The Weekly JNorth Carolinian.
l J. .SINCLAIR, Editor. .
FAYJBTTEVILLE, H C.
S'ATUR DA Y.AUGUST 25.
For President
7. C. BRECKINRIDGE,
OF KENTUCKY.
For "Vice-President
(HiN. jo lane,
OF OREGON.
ELECTORS
FOB PRESIDENT AND VICE-PUESIDFXT.
For the Stats at Large :
ALFRED M. SCALES, of Rockingham.
ED. GRAHAM HAYWOOD, ok Wake.
Districts :
1st District, JOHN W. MOORE, of Hertford.
21 " W M. B. RODMAN, of Beaufort.
d
W M. A.. ALLEN, of Duplin
THE National Union Democracy of Robe
son will meet at the Court House
berton, on Monday, the 27th hist., at 2 o'clock, for
ftie purpose of sending Delegates to the Raleigh
Convention, to appoint Electors for North Carolina,
who will advocate and support, the claims of the
regular nominees of the party, Douglas and Johnson,
for President and Vice-President of the U. States.
August 20, I SOU. ROBESON.
For the. North Carolinian.
Ll MBKRTfX. N. Aug. 17, i&r;o.
Mk. Kiitok : 1 lie I'rieiultf of "Iireckinridge" ami
Lane propose lo have a GI.'AM) KALLl'ou Monday
nigiit, 27lli iiis't.. il Lcing Ibe liue of our next County
Court. The Douglas men hpes;k of holding a meeting
en i hat day ;j we propose, thi rt lore, to rally at night.
We would le pleased lo see you down.
I'lea-e insert a card calling a meeting iu your
paper. The following will answer :
The Democracy of liol inson will have a Grand
Breckinridge and Lane Kally hi LiiiuIj -Tton. on Mou
(l.iv n i; '.i t of the next Couaty Court, 27tli iust.
MiJ.VDKR OK EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.7'
A WORD ABOUT THE PROPOSED COM
PROMISE, U is needless to say we favor it and will ad-
brute it. There can no benefit accrue to the cause
i i nationality, or to Democracy, by running a sep
arate ticket for Mr Douglas. If, as we believe and
contend, Mr Douglas be a Democrat, why not trust
his cause and the interests of the nation to regularly
ar.thorizjd Slate organizations If not, let a com
mittee be appointed to interrogite the electors al
ready in thc ii.ld whethor they would cast the
vote of the St.tc fur either Mr Breckinridge or Mr
Douglas whichever it may elect. No ono can
doubt but, should the ejection go to the House,
Messrs Douglas, Breckinridge, and Lincoln, would
be the only contestants. We appual to Douglas
and Breckinridge democrats to agree upon a fusion
a-; they have done in Pennsylvania. No true friend
i.i .Mr Douglas can ol ject to this, and we would ad-
isc our friends in Robeson county to pass a reso
lution of that nature on Monday next, We know
tiie Douglas men in this county and Robeson to be
f-od, true, and loyal democrats; let them show a
rpirit of compromise and not of factiousness and
disorganization. We would like to write more upou
this subject, but as this is our first attempt since
oar linger was amputated, we must close. We
however, recommend to our readers, the followiii"
extract taken from a paper in Pennsylvania, one of
in- Douglas' strongest supporters, the Pittsburg
Post. With a change of names and places, it would
p. it our own State most admirably iu almost every
pa. ucuiar :
n.i' 'wi.iin..i.u.HJu.,iili w j FgnuTTCTr nrTvTTgn"
Chairman of the Mass Convention, held at Harris
barg. met at that place on the 15th, and resolved, in
.vec.-et session, as we are informed, to place "a clear
Douglas electoral ticket" in the field. ,s the friend
f -Mr Douglas, and an ardent desirer of his su3-
ess, we condemn this movement. It was in the
power of this committee to have re dered a very
greaf service to the Democracy by recommending
the support of the compromise at Cresson. In
stead of this, the committee has taken such action
as will assist the Republican party in the election
of Lincoln. They seem to have utterly repudiated
the idea of any effort to preserve the Democratic or
- libation of the State, aud by declaring against it,
.as given great satisfaction to the Opposition. Bv I
.ono. l" L1e xvepuoiican ranks, this
-muuittee could not serve the cause of Lincoln
more effectually than they have done by their ef
f.rt to create and continue a division in the Demo
cratic ranks.
No true friend of Mr Douglas can, with any con
sist. :iiey, favor this llarrisburg movement, " it is,
i a fact, a Bolters' ticket. The ticket nominated at
j leading is certainly the only authorized and rcu-
i;ir ticket of tne Democratic organization of the
.'tate. e do not wish the yame of Mr Douglas to
hi associated with disorganization. We do not wish
to see him run on a minority ticket.
However, we are well asssured that this Harris
burg movement will meet with a lean and slender
r- ipport from the friends of Mr Douglas in the State.
The real friends of Mr Douglas do. not wish a separ
ate ticket in the"State, and they will not support
one placed in the field without the shadow of Dem
ocratic authority.
The Cresson Compromise, gives every Douglas
man an opportunity to vote for Mr Douglas and his
j-rin ,-iples. It simply acknowledges what every man
knows to be a fact, that there is a division in the
party, and by a simple arrangement it allows those
who do not wish to vote for Mr Douglas to ex
press ; thesr preferences for another, without grant
ing that the other is in anj- sense entitled to ""claim
a single Democratic vote. Under no contingency
yh eh can possibly arise uuder the resolution, can
the Cresson movement possibly be of any benefit to
any other candidate for the Presidency than Mr.
Douglas.
