-
|* ºl
º - - -
- 2. º - º -- º
J//*S. WOO/////ZZ
And fict "surial fºr u."
-
By A USTIN KENT,
AUTHOR OF “FREE LOVE.”
--- -
ºth An Appºis.
CLINTON, MASS,
PUBLISHED BY THE INDEPENDENT RADICAL TRACT SOCIETY.
Z87.5°.

|-
|-
|- |


fººta Cº442/*
- - 9/2
MRS. VICTORIA C. WOODHULL AND
HER “SOCIAL FREEDOM.”
BY AUSTIN KENT.
In view of my article in BANNER or LIGHT, May 4th,
with the heading, “Is Mrs. Woodhull understood?” some
friends have asked me, if I could, to state clearly the position
of Mrs. W. on the “social” question, and give my views as
to its truth or error.
A woman, small in stature, of good countenance, and
feminine in manner, took the liberty to think freely, write her
thought, and read it to six thousand people, six thousand
more returning to their homes—not finding standing room
in the Hall.
-In this Lecture, Mrs. Woodhull used no language touching
“social freedom" which had not been often used by the best
minds, in relation to mental and religious freedom, yet a host
of human hornets were ready to sting her. It was not
strange, and was no “disgrace” that many Spiritualists
should demur to her positions, and closely, if kindly criticise
them. Some Spiritualists are and have been life-long conserv-
atives. But how could any Spiritualist condemn free thought
and free speech, no matter where they may have led an honest
soul! At this we have a right to marvel.
There has been no evidence before the public of anything
in Mrs. W.'s past conjugal life which is not generally consid-
ered right and proper by Spiritualists. There has been much
which is truly praiseworthy. We have no evidence that she is


2 *. * -
not as pure in heart, and as disinterested in motive, as the purest
and best of her critics. [I here offer Mr. Tilton my warmest
thanks for giving us so much of her history..] All disparag-
ing references to Mrs. Woodhull's character and motives have
been, to say the least, out of order-and more than justify
the suspicion that the writers found it hard, if not impossible, -
to meet and rebut her arguments. I insist that it is no “dis-
grace” for a Spiritualist to be in a minority of one,—however
radical his or her ideas may be. There can never be too
much honorable criticism.
The only questions justly before the public, are—
1. What does Mrs. Woodhull mean? and,
2. Are her views truth, or error?
I understand Mrs.W. to apply the same and only the same
principles of freedom to conjugal love that Protestants gener-
ally apply to religion. Protestants profess to believe in leav-
ing every man's religion—whether pure or impure, true or
false—free, except when and where it trespasses on a like
freedom in others. Mrs. W. claims no more and no less for
conjugal love. In her lectures she has made as clear a dis-
tinction between love and lust as any of us can make between
pure and impure religion, or between true and false worship.
But she thinks it wisest and best to leave both conditions—
love and lust—free, with only such exceptions as her oppo-
ments generally make on religious matters. She believes that
even lust, in spirit and in action, would be less free, and do
less harm ultimately, under the reign of her idea of freedom
than under our law, as we practically license lust in the
marriage bed. We do worse than that, we license a vast deal
of rape.
I have never favored, but have always deplored and feared
the results of such an application of freedom. Some of the
wisest and best men and women living, and in the upper
spheres, have viewed the subject as Mrs. W. does. I name
Robert Owen, the father of Robert Dale, than whom, few

3
better men ever lived. I confess I think these people have *
the reason, the logic, and the argument on their side. They
insist that freedom is the best, if not the only soil, in which
to grow pure men and pure women. Protestants so hold as to
religion.
To illustrate and make Mrs. W.'s meaning very plain, I
will imitate her great “disgrace” by asserting what, and only
what I believe, namely: That “I have a right to hold any
religious faith; to worship one God, many Gods, or no God
or Gods; to worship bread, water, or stone; a snake, or a
devil, as many have and do; to set up in my house or front
yard any number of Gods orimages of Gods; or to change my
faith and worship daily, or as often as I choose or must.” No
same Protestant can or will deny this assertion, or find any
fault with it. No one can misunderstand it. The assertion
does not necessarily imply, as some of Mrs. W.'s opponents
have wrongly affirmed, that the person making it holds all
these things to be possible. It may be little more than an
emphatic manner of saying—It is no other person's business—
which truly it is not. I have the same “natural right” to
lust that I have to believe in, fear, and worship a Snake or a
Devil, and no other, or more. Society has the same right to
“control and restrain” me in both cases; and no more or
other in the first case than in the last.
Permit me to act the Attorney, not alone or mainly for
Mis. Woodhull, who has not employed me; but for a legion of
minds in the upper spheres who have. I argue the case. Pure
love, religious or conjugal, harms no one. Both are of great
utility and give great felicity. Is the reader sure, can anybody
be sure that undeveloped conjugal or sexual love has caused
more misery than corrupt and undeveloped religion? I can
safely defy the comparison. But in the case before us it is of
no consequence.
I further ask—can you, can I, can anybody be quite sure
that the remedy in both cases is not the same? Ifour Protes-

