Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1853-04-02
Reply Of Hon. Horace Mann to Wendell Phil
lips Esq,
WEST NEWTON, March IA 1853.


WM. l.. GARRISON, ESQ:
DEAN SIR,-Having just arrived home
from Washington, | avail myself OF the ear
lest moment of leisure to reply TO certain
further injurious structures of Mr. WENDELL
Phillips, made in OH attempted defence OF
his previous injurious structures upon me-
Before noticing Mr. Phillips, however, may
[ he permitted to say one word (dstde, as 'ne
play -wrights have it) to the Edltor' May
ask him if il is quite fair to become SO lnr
party to the controversy ns to sharpen mr'
phiIips's weapons, or add weight to his
blows. and then, in an editorial, assume the
character of n Judge, aud pronounce his ac-
quittn2 The holding Of the clothes Tor
those who stoned Stephen, cost Saul some
papcs of remorse but | thiuk his twlhges
would have been much sharper, had ne M
terwards turned Judge, and decided that tue
stoning had done the martyr no INJUSTICE
Mr. Phillips, in his reply, sets forth part
of the passage in my speech 70 "nIch "s
processes to have referred ana mus, y mS
o,cn sho,cing, demonstrates how wrohgsu'y
he misquoted me. by putting thus 'act up
Oh the record, he now stands self-cohVlc'eu
because. if there be any one right among
disputants more clear than amy other, u is
tho right of every man TO have his meaning
|
that which an assailant may put in his mouth
1t is the common device of prevarlcators'
when faIsily is proved upon them, TO reply,
Well, if il was not that, it was as bad as
that' | presume Mr. Phillips knows that
men have been convicted of perjury under
the selfscme plea in justification he now se's
M. Indefinite and rremediable wrong can
not he prevented but by holding every party in
q controversy to exact and honest Quotations.
| All fair iisputants willingly conform TO this
| rule. No good motive can never prompt
man to depart from IT, MIR. Phillips, now,
not only acknowledges hut proves that his
apparant quotation was not quotation; and
he goes further, and confesses that he saw
the proofs. II is true, he denies observing the
'quolation marks But if he intended that the
language should not go TO the public ga mine,
would hc not have observed them? Besides,
he introduces the subject as follows; Mr..
Mann said,' and then adds, in one Of his
speeches. Then his rebuke Of surreptitions
sentiment, his singing out the hinge-,cord OF
the sentence as mine, and exclaiming, What
But" from the lips, too, Of a champion
of the higher law p-ny, from the J
what pertncncy or relevancy in all this, il
lie did not mean to have the public believe
that his words were my words?
|
whole diamiter of difference between the
meaning of my language, and that oi' his
substitute for il. My remarks in the pnssnge,
even now most unfairly quoted, ,-wcro adj
dressed wholly to Southern men--to a South
ern audience, ,--iorcwRrning them what, up
on their own principles, they must expect,
should they dissolve the Union. Mr.. Phil
lips represents me as speaking to the North,
rather than TO the South, (becsrsc when
nothing appears TO the contrary, man Is
supposed 10 he speaking to the people among
whom he livesI aud RI saying TO my fellow
citizens, at home, that land | state hls
monsirous inference in his own nngunGe,-
TINT would return fugitive slaves, until th'
.Satss area separated. An Ammunition to the
South, that after they shall have dissolved the
Union, they cannot on any principle of in
I ternational law, reclaim fugitive slaves, Mr.
Phillips tortures into declaration by me, Il
the North, that stand ready and willing Il
return iugitves until such dissolution shal
take place.
Aud further, Mr.. Phillips quoted me mos
: unfairly now. lie has gnrbed the para
n graph from which his pretended proof i
drawn. lie has dropped three passages lron
it, which show demonstrntively, that ! wa
y not setting forth what would do noto, hu
J, what they must look for then. If Mr.. Phillip
3, will quote the paragraphs correctly, ever
>. body will see this. If he does not quote i
everybody will know the reason why.
" But let me add, that this question abo,
+ identity or contrarietv of meaning nevt
ought 10 have arisen. Among fair disputant
such question never can arise. Hone
~ quotations will always preclude it. thcr'
Ie fore return to my original position, uis., tn
a | 1 haI r;,bf IN lao faisl., and hn |
" imputing language to me which ] new
=, used, did, Notwithstanding his two.fold d
" nial, do me 'ininstice,' in the first instac'
10 and now, by omittng, in his reply, such po
n, tons of the real paragraph as would falsl
in his inference, he has repeated the nlus,ic
- On the second point, Mr.. Philips charg
w. me with avoiding any reply to pertine
question; with seeing a logical 'dilemm
,y aud avoiding il nv silence' with keep'I
back what | should have planly said, a
~ with requesting not 10 he interrupted a
le, he intnrlarded the whole with imputn'io
lse of 'non .commitasm,' want of 'trnnkne'
lu- unworthy trick &c. &c.
49,, ] answered by showing that | did I
- avoid reply, hut made one tina, saw
lhs dilemma, and so did not avoid il by silcnc
that kept back nothing that SHOULD HI
,,,o plainly said but said it with all my strenl
and from a full heart and that did not
o'h mot TO be interrupted hut submitted, WI
be out objection, 10 be interrupted three sevf
TO times; and only when the whole pom
interruption had been stated did expre'
hope not to he'firther' interrupted. What
under justifiahle qualifications, he char
upon me absolutely and without quaIlf
tion. To all this, the whole substance
Mr.. Phillips's reply is, that IL he is not r'
then he docs not understand Language
ties, common with what every reader must
81 accept Ine alternative. u a., .hnn .,o NJ =
Inns 'does not understand language