But those who still hold out in favor of State dis
organization, openly admit that they prefer Mr Lin
coln to any other democrat than Mr Douglas. Their
partizanship for the man has swallowed up their
fealty to the Democratic party. As for us, Democ
racy is first and democratic men afterwards. There
is no Democrat of good personal character and rea
sonable capacity whom we would not prefer to see
in the Presidential chair rather than Abraham Lin
coln. We warn our friends at the outstart not to be
mislead by this llarrisburg movement. John For
ney is at the head of it, carrying out his bargain
with the Republican party to foment divisions and
sub-divisions in the ranks of the Democracy in Penn
sylvania for the benefit of Lincoln, and those who
go with hinOare most, if not'all, seeing a hole
through which to sneak into the Republican par-
ty-"
We expect to attend the Douglas & John
ston convention, ne$t week at Raleigh, if our hand
is in a fit condition. Our readers wjll be apprised
of all the interest connected with it. We go simply
as an individual, not as a delegate theri will be no
delegate in attendance from this cojnty.
fjT0ur hand is recovering slowly. We can
scarcely use it yet, and the little we do, it is with
great pain. We ara anxious to he comuleieiy re
covered that we may begin the campaign in earn
est. We present our readers to-day with Jthe ad
dress ot the National (Breckinridge) Central Com
m;ttee a great deaj of informal ion will be derived
from it. We would be pleased if some one would
send us the Douglas address.
National Democratic Executive Com
mittee Rooms.
28 4 STREET, WASHINGTON CITF, July 1860.
To the Democracy and, the People
of the United States :
Fellow-citizens : The election of the next Presi
dent and Vice-President of the United States is at
hand. Four distinct organizations are in the field.
The Republican party making bold and open war
upon the institutions of fifteen sovereign States of
this Union. The Constitutional Union party, repu
diating all platforms and standing simply on the
catch words "Constitution and the Union." Two
parties, each calling itself Democratic ; one, how
ever, following the fortunes of one man, Mr. Doug
las, and differing from the Republicans in making
: :j: .... t e . i .. .
msiuious, msteau oi open, war upon the south. Th
other, standing inflexibly on the Constitution of the
count-y, makes no concealments as to its interpre-
tation of that instrument, its rallying crv bein the
""'V,"1 M pu.po,e, caimiy ana
a , , u iV i 1,10
u.;iiter pany haouiu oe considered as
the Dem crat.c p arty, ail how the dearest interests
of countrv. rac anil of tinman wcrv. nr ..-,,.
corned in its succes
,i r ,
Why is it that the Democratic party is disrupted,
and its wings arrayed in bitter opposition to each
other?" Why is it that the veteran? who achieved
il? not j-jioiioi e' i iniumpiis no longer move vvuu me
old energy and harmony to meet the antagonists
tncy nave so otten defeated ; hat firebrand has
been thrown into the r mi 1st, lighting up intestine
fires, and cmsuming as with a devouring flame?
Let the plain, unvarnished record answer.
In 1850 the Democratic party,-after a most bitter
contest. . elecxeu ir...t - .i
John C. Breckinridge ice-Presi lent ot the United
States, lhe new administration was inaugurated
j and went into operation. Its policy was lorcshad
taith. That august tribunal declared tne AlTssouri
Compromise act unconstitutional and void ; enun- !
ciated the right of the South to take and hold their '
slave property in the Territories ; denied to the Ter- i
ritorial Legislature any right to interfere with such
property, and proclaimed that a Territory could
only settle the question ot s.avery at tne tune it
came to form a constitution, preparatory to its ad -
owed in the inaug ual address. Ihebupreme ( ourt, or the first time in our hisl-ry, (and we earnest- !011 cWw-VaS so liberal ana coucuiaio.jr
in a case before it, the Dred Scott case, gave its de- ly ilope thc Ust) steadi-ly and persistently enacted! iIrIiesea3La.d their friends bearury
cision on the question of difference in the Demo-; if, it iiales uiado and violated at ideasiire.ii7 -oniI Lemo.-
Democrat had solemnly pledged himself to abide by, ejt ana t!u.u overruled, as it sauted their purpose, j 4' f GEORGIA-
mission into the Union as a sovereign State. j Tiir livi'r virr
This was looked upon by all sound Democrats as ,IM V ,.
the final settlement of the question, and it was be- ! V? V"."n -0 U fVr",umMlt Organization re
lieved that the agitation of slavery would be forever ' l10!1 thf loll'wlnS rule, known as the unit rule :
withdrawn from' the halls of Congress. Who has ITT lhl ,manJr, a.tat svhlcl! uu? not 1-rovided or
kept up this agitation ? Who has resisted this de
cision ? Who has declared that: "It matters not
what way the Supreme Court may hereafter decide
as t j 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 mat
ter what the decision of the Supreme Court may be
on that abstract question, the right of the people to
make a slave Territory, or a free Territorj-, is per
fect and complete under the Nebraska bill ?" Mr.
Douglas thus, in his Illinois contest, set the people
above the Constitution, and violated his own pled
ges 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 tbo. tt.T- of rebel inii nml
insurrection in his hand, endeavoring to seduce the
l.,.rf,r fr., Ifo nrmfmlno 1 I !o fvi-j b-iru ,,,.f l,,.-.-?
IF... L , II Will ...3 Ji '1.'. J A . J llti.
fated to affiliate, with the Renublican nartv to com
pass his ends. In Oregon, they united with the
1.,l.i;r....... I., fV.,. oti.-oe! r.F f. c-f tl,!..
XtVti;711V.clliO ill LIIV Ull CfcOiO jm. n-nu j VUl (liiVl llii.,
and Mr. Logan, the leading Republican of that State,
fought the canvass on the doctrine of squatter sov
ereignty alone. In New Jersey his friends, Messrs.
Adrian and Rigg's, were returned to Congress by
the votes of the Republican party, and against the
regular Democratic party. So with Reynolds, Ilask
in, and Clarke, in New York ; with Hickman and
Schwartz in Pennsylvania; with John G. Davis
in Indiana. Republicans were returnftM to Congress
over Democrats by - the opposition, and with the
collusion of the friends of Mr. Douglas. Thus was
Arnold defeated in Connecticut, Hughes and Ray
in Indiana, Taylor and Russell in New York, Pliili -?.