4.
tant free principles are right, are good, are safe, and are the
best thing to promote and hasten the growth of the moral,
mental, and religious man—who of us can be quite sure that
they are not good, if not as good for the growth and purifica-
tion of the conjugal man? I am not. To ask this question
is to answer it. We have so soon reached the hard-pan in the
argument. I respectfully challenge every man and woman of
Mrs. Woodhull's opponents to meet and rebut, or even to es-
sentially weaken the force of our position. Mr. Tuttle, Mrs.
King, and others, lay aside, for a season, your fear for your
reputation, and the reputation of spiritualism. It is compara-
tively of little consequence to you about my or Mrs. W.'s
character or motives, or whether we are generally logical or
“illogical,” wise or foolish. Strike directly and squarely, not
in anger and abuse, but in argument, at Mrs. W.'s main error,
if it be an error. Prove it an error. I repeat—your and my
premises, religious freedom, being good, the reason, the logic,
and the argument are all on the side of Mrs. Woodhull, on
the side of more conjugal freedom. -
In our fright at the logical results of the Protestant idea
of “civil and religious freedom,” shall we return to Rome,
or shall we give up our seare and press on towards still more
freedom? It must ultimately be freedom, as freedom is
heaven, is harmony, while despotism is hell.
Our Roman Catholic brothers must, just now, be in a
broad grin, in witnessing the extreme feeling among some of
us Spiritualists and Radicals at the first full sight of what is
resulting, and must result from our Darling Freedom.
I know that only Free-Love, as this term was first used, can
save our civilization from its sexual corruptions, its rottenness,
and its horrible running sores, both in and out of marriage.
But I have always said—"Do not abolish the law of exclusive,
dual marriage sooner and faster than you are morally born
into the higher law of universal love and justice.” I make
this point plain in my book, Free-Love, though a few persons

5
have seemed to overlook it. I now believe that those who go
too far against such counsels must suffer deeply and perhaps
long. It might have been morally possible to free the slaves
without war. They were not. I now doubt if men and
women will ever generally regard such counsels on conjugal
matters, even if it be morally possible. Some persons can,
will and do.
Mrs. Woodhull, Mr. Barry, Mr. Andrews, and many
others, offer this gospel of freedom to conjugal “sinners,” be-
lieving it a sure remedy, if not the best and only remedy pos-
sible in the case. I do not know that to most men and women
it is not both. I am conscious of still being more or less, on
this subject, under the influence of my Puritan conservative
education. I am, in some degree, in sympathy with all of
Mrs. W.'s honorable opponents. But if we do not and cannot
adopt the views and course of these good poople, let us leave
them absolutely frce to discuss them, and in no way ape the
churches in their greatest injustice and meanness by slander-
ing and persecuting them.
Freedom in religion has done much harm, and in many
ways. It has caused much strife and great waste. But it
has done vastly less harm than good. It is working, we think,
a slow, but sure religious cure. Is the reader sure that there
is any other possible road to religious purity and health?
Who dare assert that mental progress is possible without
freedom 2
I have a “natural right” to walk the streets “naked”
as did Isaiah, (and as Adam and Eve must have done in the
Gardenſ) While our race are in their present low and unde-
veloped condition, I think society ought not to permit this.
Nobody has argued for allowing such freedom. But if natural
rights are absolutely “inalienable,” such restraint is illogical.
In any case, it proves that we only differ from the Catholics
as to when, how often, and in what manner it is right and
expedient for society to control the individual. This is the

6
only difference between Mrs. W. and her opponents. She
may not know this any more than they do, or more than they
see that there is no other difference between them and the
Roman Catholics. It is a question as to more or less freedom.
I was for “woman's rights” forty (40) years ago, and be-
fore those words were so used. She has as good a right to the
ballot as man. Yet I have little doubt that “woman's rights”
and “social freedom” with their present meaning, will, for an
indefinite time, increase the sufferings of both sexes. I am
more sure that both must ultimate in greater good to all. I
am sorry the first must be so, I am sorry nature and the Gods
could not give us a less rough road to health, harmony, and
Heaven. Experience is sometimes, a very dear school, but
most people will learn in no other.
On love and marriage Protestants and Catholics are
nearly on the same plane, which is Roman. If our idea and
practice—so far as it goes—of “religious liberty” is better
than Rome's religious despotism, it is safe to say, Mrs. W.'s
“social freedom” may be better than our and Rome's, at the
best, conjugal semi-despotism. Theodore Tilton—a superior
man—plead for the removal of this despotism, and a thousand
human blood-hounds were on his track. Must we now see
Protestants and even semi-radicals and reformers fight “social
freedom” with the same weapons, and much in the same man-
ner and spirit as Rome has long fought “religious freedom?”
It is sickening!!
Mrs. Woodhull believes that a more conjugal freedom
will ultimate in less promiscuity, in more permanent loves,
and finally in monogamy, or much nearer to it than we now
are. If human nature was created, designed, or formed for
exclusive dual relations, in its highest and best man and
womanhood, that must be the issue. If it was not, it is folly,
it is madness to seek and expect it. True love is abiding—not
fickle. Mrs. W. would free woman from all forced relations.
Few persons are willing openly to oppose this. It cannot be
wiong.

7
I have as good a right to judge of what will promote my
own happiness in conjugal as in religious matters. I said
society has no more right to restrain the action of my conjugal
love than my religious love. In neither should a man be permit-
ted to trespass on the equal rights of all others, Judge Hol-
brook argues that society has the right to “restrain” the indi-
vidual from doing that which is not “for the highest good of
the greatest number.” Rome thinks it for the highest good
of the greatest number to crush out nearly all mental and
religious freedom. I am glad the Judge believes in a good
degree of mental freedom, even though it makes him inconsis.
tent and illogical. Since if he held the same views of mental
freedom that he does of conjugal freedom, and had the power,
my “fun” in writing and in seeing this article in print must
have been spoiled. The same applies with equal force to
many other of Mrs. W.'s opponents. When steeped down,
the main question seems to come to just this: “When, and how
far may the majority, or the more powerful, enforce their opin-
ions of what is “for the highest good of the greatest number"
upon the minority or weaker party; and how much may they
punish or rob one man a little to bless and give another man
more?” I here hold up the glass without comment.
It is notorious that our laws do not allow conjugal free-
dom as they do religious freedom. Josh Houses are built and
furnished with images of gods, and no one objects. Our con-
stitution allows and defends it. Men are permitted to leave
one church and join another daily and freely, or to renounce
all churches and all religion. On the other hand, if one at-
tempts to live a bigamist or polygamist, all parties being in
harmony, he is furnished a home in a State's Prison. If a
man is even suspected by some jealous, tyrannical and brutal
husband, of trespassing on his exclusive conjugal claims, even
by the free consent and choice of the other party, he is liable
to be shot down in the streets, and the murderer may escape
conviction, if not a trial. Possibly he may go on some honor-
able foreign mission.

