|
Dear Bradburn, Yours of the 22 was not received until
yesterday. I should not dare write to Smith
“privately,” as you suggest, unless he were to invite me to give him my
opinion. I should be more afraid of offending him by a private lecture,
(for I fear he would consider it such), than by a public refutation of his
argument. I had some thought long ago of reviewing his argument in the Pioneer
or Chronotype—but lack of time, the ungraciousness of the task, and the
difficulty of reconciling him to the truth, without presenting some
other points connected with the question, induced me to forego the attempt. As
long as Smith has a motive to believe any particular position, argument does
not satisfy him. If I should ever complete my work, he will then see, I think,
not only that nothing is gained by the reasoning he adopts, but that much is
lost. His reasoning first violates legal rules, (or, what is the same thing),
dispenses with their application), to admit slavery into the constitution, and
then violates them again to get it out. I inclose [sic] his letter, as you request— I think you have indeed “returned the dab.”
I doubt if you will hear again from that quarter. Ever since Garrison accused
you of falsehood in offering that resolution in I care less for his opinion now, than
formerly, although I never cared much for it, for I never considered it of any
great intrinsic value. But the power is now passing out of his hands,
and his sayings and doings are of little consequence compared with what they
once were. I was at Athol last Wednesday and
Thursday—Mrs. Hoyt made many inquires in regard to you, and was very sorry she
could not see you when she was here in the fall. Those lines, in your paper, two or three
weeks ago, by Elizabeth M. Sargeant, were our Mrs. Sargeant’s. You credited
them to the Liberty Bell. They should have been credited to Burleigh’s Newfarel[?].
Mrs. Hoyt showed me the paper containing them. Whether Yours truly, L. Spooner |