The register. (Monroe, La.) 185?-1861, 1860-08-02
[From the Richmond Examiner.

EFrom the Richmond Examiner.
The Causes which Compelled the
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEMO-
CRATIC STATES TO TAKE ACTION DIS
TINCT FROM THAT OF THE DELE
GATES FROM THE OPPOSITION STATES
OF THE UNION.
We do not intend now to enter into q mi
mute detail of the votes action and designs
which forced the representatives Of the Democ-
racy to appeal to the people from the decision
of those who had obtained control of the DEM
ocratc Convention which met in Charleston
and re-assembled in Baltimore on the 18th Of
this month.
Strong efforts will be made to induce the
impression that this union of the frontier slave
States was produced by collision between the
Southern and Northern Democracies in regard
to the abstract and absurd dogma Of Squatter
Sovereignty. The delegations from the States
of Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Caro-
lima, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri had
proven by their action in Charleston that they
desired no disruption of the Democratic or
ganization on any such issue. They refused
to secede on it. They advised and aided in car
rying an adjournment of the Convention from
Charleston to Baltimore, in orderto give time
ding States to repudiatc or endorse the action
of their delegates. They had another object
to allow the candidates and their supporters
(for there was much of personal ambition in
the causes which led to this collision) TO make
such a compromise on candidates and plat
| forms as would ensure q union of the
contesting claimants of position and Of those
who differed on this dogma. The time thus al
lowed for consideration and for ascertaining
the sentiment Of the people Of the seeding
Southern Democratic States, was not granted
! for vain purpose.
Through the action Of the people in primary
assemblies, through the action Of their repre-
sentatives in State Convention, and through
the united aston of the Senators from all the
Democratic States who voted on these questions,
the views of the Southern seeding delegates
on the dogma Of sqnatter sovereignty were
fully and distinctly maintained. These dele
gates came to the Baltimore meeting with re-
newed authority aud encouraged by the strong
not only by their constituents Of the sonth,
but by The representatives of the Democracies
of the North. It was evident that the majori-
ty of the delegates Of the Democratic Conven-
tlon of the Union had been appointed by con-
stituencics VINO approved the principles Of the
majority report made to the Convention in
Charleston: II was equally apparent that
those constituencies were opposed to the nom.
nation of Judge Douglas, the representatives of
Of the bred Scott decision was still more often
siye to the south. 1t was impossible for him to
obtain nomination by the Conyention, even
when it was reduced in numbers, power and
authority, by the absence Of the eight seeding
southern states. A course was taken which
would certainly force many of the delegates
from the frontier slave states to withdraw, and
thus weakening further the force of the slave
states, might give Mr. Douglas chance for
the nomination, and the minority. report Q
certainty of adoption. But even that could
not carry the nominations, so the delegations
appointed by unauthorized minorities, were in
some cases mixed with the delegations regular
" appointed by the authorized Conventions Of
the Democratic mejorities in the southern states
so as to deprive those majOrties Of the power Of
casting the votes Of their states in accordance
with the established usages Of their Democrat
ic constituents.
But this was not sufficient to carry the nom
ination they had to disfranchise the Democra-
cy of Alabama, BY rejecting the regular dele
CATION appointed by the Democracies of fifty
counties, and to substitute for those delegations
delegates appointed in violation of the orders
Of the full Democratic party Of the state, ard
appointed by Democrats and all others. The
Opposition was allowed to aid in making the
appointments, and this mixed party were al
lowed to cast the vote of the state in Demo-
cratic Convention by authority Of unauthorized
meetings held in only twenty-eght counties
willie the delegations appointed by the Deme-
cratic party of the whole State, and endorsed
bg the subsequent action of forty-four counties,
on an appealto Democrats only, were rejected.
Such violation, ,of rights and usage, such arb.
trary Acknowledgement Of the Democracies Ct
southern states, with the OBVIOUS motive which
prompted them, forced the, DEM
ocratic states to interfere to prevent the per
petration of such outrsges, aud to avert the
utter Reorganization Of the party which must
have followed the success Of such efforts TO
stfhe the voice of q majority Of the party. We
will rccur to this s1hject and present other
facts in subsequent issues.
We do not design to present the case of the
Acknowledgement Of the Democracy Of Alabama
as by any means the strongest cause which
forced the Democratic representatives from
Virginia to separate from those who had OBJ
tanned control Of The convention which reassem-
bled in Baltimore. Pephaps the most fragrant
outrages were offered to the Democracy Of one
district in Massachusetts, and to those of Gcor-
gia and Louisiana. We understand at least
one-half of one district in Virginia was suhjec-
ted to an outrage even more offensive than any
We have ever yet called the attention Of the
public to.