S
Mrs. Woodhull comes out in a sharp and forcible protest
against such laws and such public opinion, and demands the
same conjugal freedom that our laws give us on religious
matters.
Judge J. W. Edmonds protests against Mrs. W. with
more than common feeling for him. Many others do the
same. Judge E. C. Holbrook writes about a page, in all, in
the Religio Philosophical Journal. I have read and re-read
both of the Judge's articles, and I find no word or sentence in
which he would make conjugal love less free than religious
and money matters. He asserts “that all matters pertaining
to love and marriage are as much proper subjects of control
and restraint by law as any other.” “As much.” Who ob-
jects to this? He only asks to put love “on a par with other
natural rights,” with “the right to life, liberty, and the pur-
suit of happiness.” I so understand him. Then why these
five columns?! Where has Mrs. Woodhull asked for more
conjugal freedom than our constitution grants and secures to
religious freedom?
Does the Judge tell us Mrs. W. states her principles of
conjugal freedom in broad and unlimited terms? I ask, has
she done this more so than does the United States Constitution
on religious freedom, or than nine-tenths of our lecturers on
religious freedom? I assert that if Mrs. W. had used the
same language touching religious freedom, many of her now
opponents would have eulogized her. Judge Holbrook, I am
obliged to conclude that you would not allow as much conjugal
as religious freedom; or that you wrote that whole page
under a misconception. I have no doubt the first is true.
And here is where the thing rubs with you and with others
who have written much, as you have.
I call for close quarters and for more stern logic. We
ought not to complain of a “woman's” want of logic, and
then outdo her in loose, random, and illogical composition.
In case the sect you alluded to had taken the liberty to

worship “naked” in their own private meetings would you
have Government imprison them? A writer in the Index
suggests the supposable case of “a woman of the town” who
might propose to walk the streets naked to advertise her busi-
ness. There is no difference of opinion as to what is proper
in such cases. But the fact that Mrs. W.'s opponents have
been driven to hunt up such imaginary, such exceptional, ex-
treme, and almost morally impossible cases to illustrate their
dissent from what they imagine to be her position, is, to say
the least, a very strong argument in her favor. “Isaiah.”
could not be permitted to walk our streets naked even if he
should say “God commanded it,” or that his religion required
it. I do not affirm or deny that there are any absolutely “inal-
ienable rights.” No government allows any.
Judge Holbrook says he took up his pen in this contro-
versy for “fun.” I offer him the “fun” of replying to what
he cannot overlook as the main arguments in this article. I
invite all who have complained of Mrs. Woodhull's want of
logic, to test their own logic hy confuting the logic in this
article. If my friend A. E. Newton is essentially my oppo-
ment, I ask him to show wherein.
Since some of Mrs. W.'s opponents are fond of looking
up exceptional cases, I must gratify them with one on our
side. There are, at this time, two beautiful and good twin
sisters in an Asylum in our state from broken hearts. Both
loved one boy. He loved both girls, and would gladly have
taken both. Neither could take him at the expense of the
other. Our laws and public opinion were inexorable. I have
the charity for Judge H. to believe that he would gladly give
that boy a permit to marry both girls if the law gave him
the right to do it. My “fun” is up. The reader must have
another. A boy was in love, and courting twins, supposing he
was courting but one girl. They first saw his mistake, and
arranged a meeting for the first time in his presence. One of
them asked, “Which of us have you meant to court?” He

10
said, “I cannot tell.” She asked, “Which do you love and
desire to marry?” He said, “Both.” None of them are
married or insane.
Some Spiritualists have expressed a desire to humble
Mrs W. and her friends. That is impossible. None of us
can humble anybody but ourselves. Possibly you may divide
the Spiritualists' ranks by forming Sectarian organizations.
If Spiritualists ever divide, it must be into conservatives
and radicals. The conservatives must do it by leaving the
radicals. In the late excitement I see some who are getting
lost, and must yet retrace their steps. If the division must
come, I would gladly aid all in determining their true home.
From my standpoint, Judge J. W. Edmonds has been a
life-long conservative. From his I must be an extreme Radi-
cal, and more likely a fanatic. Only a moral miracle could
bring us to see eye to eye on the love question. In this we
are not an unfair representation of the mass of Spiritualists.
The Judge and myself are both old enough to be wise. He
is my senior in years. I am older as a Spiritualist. Since
my conversion to the modern idea of spiritualism dates back
thirty-three years this September, 1872. I had held more
or less intelligent and useful communication with unseen
intelligences during fifteen years previous. I have been forty
years an abolitionist. I was in entire sympathy with Mr.
Garrison, then with John Brown, even in his raid on Virginia.
When all other means seemed sure to fail, I did what I could
to get up our late terrible war, believing and feeling that even
such a war was less bad, less terrible than the perpetuity of
American Slavery. When the pinch of war came, and our
government showed signs of a disposition to abolish Slavery,
I freely gave my only son (only child) to fight its battles. I
was then confined to my bed and chair, and knew this must be
for life.
When war threatened, Judge Edmonds used his large
influence to prevent, or rather, to suspend it—as it would have

