**********
A DISCUSSION
O- T --
SOG|| QUESTION
-----N
JūLIET. H. SEVERANCE, M D.
A N-1)
DAVID JONES.
Editor of the “Olive Branch.”
PRICE, 15 Cents.
MILWAUKEE, WIS.
National Advance, Pºint,









£u-aa.º. Cºlactº
gº ºvº-ºwa.k.
- 437-
A DISCUSSION
OF THE
SOCIAL QUESTION
BETWEEN
JúLIET. H. SEVERANCE, M. D.
AND
DAVID JONES,
Editor of the “Olive Branch.”
PRICE, (5 Cents,
Milwaukee, wis.
- - -
National Advance, PRINT, .
- 1891.



To My FRIENDs and the Thinking Public GENERALly:
phlet, the following facts and arguments, pro and con,
in the interest of truth, for the reason that our Spirit-
ualist papers are not yet emancipated from dogmatic sec-
tarianism on the one hand, and fear of the public censure
on the other, so that a fair statement of facts and princi-
ples on both sides can have a hearing.
Happening to stop over at Cato, N. Y., on my return
from my eastern lecturing trip, I chanced to find the last
number of the Olive Branch (an appropriate name, I
thought) and to my amazement in an editorial entitled
“Lake Pleasant Camp Meeting,” found the following:
“It is well-known that certain side issues have been sad-
dled upon Spiritualism, and the noble men and women, in
the ranks, who have labored hard, for the upbuilding of the
cause in the land, have been made to bear the odium which
rightly belongs to a few persons, who perhaps from their
natural tendencies to evil, prefer to defy law, to ignore the
claims society has upon them; who clamor for freedom of
speech, freedom of thought, and freedom of action, and who
boldly proclaim the right of every woman to choose who
shall be the father of their children, changing the parentage
of their children as often as their unholy lusts may demand.
This damnable doctrine has been fastened to Spiritualism
by a few individuals, and though discountenanced by the
great body of Spiritualists, yet no opportunity is ever lost.
but what their vile and lecherous interests, are intruded
upon the public, to the contempt and disgust of every true
| HAVE felt called upon to present to you, in this pam-

4. A Discussion or The
man and woman, be they Spiritualists or Christians. As a
destroying element in society, free love as taught by Mrs.
Dr. Severance, has no equal. For a number of years this
woman has intruded her vile dictums into the various camp
meetings which she has attended; and so far as we know of
the practices of that class who advocate these doctrines,
they are ever to be found hand in hand with every disorgan-
izing element which may spring up. Hence we were not dis-
appointed when we found those who were opposed to the
action of the directors, shaking hands with the few advo-
cates of free love, who have still enough of brazen impu-
dence left, to force themselves upon the attention of law-
abiding citizens. But when the people spoke by their en-
dorsement of the action of the directors, we read clearly the
doom of free love upon these grounds.”
I immediately wrote to Mr. Jones, the editor, the follow-
ing letter:
CAto, September 4th, 1883.
Mr. David Jones.
Sir:-Having seen in your paper a shameful allusion to
myself, and my “vile dictums,” I have decided, that I have
borne such misrepresentations and abuse from certain par-
ties long enough. You very well know, sir, for you have
heard me lecture on the subject, that I advocate none but
the purest and elevating doctrines; and I well remember
when I gave my lecture in the tent to that large and enthu-
siastic audience, Mrs. Jones, was among the first to grasp
my hand, and thank me for it. Now, because I consider
Bundy beneath my contempt, even, and do not notice what
vile allusions he may make, is no reason why others can do
the same. His slander and abuse, I consider far more com-
plimentary to me than his praise would be. I have now
concluded to let those who make charges against me, prove
them. I am a native of this state, have lived for years
within twenty miles of Utica, and have friends who know
me the country over; and I know very well you can prove

Social, QUESTION. 5
nothing derogatory to my character, as an upright and
moral person. I have nothing in my life (as most of my
assailants have) that needs hiding from public gaze; and
the kind of dishonest managing that carried the day at
Lake Pleasant, would not be tolerated in a court of justice.
One of the ablest lawyers of New York will conduct my suit
free of charge, so indignant is he, at your dastardly course.
Now unless you choose to retract your libelous charges
against meat once, you may expect legal action.
It seems strange to me that you should so far forget all
principles of honesty and justice, as to charge me with being
the one to force the social question upon the Camp, for you
well know that Bundy, Mr. Daily, Mrs. Fletcher, Maud Lord
and Dr. Bailey, made violent and abusive speeches against
social freedom, in which they misrepresented our views,
claiming that we advocated vice and licentiousness, which
they knew, if they knew anything of the matter, were false-
hoods of the blackest dye. Then from the platform for the
first time, I stated the principles I advocated, and challeng-
ed any one, to meet my positions with arguments like men,
and cease their dirt-throwing. No one responded but Dr.
Bailey, who denied having opposed my views, being evi-
dently ashamed of it. Now under these circumstances, how
dare you make the statements you do. You know since the
first year, (when I spoke from the tent), I have received
very courteons treatment from the officers, until this sea-
son; and Mr. Beals, said to friends of mine, that I had one
of the most logical, sound minds he ever met. Last year I
was called to the platform to speak, by the presiding officer,
as soon as I entered Camp. All the trouble this year was
caused by Bundy, who is, I believe, intent on ruining Spirit-
ualism, but whose course will not be much longer tolerated,
by right minded people. I have been a lecturer on Spiritu-
alism and general reform for twenty-five years. I am at
present one of the board of directors of the Iowa State Con-
ference of Spiritualists, that have run a very successful
camp meeting this summer. Am vice-president of the Na-

6 A Discussion of The
tional Liberal League, an organizatism with two hundred
and forty-eight auxillary Leagues scattered over the United
States. Have been president of three State Spiritualist
associations, three years each, and only by refusing to act
on account of interference with my professional duties, was
some one else elected in my stead; and I can truly say that
at no time or place, would it have been possible for a per-
son to have called a speaker a liar, upon one of our plat-
forms, without receiving what it is the duty of any presid-
ing officer to administer—a severe rebuke, instead of being
invited on the platform, and introduced to the audience, as
was Bundy by Beals; but I rejoice that an indignant audi-
ence refused to hear him. Had Mr. Roberts done the same
thing that Bundy did, he would have been arrested, no
doubt, as a disturber of a public meeting, as he should have
been. I say shame upon such conduct. I left Lake Pleas-
ant, to fill an engagement at the seventh annual camp
meeting of the Michigan State Association of Spiritualists
and Liberalists. Then returned to attend the Free Think-
ers' Convention at Rochester, and next Sundayam engaged
at Pittsburg, at a State meeting; then in Ohio, Michigan
and Chicago, being engaged constantly until the last of
September. I speak of this to show you how truthful is the
statement of your contemporary Bundy, that in the West
I am unemployed, and only one place East, where I can
“browse around.”
Now I wish a reply to this at once, if you wish to do me
justice without recourse to the courts, which I am sure
would compel it. Direct to Pittsburg, Pa.
Yours for justice,
JULIET H. SEVERANCE, M. D.
I received the following reply:
OLIVE BRANCH OFFICE, Sept. 6, 1883.
Mrs. Dr. Severance:–
Dear Madam:-Ireceived a letter from you, post-marked
Cato, N. Y., in which you charge me with injustice towards

Social QUESTION. 7
yourself, and threatening a libel suit. Now I wish to state
my position, so that there need be no misunderstanding. I
have read the article referred to, but do not find wherein I
have assailed your private character. I referred to the ad-
vocacy of Free Love doctrines by you. Now the facts are
these: So far as your private life is concerned, it is none of
my business, nor have I made it my business. But as you
have stated that you were a Free Lover—this was done pub-
licly in the large tent, two or three years ago—and as you
stated at the reception tendered you at Mrs. Sylvester's
cottage that you would abrogate all marriage laws; such
reply, I thought, was out of place in a person occupying the
position you do before the public. Now, you know as well
as I do, that to throw down the gates erected for the govern-
ment and preservation of morality among the masses,
would be the destruction of thousands of homes, and give
to certain men and women the right to wander whitherso-
ever their lusts might lead them. Society is none too strict-
ly governed now, with the laws we now have upon our
statute books, nor can we be too guarded in our public
utterances relative thereto. You may be pure as an angel,
for aught I know; I prefer to think such is the case; and
free love as you interpret it, may be all right, if every one
could look upon it as you do; but they do not. To the
masses, it is a license to cohabit with whom they please,
provided both parties are agreed; therefore I consider it a
dangerous doctrine to advocate in public; and it was to
that end my article was directed. I am aware that in your
remarks on the public rostrum at the Lake, you said you
advocated the purest morals; but does the advocacy of free
love tend in that direction? I think not; the masses do
not think so, and the greatest stigma Spiritualism has to
bear is free lovism. I, for one, am tired of having to defend
the cause from attacks of this character, and was very
sorry to hear that you said what you did about abrogat-
ing all marriage laws. My informants of what was said on
that occasion, was Mrs. Pierce and Mrs. Fletcher, as it was