Li lv, Ahl, Gillis, and Dewart, in Pennsylvania
TT.lt ill- - - ii r i -. ' . in t.,m.
.T.rf.v t T1oii.t1.is himself nil th,. wTif le"-??
vehemently opposed and denounced the Democratic j
administration in the Senate ; has refused to be gov- j
u tv.,. ;. r l.t-! -.n.-f.- - Itu 1 ,,. '
all his Democratic colleagues, with a single excep- '
tion : has voted ag iinst them, not simply on the j
vexed question of slavery, but against their nomi
nations, and has even joined the Republicans in
their effort.- to exclude from the Senate the two
Democratic Senators from the State of Indiana.
SQ UATTER SO VEREIGNT Y.
Owing his election in Illinois to thc Senate, over
his competitor, Mr. Lincoln, to the position main
tained throughout that canvass, that no matter what
was the decision of the Supreme Court," the Legis
lature of a Territory could lawfully exclude slavery
therefrom by unfriendly legislati :i, he resolved to
engraft his heresy of snuatter sovereignty, of which
this was an exemplification, upon the -creed of the
Democrat c party
and he declared in his Dorr let- '
ter that on this con lition only would he accept th
inent
came alarmed; and that it lost its confidence m nun
who once was by them trusted and admired ?
Tt must be remembered, too, that the resistence
to Mr Doii"-las' nomination was not confined to the
Southern States. It was wide-spread throughout
all the States, and was predominant m Oregon, ( al
ifornia, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey States
whose votes, with an almost unit"d South, were es
sautUl to success in the coming election. It was
also predomin int in Massachusetts.
Under suell circumstances were his chums vehe
mently urged for tho Presidency. The press, tele
graph, and every art of management was used to
secure the election of delegates favorable to his
nomination. Tha maxim of the immortal Jackson
was reversed, and the man wis made to seek the
Presideucv, not the Presidency the man.
Til'": CHARLESTON CONVENTION.
Heretofore, the delegates chosen by the Democ
racy of the IJnitod States met in N-uional Conven
tions as brothers, to consult -together in a spirit of
harmonv a J concession to tiy u wn tne pnnci-
nurtv. and t berelore likely
nomination of the Convention for the Presidency. I I 'tci pres uion oi t ie j7.-mocr.iue nTO., au 4 ro.-Thu-;
one man undertook to lay down the platform i of them insisted upon its recognition by 'lie
of ai entire party, and to place out of the pale of: Convention as the condi ion ot then- support lhey
that party it own President; all but two of it J were deniel this, and wituuivw from the Conven-S-nators-
all bat so:n2 half a dzen of its Rcpre- I tion. Th-y at least did nothing more tr.an pursue
sentatives in Congress ; to brand as anti-Democrat- .-be course which Mr D mglas announced in his
ic the platforms and the men of nearly every Stat 3 ler he would pursue i.i tne event of bis
.!.,. ;n tt... fr,.,-,.r.,. platform not bem-r adopted; for, it he eouid not
ii.i i: . : i ' t ' -1 1 ' - -1 ... . ....... . - - - .- . .....
. I 1 r Tl lrOO : 1 11 .Ml M. . i ! i;l I. lilt ' !!- ' ' - " L
r i i i i .i ..i. .i. -x j... . - r out no :l (OTiereiir, lonLi.ii-in
pies of the part', and to nominate candidates for delegate lrom Massachusetts to the National Con
the Presidency an 1 Vice-Presidency, n-it objection-j vention ; the same Convention appointed K. L.
able (in numbers) to any respectable portion of the Chaffee as his alternate. Owing to sickness, Mr.
v - L . i . . . ir. Ox... ...... 11. . ... -ii-. -i ..-
harmuiious support. For this purpose, was the j Cliano-ston, and, in bis aosen :c, .Mr. Cliattee, his
two-third rule a lopU-d in the first National Dem - j alternate, took his place. At Baltimore, however,
cratic Convention that was ever held in this coun-j Mr. Hallett was present, but the Convention actual
try; and actuated bv the motives which begot it, ! ly turned him out ; actually turned out the regular
the Democracy have repeatedly in National Con- delegate, and gave the seatto the alternated.
ventions, whenever a respectab'e opposition presen-1 MISsOLRI.
ted it.-clf, refused to nominate soaii of its ablest ! The same course was adopted in regard to the
statesmen, and by the romination of others less ! Eighth Electoral district of Missouri. Mr. John
objectionable, have inarched on to victory, and the i son B. Carder, the regular delegate, was uncere-
1 -J , -
development and enforcement of their principles. ;
It will be recollected that Mr. Van Huron received
a considerable majority at the Democratic National
Convention in 1S44, yet no one tnen contended
that he, therefore, was entitled to tne nomination.
On the contrary, tho Convention, regarding the op
position of the minority to his nomination as enti
tled to consideration and respect, refused ta nomin
ate him. but nominated Mr. Polk, f against whom
there was no objection.) and under his banner, the j
umphs. It was this principle of harmony and con
clul.v.....v -....w- r.
cession, ot respect and consideration lor 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
talismauic motto under which we marched to vic
tory the secret and the key -stone to our success.
