xs X '-&g$ /\ 4* flmfltoL* *tr * %fc 4 » «* AT TIIE WHIO BOOH AND JOE OFFICE. 1869. ' I 3 ! t ^4_-- 245/0^ '■' ~0 TO THE PEOPLE OF VIRGINIA. In the town of Lexington, in the year 1847, the following question was discussed before the Franklin Society: " Should'the people of Western Virginia delay any longer in taking steps to bring about a division of the State.' 1 '' The Franklin Society met every Saturday night — the debate was protracted from the 30th of January to the 24th of April. On this question John Letcher made three speeches, on the nega- tive side — maintaining that the people of Western Virginia should not delay any longer in taking steps to bring about a DIVISION OF THE STATE. Mr. Letcher's first speech was made before Dr. Ru finer ad- dressed the Society on the subject. Mr. Letcher and Dr. Ru fi- ner advocated the same side of the question. Both urged im- mediate action to b?*ing about a division of Virginia, and assailed the institution of slavery as an evil which the West would get rid of by separating from the East. The argument of Mr. Ruffner was considered by Mr. Letcher and others so "able" and "unanswerable" and so great was Mr. Letcher's anxiety to circulate such an argument through the country, that he and ten others solicited its publication by the following letter: " Lexington, Va., Sept. 1, 1847. "Dear Sir, — The undersigned, believing that the argument recently delivered by you in the Franklin Society, in favor of the removal of the negro population from Western Virginia, was not only able, but unanswerable, and that its publication will tend to bring the public mind to a correct conclusion on that momentous question, request that you will furnish us with a full statement of that argument for the press. " We cannot expect that you will now be able to furnish us a 2 with the speech precisely as it was delivered, nor is it our wish that you shall confine yourself strictly to the views then ex- pressed. Our desire is to have the whole argument in favor of the proposition presented to the public, in a perspicuous and con- densed form. And, believing tbat your views were not only forcible but conclusive, and that they were presented in the shape which cannot give just cause of offence to even those who are most fastidious and excitable on all subjects having any connexion with the subject of slavery, we trust that you will be disposed cheerfully to comply with our request above expressed. Very respectfully, Your obedient servants, S. McD. Moore, JOHN LETCHER, David P. Curry, James A. Hamilton, Geo. A. Baker, J. H. Lacy, John Echols, James R. Jordan, Jacob Fuller, Jr., I). E. Moore, John W. Fuller. The Rev. Henry Ruffner, D. U." To which Dr. Ruffner gave the following reply: "Lexington, Va., Sept. 4, 1847. "To Messrs. Moore, Letcher, &c. 11 Gentlemen, — Though long opposed in feeling to the perpetu- ation of slavery, yet, like others, I felt no call to immediate action to promote its removal, until the close of the important debate in the Franklin Society, to which your letter alludes. The argu- ments delivered by several of yourselves, and the results of my own examination of facts, so impressed my mind with the impor- tance of the subject to the welfare of the country, that I pro- ceeded immediately to write out an argument in favor of a gradual removal of slavery from my native soil, our dear West Virginia; and intended in some way to present it to the consideration of my fellow-citizens. Some months ago, you privately signified a desire that it might be printed, and have now formally made the request. " I cheerfully comply, so far as this, in the first instance, that I will prepare for the press an Address to the Citizens of West Virginia, comprising the substance of the argument as delivered by me, enriched and strengthened by some of the impressive views exhibited by several of yourselves. Within the limits of a moderately sized pamphlet, it is impossible to introduce every important consideration bearing on the subject, or to do more than present the substance of the prominent facts and reasons which were more fully exhibited and illustrated by. the debaters in the Society. a As we are nearly all slaveholders, and none of us approve of the principles and measures of the sect of abolitionists, we think that no man can be offended with us for offering to the people an argument, whose sole object is to show that the prosperity of our West Virginia — if not of East Virginia also — would be promoted by removing gradually the institution of slavery, in a manner consistent with the rights and interests of slaveholders. a To the Great Being who rules the destinies of our country, I commit the issue of this important movement. Yours, HENRY RUFFNER." Under these circumstances the RufTner address was published and the most monstrous libel upon the institution of slavery in- dustriously circulated for the perusal of slaveholders. It will be seen from the above correspondence, that Dr. RufT- ner was informed by Mr. Letcher, and others, that it was not expected that he would furnish the speech precisely as it was delivered — nor did they desire that he should confine himself strictly to the views therein expressed. But, on the contrary, he was