The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1860-07-13

nomln3itoA.
1t is we'll known that some persons in the
South have Tor a long time desired dissolution
Of the Union. | believe some, if not all Of the.
South Carolina Delegation to Richmond, avoyy
that desire. This Convention at Rich mond al
so nominated Breckenridge and Lane. Some de-
clare that the elect ion ofa Republican Presi-
drnt will BE- sufficient ground for dissolution.
Those who really desire a dissolution, could
scarcely devise surer method 10 accomplish i
than oy the dissolution OF the Democratic par
ty, thereby promoting the election OF Mr.. Lin
coin. l. not the fact that such sentiments are
avowed, sufficient reason for all true Dem
ocrats to shun the nomination Of BreckiHridg-
and Lane, as they would shun the enemies Of
their couptry 3
Hostility to2Mr. Douglas has bad much 10 do
with effrcting the secession. That this hostility
is unwise and unfounded in reason, public Judy
ment and future history will suTely determine.
That he is able, patriotic and capable few IL any
will deny. That tins hostility exists, very
few examples will clearly prove. In Massa-
chuapls, three gentlemen were elected 10
Charleston as the open and avowpd friends ct
Judge Douglas. All three Of them were founi
among the Seceders at Baltimore. Two ofthem
were appointed to high positions and lucrative
fore the meeting of the Convention. The third
has been similarly rewarded since the adiouro-
ment ofthe Convention. A lmost all the officers
OF the General Government and all the papers
under their control, are now bitter against
Douglas and warm for Breckinridgp.
All the rules, usages and customs bv which
they went iuto power are now dsregarded and
held interior to the personal hatred and subser-
vIency Of al least some OF The minions OF power
Il Is no use TO multiply examples on this point.
The two causes OF Secession given by those
who withdrew and the reasons 10 which their
conduct has been attributed, have been hastily
considered.
There arr two other causes OF complaint
not vet meutIoned-these are not given in
Justification OF secession, but as reasons Of
( dissatisfaction. One Of these was the course OF
the Convention IN regard TO the motion, or
resolution of construction of the two thirds
! rule. This was, or was not, rule of the Con-
ventIon. 1t rule, II never was adopted BE-
cause that fthenl required d two third vote
and This only received I4I to lI2. If il was
/ not rule, then II was mere resolution, sub
jet 10 The will OF the majority at any time
II was Clearly resclnded, or repeated, bY the
motion made by Gov. Church and renewed by
Mr.. Clark. Even If it bad been a rule, il
was repealed, because the motion was adopled
unanimously. The motion was adopted gfe;
the secession a: Charleston, never received =
a majority Of d full Conren:inn, and was re-
peaied by the entire vote Of the Convention.
2iS delegates being present.
I Another objection urged in some quarters.
was the unit rule of the Convention
This was simply reducing the common law
OF the party on the subject OF voting to a stat
ute The rule provided that minorilies might
vote, except in cases when the State Conven-
ZION had directed the vote to be cast as an,
omit. Such had been almost the universal
custom OF former Conventions. The records
OF Conventions will show minority votes from
| many oi the States ofthe Union. Under the .
old rules and practice, IT seldom, if ever.
happened that the majority of an uninstructec
delegation attempted 10 stde the will OF the
minority. But from The fact that such high
handed efforts were being made by some of
the delegations to this Cony ention, he TuI-,
was adopted. II was fully considered and dis
cnssed IN committee, and passed by vote Of
% 10 2. In the Convention It was again fuIIv
discussed and adopted by vote OF 1877 10
1924. Indeed, the chlei, if not the oalx
argument against 1t, was that it was unnrcessa-
rs, as the right 10 cast such votes already ey-
lsed. This rule received the votes of Ken
lucky, Tennessee, halt OF Delaware, nearly all
OF Missouri and Arkansas, part of North Carroll
ma and several other delegates who afterwards
seeded. Bot aside from this, it was rrsbt in
itself It provided that in cases of instruction
so 10 DO, Delegations should vote as a unit
In other cases, delegates should be allowed 10
vote for themselves.
The fl ST part OF the Rule can not be obiec
ted 10. When a gentleman accepts the trus,
under instructions, be does not represent him
self, but his State. He has no individual
views and II he had, he is in honor bound to
suppress them. Any other course of action BIZ
the individual or by the Convention, would
conflict with State rights and State sovereigntv.
This method made n. York, Ohio and
Indiana unanimous for Douglas, and Georgra.
Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana unanimous
against him.
On the other hand, in all cases where the
State CONVENTIONS had neglected or refused 10
instruct, the delegates were allowed 10 vote a.
they saw fit. Any other course would again
have been an interference with State
Sovereignty, IN electing their delegations, and
an act OF Tyranny by the majority towards the
minority. This method gave Judge Douglas,
few votes in Pennsylvania, one in North
Carolina, one IN Tennessee and one in Virginia.
It lost him in Maine, u in Connecticut and
II IN Minnesota. Maryland, Missouri and
Massachusetts,, being equally divided, were not
affected by the Rule
All these, however, appear to me to be ot,ac,
tons hunted up, on purpose, by men determined
in advance to De dissatisfied, and going abrosdz,n
search of reasons TO justify or bolster ~ as far
as possible their course of action. Hall H..
effort to find reasons in favor of the action of