Par different was the spirit displayed at Char
leston and Baltimore by the friends of Mr. Doug
las. They came to nominate him, or break up the
Convention. Many of their prominfcnt 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 m opposition to the nomination of Mr DoUff
las, with insult and derision. -
The Democratic States were wedded to no one
man. They had their favorites, but they pjut forth
no claim that even one of them should be nomina
ted. They were willing to take any one of the il
lustrious and distinguished statesmen of our party
except Mr. Douglas. Me had made himself obnox
ious to them for the reasons already mentioned, and
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. Was the
request an unreasonable one? Who w'll say so
when they reflect that upon the States which made
it, chiefly devolved the task of electing the nomi
nees of the Convention ? Yet the Douglas delega
tes not only turned a deaf ear to this request but
j in the"
1 - .erin
most high-umded aud reckless manner with
gious hands tor down the landmarks of tha
party und trampled upon Dem
ocratis comity and
i usages, in order to foist that one
man uDon the
j Convention. With any oaier Democrat they could
( havc h,,j haroy and" uuio.i, and presentS 5 v
: .i , . . ' - 1 . . iUlu io-u.iv
, u,e spectacle oi a unuej aud invincible party. Wet
piiL fc i;unoii-it.i; auu ' j uugment ot every
honest man. Are they not guilty of setting up
this one man as paramount to the union of the
States? Ave they not gniity of having oivided
! t'i. ivirtr '
Did they not thus take "the first Ja
' td urij rI
la stride towards disunion nf thn
States?"' From this unenviable position no ingen
uity nor device, nor wholesnle and reckless charges
agiinst others, can relieve tliem. ..'Inexorable to"-
ic stamps the grave crime uyon Jw-a's;
resenting states, nearly all of wiftcl
TT V. 1c--- ti -ynr
j entitled to dictate both the platrov
i ,.,,,. :,nd to this end the system ot
j ei
and then shamefully violated, as it accorded
with their designs- Everything was made to bend
to the one great purpose for which they assembled
tiie nomination of Mr. Douglas. It cannot cer-
tiinlv be conside ed
strange that honorable men,
should leave the Conven-
unused to s;ieh scene.
tiou, and that it was finally virtually broken up
j Tiie first act of injustice was
i uirecieu oy its state convention now its vote mav
be given, the Convention will recognize the riht of
: each delegate to cast his individual vole.'' This
.rule was in violation of the rule of all former con
; vent ions, which left to tiie delegation from each
i State the right -to determine how the vote should
i be c ist ; and it wa.. smuggled into the report of
: the committee and brought before the convention
in the following manner : At tiie fivst meeting of
the committee, when all its members were present,
this rule was brought before the committee and
; rejected. The committtjgpwent on, discharged their
I other business, and adjourned to an informal meet
ing in the morning, to embie the chairman to
make out the report and submit it to the committee
i for its approval. At this latter meeting,, when
! some six or eight members of the committee opposed
to the rule were absent, not iiuvin.r received notice !
f !l Cttll,cd me:tinS ir ter business and regarding;.
i U OI iv .lb MilUUlV UiilsucU CllO VUlC WUS UrOUirntl.
' ..... O j,
s ui i .1- o ,m i .tu.ioieta. i,i io.s curcHyeciaoiu manner?
v,aa "'Wi'-l
COUVeiltlOll.
brought befjre and adopted by tha:
By it the votes of tiie minority, iu thc delegations
of Indiana Vermont, New York, and ..hio, animnting
to 27k. or 35 delegates, opjiosed to Mr Douglas,
were thrown for him on the final ballot, aj Balti-,
more it give rim votes in Massachusetts, Tp ; Pen
nsylvania, 10; New Jersey, 2; MaryLftd, 2J;
Virginia; :.); Nca-lh Carolina, 1; Arkan4t, 1J;
Missouri, -ii; Tennessee, a; and Kentue-l 3; in
all -11 which he woaiI.1 not have received (iad the
ancient usages and rules of tiie former Conventions.
leaving the majority in each State to determine
now the vote oi
hered to. Yet th
:iate snouid be
-ieen ad
as hat
tiy urv tuat recor-
the passage of tha resolution,
before the very"
' .U9 eiasno: e
T' - .ewiry
no clamored. I
euorts 1
tni? c-il'
vention rcotu.a.
tne Douglas lele
New Jersey, where the State Core
:ded the delegates to vote- as .ur
rates overruie 1 the decision of th
President that by. the term
volition had pro''id.:Z the i.:
c-'iiun-ntiicd the Con-
for cast ing the vote
two or three Doug
oi tne fetate,
bis delegates
iad alio re i t :
to cast their individual vote's.
WITHDRAWAL OF DELI-MATES" FROM THE
CHARLESTON C(X
EN IT OX.
The record of pr.fceedin;
:;s shows this withdraw-
.A was tloni
tiie purpose
in sorrow a'i i not m anger; not lor
of disunion, but to receive instructions
from their constituents. The friends of Mr. Doug
las at least, should not compl.au. Words, how
ever, are inadequate to express thc bitterness of
their animosity. Had not the Democracy of the
South the same right to state the terms upon which
tlieV' would hoi t ieUowpnip wan tue.i siLer ciaie.-,
as J 'ougia s uau iu uicate io uicm . F'""" V'
i tneir democracy i lhe soutuern btutes gave tneir
S a C I UU1UILC, 10 logl-
c.ii.y toiioweu mat uis position was mui u ;inui-u-iilsai
and resistance both to pla.form and candidate.
Dut, notwithstanding the withdrawal of fifty-one
deleg ites, no nomination was mad.
at Charleston ;
m adjournment
a:'
d, after a struggle ot ten days,
was had to uaiauion-, under tne
following resolu-
tion :
"AV--.-deed, That when this Convention adjourns
it adjourn to reassemble at Baltimore on Mondiv,
the lcth day of June next, and that it is respectful
ly recommended to the Democratic party ci' the
several States to make provision for .supplying all
vacancies in their respective delegation o the Con
vention when it shall rc-assembi:
B A LT IMORE CON VENT 1 ON.
The Convention met at Baltimore. Most of the
States responded t.i the invitation above reoited,
and their deleg i' es presented their credentials, and
asked-admission into the Convention. Hoy were
t!?ev treated bv the friends of Mr. Douglas ?
BOUS DELEGATES MASSACHUSETTS.
