Richmond daily Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1842-1861, 1860-07-20


invite all in the United States who agree with them
In their abolition designs Join With them 10 their con-
vention At Chicago Suppose delegates should 60 into
that convention las they willy from Southern States
would that dsrobs 1t Of Its sectional Character VII
the fact that from few many States in the North,
delegates may attend the Richmond Convention change
its character as q sectional convention"
Another delegate, Hon. Armistead Burt thus address
ed the convention by which he was appointed at Column
bia June I'd:
"Mr. Wright, of Spartanburg, rose and nominated
Hon. A. Burt, Of Abbeville
"Mr. Burt and begged 10 inform his friend that
he most egregousy mistaken II his nomination was
to be considered concession to the convention party
He bad not one element Of the National Democracy in
him. was raised Nulifer of the strictest sect.
was brought up at The feet Of Gamae and would be re-
crean not only 10 friendship but to principle, il were
to apostalize aud find yse!fin tho ranks Of the Nation
al Democracy. l will say, If you will allow me only
few words tor than sixteen years bave enter
tanned an opinion which has mover been changed. It
was nv misfortune, in 1851, to differ with friends whom
loved as dearly as q loves friends; and, from
February, 1874 have never doubted SO help me God,
that these southern States would soon have to choose
between slavery and disunion."
Mr. Burt received after this declaration all but
and one-eevenih Of the votes cast and was Of course
elected.
Such are the avowed sentiments Of two gentlemen
with whom the seceders from the Democratic National
Convention at Baltimore afterwards united at Richmond
10 affirming the nomination Of hessrs Breckenridge and
Lane
FLORIDA
The State convention of Florida reappolnted most Of
the delegates who had seeded Charleston but accred
tied them TO the Richmond convention only; aud yet
those delegates while they did not claim admission
into the Democratic National convention ut Baltimore,
were admitted into and constituted part OF the meeting
at the Maryland Institute by which hessrs Breckenridge
and Lane were nominated.
MISSISSIPPI.
The delegates from this state who seeded from the
convention Charleston reapponted TO the Nation
al Democratic convention at Baltimore as well as ap-
pointed TO the convention at Richmond They were
knowledged by the former regular delegates, but
fused 10 take their seats.
The Charleston seceders from Texas were reapponted
to the National convention at Baltimore, as well al ap-
pointed to the convention at Richmond by the State
Democratic committee in virtue Of power specially con-
fered. They, also, acknowledged by the former
convention regular delegates but refused to take their
seats.
LOUISIANA.
The seceders from this State avoided trial before
gular convention Of the Democratic party but called up
on the delegates by whom they had been choscu-dele
gates whose duty and office had expired-to reasonable
at Baton Rouge and represent the Democracy in crcum
stances contemplated at the time OF their appoint
men trump of these delegates did reassemble,
without au horty from the people, and reappointed the
secedcrs delegates TO the Democratic National Conven
ton at Baltimore aud also appointed them as delegates
to the con yenton at Richmond.
Meanwhile, in pursuance Of call from several Demo-
cratic associations in New Orleans sanctioned by the
representative of Louisiana in the National Democratic
Committee, the Democracy of the State assembled in
convention at Donaldsonyle by delegates Immediately
chosen from the people, and repudiatng the seccdes
as unfaithfu appointed delegation, accredited
solely to the Democratic National Convention at Balti-
more.
ALABAMA.
T., Ctata tho committee annointad M MOntoome-
ry in January, 1860 for the purpose Of carrying into
effect the scheme OF secession then meditated, and az
forwards accomplished at Charleston, assembled con-
venon in pursuance of It's original design, or, as they
declared TO consider phdt best TO be done Where
upon the Democracy Of Alabama sensible that the Mont
gomery convention had abused lis trust Ia assuming
attitude Of hostility toward the Democratic party OF
other States denounced that committee as an integral
part of the scheme medated and accomplished, and
hereupon declined to be governed by its advice. On
the contrary in accordance with the usage Of that State
the Democracy Of the several counties called each
other by county meetings, TO appoint delegates to
Democratic State convention, at Montgomery TO hll the
vacancies from Alabama 10 the National Convention,
caused by the secession at Charleston The convention
of the Democracy of Alabama regularly assembled
and appointed full delegation, accredited to Baltimore
only.
