Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1843-06-09
ADDRESS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA CONVENTION.


The differences of opinion among the portions OF the
Democratic party are approaching crisis The ques
OF concession, harmony, union for the sake OF
principles, will soon be settled favoraby, shall
fully realize the extent Of divisions, the nature and
the cause of them.
The question OF time, involving only expediency,
courtesy, and lberality, will be yielded. Thoroughly
convinced as was, of the propriety OF holding the
National Convention and making the nominations be-
lore the meeting of Congress, vet | prepared 10
yield this point, and to CRAFTY the wish of those who
prefer poslponement until May, 1874. For one, am
ready to concur in general understanding, that the
Democratic Convention shall be held in May, 1914, in
The city of Baltimore. You will remember, that in the
address adopted in our Convention, nothing IS said Of
time or place, and that they purposely omitted
because they involved principles and, therefore, il
was preferred TO embody in simple resolution mere
recommendation OF time and place. If the time thus
recommended by us, is not generally acceptable Why
we OF course, must cheerfuy yield il, for the sake OF
harmony and good feeling
But there are other differences OF opinion which may
and, regret TO say probably WILL constitute an insupe
rabe obstacle TO the entire and complete union OF our
party in Convention, and consequently to their subse-
quent harmonious cooperation. The South Carolina
Convention has taken the position that the election OF
delegates from each State be by Districts, and that
the members Of the Convention must vote per capita
South Carolina insists, that every State in The Union
must conform to her plan f this be not their mean
ing, what do they mean,) We have declared in our
address, that s'each State be left free, and acu
be free TO pursue its favorite plans, and to ADOPT lis
own course of intermediate action The delegates from
each State, ho,cerer appointed, must be permitted 10
meet in grand council and participate in the debera
tons and decisions Of the Convention" Here, then,
is the radical, fundamental difference. No State will
Weld 10 the dctum Of another State. Each Stale
will proceed to appoint its own delegates in its own
mode, and according 10 Democratic usage. VIII South
Carolina attempt to exclude the delegates not chosen
according TO her prescription? Failing in this, as fail
she must will she withdraw from the consultations and
mar the harmony Of the Democratic family
II seems TO me- in all candor, that Virginia and the
other States concurng with her in the doctrine of her
Address have decided advantage in position and
eument We make question as TO The mode of ap
pointment. We make no question as to the mode in
which each State shall give lis influence in the Con.
We only insist, that no State shall exceed its
relative weight in the actual election in the popular
mode of the Constitution. Those who object to our
respective modes must take upon themselves the un-
gracious task of attempting TO exclude US from the
Convention, to white down to single vote
Our Convention has settled the mode of appointing our
delegates well the principle upon which her vote
shall be cast in the Convention She will adhere TO
-she ought surrender IT, 1t would be TO aban
don principle, aud to submit to be shorn Of her just
weight in the Convention. The ntmation, that Vr
gnia if she attempts to vote according to the plan OF
our Convention, must be whitfield down to equality
with Delaware not only absurd and ridiculous, but
insulting. If The body of delegates from Virginia offer
the united electoral power of the State in favor Of the
nomination of her CHOICE and refuse 10 be broken into
Fragments why then, says the South Carolina Conven-
ton, they must be content, not 10 be cypher, but N
until This would be- not only 10 bring US down TO an
equality with noble little Delaware, but 10 reduce US
far below her dimensions in the Convention possibly.
Delaware is State and Congressional District She
OF the weight of three votes favor of The
same individual. Whilst, according 10 the South Ca.
rolina Convention, Virginia should give one vote as
State. Or, says South Carolina, she may seem to give
fifteen votes If she will split them up, to the
risk of giving, in effect, but one vote We may give,
indeed, seventeen votes nine for person and eight
for another; whilst Delaware niH give three unani
votes and thus have three times the Influence OF
Virginia. or perhaps n. York, Pennsylvania Ohio,
in the nomination But suppose the delegates should
represent districts in the State, who, election ny
general ticket, should give prepondeatng Democratic
majority, Ought they TO be overrued in Convention by
the single district system or by divided per capita
vote? Ought large, popular majority to be stiled in
the nomination, by arbitrary conventional arrangements,
and then that majority unblushingly asked to aid IN
the election after being denied iar opportunity OF
expressing preference, and perhaps securing the sue
cess Of that preference In such case indeed, the
nomination, If ac9uesced in, would virtually settle
the election, and the formay Of voting would be an
useless and idle ceremony, far giving expression
to the popular will was designed. Virginia, with near
y all the Staies by general Ticket thus securing
unanimity among the members of the Electoral Col
lege and avoiding the hazard of division. The South
Carolina Convention condemns and critcises this mode
but does not pretend that it is unconstitutional or de-
mand lis REIMBURSEMENT. Virginia, then, may con-
sttu,onally unanimity in her seventeen votes
in the actual election but to effect the thing
Convention mereiyto consult and nominate, is hete
rodox and damnab,e, "desructive of the most import
ant Of all the compromises of The Constitution, the
! Fundamental compromises which the whole rests.
And this bold and extraordinary declaration, the South
Carolina Convention has most fatsuingy and fruit
lessly labored to explain and demonstrate. Why, all
the argument and commentary, and historical ustrs.
H. L.al.
subvert plain TRUTH or obscure palpable fact,
perceptble upon simple statement of the case, to the
duest capacity. If State may rghtfully and con.
sti,utonally unanimty in her electoral VOTE it
perfectly clear, self evident, that she may, through
her delegation in Convention, speak with unanmity in
the recommendation Of candidate, without Destroy
ing all the compromises of the Constitution.
1t is conceded, that the relative weight Of the
States fixed by the Constitution, in the eieciion of
Preside and Vice President should be preserved in the
selection and nomination of candidates This relative
weight in the election consists Of the right Of each
State to appoint, in such the Legislature
thereof may direct number of electors equal TO the
whole number Of Senators and Representatives Now,
in National Convention there authority 10 pre-.
scribe the mode of appointment Of members to Ii
the number of delegates; and the safeguard against
any mischief undue advantage from excess of mum.
bers the reverse, to restrict each State in Con
ven,ion 10 its relative weight in the election. And If
the electors may be appointed the Legislature may
Qrect, ana Inc Legislature uy so oTeCt US 10 BE-
cure the election Of the whole number in conformity
with the wish of The aggregate majority Of the
whole Slate, and so as 10 preserve the plural voice
of the electors and their unanmty also, (al OF which
is conceded to he constlutional,)- South Carolina
can even secure that unanatty by giving the appoint
ment of all her electors 10 her Legislature the only
State which preserves that mode, and mode which 10
deemed by many TO be inconsistent with the Cons!i'u-
tion because that instrument provides, that The Elect
ors in each State may be appointed as the Legislature
thereof may direct TO be DONE form of expression,
which seems TO authorize them to direct to be done,
bu, not TO do il itself: then, may not the people Of
the State, in The selection of delegates to Conven
ton, adopt their mode, direct The manner of ap
pointment SO as 10 secure result agreeable to the de-
sire of majority Of the whole number in the State,
preserving its due number of votes yet securing unan'
nifty among them, without running the rsk OF excom-
relative weight Of the States, and denounced for de-
signing 10 destroy the Fundamental compromises upon
which our whole system res,s' lfeach State. voting BY
general ticket Spected to give her undirded vote for
The nominees of The Convention then not only II per-
se,y right and just but good policy thateach State
thus vong may have the opportunity of exercising the