Southern standard. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 1851-1856, 1852-02-21
The sberdeen EndcpeRdent.

or previous week was the weakest. The reader VIII
remember that the first excuse offered by the Aberdeen
paper for not responding six propositions waS'
that as we could probably substantiate them with bet
ter nroof than its admissions it declined answering
them. It further said that the questions relae to
the colonial principles of the British Constitution =
Tn or issue ofthe 7th we brushed this excuse away
and moor plea that we were inclined to .begn before
the bernning in order to '.throw sand in the eyes
of the reader.
Now. the Aberdeen paper has discovered that we
nronose to "make witness of it. What bright
tbou6ht this is and how much it must elevate that pa
per in the estimation of intelligent gentlemen. The
idea of making that paper witness never entered
our head There were points necessary to be discuss
ed and adjusted in the proposed controversy We did
not suppose that the Aberdeen paper would differ with
Us in regard to three or four of them, and we embraced
the points in questions that could ascertain up
on What points ne diddfsr and also upon What ne
Did Not differ. Itwould be very simple in US to pre-
pare two three papers proving or denying certain
position, and then be told by opponent that he Dbl
not differ aoih as It was avoid this, that pro-
posed the questions, and not 'throw sand in the
eyes, Of any one andstuely without the intention of
making witness of the Aberdeen paper.
We know that there are able men in this Union who
Djsq6rm the first five propositions, and there are those
who Affirm them and there are Others who negative
some and affirm others. We cannot know what the
Aberdeen paper will affirm or negative, and we are
wholly without a knowledge ofwhat have or have
not to prove But knowing what points we do DIFF
fer is necessary andi this is "makng witness of
the Aberdeen paper we have yet to learn how it is
compHshed.
The Aberdeen paper declines to answer and says it
has discovered "sefrespect' in it, and it further says
that proposing questions to it, is act of"dscour
tesy" We submit this point to readers with en-
tire confidence in their decision. They best tell
whether we have been discourteous." and they also
know whether we have attempted 10 shield orsef IN
der pretexs set up one week only be abandoned the
next, for some new and more ridiculous one.
The Aberdeen paper also says it accepted our pro-
position discuss in "a certain gay Wen wager
that no man can guess what that certain way is
1t saws that the whole 'fed of battle before u.s. and
in the most modest way it intimates that after we
have concluded presented snch points may de-
sire, At rcH then reply to as Is this controversy =
1t is rather Revje1o and it is simply permitting
opponent to select such parts of an argument he
may choose, and misrepresent or mutulate it. 1t is
the that destroys the labor of mar by piercing
here and there. Give fair field, and we ask no
FIT is the tearof JeiAg ocarroun that prompts
these shallow preteXts, say it at like man. If
the Aberdeen paper has determined refuse to us an
OPEN equal and fair field, let it be known.
To remove all doubt and difficulty. and to take from
the opposition its pretended objection to our mode of
opening the discussion, We will ANSWER the ques-
tons proposed by This will not be making a wit
ness OF the Aberdeen paper. The reader viii in
this an ardent desire part to meet and obyiae
the excuses put up by the opposition.
If this course meets the appreciation of the Aber-
deem paper it will notify US, and it will please state at
the time, whether it will the receipt of our
answers, Affirm or Deny them, so thatwe may know
on What Points differ, and enable present our
views in opposition without delay.
The Aberdeen paper says Inexperienced the
tenor of its article to which replied the 18th. 1t
is regretted but surely understood it, as not sug-
costing that should answer the questions it pro-
posed to.us 1t distinctly said eve desire the defni-
ton &c. Ourhaving answered is nothing--we COM
piled with the purport OF the language and that was
"desred" and not 'suggested"
The Aberdeen paper says that all discussions sup
on the right Of peaceable secession have appeared to
US tl to be in Fog. No doubt Of it. We have one
two articles published in it editoraiy that were ey
identity written by man who was in a Fog when lie
prepared them We have never flattered ourser with
the idea of being competent to the task OF removing
the preudces of that paper, of charging its fund
of informaton-gar fromit We learned wears ago
that it waste of time, attempt enlighten Pc
cuar minds. Some minds are capable of receiving
certain amount Of information only, and all beyond the
region in which has bound them, is Fog dead
ening Fog. But there readers Of that paper to
whom propose to speai men who are capable of
argument, and who will draw their
conclusions from history propose to lay be-
fore them through its columns. The compliment that
preston that we invited tito the field of controversy
because was Atlas in mental power and historical
lore is quite ridiculous. Were we not to speak to its
readers through it, should scarcely dgniy by max
ing it butt for Jest. It is not in our nature to
break butterflies upon wheel.
Whenever the Aberdeen paper cease to throw for
ward petty preexts and meets the controversy boldly
and airl and upon equal TERMS it shall have no cause
to complain of sneers Sneers are not argument nor
are jests historical facts but when opponents skulk
from controversy, and endeavor to conceal their re-
treat under first and than another pretext, we
know of better mode of unkenneling them than bv
smoking them out. As the Aberdeen paper saws this
is talk enough
0IFWe find in the Mtssissippian of the 18th inst.
short review ola letter recently published by Henry
S. Foote. The editors of that paper quote the fol-
lowing statement said to be oundin the letter alla
ded to.
q shall not at present show him Col Davis up as