S A Discussion of the
one of them who asked you the question. Under the cir-
cumstances, believing as I do, I did what was for the best
interest of the cause of Spiritualism, to let the people know
that such doctrines were not a part of the Spiritualism ad-
vocated at Lake Pleasant. If I have wounded you feelings,
I am sorry for it; but as it was the principles advocated,
and not the person, which was made the subject of attack,
you will see that no personal injury was intended. Your
doctrines will not harm me. They will not harm anyone,
with an evenly balanced head; but, they would, if accepted
by the public in its present state of development, prove
injurious. A standard may be reached in time, when it will
be safe to teach free love; but that time is not the present;
at least I think so. As far as Mr. Bundy’s action, I did not
approve of it, yet the course taken by Wheeler was uncalled
for, and evidently premeditated. Men and women do many
things in the heat of passion that they would not do upon
reflection. Such, I think was the case with Bundy. Dr.
Beals did not invite him onto the platform. He asked the
right to say a word, and followed the request by stepping
onto the rostrum. As for Dr. Bailey, I know very little of
him, having never met him at a meeting before, and knew
nothing of his life, private or public. I trust at next year's
meeting, these questions will not be brought forward; but
that all will agree to work together for the general good,
and let all pet theories and hobbies rest, until the time has
arrived for their presentation. Mrs. Jones says she will be
disappointed, if she does not see you at Lake Pleasant next
year, and I hope you will pardon anything that you feel is
of a private character, as none was intended.
Respectfully yours,
- D. JONES.
I then wrote him as follows:
Pittsburg, September 9th, '83.
Mr. Jones–
Sirº–Yours in reply to my letter received, and contents
noted. You claim to believe me a pure woman, and you

Social, QUESTION. 9
certainly have no reason to believe otherwise. You admit
my views might he properly advocated in a more advanced
state of society. I claim they would, if understood, raise
society to a higher plane than it now occupies. Now, be-
cause of difference of opinion between us, probably honestly
entertained by both, you have sent out to the world an ac-
cusation against me which is utterly and totally false, and
calculated to injure my reputation, and my work, for the
elevation of humanity. You accuse me of “forcing my die-
tums upon meetings,” which is false; of “teaching damn-
able doctrines”—untrue; you refer to us (social reformers),
as persons, who from their natural tendencies to evil, “are
advocating the right of women to change the parentage of
their children as often as their unholy lusts may demand,
etc.” All these accusations I pronounce libels upon the
doctrines I advocate. I am willing to leave the case to the
verdict of the public–prejudiced as it is by reading such
articles as the one referred to-if you will publish my views,
in your paper, where they will be read by those who read
what you wrote against them. Now, if you desire to be
just, you will certainly not refuse to do that. You, of
course, reserving the right of fair and honest criticism,
which I always court. I send you my lecture on the sub-
ject, which contains the gist of the matter, and ask you to
publish the portion marked, if you wish to settle the matter
that way. You have no right to interpret Free-love by
what its enemies say of it, nor attribute to it actions its
enemies alone indulge in. The advocates of Free-love are
the most pure in their lives of any class of people I know.
Now if ignorance misinterprets it, making it mean some-
thing low and vile, that is no reason you should accept and
perpetuate such misinterpretation.
If you publish this, which no fair minded person can
refuse to do after what you have published, I will leave the
verdict with the public, instead of a jury in a libel suit.

10 A Discussion of The
Please reply at once, informing me of your decision. Direct
to Cleveland, O.
JULIET H. SEVERANCE, M. D.
Not receiving any letter at Cleveland, after my return
home, I wrote a postal, asking if any letter was sent me at
Cleveland, to which the following reply was received:
OLIVE BRANCH OEFICE, Sept. 22, '83.
Dear Madam:-I wrote you at Cleveland, stating that I
would publish the part of the lecture indicated, with the
right to give what I consider fair and honest criticism; but
as my October number was filled, I would publish in Novem-
ber, and send you a copy. Such publication and criticism
to end the matter, as far as I am concerned.
Respectfully.Vours,
D. JONES.
The November number contained the following:
SOCIAL FREEDOM.
It is seldom that we discuss matters in the columns of
the OLIVE BRANCH, not pertinent to the cause of Spiritual-
ism, therefore we must crave the indulgence of our readers
for this deviation from our established rules and customs,
for the following reason: In the September number we
gave a report of certain matters, which occurred at the
Lake Pleasant camp meeting, in which we referred in rather
strong terms to the advocacy of free love doctrines by Mrs.
Dr. Severance. The lady whose name was mentioned took
exceptions to our position, charging us with doing her a
personal injury. The matter has been finally adjusted be:
tween us, we agreeing to republish in our columns a portion
of her lecture upon this subject; reserving to us the right
to make what we deem fair and honest criticism of the same.
We consider this subject in no way associated with Spiritu-
alism, but something that has been foisted upon it to its
injury. For this reason we have craved the indulgence of
our many readers. Mrs. Severance in her lecture says:
I wish to consider the question of all questions that now
agitate the public mind, and which will not down at our

Social QUESTION. 11
bidding, which is being “cussed and discussed.” I mean the
Social Freedom question.
The fear of the discussion of this subject manifested by
many spiritualists does not speak well for their confidence
that Truth will always in free combat with Error come off
conqueror, but rather shows the cropping out of the old sec-
tarian fear of any new or unpopular truth.
Chas. Bradlaugh, the grand champion of Freedom in the
old world, has truly said: “Without free speech no search
for truth is possible; without free speech no discovery of
truth is useful; without free speech progress is checked and
the nation no longer marches forward toward the nobler life
which the future holds for man. Better a thousand fold
abuse of free speech than denial of free speech; the abuse of
it dies in a day; but the denial of it slays the life of the
people and entombs the hope of the race.” Then let this
and all other subjects receive careful, thorough and impar-
tial discussion and analysis. In this way we will show our-
selves scientific investigators instead of bigoted ignoramuses.
Social freedum declares every person has a right to live in
his social relations according to the dictates of his own con-
science and reason, the same as he has religiously; and
government should protect him in that right from all in-
terference from others, the same as it now does religiously.
People must differ in their ideas of social life, the same as
they do on religious matters, and for the same reason, their dif-
ferent degrees of growth; and the man who would try to
force another to his views and practices in this respect, is
as truly a tyrant as the one who would try to force another
to bis religious views.
There are a great variety of opinions extant as to what
is the highest life between the sexes. We find as we go
among the least advanced in civilization, women treated as
slaves, beasts of burden, or articles of merchandise; parents
selling their daughters for wives without regard to their
wish or choice. We have progressed from one step to an-
other in recognizing her humanity, until we have some

12 A Discussion of the
among us who believe woman should reign as queen in the
realm of the affections. Social freedom recognizes the right
of the Shaker to believe in celibacy and practice the same,
but does not seem to be very fearful that all men will of
course become celibates if they are recorded that right. If
they did, it would be worse for the world than promiscuity,
of which some are so fearful. It recognizes the right
of the Catholics to marry according to the rituals of
their church, but knows all will not choose that method. It
recognizes the right of persons to live in polygamy if they
choose, or in complex marriage as the Oneida community
does, or the right of the varietist to live in a dual relation.
A person may be a believer in social freedom, and be
either of these, or neither; and yet, if he recognizes the right
of others to choose for themselves as best they may, as he
would wish to do for himself, he is a believer in social free-
dom. To assume that a person is a Shaker, a polygamist
or a Free-lover because he advocates social freedom is as
unjust as it would be to assumea man to be a Materialistor
a Jew, because he believed in religiousfreedom. We have not
social freedom guaranteed to us by the constitution, as we
have religious freedom, hence we find people more frequently
interfering with our rights by passing laws trying to force
all kinds of people to one mode of life in this respect, just as
some people would force others to their religious views if
they had the power.
We hear the same outcry against the terrible over-turn-
ing of society if social freedom should obtain, that we once
heard of religious freedom, and have so very recently heard
against freedom for the blacks.
“Let agitation come, who fears,
We need a flood; the filth of years
Has gathered round us; roll then on,
What cannot stand had best be gone.”
We are told wives would desert their husbands, husbands
wives, our daughters would be debauched, and general

Social QUESTIox. 13
promiscuousness and prostitution would result. This, my
friends, is only a picture of what actually does exist now,
under our most stringent marriage laws. It is the same old
cry that was set up against the liberation of the blacks—the
wail of the ignorant tyrant. Do our laws prevent theseevils?
We can hardly take up a newspaper without seeing a list of
elopements, desertions, debaucheries, child-murder and atro-
cities against decency and order; enough to make the “very
stones cry out in judgement against us;” and yet our op-
ponents say these things will come of social freedom. They
have come, good friends, without it. We have all these con-
ditions now, and have never had social freedom. We have
laws now which make woman man’s slave, owned by him,
soul and body, and “wives submit yourselves unto your
husbands in all things” has been dinned into the ears of
woman until she has failed to learn the diviner lesson, “obey
the principles of your own soul.” Laws have been enacted
by men with no voice of woman's, making him the owner of
her property and her person; and he can recover damages
from any other man, if she, of her own accord, have sexual
relations with him, she being his property.
If we had no guarantee of religious freedom it would not
hinder people differing in religious views, but with penalties
annexed to all differences it would hinder honesty of express-
ion; soin social life our laws prohibiting all sexual relations,
except in legal marriage, have not prevented people from
having different views on the subject, and giving expression
to them in acts, on the sly; but I will tell you what it has
done; it has converted what might have been an honest
promiscuous man into a promiscuous hypocrite, thus doub-
ling the crime, if it be one, instead of preventing it; it has
licensed men to debauch women in the marriage bed until
the most fearful consequences have resulted, and diseases
the most appalling, often resulting in life-long misery, or
premature death. I could relate cases coming under my
professional observation, that would equal in sickening de-
tails and horrors the debaucheries of Southern slaves, and

