Newspapers / The Charlotte Democrat (Charlotte, … / Aug. 28, 1860, edition 1 / Page 2
Part of The Charlotte Democrat (Charlotte, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
WESTERN DEMOCEAT, CHAELOTTE, 3sT. C. ADDRESS TO THE Democracy and the People OF THE UNITED STATES, By the National Democratic Executive Committee National Democratic Execctite Committee Rooms, "1 Washington, July, 18C0. Fellow-citizens : The election of the next President and Vice-President of the United States is at hand. Four distinct organizations are in the field. The liepublican party making bold and open war upon the institutions of fifteen sovereign States of this Union. The Constitutional Union party, repudiating all platforms and standing on the catch words "Constitution and the Union." Two parties, each calling itself democratic, one, however, following the fortunes of one man, Mr Douglas, and differing from the Republicans in making insidious, instead of open, war upon the South. The other, standing inflexibly on the Constitution of the country, makes no conceal ments as to its interpretation of that instrument, its rallying cry being the equality of the States. We purpose, calmly and impartially, to survey the field, and to give the reasons why the latter party should be considered as the Democratic party, and how the dearest interests of country, race, and of human progress, are concerned in its success. Why is it that the Democratic party is disrup ted, and its wings arrayed in bitter opposition to each other? Why is it that the veterans who achieved its time-honored triumphs no longer move with the old energy and harmony to meet the an tagonists they have so often defeated? What fire brand has been thrown into their midst, light:.n up intestine fires, and consuming as with a devour ing flame? Let the plain unvarnished recoid answer. In 1856 the Demoaratic party, after a most bit ter contest, elected James Buchanan President, and John C. Breckinridge Vice-President of the United States. The new administration wis in augurated and went into operation. Its policy was foreshadowed in the inaugural address The Supreme Court, in a case before it, the DrcJ Scott case, gave its "decision on the question of diJerence In t'he Democratic ranks a decision which pre viously every democrat had solemnly pledged him self to abide by, as the authoritative exposition of the Democratic faith. That august tribunal de clared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional and void; enunciated the right of the South to . take and hold their slave property in the Territories; .denied to the Territorial Legislature any right to in- . terfere with such pioperty, and proclaimed that a Territory could only settle the question of slavery at the time it came to form a constitution, pre paratory to its admission into the Union as a sove reign State. This was looked upon by all sound Democrats as the final settlement of the question, and it was be lieved that the agitation of slavery would be for ever withdrawn from the halls of Congress. Who has kept up this agitation? Who has resisted thus decision? Who has declared that: "It mat ters not what way the Supreme Court may hereaf ter decido as to the abstract question, whether slavery may or may not go into a Territory under the Constitution, the people have the lawful means to introduce or exclude it, as they please." And, again: "No matter what the decision of the Su preme Court may bo on that abstract question, the right of the people to make a slave Territory, or a free Territory, is perfect and complete under the Nebraska bill?" Mr Douglas thus, in his Illinois contest, set the people above the Constitution, and violated his own pledges in the Kansas-Nebraska act. Now was presented to the country the sad spec tacle of our once valiant champion exerting his en tire energies to overthrow the party which had so honored him; and, with the flag of rebellion and insurrection in his hand, endeavoring to seduce the party from its principles. His friends have not hesitated to affiliate with the Republican party to compass his ends. In Oregon, they united with the Republicans in the canvass of last year and this, amPMr Logan, the leading liepublican of that State, fought the canvass on the doctrine of squatter sovereignty alone. In New Jersey his friends, Messrs Adrian and liigj;s, were returned to Congress by the votes of the liepublican party, and against the regular Democratic party. So with Reynolds, Haskiu and Clarke in New York; with Hickman and Schwartz in Pennsylvania; with John G. Davis in Indiana. Republicans were re turned to Congress over Democrats by the opposi tion, and with the collusion of the friends of Mr Douglas. Thus was Arnold defeated in Connecti cut, Hughes and Kay in Indiana, Taylor and Rus sell in New York, Philips, Leidy, Ahl, Gillis and Dewart in Pennsylvania. Hall and Burns in Ohio, aud Wortendyke in New Jersey. Mr Douglas himself, all the while, has vehemently opposed and denounced the democratic administration in the Senate; has refused to be governed by the voice of his party; has warred upon all his Demo cratic colleagues, with a single exception; has voted against them, not simply on the vexed question of slavery, but against tleir nominations, aud has even joined the Republicans