requested to furnish the whole argument in favor of at once taking steps to bring about a division of the Commonwealth of Virginia, chiefly, if not only because of their violent opposition to slavery. To this request Dr. RufTner replied, as will be seen by refe- rence to his letter, that he would prepare the address, comprising the substance of the argument, as delivered by him, " enriched and stre?igthe?ied by some of the impressive views exhibited by several'" of the members of the Society, of wham John Letcher ivas one. Thus this Address embodied the views and wishes of John Letcher. To it he subscribed at the time, and its circulation iixts extended under the sanction of his name. Since the mention of Mr. Letcher's name as a Candidate for 6 Governor, he presents himself to the public by the following letter: " Lexington, Va. ; June 25th, 185S. " To the Editor of the South: "The Richmond Whiff of the 2lst inst. contains an article on the Gubernatorial Election, in which reference is made to Dr. Ruffner's Address on the subject of Slavery, and the connection of myself and others with its publication. I have no complaint to make of the Editor for his reference, as my acts and opinions are proper subjects of criticism ; nor do I seek to evade any just responsibility for either. "At the time of the publication of that Address, I state frankly, that I did regard Slavery as a social and political evil. I did not regard it then, or since, as a moral evil, for I was at that time, have been ever since, and am now the owner of slave property, by purchase and not by inheritance. I think I can hazard nothing in saying that, at that day, such an opinion was held by a large number of the citizens of Virginia, on both sides of the Blue Ridge. Since that time, much more attention has been given to the question; it has been much more tho- roughly examined in all its bearings, and is much better under- stood, not only in Virginia, but throughout the entire South. All must admit, that, within the last ten years, the question has been discussed with an ability never before expended upon it, and an impression thus made upon the public mind that has re- sulted in an almost entire revolution of public sentiment. Pre- vious to 1847, I had given very little consideration to it; subse- quently, however, I did examine it, and became entirely sat- isfied, not only that my opinion, as to the social and political influence of the institution, was erroneous, but I acknowledged my error. " When I became a candidate for a seat in the Reform Con- vention, the subject having been alluded to in the progress of the canvass, I avowed, in my speech to the people of Augusta, that I had changed my opinion; and stated that if my fidelity to the institution was distrusted by any man, it was his duty to oppose my election to the position I sought at the hands of the people. I was elected, and my course in the Convention, and for the past seven sessions in Congress, on all matters connected with slavery, will attest the sincerity of my convictions. The Journals of both bodies are accessible, and to them I refer for my votes. "The Whig of the 23d inst. contains a much longer article on the same subject, which embodies the letter addressed to Dr. Ruffner and sundry extracts from the address. The speech de- livered in the Franklin Society was a calm argument on the social and political influence of Slavery upon the agricultural and mechanical developement of Western Virginia. The pub- lished address contained many things so exceptionable that those (with one exception, I believe,) who called upon him to publish the speech, refused to contribute to the cost of the publication of the pamphlet. These facts are well known here. "In conclusion, I have only to add, that those who distrust my fidelity to my native State and her institutions, are bound by every consideration of duty to themselves, and the commu- nity in which we live, to oppose my elevation to any political position I may aspire to. J. LETCHER." To this letter Dr. Ruffner replied in the following: "To the People of "Virginia: "Fellow- Citizens, — The Honorable John Letcher has lately come before you with a letter concerning my address on Slavery, published in 1847, at the request of himself and ten other gen- tlemen of Lexington, Va. In this letter he charges me with having committed a fraud on him and his ten associates, in the publication of. that Address. The allegation vaguely intimates that I foisted in exceptionable things. This is a serious charge, and to me entirely new; for never before, during the ten years and nine months since the Address was published, did I hear of any such charge having been made by any one, either publicly or privately. " Since great ignorance and misconception seem to exist re- specting the origin and history of that Address, I will give a plain statement of facts. As few persons have copies of the pamphlet, I shall have to say something also of its contents. " In the spring or summer of 1 847, I was informed that a de- bate on slavery had arisen in the Franklin Society of Lexington, Va., and I was requested to attend, as the debate was expected to be long and interesting. This Society embraced most of the professional