11
proved only that—by dividing the Union, and so leaving the
slaves to their fate; and this, when we had long held them
for their masters to rivet their chains. I write this from no
disrespect to the Judge. I have respected him for forty years,
and even when I felt the deepest grief at his course. Through
the aid of Washington, he has seen and confessed his error in
the one act referred to. But if he had not, I have ever
viewed him as an honest man, and perhaps as true to his
mental organization as I have been to mine. The blacks were
a part of me. For thirty years I had daily heard their pray-
ers and their groans. I never could see color when looking
at humanity. I had fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, wives,
and children in slavery. Had the Judge's natural father,
mother, wife and children been in slavery, he would have felt
and acted as I did. In that case, instead of an effort to
escape the responsibilities of slavery by dividing the Union,
he too, would have been in heart and in head “a John Brown
Illan.
On conjugal matters, I have personally experienced only
harmony. But my close relation to all human sufferings has
forced me to feel deeply and to think deeply on such matters.
From the plane of the Judge, I am sure he must have thought
John Brown “insane,” as some of his old comrades have
thought him “insane,” and as he and others now think Mrs.
Woodhull something worse than that, if not that. Had he
read my letters, one to Governor Wise of Virginia, another
to Sºlmon P. Chase, then Governor of Ohio, in those stirring
times, he, no doubt, would have thought me insane. There is
no use in mincing words here. If Judge Edmonds and those
on his plane have always and do represent the highest and
purest sanity on humane and reformatory subjects, the writer
and those on his plane, have not and do not. If the pro-
slavery churches—North and South—in their inhuman and
hellish perseverance in defense of slavery, were samples of
strict sanity as they always claimed to be, Mr. Garrison and his

12
friends were not; they were more or less insane. If the pro-
slavery politicians who did so much to make the war necessary,
and then so much to protract it, till our sacrifices in men and
in means were enormous, were samples of sane heads and sane
hearts, the men who were the most for freedom were not.
We may and must forgive, but we never can, we never
ought to ignore or forget, especially not while the same spirit
lives in all its force and power. The past should be a moni-
tor and a warning to the present, and the future. If an ex-
treme sense of injustice, and extreme sympathy with sufferers
is incompatible with the best sanity, the writer has known
little of the best.
Before our son left for the war, in the presence of his
captain, I said to him, “If you are required to return a fugi-
tive slave,” (it had been done, and was against all laws of
war) “respectfully but firmly decline. If your officer insists
and attempts to force you to it, sooner than obey, shoot him.”
What man who is not less than human would not choose death
rather than aid in enslaving his own parents and near friends?
Does or does not strict sanity require one to do by other
people's parents and friends what any man not beneath the
brute would do by his own? It has been well said, that “the
insane and fanatics of yesterday are often the wise men of
to-day, and may be the saints and sages of to-morrow.”
Judge Edmonds' daughter was, and probably is in the
Roman Catholic Church. Her father desired her to remain
there. This is no doubt, right and wise for him and for fer.
A true daughter of the writer could not live in that church,
and hardly better in any orthodox Protestant Church.
Dear reader, when the division comes, if come it must,
and you know yourself to be conservative in the blood, go
from Mrs. Woodhull and her friends. If you are radical in
the blood, go with her and them, and may the Gods he merci-
ful to both radicals and conservatives. All are his children,
or nature's product.

13
Tennie C. Claflin said—in substance—in a lecture,
“We have tried to make “rake' as disgraceful as whore."
We cannot do it. And now we are determined to take the
disgrace out of ‘whore.’ This, to me, is awfully just. It
ought to go into the next edition of Mr. Stebbins' book,
“The Bible of the Ages.” I shout over its real meaning,
Amen and Amen. In nothing has woman so disgraced her.
self and shown her weakness as in cursing her sex, her sisters
for even one lapse from legal virtue, while she fawns upon,
courts, and, seemingly, will about as soon marry the known
libertine. These curses on one side and fawning on the other
more often come from those who have the least real purity.
In view of woman's dependence I forgive her. But I bless
any and every woman who has the moral courage to free her-
self and to try to free her sex from such abject and degrading
mental slavery. Diabolically insane is that public opinion
which sustains such injustice, and all to “keep marriage
respectable!” What a host of comparatively innocent and
pure spirits, compared to many in marriage, and compared to
most of her sharpest accusers, have been and are being offered
on this altar I
There is nothing more infamously insane than that public
opinion which holds a child disgraced because its parents had
no license from a Priest or Justice to make children—because it
came into the world illegally. By the laws of God and na-
ture “illegitimacy” is impossible. Such public opinion is
only"madness. This same public permits a man to beget any
number of children in the marriage bed by virtual rape, and
covers his act with respectability. We are urged to believe
that such society has a great regard for true love and real
purity. (I believe it still true that “harlots” stand a better
chance for heaven than prudes and Pharisees. Jesus was
right.)
I here tell those children whose parents were considered
disorderly in their begetting, that they are in the very best of

14
company. I name a Farragut, than whom perhaps a wiser
and better sailor and officer never rode the sea.—and an
Abraham Lincoln, than whom but few better men have lived,
and no wiser or better man ever sat in the President's chair
at Washington.
Note—This article was not written to prove that free-
dom is better than despotism, hence does not claim to meet
the Roman mind. The writer has no idea of going over a
controversy of some hundred or more years. But if the reader
is a believer in mental and religious freedom, let him write or
get some able believer to write his principles of religious
freedom, and then write his strong reasons, his logic and argu-
ments in support of said principles, and he will have Mrs. W.'s
and her friends' reasons and arguments for conjugal freedom.
I concede to Rome that religious despotism may make the best
bigots and the best slaves. But I deny that it makes the best
men, best women, and best society.
Does any one attempt to brake the force of the logic in
the body of this article by denying all essential analogy be.
tween the religious and conjugal brain, I can only here notify
him that I sell a Book, the price of which is 80 cents, post-
paid, which demonstrates the correctness of such analogy, and
annihilates all arguments against it. I will mail the work for
less to those who feel unable to pay so much. The work,+
* FRee Love"—has been pronounced by some of the best
minds among whom were some of its opponents, to be one of
the deepest and most logical works ever published in America.
My dear reader—after enduring a life of uncommon
physical suffering, all from hereditary causes, I have now been
confined to my bed and chair over fifteen years, and fed ten
years; cause inflammatory rheumatism. My knees are fast.
ened as one sits in his chair. My hands cannot be got nearer
than one foot of my face. I can do nothing but write, and
that in much pain. My right hand thumb and forefinger are
fastened as one holds the pen. I am past sixty-three; but I
think I feel the mental weakness of most men eighty or over.
My memory fails, and I ask the reader to overlook any marks
of this weakness which he may discover.
AUSTIN KENT.
Stockholm. St. Lawrence Co., New York,
Sept. 1872.