14 A Discussion of the
yet people object to hearing this subject discussed. With
such persons, I think their ears are the nicest part of them.
We can hardly talk understandingly of monogamy, we
know so little about it. If it is the highest condition of love
—and I believe it is—there are evidently few people grown to
that plane. Our marriage system from the time of wise old
Solomon and Godlike David down to our modern saints like
Beecher and Tilton, has been a strange mixture of polygamy
on the one hand and monogamy on the other, and it will
remain so until wereeognize the equality of man and woman
in marriage, and the sovereignty of the individual over all
institutions.
Can we talk very loudly of monogamy when we have a
quarter of a million of prostitutes in the country, supported
largely by men living in this professedly holy marriage rela-
tion, the sanctity of whose portals they fear will be invaded?
They fear, rather, the grinning, ghastly skeletons will be
brought to light which are behind the curtains of respectable
homes, sepulchres of buried hearts.
What changes would social freedom make in society if
guaranteed to the people? It would help to harmonize the
world by recognizing individual rights. It would not alter
the belief of people, only as it gave them better chance for
growth, by comparing ideas in free discussion. The Shaker
would still believe in and practice his celibate life until he
had learned the grand lesson of the higher uses of sexuality.
The Polygamist would live in accord with his faith until the
growth of his understanding would make him demand a
different life, in which he would recognize woman's equality
in all relations, and instead of making her his slave place
her by his side as an equal with equality of rights in every
department of life. The Catholic would marry according to
the doctrines of his church, and believing in no divorce,
“would fight it out on that line;” and every sect would live
as they believed to be right. The only persons that would
be specially affected by this, would be the most advanced,
who have become a law unto themselves, the same as free
-

Social QUESTIox. - 15
Religionists; and there is the same necessity for different
views and different forms in social life as there is in religious
life, and I only hope to inaugurate a better condition in
social life by education and growth, the same as in any
other department of being.
There would be no overturning of society as is predicted
by the conservative croaker, and as was predicted of the
liberation of the Southern slaves, but the recognition of the
right of human souls to be protected against all encroach-
ments from others; would give greater facilities for growth
and happiness, and would do away with this everlasting
prying into and meddling with other people's business,
recognizing the ability of each to look after his own.
It is by education and by experience, which is the greatest
of all educators, that we can expect to reach greater heights
of knowledge in any department of life; and how can we
educate ourselves and others except by free discussion? We
should insist that virtue is not necessarily feminine, but
that man as well as woman should be expected to be pure
in their lives, and that virtue consists in living true to
organic law in every department of being; that a person
may be “not virtuous” just as truly by unnatural repress-
ion, as by excessive indulgence; that both should beavoided.
That we cannot legislate morality into people, any more
than we can intellectuality; both are conditions dependent
upon organization and culture. I think I have made myself
clearly understood in my definition of social freedom; that
it does not mean any special form, but says live your high-
est life and allow others to live theirs.
I am not only a believer in social freedom, but I am a
believer in Free love; and that word Free-love, signifies to
me the most exalted condition ever reached by mortal or
angel. Freedom, the very soil of growth and progress, and
Love, the highest attribute of the Gods. The two grand
principles combined forming a name that in the coming
future will be honored more than any other name, and its
martyrs will receive a brighter crown of glory.

16 - A Discussion of the
There is really but one question in the matter, which
is this: “Shall mutual love (as is proposed by Free-lovers)
or selfish lust (as it exists to-day in and out of marriage) be
the basis of the relations of the sexes? If you reply that
mutual love should be the basis, then you are a Free-lover.
If you reply it should be lust, you are in sympathy with the
present laws and customs of society, in which purity of life
for woman becomes an impossibility.
I claim the only law that should, or will hold together
persons of an advanced humanity, will be the mutual law of
attraction. That love, and love alone, will decide when the
sexes shall mingle; that when two persons are drawn to-
gether by reciprocal love and mutual desire, that is a true
union, and all the laws that men can frame cannot make it
unholy or immoral. But, cries the objector, if everyone be-
lieved that doctrine, everyman would at once become prom-
iscuous, and prostitution would become general. You are
now presuming upon the old, worn-out idea of total de-
pravity; you are libeling your own wives, sisters and
mothers; besides, there could not be any such thing in Free
love as prostitution, because prostitution is entering into
the sexual relation for a consideration.
Now, when a woman sells herself to a man for his gratifi-
cation for five dollars a night, or for a position and a home
for a lifetime, or for any consideration except love, she at
once becomes a prostitute. In the one caseunfit to associate
with respectable women, but suitable to consort with their
husbands; in the other case, a legal, respectable prostitute,
moving in the first circles in society; but morally speaking
there is no difference in the two; and every time a man
forces an unwilling wife to his embrace, he debauches that
wife, and the consequences of such debauchery is everywhere
to be seen in our sickly, passion-killed wives, and still-born
and half made up children.
A Free-lover raises the sexual act on which is based all
of physical and spiritual life, from the mud and filth with
which the ignorance of the past has slimed it over, and ele-
º

Social QUESTION. 17
vates it to the very highest pinnacle of the temple, recogniz-
ing the sacredness of its mission, as not alone the generator
of all physical life, but of spirit life also. As a wrong sexu-
ality is the most debasing of all conditions, sapping the
very foundations of life physically and morally, so a rightly
adjusted and harmonized sexuality is the most health-giv-
ing and spiritualizing of all the relations people are capable
of entering.
What would be the effect of Free-love upon the people?
In the first place a promiscuous person could not be a Free-
lover, for no promiscuous person will pretend that he bases
his sexual relations upon reciprocal love and mutual desire,
but for self-gratification. Such persons are incapable of
understanding Free-love in its true significance. They may
believe in social freedom, but not in Free-love, as they have
not grown to comprehend it. Free-love would have the
same effect upon people as Spiritualism has religiously. We
could not afford to wrong ourselves and others in this rela-
tion, because we know the consequences are sure to follow;
that if we sin we must surely suffer.
Look at a man and woman living on the beautiful plane
of Free-love. Knowing as they do that love is the only
bond that holds them together, how careful they would be
to draw out, by every power within them, the love of their
companion by making themselves the most noble, lovable
and grand beings they are capable of becoming. They
would see that no excess or abuse should cause repulsion,
that every demand in their natures was supplied, that per-
feet justice was accorded to each, and that kindness and
tenderness was the spirit ever pervading the household.
From such homes of peace and love, would be evolved
angels here on earth, beings as much in advance of those
born in our present unloved relations, as those of to-day are
above savage life. Is it not then a part, a very important
part of Spiritualism to so enlighten and develop the people
that they will begetbetter children, a higher grade of human-
ity, as well as to help reform those who are now begotten

18 A Discussion of the
in our unequal, inharmonious relations, which we call mar-
riage?
Who are the opposers of Free-love? There is a class of
persons who from misrepresentations of others, and never
having heard it explained, honestly think that it means
licentiousness; but a far greater number are those who are
living lives that they are anxious to cover from the public
gaze, so they cry out “stop thief” to turn attention from
themselves. The opposers are either ignorant or are hypo-
crites.
As there are persons who are converted to Spiritualism
who have not fully outgrown their old notions, and bring
many of the absurdities of their past belief with them, mak-
ing an incongruous mixture of folly and wisdom, who are
pointed at by cavilers as specimens of Spiritualists, so we
have those who are just growing into a comprehension of
freedom, who bring with them the selfishness and love of
conquest that belongs to the old conditions, and are point-
ed at as objectional in their lives. They are striving for the
light and will surely reach it.
We are in earnest in this work of reform, and will never
cease our pleadings until every woman in the land shall
stand side by side with man, his peer in every relation of
life. Until all are purified from sensuality and lust, with
every faculty and passion fully developed and attuned to
divinest harmony; until sickness, want and crime, shall
be banished from the earth; until undesired maternity shall
forever cease; until marriage becomes the most exalted sac-
rament, within whose sphere no impurity can come; until
home shall be to every heart what the poet has painted it,
a haven of peace and love, and motherhood be recognized
as the divinest mission of humanity.
Then what though bigotry frowns and ignorance sneers;
what though prison walls loom up before us, or even death
stares us in the face, we will, with the strength of the angel
hosts, who are helping us in this grand work, press steadily
onward until victory shall crown our efforts, and the glad