and literary gentlemen of the town, besides other intelligent citizens; and met weekly to debate questions. I was an honorary member, but did not regularly attend the meetings. This debate on slavery was continued from week to week for a •considerable time. "When I attended, I 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) Brockenbrough and Col. Smith of the Virginia Military Insti- tute were on the pro-slavery side. " No one, so far as I remember, took the abolitionist ground, s that slaveholding is a sin, and ought, for that reason, to be abol- ished. With us it was merely a question of expediency, and was argued with special reference to the interests of West Virginia. " I joined the anti-slavery side, and, after a while, having col- lected some statistical facts, I made the speech which led to the publication of the Address. 1 was soon afterwards requested by some of our party to prepare my argument for publication, as it was thought by them to be unanswerable, and, 1 was told, had converted several members of the Society. I hesitated at first, and either refused or postponed compliance with the request, not wishing to appear before the public as a partisan on this question whilst I occupied the Presidential chair of Washington College, though I knew that my broken health would compel me to an early resignation. " But as the debate proceeded, we all became so heated under the hammer of argument, pro and con, that we were ready for an attempt to carry our views into effect. I commenced writing out the whole argument on our side; and when, about the time the debate closed, and we had a decided majority of votes in the Society, I was again spoken to, I consented to prepare for pub- lication, not my speech merely, but, whatever else might contri- bute to the success of our scheme for the gradual removal of slavery from Western Virginia. " But I required two conditions: 1st, that those who desired the publication of the argument should present their request in writing, in terms conformable to the plan of publication which I suggested; and, 2d, that all should contribute to the cost of printing. I was willing to come out, not as an individual, but only as the organ of a respectable party; and such I thought we were, though at the outset few in number. The anti-slavery feeling had been prevalent in West Virginia, and seemed to need only such an impulse as we could give it ; to recover its former strength. Mr. Letcher and ten other gentlemen readily complied with my conditions, and addressed me the letter which was printed in the foreground of the pamphlet. In this letter the eleven gentlemen said expressly that they did not expect me to furnish- my .speech just as it was delivered, nor did they wish me to " confine myself strictly to the views then expressed." On the contrary ; they desired to have ' the whole argument in favor of the proposition presented to the public in a perspicuous and con- densed form." Thus, they left it discretionary with me to add to the matter of my speech whatever I thought proper, to give 9 completeness and force to the argument l in favor of removing the negro population from Western Virginia,' as they expressed it. The whole contents of the pamphlet were written conforma- bly to the desire expressed in this letter. "My colleagues added, in their letter, that the views expressed in my speech were ' in a shape which could not give just cause of offence to even those who were most fastidious and excitable on the subject of slavery.' This could mean only that my views were not of the abolitionist shape. The address presented the same views as the speech, and in the same argumentative shape. I maintained the moral right of slaveholding, and as- sailed the abolitionists as a morally insane, malignant, meddle- some and mischievous sect, with whom we woulu have nothing to do. Hut I argued strenuously, as we all did in the Society, that slavery, in its effects upon the country, was a ' pernicious institution,' &c. " When the Address was circulated by mail and otherwise through West Virginia, we soon perceived that most of the editors and politicians of the Valley would not embark with us in an enterprise of doubtful success. They objected to our movement as ill-timed, while Northern abolitionism was raging. Without their concurrence we must fail. West of the Alle- ghany the pamphlet was better received; but in East Virginia some papers denounced it as abolitionist. 