Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1860-05-09
Facts Concerning the Charleston Convention


ed its proceedings with anxious care, and
are, therefore, in position to testify lntelli-
gently as to what took place there.
Every honest democrat who prefers prin-
ciples to men, and the welfare OF the Re
public to private interests or individual am
biton. must regret, rs we do the discord
and dlssension which unhappily existed in
that Convention; which compelled the repre-
sentatives of eight States, if they would not
forfeit their constitutional rights, their honor
and their Selt-respect, to withdraw from
body in which all three were assailed; and
which has prevented, for time, the accom-
plshmens of the great and important pur-
pose for Which the Convention assembled
1t is right, however, that the national demo-
cracy should know by what agencies and for
what reasons this lamentable discord was
iostered and continued, that they may know
to whom to attribute the fault, and on whom
to nAict the weight of their censure.
The subject of contention, as our readers
are aware, was the platform OF principles
which was to constitute the creed OF the
democratic party for the next four years, and
on which the democratic candidates for the
presidency and vice presidency of the United
States were to stand in the coming contest
against the black-republican enemies of the
country.
On the one side the representatives of a
majority of the States of the Contederacy
and Of all the States whose votes will surely
be cast for the democratic nominees, present
ed platform Of principles, plain, just and
susceptible of but one Interpretation. Warn
ed by the experience Of the past three years,
and by the lamcntable differences which have
arisen in consequence Of the two diametri-
cally opposite constructions which have been
placed on the creed Of the party, which was
adopted ut Cincinnati in reference to the
rights of the States in the common Terri
tories, the delegates of the seventeen demo-
cratic States in Il spirit of harmony and pa
trotism, reported IA platform of principles in
which it was distinctly laid down that under
the Federal Constitution the several States
of the Union are equal that the people there
Of are entitled to the free and indefeasible
possession and enjoyment of their personal
and proprietary rights in the common Ter
ritorles that neither Congress nor territori-
al legislature has any power to impair or
destroy this equality of rights; and that in
case such tights are violated, it is the duty OF
Congress to pass such remedial measures as
may be deemed necessary to afford due pro-
lection to the persons and property of all the
citizens of the Republic The doctrines
which they thus enumerated were identical
with those for which every democratic State
in the Union has contended for the last three
years; the Justice of which the true democra-
cy Of those Northern States in which the
black-repubiIcans have the ascendancy, have
always admitted: which every democratic SEN
ator OF the United States, with but two excep-
tons, and Il large majority Of the democratic
members Of the House of Representatives,
have approved which the present distinguish
ed head of the Executive Government has
repeatedly enunciated; and which the veneer
able judges of the Supreme Court of the
United States have declared to be alone in
conformity with the Constitution of which
they are the constitutional expounders in the
! last resort.
Arrayed against those who reported this
platform. and proposed it's adoption as the
creed of the democratic party, were the fac
tous partlsans of Il man who desires ut all
hazards to be elevated to the highest Office in
the Republic; who for the past three years
has occupied u position of direct and bitter
antagonlsm to the doctrines and principles
ola vast majority ofthe democratic party, and
who has advanced and advocated the dogma of
squatter soverei gnty which fifteen States Ofthe
Union regard rs destructive of their constitu-
tional rights, hostile to their interests, and in
sulting to their honor and dignity. The person
i'll followers Of the apostle OF squatter sover-
eighty representing but fourteen States of the
/ # 10
vote lol the democratic nominees refused to
concur in the majority report, and presented
another platform in which the great princi
pie Of the equal RI hts of the States in the
common domain was purposely ignored, and
the demands Of Il majority "i the States were
insultingly diSregarled. The minority re-
port was adopted by the Convention, and as
an inevitable consequence the delegations of
eight States withdrew. refusing any longer
to partici pate in the deliberations Of body
in which their rights, interest, and honor
were thus unustly invaded. How was this
great wrong perpetrated? How was it that
the advocates OF the offensive heresy of squat
ter sovereignty, numbering not more than u
third OF the Convention, defeated the will of
il clear ma lorlty of the States, and a large
majority Of the delegates? 1t is important
that the democracy should ponder we'll the
true answer to these questions. In the State
conventions where the friends of Judge
Doug as had a majority, the delegations to
Charleston were Instructed TO vote aS a unit,
and the members OF those delegations who
were opposed 70 Judge Douglas and his doc
trines were thus compelled to vote with the
majority in opposition to their principles and
their preferences. In other delegations where
but feeble minoritIes were in favor of the
Illinois Senator, and whose conventions had
failed to adopt the unit rule, those minorities
were enabled TO vote as they pleased, and
thus oppose the majority Of their colleagues
and the wc!l-ascertained will Of their consti-
tucntS. 1t was thus that the majority plat
form was defeated and that of the minority
adopted. Any one who will take the trouble
to anatyze the vote by which the minority
report was passed, will see at glance the
truth of what we state, and will see further
that, if the unit rule was invariably enfor-
ced, or each individual delegate allowed to
vote as he pleased, the result would have
been entirely different, and that little, if any,
more than one-third OF the Convention, was
really in favor of the action from which it is
now sought to prove that majority of the
Convention was in favor Of the principles
and claims OF Judge Douglas.
The public seem to have fallen into two
GREAT errors with reference to the proceed |