The Ashland union. [volume] (Ashland, Ashland County, Ohio) 1854-1868, 1860-08-01
From the Petersburg (Va-) Index, July 4.
MO n o Il d 8 y N I O N.
AN ADDRESS 10 THE
DEMOCRACY OF VIRGINIA.

The undersigned, Committee appointed at a
Democratic meeting, recently held in the city
of Petersburg, to ratify the nominees of the
late National Democratic Convention at Balti.
more, deeply impressed with the paramount
necessity that Virginia should now, as in all
times past, give the weight of her moral infu-
ence to the nominees of the National lIemoc-
racy, beg leave to present to our fellow citi-
zens Of the State some of the reasons which
constrain us to adhere to our ancient party
organizations and support its unanimously ac-
credited candidates.
Conceiving that our object can be attained
by candid examination of the arguments
presented by those who have determined to
adopt different course, we shall follow in the
main, the address recently published by the
seeding Virginia delegates, in vindication OF
their action-and examine whether the asser-
tions of fact therein will bear the test of scru-
tiny, and whether even if true, they would
furnish the slightest excuse for the unprece-
dented action, and the attempted disruption of
the National Democracy of the Union. We
invoke from our fellow democrats and unbias-
sed consideration of the question, know that
they have the independence to follow the die
tates of duty, and the conclusions of their
| Judgment to any issue. The first allegation
of the Address refers to the condition of things
| at the opening of the Charleston Convention,
and is couched in these terms:
"When the Convention first assembled at
Charleston, about one third of its members
were the avuwed and eager partisans of a
Northern candidate who remains the conspic-
uous champion of political dogma which has
been condemned as unconstitutional by the Su-
preme Court AS now urged, it has degener-
ated into a mere antislavery principle, tending
to divide parties by geographical line. 1t is
less candid bit not less sectional than the
leading tenet of the Republican paaty. in
order to sustain the position of that candidate,
| the leaders of his party in the Convention
were, obliged to organize his partisans upon
| the basis of an unconstitutional principle and
sectional sentiment adverse to the South"
Now, whatever may have been the case else
where, it is a fact capable of authorization
by hundred witnesses, that both OF the dele,
gates sent from the Petersburg District tc
Charleston, in terms and in person, pledged
themselves to give to the claims of this "con
spiceous champion of dogma condemned as
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court" a
consideration equal to that which they would
accord to any other Democrat, North or South
after their respective fayorites. As Mr.. Breck
inridge was not the favorite of either, it fol
lows that they were pledged to the Democracy
of the District to give Douglas as fair chance
for the nomination as Breckinridge.
Again, it is fact capable of equally conclu
sive Authorization, that both of these gentle
men, the one in person and the other by the
/ mouth of friend, dis claimed all desire to eff
feet any alteration in the Cincinnati Platform
and by obvious inference avowed their willing
ness to support this champion of an unconsti
l tutional dogma, acithout any population oj
that dogma.
1 And lastly, the impntation that we, and that
the large body of Southern Democrats who
support Judge Douglas, the Johnsons, Soules,
Rusts, Forsyths, Millers-are advocating "a
mere anti slavery principle, less candid bu
rot less sectional than the leading tenet OF the
Republican party" is SANDER that self re-
spect demands us to repel at once and In un,
! mistakable terms: the people of Virginia will
not endorse it.
| 2 The authors of the Address proceeded te
make their first specific charges of unfairness
and we quote the language:
/ "The new rule to which we allude was, that
| in any State which has not provided or direct
| ed by its State Convention how its vote may
be given, the Convention will recognize the
right of each delegate to cast his individual
| vote The artifice concealed in. this rule will
| be presently explained. The rule was first sub
mitted to committee of the Convention, and
rejected when the committee was full After
wards, in the absence of the delegates from
i Virginia ana Otner members, Porlon VI GnS
| committee resolved to report it. Being unex'
4 peetedly spfuhg dpoh the Convention, it was
hurried through without opportunity for dis
cussion. None but those who had studied
some specific facts; not then generally known
| could have foreseen its Unfair effects and dis
astrous consequences. We opposed it as er
roneous in principle and contrary to all former
i usage. Its special design was afterwards dis
covered" 49,. .sees
The assertions of this paragraph are sub
/ stantiaIly, first, that the "unit rule" is tnfail
secondly, that it was hurried through #ith.
out opportunity for discussion.
| As to the second charge it not only is ihcon
sistent with the statement of the authors of the
Address, that they opposed the rule, but is fat
ly conttadieted by the published report Of the
proceedings at Charleston We quote from
the Semi Weekly Richmond Enquirer q
April 26th:
ssThe report of the Committee on Organiza-
ton, presented an additional rule providing