11 It is true, as Mr. Letcher says, that my colleagues did not contribute to the cost of the publication. When the printer's bill came in, and I privately spoke to one or two of them about it, I found that for some reason there was a disinclination to con- tribute. Therefore I paid the printer's bill myself. As several of them aided me in the distribution of the pamphlet, and I never heard till now the charge of fraud in the publication, which I know to be false, I imagined any reason but that, and made no encmiry on the subject. None of our party ever, to my knowledge, objected to the contents of the Address. Now, as Mr. Letcher's charge is vague, I call upon him to specify what 'exceptionable things 1 I foisted into the Address. My sole ob- ject is self-defence. I accuse no one. Let him specify; then, having a definite issue, I will try conclusions with him. HENRY RUFFNER." Kanawha Salines, July 15, 1S58. Mr. Letcher not having replied to this, Dr. Ru finer subse- cmently made the following statement: " Fellow-Citizens of Virginia: "Since my statement of facts concerning my pamphlet on slavery was printed, I have received a letter and copies of some 10 printed articles on the subject from Lexington, Va., where the pamphlet originated. "In the ' Valley Star,' the Democratic paper of that place, an article under the editorial head says, in reference to the Rich- mond Enquirer's construction of Mr. Letcher's letter : ' Dr. Ru finer is too well known in this community to have any impu- tation of fraud or forgery put upon him by any of our citizens. That Mr. Letcher intended no such imputation, ive have the very best means of knowing.'' " Now, although Mr. Letcher's letter was construed by others as well as by myself, in the sense of a dishonorable imputation on my conduct in that publication, yet, since he publicly disa- vows any such imputation, I cheerfully accept the disavowal. So far as that point is concerned, all ground of controversy be- tween us is removed." "I wish the article in the Valley Star had been equally satis- factory in the following paragraph. The writer says: 'There was nothing extremely wonderful in a material variance between a speech delivered in February and an essay printed in the follow- ing September, the speech not having been written out before delivery; and if Dr. Ru finer had been inclined to find fault with those who discovered and asserted the variance, Ave presume he would have done it at the time Mr. Letcher and other gentlemen declined on that ground to subscribe to the expenses of the pam- phlet. ' ''This paragraph modifies considerably the assertion in Mr. Letcher's letter, that my pamphlet contained 'so many exception- able things' not in the speech I was requested to publish, that he and the ten other gentlemen 'with perhaps one exception, refused to contribute to the cost.' Still the paragraph (uninten- tionally, I presume,) misrepresents the facts of the case. It erro- neously assumes that I was requested to publish the speech merely; that I was informed by Mr. Letcher and others, that they declined to subscribe to the expense on the ground of 'material variance' between the pamphlet and the speech, and that I applied to them to 'subscribe,' after the pamphlet was published, &e. "But in fact they requested me to present to the public, not simply the speech, but ' the whole argument' in favor of remo- ving the negro population from West Virginia — and they sub- scribed .a written obligation to share the expense, before I con- sented to publish. This paper was left with one of the signers, (not Mr. Letcher,) and when, some time after the pamphlet was published, I inquired for it, this gentleman told me that another had gotten it out of his hands. I requested that it might be found, as the printer had called for the amount of his bill (nearly §100). I waited a short time for the paper, and hearing nothing It of it, I paid the bill myself; and, suspecting that for some reasons unknown to me, a portion of the subscribers were unwilling to pay, I said nothing and heard nothing more of the matter. I have now received authentic information, that several of the subscribers called on the printer to pay their quotas, but were told that I had paid the bill, and was unwilling to receive assist- ance. This report may have prevented others from offering to pay. Who or how many besides Mr. Letcher declined to pay, because the pamphlet varied from the speech, I know not. But this I know, that the' pamphlet went forth with their letter request- ing the publication on its front, and that not one of them ever, publicly or to me, objected to its contents, or withdrew from it the sanction of his name, until Mr. Letcher's letter was published, some weeks ago. "That the pamphlet, written under excitement produced by a long debate, contains some epithets and phrases concerning slavery rather harsh and coarse I readily admit. I saw after the pamphlet came out, that they were in bad taste. I was not surprised to see that the enemies of our scheme selected these, some five or six in number, as specimens of the whole pamphlet of forty octavo pages, and used them as texts for their vituperation of the whole work. This was easier than to answer the argu- ments, which Mr. Letcher and the other ten gentlemen pro- nounced to be unanswerable, and which none of the doughty assailants of the pamphlet ever attempted to answer, or dared so much as to quote for the information of their readers. Instead of grappling with Samson, they walked round him, and slyly picking some motes out of his coat tail, held these up triumph- antly, as evidence that he was a shabby fellow. "From the articles in the Lexington papers, I discover that I committed two immaterial errors in my former statement. Not having access to the records of the Franklin Society, I mistook in supposing that my speech on slavery was delivered in the spring or summer of 1S47. I learn now that it was in February of that year. I find also that the main question