If some called Quakers would have fought the Paxton People, had they come to Philadelphia, it means the meek, peaceful, inspired Quakers would.
But some called Quakers would have fought, had they come to Philadelphia.
Ergò, the "meek, peaceful, inspired Quakers wanted to shed the blood of their Fellow-Subjects."
What a curious Logic is here! And yet this would be the Unmasker's inference.
"They were willing," says he, "to disperse and return to their respective homes, which was accordingly agreed to". (Tho' by the by, it is conceived from an other reason than that alledged; to wit) "on proviso they might have a fair hearing", "and they dispersed without doing any Mischief". Then their design was mischievous? "They (the Paxton People) have charged the Quakers with gross partiality to Indians, and their being unfit for Government, nay, ascribe the greatest part of their sufferings to them ALONE". This is not so "glaring a Fact" neither, as the Unmasker would make it out. That the Quakers have had more trouble, and been at more expence than any other Society in the Province, in endeavouring to bring the Indians over to the English Interest, ever since the commencement of last War, is a truth that all the impartial will acknowledge. If they have not been so fortunate as to accomplish their design, and have shewn too much lenity towards them, would it not be more becoming an unprejudiced, candid person, to attribute such errors to a failure