Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1860-08-24


Representing States, nearly all of which
were hopelessly Black Republican, they
claimed that they were entitled to dictate
both the platform and the candidates,
and to this end the system of tactics,
which we had witnessed outside of the
Convention, was, for the first time in our
history, (and we earnestly hope the last, J
steadily and persistently enacted in it.
Rules were made and violated at pleasure.
The decisions of an impartial President
were adopted, and then overruled, as it
suited their purpose. The usages of De-
mocratic Conventions were followed, and
then shamefully violated, as it accorded
with their designs. Everything was
made to bend to the one great purpose
for which they assemblcd-thc nomina-
ton of Mr.. Douglas. 1t cannot certain
ly be considered strange that honorable
men, unused TO such scenes, should leave
the Convention, and that it was finally
virtually broken up.
The first act of injustice was
THE UNIT RULE.
The Committee on Permanent Organi-
cation reported the following rule, known
as the unit rule =" That in any State
which has not provided or directed by its
State Convention how its vote may be
given, the Convention will recognize the
right of each delegate to cast his indi-
vidual vote" This rule was in violation
of the rule of all former conventions,
which left to the delegation from each
State the right to determine how the vote
should be cast f; and it was struggled
into the report of the committee and
brought before the convention in the
following manner: At the first meeting
of the committee, when all its members
were present, this rule was brought be-
fore the committee and rejected. Tho
committee went on, discharged their 9th
er business, and adjourned to an informal
meeting in the morning, to enable the
chairman to make out the report and sub
nit it to the committee for its approval.
At this latter meeting, when some six or
eight members of the committee opposed
to the rule were absent, not having re.
ceived notice of called meeting for 9th.
or business and regarding the work al
virtually finished, the rule was agaiI
brought forward and adopted In thi
disreputable manner, was this rul,
brought before and adopted by the con
vention.
BY it the votes of the minority, in tn
delegations of Indiana, Vermont, Mex
York, and Ohio, amounting to 279, or s.
delegates, opposed to Mr.. Douglas, wcr
thrown for him; while on the final bal
lot, at Baltimore, it gave him votes il
Massachusetts,, 10; Pennsylvania, 10
New Jersey, q; Maryland, .; Virginia
3; North Carolina, /; Arkansas, II
Missouri, a Tennessee, 3; and Ken
lucky 8; in all IL, which he would nc
have received had the ancient usagcs an
rules of the former Conventions, lcavin
the majority in each State to detcrmin
} how the vote Of the State should be cast
been adhered to. Yet the ink was hard
: ly dry that recorded the passage of tn
resolution, before the very men VIII
: clamored for its adoption, sought to vic
late it, and actually succeeded in their ci
forts
In the case of New Jersey, where th
State Convention recommended the dele
gates to vote as unit, the Douglas dele
gates overruled the decision of the Pres
ident that by the term recommended III
Convention had proviaed the mode fc
casting the vote Of the State, and q
lowed the two or three Douglas delegate
to cast their individual votes.
WITHDRAWAL OF DELEGATES FROM
THE CHARLESTON CONVENTION.
The record of proceedings shows thi
withdrawal was done in sorrow and nc
IN anger; not for thepurposes Of disunion
but to receive instructions from thei
constituents. The friends Of Mr.. Doug
las, at least, should not complain. Words
however, are inadequate to express tn
bitterness Of their luminosity. Had no
the Democracy Of the South the same
right to state the terms upon which they
would hold fellowship with their sister
States, as Douglas had to dictate to then
the platform Of their democracy? The
southern States gave their Interpretation
of the Democratic creed, and portion
of them insisted upon its recognition by
the Convention as the condition Of their
support. They were denied this, and
Withdrew from the Convention. They at
least did nothing more than pursue the
course which Mr.. Douglas announced in
his Dorr letter be would pursue in the
event Of his platform not being adopted /;
| for. if be could not stand on different
platform as a candidate, it logically fol-
lowed that his position was that Of an
tagonism and resistance both TO platform
and candidate.
But, notwithstanding the withdrawal
Of ffty-onc delegates, no nomination was
made at Charleston and after struggle
Of ten days, an adjournment was had to
Baltimore under the following resolution {:
" Resolvcd, That when this Convention adj
iourns it adjourn 10 reassemble at Baltimore
on Monday, the 18th Of June next, aud that
II is respectfully recommended 20 the Demo-
cratic party OF the several States 10 make pro-
vision for suppl ing all vacancies in their re-
spectiye delegations to the Convention when
il shall reasonable"
BALTIMORE CONVENTION.
The Convention met at Baltimore.
Most of the States responded to the invi-
tation above recited, and their delegates
presented their credentials, and asked
admission into the Convention How