concerned a division of the State by the line of the Blue Ridge, and involved all the relations of West Virginia to the Eastern section. A con- test was then going on between the two sections, concerning 'the white basis' of representation, internal improvements, &c, though ttoe slavery question was the main topic of debate, and banished the rest from my memory. But now I am reminded how I came to introduce my argument on slavery with a series of remarks on the injuries which West Virginia suffered on ac- count of her weakness in the Legislature, and to argue that 'the white basis' and the slavery question should be connected in our discussions with East Virginia. I only spoke the expressed 12 sentiments of those who requested the publication of my pam- phlet. " But now if my statements are suffered to pass uncontradicted, I shall not trouble the public with another word on the subject. I esteem Mr. Letcher as a gentleman and an able politician, and freely exonerate him from any intention to wrong me, since he has disavowed the imputation which he was understood to lay upon me. HENRY RUFFNER." • The preceding communications explain themselves, and it is scarcely necessary to comment upon them. They contain a plain and full explanation of the origin of the Ru finer Address. They show Mr. Letcher's hearty and active sympathy with the views it contains. They defy Mr. Letcher to point out in what respect the address published is materially different from that delivered. With this explanation and defiance before the public since July last, Mr. Letcher has remained silent. Why? The people must judge for themselves! Thus, upon every principle of impartial deduction and fair reasoning, Mr. Letcher stands deliberately committed to every word of this address, as it was published. Of the views presented in this address, Mr. Letcher does not protend, as his own letter shows, that he ever made any recanta- tion, except when lie was a candidate for the Reform Convention. In his letter, he says, he stated to the people of the county of Augusta, when he was a candidate for their suffrages, that he had changed his opinion. It will be observed that his letter was written only to explain his position upon the subject of slavery. According to that letter, he was the pledged advocate of the views and objects of Dr. Ruffner's Address, so far as he had ever expressed himself upon the subject, until he was a candidate for the votes of the people of Augusta. Then, when he was a candidate for their votes, he says he told the people of Augusta he had changed his opinion. At that time, Mr. Letcher was a candidate for the Reform Convention — at that time, the county of Augusta contained more than five thousand slaves, as the census will show. To the owner's of these slaves, when he was a candidate for the Reform Co?iccntion, he said he had changed his opinion. It will be remembered that the confessed object of the Ruffner Address was to separate Eastern Virginia from Western Virginia, and that Western Virginia was to be a free, anti-slavery , independent State. In the details of this plan, the " Bine Ridge" was to be the dividing line. And it will be further remembered that the County of Augusta is one of the Eastern Counties of the West side of the " Blue Ridge. ' ' To the people of this County, which was at that time inhabited by upwards of jive thousand slaves, he stated, when he was a candidate for their votes that he had changed his opinion. Now, the County of Augusta was not the only County before whose people he was a candidate for the Reform Convention. His letter, written in June last, was to explain his position on the slavery question. He does not pretend, in that letter, that he declared to any other people, or to the people of any other County, that he had changed his opinions. So that, according to his own statement, he declared only to the people of one County (and that lying next to the Blue Ridge,) any change of opinion upon the subject at all. Nor did he express any change of opinion at all, until he "was a candidate," and then not until his connection with the Ruffner Address ivas charged against him . Thus Mr. Letcher's identification with the Ruffner Address — its origin, end and object, is conclusively established. Mr. Letcher was elected a member of the Convention, and made one speech upon the subject of slavery. Now, he has said in his letter, that he told the people of Augusta, when he was a candidate for the Reform Convention, that he had changed his opinion — and also that while he had been of opinion that slavery was a "social and political evil," he had never considered it a moral evil. To show what were his opinions after he was a candidate for the Reform Convention, and after he was elected, look into his record in the Convention. The following is an extract from his speech, delivered in the Convention when he was a member of that body. It is taken from the files of the Richmond Enquirer, of November 29th, 1858, of which more will be said hereafter: " Mr. Letcher's friends (says the Enquirer,) urge, in excuse for him, that unauthorised interpolations were made by Dr. 14 Ruffner. This is emphatically denied by the reverend Doctor, and in that issue of veracity we