Daily national Democrat., 1860-07-18
@The Cause and the RESULT,

vention, laboriously endeavors 10 justify the
outrageous proceedings of the Seceders. and
sets out by declaring that the Douglas Dem
ocrats are responsible for the secession OF the
small squad which retired. They are respon.
sible in the same manner that Michael was
responsible for the rebellion Of Satan. II
Satan could have had his own way, all
would have been peace, and if the Seceders
could have had their own way, there would
! have been no trouble in the National Con-
vention. In other words, if an overwhelm-
ing majority had submitted to the dctation
of pitiful minority. the pitiful minority
would have been satisfied The overwhelm
ing majority refusing to do this, the pitiful
minority retired And the Express pro-
claims, Behold, what perverseness |"
In this connection, the Express, speaking
Of DoreLAs. says:
"ln States where a minority of the dele
gates were opposed to him they were COM
PEELED to vote for him. whilst in others where
the majority were opposed to him, the mi.
nority were left free to cast their votes for
him. In other words, wherever majority
of any delegation were his friends, they were
permitted to cast the vote of the entire dele
cation contrary to the wishes Of the minority
but, when the majority were opposed to him
they were not allowed to control the minor
ity."
This is by no means fair statement. The
facts are these: There came to the Conven-
tion delegates instructed and delegates unin-
strueted. The Convention ruled, by very
decided majority, that the instructed dele
gates should vote as instructed, casting their
votes as an entirety, and those who were not
instructed should vote according to their in
divdual opinion, il being presumed that they
were ef. to their own discretion, by the
very fact that they were uninstructed The
minority aequiesced in this decision, and pro-
ceeded to vote in accC. dance with the rule
laid down, thus acknowledging its authority
in its fnll force and effect It's too late for the
Express to complain of rule which received
the full obedience of the entire Convention.
The Expr-ss says:
again, the majority of the Committee on
Platforms, representing every certain Demo
cratic State. reported Platform embodying
| the principles which would be acceptable to
those States; the minority representing Re
publican States, reported a platform also,
which was exceedingly distastefu to the
Democratic States. The latter was adopted,
while the other was summariy rejected"
This is very himsy reasoning In the first
place, it is a piece of assumption to say
which States are certain Democratic and
which are not. DOUGLAS has shown himself
fully able to carry Illinois for the Democrat
i. ticket and for himself lie it was who
carried that State for Buchanan, in 1856
and we should suppose that, with DOUGLAS
as a candidate, or DOUGLAS as an advocate of
the Democratic Platform, Illinois might safe
! y be counted as a certain Democratic State
now. With DOUGLAS as a candidate, or with
his platform as the basis of the fight, New
York may safely be counted as Democratic
State. So .nay Indiana and so may various
others. But. whether they can be or not |
it is the majority of the Democratic party in |
National Convention assembled who are au-
thorized to make platforms, and it was an
overwhelming majority that made the plat
form Of which the Express complains The
vote stood, in full Convention, in favor of
the Non.Intervention platform, l65 to l3s.
thus adopting the platform by majority of
twenty seven.
This outrage" says the Express, "caused
many of the delegates from the South to
leave the Convention"
Well. Notwithstanding the "outrage,"
far greater number of delegates from the
same section remained But, let us see
what this tremendous Outrage" was The
resolutions which embody this fearful "out-
rage" are as follows
l. RESOLVED, That we, the Democracy of the
Union, in Convention assembled, hereby declare
our atfirmance of the Resolutions unanimously
adopted and declared as Platform of Principles
by the Democratic Convention at Cincinnati, in
| the year $50, believing that Democratic princi-
! pies are unchangeable IN their nature when APP
! piled to the same subject-matters; and we re-
commend as the only further Resolutions the fol.
| lowing:
.. lulsmuch ms differences of opinion exist in
the Democratic party as to the nature and extent
of the powers of TeI ritorial Legislature, and as
to the powers and duties of Congress. under the
Constitution of the United States, over the nst-
| tuition of slavery in the Territories
RESOLVED, That the Democratic party will
abide by the decision of the Supreme Court of the
United States upon these questions of Cunstitu.
tional Law.
8. RESOLVED, That it is the duty of the United
States to afford ample and complete protection to
all Its citizens whether at home or abroad, and
whether native or foreign born.
A. RESOLVED, That one of the necessities of
the age, in a military, commercial and postal
Of vipW iS sDapdv
the Atlantic and Pacific States; and the Demo-
cratic party pledge such Constitutional Govern
ment aid as will insure the construction of rail-
road to the Pacific coast at the earliest practical
period
5. That the Democratic party are in favor of
the acquisition of the Island of Cuba, on such
! terms as shall be honorable to ourselves and lust
to Spain.
6. RESOLVED, That the enactments of State
| Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of
tae Fugitive Slave Law are hostile in character,
subverslve of the Constitution, and revolutions
ry in their effect.
Horrible outrage, WIS it not2 The Con-
vention agreed to abide by the Cincinnati
Platform of 1866, and to refer all differences
OF opinion among Democrats to the Supreme
Court of the United States, with pledge to
Yield obedience to its decisions, whatever
they might be. Horrible outraged The
majority entertained, upon an abstract point
regarding Territorial Sovereignty, views di-
rectly opposite to those of the minority
\ ct, they did not insist on those views nor
did they require the minority to adopt them,
but they simply left the question an open
one, to be decided by the Supreme Court,
and whether that decision should be in favor