Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1858-07-20
The Letcher Controyersy.


The controversy in regard to Mr.. Letcher's
position on the slavery question, has nearly sub
sided. All editorial opposition to him seems to
have been withdrawn, and, so far as the press Is
concerned, he remains master of the field, with
the prospect of triumphant election TO the Of
fee of Governor With the exception OF a few
stray correspondents of the Richmond Enquirer
-one of whom declares emphatcally that Mr..
Letcher, las recently 1s47, was an ao0e'F'0@
propagandist"- body appearsto be salts
fed. and we hear no word of ceusure or CON-
plant. The Enquirer itself now says:
"We can Simply remind the KnowNothings,
that should Mr. Letcher be nominated, our pre-
vious course leaves US entirely free to repel ev-
cry assault which they may make on nm; ana
we take occasion 10 assure the few superssrvice-
able advocates of Mr.. Letchers nomination, VINO
have chosen to apply exceptiona6le epithees 10
ourselves on account of our independent express
sion of opinion, that we will not be behind them
Except in abusive expressions0 in lighting the
battles of any champion whom the Democracy
of the State may select"
We beg leave to refer to the 'previous course"
of the Enquirer. In its issue OF June 10th 1t
said:
awhile we have no mistrust for Mr.. Letcher's
fidelity to the South, we repeat that the Demoo-
racy having defeated Mr.. Summers because IN
1882 he floated with the torrent that almost
swept slavery from its moorings in Virginia, ~
qoU not do to grouse or pdlliats THE STILL GREAT
ER OFFENCE Of Mr. Letcher an 1S47."
The Enquirer accused Mr.. Summers of aboli-
tionism when he was candidate for Governor;
Mr. Letcher's offence, it asserts is "stil greater
sit will not do to excuse and paliate" it-yet
the Enquirer is "entirely free to repel every as
sault" which may be made upon him!
Denying that there is any offence for which
either should be held to account at this day, we
agree with the Enquirer that Mr.. Letchers Oh
fence is greater than that Of Mr. Summers
Some of our Democratic contemporaries endeay-
or to make out marvellous difference between
the two cases, in favor of the former; but we
cannot perceive it, In 1882 Mr. Summers float
ed with the torrent" that swept over the State I;
in 1s47-6fteen years later-Mr. Letcher toat-
ed with little village anti slavery squad. Mr..
Summers was member of the Legislature IN
1882, and therefore in position of more intiu-
ence than Mr.. Letcher held in 1917; but the
latter did what he could to accomplish the same
object. He was certainly mot behind IN hate,
and only wanted ability to carry out his wishes
But Mr.. Summers believed slavery morally
wrong, while Mr.. Letcher merely considered 1t
social and political evil, aud this makes all the
difference in the world! Whether MIR. Summers
uttered the sentiments imputed to him we do
not know but be owned slaves himself in 1882,
or shortly afterwards, and his convictions of the
immortality Of slavery must have been very su-
perfcial, or he abandoned them very soon.--
Most likely his remarks on the subject were the
oratorical Aourishes Of young speaker anu
meant nothing. Admitting, however, that he
did consider slavery moral evil, the Fiucastle
Democrat made strong argument few weeks
ago to prove that such view of the subject
was less dangerous than the opinion avowed by
Mr.. Letcher. Convictions of moral duty make
very slow progress in the minds of men; you
must educate the people to bring them up tc
your standard of right and wrong, and induce
them to act upon it and after long series Of
years. when everybody is satisfied that slavery
is sinful sometime about the advent of the Mil
lennium, you may get them to abolish the insti-
tuition. In the other case, as soon as You con-
vince men that their interest would be promoted
by a particular course of conduct, they will be
prompt to pursue that course. Self-interest--
dollars and cents-is the great motive power
with the majority of mankind. Bring this pow
er into action, and the desired effect is readily
obtained. Thus the latter opinion in regard to
slavery is practically more dangerous than the
other. So the Democrat argues.
But away with all these ridiculous objections
to Virginia shareholders We repeat what we
have heretofore said several times, that Mr..
Letcher is perfectly reliable on the slavery ques-
ton. Let our Democratic friends who advocate
his nomination acknowledge their injustice to
Mr.. Summers, and no man can say aught against
them or their candidate touching this natter
Until then they must stand accused of fragrant
inconsistency.