The Abbeville banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1847-1869, 1856-05-01
their votes for the candidate against whom

Their votes Tor the candidate against whom
they voted.
The majority in the Convention virtually
cay to the minority, that, although you
may consider the man of our choice n
traitor, you shall not vote against him; or
II you do vote against him, your vote shall
be counted for him. Could ANYTHING he
, more absurd, and less republican, more sub
vcrsivc of the relative power of tho States,
and less in accordance with the spirit of
our institutions!
We have seen it limited in public prints,
that JOHN G. CALHOUN favored the BaIti-
moro Convention in 1874, until he found
that he could not get the nomination, and
then turned and opposed it. The charge
we consider unfoundcd. The Congressional
Caucus system had been rcpudiated on ac-
count of its corruption, and the Democratic
party were discussing plans by which they
could preserve the strength and harmony
of the party. Willie yet the Convention
sytsem was being discussed, and no definite
plan of organization had been fixed upon,
Mr.. Calhoun conceived that Il nominating
convention might be organized upon plan
that would allow him to favor it withou:
any violation Of his principles. lie con-
ccivcd Il plan Of organization by which cacl,
State would have the same power in nomi-
mating that the Constitution wivcs !: il,
clccting the President BIZ; when j. was
sufficiently asccrt"uc'l that the convention
was to bc organized upon basis at war
with the principles of the Constitution, he
thcrcuron published Il letter to his political
friends and supporters. taking strong
grounds against the convention, disapprovc,l
OF the proposed plan of organization and
OF voting, refused to allow his name to 90
bclore the convention as n candidate. and
thought that he would have been but it'll.
less than u traitor to the Constitution. to
lave countenanced that practice which he
lvrcsaw would divcst the smaller States of
their just weight in the Presidential cleo
ton.
We are not aware that Mr.. CALllorS or
any "t his contemporaries uf this State, not
even ,!ic Democratic State Convention, of
1913, ever recommended the rroprcty u.
n National Convention, according to tho
plan upon which it is at present orcan
ixcd
am Is the attempt TO convert the action
Q: our State Convention in 1913 into Il
precedent ; nor does i, afford the slightest
argument why we should 60 into convcn-
ton i'll 1856. What did that convention
do! 1t simply mel and discussed the vari-
Gus plans of organizing the National Con-
ven,on, and finally laid down the basis ami
proclaimed TO the Democratic party tn.
terms and conditions upon which South
Carolina would be willing to meet them in
Il National Convention.
just here we would remark that these
terms were not unreasonable; if they were
wrong, the Constitution is wrong, because
they were drawn from that sacred instru-
mcmt. But reasonable us were the terms,
they were nnhccdcd by the party in other
States, and We had no alternative but either
to go into the National Convention under
oppressive ard unjust system Of voting, or
refuse any participation in it.
Ii the National Convention had been or
ganzcd according TO the principles OF JUS
tcc, no voice in South Carolina would have
been raised against it. Ii it had secured
to the small States the power guaranteed
by the Constitution, We should not have
pcnncd line against it. 1t is not from
unkInd feelings toward our sister Southern
Statcs-not that We arc better, or can lay
claim to higher intelligence, us has been
alleged, that we would decline to 60 into
convention with them hnt it is from a
conviction that TO do so, would be to sub
NIT to wrong-to deprive our State Of that
power to which it is c.,titlcd in the election
Of prcsi,Ient.