Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1849-02-06
RICH N 0 Nd, VA.
MONDAY Morning, February 5, ls49.
i.yvM p PRESTON

Fridays Wing puts forth an angry article, he
cause we thought proper 10 alude 10 the p,cu.
liar position OF Mr.. Preston, and, in The same
connection, 10 urge The people OF the Roanoke
District to send 10 Washington man on whom
the Sculh could rely, fully and above board
As in the late canvass with regard 10 Gen. Tay-
lor, so now The Wing resorts TO the slang, that
Mr.. Preston Gowns upwards of TWO hundred
negroes" and therefore, he can DO nothing
which conflicts with tie views of the State on
this question! In reply 10 such an argument,
we will simply quote the fact, that in our own
Legislature, shareholders boldly avowed the
constuiionaily OF The Wilmot Ffovso, and
argued that il would be an Outrage - force The
curse Of slavery on an unvill:as people," The
argument, therefore, is not worth penny.
We shall explain in few words why We spe-
CHILLY referred to Mr.. Preston. Wchave spoken
oiAim from the records. In examining The pro-
cacdings Of the Southern meeting al Washington,
we find that, on The 18th January, Mr.. Preston
voted with Messrs Goggin, Fournoy, Stephens,
Gentry and others, all Wings, in favor Of Mr..
Clayton's motion 10 lay The whole subject oil the
address on The table; thai, al The same meeting,
MIR. Preston voted with Messrs. Guegin, Ste
phens and others, all Wings, for Mr.. Stephens
motion 10 adjourn sine die, and defeat all action;
that, at the meeting ON the 22i January, MIR.
Preston voted with Messrs. Flournoy, Gogsin,
Stephens, &C., against Gen. Bayly's motion to
lay on the table Mr.. Stephens resolution against
The eypediency Of publishing an address, or any
action by the Southern members; and, finally,
that he, with Messrs. Pendelon Stephens and
others, voted against The address which was
adopted. These "facts from the record" prove
that, throughout, Mr.. Preston representing por-
ton Of The State of Virginia, did every thing in
his power 10 defeat any action-ahuueh fully
aware that such course was 10 direct opposi-
tiun 10 the solcmBly deiberaed and proclaimed
Voice OF Virginia. For these reasons, we fell il
to be our duty 10 urge the people OF his district to
send 10 Washington, some one who would ca:ry
out the wishes OF Virginia.
The Whis utterly misrepresen,s US when il
savstha our sole object was 10 "crcale the impress
sion that the Wing Party (a'the Souih) is false to
the rights OF Inc South" Our whole course has
been The reverse. We have on ali occasions con-
tended that while the eQuvocal BEARING otthe lead
ers vas to be condemned, the mass OF The Wings
al The South viewed the question in the true light,
and would visit with indignant the leaders who
fallered Was il ior "party capita" that we
commended tho Wing advocates Of The Conway
Resolutions" in the Legislature, and the almost
entire body Of The Wings there for sustaining
those resoluions7 Was il Tor "parly capital"
that we urged the Wing 10 uaiic with US in call
ING meeting in this strong Wing city, 10 sus
tain tho votes Of Messrs. Stanard and Mayo,
IN Hhig representatives. And as The Wing
has itself quoted what We said on this
noint. we once more and for the third time
appeal 10 The WING 20 join US in such
call and 10 show 10 the South, that VIC are an
united people on this question. We ask, II II
canno, naturally be inferred from the Wings con-
linued refusal. tia, that paper is itself governed
BIZ sinister considerations, ami that il i opposed
TO bringing the voice oil all parties TO bear upon
the Sollh by ratiiying the solemn sand OF
the Lceislau,e7 But We have said enough 10
vinIics,e ourselves from The sIiclures a The
Wing. Il was scarcely necessary, perhaps, te-
cause tina, papers ground of objection 10 The
Southern address proves, beyond controversy,
thai on this question i, is entirely governed by
passion and prejudice is rabid C@lhoan- pH"0'G
disio;ls its vision over this field OF observation.