in their efforts to ex clude from the Senate the two democratic Senators from the State of Indiana. SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY. Owing his election in Illinois to the Senate, over his competitor, Mr Lincoln, to the position maintained throughout that canvass, that no mat ter what was the decision of the Supreme Court, the Legislature of a Territory could lawfully exclude slavery therefrom by unf riendly legislation, he re .solvcd to engraft his heresy of squatter sovereign ty, of which this was an exemplification, upon the creed of the democratic party; and he declared in his Dorr letter that on this condition only would lie accept the nomination of the Convention for the Presidency. Thus one man undertook to lay down the platform of an entire party, and to place out of pale of that party its own President; all but two of its Senators; al! but some half a dozen of its Representatives in Congress; to brand as anti-democratic the platforms and the men of nearly every State where the party was in possession of the government. Is it to be wondered at that the South became alarmed; and that it lost its confi dence in him who onee was by them trusted and admired? It must be remembered, too, that the resistance to Mr Douglas nomination was not confined to the Southern States. It was wide-spread throughout all the States, and was predominant in Oregon, California, Pennsylvania and New Jersey States, whose votes, with an almost united South, were essential to success in the coming election. It was also predominant in Massachusetts. Under such circumstances were his claims vehe neathy urged for the Presidency. The press, tele graph, and every art of management was used to .secure the election of delegates favorable to his nomination. The maxim of the immortal Jackson was reversed, and the man was made to seek the Presidency, not the Presidency the man. TITE CHARLESTON CONVENTION. Heretofore, the delegates chosen by the Democ racy of the Uiiited States met in National Conven tions as brothers, to consult together in a spirit of harmony aud concession to lay down the princi ples of party, and to nominate candidates for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency, not objectiona ble (in numbers) to any respectable portion of the party, and therefore likely to receive its united and harmonious support. For . this purpose was the two-third rule adopted in the first National Demo cratic Convention that was ever held in this coun try; and actuated by the motives which begot it, the Democracy have repeatedly in National Conven tion, whenever a respectable opposition presented itself, refused to nominate some of its ablest states men, and by the nomination of others less objec tionable, have marched on to victory, and the de velopement and enforcement of their principles. It will be recollected that Mr Van Buren received a considerable majority at the Democratic National Convention in 1844, yet no one then contended that he, therefore, was entitled to the nomination. On the contrary, the Convention, regarding the opposition of the minority to his nomination as en titled to consideration and respect, refused to nominate hini, but nominated Mr Polk, (against whom there was no objection.) and under his ban ner, the democrats achieved one of its greatest triumphs. It was this principle of harmony and con cession, of respect and consideration for the opin ions and views of the minority, which bound the Democracy together with bands of steel, and made them invincible on the day of battle. It was the talismanic motto under which we marched to vic tory the secret and the key-stone to our success. Far different was the spirit displayed at Charles ton and Baltimore by the friends of Mr Douglas. They came to nominate him, or break up the Con tention. Many of their prominent men boldly and openly avowed the purpose "Rule or ruin," was their motto. They met the opinions and views of the seventeen reliable Democratic States, almost united in opposition to the nomination of Mr Douglas, with insult and derision. The Democratic States were wedded to no one man. They had their favorites, but they put forth no claim that even one of them should be nomina ted. They were willing to take any one of the illustrious and distinguished statesmen of our par ty, except Mr Douglas. lie had made himself ob noxious to them for the reasons already mentioned, aud they asked that he should not be thrust down their throats. Was the request an unusual one? Our history as a party shows that it was not. Wad the request an unreasonable oue? Who will say so, when they reflect that upon the States that made it, chiefly devolved the task of electing the nomi nees of the Convention? Yet the Douglas dele gates not ouly turned a deaf ear to this request, but in the most high-handed and reckless manner with sacriligious hands tore down the landmarks of the party, and trampled upon Democratic comi ty and usages, in order to foist that one man upon the Convention. With any other democrat they could have had harmony and union, and presented to-day the spectacle of a united and invincible party. We put it to the conscience and the judgment of every honest man. Are they not guilty of setting up this one man as paramount to the Union of the States? Are