APPENDIX.
Since writing this article, Mrs. woodhull writes;–" To me the dis-
tinction between what the individual has and has not an absolute
right to control is very clear and well defined. Anything which does
not involve others, the individual controls absolutely. Anything that
involves two individuals, they control absolutely; and so on up to and
including the whole community.” In reply to my reference to Judge
Holbrook's suggestion that a sect might think it their duty to worship
“naked,” Mrs. Woodhull says:– “The individual has an absolute
right to go naked in his own room. Two individuals in the same
room have the right if agreed. But mark, the streets belong not to
individuals, but to the public, and the public has a right to regulate
it as a public, the same as an individual has a right to regulate his
own room or house. The individual is not only the individual, but
also a part of the community; and in matters over which the com-
munity has the right of control the individual is lost in the larger
body. Hence I do not see that there are any individual rights that
are not, or ought not to be “inalienable,” since besides those rights
there are also community rights which are “just as inalienable as
they are.” If any of Mrs. Woodhull’s opponents have made as clear
a statement of principles on this subject, I have overlooked it. It is
very good. I challenge Mrs. W.'s opponents to write a criticism
against its application to conjugal freedom which will not bear
against the Protestant idea of “civil and religious freedom” as well.
Still it is not always clear to me, when and where to apply these
principles.
Have I or have I not an “inalienable” right to cut short my
stay in the body? Who allows it? I know of no right more “inal-
ienable” or more absolute than the right of woman to choose the
father of her children. If, after bearing one or more children by one
man, a woman thinks herself capable of making a wiser and better
choice, it is her right to choose again, and possibly again. If one
woman has a right to sell, give, or for any reason, bargain away the
conjugal use of her body for life to one man, another has a right to
do the same for any less time to another man. If society is bound
to protect the first in her right, it ought to protect the last as well.
If Mrs. Hardinge-Britten demurs at this last statement, (I have
heard that she does,) I invite her to criticise it in some free paper.
Do you tell us the “influence” of such a course is bad on society
and very bad on exclusive marriage? I am not discussing my own
16
or anybody’s likes or dislikes, nor what I, or anybody, thinks bad
or good. Every religious sect thinks the doctrines of every other sect
more or less bad on society. But each sect has or has not certain
rights; and this even if in an extreme minority. If the minority
have any rights, society is bound to protect them in these rights.
Respected opponents, have the minority rights, or have they none?
If they have, what are they? We urge upon you to clearly define and
clearly state your religious and conjugal principles of freedom and con-
trol before writing another line of censure of Mrs. W.'s. We urge, we
challenge investigation. In fact, this pamphlet is intended as a
direct challenge to Mrs. W.'s opponents to discuss conjugal freedom
in any paper where both sides can be heard.
I have been told by one who ought to know that the Spiritualists
will not bear its free and fair discussion. If that be so, let the fact
come out. Where are we? The readers of the Tribune did lear it
some twenty years ago. The Socialists permitted it twenty years
and more ago.
A writer very justly asks,—“Why do not those who criticise Mrs.
Woodhull quote more of her speeches? not select those parts that,
disconnected and alone, give wrong impressions and ideas. Why do
not they quote something like the following from her speeches.
“While assuming this ultra position we also occupy the other extreme,
and declare that of all relations that exist in the universe there are
none that should be so holy, so sacred, so reverenced, honored, wor-
shipped, as the true unity, the true marriage, the marriage by God of
two pure, trusting, loving, equal souls. Before the shrine of such
devotion no impurities can kneel; within the influence of such holi-
ness the highest angels come, and around its temple heaven lingers.
Never are any more wide of the mark than when they think we
would reduce the relation of the sexes to common looseness. To us
there is nothing more revolting in nature than such a condition
implies.” - - - - - - “I believe promiscuity
to be anarchy, and the very antithesis of that for which I aspire. I
know that there are all degrees of lust and love from the lowest to
the highest. But I believe the highest sexual relations are those that
are monogamic, and that those are high and spiritual in proportion
as they are continuous. But I protest, and I believe every woman
who has purity in her soul protests against all laws that would com-
pel her to maintain relations with men for whom she has no re-
gard. I honor that purity of life which comes from the heart, while
I pity the man or woman who is pure simply because the law compels
it,” --


17
WOODHULL AND BEECHER.
Feb., 1873.
Whether Mrs. Woodhull was right or wrong in exposing Mr.
Beecher's past life, the Beechers had cut off their right to even
censure her for it. She was in the wake of a great, a Beecher exam-
ple. Mrs. Harriet Beecher Stowe had published more infamous
charges against Byron and his sister. Mrs. Stowe wrote of the dead
who could not defend themselves. Mrs. Woodhull wrote of the living
who can defend themselves if innocent, and she gave them every
chance to do it. But there is now no doubt of their substantial truth-
Mr. Beecher did not censure his sister for her article on Byron.
The Rev. Charles Voysey (a popular, but radical clergyman in
England,) in F. E. Abbott’s Indez, writing on “The good of Moral
Evil,” says, “You may keep people in order by laws, by threats of
punishment, and by swift and impartial administration of justice.
But these methods of getting people to behave well, do not necessarily
make people good. On the contrary, the tendency of these methods
is to keep them from knowing that there is such a thing as real good-
ness at all.” Mr. W. admits the necessity of more or less of these
law measures, but asserts that using these means alone is to “leave
out the core and kernel, and to plant only the shell.” “ ” He says
“We have not really given them liberty.” If we “withhold liberty”
we “make real goodness for the time being impossible.” " -
“Liberty is the first essential of real goodness.” ” “ “If we are
to become good at all, we can only become good of our own free choice,
and we cannot intelligently choose between right and wrong until we
have tried both and know what we are doing.” In abridging I have
not mis-stated Mr. Voysey's meaning. It is so far the Protestant
argument for the necessity of freedom on all subjects to real mental
or moral progress. It is exactly Mrs. Woodhull's doctrines, or princi-
ples. The elder Owen (now dead,) Andrews, Barry, and a host of
others, mean just this, and no more.
EXTRACTS OF PRIVATE LETTERS FROM PARKER PILLSBURY
TO A FRIEND.
Toledo, Ohio, Nov. 5, 1872.
My Dear Friend:—What are they doing to Victoria, the brave?
Are those charges against that Wall-Street broker true, do you, can
you believe? If so, though she die and rot in Ludlow-Street Jail,
she will yet be enshrined as a martyr worthy of more honor than all
the victims of St. Bartholomew's day together.

