Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1858-11-19
&itlmena Enquirer:
FRIDAY MORNING, NOVEMBER Is.
Is A oonpRoN1sE OFFERED :
BY R1rcH1E, puNNAvANr, TYLER WISE

BA COMPROMISE oFFEREDi
We do not know whether the subjoined cx'
tract from yesterdays South was designed
to be understood as indicative Of willingness
to compromise the question of the gubernato
rial nomination. If was, We regret it was not
made sooner. THE South" says:
1T is one thing to agree to a compromise in
aspirit of fraternal harmony and with view
to the interest of the party it is very differ
ent thing to be driven from purpose by ar
aggressive and unconcilatory opposition. -
"The South" continues, IF Mr.. Letchers ad
versaries had objected to his nomination with
out impugnins the integrity Of his character as
politician, or rcproaching the conduct and
good faith Of his supporters-if in this temper
they had suggested the name Of some other
gentleman upon whom the party might unite
with more cordial unaniInity, not only would
Mr. Letchcr's friends have hcarkencd to the
overture but he himself would have been the
first to make sacrifice to the common cause. "
From the very inception of this unfortunate
controversy with regard to Mr.. Letcher-from
the day his connection with the Ruffncr pamph'
let was made public--we have always desired
that some proposition Of compromise should be
made by the friends Of Mr.. Letcher. They alone
could make the proposition. We, therefore,
extremely regret "The South" has deferred so
late such an important matter.
When the "Whig" produced the Ruffner
pamphlet, and "The South" taken aback by
the astounding revelations therein contained,
pronounced that pamphlet broadly endorsed
as it was by Mr.. Letcher, as "an atrocious libel
on the social system of the South" when "The
South was surprised at finding John Let
cher approving an ebulition of such intem-
perate spirit and effect" and pronouncing the
act Of Mr.. Letcher as "piece of folly" with
out "excuse" or Justification" that was
the time when propositions Of compromise
should have been made. At that time, no
aggressive and unconciliatory opposition" ex-
listed to Mr.. Letcher; then was first revealed
powerful objection to his nomination; from the
date Of that revelation began the opposition to
Mr. Letchcr. Those who before had preferred
him to any other mas in the State, then became
convinced ofthe impolicy ofhis nomination, and
expecting to be met by Mr.. Letchers friends
in esprit of fraternal harmony" gave ex-
preston to their opinions against his nomina-
ton, which were Immediately assailed BY the
aggressive and unconciliatory opposition"
of 1.-The South and other papers in the advo-
cacy of Mr. Letcher, and which induced the
breach and rendered harmony" almost i'm
possible.
1t was at that time that "The South"
evnced "a purpose" from which it could neith-
er be persuaded nor 'driven."
We first used moral suasion" with THE
South" we pointed out the apparent inconsis-
tency of a paper called "THE Sorrn" advo-
eating, for Governor of Virginia, a man who had
been guilty. Us The South" expressed it, Of q
piece of folly for which there was neither
apology or justification who had endorsed
an cbulition of such incorporate spirit and CT
feet "that The South was compelled to express
its surprise, but unfortunately would not aban-
don its purpose Our remonstrances were all
in vain. "Thc South had purpose" from the
advocacy of which neither ''fraternal harmony"
nor the Interests Of the party" could persuade
or drive it.
Then was the time for overtures Of compro.
mise; then, had Mr.. Letchor come forward in
the spirit of mngnanimous selfsacrifcc, and
Withdrawn his name from the contest, no Office
in the gift of the people Of Virginia would have
been withheld from John Letcher. Had he
then shown the spirit of 'selfsacrifice for the
common cause" it would have silenced every
objection; and had the people allowed his with
drawal, it would have been but to lay up for
him in their hearts debt Of gratitude, which
the highest of offices could not have satisfied.
But alas, for the harmony and the interest
Of the party, the subtcrfugcs of intrigue were
preferred to the suggestions Of magnsnimity,
and his nomination was sought to be "driven"
and forced upon the party through the appre-
henasas of discord, divisions and tho success
Of the enemy. e..
We did in the early stages Of This discus
sion, object Ito his nomination without i'm
pugning the integrity Of his character or re-
preaching the conduct and good faith Of his
supporters" 1t was not until we discovered
determined purpose" on the part Of his
friends to drire the party to his nomination,
that We assailcd the conduct and good faith
of his supporters" We have never found fault
with any man for preferring John Letcher. 1t
was that intrigue had been resorted to by men
who did not care one iota about John Letcher,
but who were seeking his nomination in spi-
rit of malice and revenge against others, that
We have assailed When purpose" Of ma
ignity and revenge against others is sought
to be served, we deemed it our duty to assail
the intrigucrs, who had entrenched themselves
behind the popularity Of John Letcher; and if
he, in standing up as a shield for those who
hid behind him. assailed us, received few Of
our shots, it was his misfortune and not our
fault.
We did, in the 'temper" Of 'harmony" and
the interest Of the party" suggest the names
Of several other gentlemen, upon whom the
party might unite with more cordial una
nimity." We suggested, at the earliest day, BY
name, Edmundson, Hopkins. Brockcnbrough,
Tucker, or any Other Democrat We certainly
had no "purpostT to bs 'driven" from, and