they not guilty of having divided the party? Did they not thus, take "the first, fatal, and irrevocable stiide towards disunion of the States?" From this uneviable position no ingenui ty nor device, nor wholesale and reckless charges against others, can relieve them. "Inexorable logic" stamps the grave crime upon their brows. Representing States, nearly all of which were hopelessly Black Republican, they claimed that they were entitled to dictate both the platform and the candidates, and to this end the system of tactics, which we had witnessed outside of the Convention, was, for the first time in our history, (and we earnestly hope the last,) steadily and per sistently enacted in it. Rules were made and vio lated at pleasure. The decisions of an impartial President were adopted, and then overruled, as it suited their purpose. The usages of Democratic Conventions were followed, and then shamefully violated, as it accorded with their designs. Eve rything was made to bend to the one great pur pose for which they assembled the nomination of Mr Douglas. It cannot certainly be considered strange that honorable men, unused to such scenes, should leave the Convention, and that it was final ly virtually broken up. The first act of injustice was THE UNIT RULE. The Committee on Permanent Organization re ported the following rule, known as the unit rule: "That in any State which has not provided or directed by its State Convention how its vote may be given, the Convention will recognize the right of each delegate to cast his individual vote." This rule was in violation of the rule of all former con ventions, which left to the delegation from each State the right to determine how the vote should be cast; and it was smuggled into the report of the committee and brought before the convention in the following manner: At the first meeting of the committee, when all its members were present, this rule was brought before the committee and rejected. The committee went on, discharged their own business, and adjourned to an informal meeting in the morning, to enable the chairman to make out the report and submit it to the commit tee for its approval. At this latter meeting, when some six or eight members of the committee op posed to the rule were absent, not having received notice of the called meeting for other business and regarding the work as virtually finished, the rule was again brought forward and adopted. In this disrcspectable manner was this rule brought before and adopted by the Convention. By it the votes of the minority, in the delega Tons of Indiana, Vermont. New York, aud Ohio, amounting to 27, or 55 delegates, opposed to Mr Douglas, were thrown for him; while on the final ballot, at Baltimore, it gave him votes in Massa chusetts, 10; Pennsylvania, 10; New Jersey, 2; 'Maryland, 2; Virginia, 3; North Carolina, 1; Ark ansas, 1; Missouri, 4 J; Tennessee, 3, and Ken tucky, 3; in all 41, which he would not have re ceived had the ancient usages and rules of former Conventions, leaving the majority in each State to determine how the vote of the State should be cast, been adhered to. Yet the ink was hardly dry that recorded the passage of the ieaolution, before the very men who clamored for its adoption, sought to violate it, and actually succeeded in their efforts! In the case of New Jersey, where the Sinte Convention recommended the delegates to vote as a unit, the Douglas delegates overruled the deci sion of the President that by the term recommen ded the Convention had provilcd the mode for casting the vote of the State, and allowed the two or three Douglas delegates to cast their individual votes. WITHDRAWAL OF DELEGATES FROM THE CHARLESTON CONVENTION. The record of proceedings shows this withdraw al was done in sorrow and not in anger; not for the purposes of disunion, but to receive instruc tions from their constituents. The friends of Mr Douglas at least, should not complain. Words. however, are inadequate to express the bitterness j ot their animosity. Had not the Democracy of the South the same right to state the terms upon which they would hold fellowship with their sister States, as Douglas had to dictate to them the plat form of their democracy? The Southern States gave their interpretation of the democratic creed, nnd a Dortion of them insisted upon its recognition by the Convention as the condition of their sup- port, aney were aenieu mis, unu wikuuiew irom the Convention. They at least did nothing more than pursued the course Mr Douglas announced in hi9 Dorr letter he would pursue in the event of his platform not being adopted; for, if he could not stand on a" different platform as a candidate, it logically followed that his position was that of an tagonism and resistance both to platform and can didate. But, notwithstanding the withdrawal of fifty-one delegates, no nomination was made at Charleston; and, after a struggle of 10 days, an adjournment was had to Baltimore, under the following resolution: "Resolved, That when this Convention adjourns it adjourn to reassemble at Baltimore on Monday, the 18th of June next, and that it is respectfully recom mended to the Democratic party of the several States to make provision for supplying all vacancies ia their respective delegations to the Couvention when it shall