Benjamin F. Hallett wa
regularly appointed a
.... ..... , . . . .
moniousiy ousteu oat or ins .seat, anu Mr. u Gallon
the conthigen", voted in. Heretofore, i has alwavs
been considered that the alternate acted only in
the absence of tho principal, but this Convention
gravely determined that the true test for admission
into that Convention consisted in an affirmative an
swer to the question, Are you for the nomination
of Stephen A. Douglas ?
LOUISIANA AND ALABAMA.
Th next was to vote out the regular (U
, fPfwl, th. Sfntf. r.f I,ouistana. who we.r r.
appointed to Baltimore by tne contention mat ori
ginally appointed them, and also to exclude the reg
ular delegetcs from Alabama, who were appointed
by a new convention called by the Democratic com
mittee of the State. The history of the case is
this: After the secession at Charleston, the Demo
cratic Central Committee of Louisiana, the only as
sociation in that State having the power to assem
ble the Democracy in convention, called together
the State convention, representing every connty in
the State, and that convention reappointed the same
delegates to Baltimore. A few irresponsible men
i-uos, wmcn iaif i
l . . . C il V . I . 1 .... .1 T.ni.
to rcjeivj its unucl and i riauett was uuauie to aitenu me convention at
M?n at which the Democracy
r.- represented. In the case of
rf- -atic Central Committee called
V elected by the Democracy
lQvies This convention met, and
r . delegates to Baltimore.- A
, uuwuver, issuea a call, publisi
, iu iue state, address-
frDenini'r.ii'ir nf U.K.
v-ymcn met and appointor tfc w
ie .of whom never Demo
tUfe, and who opepV ivowed that
' Baltimore to rot or Mr- Douglas,
up the Democratic party! Yet
idnal convention voted out the regu
'T5y the Democracies of these
;ii;the bogus delegates !
M KANSAS.
ft Arkansas, the Congressional Con-
jgtate which nominated the Deino
" - for ; Congress, re appointed the
itimore. Yet this Convention delibe-Vi-the
regular delegates so elected in
ict ; ".while they declared that the reg
4 fleeted in the same manner, in the
lwere eu titled to their seats! and
ice ttf tne resolution of the Democrat-
ivention of Arkansas instructing the
Vote as
iiv.- j ..t : i t: f
a uuu, anu in uuer v iuiuiiuu ui ;
tto, they divided the vote of
nit resol
' iing the bogus delegates trom tne nrst
) Hht to cast one vote, and the regular
rom the second district two votes ; nay.
ent further, and resolved that, in case
'dtlesrates from the second district did
bogus delegates from the first district
ite5-M vote of the State ! And yet,
.we are 1
he Comuott.ee
tol& bV y-lr ..vt of the
- Till" I CUV -
eorzia.
s called a State Conation for the purpose of
tig the seceding legates repudiated by the
ocracy of that State. Every shade ot the
c-;itic party of thc State participated in tne
.. . m . - . 7
ion ot delegates. l ne uonventiou iner, anu
taking a vote, the seceding or regular delega
ere sent back to Baltimore, by a vote of 299
tol. The forty-one Douglas delegates then bolt
edand also appointed delegates. Yet the Douglas
Cjnmittee on Credentials at Baltimore, in defiance
ajin of the resolution of the Georgia Convention
intructing their delegates to vote as a unit, and in
uir violation of their own rule upon the subject,
rdprted in favor of dividing the vote of the State,
on tig one-half to the regular delegates, and one
It f to the bogus appointees of the 41 bolters !
1 t this was too great an outrage even for this
i uvention, and they voted to admit the regular
v. egates, and thus placed the brand of bogus upon
tt i brow of II. V. Johnson, the Douglas candidate
it Vice-President ! Commenting upon this action,
tli Douglas Executive Committee - haracterizes it
rJan "extravagance of liberality !"
If hus was the Democracy of sovereign States
ntonly disfranchised in a .National Convention,
I thus were Democrats compelled to give up all
fovshp with men so regardless of their own hon-
and the welfare and unity ot the Democratic
rty.
R. DOUGLAS NOT NOMINATED BY A TWO-
THIRDS VOTE.
But it is claimed that Mr Douglas was nomina
ted oil a two-thirds vote. The Douglas Executive
Committee, iu a recent address, declare :
"After all secessions, as well as the refusal of
pertain delegates from Georgia and Arkansas, to
gether with the entire delegations from Texas and
Mississippi to occupy their seats, our National Con
vention at Baltimore yet returned 424 delegates, or
212 electoral votes ; being ten more than two-thirds
of the electoral votes of the whole Union. But
soine of these delegates (as in the case of Georgia)
refrained from voting, the majority of the delega
tion having retired ; others, (as iu the case of Ar
kansas,) althouglrfull delegations, and authorized,
in case of any secession, to cast the whole vote of
th-ir State, preferred only to cast that which would
ole a fair proportion between the seceders and them-
ypg and vet, o! hers i.-i i u, tp- -r --;
lihSOri1 rtneliiip.l to vm,. nf I , .l
f . - . , L ...iuuj if aeeucie.
accounts for the fact that, upon the second bal-
ot, ; 0)1 Glares. .Mr. . ouarlas received onlv TSli
votes ; Mr. Breckinridge receiving lot, Mr. Guth
rie 4 votes, the States of South Carolina (eight) and
Florida (three having authorized no delegates to
any Convention at Baltimore. Here is the ballot
as recorded :
Breckinridge
Guthrie.
000
000
000
000
00
000
000
010
2
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
n
000
000
000
000
000
000
Douglas.
