Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1844-02-10

South majority 9th. Republican, party in the Union
shona also enable her 10 BE- IL Il ihfon the ..Secutvs
whenever That fa'y 10 the ascendancy ard would
De so, II she had the weight 10 winch se - Justly On.
uted IN the nominating Convention The old Con.
gtesFnnal caucus, however Objectionable IN other r..
sPeols was efnInenly iair IN distribution Of pore
according 10 party strength amongst TIE different sec
t'o.s OF The conederacy lis nom,na;ous were gens-
rally successiul, The harmony oil the Republican psrty
wa better preserved than Substitution of the
National Convention, and The South lad some nacence
IN The General Government. Tie power hlch eec.
ed, also nominated The canddata, ard thus much uc.
castor Tor scontent removed. The strength -
each State vas estimated by tie number OF Republican
members u sent 10 Congress- abd this test was not
perfectly lar, II was nearly enough for practical
purposes In referring to this mode, by wici. jelir.
son, Madison aud Monroe nominated il MT cur
purpose 10 seek TO revive that condcmned institution
We only advert 10 I 10 show st IT had one Cardinal
exct ilsnce, which has never recommended any Naoe
al Convention that has yet bee" constituted we have
advered - IL to show, that billet Tie same vasg &C.
minated which elected the Preside y
some power in tn Federal Governments nd soma IT,.
in"nce IN the Executive whilst ihe Il publican part,
continued 10 accumulate strength its:ead OF losing a.
al each Pre- slider al Election
since the Substitution Of the National Convention
ho"eVer,as 1t has been usually ofgan III. influence
o The South has continually declined and the ascsr.
oancy OF The Republican Party has become more ird
more doubtful How could II be oth.fn So s. hen s.,
us Constitution, II every nop,iavsho'dag :t1e nere
Federal, they woulG still have he controlling voice ~
me nominating contention Of the Reputl lean Party
10 Naiiona! Convention, properly organizsd y q o.
not object the CONTRARY, wc wGuld prefer 4. "a .
Congressional caucus Distribute rowec among IA.
States, according 10 tber relative patty strength aad
so organize u, that II shall express the sense ol 10
people oil the party, and VII acknowledge liz vslaa
as an institution, and chee..ully submit i!s a.atus
But we never acknop ledge he Justice oi ~ oggar
zaon which peIpetually DISTINGUISHES The S:uli sut
IN addition - the Legislative, throws The Aoe Exc
cutive power INTO the hands o.; the sla:chaa.ng
A oi tufi lana ttrv,
the South share ~ The Presidential! Election whch
OF isrli, would enforce respect ft her interests
and some fcgad far her feelings. Is here any thing
~ The present aspect n POLITICAL ainfs induce her
to part with &"y portion ct her just stare Of power
to submit 10 voun airy and perpetual ds(ranchse.
ment OF he! sons, 50 Ear the Presidency Is con-
cerncd On the contrary, The increasing dangers
which threaten the South and IT. Institutions OF pre-
sent, would 10 enhance the importance Of all our
means OF se!i-de!encP, aad amongst those means meme
can be more valuable than the share Of power we nay
have IN the Presidential Election, daily nd
monshed by the a-absorbing interest which rr peo-
pie take in thai Gurs'ion, and by the immense nnence
both direct and indirect, which - President eyer.
cises over the Legislation and the public opinion OF the
country.
But these are not the only objections to Ike probable
organization Of the National Convention II IL pro.
posed, that each State shall give Il consolidated vots in
proportion to It's strength in the Electoral colleges
The nomination is II be made by States, each giving
vote nearly proportion to It's federal hunters and
thus violate not only the federave principe Of
equality between The States esab shed by the Con
slitulion in The event Of Presidential election by
States but also the principle OF popular representations
which evidently The mode preferred by The fromeIs
of that instrument. We know that this principle Of
action, anomalous to Constitution, has been JUS
titled the ground that each State hrs right TO pre-.
scribe the mode IN which It's vote shall he cast and 10
determine whether the majority shall give whole
Of the State each Electoral district give lis ~.
dividual vote And yet those who have asserted this
right in broad terms have undera 10 impose one H.
mtatIon-no State rs u give more votes IN the Con.