reassemble." BALTIMORE CONVENTION. The Convention met at Baltimore. Most of the States responded to the invitation above recited, and their delegates presented their credentials, and asked admission into the Convention. How were they treated by the friends of Mr Douglas? BOGUS DELEGATES MASSACHUSETTS. Benjamin F. Hallett was regularly appointed a delegate from Massachusetts to the National Con vention; the same Convention appointed K. L. Chaffee as his alternate. Owing to sickness, Mr Hallett was unable to attend the Convention at Charleston, and, in his absence, Mr Chaffee, his alternate, took his place. At Baltimore, however, Mr Hallett was present, but the Convention actually turned him out; actually turned out the regidar delegate, and gave the seat to his alternate! MISSOURI. The same course was adopted in regard to the Eighth Electoral District of Missouri. Mr John son B. Garder, the regular delegate, was uncere moniously ousted out of his seat, and Mr O'Fallon, the contingent, voted in. Heretofore, it has al ways been considered that the alternate acted only in the absence of the principal, but this Conven tion gravely determined that the true test for admision into that Convention consisted in an affirmative answer to the question, Are you for the nomination of Stephen A. Douglas? LOUISIANA AND ALABAMA. The next step was to vote out the regular dele gation from the State of Louisiana, who were re-appointed to Baltimore by the convention that origi nally appointed them, and also to exclude the regu lar delegates from Alabama, who were appointed by a new convention called by the Democratic committee of the State. The history of the case is this. After the secession at Charleston, the Democratic Central Committee of Louisiana, the only association in that State having the power to assemble the Democracy in convention, called to gether the State convention representing every coun ty in the State, and that convention re-appointed the same delegates to Baltimore. A few irresponsible men called another convention, at which the De mocracy of the State were not represented. In the case of Alabama, the Democratic Central Com mittee called a new convention to be elected by the Democracy of the several counties. This con vention met, and sent back the regular delegates to Baltimore. A number of persons however, issu ed a call, published in three papers in the State, addressed to the people, not the Democracy of Alabama, for another convention, which met and appointed a set of delegates, the leader of whom never cast a Democratic fite in his life, and who openly avowed that he was going to Baltimore to vote for Mr Douglas, in order to break up the Democratic party! Yet the so-called national con vention voted out the regular delegates ekjted by the Democracies of these States, and voted in the bogus delegates! ARKANSAS. In the case of Arkansas, the - Congressional Convention of the State which nominated the Democratic candidates for Congress, re-appointed the delegates to Baltimore. Yet this Convention deliberately voted out the regular delegates so elected in the first district; while they declared that the regular delegates, elected in tJie same manner, in the second district, were entitled to their seats! and then, in defiance of the resolution of the Democratic State Convention of Arkansas instructing the delegates to vote as a unit, and -in utter violation of their own unit resolution, they divided the vote of the State, giving the bogus delegates from the first district the right to cast one vote, and the regular delegates from the second district two votes; nay, they even went further, and resolved that, in case the regular delegates from the second district did not vote, the bogus delegates from the first district, were to cast the full vote of the State! And yet, after such high handed procedure as this, we are meekly told by the Douglas Committee that "it must be conceded that the report of the Committee on Credentials was so liberal and conciliatory towards the seceders and their friends as to be hardly just to the representatives of the National Democracy from this State!" GEORGIA. In the case of Georgia the Douglas men them selves called a State Convention for the purpose of having the seceding delegates repudiated by the Democracy of that State. Every shade of the Democratic party of that State participated iu the election of delegates. The Convention met, and upon taking a vote, the regular or seceding dele gates were sent back to Baltimore, by a vote of, 299 to 41. The forty-one Douglas delegates then bolted, and also appointed delegates. Yet the Douglas Committee on Credentials at Baltimore, in defiance again of the resolution of the Georgia Convention instructing their delegates to vote as a unit, and iu utter violation of their own rule upon the subject, reported in favor of dividing the vote of the State, giving one-half to the regular dele gates, and one-half to the bogus "appointees of the 41 belters! But this was too great an outrage even for this Convention, and they voted to admit the regular delegates, and thus placed the brand of bogus upon the brow of H. V. Johnson the Douglas candidate for Vice-President! Comment ing upon this action, the Douglas Executive Com mittee characterizes it as an "extravagance