do not propose to take either side — certainly not against a man of so eminent piety and virtue as Dr. Ruffner. "In 1S50, when a member of the Reform Convention, Mr. Letcher said : " The fact is, that gentlemen of the East, in viewing these matters, have but one idea in their heads, and that is negro- ology. [Laughter.] They never can see beyond it; and to their peculiar notions respecting its perpetuation, everything else must be made to conform. * # They have more boarders at the public house of entertainment, in this city, kept by Colonel Charles S. Morgan, and known as the Penitentiary, than we have. [Laughter.] Let us look at the Penitentiary statistics, and I am sorry to say to my friend from Accomac, that his portion of the State is exceedingly well represented in this useful public institution. I can only account for it, from the fact that Norfolk is in his neighborhood. " Mr. Wise. — It is always our habit to send our rogues abroad, and not keep them amongst us. [Laughter.] u Mr. Letcher. But you take very good care to send them where they will be supported at the public expense. [Laughter.] You send them here to the public boarding-house, where we have to contribute our share of the money necessary to keep up the establishment. I commend this item to the consideration of gentlemen who talk about paying all the taxes, and getting none of the benefits. Tide- water is fully represented there. She has sent forty-one white persons and fifty one negroes. By the way, while upon the last subject, let me remark, that in free negroes, (that admirable class of population, so great an acquisi- tion to any community, and one that ought to be retained among us,) you of the East beat us all hollow. [Laughter.] And it must be remembered, that upon this population, or rather upon the taxes levied upon them, you propose, in part, at least, to base representation. From Piedmont you have sent twenty-four whites and fourteen negroes. And now, how is it on the West- ern side of the Blue Ridge, with our majority of 93,000 white people? From the Valley we have sent sixteen white and three colored convicts; and from the trans- Alleghany forty whites and no colored convicts. So that the result, as figured up, shows that Eastern Virginia has, in that State hotel, one hundred and thirty boarders, and Western Virginia but fifty-nine. Now, I imagine that gentlemen would have claimed moral superiority over us also, had they been aware of these facts. [Laughter.] But in putting their claims on other grounds, they seem to .have forgotten to refer to these important statistics, which de- 15 monstrate so clearly the moral superiority of Eastern over West- ern Virginia. I should like to know whether these boarders, in the Penitentiary, are counted as part of the population here, and permitted, in the basis of representation, to weigh against the honest men of the West? How is it? Perhaps some gen- tleman from Richmond can give us the information. What says my friend over the way ? "Mr. Scott, of Richmond. — I do not think they constitute a part of the population of Richmond or any other part of the East. "Mr. Letcher. — You think not? "Mr. Scott, of Richmond. — I think not. But I would re- mind my friend from Rockbridge, that many of the boarders in the Penitentiary, sent from this city, are those who have come among us from other sections. " Mr. Letcher. — I know how it is in my county. A great many rogues come there from Eastern Virginia, and are sent from there here. [Laughter.] I think I may say that not more than one native-born citizen of Rockbridge has been sent to the Penitentiary from that county, for the last five or six years." " What argument in favor of the white basis (asks the Enqui- rer) can be derived from such gratuitous invectives against the Eastern section of the State? "As Greensville county has given Mr. Letcher a vote of con- fidence, it may not be inappropriate to quote his opinion of that county, as expressed in the Reform Convention: " There is another point to which I wish to refer. The dis- tinguished gentleman from Greensville (Mr. Chambliss) tells us, that he represents twenty-five thousand negroes on this floor, and I trust he will pardon me if I call his attention to some of the distinguishing evidences of superiority which mark his district. The district is composed of the counties of Greens- ville, Southampton, Nansemond, Isle of Wight, Sussex and Surry, and they have a population of 23,000 white people, 26,^91 slaves, and pay a tax of $18,579. They have also a large number of free negroes, 7,093, almost as many as there are in all Western Virginia. They have of those who cannot read and write 3,685, out of a population of 23,000. There are 2,507 slave owners in that district, and they own these 26,291 negroes. Well, how is it in other respects? Why, some of these comities are travelling the down hill road, if we may judge from the assessment of their lands. The county of Greensville has fallen since 1820 very considerably in the assessment of the value of her lands. From something like $6.13 the acre, they have fallen now to $2.82 an acre ; and so it is in sundry other counties in the same district which I might mention. How is 16 it in the West, that