"The conversions made by the Mahommedan sovereigns of India have also been quoted; but as these are admitted to have been merely the effect of the utmost violence and oppression, they can hardly be used as an argument of the practicability of conversion by any other means; and I trust they are not brought forward as an indirect recommendation of the coercive system of the Rev. Dr. Buchanan…. The advocates for conversion seem to dread the force of the argument that may be brought against them from the former failure of the Mussulmauns to convert their Hindoo subjects, and the more recent failure of the Catholic and other missionaries; they therefore wish to argue, that, “something inefficient or unsuitable has entered into all their measures;” but is it not more reasonable to suppose that there are insurmountable obstacles in the habits, laws, and religious prejudices of the inhabitants, that have prevented the pure doctrines of Christianity from having the same force over the minds of the Indians that they acquired over the Japanese, Chinese, and other nations? Has not the Massulmaun religion met with the same resistance from its first appearance, through the plentitude of its power, to its present decay? The Sultauns found they could destroy their subjects, they could raze their temples, but they not convert them; not from any antipathy to the religion of their masters, but from an attachment to their own. Yet we should remember, that the Sultauns had advantages that we have not; they had a real, a physical power in the country, which rendered them superior to any risk of rebellion."