of liberality!" Thus was the Democracy of sovereign States wantonly disfranchised in a National Convention, ard thus were Democrats compelled to give up all fellowship with men so regardless of their own honor, and the welfare and unity of the Democrat ic party. Mil DOUGLAS NOT NOMINATED BY A TWO-THIRDS VOTE. But it is claimed that Mr Douglas teas nomi nated by a two-thirds vote. The Douglas Ex ecutive Committee, in a recent address, declare : "After all secessions as well as the refusal of certain delegates from Georgia and Arkansas, together with the entire delegations from Texas and Mississippi to occupy their seats, our National Convention at Baltimore ret retained 424 delegates, or 212 electoral votes; being ten more than two-thirds of the electoral votes of the whole Union. But some of these delegates (a3 in the case of Georgia) refrained from voting, the majority of the delegation having retired; others, (as in the case of Arkansas,) although full delegations, and unauthorized, in case of any secession, to east the whole vote of their State, preferred only to cast that which would be a fair proportion between the seceders , and themselves; and yet others, (as in. the case .of Delaware, and portions of the delegates from Kentucky and Missouri,) declined to vote, bat refused to secede. This accounts, for the fact that up6a,,the second ballot, of Slateiilr Douglas received only 181J votes, Mr Breckinridge receiving 10$, Mr Guthrie 4 votes, the States of South Carolina (eight) and Florida (three) having anthotized no delegates to any Convention at Baltimore. Here is the ballot as recorded: " ' Bbkcki.v-.idge. Guthrie. Docgl Mame 0 0 7 New Hampshire : 0 0 5 Vermont 0 0 5 Massachusetts 0 0 10 Rhode Island 0 0 4 Connecticut ' o z New York , 0 0 35 New Jersey 0 0 2 Pennsylvania 10 2 10 Maryland 0 0 2 Virginia 0 0 3 North Carolina 0 0 1 Alabama 0 0 9 Louisiana 0 0 6 Arkansas 0 0 1 Missouri 0 0 4 Tennessee, 0 0 3 Kentucky- 0 1 3 Ohio 0 0 23 Indiana .0 0 13 Illinois 0 0 11 Michigan 0 0 6 Wisconsin 0 0 5 Iowa 0 0 4 Minnesota 0 0 4 "On motion of Mr Clark, of Missouri, at the instance ofMrHoge, of Virginia, the question was i then pro pounded from the Chair, whether the nomination of Douglas should or should not be, without further cere mony, the unanimous act of the Convention, and of all the delegates present; the Chairman distinctly request ing that any delegate who objected (whether or not having a vote,) should signify his dissent. No delegate dissented; and thus, at last, was Stephen A. Douglas unanimously nominated in a convention representing more than two-thirds of all the electoral votes, as the candidate of the Democratic party for the Presidency of the United States. "Was it irregular (hut to propose a candidate? If so, Lewis Cass was irregularly nominated at Baltimore, in 1848, which no man ever pretended, for the same me thod whs adopted in his case." First. It is not true that General Cass was nom inated, in 1848, in . a similar manner. Such a procedure, the nomination of a candidate by reso lution prior to his receiving two-thirds of the vote of the Convention, where there was a contest, never before was witnessed in a National Democratic Con vention. This resolution was another innovation upon Democratic usages. Second. It is not true that the Chairman notified the delegates that those who did not object should be counted as voting for the resolution. No pub lished proceeding of that Convention puts any such remark into his mouth. On the contrary, every published proceeding, including, those published at the time in the Baltimore, Washington and New York papers, reported by different reporters, con clusively demonstrates that he gave utterance to no such language. But, even if he did, it was not in his power, and was not within the scope of his duties as a presiding officer, to dictate to delegates what course they should pursue, or to bind them by his mere ipse dixit. Each delegate had the right to vote, or not to vote, as to him seemed proper; and of this he was the sole judge, answera ble for his course to his constituency alone. The Convention has decided that, in accordance with the established usages of the party, it required two-thirds (202 votes') of the electoral votes to nominate. The highest vote at any time attained by Mr Douglas was 181 , and the whole number cast 196. How were 202 votes for Mr Douglas to be manufactured out of 19C votes all told, 14 of which were cast against him? Eighteen delegates remained in the Convention as spectators, taking no part whatsoever in its de liberations, and expressly declaring that they were n-t bound by its decision. Various devices were tried to compel these 18 delegates to vote. Mr Church of N. Y., had offered a resolution de claring Mj Douglas the nominee, when he had received only 173 votes. We quote the follow ing proceeding which then ensued: "The question was loudly called for. Mr Jones, of Pennsylvania, said he was ready to snp port the nominee of the Convention when he shall be nominated by the rales of the Democratic party. At Charleston it was determined that two-thirds of all the electoral college was necessary to a nomination. It was objected that debate was not in order. The President (Mr Todd) so ruled. - Mr Jones raised a question of order that the