Independent Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Miss.) 1842-1844, 1844-02-10

| liC NuHstitullOu3 was tlnt CuSH ciCCtOl
should vote for two individuals, without dis
eliminating which should be President, o.
Vice President, and if no one had major
ity of the whole votes, then out Of the five
highest The House voting by States, SHOULD
elect one, and the person not elected, hav
ing the highest number of votes, should be
the Vice President. 1t has been since al.
tered, so that the electors should designate
which should be President, and which
Vice President, and the selection Of the
House was limited to the three highest
1t is manifest, that if this provision Of the
Constitution had been left to operate by it.
self, without the Intervention of caucusses
or party conventions between the people
and the election, that the practical opera
lion would have been such as have stated
and such as was clearly INTENDED by the
trainers of the Constitution.
The Object intended is important. The
preservation of the relative weight of the
States, as established by the Constitution
in all the Departments, is necessary to the
success and duration of our system of Gov
! ernment; but it may be doubted, whether
the provision adopted to effect it in the
EXECUTIVE Department, is not too refined
for the si.ong, and | may add, corrupt pas
sions, which the Presidential election will
ever excite. Certain it is, that If the prac-
tice of nominating candidates tor the Pres
idency, by Conventions, constituted as
they proposed, shall become the establish
ed usage, it will utterly defeat the intention
of the trainers of the Constitution, AID
would be followed by radical and dan
gerous change, not only in the Executive
Department, but in the Government itself.
The danger was early foreseen, and TO
avoid it, some OF the wiscst and most ex-
perienced statesmen of former days, so
strongly objected to Congressional caucus
es 10 nominate candidates for the Presi-
dency, that they never could be induced to
attend them; among these it will be sufii-
cient 10 name Mr.. Macon & Mr.. Lowndes.
Others, believing that this provision of the
Constitution was too refined for practice,
were solicltous to amend it, but without
impairing the influence of the smaller
states in the election. Among these,
rank myself With that object, resoIu-
tons we're introduced in 1928, in the SEN
ale by Col. Benton, and in the House by
Mr.. McDuffie, providing for distrcing the
States, and for referring the election back
to The people, in case there should be no
choice, to elect one from the two highest
candidates. The principle which the a.
mendment proposed, was 10 give fair
compensation to the smaller states for the
surrender OF their advantage in the event.
ual choice by the House, and at the same
time to make the mode ofelecting the Pre-
sidcnt more in conformity with the princi.
pies OF our popular institutions, and to lie
less liable to corruption than the existing
provision. They received the general sup
port OF the party, but were objected to by
a few, as not being full equivalent to the
smaller states. The principle embraced
is Identical with that on (which you pro-
p sed to constitute the Baltimore Conven-
ton, but which has been so dictat)ri,lly
objected to by some, who then took so pro-
mir ent part in its favor If you have
not succeeded, there is at least some con-
ISOLATION in rejecting that if others have
since changed, you now stand where you
then did, in the purer and better days of
the party. 1t was in favor of il then, as |
am now, not because | consider the rcso-
lu;ons as perfect, theoretically, as the ex-
isting provisions of the Constitution, but
because | believe it would, in practice,
more certainly accomplish what the fra
mers Of the Constitution intended. But
while the provision stands as it does, |
would regard myself as little short of
traitor to that sacred instrument, should ! |
give my assent, directly or indirectly, to
any practice which would have the effect
of divesting the smaller states of the due
weight which it secures TO them in the Pre-
sidential election. And here let me add,
that as Objectionable as think a Con-
gressional caucus for nominating Presi-
dent, it is in my opinion, far less so, than
a Convention constituted as is proposed. -
The former had indeed many things to re-
commend it. Its members consisting of
Senators and Representatives, were the
immediate organs Of the state Legislatures,
or the people, were responsible to them
respectively. and were for the most part,
of high character, standing and talents.--
They voted per capita. and what is very
important, they represented fairly the rel |
alive strength of the respective states. In
all these important particulars, it was ali
that could be desired for nominating boz
dy, and formed a striking contrast to the
proposed Convention; and yet, it could moi
be borne by the people in the then purer
days of the Republic. l, acting with Gen.
Jackson and most ofthe leaders of the par
ty at the time, contributed 10 put it down.
because we believed it to be liable 10 be
acted on and influenced by the patronage