The weekly Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1854-1861, 1860-08-01

before any amendment OF Mr.. SsmueI's re
solution could be proposed, the Alsbums
delegation Withdrew from the Convention,
followed BY ten of the delegates from Lou.
isiana, thus leaving that State without Q
vote; the entire delegations from Mississip
pi, Texas, and Florida, and the larger part
OF the delegations from South Carolina
Georgia, and Arkansas. These delegations
withdrew in the most formal manner; not
contentiDg themselves with speeches on the
subject, but delivering written protests to be
entered Ot large upon the journal of the
Convention.
EXCUSES FOR THE SECESSION AT CHARLESTON.
Various excuses have been assigned for
this extraordinary conduct, but none Of them.
in our judgment, will bear examination. It
has been said, for instance, that the Conven.
ton adopted an unfair rule OF voting, or one
which enabled minority Of the delegates
TO control the majority. Here is the rule in
SO many words -
That in any State which has not provided or direct
ed by its State Convention, how its vote may be Civ
en- the Convention will recognize the right Of each
delegate TO cast his individual vote.
This rule was adopted on Tuesday, A April
"a, by vote Of 394 against 2o7 delegates,
which sufficiently demonstrates its COirness,
If any demonstration were requisite. 1t ac-
krowledges the right of every State to bind
her delegates, but secures 10 each delegate
his own vote, as against any combination of
his colleagues, where the State has not cho.
sen thus TO subordinate him. The rule was
applied, at Charleston, in the decision of a n
questions; and no complaint was then made
of ii Gn their protests or their speeches) by
the delegations which withdrew. The first
complaint, so far as we can ascertain, was in
the address published by eighteen members of
Congress. after the Convention had adjourn.
ed from Charleston to Baltimore. The rule
operated as hardly upon the Lne eide ns upNn
the other; witness the fact that delegates
from Alabama and Louisiana were compelI.
ed to withdraw from the Convention by the
act of their colleagues against their own
will, and that ten delegates from Georgia,
who remained in the Convention, were not
allowed to vote (under General Cushing's
decison) because a msjority of the delega.
ton had withdrawn.
| or what possible importance can the as
serton be that different result, either in
regard to the platform or the candidates,
would have attended rule authorizing each
delegate to control his own vote, without
reference TO the instructions of his State
In New York, Alabama, Indona and Louis.
lana, for example, the Convention which in
structed The delegates was the convention
which appointed them; and but that oil
these delegates were understood to accept
their appointments, severally, with an obli-
CATION to obey the instructions, it is very
certain the Convention would, in each case,
have made other appointments. And, after
all, how much rei1nce can be placed in as.
sertons or calculations as to whit any del.
egate would have done, at Charleston, in
different circumstances. All such asser-
tions or calculations are based on rumors,
surmises, inlormnti>n at second hand, or as
surances privately signifed.
We could, by the same style of argument,
J refute the whole of them; but we choose to
! deal with the subj'c, as men, and not to
amuse ourselves with suppositions or posi-
blities. The method OF voting was an affair
to be determined by the Convention; and it
was determined at Charleston, as we have
shown, by majority of almost two thirds.
Another complaint is, that the report O.
the majority of the committee on resolu
tons was not adopted by the Convention
US being the voice of majority of the
!; States. Several answers suggest them
selves at once.
l. Such was not the method ofvotins
adopted by the convention, and never hat
!, been the method 10 any previous convention
! 2. |; the rule had been that majority o
the Committee should prescribe the plat
; form, and not majority OF the Convention
, it is evident from their votes (atterwart
given) that several Of the States would hav'
: chosen other representatives upon the com.
5 mittee.
3. The first majority report, as we hav'
e shown, was not acceptable to the delega
e tions which subsequently retired. Ever
t one of them voted Tor its recommtment.
d. The second report OF the COMMITTEE
never did. as whole, command the assen
= of majority, the committeeman from Mis-
. souri, General ClarE) announcing that b
r would move, ut the proper time, to strike ou
d this all important resolution -
That it is the duty Of the Federal Government,
all its departments, to pratect, when necessary,
rights of persons and property in the Territories ar
wherever else its constitutional authority extends.
g 1t required the committeeman from Mi
y souri, to constitute the majority (seventeer
d Of which we have heard so much. Wi;hou
:; farther argument, therefore, this pretext dis
}. appears.
1t has been said, finally, that the State
). which favored the second majority pattorr
n were Democratic States, and that all tn
" others we're hopeless, or, at least, unreliable
O We could, it it were necessary, prove thi
q to be untrue; but even ii it were true, in IN
o largest sense, what folly 10 be governe
y by such considerations. Those seventee
i States had not ajority Of all the electors
votes, ind could accomp plish nothing withor
If assistance. No wise General, upon the ev
IT OF an engagement, would subtract from tn
n weakest column of his army in order to re
iniorce the strongest; he would, on tn. col
- trUry, take means to strengthen the ,'eebl
lo even at the expense OF the finn.
le But, in u higher sense, and upon the M
" bIest consideration Of Democratic polio
such inviduous distinction between ii
y States ought to be discouraged.
Our party has ever commended itself alil
e. to the North and to the South, as party
,e which all the States will find their interes
t. equally protected and their honor equal
b observed; aud whenever we absndon tn
at safe ground, we falsty our ancient al
70 proudest profession, and degrade our Nj
u. tional Convention to the level of the Coz
r. vention at Chicago. Every true Democr
Us believes that Massachusetts as we'll as Sou
i'd Carolina, would ensure her nobest develo
Il. ment, as State, under the Influence OF d
10. mocratic policy; and, therefore, in ell NJ
of tional Conventions, the Democracy of Ma
10 | sachusetts-EeebIe and even as In sgnifica
nd as others esteemed them-have been treat
- as brethren and as eqaals. BY means
o. such rule Polk, Cass, and Pierce, and b