The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1859-09-01
To1Epo. ONO, Aug. Is, 1859.


editorial in the Lancaster pa Examiner and
Herald of August Sd, which takes exceptions
to the representative basis suggested by me in
communication to the Era of July IA, for the
election of delegates to the Republican National
Convention of 1860. The objections urged, If
true to the extent represented, l admit would
be fatal, and ought to defeat the adoption of the
proposed plan by the National Committee.
The editor of the Examiner and Herald, how
ever, is very much mistaken. The article to
which he refers was not only not written to
secure any undue advantage to any State or
locality, but was written with full knowledge
that the States whose vote would be slightly
increased by the adoption Of the proposed basis
would, with probably one exception, cast their
united vote in Convention against the man
whom, of all others, the Republicans of Ohio
desire to see selected as our standard bearer for
1860. And so far from Ohio gaining any adj
vantage, should the suggestions made be adopted
by the Republican National Committee, she
would stand precisely on an equal footing with
Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts,, and
indeed all the New England States. Three or
four of the Western States would have a small
increase ia their delegation by the adoption of
the representative basis, and they are the most
reliable Republican States in the Union. | am
at a loss to know how the editor of the Exam
liner and Herald could have made such work
with his figures. He says: "New York, with
33 members of Congress and district electoral
votes, would only have 81 votes in the National
Convection. Pennsylvania, with % Congress
men, would have 80 in Convention. Michigan,
in Congress in Convention, a. Massachtt-
sets, erith IL IN Congress, could hare bit ii
delegates IN Convention" If the editor of the
Examiner and Herald will consult the election
returns for the States named, and apply the
basis | propose, he will find that New York,
instead of having 81 delegates, will have &c
Congressional delegates; Pennsylvania, instead
SO, will have so; Ohio, AZ; Michigan, but
ii or II; and Massachusetts TWENTY-FIVE, in
stead of elecen, as he has it. Michigan gains
but or delegates, if l remember correctly.
/ have not the figures before me, in consequence
of the largely-increased Republican vote and
her wonderful increase in population since
1850. After the apportionment of 1860, she
will be entitled, as will all the new States, to
the same number Of delegates in our National
Conventions, in proportion to their electoral
vote, as Pennsylvania, Ohio, and other States,
are now entitled to, under the present Con-
gressional apportionment.
No proposition probably can be made for Sc
curing an exact political representation in any
Convention, whether it be County, District, State,
or National. Exceptions can be urged against
the adoption Of any plan that may be proposed.
Our duty is to adopt that plan which approx
mates the nearest to giving a fair and full rep
resentatiOn Of the voters an the organization,
and not to the people as mass, who may be
and are made up of Democrats, South Ameri-
cans, and negro slaves, but the representation
of the voting electors in the Republican party
as distinct organization, is what we want in
a Republican National Convention.
Some districts will increase largely in popu-
lation after the apportionment for Congress or
for the Senate and House in the several States
has been made, while few counties and dis
tricts, perhaps, will diminish not only in popu-
lation, but also in the party vote. Now, is there
any Justice in giving counties, districts, and
States, which fall off or do not increase their
Republican vote, the same number of delegates
or representatives in a nominating party Con-
ventiOn, with counties, districts, and States,
whose Republican vote has been doubled and
trebled? If the people of all parties, Southern
slaves and all, in each State and district, were
to be represented in the Republican National
Convention as they are In Congress, instead of
the electors who make up the Republican party,
] might probably assent to the proposition, that
all districts and States should be equally repre-
scented with either one or fire delegates in the
proposed Convention. But as / have no de-
sire to see the Buchanan wing of the Democ-
racy, or the South American slave trade and
slave code wing represented in the Republican
National Convention, or their voters and ne
groes counted as basis for apportioning Re-
publican delegates in the several States and
Congressional districts, whereby the number of
delegates in the Convention would be largely
increased, and In the same proportion the
voters in the party disproportionately repre-
scented, / should, as doubt not the great ma
jority of the Republican party will do, object
most decidedly to any such basis being adopted
by the Republican National Committee. The
proposition of the Examiner and Herald,
" That each State shall hare TEN Senatorial
delegates, and eueIy Congressional district an
all tie States fire delegates each, without any
regard to whether they have Republican or
ganization or cast any Republican votes or not
is very Objectionable. No rule perhaps could
possibly be devised which would violate all
principles of right and representation more eff
fectually, while seeming to be fair, than the one
above proposed. For example, little Delaware,
with but one Congressman, and but few Re-
publican voters in the State, would have, if the
plan of the Examiner and Herald were adopt
ed, fifteen delegates in the National Conven-
ton. Virginia, State without Republican
organization, and incapable of giving any Re-
j. Al
tire State, would be entitled to eighty-fve dele
gates in the Convention.
1t cannot be disguised that the adoption of
such rule, and call from the National Com
mittee, inviting all the elements of the OPPOSE
ton to join IN the election of delegates to a.
National Opposition Convention, would be
virtually to disband the Republican party. II
would certainly be an invitation to those now
outside OF the party to come into our Conven-
| ton and make our nominations, while those
who now are, and have been from the first.
earnest and reliable members of the party.
would be called upon and expected to do the
voting and electing.
The ETdmtHer and Herald further objects
to the plan l suggest, because he says at is
mdRyeStiy q Western increment to control the
! nominations Of the CpnUeRtion." That this
conclusion is erroneous is evident from the fact
that larger number Of Republican journals in
the West have objected to it, than all the papers
IN the Middle and Eastern States pat together.
A majority Of the Western papers, whose OBJ.
| jections have noticed, have opposed the pro-
| posed plan because it was nesc, and they were
fearful if it was adopted, the Convention would
be too large and auaoieldy, while the fact is, il
that plan is agreed upon, and the States of Mis-.
souri,, Kentucky, Virginia, Maryland and Della
ware, are ullyrepresented, the Convention would
be composed of but few over four hundred dele
| gates. The editor of the Examiner and Herald