North Branch democrat. [volume] (Tunkhannock, Pa.) 1854-1867, 1863-10-14
COMMUNICATIONS.
For The Democrat
J. DEWITT, ESQ

4 J
to me in the Democrat Of the 7th inst, was,
that I would treat il with silent c0n'e mpt.-
On more mature reflection however. + con
cluded that i, was q duty which owed al
least TO mysrlf To correct some Of your state
men,s whether made gn"rantly. or mali
ciously, shall leave to the decision Of ou 4
readers. admire an honorable opponent
while hold in contempt the scribbling peti
f"gger regret that you should st"p so low
rs 10 attempt to sustains POSITIONS which You
ough, to know To be incorrect, and all for the
apparent purpo-e # victory.
shall not pause t" notice your remarks
about official influence" preaching ones
/ SELF" {" stopping over the brim when the yes
sel was d,sbursed,,'' elegant and lucid
phraseology-that "the public would have
more regard for the teachings If rhe Bible
than for any opinion that even" "msy en-
tertaln"-wonderful announceinent
The foregoing ex racts aud much nj re If
your letter reminds me Of a receipt for a pop
ular lecture, namely: Take one drop ot
thought beat il up 20 bu-he "f bubble AMI
! throw rainbows on IL for one hour" Ypu
have given US The one drop of tn u2ht and
the bnsIel Of bubble. bu' y"n have tailed to
throw on the ra'nbows. Perhaps you will do
better next time
am more than ever surprised at your Ian
dacty" in asserting that have seen aft 4"
h,,
the quesi iion Proposed" In this remark YOU
unquestlorably desire to cInv"y The ,rnprrs
SION, that have refused tu DISCUSS the ques
ton of slavery. Have dec lined I" meet the
OIL, s,ion .quarely and fairly2 have decln
ed to discuss question proposed By You, and
for reas"ns already given IN former letter
I again invite you to discussion of the ques
ton, is American Slaveay consistent with
Christianity or the Bible 2" am astonished at
the qubblihg which you employ as reasons
for refusing to discuss the above question l
am still more ast0nished when you affirm
that dit is Just as muc Of an affirmation Co
say that slavery is inconsistent wit" the Bl
BILE, as to saw that it is consistent" Are the
word. consistent and inconsistent" synon-
omnus2 Are they both negatives, or both
alternatives : I have new asked you to
prove negative. The question winch pro
posed, is affirmative in sense and in firm.
while your question is affirmative IN form but
negative in sense. / repeat it, my QUESTION
does not differ according tc your ow" cor'ces-
sion from the one discussed by Bishop H'p
kins. I now ask, does the B'sh"p prore
negative in his pamphlet? Face the music
sir, let there be no dodging at this p"inr.-
Does he not employ the following language
alter some preliminary remarks? namely -
s proceed according TO the evidence "f the
Sacred Script ure>, which long aga, produced
complete convection IN my own mind, AID
must, as regard it, be equally c"nc'u>lve t"
every candid and sincere inquirer. When the
array of pos,tire pr"f is exhi''frrS, shall
consider the objections and exaD'ne their Val
ldity with all the fairness in INV power. -
(See Bible view Of Slavery, page 2h.)
Now sir, does nnt the B,sr"p first attempt
to prore that slavery is fully auth 'r'zed both
i'm the Old and Nov Testament, and IN the
second place, try to rtfuie the objections rai>.
ed against the system D. ynu deny this
Either do not require you to prove a nesa
tive, or the Bishop has attempted it. Which
horn of the dilemma will you take? When
you shall have succe ded in establishing that
the Bishops p sitire prof il regdt,re, |
will consent to relieve you from your embar
assrneRt.
Your style is 80 extremely transparent and
your arguments az wonderfully conclusive
that you certainly deserve the following eulo-
gy for your production.
"He is in logic great critic,
Profoundly skilled in analytic
He'll under take to prove by force
OF argument, q manss no horse
He'll prove buzzard is no fowl,
calf an alderman, goose justice.
And rocks committee men and trustees.
All this by sylogism, true
In mood and figure he will do"
did expect, :, | had the rlgfft to- expect hat
you would have the honor and frankness c"
Confess whether you did or did not believe
the Bishops doctrine as Contained in his let.
ter Instead of this You positively assert
that You wiz not declare your ''Privs' t "p'n-
ion or belief on the slavery question:" Are
you ashamed or afraid to publicly announce
your sent rncnra on this subject or are YOU
waiting to see what convcti,n the i"gic nf
events now transpiring, may produce in your
mind2
am really anxious to know your 'priv,te
opinion and belief on the slavery qnes;io"
| |, ia very possible that am mistaken in sup
posing that you ere pro-slaverv in sentiment,
for supht know to- the contrary, you may be
full fledged abolitionist IN private "p'nr'n"
and full grown copperhead IN "b-lief." As
7 do not wish to do you injustice. l hope that