7
5
5
10
4
35
2
10
2i
3
1
9
6
Maine, 000
Nw Hampshire, 000
Vermont, 000
Massachusetts 000
Rhode Island, 000
Connecticut, 4
New York, 000
New Jersej-, 000
Pennsylvania, 10
Maryland, 000
Virginia, 000
North Carina, . 000
Alabama, 000
Louisiana, 000
Arkansas, 000
Missouri, 000
Tennessee, 000
Kentucky, 000
Oliio, ono
Indiana, 000
Illinois, 000
Michigan, 000
Wisconsin, "000
Iowa, 000
Minnesota, QUO
3
3
23
13
11
0
5
4
000
4
On motion of Mr. Clark, of Missouri, at the in
stance of Mr. Hodge, of Virginia, the question was
then propounded from the Chair, whether the nom
ination of Douglas should or should not be. without
further cevemonj, the unanimous act of the Con
vention, and of all the delegates present ; the Chair
man distinctly requesting that any delegate who ob
jected (whether or not having voted) should signify
his dissent. No delegate dissented; and thus at
last, was Stephen A. Douglas unanimously nomin
ated ia a Coiiventi u representing more than two
thirds of till the electoral votes, as the candidate of
the Demoerotic party for the Presidency of tho Un
ited States.
Was it irregular th-us to propose a candidate ? If
so, Lewis Cass was irregularly nominated at Balti
more, in 184S, which no man ever pretended, for
theame method wa3 adopted in his case. '
Pirslrlt is not true that General Cass was nomi
nated, in 1843, in a similar manner. Such a pro
cedure, the nomination of a candidate bv resolution
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 Convention.
This resolution was another innovation upon Dem
ocratic 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
tho time in the Baltimore, AVashington, 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 du
ties as a presiding officer, to dictate to delegates
what course they should pursue, or to bind them
by his mere. ijtwe dixit. Each delegate had the right
to vote, or not to vote, s to him seemed proper;
and of, this he was the sole judge, answerable for
his course to his constituency alone. The Conven
tion had decided that, in accordance with the estab
lished 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 181J, and the whole number cast 196. How
were 202 votes for Mr. Douglas to be manufactured
out of 196 votes all told, 14 of which were cast
against him ?
Eighteen delegates remained in the Convention
as spectators, taking no Dart whatsoovpr 5n its de-
I liberations, and expressly declaring that they were
not bound by its decision. Various devices were
deleeates to vote.
m r
tried to compeLjSered a resolution declaring Mr.
Church of iiunee, when he had received only
Douglas thrWe quote the following proceeding
(gfh ensued : -
: Innrllu- Railed for.
K qunuuu n aa J - - -i
i t r Ponnovlvitma. said he was ready
k nnminnR of the Convention when he
all be nominated by the rules of the Democratic
snail De nouiM- j j,m;0i that two-
nartv At Cnaneston iw bvw.. --. -
thirds of aU the electoral college was necessary to a
nomination. , ; ior
obiectea tnac aeoatc - "
"The President (Mr. Todd) so ruled . .
'Mr Jones raised a question of order-that the
rule adopted at Charleston could not oe
except on one day's notice Charleston,
rule or insiruwwu K tmnbled
York had come here to pour u
7 4-..;fV,f,.llv pndeivvored to do so.
1,1.1 fK revisions which existed He proceedea
condemn the action of the seceding delegat as.
"Mr VT 8 Gittings. of Maryland entered a pro
tv.. TM-onositions of Mr. Cnurcn, oi
west asicnoc j--t- , . . , iuCf that
t .r l 4 rn c
aaopreu ai "" .o..-
two.thirds of all the votes of the electoral coiic e
was required to nominate
"TUe Chair explained, that at Charleston the then
. . . ? nrii.i:r. tor rrcsiucni.
president was instructed not to ?cr"
nominated unless he received two-thirds of the votes
of the electoral college, (202 votes.)
nr n:.: , o.,i.l thprn were tWO-tnirtU OI tne
electoral collefe here, and if gentlemen voted who
Wlin.l vote. Douslas would be uominated bj a
ballots to see what gentlemen would do, and that ar
-sSVltaw.Tiis resolution.
th-.-A h iioDeu mere huuw
'Mr. Hoge, ot lrginla, saia io.-"I..'''trs;-:
be no more ballots, and if those gentlemen who de
cliued to vote did not vote, he should treat them as
out of the Convention.
j "Mr. Church then withdrew his i esolution till ano
ther ballot was had."
Yet, after this notice served upon thes-e 18 delega
tes, they again refused to vote ; and it is simply ridi
culous to say that the President could record their
votes as cast iu f.ivor of the resolution. Mr. Church
boldly declared that the resolution was intended to
change the rule of instruction adopted at Charles
ton,' ' requiring u two-thirds vote to nominate the
candidate-
Of t'ae 18 delegates who remained in the Conven
tion as spectators, five .ere from Kentucky, six from
Delaware, aud seven from Missouri.
Th live delegates lrom Kentucky filed a written
protest, in which they stated that ibough they remain
ed in the Convention, they "will xot' fahiicipatk in
its deliberations, nor hold ourselves or our constitu
ents bouxd by its action'- but leave both at full liber
ty to act as future circumstances may dictate;" (sign
ed by O. A. Caldwell, W. V. Williams, W. Bradley,
Samuel B. Field, and Thos, J. loung.)
Mr. Saulsbtiry; of Delaware, announced, in behalf
of the six delegates trom his State who remained m
the Convention, but refuse ' to vote, that "in future
they should DEcraxK to vera, reserving 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-third vote for Mr. Douglas !
NO OPPORTUNITY GIVEN TO DISSENT FROM
THE RESOLUTION NOMINA I NG MK. DOUG
LAS. But even admitting that the President did give
notice that those who did notohjoct should be cou
nted in favor of the resolution ; even admitting the
proposition that his mero ipse dixit had the power
to bind the delegates who did not dissent, even in
the face of their declarations that they would not
vote, we now proceed to sho v that no opportunity
was afforded to auy delegate to object to the passage
of the resolution. The extract of the proceedings
which we have heretofore quoted, slftws that debate
upon this resolution was decided to be out of order;
land, under this ruling, Mr. Jones of Pennsylvania,
who rose to enter his dissent, was unceremoniously
gagged. Having thus closed their mouths, tSiis
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 14J votes
given ior Air. isreciunridge and -Mr. .tuthne be
wmmea-ivs navurg beaife'asr. ror tne resolution decl
aring Mr. Douglas the nominee. Hiving steadily,
through repeated ballots, voted against Ma-. Douglas,
they were not allowed to object lo the resolution
when it was offered, nor even given the opportunity
of voting against it. Here are the proceedings at
this stage :
-ur. Clarke then moved to de dare Stephen A.