18
If what she charges on that man be true, what young girl is safe
one moment? Better they be enjungled with tigers and hyenas, or
encaved with adders and rattlesnakes! What father, what mother of
daughters does not kindle into fiery indignation at such atrocity 2 To
believe a mortal being ever made up such a chapter of horrors is
simply awful! To know that such had been an actual transaction by
man or fiend, is to mark an epoch in the annals of guilt, shame and
crime that bleaches all Iever heard before into innocence.
If the revelations of that one man be true, no matter though
Mrs. Woodhull were an imp of hell, the age owes her a debt of grati-
tude. She should have a monument of polished, Parian marble, as
high as Trinity steeple, and every father and mother of daughters,
should be proud to contribute each a stone. If her conscience approve
what she has done, no matter now what she may suffer. If she have
not borne any false witness in this affair, though she may hang, as
did John Brown, like him also she shall be immortal, as her soul also
“goes marching on.”
Hastily, but truly yours, Parker Pittsbury.
SALEM, Ohio, Feb. 6, 1873.
It seems to me that the last Weekly is the most remarkable and
most valuable newspaper ever printed. There is but one word in it
which I regret. There is but one word in Paine's Age of Reason
which I deplore. There are many in the Bible which I should loathe
did I care anything about them, or the book itself, one way or
another.
The word I dislike is near the bottom of twelfth page. “Living
Lion” is good; the other baste is no good. Sumner once called his
odorous name in the Senate. I want the tone of the Weekly to be
dignified and lofty as the Majesty of God. Were I living in or near
New York, I certainly would go and give it one day in the week,
could I make its appearance, in some respects, a little more presenta-
ble—not its matter, but its mechanical and artistic appearance. I
presume it has to be hurried up as amid the flame of battle, and can-
not stand much on the matter of music nor mode of advance; secure
only, as it ever aims to be, against retreat or surrender.
I heard yesterday that the name of Mrs. Woodhull was blasphemed
in the call for the recent Woman Suffrage Convention at Wash-
ington, it being said: “Mrs. Woodhull has not been invited, is not
expected to attend.”
I would not have signed such a call to save that accursed city
|rom the fate and fire of Sodom.

19
Perhaps, did I know Mrs. Woodhull better, I might like her worse.
But she is now the most outraged, persecuted woman Ieversaw. And
so far as I can learn of her manner, temper, spirit, she is sublimely
brave, noble, heroic—more worthy a martyr's fame and crown than
any woman the nineteenth century has yet produced I don’t care
who knows that as the honest opinion of
Parken Pittsbury.
- SALEM, Ohio, Feb. 13, 1873,
At the opening of the rebellion I lost caste with Garrison for ad-
herence to Wendell Phillips. At the close of the war Phillips an-
athematized me for going with the Revolution for women; not against,
but along with the negro suffrage. Phillips contending then that it
was “not woman's, but the Negro's hour.”
And forfeiting the favor of the two chieftains, of all the anti-slave-
ry clans, 1 lost, of course, the friendship of their followers but I should
have to do the same thing over again were the same events to trans-
pire which then impelled me.
Suffrage seems now almost assured, and other questions, more mo-
mentous now press their claims. -
Mrs. Woodhull, unexpectedly doubtless to herself, as well as to every-
body else is the fulcrum for the triune question of free speech, free
press and free religion; and as such, I regard her at this moment
as the most important woman on the globe. No other represents so
many of the most vital interest of human destiny; and standing se-
renely, nobly brave as she now to me appears; contending in truly
divine spirit and earnestness for the highest, holiest of human rights,
rights of men as well as women; whatever of influence I have
or can have, with men or gods, shall all be cheerfully given in her be-
half.
You ask if you may print part of a letter of mine. I write no
more for newspapers not even for the Indez—but you may, if it is
worth it, print anything of mine of general or public interest. It is
no time to be afraid or ashamed of one’s self or sentiments. Faith-
fully and truly yours,
Parker Pittsbury.

