Richmond daily Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1842-1861, 1858-09-30
The Enquirer and Ourselves.


In 1876, to the election of Buchanan" In the sourse
OF our Mondays editorial. while frankly acquitting
Mr. Letcher Of pressnt unsoundness on the question
of slavery, We stated that we were earnestly and
anxiously in favor OF bis nomination for Governor
FROM motives of party policy and we dstinctl<sne.
cited the leading consideration which prompted US
TO desire his nomination. On the extract quoted by
the Rhquircr, that paper comments follows:
Overlooking the "Whig's" e1uberance Of abuse, We
submit II Mr.. Lechers nomination and election would
emoarrass the party, should the wbig and is support
become what they threaten be- the unsctupu-
lous apologis,s Of abolaouism. While The
avowas oil the "Wbig may at lesst commend ts bold
nes Ia thu. throwing down ,Se gage OF future and proc
1etcher by the Democracy and the predetermined apollo
giss for aboitouism by the WING" submit Virgin.
IA. devotion to slavery viii not be questioned at erst by
the captousr
1t were needless 10 say that repel, with the ut
most scorn and contempt, any charge, intinatOn,
or insnuation, no matter whence it comes, that
have become or threaten to become, the unscrdpu.
lous apologists Of Abotionsm 1T is simply and
absurdly false and ridiculous But what is there in
the extract quoted from the Whig by the Enguirsr,
to justify, excuse, or give color to the imputation
that threaten 10 become the INSCRIPTIONS apol-
ogsts Of Aboltionismi" What sentiment or ex-
preston is contained therein, upon which any such
construction could be reasonably and justly putt
We assert that there is nothing in artcle-not
sentence, word, or sylable-which even remotely
indicates any such purpose or intention part
Upon what, then does the Enquirer predicate its
ridiculous assumption We said, in the extract il
has quoted, that we had never been able to under
stand and never should, perhaps, how any Demo-
crat can support Mr. Letcher, who thought it so i'm
polite to elect Mr.. Summers account of similar
offence, when Mr.. Summers offence committed
under peculiar and extraordinary circumstances, and
nearly twenty years before Mr.. Letcher committed
his We said also, that we meant to hold the Vir
gina Democracy to their assaults on Mr.. Summers
for has Abolitonism, while they were in the act OF
supporting Mr. Letcher, whose Abolitionism is far
worse and Of . more recent date; and that We thus
meant to show to the people, if could, what q mis-
cradle set Of hypocrtes the whole Of them are We
then stated that as Wing, looking 10 the future
and especially to the campaign of 1860 We were
cordially and earnestly in favor Of Mr. Letchers NOM
nation, and added-"It may possibly be the case
that shaH BE- under the political Heceasy of ppJrtirg
for the Presidency rho hds been ,ssond
e saoeyy question Mr.. Leeher has been and in such
event. every Locofoco editor in the State, big and
little, will be yelping at our heels, and pursuing us
with the cry Of Aboliionism. Should Mr.. Letcher,
however, obtain the Democratic nomination for Co
vernon, inconsistent aud impudent we know
the whole brood Of Democratic editors and politi-
be- they will hardly have the audacity, after
supporting ia 1859 for the highest office the
State, ho for dboishiHg SLAVERY IA Virginia only
eight ten gears ago, TO ossd for supporting TOR tie
Presidey IN 1850. gear later gentleman lrho may
not hGts bee" altogether square the "goose" ia days
gone Jy phO may then be entirely acceptable
at the South. II is obvious, therefore, why we adj
vocate the nomination of Mr.. Letcher."
II upon anything at all, it must have been upon
the portion Of article we have italicized above
that the Enquirer bases its charge against u.s. that
threaten TO become "the INSCRIPTIONS apologists
Of Aboliuonsm." But is there the slightest possible
foundation for grave and serious charge in these
italicized sentences II 50, where is itG We say
that, in 1860 VIC may be "under the political neces
sty Of supporting for the Presidency some man WAo
has been unsOuhd on the SlaDety question as W.,
Lefeher has Jeen." Now, suppose we should have
10 support some such man for the Presidency two
years henceY Would that make us " the unscrupu.
lous Rpologists Of Abolitionism :" II it would in
what respect has the Enquirer the advantage over
usY Has it not avoWed, and does it not still Avow,
its purpose to support the election Of Mr. Letcher in
the event Of his obtaining tho nomination OF the
Democratic State Convention And, according to
its reasoning, will it not thus become the IN.
n WORD,
why should our support for the next Presidency Of
q some man who has been unsOund on the slavery
question as Mr. Letcher has BEEN" convict US Of
being "tbe interruptions apoogis Of Aboltionism, -
and yet the Enquirer support Of Mr.. Letcher not
convict it Of being, likewise the Inscriptions apo
ogist Of AbollioDism 2" What would be the differ
snce in supporting "a who bAs been as unsound"
Mr.. Letchsr, and in supporting Mr.. Letcber him.
vkoJ,. az.
in the two courses in point either Of principle or ex
pediene)1 Can the Enquirer itself any differ
those Who pT0ISs j. s s-s Ret ia Gyor Of
flee Of Governor Of Virginia. Is it less excusable to
support an Abotionst for the Chief Magistracy Of
the largest sSvsboldng State in the Uoon, than to
support similar character for the Presidency Of the
Republic more than half the States Of which are non.
sAVeho'dng Siatesf With so many sound and IN
exceptonable men to choose FROM, where is the ne
cessiY or The policy or the principle Of selecting ror
Governor man who, only eight or ten years ago,
was the resolue and determined advocate Of the abo
hton Of slavery in Western Yrginia3 Thisis aeon
sideraiion, sly for the special reflection Of Demo
e'ats, who pursued NJ. Summers, and denounced
h'm no violently IN 1851, account Of bis emanc.
patton sentiments twenty years before. In regard
TO the Presidency, however IL is matter Of ALSO
lue certainty, that II Northern man should Q
nIminaiod by either party he would not be. in 81
RESPECTS, acceptable TO the South. For exampl,
there Is no Northern man. whose abstract opinions on
the subject Of slavery como up b. the Soutbe,n
STANDARD. There Is no Northern man, whose consti.
tutional views Of the question, square with those en-
tortaned At the South. Men Of either party At the
so1th, therefore, would be fsr more excusable for
supporting Tor the Presidency man who has ente,.
lined Objectionable views on the sutiect NJ sl.-.