Social QUESTIox. 19
song of freedom shall echo the grand earth round. Finally,
as Fenelon said to Louis XIV, “The truth must be spoken.
Woe to those who comprehend and speak it not, and woe to
you if you are not worthy of hearing.”
JONES' CRITICISM.
One of the first things we find in this lecture is a demand
for free speech. If we were living in the absolute instead of
in the practical, there could be no such thing as our rights
in any direction being questioned; but living in the practi-
cal, and dealing with the practical things of this world, as
well as with the impractical, the judgment of the best minds
in this country, and in all countries, is now and has been,
that laws are absolutely necessary for the government of
people and nations; and the laws under which we are living
to-day do not in any sense, abridge the rights of any indi-
vidual in the exercise of speech, so long as the welfare of
society is not imperiled by it; and hence, this loud appeal
for free speech, is proof positive, that the person or
persons, making such appeal, desires to say something they
know they have no legal right to say, and hence this appea
is equivalent to a demand for the repeal of statute laws—
throwing open the sluice-ways for evil speaking, as well as
for the more pure and soul elevating.
In the demand made for free speech, no restrictions are
asked for to be put upon the most vile and brutal semblan-
ces of humanity. If the law must be repealed, or so modi-
fied as to allow one person the right to express themselves,
in any manner they may choose, and upon any topic or
subject they please, the same right must be extended to
every one. The thugs of New York, and other cities would
have the same right to give utterance to their vulgarities,
as the more refined and cultured would have. Because one
person is law-abiding and would work for the best interests
of humanity, is no reason that all restrictions upon the
rights of speech should be removed. Even with the laws
which are now in force it is a difficult task to hold in check

20 A Discussion of the
the lower stratas of society. Repeal all laws bearing upon
this subject, and what would be the result? In our opinion
we should have about as complete a hell as the wisest brain
could conceive.
We hear a great deal said about free speech; one would
think to listen to some of the so-called liberalist lecturers,
that they were in some manner deprived of their rights in
this respect; but so far as our knowledge extends, they say
what they please, upon any subject, in their discussions.
No one has been interfered with yet; no officer of the law
has ever arrested any one in their lectures for advocating
their views, and they never will be arrested, so long as they
do not advocate what is immoral. Then why this bugbear?
Why be continually prating and asking for what is already
granted to every one? The church or Christians may raise
objections to the advocacy of any line of thought not in
keeping with their ideas, but they are powerless before the
law to prohibit, or punish, what are termed heresies. Colo-
nel Ingersoll can speak in any town or city in the United
States, without being legally molested, and so can Mrs. Sev-
erance. What more is wanted? We believe in free speech,
and we also believe in having laws enacted and enforced for
the protection of the people from the effects of evil and un-
wise speakings, and we are glad to know that we have a
code of laws which limits speech within the boundaries of
refinement and morality. There may be those who have so
far progressed as to be a law unto themselves in all things,
but if they are such, they are isolated cases.
The second point we desire to notice is where it is claimed
that social freedom declares every person has a right to live
in his social relations according to the dictations of his own
conscience and reason, the same as he has religiously; and
government should protect him in that right from others,
the same as it does religiously. It is a well known fact that
a person may change his views every day in the week if he
choose, if he can find what suits him better for the time, and
he is protected in it; but changing one's religious views is

Social, QUESTIox. 21
simply a change of belief; only the individual is concerned
in this matter. But on the other hand, unlimited freedom
is claimed for action; if this is not advocating prostitution
and licentiousness, then we ask what the author of these
strange words does really mean? One of the things in which
we offended Mrs. Severance, was in charging that free-
loveism proclaimed the right of every woman to choose who
shall be the father of her children, changing the parentage
as often as their unholy lusts may demand. What, we ask,
is the difference between what we then stated and what is
claimed in this lecture? It is estimated that there are some
six hundred forms of religious beliefs in the world, and ac-
cording to the principles laid down by the advocates of
social freedom, a man or woman has a right to change their
material or sexual relations six hundred times a year, if
they choose, and that the government should sustain and
protect them. In the September number we said the doctrine
was damnable. Language is inadequate to express the dis-
gust and abhorence that every pure minded person must
feel when they consider for a moment what must be the con-
sequence should such infamous doctrines ever be accepted
and lived. In plain terms it seems to us like an attempt to
make of this grand and beautiful country anational brothel,
constituting the legal heads of all departments of justice as
keepers and defenders of the same. But perhaps the person
who delivered this lecture may say that we are carrying
things to an extent not possible ever to be reached by the
American people. We can only judge from the condition of
things now existing; the most stringent laws are enforced
to protect the weak from the strong, and to protect the
chaste and virtuous from assault by the low born and vul-
gar. We do not say that Mrs. Severance would delight in
seeing such a state of affairs. But why ask for unlimited
freedom? We are not living in an ideal age, though it may
be well for everyone to have their ideals; but would not the
debaucher have as just a claim for his or her ideal, as the
ladylecturer has for hers? And we all know from experience

22 A Discussion of the
what kind of an ideal a vile person would be. If there are
any doubts upon this subject, we will state that a person's
idealis what is most prominent in their minds. The ideal
of the pure will be an elevated type of manhood and woman-
hood. The sensualist will delight in an ideal that will
pander most to his or her passions; and they are known to
propogate their species more abundantly than the opposite
side; at least the statistics of the country give this as the
result of careful investigation.
We believe there are people who live pure, chaste lives,
never refusing to obey laws made binding upon them. They
are pure in thought and action because it is their nature to
be such. The law is to protect the pure and true from insult
and attack from the more crude portions of society. We
know the conditions as they exist to-day, but what would
have been the conditions of society with no laws but self-
constituted enactments? We shudder at the thought of
what would have been. We regard the law which defines
how the sexes shall commingle a just and equitable law, and
the person, who by voice or pen, advocates the abrogation
of those laws, we regard as an enemy to the human race. It
is a rare case that law abiding citizens are heard clamoring
for greater freedom than they now enjoy. They are satisfied
with the freedom of speech and action guaranteed to them.
- It would seem by reading this lecture that the interest of
woman was only safe in the hands of these so-called social
reformers. If such was the case, well might woman pray to
be delivered from her friends. The truth of the matter is
this, in so far as civilization advances, the condition of
woman is elevated. We do not believe that these social
reformers can point to an instance where, by the acceptance
of their doctrines, the condition of a single woman has been
benefited. But there are thousands of instances where
woman has been benefited under the conditions that now
exist. To elevate the race, you want to elevate the brains,
and not pander to their animal passions. The lady says,
“Social freedom recognizes the right of the Shaker to believe

Social QUESTIox. - 23
in celibacy and practice the same. Also the right
of the Catholics to marry according to the rituals of
their Church.” How magnanimous these freedomites are?
Just as though it would make any difference should they
object. But she says they also recognize the right of persons
to live in polygamy if they choose, or in complex marriage
as the Oneida Community did, or of the varietist to live his
life with those of his kind, or the monogamist to live in a
dual relation.
It is well known that under the Noyes reign, the female
members of the Oneida Community were made to drudge in
the fields side by side with the male members of such com-
munity; and any one who ever visited that place, could not
fail to notice the downcast, dejected appearance of every
woman belonging to it; and only by long indulgence were
the practices allowed to be continned; and, but for the law,
we should be still breathing in the foul emanations of cor-
ruptions issuing from that once corrupt cesspool of human
depravity. And yet these social reformers would not inter-
fere to stop such practices. They would lend a hand to help
their sister-women to rise above the bestial conditions in
human life. What a noble work of reform this social free-
domism is Mrs. Severance says, social freedom “recognizes
the right of the varietist to live his life with his kind.” What
is that but recognizing prostitution? For the man or
woman who could be classed as a varietist in sexual relations
would be nothing more or less than living lives of prostitu-
tion. And this is just the opinion we have held in regard to
Social Freedom, that their reformatory professions were
simply a demand for greater license for every person to do
as they pleased, regardless of the welfare of society, regard-
less of the offspring, the result of such license, and the effect
such license would entail upon future generations.
We are glad to see that Mrs. Severance admits that a
person may be of either of the classes before mentioned, and
yet be a believer in social freedom; what more plainer ad-
missions could be expected from anyone? And if the lady

24 A Discussion of the
considers herself a practical worker in her so-called field of
reform, then she should not blush to take the hand of the
varietist, or associate with the lowest specimen of human
kind; for they are members of her party, and believe in the
doctrines; the only difference may be in demonstrating the
work. Mrs. Severance may be pure as an angel, but another
equally as demonstrative in demanding unlimited freedom
of action may live the life of a debauchee. In the first in-
stance we should say that Mrs. Severance did not believe in
the practical workings of social freedom theories. While in
the other case we see clearly where these things lead to when
brought into practice.
The lady says we have not social freedom guaranteed to
us by law as we have religious freedom, hence we find people
more frequently interfering with our rights by passing laws
trying to force all kinds of people to one mode of life. In
this respect just as some people would force others to their
religious views if they had the power. Is there anything
wrong or arbitrary in a law which demands all people to live
pure lives? Arenot such laws safeguards for the protection
of future generations against social freedomites? Instead
of abrogating one of these laws now in force, let us enact
more stringent laws, seeing that only by law can woman be
elevated and man held accountable for his violation of law.
We say give us more law, and less social freedom, such as is
demanded by these would-be reformers.
In the next paragraph Mrs. Severance says, we are told
wives would desert their husbands, etc. If this is a picture
of things as they exist under the law, what might we not
expect if there was no law? No one claims that man has
reached his highest yet. The great mass of mankind are
living on the animal plane, hence the necessity of law. We
see no comparison between the cry raised against the libera-
tion of the black race and that uttered against social free-
dom. Men do not hold their wives as property. Every wife
in the land has her rights before the law as much so as her
husband. A man cannot maltreat his wife with impunity,

