance of who is COM
mandress In chief of the Reuoluti0n), 1t is
sufficient to remark they WELD pens sharper
than mine; they are not free ~lovists, and be.
sides will not be over sensitive rs to what
another paper, particularly in the South.
may say of them. They know that for the
lack OF other more important matter, it is
always in order for a Southern journal
to pitch into them, and they have
been dashed by friend and foe until they
probably enjoy it.
Nevertheless, my belief is that you do the
Independent injustice hen you intimate
that that paper would make occasional
family jars, as well as unsuitableness OF
temper sufficient cause for divorce. Occa-
sional ars occur IN the best regulated tami-
lies; but few are they who would for that rea-
son ask to be relieved from wediock's bands;
but unsui.ableness. or to use the legal word,
incompatability of temper results in per-
petual, not occasional qusrrel:; makes the
home a small hell, or anything else b
what should grow out of marriage vows,
and may very often be good cause, mediate
ly, if not Immediately, for un,ying the par
ties. The end and aim of the Institution
failing. the union resulting in mutual
wretchedness instead of enjoyment, why
keep up a form which is only a mack, and
thereby bring a holy relation into contempt?
You perceive l do not subscribe 70 the
proposition that INCONVENIENCE only can war
rant a divorce. Nor do believe that the
most %scrupulous adhereDt of Christianity is
bound to 20 narrow a rule. You cOncede
that by the Code Mosaic divorces we're au-
thOrized for other causes. Perhaps you
could have gone further ard said that under
that dispensation divorces were as easily
and loosely attainable, on the husbands
part at least, as they are now supposed to
be in Chicago or Indiana. For though only
a certain cause is specified, viz: unclean-
matter of nakedness,' (see Deuteronomy
xiv, Ia. yet it seems to have been left
entirely to the husband to determine the
existence of the cause. A dissatisfied hus. |
band had therefore only to pretend the
cause, upon such pretence write his bill of
enforcement, place it in the hands of his
wife. turn her out Of doors, and he was
free! There does not appear to have
beer any specific provision for re.
~ VAh6 eAS . SfAoA AL klo I
premises, no matter how untounded may
have been the accusation upon which he
his bill. Possibly there was some
general provision of the code which might
reached the case, and which has es-
caped my memory. If, then, under Mosaic
law, there was hot hope for henpecked hus-
bands, it was because conscience stood as a
barrier to convenience. The separation, too,
complete as to both parties with the
exception, that the wife having again
married and been q second time divorced,
Or becoming a widow, might not re.marry
ler first husband.
This legislation, you assert, "was only a
temporary expedient, not designed to be
perpetual" Neither Oh the face Of the law
,r in the context, is there any intimation of
IN intent to change it, unless indeed it De
nferrable from its rather extraordinary
character, and l take It your assertion is
lased upon the generally accepted theory
hat a new and different rule was prescribed
~ the Great Founder of Christianity. But
,oncedIng the correctness of this generally
theory, right hers arises the mate
isl question; how know WI that this later
'uie was not also temporary. not designed
o be perpetual?
Do you say that sit has stood for nineteen
years as the law of the Christian
10 authentic voice proclaiming its
y? May it not be replied, at least to
that with the days of Christ
and his apostles. there was an end of ex-
press revelation?
1t may be that q different view obtains in
The Catholic Church, but, judging by what
has transpired in the present E%cumenical
Council, there be those of that church who
not see the voice OF the Vatican to be
certainly the voice of God.
Il voice rom heaven, an audible "Thus
saltn the Lord proclsiming a repeal or
modification of Christ's rule, can not. there.
fora he pYDectad arap 49,.