The other convention proceeded nevertheless, to ap
point another delegation (ncludng the most prominent
seceders accredited equally to Baltimore and to Rich
mond.
ARKANSAS.
Two OF the eight delegates from this State did not Sc
cede Charleston and State convention was after
wards assembled In each congressional district how
ever two conventions had been called the delegates to
which had been all appointed prior TO the meeting OF the
Charleston convention, and of course, without reference
its action nominate candidates for Congress- These
conventions assumed the authority TO appoint dele
gates 10 the Baltimore convention.
In the first congressional district mass meeting Of
the National Democracy called by advertising in the
papers published 10 the district and others out OF
having circulation there, which numerousy attend
ed aud which, with unusual unanimily, appointed four
gentlemen of character and distinction to represent that
district in the Baltimore Convention. Three OF them at
tended aud permitted by the committee on creden-
tias to cast the vote.
The second congressional district having called no
meeting, the committee permtted'the delegate APP
pointed by the congressional convention, together with
the seceders and appointees Of the first congressional
convention TO votes leaving vote 10 be cast
by Nessrs Fournoy aud Sirman, whose right to cast
contested by neither party they having never sece
ded Mr.. Stirman, however, declined TO vote after the
secession of the majority OF the Virginia and other South
ern delegations which left but one aud half cast
BY Arkansas for Mr. Douglas i; must be conceded that
tue report OF the committee upon credentials was 60 ho-
era and eonciiatory toward the seceders and their
friends TO be hardly just to the representatives OF the
National Democracy from this State.
GEORGIA.
In this State after the Charleston secession, regular
State Convention was called Miledgevle and all the
deegates-as well those who had seeded those who
had not-were re-appouted delegates from Georgia TO
the Democratic National Convention, at Baltimore, and
also appointed delegates to the Convention at Rich.
mond. A large minority Of this convention protested
against tie act accredng delegates to Richmond decar
Ing that of hostility toward the National Organi-
zaon Of the Democratic party and refusing to engage
in any such scheme. This minority withdrew from the
convention aud uniting with the repressn aves OF seye
raj counties who had refused TO participate in it. organi-
zad separate convention, and appointed full deega.
ton, accredited to Baltimore only.
ACTION At BALTIMORE.
II appears from what have said that all the dele
gates 10 he Richmond convention except from the four
States OF South Carolina Norida Louisiana, and Alaba-
ma we're actually admit ed delegates, in the National
convention Baltimore; that convention sacrificing the
usages OF the Democratic party, and even las we thnk
il, proper serespec for the sake Of reunion, harmony,
and ultimate
South Carolina aud Florida did not apply for admission;
and therefore, II cannot be tad that auy injustice
inflicted upon them.
10 the cases OF Louisiana and Alabama the dele
cations were admitted and those who represented the
Charleston seceders rejected The decision OF those
two cases. therefore, must constitute the sole preext for
the secession at Baltimore.
We have related the facts of each case, understood
by the majority Of the committee credentials and BY
the majority Of the convention and although confident
Ia our opinion that the convention erred in admitting
single delegate accredited TO the rival convention at
Richmond We, nevertheless submit 10 you feow-czens,
whether decision between two deega ions from Louisi
ana and Alabama even treating the decision as errone-
GUS constituted any sufficient to those delegates
from Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, Kentucky,
Tennessee California Oregon and other States who se-
ceded, thereupon, at Baltimore
Was It not pretext industriously sought and at the
nstgaion Of men-Cabinet officers Senators and Rep.