neglected portion of the State ? Our lands have been advancing in price, our taxable property has been in- creasing, and the amounts we pay into the treasury have been augmenting annually." Let it be borne in mind that Mr. Letcher, in his letter, has said that while he did believe slavery to be a " social and poli- tical" evil, he never did consider it to be a moral evil; and let it be further borne in mind, that he says in that letter he stated to the people of Augusta, when he was a candidate, and only to them, that he had changed his views — and then let the reader ask himself the question, if Mr. Letcher did not speak inaccu- rately, if not uncandidly? For it will be seen at once, from the above extract from his speech in the Convention, that he not only believed sla\-ery to be morally ivrong, but that such were the violence of his feelings and the force of his convictions, he could not express them, except by taunting the East in the following language: " The fact is that gentlemen of the East have but one idea in their heads, and that is negro-ology ." And further, so convinced was Mr. Letcher of the immoral influences of slavery, that he could not express his opinion, except by resorting to the desperate illustration of proving, by statistics, that the Eastern — the slaveholding portion of Virginia — sent more people to the Penitentiary than the West — thus, from his own lips, not only contending that slavery was morally ivrong, but that it was a corrupting and depraved institution, and that its effects, where it most prevailed, were to make Penitentiary convicts. If this be a change of opinion, God save us from the opinions, with all their variations, of John Letcher! And now let it be seen how far facts sustain this presentation of Mr. Letcher's record upon the institution of slavery! His connection with the " Ru finer Address" has been shown. It is proper nowto inquire what is the "Ruffner Address." This Address is now being extensively circulated throughout the State — and can be read by as many as choose to read it; but for those who may not see, or be disposed to read it entire, the fol- lowing extracts are submitted, to show that it is a premeditated, well-studied attack upon the institution of slavery, morally, socially and politically. The following is a sample of the 17 nature and character of this most pernicious and detestable document. In speaking of the emancipation of slaves in Virginia, it says: " Whatever may be thought of such a measure in reference to East Virginia, where the slaves are more numerous than the whites, there can be no rational doubt that in West Virginia the measure, had it been carried fifteen years ago, would by this time have wrought a most happy change in the condition and prospects of the country. # # * % it w" e (j not censure our Eastern brethren for oppo- sing this measure so far as their part of the State is concerned. But still, we of West Virginia' must deem ourselves not only unfortunate, but aggrieved, when an Eastern majority in the Legislature debars us from obtaining measures conducive to our welfare, because these same measures may not suit the policy of East Virginia. # # # * "Though defeated for the time, the friends of gra- dual emancipation were not in despair. There was a general acknowledgment of the evils of slavery, and strong hopes were entertained, that, in a few years, a decided majority of the Legis- lature would be for ridding the country of this deleterious insti- tution. But these hopes were sadly disappointed. East Virginia became more and more adverse, not only to emancipation in any mode or form, but to any discussion of the subject. Even in our West Virginia, though we be believe no material change of sentiment has taken place, little has since been said, and nothing done, to effect an object so important to the welfare of the country." In speaking of the interference of Northern abolitionists, and arguing that their fanaticism had helped to defeat the emanci- pation of slaves, it says: "But, fellow citizens, shall we suffer this meddlesome sect of abolitionists to blind 1 our eyes to the evils of slavery, and to tie up our hands, when the condition of the country and the welfare of ourselves and our children summon us to immediate action." The author of this address enters into an abuse of Northern abolitionists chiefly because their fanaticism, had caused slave- holders to adhere more closely to their slaves and had thus thrown in the way an impediment to slavery emancipation, and then, in speaking of Northern abolitionists on the one side and Southern politicians and ultra pro- slavery men on the other, says: # m b b "Against the one party we affirm the right of slave- holding, under present circumstances; against the other party, B 18 we affirm the expediency of removing slavery from West Vir ginia, and from every other State or portion of a State, in which the number of slaves is not too large." # # # # a^H that we ask of our Eastern brethren, in regard to this matter, is, that if West Virginia shall call for a law id re- move slavery from her side of the Blue Ridge, East Virginia shall not refuse her consent, because the measure may not be palatable to herself. # # ## <. *•«'• ,*