vention, than II is entitled the Electoral college
If the unlimited right exists in Siae, whence the
authority 10 impose his restriction; and Il the right 10
not unlimited, why do the restrictions stop here is IL
not an nmuiab!c principle of natural equity and ms
tee that you must your l.ghl as
njnre the equal right Of another:
4 In the question Of distribution of power amongst
the different States, is IL not absurd to Tor each
State the rigitp exercise much power II chooses
the contrary, is not tins question 10 be determined
by the rules Of justice and the anaioges OF the Con
sttuon: In what co-parinery has 1t ever been es,s
bllsled rule that each partner should take what
ever portion Of the profits he might clam How, j:
each should claim a How then il the rule 10 be
cu,sd' mag be sad however ;hai IN limiting the vote
Of each STATE strength the Electoral College,
obvate the difficulty Blu, how. IT TINS should give
vastly relative power io those Who cast than
are entitled 10 when compared Nth other States tho
s,me Conventions The States oe Massachusetts, or
Kentucky, may be hopelessly fre'al TIE Republican
party Int constitute lhrd oi the OF
these States, and bare majority Of HAT minority,
stiiutng sixth Of the votrs that State, ght
thus give nearly many votes as Virginia, in which The
Republican party have the undouhtel asccndancy.--
And thus, minority in Safe which can By =
possibility give Electoral vote The Republican,
candidate, is allowed nearly much weight in the
nominal ny Convention, three-!old the number III
another State, which wonld almost certainly cast ts
whole electoral vote lo. that rGnijpee fias Mat
jory in strong Republican Sac, nothing 10 say 10
the claim of power thus n.tde By inpoent minority
in a Federal STATE; Again, in The : at; of New York
there may be Democratic major ty bat The qufs.
Of candidates, that majority might be- nearly equally
divided ahlls, III the State Of South Carolina the dis
trics. night bc unanimous. The votes OF the atter.
united 10 those Of the New York districts .ccng with
them, might represent a large majority Of The people
OF the party in those Sa'es, whilst under The Vro.
posed sy.tei, lean minority OF those psope, sud
bare majority q: the districts 10 Ne" York. night
cast nri'y of the votes vi those States N 1
different candidate. Have the friends Of on election
by he peopl,. nothing 10 say n syicn y lich sg'
nally defeats their great ed: have thu iaaet Sa'e
nothing to say t, II, If They believe tsa' this sYstem
swells The power of the i-:.e : st begoGd ~ dec
proportion, whilst it diminish fh. of ihe smaller be
meath their proper measure: And yet II Is notorious
that such mn.t be the sst'tnate ot 'his 5gs'em =
.hc smaller States If tiey leve nnGeu' teddy thcy
do thai the larger States 2. q: eli
mate soil and pol tica sniGrnce, are more lhe to d.
Visions of sentiment than tho.e 1t less extent oil te
territory and OF smaller population.
If we desire to elect iI:e President by the repre-
senatives Of The people, the former vew IS conclusive
sense of the people, the perfectly IS their viii
expressed, and the more nearly does the President
become The representative "f the people OF I'll TIE
States IT. on the other hand, c.s'rc to elect tho
President by Stats the Com ti'uton hos estab!ished
the principle Of equality IN the distribution Of po~e:
among the States, ard under cI!cunstances ~hct
empha,icallv maxi THIS provision IS one eli the MaH
conside and leading Inducements 10 The smaller
States 10 accsde 10 the corsderacy. Upon what pre-
tence, then, the smaller States requested to agree
10 this Anomalous ds;ripuon OF p5wer tie nofnnat-
ing Convention? Why, becars. each STATE - per-
INIT d without violation Of the Coastntoh 10 80
its consolidated vote in the Electoral colleges, hai'
ing analogy is sought 10 be established between pfa
tice not forLiddcn in the Con<tut aad ms pfoV
sion to be practically moiaed the Conssn''on; has
the Constitution any where cnjolned 'ht General
T,cka, svs,om in the Preside nj al tiecIioG' Docs II
not equally permit the District mode of election p
Is i, not manifest, indeed, that ITS Intention OF elect
inp President by tho people, IN the first instance.
wonlt b. better attained by Tho District, than the &c
neral Tickle, SYSTEM No candid mind can we'll resist
The conclusion that such was us intention, upon an
az ,ba mat MT fprt lp