Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1842-02-17
February ), 1879.


The Editors Of the Independent have this mo-
ment placed in my hands Inc letter from Mr.. Rutin
herewith enclosed, claiming for himself whatever
Of merit or demer may attach 10 The authorship Of
Revolution i'll Disguise which, in my late Letter
10 the Public, ascrbed TO the pen OF Mr.. upshur;
and hasten 10 request Of you 10 give II an early
place in your paper in order TO arrest far as
possibe. any injurious impression that may be made
upon the public mindIelative 10 MIR. Upshu's views,
as far as they were be gathered from The article
thus ascribed 10 him.
A few DAYS after Mr. US first card to Mr. Wise,
received pamphlet containing that article from a
highly respectable gentleman residing in the vlc-
niiy Of Judge Upshur-onc who for many years
knew as a member Of the Virginia Legislature,
and who was supposed 10 be very familiar with
Judge US opinions-and al the foo; of the page he
wrote. .sBy Mr. Upshur, now Secretary OF The Ma
W. And upon this authority ascribed il TO his
pcn. Ii was the first time had ever seen The arl-
Gle: and upon showing il 10 a gentleman who had
been upon terms OF the closest intimacy with Mr..
Upshur he pronounced il unhcsatngly as his re-
lief that it was the production oil Mr. Upshur. MIR.
u. has. understand been from the time OF lis pub.
LEGATION the reputed author. and | suppose only be-
only because there recognised throughout the
niece an entire conformity 10 his own opinions
However, promptly and cheerfully withdraw
every part Of my late letter having reference 10
E"Reyouion in Disguise and rest the case upon
the letters Of Mr. Harrison, Mr.. Braxton, and Mr..
Johnston. TO establish what | had undertaken 10
prove. to wit that Mr.. Upshur was nj one time an
open unqualified, and boosted advocate for dlsso-
luton Of the Union. But if Mr.. Upshur has never
EXPRESSED the opinions quoted from Revolution in
Disguise, rs 10 the necessary means Of carrying en-
the Government there is too much reason 10 he
lieve that they acted upon by the present heads
of The Government. Mr.. Harrison's letter alone IS
sufficient for all my purposes; and all the negative
testimony that can be collected together during Mr..
Upshur's lifetime cannot inyalidate II.
| MIR. Rufin, however, is mistaken IN supposlng
that there is any in The quotations from that
| book The consequence attached 10 the opinions
was. that they should have come from Cabinet
Minister. Tho proof as 10 the original allegation
is not weakened in the least degree. II not Gas
in my last letter it is stately founded on his wri-
tinns. but his conversations. | only threw that in
as conirmatory testimony.
lie, not the public mind be diverted from the true
question al issue hy this comparatively unlmportan
error. into which have been led by friend. Few
of the papers that have seen have published the
entire letter; but. like the Madisonan, have con
tented themselves with the publication OF the let
tiers Of the gentlemen named above deem:ng the
charge as overwhelmingly sustained by them.
Other writings of Mr.. Upshur would have been
referred to in the first instance but for the receipt
the paper in question. They will be hereafter re-
ferret to, if it should become necessary - from
which the same facts will appear, as lar as The
charge CT dsunion is concerned. The only ques
ton 10 be decided is, does Mr. Philip Harrison tel
the truth +? And is there man in the whole coun
try TO be found TO say he does not believe hun ?
JOHN M. BOTTS.
.N. By II. EdorsM Botts's request had been anticipated
the Editors National ntelgenee having received simi
ecedn. page before this Letter from Mr Bolts reached their
hands.
To The Editors.
PETERSBURG, (VA) Feb. Q, 1s42.
| Gentlemen: In the Independent and the Nationa
Intelligencer both Of the Sth inst, brought BY las
nights mail. have in the structures of the
Hon. John NJ. Bolts on Judge Cpshur. quotations
made at considerable length from IN article entitled
.:Revoluiion in Disguise" which was published il
the first number of the Southern Magazine early il
November, 1910. The particular notice thus taker
OF the piece in question: and the notorety conferred
on it so Unexpectedly at this time, am well aware
are not ut all owing to the character or importance
Of the piece itself, but TO the circumstance OF ii
being ascribed by the mistake of Mr.. Bolts to th'
pen Of Judge Upshur. Had the remarks in this ar
tcle been in commentator instead oil the reverse
or had the actual severity of censure been founded
solely on, and confined TO the opinions therein ex
pressed. any such explanation aswil be here ofere'
would be altogether uncalled-lor and improper. Blu
when the piece has been stigmatised rs an extra
ordinary and most mischievous and incendiary pro
duction.n and the opinions therein presented ar
made the grounds OF heavy censure and denuncia
ton of another person, as the supposed author,