The Sedalia weekly bazoo. [volume] (Sedalia, Mo.) 187?-1904, 1889-07-23

.
Who then shall bear the burden, the
necessary burdens of existence" Is
life TO be one continual round of self
seeking. Of pleasure, of self-enjoyment?
Does the command Bear We one an.
others burdens. and so fulfill the law
of Christ" mean nothing? If it has
any significance it certainly means
that none can rightly shirk his or her
burdens. Why, even the brute
beasts have finer and higher sense
of obligation than this writer. They
care for their young. they provide
food in season, they nurse and teach
their young how to walk, swim. to
hunt for food. And they never COM
plain about the trouble thus caused
them; the animals, both domestic and
wild ones, were never known to de-
sert their young or to even threaten
to "throw off the yoke" ANY wo.
mon who can indulge such thoughts
is necessarily bad, because 80 inhu-
man, so selfish, so egotistic, so devoid
of willingness to bear the burdens i'm.
posed upon all mankind by the
Creator.
The slavery of wife and mother
hood" What a wicked, brutal ex-
preston | have seen and known
hundreds, perhaps even thousands of
mothers and wives who fortunately
never realized that there was any
slavery" in their positions. None
of my sisters are able to realize that,
thank God They, like other wives,
have their yoke to bear, but they
bear il gladly, willingly, joyously-
neverIwhining in a contemplate man
per about 1.-The slavery of wife and
motherhood" l despise any woman
who peevish'y cries in that strain
there is certainly something very
wrong in her own character or nature.
| despise-rather pity-women who
DO not wish to be mothers, for all
such are surely lacking in some of the
noblest and best traits of womanly
character /; they lack genuine love of
children, they lack the "mother in
stinct," and they usually prefer sell
fish indulgences and selfish ease to the
pressure of little loving arms about
the neck and the cooling of childish
voices. The world would be far bet
ter if no such women existed. They
are curse to the human race.
What falsehood this is: "The
finest men AVOID marriage and en-.
tangIing ties" Then she cites Macau-
lay That was bad instance for her side
of the argument. 1t is well known
that Macaulay unselfshly sacrificed
himself and his life for the sake of
his dependent family. During many
years he supported one of his parents
and his younger sister, and after he
bad succeeded in saving up money
enough to buy husband Gas it is the
style in ''high society" in England)
for his younger sister, who married
Lord Trevelyan, it was then too late
for Macaulay to 60 in search of a
wife he had lived so long a bachelor
existence as to have lost the desire TO
marry.
Just think over the names of the
leading writers of eminence In our
own land, those men who might with
out very great presumption claim a
position among "the finest men" of
America, and let us see how many of
them avoid marriage. These are
Longfellow and Lowell. Holmes and
Emerson, Hawthorne, E 2. Whlpple,
Steadman, Bret Harte, Poe, Aldrich,
Howells, Rodman Drake. Bryant, DR..
Holland, Henry Ward Beecher, Fitz
Greene Halleck, Chas. Dudley War
ner, Washington Irving and Whittier.
Everyone of them except the latter
two were married men. And Irving
would have married had his fancee,
Miss Hoffman of New York City,
not died shortly after their engage
ment, when Irving was a student iu
her fathers law Office. Seventeen
out of nineteen of onr most celebrated
and most highly honored authors
were married men, and the other two
would have been but for unfortunate
circumstances. But perhaps these
men are not among "the finest men,
Let us look at the list of our states
men: Washington, John Adams,
john Quincy Adams, Jefferson, Madi-
son, Monroe, in fact everyone of our
Presidents, except Buchanan, who
was a very poor specimen, almost the
worst of the entire lot, were married
men; Alexander Hamilton, John
Jay, Gouverneur Morris, VIM. HI
Seward. Henry Clay. Daniel Web
ster, Edward Everett, were all mar.