In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

44 Letterto the editor: “the Free Love Question” June 29, 1858 New York, New York Rose wrote this letter to the New York Times rebutting its inaccurate coverage of her speech to the Free Convention held in Rutland, Vermont, on June 25–27, 1858. The convention was intended to offer cross-fertilization of ideas from various reform movements, with the platform open to all. The article on the convention published in the New York Times on June 29, 1858, is sensationally entitled “A Spicy Time on Free-Love—Broad Doctrines Freely Avowed,” with the subheading “A Small Bit of Abolitionism, Touches of Spiritualism, and a great deal of Woman’s Rights.” The Times reported attendance by a diverse group of reformers characterized as free love advocates, spiritualists, radical abolitionists, and women’s rights advocates. Apparently unable to distinguish between advocacy of free love, which often opposed marriage altogether, and advocacy of women’s equal rights within marriage, it erroneously identified Rose as representing the free love movement. As she always did when falsely accused, Rose wrote to correct the record, and to distance herself from Mrs. Branch’s position, stating that she was a woman’s rights advocate and had “nothing to do with the marriage question, except as to have the laws so altered as to have them equal for husband and wife.” Although Rose’s letter was addressed “To the Editor of the New York Times,” there is no record of it in their index, and no evidence that they chose to publish it. It was printed in the Boston Investigator on July 28, 1858, under the heading “The Free Love Question—Letter from Mrs. Rose.” n To The Editor Of The New York Times:— New York, Tuesday, June 29, 1858 Dear Sir—I am perfectly willing, nay, desirous, that the sentiments and principles I advocate should be known and criticized by the public; but I am not willing to have imputed to me sentiments which do not belong to me, and, believing that you do not willfully misrepresent me, I take the liberty to correct some errors in regard to myself, in the account of the Rutland Convention, in your paper of this morning. The report says: “Mrs. Ernestine L. Rose is active, so is Mrs. Julia Branch; both these ladies go for free love on principle.” This I most emphatically deny. I have never advocated these sentiments , from the simple reason that I do not believe in them. The facts are these:— 45 Mrs. Branch, in speaking to resolution No. 5, said: “Mrs. Rose and others go down to the influence of the mothers. This is not enough. I go further.” I spoke in favor of the amendment moved by Mr. Foster, to the resolution , namely, to insert after the words “exclusive conjugal love” the words “perfect equality,” so as to read thus: “Resolved, That the only true and natural marriage is an exclusive conjugal love based on perfect equality between one man and one woman; the only true home is the isolated home based on this exclusive love.” In referring to Mrs. Branch, I said:—”The lady is a stranger to me. I have never seen her. I do not know what she means on the subject of marriage. I did not understand her in the same way that Mr. Tiffany did, but if she meant what he made it out to be, then I most emphatically differ from her.” In reference to her allusion to me, I said, “I go before, beyond, and above the influence of mothers, but I have nothing to do with the marriage question, except as to have the laws so altered as to have them equal for husband and wife,” and in endeavoring to enforce the necessity of the equality of right, I showed that the “two halves of the pair of scissors,” which Mr. Tiffany represented as belonging to the husband and wife, are given to him alone, and even when the whole pair belongs to her, the law still gives it to him, that Blackstone says “husband and wife are one,” and the laws declared that one to be the husband, by giving him all the rights that belong to both. This is all I said on the subject connected with marriage, except that when the laws proclaim woman civilly and politically equal with man, and she is educated to enable her to promote her own independence, then she will not be obliged to marry for a...

Share