WHAT IS SPIRITUALISM 2
By airs. Woodlau LL.
The question whether Spiritualism is humanitarian or sectarian is
at length fairly launched. The same question that has divided and
subdivided religious sects until they now number themselves by hun-
dreds near unto thousands, is at work in Spiritualism. Protestant-
ism, it seems, has not yet completed its work. There must still be
more protests and more divisions and more new formations of so-
called religious organizations.
But here another question arises, and it is this: Shall we never
reach a religion from which there can be no division? We unhesita-
tingly answer, Yes? but not until the religion that is reached be as
broad as humanity, reaching downward as low as the lowest devil,
and upward as high as the highest angel.
The fact that a question of division has arisen among Spiritualists
is proofas clear as the noon-day sun that Spiritualism, as understood
by some, is not the final religion; is not that complete and rounded-
to fullness faith which shall stand the test of all time and satisfy the
soul of every human being. Hence those who call themselves Spirit-
ualists, and at the same time endeavor to shut out any part of hu.
manity from that Spiritualism; or to shut out from their Spiritual-
ism the consideration of any humanitarian question—any question
which deeply and virtually interests any part of the great human
family—by so doing, put forth their best efforts to demonstrate that
Spiritualism is not the final and perfect Ism to which all nations
kindred and tongues shall finally come.
There are even those who deem it requisite to fashion a measure,
by which to test those who pretend to be Spiritualists, to prove them
worthy or unworthy to be admitted to close communion. That is to
say; a class of people calling themselves Spiritualists assume to
themselves the authority and right to determine who may and who
may not be Spiritualists. Was there ever a sect of so-called Christians
more sectarian than that class? Nevertheless, some of its orators
stand on the rostrum and declare that Spiritualism is the true relig.
ion, and is large enough to take in all humanity; and the very next
time they speak, with all the affected virtue of the veriest Pharisee.
they assert that “Spiritualism has nothing to do with side issues.”
Now, in the name of common sense, and in the name of a common

21
humanity, we would like to ask this class of teachers, What are
“side issues,” in a question that is boundless—that is large enough
for the whole human family?
But, says one, “Spiritualism as a religion has nothing to do with
the social question.” Ah! our good friend, then, there is a question
that doesn’t belong to the sphere of a religion that is as large as hu-
manity. “Besides,” says another, “Spiritualism can't carry more
than it has already on its back. It can’t take on the Social Question.”
Then, our good friend, you confess, and unblushingly too, that your
Spiritualism is so weak that it can’t stand the truth, let it be what it
may, and lead where it may. Is that what you mean? Do you have
the effrontery to pretend that you have a religion that is afraid of
truth, afraid to investigate, afraid to take up the advocacy of any im-
portant question? Is that what you really mean to have the world
understand your Spiritualism consists of And you, for the last
twenty years, have been condemning the same thing in churchites'
What better are ye than they?
The churches said they could not stand Spiritualism—did not dare to
investigate it—did not even dare to have it known that any
of their members visited mediums; and you laughed them to scorn—
even felt a contempt for their foolishness, their weakness, their lack
of manhood and womanhood; yet, now that a new question has risen
under the sun-no newer to you than Spiritualism was to them—you,
forgetting your scoffs and contempts, place yourselves in the same
position you so recently condemned in others—become your own con-
demnation.
For our part we never see a professing Spiritualist assume this
position without a blush of shame mantling our cheeks, that any
who have been brave enough to become spiritualist should become too
cowardly to face any truth, to investigate any question, and especially
to see them ignore the social question.
Of all questions having the most vital of all interests, this one
stands pre-eminent. It is that one in which every human being is
more deeply interested than in any other. It is as much more vital
and important than is the mere knowledge that welive after physical
death, as the fact of perfection in body, mind and soul, is moreim-
portant than the means by which imperfect bodies, minds and souls
can be made to endure life—to say nothing about its enjoyment. It
is all very well to have an elegantly furnished house; but a much
more important thing to have a good house to furnish. It is even
better to have a good house even poorly furnished than to have a bad
house so well furnished as to be tumbled in ruins by its own weight,

22
which is the fact of most of our physical bodies—tenements in which
the spirit dwells.
We would not have it understood that we undervalue the immense
benefit to the human family that the knowledge of spirit life will bring.
By no means. We have spent to many blessed hours in its contem-
plation; felt too often the sweetness and the blessedness of spirit pres-
ence; and too often communed with those who would otherwise be as
though lost. But what we do mean, and what we would be understood
as meaning, is: that however beautiful and glorious the truth of con-
tinuous life may be, we should not loose sight of more basic questions
in its contemplation; should not become intoxicated with its loveli-
ness, and permit the day to pass and do no work; or the night to
approach and find us where we were when the day came.
Spiritualism, in the sense in which we fear too many regard it, is
the most intensely selfish religion that has ever come to man. In the
self satisfaction that comes to the individual, when he regards his fu-
ture life as assured, he loses all thought of and regard for the com-
ing generation. What good will it do to the unborn millions, that you
revel in the consciousness that you were not to die and be no
more? We sometimes wonder that Spiritualists can so thoroughly
surrender themselves to this idea. It is quite too much like the old-
school religionists, whesing of their city the New Jerusalem, with its
streets of silver and palaces of gold, forgetting the groaning millions
in hell-fire beneath. “It is all right with me; what care I for any
body else?” is the same in the Spiritualist as in the Sectarian.
Now, we would have our Spiritualism something very different from
this stuff, which is unworthy to be tolerated by a professedly large-
souled people. While basking in the sunshine of spirit existence,
we would also turn earthward and inquire: What of those who shall
come after us? Are we preparing easier and better roads for them
to travel than were those in which we have travelled ” And are we
also making such preparation and improvement as shall insure that
they have vehicles better than we have in which to travel? Are
we endeavoring to replace the old and unsightly stage coaches and
slow ox-carts by the luxurious palace car and the swift express?
These are the vital questions for the true humanitarian to be en-
deavoring to answer; to be, when solved, adorned by the beauties
that are being showered upon the world from the homes of the
angels; and it is to these that we would invite all Spiritualists.
No reform can ever eventuate in great and lasting good to the world
unless it begin to reform where the evil to be reformed begins. Now
our idea of reform is this: Reform for the world means a better class

