To this note, I replied, immediately, as follows---not a
little amused, however, at the peremptory style; and unlucky
phraseology of it; for, even if I had been the author
of Randolph---it were a hundred to one, that I could have
“disavowed”—“unequivocally”—“in writing”—(what)
“all agency in the publication of it. But suppose that I
could not disavow all agency in the publication of it---is
that any reason, why I should stand up, and be shot at?
Nay, even if I had been the author---I should entertain very
different notions of my accountability, to this young gentleman,
than he, himself, would seem to entertain. I should
say---“sir---what I have said, is true. It may have been
harshly said---it may be misunderstood—but it was not
said lightly; nor with a malicious intention; but from a
sense of duty. Show me that it is
not true; and then, I
hold myself bound, as a man, to give you satisfaction,
either by a publick retraction, of what I have said; or by
giving you an opportunity to cut my throat.” But here,
the utmost that could be said of us, had I fought Mr. P.—
in justification of both—would have been, that I was
accused
—of having had some
agency—in the
publication of a book,
the author of which entertained a different opinion—
from
Mr. Pinkney, the
son of Mr. Pinkney—of the
father.
