The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1859-05-26
LETCHER ON THE OPPOSITION.

The controversy in Virginia between Letcher
and Goggin has been contemplate wrangle
about words, without any essential difference
between them. 1t has done much good how
ever, by indirection. The contestants for the
spois have labored with considerable success
in eonvicting each other or their associates of
having in past times entertained reasonable and
sensible views. These enlightened and liberal
views are now brought out, the one against the
other, by way of elimination; but they lose
much of their force by what the LAWYERS call
"Iconfession and avoidance"
The following from Mr.. Letcher's letter will
be read with interest. The gentleman first re-
terred to, Mr.. Bruce, we are happy to say, be-
longs to the Bolts school of Virginia politicians.
who have bravely withstood the ultraisms of
the hour. When Mr.. Bolts, in 1856, made the
declaration that he preferred the election Of
Fremont to Buchanan, and was fercely de-
nounced for it by Wise and his minions. Mr..
Bruce, from the largest slaveholding region in
the State, and, we believe, himself the LARGEST
stakeholder, addressed him a letter, in which he
endorsed every word uttered by Mr.. Bolts. We
take pleasure in adding that Mr. Bruce is. as
we are informed by those who know him. an
elegant scholar, and a gentleman in the best
sense of the term:
have said that many in Eastern Virginia
entertained the opinion in l947 that Slavery
was socially and politically wrong. Amongst
those who entertained such an opinion was
James c. Bruce, ESQ.,, one of the largest slave
holders in Halifax county. On the 18th of
July, 1916, Mr.. Bruce delivered an address be-
fore the Agricultural Clubs of Mecklenburg
county, Va, and Granville, n c., from which
| extract few paragraphs
"' doubt whether every man who owns more
than ten working hands would not be better off
by the sale or removal of all beyond that num-
Der. But it may be said, " shall we part with so
large portion of our labor, and leave our lands
to waste ?" Certainly If the labor be unpro-
d'tctice, 1t IS folly to keep 1t. The Stare adds
nothing to the moral and physical strenoM of
The country and # his labor be proftiess, of
course he as nuisance, and the sooner zoe rid
ourselves Of him the better. His place soiu soon
be supplied Uih a better population. and in the
mean time the poorer lands aoiU be tIroUn o,1 of
cultivation.
: But gentlemen, there is another view of
this question, acich should urge as to immediate
rerhoUal AH look to the period cohen the neoyo
mast leaoe Virginia and North Carolina.
There is now demand for this population,
and the new States of the South are anxious to
receive it. The time is approaching when the
demand may cease, and when their doors NAV
be closed against the admission of our slaves.
4 Is ii prudent to lose the present opportunity ?
lslit not better to commence the acork at once.
and to do now what we may be unable to do
when the emergency becomes more pressing. ,
" If the slaves were removed from Virginia
and North Carolina, as Mr.. Bruce has recon-
mended, he says, We should soon hare a
, dense population, which would give schools to
orr children, a market to our farmers, and
those railroads which we now clamor for. but
which oar poverty and sparse population plact
far beyond our reach"