Social, QUESTION. 25
while the slaveholder had the law in his own hands or had
the right to do as he pleased. The cry raised against the
liberation of the blackman was by the owners of the black
man. They knew the liberation of their slaves was in many
instances bankruptcy to them. A few Northern dough-faces
joined in the cry, and added to it the theory that the black
man was incapable of caring for himself; but the facts prove
how false were the cries of these men. We have brought the
black man under law, and he is making his way up in the
scale of human unfoldment. There are frequent accounts of
elopements, but what are the causes of them? Lust and
demand for social freedom. Just what is demanded by
social freedomites. If a man finds himself mated to a woman
unequal to him there is a way to render this even, and pro-
tection granted to the children of such unhappy union; but
without law this world would be filled with fatherless
children. Social freedom in our opinion would only increase
the evil instead of being a remedy for it. Another charge is
that we have laws now which make woman man's slave,
owned by him soul and body. This is false in every partic-
ular. We would like to ask the lady if she is owned soul and
body by Mr. A. B. Severance, yet she is living under the same
laws as the rest of American women are: if she is not thus
owned, others are not. The sayings of Paul in regard to
women are not regarded as binding in this age. We have
gone beyond that, without the aid of social freedomites.
There is no such thing as property in person, and the lady
knows it as well as we do. The marriage contract is equally
binding upon man and woman, and any violation of that
contract renders the party offending liable for the injury
done to the person or beliefs of the other party. Should
social freedom obtain, there would be no redress other than
personal, and instead of our papers containing occasional
accounts of murders, if there was no law to which the injured
could appeal, murders, suicides, and not law, would prevail
among all classes of society.

26 A Discussion of the
It is natural as the minds of men unfold that they should
differ in matters of a religious character; but these differen-
ces are in beliefs say, not in deeds. The majority of the peo-
ple have but one mind in regard to monogamic marriages,
though as the lady says “some do act on the sly not in
keeping with their professions.” We should say they were at
heart social freedomites. We never saw an honest promis-
cuous man. Perhaps the lady can give us the name and
address of such a one; we would like to open correspon-
dence with him. But why confine this matter to the male
sex alone, for thus far the term man has been used in a
generic sense, and if there be honest promiscuous men, then
there must be promiscuous women who are equally honest.
Where shall we find them? Would the lady think she was
an honest woman if she were to practice promiscuity? Let
us bring this subject home, that is the best way to test the
matter. Words are the cheapest article of merchandise we
have. There is a great deal of this kind of property given
away for nothing; it is acts which determine character.
Mrs. Severance says we can hardly talk understandingly
of monogamy, we know so little about it. (We are sorry
for her, and hope she will make it a study.) She says, if it is
the highest condition of love—and I believe it is—there are
few people grown to that plane. We are pleased to have her
commit herself to the justice of our position, for we believe
monogamic marriages to be the only true condition in which
the sexes can live. But we disagree with her in regard to
the numbers of people who have reached that plane. We
believe there is a great deal more of good in the world than
evil; we do not believe in the doctrine of total depravity.
The world is fast growing better, and the indications of this
growth are apparent in an increased knowledge in reference
to ourselves, obtained through the study of nature's law.
It is very impolitic for the lady to throw stones at such
characters as the godlike David, and wise old Solomon, for
they were genuine practical social freedomites and Free-lov-
ers; they were varietists, promiscuous men, and the lady

Social QUESTION. 27
has admitted that such people had a right to live their own
lives. Don’t throw brick-bats, sister, you may break win-
dows when least expected. If we remember rightly there
was a strong effort made to class Mr. Beecher as a social
freedomite, and Free-lover, but the attempt was a failure;
but had it been done, we do not think the names of Beecher
and Tilton would have been mentioned in this lecture, but
rather would they have been held up to the world as the
patron saints of the social freedom movement.
We can talk just as loudly of monogamy if there were a
million of prositutes in the country; yes, more strongly.
The greater the existing evils, the more necessity for strin-
gent laws. We do not believe that the quarter of a million of
disreputable women are largely supported by men profess-
edly living in holy marriage relation. This is the plea we
often hear from disreputale persons; being evil minded, they
imagine every other person must be like unto themselves.
Without doubt there are cases of this kind, but they are the
exception and not the rule. To form an estimate of the
standing and character of men and women, we must become
familiar with their lives; we must know them; one married
man seen in such company would, by a profligate man or
woman, be multiplied to a hundred. Very true, we cannot
legislate morality nor intellectuality into a person, but we
can punish them for immoral practices; we can throw
around the innocent, safeguards to protect them from the
machinations of evil doers, and by holding their debased
propensities in check, give their intellectual faculities oppor-
tunity to unfold. Evil thrives upon evil practices; restrain
the individual and the evil will not propagate itself. But
on the other hand make the pathway to evil and the grat-
ification of passions easy, and the evil will grow, and the
little good there is in the individual must die.
Mrs. Severance says, “I think I have made myself clearly
understood in my definition of social freedom; that it does
not mean any special form, but says live your highest life
and allow others to live theirs.” Then if social freedom does

28 A Discussion of the
not offer any special form or method for the elevation of the
race, it is not a reformatory movement; for there must be
an incentive to induce the lower stratas in society to work
up to the higher plane of unfoldment. A movement in soci-
ety without a plan of action is just as apt to work one way
as the other. But we think a plan has been laid down in
this lecture, and it is a free and easy plan. The lady says
she is not only a believer in social freedom, but is a believer
in Free-love, and has given her definition of the terms; but
if she had used the term true love, we should say her defini-
tion was a correct one. We did not know before that there
were any martyrs to the cause of social freedom. If certain
ones have attempted to advocate a doctrine at war with the
best interests of society, and met with opposition on every
hand, we fail to see wherein they have been made martyrs
of, for a doctrine so repugnant to every honest, candid per-
son, should convince them that the best thing to be done
would be to acknowledge their error and turn their atten-
tion to other subjects, and feel that they were engaged in a
work that would benefit the race; then they might reason-
ably expect a crown of glory, and not otherwise.
There is really but one question in this matter, says Mrs.
Severance, which is this: “Shall mutual love (as is proposed
by Free-love), or selfish lust (as it exists to-day in and out
of legal marriage) be the basis of the relation of the sexes?”
There are as many kinds of love as there are shades of com-
plexion. Free-love, as we regard it, does not imply true
love, and the lady has given before what she considers to be
the basis of free-love; to hedge now is too late in the day.
It is false that under the present laws and customs of soci-
ety, purity in woman becomes an impossibility, and the
charge is a direct insult to every true mother, wife, sister
and companion in the land; and any person making such a
sweeping charge is either a lunatic or in a fair way to be-
come one. “The mutual law of attraction” is the only law
the lady recognizes to hold together man and woman, and
this law as demonstrated in human life when not governed

Social QUESTION. 29
by a deeper and profound respect, is liable to change at any
hour; there may be mutual attraction between one man
and a number of women, and vice versa. Then according
to this doctrine they must all mingle promiscuously, and
when the charm is gone find mutual attraction somewhere
else.
It is a very important matter to be able to determine the
difference between psychology and love. There is a great
deal of the former mistaken for the latter, and through that
source, are traceable many of the so-called unhappy mar-
riages. True love grows stronger as time moves on. Free-
love is free to be made merchandise of. Mutual attraction
does not imply love; men are attracted by a pretty face
and figure; women are attracted by a manly form and win-
ning manners. Two of these mutual admirers may chance
to meet and marry; but the pretty face may grow wan and
pale, the form lose its perfect proportions, the manly form
may be bent by disease, and the individual become morose
and dejected; the attractive qualities are lost to one of the
parties, the other may fade and show signs of decay; but
if there be not something stronger than mutual attraction,
to bind these two together, the dream of heaven proves to
be a hell indeed. True love and principles of honor alone
can bind man and woman, and make them one. Again, the
lady says, where two persons are drawn together by recip-
rocal love and mutual desire, that is a true union, and all
the laws that men can frame cannot make it unholy or im-
moral. This is but a feint to cover the real point of attack;
reciprocal to-day may not be reciprocal to-morrow; a little
jar, a little stronger reciprocal love in any other direction,
may break the first bonds, and if it be the woman who is
deserted, unless there be a law to protect her in her rights,
she and her probable offspring must fight their way through
the jungles of human life alone, while the husband and
father is reciprocating the lavish attentions of some more
free-loving female. We are not a believer in the idea of
total depravity, but know something of the practical work-

