The Ashland union. [volume] (Ashland, Ashland County, Ohio) 1854-1868, 1860-08-08

former Convention as regular delegates, but
refused to take their seats.
LOUISIANA.
The seceders from this State avoided trial
ic party, but called upon the delegates by
whom they had been chosen-delegates whose
duty and Office had expired-to reassembie at
Baton Rouge, and represent the Democracy In
circumstances not contemplated at the time OF
their appointment. A mere Hrump" of those
delegates did r~eassemble, without authority from
the people, and reappointed the seceders as
delegates to the Democratic National conyen-
ton at Baltimore, and also appointed them as
delegates to the Convention at
Meanwhile, In pursuance of a call from sew
eral Democratic associations in New orleans,
sanctioned by the representative Of Louisiana
in the National Democratic Committee, the
Democracy of the State assembled in conyen-
tion at Donaldsonyille, by delegates immedl-
ately chosen from the people and repudiating
the seceders as unfaithfhl, appointed a new
delegation, accredited solely to the Democratic
National Convention at Baltimore.
ALABAMA. z
In this State, the committee appointed at
Montgomery, in January, 1860, for the pur-
pose Of carrying into effect the scheme OF Sc
\ CESSlON THEN meO1tdbtuy anu dAIOEndi0o oo-
complished ct Charleston, ssemble q con-
~vention in pursuance of the original design,
or, as they declared, to consider sehat Has best
to be done. Whereupon, the Democracy of
Alabama, sensible that the Montgomery con-
~yention had abused its trust in assuming an
attitude of hostility toward the Democratic
party of other States, denouced that committee
as an integral part of the scheme so meditated
aud accomplished, and thereupon declined to
IL --x-Z-I IL. .5v.ao In tho oapfrarv
in accordance with the usage in that State,
the Democracy of the several counties called
on each other, by county meetings to appoint
delegates to a DEMOCRATIC State Convention,
at Montgomery, to fill the vacancies from Ala
bama in the National Convention, caused by
! the secession at Charleston. This convention
Of the Democracy of Alabama was regularly
, assembled, and appointed a full delegation,
accredited to Baltimore only.
The other convention proceeded, neverthe-
less, to appoint another delegation, Cncluding
the most prominent seceders,) accredited
equally to Baltimore and to Richmond.
ARKANSAS
,, Two of the eight delegates from this State
did not secede at Charleston, and no State
convention was afterwards assembled. In
each congressional district, however, two con-
!, y~entions had been called, the delegates to
| which had been all appointed prior to the
meeting of the Charleston Convention, and, OF
~lcourse, without reference to its action, to nomi-
: nate candidates for Congress. These two con-
~yentiohs assumed the authority to appoint
: delegates to the Baltimore Convention.
I In the first congressional district a mass
meeting of the national Democracy was called
by advertising in the papers published in the
district, and others out of it having circulation
4 there, which was numerously attended, and
| which, with unusual unanimity, appointed four
gentlemen of character and distinction 10 rep
, resent that district in the Baltimore Conven.
| ton. Three of them attended, and were per
' mitted by the Committee on Credentials t.
cast one vote.
The second congressional district, having
called no meeting, the same committee permit
2 ted the delegates appointed by the COMPRESSION
7 al convention, together with the seceders anG
appoiutees of the FIRST congressional conven
> ton, to cast two votes, leaving one vote to b.
cast by Messrs. Flournoy and Stirman, whose
: right to cast it was contested by neither party
q they having never seeded. Mr.. Stirman
) however, declined to vote after the secession o
!, the majority of the Virginia and other south
? ern delegations, which left but one and a hal
votes cast by Arkansas for Mr.. Douglas. L
must be conceded that the report of the com
: mittee upon Credentials was so liberal and con
T T ~ciliatory toward the seceders and their friend
E as to be hardly just to the representatives, o
the national Democracy from this State.
: GEORGIA.
In. this State, after the Charleston secession
s a regular State convention was called at Mill
edgeville, and all the delegates-as well thos'
: who had seeded, as those who had not-wer
|, reappointed as delegates from Georgia to tn,
II Democratic National convention at Richmond
y A large minority of this convention p~rotestet
s against the act accrediting delegates to Rich
: mond declaring that an act of hostir ty to
ward the National Organization of the Demo
d cratic party, and refusing to engage in an,
such scheme. This minority withdrew fron
$ the Convention; and, uniting with the repre-
: sentatives of several counties who had refused
to participate in it, organized a separate con
h ~yention, and appointed a full delegation &C
credited to Baltimore only.
y The National convention at Baltimore, wit
extravagance of liberality, rather than a sens
!, of justice, excluded the delegation thus &C
credited to itself alone, and admitted the dele
CATION accredited as well to Richmond.
= ACTION AT BALTIMORE.
It appears, from what We have said, ths
l. ALL the delegates to the Richmond CONVEX
ton, except from the four States of Sout
I'd Carolina, Florida, Louisiana, and Alabami
u were actually admitted, as delegates, iii til
National convention at Baltimore that col
of ventlon sacrificing the usages OF the Dem
of cratic party, and even Gas we think) its prop.
:, self-respect, for the sake of reunion, harmon;
and ultimate success.
or South Carolina and Florida did not app
an for admission and, therefore, it cannot |
ny said that any injustice was inflicted upon ther
- In the cases of Louisiana and Alabama, tt
IL new delegations were admitted, and those wi
we represented the Charleston seceders were +
jccted. The decision of these tloo cases, TIE,
all fore, must constitute The SOLE pretert for Il
st, secession at Baltimore.
We have related the facts of each case,
m understood by the majority of the commit
40 on credentials and by the majority of the co
err %vention and although confident in our opini
he that the convention erred in admitting a s;uo
ne. delegate accredited to the rival convention
fQ;oGn.ond M nnunrthalas rnhrn;f Ia ~.