rule adopted at Charleston could not be repealed except on one day's notice. Mr Church explained the action at Charleston. New York had come here to pour oil on the troubled waters and had faithfully endeavored to do so. They had yielded everything except personal honor to heal the divisions which existed. He proceeded to condemn the action of the seceding delegates. Mr W. S. Gittings, of Maryland, entered a protest against the propositions of Mr Church, of New York'. A rule was adopted at Charleston that two-thirds of all the votes of the electoral college was required to nominate a candidate for President. The Chair explained, that at Charleston the then President was instructed not to declare any one nomi nated unless be received two-thirds of the votes of the electoral college, (202 votes.) Mr Gittings said there were two thirds of the electo ral college here, and if gentlemen voted who declined to vote, Douglas would be nominated by a t wo-third vote. He hoped that there would be more ballots to see what gentlemen would do, and that Mr Church would withdraw his resolution. Cries of 'That's it that's it yes yes.' Mr Hoge, of Virginia, said he hoped there would be no more ballots, and if those gentlemen who declined to vote did not vote, he should treat them as out of the Convention. Mr Church then withdrew his resolution till another ballot was had." Yet, after this notice served upon these 18 dele gates, they again refused to vote; and it is simply ridiculous to say that the President could record their votes as cast in favor of the resolution. Mr Church boldly declared that the resolution was intended to change the ride of instruction adopted at Charleston," requiring a two-thirds vote to nominate the candidate. Of the 18 delegates who remained in the Con vention as spectators, five were from Kentucky, six from Delaware, and seven from Missouri. The fiva delegates from Kentucky filed a writ ten protest, in which they stated that though they remained in the Convention, they "will not par ticipate in its deliberations, nor hold ourselves or our constituents bound by its action, but leave both at full liberty to act as future circumstances may dictate;" (signed by G. A. Caldwell, W. W. Williams, W. Bradley, Samuel B. Field, and Thos. J. Young.) 3ir Saulsbury, of Delaware, announced, in be half of thesis delegates from his State who re mained in the Convention, but refused to vote, that "in future they should decline to vote, reserv ing to themselves the right to act hereafter as they deemed proper." The seven delegates from Missouri gave notice that they would remain in the Convention, but would take no part in its deliberations. And these are the votes upon which this committee base their two-thirds vote for Mr Douglas! NO OPPORTUNITY GIVEN TO DISSENT FROM THE RESOLUTION NOMINATING MR DOUGLAS. But even admitting that the President did give notice that those yho did not object should be counted in favor of the resolution; even admitting the proposition that his mere pe dixit had the power to bind the delegates who did not dissent, even in me lace oi. wieir uvj would not vote, we now proceed to show that no Opportunity was afforded to any delegate to object to the passage or the resolution, xne extract, oi the proceedings which we have heretofore quoted, shows that debate upon this resolution was decided to be out of order; and under this ruling, Mr Jones, of Pennsylvania, who rose to enter his dissent, was unceremoniously gagged. Having thus closed their mouths, this committee contends, that because they did not then speak they must be counted as having voted for the resolution. By no rule of justice or of right can the 14 J votes given for Mr Breckinridge and Mr Guthrie be counted as having been cast for the resolution declaring Mr Douglas the nominee. Having steadily, through repeated ballots, voted against Mr Douglas, they were not allowed to object to the resolution when it was offered, nor even given the opportunity of voting against it. Here are the proceed frigs at this stage : "Mr Clarke then moved to declare Stephen A. Douglas the Democratic nominee for the Presidency. Applause. "Mr Hoge of Virginia, offered a resolution to that effect, which was read. "The resolution declaring S. A. Douglas the unanimous choice of the Convention for the Presi dency was adopted by a shout of ayes and cheers, which lasted a considerable time. "The band of the Keystone Club appeared in the gallery and struck up a tune, which was greeted with renewed cheers. "The President (Col. Todd) declared Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois, the unanimous choice of the Democracy of the United States as their candidate for the Presidency. Loud cheers." The vote in favor of the resolution was alone taken ? The negative vote was not put to the Convention! But, as if still further to demonstrate that the eighteen delegates from Kentucky, Delaware and Missouri, took no part at all in the proceedings, we call attention to the vote for Vice President, tchen they again refused to vote ! SEVEN VOTES FROM GEORGIA AND ARKANSAS COUNTED IN DEFIANCE OF THE UNIT RULE. GEORGIA. ' But the nine votes counted for the 18 delegates' who refused to vote, with the 14 votes cast fot Messrs Breckinridge and Guthrie, added to the 181 given for Mr