30 A Discussion of the
ings in human life; and know that until man has reached
by gradual steps the plane of individual responsibility, he
must be kept within certain boundaries. That there are
evils in society no one can deny; but to charge that prosti-
tution is the result of restrictive law, is false. Mutual at-
traction sometimes brings men and women together. The
woman wants a home, and the man desires a companion,
and yet both live true lives; there may not be that depth of
love which is apparent in others, but the charge that such
a woman is no better than she who makes of her body mer-
chandise, for no other reason, than being too indolent to
labor for an honest living, is an assertion too sweeping,
and one that cannot be substantiated by proof. Argu-
ments of this character, only show the weakness of the
position assumed. If the world needs reforming, and there
are those who feel that they have a mission in that direc-
tion, let them show that they are reformers by word and
deed. -
The lady asks what would be the effect of Free-love upon
the people? In the first place, a promiscuous person could
not be a Free-lover. Let us go back and see what was said
upon this subject. In the fifth paragraph of the lecture,
Mrs. Severance says social freedom recognizes the right of
persons to live in polygamy if they choose, or in complex
marriage, as the Oneida Community does, or the right of
the varietest to live his life, or the monogamist to live in a
dual relation. She says in connection with the preceding,
that a person may be a believer in social freedom, and be
either of these or neither. A polygamist, if not a promis-
cuous person, what is he? So it does seem, after all, by the
lady's own statement, that a promiscuous person can be a
social freedomite. But there is an attempt made here at
hair splitting; in this paragraph an attempt is made to
show a difference between social freedom and Free-love,
before they have run together. Social freedom, the lady has
defined, to be the right of every person to live in his social
relations according to the dictates of his own conscience;

Social QUEstion. 31
that is, the right to change sexual relationship is held in
reserve by the individual. As we understand it, Free-love
means the same thing. If love, or attraction grows strong-
er in an opposite direction from what it had been, the right
to change is embodied in the will of the person. We remem-
ber hearing a story told of two men and two women, living
in a western state; their loves changed, and a mutual ex-
change was effected. The wife of Mr. A., went with Mr. B.,
and the wife of Mr. B., accepted Mr. A. This we consider a
clear case of free love.
There are other points we might consider, but our space
is limited and we must bring thematter to a close; but before
we do so we want to say that any subject, no matter how
unsavory it may be, can by a skillful artist be made to ap-
pear beautiful. Mrs. Severance is a very fair word painter;
she may be honest and think she is really doing a reforma-
tory work, but we fail to seeitin that light. This social free-
dom theory has been a curse to the country from its first
conception; and why it is considered by any one belonging
to Spiritualism is a mystery we cannot fathom. If laws are
to be repealed, the political arena is the place to work for
such repeal. If woman is the slave, as these freedomites
would have us believe, she is then to go among these slaves
and do good work there. We havenoslavesin Spiritualism;
every Spiritualist recognizes in woman his equal, so far as
her opportunities have favored her. Spiritualists area law-
abiding people: their religion is a religion of law and order;
their philosophy is based upon law, and they do not wish
these laws repealed. They are monogamists and are content
to live in accord with nature's laws, one man and one wom-
an. Let these would-be social freedom reformers herd by
themselves. There is no occasion for anyone of them becom-
ing martyrs; the conditions of the world are changing as
rapidly as it is best for them to change. A jump) from the
cruder conditions of life into the angelic would be too hard
a strain on the nerves of most of us; far better go slow and
clear all the weeds out of the path we travel.

32 A Discussion of the
Among these social freedomites we hear much said about
the enslaved condition of woman, and they charge that the
church is accountable for all the ignorance, and a large por-
tion of the crimes perpetrated upon communities; this is a
mistake. The church has always, or at least for the past
half century, taught strictly moral principles. If the church
has not kept pace with the advanced thinkers of this gener-
ation, they at least exert a moral influence in communities
and are entitled to respect for the good it has done and is
doing. The Catholic church wields the most arbitrary pow-
er ever the people of any religious organization, and webear
less scandal coming from that source than from any other,
according to numbers. Bute versince this Free-lovedoctrine
has had an existence, it has been a curse to everything relig-
ious, social or political where it has been introduced; and
because a few who professed to bespiritualists have embraced
these doctrines, Spiritualism has been cursed by it until
it is almost impossible to get an acknowledgment from the
better classes in society of their convictions. Advocates of
social freedom may hurl the epithet coward at these people,
and with brazen impudence defy the opinions of the public:
but impudence and a disregard for the good opinions of our
fellow men must not be taken for bravery. Truly brave
men or women never boast of their powers; they do their
work, and let others decide whether they are noble and true,
or false and selfish.
We have no doubt but what Mrs. Severance is, as she says,
in earnest in what she deems a work of reform; but in our
opinion her methods are faulty. Teach the people to respect
law and order; teach the young the results of vice, and they
will shun it: but to give greater freedom for vice and crime
to increase and propagate itself is in no sense a mark of
reform; and as we understand the matter, it is wholly evil
and should be frowned upon by every married woman who
has the welfare of humanity at heart. We have not intend-
ed to say anything reflecting upon the private character of
Mrs. Severance. We have given our honestthoughtsin refer-

Social QUESTIox. 33
ence to the position she assumes in her lecture, and will
leave it for the public to discern which of us has the welfare
of the people most at heart.
We challenge Mrs. Severance or any one advocating her
views of social freedom, to show us a single instance where,
by the acceptance of the doctrines of social freedom, one
fallen woman has been restored to the ranks of virtue and
honor. We challenge her to cite a single instance where a
man of brutal instincts has been raised above the natural
propensities of his debased nature by becoming a convert to
social freedom doctrines. We challenge the advocates of
this doctrine to prove that they have been instrumental in
changing the social, religious or political status of woman
for the better in a single instance; and we would be pleased
to have them send us a record of the number of once happy
homes destroyed by it, children made worse than fatherless
and motherless. If this is reform, the less we have of it the
better will it be for society at large.”
After reading the above I wrote a reply, but before send-
ing it, sent the following postal to Mr. Jones:
You have asked questions and made challenges in your
criticism of my lecture; will you publish a reply?
To which I received the following answer:
Dear Madam :-Your card received. This matter so far
as I am concerned is ended. I stated in one of ruy letters to
you that the publication of your lecture with my criticism
would end the matter, therefore must respectfully decline
opening the columns of the Olive Branch for a discussion of
this character.
Respectfully yours,
D. JONES.
I then sent him the following letter:
MILwaukee, Nov. 6th, 1883.
Mr. Jones:
Dear Sir:-Your refusal to publish my reply to your
charges and challenges received. I am sorry to becompelled

34 A Discussion of the
to conclude that you—as well as some others—are willfully
and maliciously misrepresenting the views of social reform-
ers. You call upon me, or others holding the same views, to
answer certain questions, and then refuse opportunity for a
reply, thus conveying to the minds of your readers the idea
that they were unanswerable. In the first place, if you did
not desire any discussion of the subject why did you begin it
by your misrepresentations and inuendoes? Why did you
not keep silence on a subject you considered tabooed? It is a
trick of dishonest editors to crouch behind the editorial, their
coward's castle, and keep up a continuous fireupon those dif-
fering from them in opinion—a course most despicable. Did
you for a momentsuppose I was the person that would quietly
allow my name, and the principles of personalliberty dearer
to me by far, to be thus slandered without rising in their
defense? You ought to have known me better; and let me
now notify you, or any other villifier of the principles of
personal liberty and self-ownership that I am endeavoring
to teach, that I will try and make it lively for you so long,
as you wish to keep up the fusillade.
I have decided the best I can do at present is to put this
whole matter as it has appeared in your paper, with our
correspondence, and the reply to you that you refuse to
publish, in a pamphlet, under the title “A Discussion of the
Social Question between Juliet H. Severance, M. D., and
David Jones, of the Olive Branch.” In this way it will reach
not alone your readers, but we can scatter them broadcast,
thus letting the people read both sides of the subject, ena-
bling them to judge of the merits of each, and thus make it
an educator. Of course this will meet with your approval
as it will give people opportunity to read your very logical,
“just and fair criticism.”
Yours for freedom,
JULIET H. SEVERANCE, M. D.
P.S. If you would like to make any changes or additions
to your side of the question, before its publication, send the

Social QUESTIox. 35
same to me at once. Also any orders for pamphlets.
J. H. S.
The following response was received:
OLIVER BRANCH OFFICE,
Utica, N. Y., Nov. 9th, 1883.
MRs. Dr. Severance:
Dear Madam:-Your letter bearing date November 6th,
is received. As you are your own master, you have the right
to publish whatever you choose, and in any form you may
deem most advisable; but I do not intend to insult my
patrons with any more social freedom or Free-love trash.
My business is not to attempt to corrupt the morals of the
people, but to awaken a deeper love for the pure, noble and
true. These sentiments I do not find embodied in the doc-
trines advocated by the champions of social freedom and
Free-love. The people will judge of these matters, as many
have already rendered their verdict in favor of my position.
As a matter of courtesy I will send you the price of one of
your pamphlets as soon as I learn what they will be. As
this letter forms a part of our correspondence, please give it
space in your anticipated publication.
Respectfully yours,
D. JONES.
To which I replied:
MILWAUREE, Nov. 17th, 1883.
Mr. Jones:
Dear Sir:-Your letter received. I do not know whether
it is what I have written, or your effusion, that you desig-
nate “trash.” Your “business is not to try to corrupt the
morals of the people.” I hope that is true; but allowing my
doctrines are demoralizing in their tendencies, as you inti-
mate, what better plan could be devised than to place them
side by side with your “pure and true” ones, and let the
people judge for themselves.
My views of the best methods for elevating the morals of
the people (for I am as earnest in my desires for, and as

