North Branch democrat. [volume] (Tunkhannock, Pa.) 1854-1867, 1863-10-28
COMMUNICATIONS.
For The Democrat.
To% DEWITT. . #
--- SIR.

| .ra s.r ..-.D \ have read with little
disappointment your scurilous and vibdic-
tive letter TO me in the Democrat of the 81 st
inst, Lexpected that the reeeHt scathing
which ! gave you. and the political victories
achieved By the loyal people OF the North,
would make you hiss, squirm, and wriegle.
Keep cool, friend Jacob, your friends, If you
have any, will respect you just as much for
GOODNESS, NO for the skill and honesty which
you hav exhibited i'm your letters to me,
You are uuquestiooably looked upon 40
full grown anaconda among the "varrnints, -
and it is probable that they auppose that you
have gobbIed me up but can assure all
oonesrn'd. cha. ] am 2. slys, and u, right Gid. sp
with care.
You have most signally failed in ali your
attempts at conviction and refutation. You
have substituted sophistry foss s:argument,
quibbliagF for reasoning, bold assertion for
proof, and the pettifuggsr fo+ the lawyer. y
You remark, that dc. mot seem disposed
to consider any of the issues raised. Will
have invited you several times to tho dis
cussion o f the question of American Slavery z
Ii | supposed that our readers were rs noto-
rious for ignorance, as you are for substtut-
ing brass for brains, and impotence for cor
rect state ments, would devote time in re.
plying. respectfully ask the readers OF
the Democrat to compare our letters and
to their verdict am willing to submit.
You ask why did not publish my SER
mon ? Well sir, am not in the practice oi
parading my sermons before the public in
print, do not seek noteriety in that way.
There are other reasons, the sermon was not
written; only a part Of it was devoted 10
Bishop Hopkins letter, and finally if you had
dared to accept the my invitation, discuss
the question of slavery, should have antici-
patcd the subject
protest again, against your unqualified
asseyeratons that have refused. or tha,
had no intention Of discussing the question
proposed" Why do you not state that /
have refused to discuss the question propos :
ed by you? Instead Of this you unques ton
ably design to convey the false impression,
that have refused, or had no int enton to
discuss the question proposed by myself
am thankful that you have placed me in
such dgnifed and honorable company as
that of Bishop Potter. The Bishop, sir, can
take care of Bishop Hopkins. I have read
Hopkins reply to Potter aud others, it is Of
the same character of his letter. I am salts
fed that such an apology for the infamous
system Of American slavery, would not have
been Published by him twenty years ago.
DR.. Elliott in the late number of;ths Meth
odist Quarterly, remarks. That t'ptior 20
1885 no member Of the NJ. E. Church ever
uttered a werd for slavery" The first
public utterance for slavery was by Rev. g.
Durwody in 1885, ip. a sermon before the
South Carolina Conference. TIE eSataaargu.
ment in our hearing, was used BY him in
1886, in Cincinnati, before the General Con.
ference. Many Of the seuthes4S raoSmbers
held down their heads in shamsat 1She' s5o. %.
phistry of the pleadsr Tor sins His ars,a.
inent was, that God sent Hagzf. back to her
mistress and therefore slavery was. right
The blundering sophist forgot thst, the sef-
Witty Of Hsgar ended with her own person
40 Ishuuael and his descendants were NIL free
so that the child followed the condition Of
the free father, and not Of the ssrvile moth
er. So IL was with the four sons Of Jacob
by the servils mothers. The case Of Joseph
is the true type of slavery and the spsisyed
Israelites in Egypt. Abraham was nm sman
eipstor, not an enslaver. The law of Moses
prohibited slavery TO the Jews snd The New
Testament only repeats the law Of Moses