Douglas, gives only a total of 205, seven less than the vote claimed by this commit tee. -Where do they get the remaining seven votes? From Georgia and Arkansas. The State of Georgia was entitled to 10 votes in the Con vention, to be cast by 20 delegates. The Demo cracy of Georgia, however, appointed 40 delegates to cast the 10 votes, and instructed them to vote as a unit, the majority to determine the action of the State. Eleven of the delegates remained in the Convention, but the majority who seceded protested against these eleven being allowed to vote, and the convention decided, by a vote of 148 to 100, that those remaining from that State were not, under the unit rule, entitled to vote. At Baltimore, the seceding delegates from Geor gia, reappointed by the State Convention, refused to take their seats; but one of ttem, (Mr Gaulden,) however, came into the Convention, but did not pretend to vote, because, under the decision of the Convention, he was not entitled to vote, as the majority had determined not to take their seats in the Convention. And yet these are the persons decided by the Convention to be mere spectators, and not dele gates, who had no right to vote, and never did vote in the Convention, who are now represented as delegates by the Douglas Committee, and press ed into the service, for the purpose of manufact uring a two-thirds vote for Mr Douglas! ARKANSAS. Under the decision of the Convention, the two delegates, Messrs Flournoy and Stirman, who re mained in the Convention at Charleston, were al lowed to cast one vote; the three bogus delegates from the first Congressional district, one vote; and the withdrawing delegates who were reaccreditcd to Baltimore, two votes. The latter declined to take their seats, and Mr Stirman withdrew. He is thus reported: "Mr Stirman, of Arkansas, when his State was call ed, said, in justice to himself, and with sorrow, he parted with the Convention, he could not longer re main after what had been done." Thus a majority of the delegates actually ad mitted to the Convention had withdrawn or refus ed to take their seats, and, under the unit rule, the minority had no right to vote. . Yet thercommittee have counted the vote of Mr Stirman, who had withdrawn, inereased the one vote awarded by the convention to tne DOgus tnrce, to a vote ana a half, and thus secured an additional vote from Ar kansas in favor of the resolution. In this way the Douglas Committee got six additional votes from Georgia, and one from Arkansas in favor of the rcsolutton, thus increasing 205 to 212 votes. their figures from ACTUAL VOTE CAST FOR MR DOUGLAS. We now propose to show, beyond cavil, that even the vote (181) given by the Douglas Ex ecutive Committee, in the foregoing table, as hav ing been cast for Mr Douglas, is based on error. Let us examine the matter. Massachusetts is put down at 10 votes for Mr Douglas, when there were only ten delegates, en titled to cast five votes, remaining in the Conven tion from that State. Massachusetts had thirteen votes, represented by 26 delegates; sixteen of these delegates withdrew, and joined the Breckinridge and Lane Convention, leaving, we repeat, but ten delegates to cast five votes. Vermont was represented by 10 delegates, with the right to cast five votes. She is reported as having given the whole five to Mr Douglas, in stead of 4, one of the delegates (Mr S tough ton) having withdrawn and joined the other Conven tion. Minnesota is recorded as having cast her full vote for Mr Douglas, when three of her delegates entitled to 1 votes, refused to vote for him, and withdrew from the Convention : "Mr Becker, of Minnesota, said he and two of his colleagues wished to announce the conclusion at which they had arrived; they went to Charleston, and came to Baltimore, actuated only by a desire to promote the harmony, union, and integrity of the Democratic party; but nnfortunately for them and the couutry, their de sires and efforts had failed; they had been ready for any exertions and sacrifices- to promote their object, and they now took this step, in Tiew of the responsi bilities resting upon them before the people. In coa- clusion, he announced their determination to vacate their seats, taking with them the credentials which ac credited them to the National Democratic Convention." Pennsylvania is put down as having given 22 votes, when 12 of her delegates entitled to 6 votes withdrew and joined the other Convention. As Pennsylvania is only entitled to 27, she cast 1 more votes for Mr Douglas than she was entitled to. Virginia appears to have given 3 votes for Mr Douglas, when only five of her delegates, entitled to 2 votes, remained in the Convention. North Carolina bad but, one delegate in tne Convention, entitled to cast one -half a vote, yet ha is recorded as naving case one vote. Tennessee, with only five delegates in the Con vention, is put down at 3, instead cf 2. Neva York is put down at do votes, when it i8 well known that two of her delegates withdrew from the Convention and joined the other Con vention These make a total of 11 votes, which added to the 18bugus delegates from Alabama, the 12 bogus delegates from Louisiana, aud the 3 bogus delegates from Arkansas, counting 16 votes, make a total of 27 vote to be subtracted from the 181, leaving the vote of