36 A Discussion of the
energetic and self-sacrificing in my work to bring about
that result as you can be) and yours of course differ widely.
Now, if we are really earnest and honest we would be will-
-ing, it seems to me, to discuss candidly and fairly the whole
subject, with no other feeling than to arrive at the truth, at
the same time admitting the possibility that we were in
error. If I cannot by solidlogic sustain my position against
any arguments made against them, I am anxious to know
it and accept the truth whatever that may be. A cause is
always a bad one that must be sustained by vituperation
and misrepresentation; and any position that can not be
sustained in a fair discussion shows its inherent weakness,
and should be abandoned.
If you really believed the morals of the people would be
enhanced by adopting your views, as against mine, how
could you better serve humanity than by showing these con-
trasts? For you must certainly agree with me, if you are
posted, that society is honeycombed with social disorders
and corruptions that need a remedy; and in presenting our
different methods of curing the evils, thought would be
evolved that would benefit the world; and certainly if people
as you claim have already rendered their verdict in your
favor, I should think that in a series of articles thoroughly
discussing the subject, you would expect to entirely rout
me in my position. I did not ask you in my last, nor inti-
mate the possibility of your publishing anything farther, so
your refusal was a little “previous,” for it was only fear of
the law, that you seem to recognizeastheonly rule of action,
that caused you to put in the quotations you did from my
lecture, and not any sense of justice. Your letter will cer-
tainly appear, as I believe in giving an opponent fair play.
I will send you some pamphlets gratis, when published, as
reward for the matter you have furnished.
Sincerely,
JULIET H. SEVERANCE, M. D.
The following is the reply to Mr. Jones that he refused to
publish:

Social QUESTION. 37
Ed. Olive BRANch:
In your very strange and unjust criticism of the portion
of my lecture published in your last issue, you made state-
ments and asked questions to which of course you will allow
a reply.
In the first place you show that it would be very unwise
to allow free speech, because ignorant people and “the thugs
of New York” might say bad things. Now you very well
know that free speech means the discussion of all subjects.
It does not mean indecent methods, nor was it ever sointer-
preted; and the fact that only those who desire to do so
hear any subject discussed, is the regulator in that matter;
for if none wished to listen, certainly the speaking would
soon cease. But if the “thugs” called out a class of their
kind that none others could, what an excellent opportunity
it would present, to show how very bad are their doctrines,
whatever they might be, by contrasting them with others
more elevating.
Milton truly expresses the feelings of every intelligent,
honest person, when he says: “Give me the liberty to know,
to utter and to argue freely, according to my conscience,
above all other liberties. Let truth and falsehood grapple;
who ever knew truth put to the worse in a free and open
encounter?”
In the next place you proceed to show that we have free
speech everywhere. Have you never heard of the various
reformers being mobbed or imprisoned in this country?
Was it not for free speech that Lovejoy was mobbed and
his press destroyed? Was it not for free speech.that Garri-
son was dragged through the streets of puritanic Boston
with a rope around him, and finally lodged in jail? Was it
not for free speech that Moses Hull was mobbed by the
president causing the band to play at Lake Pleasant, when
he was attempting to speak at a time and place where it
was announced any one had a right to ten minutes time? of
which action Mr. Beals said last snmmer, “It was not par-

38 A Discussion of the
liamentary, but it was effective,” the same as might be said
of any mob, not legal but effective.
Was not Col. Ingersoll prevented from spleaing at Dela-
ware because he was a blasphemer? Have I not been in a
convention speaking on anti-slavery when brickbats and
rotten eggs were the solid arguments used by our opponents?
Woman suffrage, temperance, and in fact every reform
movement, even Spiritualism, has had to contend with this
lack of recognition of the right of free speech. Would you
say all right to this because we were advocating things that
were illegal? Was there ever a reform that was not a bat-
tle against existing laws? Certainly not. My first reform-
ative work was denouncing the law that murdered a man,
because he had murdered one-called capital punishment.
Did that mean I wanted license to kill somebody as would
beinferred by your conclusions on other subjects? My next
labor was battling against a law that gave one man the
right to own another—chattel slavery. Was it a shame to
oppose the law in this instance? Slaveholders thought so,
and would not allow free speech; but even then, at the risk
of their lives, some noble souls went to plead among the
slaveholders for justice to the slaves. Should they have
confined their labors to the slaves, as you recommend me
to do in the instance of the women, and was it a shame to
advocate liberty because it was illegal? My next work in
re-orm was opposing the law that made it incumbent upon
Northern people to hunt slaves for the South; and I did it
effectually, keeping an underground railroad station—a
crime for which the penalty was imprisonment; and oppon-
ents to my work would talk then, very much as those that
are opposed to social freedom do now; and often I have
had this wise remark (?) hurled at me, “I sºpose you want
to marry a nigger.” At the same time that I was working
for the liberation of the negro, I was also using my voice
and pen against the law that disfranchised half the people
of the country for no other reason than that they were of
the female sex. I call such laws infamous, and demand

Social QUESTION. 39
their repeal. I am also opposed to the laws that allow
$400,000,000 (four hundred millions) valuation of church
property to be exempt from taxation, and that in various
ways favor the Christian religion above any other kind in a
country that declares for religious freedom.
I am also opposed to laws that recognizeman's superior-
ity to and ownership of woman as in our marriage system,
and will do all in my power againstit, as I have against other
unjustlaws that I havementioned. You say you consider the
laws that define how the sexes should commingleasiustand
equitable. Let us examine this:
The laws give man what is called “marital rights” and
under these rights a brute can outrage his wife no matter
how often and she has no legal redress, no appeal but death.
Let her go to any lawyer and ask for a divorce on any such
ground and he would laugh at her. Does woman own her
own body? Let her assert that and act accordingly, if con-
trary to her husband’s “marital rights” and she will soon
find out to whom her body belongs. Children are born con-
tinually, the result of relations not founded upon mutual
love and desire, but the result of rapacious lust and tyranny
on the one hand and disgust and servile submission on the
other or else hatred and resentment; and this is legal. But
in your classic language it is “damnable.”
You seem to think it a terrible thing to assert that a
woman should choose the father of her child. Will you
please inform us who is more competent or has a better
right? If woman only had children when she wished—was
the controlling factor in the case as she should be, how
many children think you would most women have, and
would they be the result of frequent changes of fathers, or
of unholy lust? I wonder what kind of women you have met
that you judge them so lustful. I have found them just the
reverse of this, and their lack in this respect has been the
excuse that men have made for outside relations—they hav-
ing greater demands, and in many places have licensed
houses of prostitution because of this claim. Whatan argu-

40 A Discussion of the
ment youthen make against my position that every one
should be free to choose his social life the same as he is his
religious life. “There are about six hundred forms of relig-
ious beliefs in the world, and according to social freedom a
man or woman has the right to change their marital rela-
tions six hundred times a year if they choose.” Whatlogic!
Query: Would that be much harder on a man than to
change his religious convictions as many times a year? and
was ever a man man known to have believed in every form
of religion, even if he have the right? How ridiculous the
assumption that a man will do anything the law allows him
to. Have we no intellectual or moral natures to control us
in these matters, or are we merely machines rinn by law-
makers whom we elect for that purpose? I have a legal
right to drink whisky, tea or coffee, to use tobacco, eat pork,
sausage and every other abomination that most of our people
indulge in. Why do I not do it? Because I know it is not
conducive to my health and happiness. If I thought they
would benefit me I would use them, if there were ever so
many laws against it. Other persons think differently, do
not know them to be injurious, and they have to learn by
experience and suffering; but would it be wise to compel
them by law to abstain from any or all of them? I think
not, and I feareven so great a believer in the saving power
of law as yourself would object to some of them. You Say
men do not hold their wives as property. I say the laws so
recognize them. There are parties that live above the laws,
and in consequence of this fact we have some happy homes.
To the question, “Is the lady owned soul and body by A. B.
Severance?” I reply legally Iam. And if I were to associate
with any other man sexually, he could sue said man for
damages, not to me but to himself, I being his property,
while I could not sue any woman for associating with him,
because I do not own him; and to prove this, let me quote
a late decision of Judge Dodge, of Ohio, in the case of a
woman, Mrs. Judge Seney, suing another woman, Mrs. Bow-
man, for alienating her husband from her, and associating

