Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1852-1859, 1858-08-05
slavery In wesrern virginia.

DIFFICULTIES "A CARD FROM DIR RuFFNER.
10 the People of Varginia.
FE1Iow CITIzBNs:-The Honorable John
Letcher has lately come before you with q letter
concerning my Address on Slavery, pubhsbed
I in 1847 at the request of himself and 10 otf
gentlemen of Lexington, Va. In this letter he
charges me with having committed fraud on
him and his 10 associates, in the publication OF
that Address. The allegation vaguely intimates
that =foisted in exceptionable things This is
serious charge, and to me entirely new; for
never before, during the 10 years and nine
hear of any such charge having been made by
any one, either publicly privately
Sincegreat ignorance and .misconcep seem
to exist respecting the origin and history of
that Address, | will give plain statement of
/ facts. AS few persons have copies of the pam
lphlet, shall have to say something also GIFTS
Econtents.
In the spring or summer of 1S47, was in
! formed that debate on slnyery had arisen in
| the Franklin Society of Lexington, Va, and
was requested to attend, as the debate was ex-
pected to be long and interesting. This Society
lembraced most of the professional and literary
| gentlemen of the town. besides other intelligent
citizens, and met weekly to debate questions
| was an honorary member, but did not regular
| ly attend the meetings. This debate on slavery
was continued from week to week for q consl'
derable 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 peterborough and Col.
Smith, of the Virginia Military Institute were
on the pro-slavery side.
No one, so far us remember, took the abol-
zionist ground that slaveholding is sin, and
ought for that reason, to be abolished. With
us it was merely question of expediency, and
was argued with special reference to the inter-
ests of West Virginia.
| joined the anti.slavery side, and after while
having collected some statistical facts, Inade the
speech which led to the publication of the Adj
dress. was soon afterwards requested by some
OF our party toprepare my argument for pub
LEGATION, as it was thought by them to be unan-
Eswerable, and, was told, had converted several
members ofthe society. hestated at first, and
either refused or postponed compliance with the
request; not wishing to appear before the public
asa partisan on this question, whilst occupied
though knew that my broken health would
lcompelme to an carly resignation.
But as the debate proceeded, VIC all became
| SO heated by the hammer ofargument, pro and
| con, that we were ready for an attempt to carry
our views into effect. l commenced writing out
the whole argument on our side; and when
about the time the debate closed, and we had
decided majority Votes in the society, was
again spoken to, consented to prepare for
publication, notmy speech merely but Whatever
else might contribute to the success oflour
scheme for the gradual removal of slavery from
West Virginia.
But required two conditions 1st, that those
who desired the publication of the argument,
should present their request in writing, in terms
comiormableto the plan of publication which
! suggested;-and End, that all should contri-
butte to the cost of printing. l was willing TO
~. L. Il.
OF respectable party, and such thought we
were, though at the outset few in number. The
anti slavery feeling that had been prevalent in
West Virginia and seemed to need only suchan
impulse as we could give it TO recover its form
er strength.
Mr.. Letcher and ten other gentlemen readily
complied with my conditions and addressed me
the letter which was printed in the foregl ound
OF the pamphlet. In this letter the Ill gentle-
men said expressly, that they did not expect
me to furnish my speech just asst was deliver
ed, nor did they wish me to ''confine myself
strictly to the views then expressed" On the
contrary, they desired to have "the whole argu-
ment IN favor of the proposition presented to the
public in perspicuous and condensed FORM"
Thus they left 1t discretionary to add to the
matter of my speech whatever thought proper
to give completeness and force to the argument
lin favor Or, Of removing the negro population
from West Virginia, as they expressed
It. The s0h0le contents Of the pamphlet acre
sorittsn eor5orme61y to tho desire oppressed in
this letter.
My colleagues added in their letter, that the
views expressed in my speech, were ..ina shape
which. could not give just cause of offence to
even those who were most fastidious and excita-
BILE on the subject of slavery" This could mean
only that my views were not Of the 1Joliti0nist
shape. The address presented the same views
as the speech, and in the same argumentative
shape. maintained the moral right of slave.
holding, and assailed the abolitionists as a NOR
ally insane, malignant, meddlesome and mis-.
chlevous sect, with whom we would have moth
ing to do But argued strenuously, as we all
did in the society, that slavery in its effects
SPonthe country wasa 'pernicious institution %
When the Address was circulated by mail
and otherwise through West Virginia, we soon
perceived thatmost of the editors and politicians
ofsthe Valley would not embark with us in an
enterprise of doubtful success. They objected
to our movements as ill-timed, while northern
a6olltlonisin was rigging. Without their con-
c Gu we must fail. West. the Allegheny
the tn. pamphlet was better received; but in East
virginia some papers denounced it as obolition-
III true, as Mr. Letcber says, that nv col.
eagues did not contribute to the cost .ofthe