Mr Douglas at only 154! - FORCED VOTES. But even this was a forced vote forced by violation of the usages of the democratic party, by which the votes of 31 delegates from New York, in addition to the two above alluded to, 12 from Ohio and 9 from Indiana, making a total of 52 delegates, entitled to 26 votes, hostile to the nomi nation of Mr Dougla, were voted for him. Sub tract these from 154, and it leaves 128, as the actual strength of Mr Douglas in tho . Convention! Had the rules and usages of former Conventions whereby the vote of each State was to be deter mined by the majority of the delegates, been fol lowed Mr Douglas would have gained 1 vote in Maine, 2 votes in Connecticut, and lost 10 in Massachusetts, 2 in New Jersey, 10 in Pennsyl vania, 2 in Maryland, 3 in Virginia, 1 in North Carolina, 1 in Arkansas, 4 in Missouri, 3 ia Tennessee, 3 in Kentucky, making a net loss of 37, to which add the votes of Alabama 9, and Louisiana 6, represented by the bogus delegates, who would not then have gained admission into the Convention, and we have 52 votes to be de ducted from 181, leaving 129 as the true vote under the rule of former Conventions, really cast for Mr Douglas in the Convention. CONTINUED NSXT WIK. VOTE FOB GOVERNOR OFFICIAL. The following table shows the official vote. Gor. Ellis has a majority of 6,328. The whole vote cast is 112,852, an increase over the Ellis and McRae vote of 19,675, and 10,336 over the Bragg and Gilmer vote. Ellis' vote is increased 3,378 over his vote two years ago, and 2,035 over Bragg's vote. 1856. 1860. covntics , , N x 2 j 4 l .J O d -I O ca O wo. j 916 645 771 793 W 466 411 42! 594 326 7.'0 289 887 ' 734 708 379 779 573 134 4C9 545 532 570 608 481 C60 553 404 468 410 422 V8 78T 918 910 569 505 603 584 , 539 833 637 1110 426 665 429 877 ' 438 425 370 540 1120 211 945 224 493 402 481 561 107 473 . 96 540 968 158 960 415 632 574 664 518 291 230 305 278 556 146 759 219 1166 1162 1245 1255 589 306 718 4.'i0 1109 138 998 419 784 545 800 832 1575 928 1023 fctU 353 486 4S1 690 823 1199 972 1388 1113 155 1358 197 1563 189 1095 127 744 334 810 40i; 1080 926 1U15 10.'8 759 133 800 2 00 459 392 431 4;1 432 289 421 345 1225 994 1143 978 571 2059 457 2137 736 '584 . .788 595 537 254 577 306 665 447 586 829 335 303 353 399 392 501 500 4'J8 602 203 351 1349 381 1714 572 106 598 164 1036 817 1044 804 261 180 ' 275 212 499 263 ,558 349 614 222 . ' 530 256 367 396 ' 400 486 575 250 D93 265 ?U6 340 746 359 1024 ' 623 1274 757 211 625 173 834 733 677 749 843 536 295 457 632 1522 670 1549 713 695 423 779 609 1107 93 1058 122 771 10 841 133 1119 1045N 1109 1238 330 502 360 661 304 348 298' 412 775 716 771 778 678 324 620 299 325 175 1168 439 1137 444 566 1281 448 1567 246 556 251 565 773 669 844 681 885 905 1160 1079 1070 781 701 804 166 797 89 1065 877 579 033 579 990 497 1042 690 769 498 813 470 124 309 213 280 835 273 931 425 1693 1124 1491 1573 1332 274 1201 389 819 101 874 134 261 377 212 8I 257 394 259 442 609 1263 14 1419 936 134 633 888 736 899 810 320 774 474 Alamance, Alexander, Au so n, Ashe, Alleghany Bertie, Bladen, Brunswick, Buncombe, Burke, Beaufort, Cabarrus, Caldwell, Caswell, Carteret, Camden, Catawba, Cherokee, Chowan, Currituck, Chatham, Columbus, Cleaveland, Craven, Cumberland, Davie, Davidson, Duplin, Edgecombe, Franklin, Forsyth, Gaston, Gates, Greene, Granville, Guilford, Halifax, Haywood, Henderson, Hertford, Hyde, Harnett Iredell, Jiukson, Johnston, Jones, Lenoir, Lincoln, Macon, Madison, Martin, Mecklenburg, Montgomery, Moore, McDowell, New Hanover, Northampton, Nash, Onslow, Orange, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Pitt, Person, Polk Rockingham, Randolph, . Richmond, Robeson, Rowan, Rutherford, Stanly, Surry, Sampson, Stokes, Tyrrell, Union, Wake, Wayne, Warren, Washington, Watauga, Wilkes, Wilson Yadkin, Yancey, 56,769 44,175 44175 59,590 53,2C3 53,283 Bragg's maj. 12,594 Ellis' maj. 6,328 1 v - Douglas Electors Declining. The Knox ville, Tenn. Register, of the 9th inst., contains tho following: We are authorized to state that Captain John J. Keece declines accepting the appointment of elect oral candidate for the Second Congressional li trieffcn the Douglas ticket, lie also declinca serv ing on the Executive Committee for Douglas. We have a rumor from Cannon county that II. J. St. John, Fsq., who was appointed Douglas elector for the tilth Congrensional District, made ry,1 on Monday night, in which a speech at Woodbury he declined to accept the position. A gentleman who lives in Jaekson county was in our office, yesterday, and informed us that Mr Galbraith bad declined the electorship on the Dou glas ticket for the 4th District Nashville Union. Mr Seward got on his high horse at Benton. 11:0 -,i:;a sif T.inAnln'a auneestt are ma"niD- AJ.IO LICUIttlVIIO V " m cent. He promises him 80,000 majority m the State of New York, and the same thing tubstan- tially in P'ives nol ,ur,nn ti ll th fro States, lie aiso iiiaiiy n vk.v - .. , gives notice that "with this victory comes the enci 0 j . w v J Oaa. " a till of the power of slavery in the United States, u that "the last Democrat in the United States is born."
The Charlotte Democrat (Charlotte, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Aug. 28, 1860, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75