Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!
Sign up free
Editorial
July 17, 1845
Lynchburg Virginian
Lynchburg, Virginia
What is this article about?
The editorial defends against 'Roanoke's' accusations of systematic opposition to completing the James River and Kanawha canal, denying unfriendliness and explaining past stance on Baltimore & Ohio Railroad's right of way to protect the canal project amid debt concerns for Virginia.
OCR Quality
95%
Excellent
Full Text
Guilty of the supreme folly of uniting with others in the recklessness of plunging the State headlong into debt for the prosecution of works which will in the end bankrupt her, as similar works have done some of her sister States, he unhesitatingly expresses that opinion, as he did last winter, in his letters from Richmond, directly those facts came into his possession. If, nevertheless, our "hostility" to the work is, as "Roanoke" asserts, "long been suspected," all we have to say is, that the suspicion preceded the fact, and originated doubtless with those who judged us by the mirror in their own breasts. "Roanoke," indeed, asserts that we have before "written and acted as though (we) were unfriendly to, the completion of the canal beyond Lynchburg"- and he bases upon this assumption the charge of "systematic unfriendliness" to the work. We deny the allegation in toto; and we challenge him to the proof. As we have heretofore had occasion to remark, we had never expressed any opinion unfavorable to the continuation of the work until last winter—and even then, not choosing to act definitely upon the doubt with which we were inspired of the expediency of its completion, we opposed granting the right of way to the Baltimore & Ohio Rail Road Company, to Parkersburg, expressly on the ground, that if the Virginia work is to be completed, we ought not to place a rival by its side, to deprive it of the trade, the attainment of which was the great, if not the sole object of undertaking it. For, if the James River and Kanawha line is not to be continued, there ought not to be the slightest hesitation in granting the application of the Baltimore Company.— And we may add, that if we had desired to put a quietus to the Kanawha scheme, we know of no more effectual mode of accomplishing that object than by voting for that application, as we should have done if such had been our wish or our design! But we will not again (if we can help it) be drawn into a discussion of topics merely personal. "Roanoke" and all others may rest assured, that we shall do what we conceive to be our duty, and having done that, we shall be indifferent to the voice of denunciation, come from what source it may.
What sub-type of article is it?
Infrastructure
Economic Policy
What keywords are associated?
James River Canal
Kanawha Scheme
State Debt
Baltimore Ohio Railroad
Lynchburg
Roanoke
Virginia Infrastructure
What entities or persons were involved?
Roanoke
Baltimore & Ohio Rail Road Company
James River And Kanawha Line
Virginia
Editorial Details
Primary Topic
Defense Against Opposition To James River And Kanawha Canal Completion
Stance / Tone
Defensive Assertion Of Duty Amid Debt Concerns
Key Figures
Roanoke
Baltimore & Ohio Rail Road Company
James River And Kanawha Line
Virginia
Key Arguments
Denies Systematic Unfriendliness To Canal Completion
Opposed B&O Railroad Right Of Way To Protect Canal Trade If Completed
Would Support B&O If Canal Not Continued
Prior Opinion Formed Last Winter Based On Debt Facts From Richmond
Indifferent To Personal Denunciations, Focused On Duty