Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1840-1842, 1841-03-31
mo. 1.l
To & Whs vsi~s Of ns NiniA csaErsssis~si

District
wish 10 offer few suggestions in relation 10 the
course OF our late distinguished representative.
what have to say, shall DC submitted in calm
ana respectful but candid manner-the high per-
sonal regard which | have always entertained for
Mr.. Hunter, forbds me to be disrespeciful: and
yet, the interes, which. in common with you oil,
'eel Tor the welfare OF d>trci, the consistency
OF my wing brethren, and the veal Of our common
country, forces me to be candid.
shall not deal in days and years, to show you
mat when MIR. Hunter first entered public lie, he
did so rs jealous and decided opponent of Jack
sonism IN every hue aud shade; that he identified
himself with the Opposition at all times and places
that he was the candidate Of the party who oppos-
ed Gen. Jackson's administration; aud that he was
elected to the Virginia Legislature as a Wing, with
the single exception Of his Bank. ant's) OF deepest
and most obstinate cast.
When he was nominated as a candidate, il was
oy the Wing party, who then had but short time
previous obtained the ascendancy in the county
ana from whence did his opponent in that canvass
spring. Was he also whis7 No; No-lf my
memory serves me, he was, is, and is likely TO con-
inue, warm defender of the recently destroyed
dynasty. IL was either Mr.. Lewis, or Jones G.
Ciopton,-l do not now recolect which-who took
the held against this young David Of the Wing
cause, who soor threw his Goliah in the shade, by
an overwhelming majority. For several successive
years tins course was pursued-until fnilly patty
by the Suggestion OF friends" (but not of both
parties, land his own ambition soaring upon a
hoider pln'en-he is announced in 1886, a candi.
didate-to be run by whom By what party1 By
neitherl BY bo.hl Why, sirs-by the same old
wing party which had hitherto sustained him-to
represent this district in the Congress Of the United
States: Well, who then opposed MIR. H.-was he
wing! Did he belong TO neither party7 No.
lie was modern Democrat of the first water.
But let us look a little into this canvass rs.
seH-and l challenge a contradiciion-that MIR.
Hunter, when first nominated for Congress, was an
nouneed to the people as the Wing candidate-was
voted Tor as such-and by accident, elected as
such, over his Van Buren, opponent, the worthy
deceased Archibald HARDWOOD, of King & Queen
And here let me ask, who dare doubt his devotion
to Jacksonism and its successive ism | said he
was elected by aeeidenf-now to the proof When
Mr. Hunter was returned, elected, does any know
what majority he ha11 Was il an hundred FAR
short of II. But, without stating numbers--you
all know that Edwin Upshaw, Esq.,, another Van
Buren whcel-horse, was also in the feld--Did Mr.
Hunters majority in the district equal the whole
number Of votes cast for MIR. Upshawf BY refer
ence you will find it far different. Then, let me
ask, in the nature of things, should Mr. Upshaw
have been out of the way, for whom would his
votes been given7 For no other than Harwood
nus, You see, 1t was purely the accidental split il
the Democratic ranks, which elevated MIR Hunter
sensitive as he is upon this sub by minority of
the district, TO his first in the House of Repre
sentativts Of the U. S. MIR Hunter went 6rst into
public life, first into Congress, and continued until
1889, most decided Wing, with, as said before. |
Wings, that he was Anti Bank)
wen, IN 1889, the Wings were looking over the |
country for some individual to offer the Peonle 10
be voted for, for the Chief Masstracy in 1910. An
eyes were turned towards Mr. Clay, land parIon
me, ye Clay Wings for the impertinent query bo,y
90 you consistently support r. NJ. T. Hunter7)-
Mr. Ii. did not hesitate 10 say TO friends as amin
formed between Mr. Clay and Mr. Van Buren,. be
preferred MIR Van Buren,. But the right of his con-
stituens TO question his individual vote n, The o
he most peremptorily denied.
lime, however, undeceives us oil. MIR CLAW is
not the nominee at Harrisburg. What saws Mr.
Hunter thenl 81 am party man. gentlemen.
wi, WIN not indulge the shadow of preference between
the two candidates" tUe "Should vote for
either, would vote for MIR Van Buren, We ore
accused by our Hunter friends of supporting ,u,n
not prfnetpIs-maknga vote for men the test oues
uoh-nol asking n candidate for our support what
are your prlnclplesi One word in relation to this
w c have Just emerged from violent and anorv con.
test Wehave fought with a courage which Name
leon would have admired. We Obtained a victory
more glorious in its results and honorable in lis oil
lects than was the triumph OF Waterloo TO the IL
lusrlous Wellington. We Hunter Wbiss for Oh,
were you contendngl Was il for the spoilsl-
Was 1t for principles which we hold dear 10 The
country Or was II for the ms and outs2 If for
your principles, where are they nowl Are thew in
waiting TO enter the closet-and is Van Buren,
man, IN the gnise OF State Rights Wing, TO keep
the keyi You are acting upon principle You
are not pressing for men. Pshaw Psbnw
Pshaw!!! entreat you as brothers-I enlreat
you as patriots-l implore you as Americans, as
NIrginans, examine yourselves-endeavor TO dis.
cover what syren voice enchnnts you-cooly and
considerably discuss these questions within vonr
seIves-nnd venture the prediction your honesty
oil purpose will lead you in the path OF rectitude
promise IN my next a review of MIR Hunters
letters OF June, 1910, and February, 1884, with his
principles, consistency, &c; and will endeavor to
draw n comparison between him a nd the V,h,g can.
dIdate for the district, K. b. Cofbin, Esq, and to
show you that II Is IN our pow er, with him in the
HeIu, 10 WIN the STAKE.