Staunton vindicator and general advertiser. (Staunton, Augusta County, Va.) 1858-1860, 1858-07-17
Hon. John Lrtcher and his ASSISTANTS,

Hon John Lrtcher and his Assailants.
The course Of the opposition press to-
wards Mr.. Letcher, and alse Of thoee Demo
cratic journals which oppose his nopnination
|'to'the sGovernorship, has'becn most rpccu-
liar, and to our mind most paradoxical. -
For the democratic organs referred to we
are driven from fthestransparent shallowneae
Of The reasons given for their assault, to
doubt thers spirit which in4pclled the attack.
As for their argument, to call>it sophistry,
were to pay it an extravagant compliment.
1T is all shallow, f1imsy humbug, not even
bearing on the surface that show.of plausi-
bilisy which ingenious sopHistry always pre-
sents, and which forces the reader to ac-
knowledge and admire the authors subtilty
andingcnuity, whatever he may think OF
his other parts. They all, in the language
Of the Enquirer, think his letter "frank,
manly, and opon,," and 'saccept (still the
Enquirer his explanation Of his connection
with the Ruffner pamphlet. but yet ARE
not satisfied with his avowal of anti-slavery
sentiments in 1S47," in other words, they
are satisfied and are not satisfied they be-
licve that no suspicion can be attached ito
Mr.. Lctcher on The slavery question, 5u,
would have none Governor Of Virginia on
whom the charge of abolitionism could a.
light.
Now, to accept this hitnsy sophistry as
argument, and yetsdoubt the long tried and
honest John fletcher the honorcd and hon.
orahle representative Of slavc-holding Vir-
GINA, is very much like straining at a tru-
ism and swallowing paradox. The argu-
ment Of Che opposition press is little more
plausible they accept the explanation and
believe him sound, but think the Democra-
cy must reject him on the ground Of con-
sistoncy. Now, as far as we are concerned,
ifdhc Democracy had opposed and defeated
q man as worthy as John Letcher, and as
sound on the slavery question, by the charge
BOUNDED ON the same eyidence) Of aboli-
tionism, we would rather be right than con-
sistent, and, therefore, that consideration
would not deter Us from supporting John
Letoher-but we hslsnhly submit that the
two cases are widely dissimilar ohm
Letcher simply held, as we have remarked
before, the unexpressed, un-aeted-upon o.
pinion, the at the time he was d promi-
nent politician, and accustomed frequently
to speak before the people, yet no sentence,
no word of his is produced in support of the
charge Of anti-slavcry views THAT slavery
was more injurious than beneficial to the
white maE-he now disclaims his error, but
denies that be ever thought slavery a moral
esil. and by long. course Of service to the
Democratic party and to the South he has
proved the sincerity Of that declaration -
Mr.. Summers was an active member Of the
Legislature Of Virginia, and in that capaci-
ty used all his influence, both by speech
and acts, to legislate slavery from Western
Virginia. Mr.. Summers acknowledged his
error, bat never denied that we can remem-
Der that he had ever considered slavery a
moral and religious evil For those reasons
we draw, aud we think every candid mind
will be forced to draw, marked distinction
between Mr. Letcher and Mr.. Summers.
For ourselves we are glad that this stir
has been made among the politicians on the
subject of Mr.. Lefeler's merits-we are
glad that hes whole political career has been
held up in full view Of his countrymen; con
fdcnt ia our knowledge Of his record, we
felt sure that his character would but shine
the brighter from being lighted up by the
fires Of criticism. The test has been applied
and the shafts Of criticism, poisoned from
the fount Of party malice and traitorous
friendship, have fallen powerless from the
broad shield Of virtue, truth and honor.
The gauntlet has been run and the fayorite
Of Virginia stands unseathed. uninjured---
the prospective Governor of the State he has
served so we'll.