New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1871-08-09

Dir. GREELEY on THE WOMAN QUESTION

Dir. GREELEY on THE WOMAN QUESTION
10 NE EdiiJr Of The Golden Age
SIR: Your article on this topic is so forcible
and lust in the main that presume YOU will be quite
willing TO have its sight inaccuracies corrected in your
columns do not assume that NY views on the Women
Question are Of much consequence TO others but in 50
fr they may possess interest. it is wen that they he
clearly understood Let me, then indicate your msap-
prchcnsions without further preface
l. You say hold that there ought 10 he no divorce
at a-not for any crime, the worst So far as
can rccoect your only authority for this statement is
remark that had not the Master spoken otherwise,
would not have deemed adultery sufficient reason for
d,,olving a marriage As you 10 have given
these words undue weight allow me to explain my view
u1rt fully.
Tint persistent hagtious adultery in husband wife
good for divorce have not meant TO deny
But there have been cases OF transient udelity TO
sige-yows under the influence Of passions utamed by
wine and other unnatural eXCtements, which, being
followed by prompt and profound conton, would not
Judge adequate for divorce. You and both
know that wives have often pardoned such lapSes in
husbands you and agree that husbands have no right
fu immunity in such matters which ought not also 10 be
accorded to wives. Aud profoundly honor and reVer
cnco the husband who say, 10 his erTlng wife,
Though know that you have been false TO God ana TO
me- vet. because Of the love have borne you Of the
vow which pledged 10 love and cherish you till death
mi for the sake OF the dear children which God has
given l. believing you truly peneDt VIII forgive ana
ty almost to forget your crime and thus shield our little
oue, from undes6ryed shame i regard the husband
,, TINS speaks and acts as better Christian, truer
man than is Who exposes discards, and outlaws the
wife or his youth for fragrant transgresson now sin
ccrey and bitterly rpened suggest, therefore, that
you heuceforth represent holding that adultery
may but does not always, justify application for
divorce.
You say hold that "if man marrics and his wife
Ms a1Gn "a
too sweeping Some Of my best and most esteemed
friends are remarried-hdppily, am sure wisely and
nOby. judge Nay: can imagine a case IN which the
poor h8rd-working widowed father of young children
whom De take with him to his daily labor should
fee constrained their sake replace his lost wife by
another in whose perfect acceptance and discharge OF
mothers duties toward those children he could implicitly
trust Pardon me- but l am quite confident that the
causa remark on which yOu based your broad assertion
referred 10 remaIrage following separation 10y divorce,
no; death.
III Let me state my own conception Of remarrages
,ompli eating marital relations in the other world.
10 not dispute the doctrine Jesus that In heaven
Where Is neither marrying given in marriage, you
have quoted His words exactly And yet feel that
there are couples completely and happily united in
ti, world that they will be nearer and dearer 10 each
other III the next than they would or could have been
had they failed meet in this life and think these are
happier either world than though one or both Of them
had. remarked do not hold that either would have
ne-u cuipthe in TcnarTyinc if widowed on this planet
Iouv INSIST that they will both rcoice-and with reason
lii their higher life that neither il this life was mar
r'l q second time
" You are entirely, emincntly right, Mr. Editor in
asserting that my conviction Of the proper indissolubi-
uy % MARRIAGES. the handspring Of my hostility TO
Woman Suffrage, and TO the social philosophy from
which many vaiuy seek 10 separate the woman move
mcn'. Though have written or dictated very niue of
Whit has daring the last ten years been printed as ell
toral IN TIT TRIBUNE this subject Is nevertheless
true that my conception Of the nature and scope OF the
marriage relation renders my conversion 10 Woman SUI
srasa nora mpossiDnity.
lh'ge but two left Of seven children and these are
both daughters. would gladly fiji them FOR lives Of use
fu.'' AMI honor beloved and loving wives OF Nlrtu-
)a,. up -ht noble meu aud mothers II II shall please
G,' %, good, healthy happy children. II IL be decreed
i"t They are 20 be, not such women as those have
los admired audIOemced, but men with female
phys qu,-pD|criu iu waIO caucuscs and nominating
conventions vehement in senate and on tie stump ana
Elective before ue IN the tral of actions for erim con-
-ipiW That 10y this globe snail close before
airs is tIry begun When ana where they SHAH thus
D.re. il SAD DO, be pleasant for zoe TO stay.
VI LiIr Dr.. believe our c0uuuymen are indebted TO
y0a ''I having discovered qCrhaps ! should say III
vented me possible Though most improbable can
c1I'c !o DE Pr =ideucy Allow me, them to thank you
iryolr cy and frank demonstration that can IN no
contingency be- counted or hoped for as woman
'"-i'sf candidate. As You iorCi"\ ana justly say
obey. IS not even % remote possibility Of my ultimately
adopting myself to this end. Ny difference with your
crowd 100 vital, too radical 70 permit the most san
3llne dreamer 20 hope for my conversion. am gi""
.iA, 90. u} opinions are tOeriby firm aud the Ad-
NaHe,d Female " the Laura Fair type, who Kills tue
!4rauOr Of whom she claims 20 be the rrhuu affinity,
iA2 gives the lie in open court to the vile sue mas
4,uJ} widowed, is nay pet aversion.
BIT why should any nan De the candidate for President
% TIE Woman SUlIagist-l Logically ana consistently
'eei that their candidate should be woman. She ought
moreover, TO be thoroughly cmaucpated from the
ab,urdity and folly" the "uarrowHcss.' and the
basiui conservatism" which / am now too OLE To
0ltgI,w. Could you not md who illustrates
81 her own person and history what y0u 20 iCAc"-
,lsy term "tIe liberal thought Of an enlightened
tsf" LIT her %. one WHO has two husbands htel
s' tli hives iu tls same house with them both, sh"r-
st-r couch .. or. s. Je.ls lAe name Of the 'heI
n, nH 90. le. .... .tlapD ana cause aud
t-a.-.tsls .i. ..... d ...t t.,.e U.i. Nc DO o.-
t.,.. e."a .I... .I... V.o.Il. ...s., .l.i---
s-ed 'csac, I'D. .. ..,.1 divorce. Could lot one oi