23
of men and women. Unless there can be better men and women,
then there is no reform; and men and women cannot be very much
better than they now are, unless they are first conceived by better
conditions, gestated under better circumstances, and grown through
better treatment. Perfect these three processes and there must nec.
essarily be perfect men and women. Heretofore the direct issues of
these several things have been either evaded or ignored. The realm
in which they dwell has been considered one into which no modest per-
son could enter. But the time has come in which it must be proclaim-
ed throughout the length and breadth of the land, that no modest
person can refuse to enter this realm, and to do whatever lies in his
or her power to correct its heretofore utterly neglected functions.
These have been performed in ignorance and darkness, quite too long.
It is time that they be brought out into the light—into the sunshine,
which gives health and strength, and be thoroughly analyzed and per-
fectly understood by every person before they shall ever dare to as-
sume them.
Has Spiritualism nothing to do with this greatest-of-all questions?
Has it nothing to do with making humanity purer and better?—
nothing to do with making it brighter, happier, and more as the spirit
world would have it, before it enters their domain? Surely they have
too much imperfection with which to deal. Surely they would have
this mundane sphere better perform its work. Then say no more that
Spiritualism has nothing to do with the social question; but rather
let it seize hold of it and drag it up from its present daubed and
filthy condition, and plant it on the throne, where all must worship
at its shrine and obey its mandates.
AN ENGLISH VIEW OF MBS. WOODHULL AND HER WORK.
The subjoined letter, from an English correspondent, puts the case as
looked upon from his standpoint, in clear and unmistakable language:
Epitons Banner of Light: Sirs—May I be allowed to say, briefly,
a word on the recent speeches of Mrs. Victoria C. Woodhull, and her sis.
ter, Miss Tennie Claflin, and how they are received by those I come in
contact with here in England?
These speeches have, I believe, caused considerable sensation in the
States, and here they have caused many surprising statements of opinions.
In England, as in the States, in some cases, they have been replied to by
being abused; but also, in many other cases, they have caused people to
think over subjects that had hitherto been taken as a matter of course.
In fact, I do not think I am overstating the fact when I say they have
caused a revolution in private social thought-private, I mean, so far as

24
simple conversation goes; for we have not had yet any one who has been
bold enough to imitate your New York business ladies, and take up and
discuss the matter on a public platform; yet, from what has come under
my own notice, I am sure these opinions are becoming more prevalent,
and they are only kept in private life because of the fact that, as yet,
they are new, novel and unfashionable. Nevertheless, I do believe these
ideas are growing stronger each day. It is not for me to speak of the
value of the arguments that are put forward, or yet here discuss them;
I have my own opinion concerning them, and only hope they may be well
ventilated and discussed, and their truth and morality tested. It must
be acknowledged by all that Mrs. Woodhull has raised some grave social
problems, and that she has struck at the very root of one of the most uni-
versal of social customs. Whether her views are right or wrong, good or
bad, moral or immoral, must be or ought to be proved.
I think it is well for us all to follow the truth, let it lead where it may,
and that no consideration of policy ought to prevent us meeting honestly
any question that can be fairly put before us. I altogether deprecate
the manner some take of answering inconvenient arguments, viz., by
abuse; and think that no philosophic or truth-loving mind will so act;
but, on the contrary, for the sake of mankind and humanity, I trust all
free-thinkers will loose no opportunity of condemning this style of reas-
oning, and give every argument on whatever subject, and coming from
whomsoever it may, a fair field and no favor.
I am interested in the discussing of this subject, and hope it will be
thoroughly examined, and that, during the examination, we shall all
avoid the unseemly and ignoble style of calling names.
Let Mrs. Woodhull be right or worng, in this age of progressive princi-
ples and freedom she can claim a respectful and fair hearing, to deny her
which will be unjust on our part. For myself—and I might speak for
many others of my own personal acquaintance—I do publicly thank her
for bringing the question before the people, and I cannot but admire the
plucky, brave and fearless manner in which she has dared to advocate
and expound what she seems to honestly think the right, in the face of
the fact that it is unfashionable. It is just possible that courage may
consist in other acts than facing a battery or leading a forlorn hope, and
also it is just possible that general opinion may be wrong, and the views
held by “society” decidedly pernicious.
Apologizing for intruding upon your space, yet feeling it almost a duty
ask you to insert this letter, I am, dear sir, yours, etc.,
Robert J. Kendall.
4. Catherine Terrace. l
Burley Fields, Leeds, Eng. J.




J AMIE sºn's 800 K1,
“THE CLERGY A. SOURCE OF DANGER TO
- THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.”
run Earpose–Second Edition. Just Published, 4 Volume
of 331 Pages.
One of the most startling books ever issued from the press. Price.
º in muslin, postage paid, $1.75. Gilt edge, $2.00.
what The press Says of the Work.
We consider Mr. Jamieson as having done a most useful and needed
work in publishing this book. It ourht to be read by every one who
takes the least interest in the Christian amendment movement, or any
of the allied questions. It is on ºntº wºrn Isroºt attox of all kinds
bearing on the general issues; and every pare burns with intense ear-
nestness.-Flº Rºligº ous Ixtolºv.
Interesting, valuable and timely. It abounds with important facts.
No More nºontº Nºt voluxº has bºx issued rºomſ tº pºss roº
MANY Yº Ans.—Bostox Ixwº-rº tºº.
“A million copies of the above work ourht to be sold and circulated
in America.”-Austis ºwn.
A rºlerica’s Tºoes 2
PAMPHILET 28 PAGES, 10 cts
The Clergy and our Common Schools.
PAM-H-LET, ºs PAGES. 10 CENTS.
ADDRESS ALL tº Elks DO
IV. F. J. A. M. I. E. S. O. N.
- 139 and 141 Monroe Street,
Cº-º-º-º-º-
The Independent Tract Society.
An impartial cheap, and faithful medium by which Radicals of ex-
ery shade of opinion and thought can reach the Public. Organized ex-
pressly to meet the demand for a fºe and independent Publishing
House. All kinds of printing and publishing promptly attended to.
Allress:
A. B. DAVIS. Sººy, Box. 502, CLINTox, Mass.
Davis º Parlisler,
ºnal. Lati & ºut Jrinters.
HIGH Sºº, Cºtºroix, Tºtass-
Orders by Mail will receive prompt attention.
* ----> -->. GEO. J. PARKER