Social QUEstion. 41
with him. In the Judge's decision these sentiments are ex-
pressed: “A husband has a pecuniary, a property interest
in his wife, father in his children. A father can recoverdam-
ages against a man who seduces his daughter, but a mother
can not. She has not property in her, is not entitled to her
wages. The father is the head of the family, the husband is
the head of the wife, but the wife does not own the husband,
the child does not own the father. I hold the child can not
sue for an injury to the father, nor the wife for an injury to
her husband; but he can sue any one who takes her away
from him, who harbors her or injures her, because she is his
own. The husband enforces his claim to his wife by striking
down every one who interferes with his right to her. The
law protects him in holding her. The law gives courage to
his heart, strength to his arm, in defending his possession,
but the wife looks to the husband. The law does not per-
mit her to go forth to smite the seducer of her husband, nor
the man or woman who entices him away.” And he dismis-
sed the case.
Has every wife in the land as much right before the law
as her husband? It seems you and the judge differ in this.
And even in your state, a man has the legal right to will
away on his death bed an unborn child, or transfer itsguard-
ianship and care to any one he pleases, and the mother can
not help herself. Does the wife anywhere have the same
property rights in case of his death as does the husband in
case of hers? In fact are they equal in any thing? Mrs.
Stanton has given the best definition of wife I have heard.
“An upper servant without wages.”
We are living in a world where man has supreme control.
He has made our religion, in which woman is represented as
an afterthought of the Creator and made for man’s benefit
alone. Our laws are framed by him with no voice of woman's
and our customs conform to our creeds and codes, all being
based upon the assumed inferiority of woman. Slowly the
work of reformers, battling against established laws and
customs, and the law of evolution, have bettered the condi-

42 A Discussion of the
tion of woman, yet every step of advancement has been
marked by the footprints of the blood stained feet of those
who, for love of their kind, have dared to make new paths
for future generations to walk in. Each step forward in
every department of life has been met by the same apprehen-
sions of evil as those you raise against Free-love. A wise
man, when asked what was the cure for the evils of liberty,
replied, “Greater liberty!” It is only in the atmosphere of
freedom that morality and virtue can grow. If the forcible
prevention of crime constitutes morality, then our most
moral people are in our penal institutions. There can be
no such thing as virtue or morality without opportunity
for the opposite, and, as a matter ofchoice, not compulsion.
We can have no true marriage until based upon the equal
rights, privileges and responsibilities of man and woman,
and founded upon reciprocal love. I am not without emin-
ent authority in my opinions in these matters. Robert
Dale Owen, whom most Spiritualists admire, in a work of
his on “Moral Physiology,” quoted and endorsed the fol-
lowing definitions given by his father, Robert Owen, known
as an able thinker and writer:
“Chastity–Sexual intercourse founded upon love. Pros-
titution—Sexual intercourse without love.” Verily, where
do we find our chaste people, and where our prostitutes?
Let every person look into his ownheart and answer himself.
Henry C. Wright, one of our fearless Spiritualistic lecturers,
and one beloved by all blessed with his acquaintance,
when asked, “How long will a true marriage last?” replied,
“Just so long as love lasts, and no longer.” Margaret
Fuller, whom the literati of all countries honor, many years
ago wrote this: “It is the fault of marriage and the present
relation of the sexes, that the woman belongs to the man,
instead of forming one with him. Woman, self centered,
would never be absorbed by any relation; it would be an
experience to her as to man. It is a vulgar error that love
is to woman her whole existence. She is born for truth and

Social QUESTIox. 43
love in their universal energy. Would she assume her inher-
itance, Mary would not be the only virgin mother.”
You feel sad, dear brother, that I know so little about
monogamy and advise me to study it. I have, and that is
what is the matter. Now, I venture you do not know even
the definition of the word you are making such an outcry in
favor of Nor do you believe in monogamy yourself,
Webster, I suppose, you will accept as authority,
he defines monogamist “one who disallows second mar-
riages.” Are Spiritualists monogamists, and do we find
many grown to that plane? You challenge me to show
where Free-Love has restored one “fallen womanto the path
of virtue and honor.” “Fallen women” and fallen men do
not believe in Free-Love, which I defined as sexual relation
founded upon mutual love; they do not pretend any such
thing. With them it is a matter of selling and buying
favors, and not a question of love at all. “A brutal man”
with woman free could not exercise his brutality, but now
he can marry a woman and she is his for life, or he can hire
her for any given period. Such men are not in favor of free-
dom or having love alone decide in such matters. This is
very like our Christian opponents asking “where has Spirit-
ualism converted and saved a murderer, or how many horse
thieves or gamblers has it transformed into useful members
of society?” Such persons do not take to Spiritualism, nor
to advanced social views; it is only persons of thought and
growth that can receive them. I have never known a case
like the one you referred to occurring out West, but if it did,
I do not see whose business it was but their own, or who
was injured thereby. The harangue about happy homes
destroyed and children deserted by Free-lovers, is all “bun-
combe.” Cite a single case of any professed believers in Free-
love ever deserting their children. Don't bring up cases of
our opponents, for they are numerous, and we wish to be
excused from taking their sins upon our backs. Show me
any case of those who have advocated Free-love who have
ever neglected child or wronged anyone, and you will permit

44 A Discussion of the
my eyes to behold what I have never yet seen or known.
The Oneida community was bitterly opposed to Free-love,
but believed in complex marriage, as they called it, and as a
religious principle. Allow me to correct the statement that
the law broke them up, for it is not true. Spiritualism and
its light upon the questions of religion and love, that came
among them, did it, as I know from parties interested.
They were a people respected by their neighbors, and were
not, for many years, interfered with by law at all.
You say the churches teach moral principles, and exert a
moral influence. This like most of your statements is not
founded on facts. Two years ago, statistics tell us, there
were in these United States seven hundred ministers in our
penitentiaries.
The average of criminals of the whole people is two and a
half per cent. Of the ministers there are thirteen and a half
per cent convicted criminals. The great majority of the in-
mates of our prisons are believers in Christianity, while the
majority of our population are unbelievers, proving most
conclusively that it is untrue that the churches exertamoral
influence.
Your criticism is full of self-contradictions and misrepre-
sentations. You have no right, after careful definitions, to
assume a different one, and then proceed to show the evils
of your own imaginings and call them my doctrines. It is
exceedingly strange that a man. with even less intellectual
acumen than you possess, cannot see the difference between
social freedom and Free-love, as one would expect anybody
could see the difference between religious freedom and Spirit-
ualism. If we did not have religious freedom, the majority
would compel the minority to their mode of worship, and
Spiritualism would not betolerated. But are they identical?
Because under the religious freedom the sun worshiper could
erect his temple and conduct his service according to his
belief, would that give any sane person the right to assume
all religious freedomites were sun worshipers? If social free-
dom means, as I define it, the right of the individual to live

Social, QUESTIox. 45
his own life so long as he interfered with the life of no one
else, (in spirit the same as religious freedom,) how can any
just person claim it means Free-love any more than that
religious freedom means sun worship or Spiritualism. Free-
love (the relation of man and woman based on love alone)
can not exist to-day, except under the ban of law, for the
reason we have not social freedom; the same as Spiritualism
could not exist but for religious freedom, except under the
banoflaw, and for the same reason—the majority are opposed
to it. There are persons who are believers in religious free-
dom who are not Spiritualists, so there are persons who are
believers in social freedom who are not Free-lovers but being
just persons, they are willing that others should have the
right of private judgment and of living according to that
judgment ; the same right they askfor themselves. The only
limit to liberty being the encroachment upon another's
liberty.
Morality must come as a result of organization and devel-
opment, and not by legal enactment. You may pass as
many laws as you please against stealing, and the born
thief will act out his nature just as surely as a born human-
itarian will his, and the hope of the world lies in a thorough
understanding of the laws of heredity, the laws of sexuality,
upon which this is based, and the properculture of the indi-
vidual. Legislation can have nothingtodo with these,except
to stand in the way of investigation. A law punishing a
person for inheriting scrofula, the result of ante-natal con-
ditions, is as just as one punishing a thief or a licentious
person for their inherited conditions. All our unfortunate
organizations, manifesting themselves in sickness, crime
and misery, are the results of our ignorance of the laws that
govern parentage; and the world is groaning with untold
agonies in consequence; and yet you and your like stand
ready to crucify anyone who dares agitate this question.
And how are we to educate except through agitation?
There is nothing that will exalt manhood and woman-
hood equal to human love. It makes woman angelic and
-

46 A Discussion of the
man Godlike. It develops justice, goodness, and wrongs no
one. It is free in its action. It loves when it wills, and
where it must. It will have its own, that which belongs by
natural law to it, no more nor any less, and with this it is
conscientiously content in the heaven of its own harmonies.
Yours for universal libertv,
JULIET H. SEVERANCE, M. D.
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -




TO THE
LIBERAL PUBLIC.
Having been a Student of the problems involved in Hu-
man Life for many years, and a practicing Physicion for
over a quarter of a century, I have been called upon to
write and lecture upon most of the practical questions of
the day. The following Lectures were prepared with care
and have been delivered in many parts of the Country, and
I have consented to put them in pamphlet form, in order
that they may reach those who cannot hear them.
The Evolutions of Life in Earth and Spirit Conditions.
The Industrial and Financial Problems.
Life and Health, or How to Live a Century.
Philosophy of Disease and How to Cure the Sick
Without Drugs.
Religious, Political and Social Freedom.
I will send them postpaid, the five for 60 cents. Single,
15 cents apiece. Address,
JULIET H. SEVERANCE,
Milwaukee, Wis.