The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1858-08-26
a less dsinterested leader andt guide than The
editor of the Euening Journal.
VIRGINIA POLITICS.

a less disinterested leader ands guide than The
editor OF the Erening Journal
VIRGINIA POLITICS.
Mr. Ruffner in reply to Hon John Letcher-The
Slavery Address Of lS47.
From The Kanawhs tva.) Republican.
To the People Of Vnginia:
FELLOW CITIZENS: The Hon. John Lstcher
has lately come before you with a letter cen
corning my address on Slavery, published in
l847, at the request of himself and ten other
gentlemen of Lexington, Va. In this letter, he
charges me with having committed fraud on
him and his ten associates, in the publication
of that address. The allegation vaguely init
mates that l foisted in exceptionable things.
This Is serious charge, and to me entirely
new for never before, during the ten years
and nine months since the address was pub
hshed, did l hear of any such charge having
been made by any one, either publicly or pri.
vately.
Since great ignorance and misconception
seem to exist respecting the origin and history
of. that address, will give plain statement OF
facts. As few persons have copies of the
pamphlet, l shall have to say something also OF
its contents.
In the spring or summer of l847, was in.
formed that debate on Slavery had arisen in
the Franklin Society of Lexington, Va, and l
was requested to attend, as the debate was ex.
pected to be long and interesting. This Soci
ETY. embraced most of the professional and lii.
erary gentlemen of the town, besides other in.
telligent citizens, and met weekly to debate
questions. l was an honorary member, but did
not regularly attend the meetings. The debate
on Slavery was continued from week to week
for considerable time.
When attended, found the question to be,
not whether Slavery was right or wrong, but
whether or not it was injurious to the public
prosperity. Mr.. Letcher and others took the
Anti-Slavery side, whilst some able debaters-
such as Mr.. (now Judge) Brockenbrough and
Col. Smith, Of the V. NJ Institute were on the
Pro-Slavery side
No one, as far as remember, took the Alb
olitionist ground, that saveholding is sin, and
ought for that reason to be abolished. With
rs, it was a mere question of expediency, and
was argued with special reference to the inter.
ests of West Virginia.
l joined the Anti, Slavery side, and after a
while, having collected some statistical facts,
made the speech which led to the publication
OF the address. l was soon afterwards request.
ed by some OF our party to prepare my argu-
ment for publication, as it was thought by them
to be unanswerable, and, / was told, had con.
verted several members of the Society. | hes
itated at first, and either refused or postponed
compliance with the request, not wishing to sp-
pear before the public as partisan on this
question whilst l occupied the Presidential
chair of Washington College, though knew
that my broken health would compel me 10 an
early resignation.
But as the debate proceeded, we sill became
so heated under the hammer of argument, pro
and con, that we were ready for an attempt to
carry our views into effect. commenced wri.
ting out the whole argument on our side; and
when, about the time the debate closed. and we
had decided majority of votes in the Society,
l was again spoken to, consented to prepare
for publication. not my speech merely, but what
ever else might contribute to the success oil
our scheme for the gradual removal of Slavery
from West Virginia.
But required two conditions: LIST, that those
who desired the publication of the argument
should present their request in writing, in terms
comfortable to the plan of publication which |
suggested and I'd, that all should contribute
to the cost of printing. | was willing to come
out, not as an individual, but only as the organ
of a respectable party, and such thought we
Anti.Slavery feeling that had been prevalent
in West Virginia seemed to need only such an
impulse as we could give it, to recover it's for
mer strength.
Mr.. Letcher and ten other gentlemen readily
complied with my conditions, and addressed me
the letter which was printed in the foreground
of the pamphlet. In this letter, the eleven gen.
tlemen said, expressly, that they did not expect
me to furnish my speech just as it was delivered.
nor did they wish me to "confue myself strictly
to the views then expressed. On the contrary.
they desired to have "the whole argument in
favor OF the proposition presented to the public
in perspicuous and condensed form" Thus
they left it discretionary with me to add to the
matter of my speech whatever thought proper.
to give completeness and force to the argument
I'm favor OF removing the negro population
from West Virginia" as they expressed it. The
aohole contents of the pamphlet soere scrittea
conformably to the desire expressed in this let.
ter.
My colleagues added, in their letter, that the
views expressed in my speech were "in shane
which could not give Just cause of offence to
even those who were most fastidious and excl
table on the subject Of Slavery" This could
mean only that my views were not of the Abo-
tittonist shape. The address presented the same
views as the speech, and in the same argument.
alive shape. l maintained the moral right of
slaveholding, and assailed the Abolitionists as
a morally insane, malignant, meddlesome, and
mischevious sect with whom we would have
nothing to do. But l argued strenuously. as
we all did in the Society, that Slavery, in it's ef
fects upon the country, was a pernicious insti.
tution," &c.
When the address was circulated BY mail and
otherwise throughout West Virginia, we soon
perceived that most of the editors and politi-
clans OF the valley would not embark with us in
an enterprise OF doubtful success. They object.
ed to our movement as illtimed, while North.
ern Abolitonism was raging. Without their
concurrence, we must fail. West of Allegheny,
the pamphlet was better received; in Eastern
Virginia, some papers denounced it as Adolf.
ZIONIST.
It is true, as Mr.. Letcher saws. that NV col.
leagues did not contribute to the cost Of the
publication. When the printers bill came in.
and privately spoke to one or two of them
about it, | found that, for some reason, there
was Discrimination to contribute Therefore. I
paid the printers bill myself AS several Of them
aided me in the distribution of the pamphlet.
and l never heard till now the charge of fraud
in the publication, which know to be false. |
imagined any reason but that, and made no in
quiry on the subject. None of our party ever.
to my knowledge, objected to the contents of the
address. Now, as Mr.. Letcher's charge is vague.
l call upon him to specify what "exceptionabIe
things" l foisted into the address. Nv sole
object is selfdefence. l accuse no one. Let
him specify; then, having a definite issue, |
will try conclusions with him.
HENRY RUFFNER.
Kana'cha Salines, July 10, 1868.
QUESTION OF THE RIGHT OF VISIT.
From the London Times july IS