In such cases it most generally happens that parents are prompted by sinister motives and a false pride, as that of wealth, honor, and social position.  They do not consult the law of suitability, but that of availability.  They think that wealth and family distinction will compensate for the absence of all moral and amiable qualities, that if outward circumstances are favorable, there need not be inward adaptation of character.  Hence they will dictate to their children, make their marriage alliance a mere business matter, and demand implicit obedience on the penalty of expulsion from the parental home, and disinheritance forever.  They are thus willing to prostitute the domestic peace and happiness of their offspring to the gratification of their own sordid and inordinate lust for gain and empty distinction.

Who does not perceive and acknowledge the evil of such a course?  It involves unfeeling despotism on the one hand, and a servile obedience on the other.  The affections are abused; the idea and sacredness of marriage are left out of view; the conditions of domestic felicity are not met.  All is supremely selfish; the power exercised is arbitrary; the submission is slavish and demoralizing; the obedience involuntary and degrading; and the result of it all is, an outrage against nature, against marriage, and against God.

On the other hand, the interference of the parent should be persuasive, and the obedience of the child, voluntary.  The parent should reason with and counsel the child; and seek by mild and affectionate means to secure obedience to his advice.  And if the child then persist in his own course, the parent, we think, has discharged his duty, and the responsibility will rest upon the child.  He should not expel and disinherit him, and thus add the hard-heartedness of the parent to the folly and perversity of the child.  He should love him still, and seek by parental tenderness to alleviate the sad fruits of filial recklessness.  Parents should so train their children in the nursery and parlor, by instilling in them correct principles of judgment in the choice of a companion, as to secure them ever after from an imprudent choice.  Here is the place to begin.  Parents too often omit this duty, until alas, it is too late.

We have now seen that the parent has no right to destroy the domestic happiness of a child by uniting him forcibly in wedlock to one for whom he has no true affection.  On the other hand, the child should pay due deference to the parent’s moral suasion, and seek, if possible, to follow his counsels.  “A child,” says Paley, “who respects his parent’s judgment, and is, as he ought to be, tender of their happiness, owes, at least, so much deference to their will, as to try fairly and faithfully, in one case, whether time and absence will not cool an affection which they disapprove.  After a sincere but ineffectual endeavor by the child, to accommodate his inclination to his parent’s pleasure, he ought not to suffer in his parent’s affections, or in his fortunes.  The parent, when he has reasonable proof of this, should acquiesce; at all events, the child is then at liberty to provide, for his own happiness.”