Douglas the Democratic nominee for the Presi
dency. Applause-
Mr. Hoge, of Virgnia offered a resolution to that
effect, which was read-
The resolution declaring S. A. Douglas the unan
imous choice of the Convention for tlu Presidency
was adopted by a shout of lsa3'es and cheeers, 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 infacor of the resolution was aloixe taken!
The negative vote teas not put to the. Convention !
But, as if still further to demonstrate that the
eighteon delegates from Kentucky, Delaware, and
M issouri, took no part at all in the proceedi n -e wg
call attention to the vote for Vice Presi lent w.'ten
they again reuse lo vote I '
SEVEN VOTES FROM GEORGIA AND Vi
KANSAS COUNTED IN DEFIANCE . F THF
UNIT RULE.
GEORGIA.
But the nine votes counted for the 18 dcleo-ate-who
refuse to vote, with the 14 votes cast forties
srs. Breckinridge and Lane, added to the ld given
for Mr. Douglas, gives only a total of 205, seven
less than the vote claimed by this coinittee. Where
do they get the remaining seven votes ? From
Georgia and Arkan3s. The State of Georgia was
entitled to 10 votes in the Convention, to be cast by
20 delegates. The Democracy 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 ot the State. Eleven of the
delegates remained in the Convention, but the major
ity who seceded protested against these eleven. being
allowed to vote, and the Convention decided " bv a
. . .. X" 1 4C . - 1 I I, . .L..i a! ' -
vote oi ao io iw, mat inose remaining trom that
State were not, under the unit rule, entitled to vote.
At Baltimore, the seceding delegates from Georgia
reappointed by the State Convention, refused to
take their seatej; but one of them- (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 maj
ority 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 delegates
who had no right to vote, and never did vote in the
Convention, who are now represented as delegates
by the Douglas Committee, and pressed into the
service, for the purpose of manufacturing a two
third vote for Mr. Douglas!
ARKANSAS. .
Uader the decision of the convention, the two dele
gates, Messrs. Flournoy and Stirman, who remain
ed in the convention at Charleston, were allowed to
cast one vote ; the three bogus delegates from the
first Congressional district, one vote ; and the with
drawing delegates who were reaccredited to Baltimo
re, two votes. Tho latter declined to take their
seats, md Mr. Stirman withdrew.
He is thus reported :
"Mr. Stirman, of Aikansas, when his State was
called, said, iu justice to himself and with sorrow
he parted with the Convention, he could not longer,
remain after what had been done."
Thus a majority of the delegates actually admitt
ed to the convention had withdrawn or refused to
take their seats, and, under the unit rule, the mino
rity had no right to vote. Yet the committee have
couutad both the 4 vote of Mr. Stirman, who hall
withdrawn, increased the one vote awarded by the
convention to the bagus three, to a vote and a half
and thus secured an additional vote from Arkansas
in favor of the resolution. In this way the Doug
las Committ got six additional votes from Georgia, '
and onetrom Arkansas In favor of the resolution
In this way the Dottglas Committee got six additi- .
onal votes from Georgia, and one from Arkansas in
favor of the resolution, thus increasing their hgures
from 205 to 213 fcOtes. . -
ACTUAL VOTEJJAST FOR MR. DOUGLAS.
We now nroDose to show, beyond caviL that even
the vote (18J)- given by the? Douglas Executive
Committee, in the foregoing taDie, as niving oeen
cast for Mr. Douglas, is Dasea op. error, iet us ex
amine the matter.
ilassuchusetts is : put down at IU rotes lor Mr.
Douglas, when they were only ten delegates entitl
ed to cast -five votes remaining in the Convention
from that State. Massachusetts had thirteen votes,
represented by. 26 delegates ; sixteen oi these dele
gates withdrew, and joinad the Breckinridge and
Lane Convention, leaving we repeat, but ten dele
gates to cast five votes.
Vermont was represented by 10 delegates, with
the riht to cast five votes. She is reported as hav
ing "iven the whole five to Mr. Douglas, instead of
4JT one of the delegates (Mr. Stoughton) having
with drawn, anu jomeu me """i ..w....,
Minnesota is recorded as having cast her fall vote
for Mr. Douglas, when three of her delegates entitl
ed to H votes, refused to vote for him, and with
drew from the Convention :
"Mr Becker, of Minnesota, said he and two ot
his colleagues desired to announce me conclusion t
which they had arrived -v they went to Charleston
and came to Baitimore, actuated only by a desire to
promote tbejiarmony, union, and integrity of tho
Democratic party ; but unfortunately tor them and
the country, their desires ana enoias mum wi,Cu ,
they had been ready for any excrtious and sacrifices
to promote theis object, and they now took this step
in view of the responsibilities resting upon tnem be
fore ihe people. In conclusion, he announce,! their
determination to vacate their seats, taking with them
nal Demlcum, "w "
Pennsylvania is put down as having given twenty
two-and a-haflf votes, when 12 of her delegates en
titled to six votes withdrew and joined tho other
Convention. As Pennsylvania is only entitled to
27, she cast one and one-half more votes for Mr.
Douglas th in her delegation were entitled to
Virginia appears to have given 3 votes for Mr.
Douglas, when only five of the delegates, entitled to
2i votes, remained in the Convention.
2Torlh Carolina had but one delegate, entitled to
cast one half a vote in the Convention, yet he is re
corded as having east oue vute.
