Thanks for your patience during our recent outage at scalar.usc.edu. While Scalar content is loading normally now, saving is still slow, and Scalar's 'additional metadata' features have been disabled, which may interfere with features like timelines and maps that depend on metadata. This also means that saving a page or media item will remove its additional metadata. If this occurs, you can use the 'All versions' link at the bottom of the page to restore the earlier version. We are continuing to troubleshoot, and will provide further updates as needed. Note that this only affects Scalar projects at scalar.usc.edu, and not those hosted elsewhere.
12017-12-03T15:35:38-08:00Will Fenton82bf9011a953584cd702d069a30cbdb6ef90650a72001(annotation)plain2017-12-03T15:35:38-08:00Will Fenton82bf9011a953584cd702d069a30cbdb6ef90650aabout him;—and he as often refused: alledging that their assistance was not wanted.—This they did as a Society.— And at the same time many Individuals most freely opened their purses, and joined in private Collections.—So that we see, this vehement outcry "of immortal Infamy" means nothing.—
But, says the Unmasker, "When their good Brethren the Indians (some of whom were well known by Officers now in this City, to have been in the battle against Colonel Bouquet, and others at the siege of Fort Pitt, during the summer) seemed in danger of receiving their Just deserts, &c. no toils are thought too great—to protect these Bosom-friends". The Officer who was charged with saying he knew them, declared in divers public Companies that it was an absolute falsehood, and that he had never uttered such a thing. Is it likely that in the hurry and confusion of a battle, or at the irregular siege of Fort Pitt, * "the red, blue, or any other colour painted" Indians seen there, should be well known, when seen again in Philadelphia in their natural colour?—Or were it possible that that should be the case, is it to be thought that those Gentlemen Officers would not have informed the Civil Magistrates of so essential a truth? On the contrary did they not all (the Officer in particular who was charged with saying be knew them) express the greatest abhorrence of the intended Massacre, and willingness (as well as the Citizens) to protect the Indians? But the Unmasker, we see, unmasks himself with all his circumspection: In the first page he says, "shall we attempt to vindicate their killing Indians under the protection of the Government? By no means". But here we see he thinks it would have been "Just". And in the next paragraph he acknowledges "the Paxton People's coming down in a seemingly hostile manner, is justly to be condemned". What a strange contradiction is here! But this will be
* See 12th Page of Q—r U—'d.
Contents of this annotation:
12016-08-19T12:59:06-07:00Will Fenton82bf9011a953584cd702d069a30cbdb6ef90650aThe Quaker Vindicated - 51The Quaker vindicated; or, Observations on a late pamphlet, entituled, The Quaker unmask'd, or, Plain truth.2016-08-19T12:59:06-07:00Will Fenton82bf9011a953584cd702d069a30cbdb6ef90650a