Tennessee, with oly five delegates in thc Conven
tion, is put down at 3, instead of li.
New York is put down at 33 votes, when it is well
known that two of l:er delegates withdrew from tho
Convention, and joined tho other Convention.
These make a total of 11 votes, which added to
tho 18 bogus delegates from Alabama, the 12 bogus
delegates from Louisiana, and the 3 bogus delegates
from Arkansas, counting 1G votes, make a total of
27votes to be substvacted from the ldl, leaveiug
the vote of Mr. Deuglas at only lot !
FORCED VOTES.
Rut even this was a forced vote forced by a vio
lation of the usages of the D'miocrate party, by
which the votes ot 31 delegates from New York, in
addition to the two abjve alluded to. 12 from Ohio,
and 9 from Indiana making a total of 52 delegates
entitled to 20 votes, hostile to the nomination of
Mr. Douglas, were voted for hini. Subtract these
from 154, and it leaves 123, as the actual .strength
of Mr. Douglas in the Convention!
Had the rules and usages of former Conventions,
weerejby theB ote'of each State was tobe determin
ed by the majority of the delegates, been followed,
Mr. Douglas would have gained 1 vo o in Maine,
2 votes in Connecticut, and lost 2!) in Massachust
ts, 2 in New Jersy, 10 in Penu-sylvania, 2i in
Maryland, 3. in Virginia, 1 in North Carolina, 14 iu
Arkansas, 4 in Missouri, 3 in Tennessee, rv in
Kentucky, making ii net loss f 37 to which ad I
the votes of Alab.iuii V, and Louisi urr t, redresent
e I by -the bigus delegates, wit" w uld not the have
gained ad ni.s-.ion into tho Convention, and we have
52 1- votes to be deducted from 131 J, leav ing 12!) as
the true vote un ler tho rule of former Conventions
really cast for Mr. Douglas in t'i; Convention.
CONVENTION AT THE MARYLAND INSTI
TUTE. 105i votes wore cast for IVesi lent, to which
must be addel i vot" from Minnesota, 3 votes from
JJawMrep ja J -.-r oUtA fro.n ISo-itU Carolina, w'u?
took no part in the nomination ot .Mr, IJouglas, and
wlio before either Convention a.lj mrned endorse
the action ot ihe Miry land Institute Convention,
making in all 117 votes.
This number has boin si.i -c largely increased bv
the endorsement of deVjgatd f?tho rdiouriunont
of tho Conventions, who took no part in thu t.rocee-
umgs oi either, or who, having taken part in tho
Douglas Convention, have siu.-o repudiated its ac
tion. Thus neither Co ivention has presented a candi
date nominated by two-thirds of the votes of tho
electoral colleges, Which, therefore, is entitled
to the support of the Democracy, as the embodi
ment of its principles, and as endorsed bv th
weight aad influence of the party ?
Thc Com mittee to whom we hive referred charge
that we ure the disunion party, and therefore are
not entitled to support, Let us consider tho plat
forms of the two Conventions, and make some inqu
iries into the antecedents ol its oendidttes and sup
porters. .
PLATFORMS OF TIIE TWO CONVENTIONS
IN REGARD TO SLAVEKV.
The platform of the Mar bin 1 Ins it ate Conven
tion, endorsed at Charleston by seventeen sovereign
States, is as follows :
liPirst. That the government of a Territory org
anized by an act of Congress is provi-ion.l and
temporary; and during its existence, all citizens of
the United States have on equal right to setile with
their property in the Territory without their rights,
either of person or property, being destroyed or im
paired by Congressional or Territorial legislation.
'Second. That it is the duty of the Federal Gov
ernment, in all it ; departments, to protect when
necessary, the rights of persons and property in the
Territories, and wherever else its constitutional au
thority extends.
Third. That when the the settlors in a Territory
having an adequate population, to form ;a State
Constitution, the right of sovereignty commences;
and being consummated by admission into tho
Union, they stand on an equal tooting with the peo
pie of other States; and the State thus organssied
ought to be admitted into theFrederal Union, whe
ther its Constitution prohibits or recognizes the in
stitution of slavery."
That of the Front Street Theatre Convention, is
as follows :
"Resolved, That we, the Democracy othelJ-.ion
in convention assembled, Jiereby declare.our affirma
tion of the resolutions unamiously adopted and de
clared as a platform of principles by the Democratia
Convention at Cincinnati, in the year 1850, believ
ing that Democratic principles are unchangeable
in their nature when applied to the same subject
matter. "Resolved, That A is in accordance with the true
interpretation of the Cincinnati Platform, that dur
ing the existence of Territorial governments, the
measure of restriction, whatever it may be, imposed
by the Federal Constitution on the powers of a
Territorial legislature over the subject of domestic
relations, as the same has been or shall hereafter bo
finally determined by the Supreme Court of the
United States, should be respected by all good citiz
ens, and enforced with promptness and fidelit3r by
every branch of the Federal Government.
Referring to our platform, the Douglas Commit
tee say that "nothing could be more vague and un
satisfactory then these resolutions ; they deal in
'truisms' of the tamest siguificance, or rather , aJ
the controversy then stood, of no significance at
..ii " t i ii ' &. ..... r
all."
" oe wen w pause nere ana pome atien:
tion to the fact that this Doue-las committee shrink
from the task of taking issue with these resolutions
and that they thus virtually admit that they contain
no doctrine to condemn. Let the Douglas speake
rs in the North who have been ringing the charge
of ''slave code,'' -"slave , code," take notice of the
virtual admission of their , Executive Committee
that the resolutions contain no such doctrine.
The coin m ittee were wise in not attacking a plat
form which defies assault.
EXPOSITION-OF THE PLATFORM OF THE
NATIONAL DEMOCRACY.
The first resolution emphatically declares that
"the government of a Territory organized by an act
ofCongress is provisional and temporary, " there-