Fayetteville observer. [volume] (Fayetteville, Tenn.) 1850-1966, 1860-07-12
Nplitital Afahiag.
To The Democracy Of Tennessee.

! .o~>~~~~~~
To The Democracy Of Tennessee
The undersigned having been Sc
Sleoted by the majority of the Ten
Dessee delegation 10 the Nationa
Democratic Convention, toprepare ant
present to you history Of :hei
action, and the causes which pro
duced the disruption Of our party
and the nomination of two different
candidates for the Office of Presiden,
and Vice President, we shall proceed
at once to the task without further
PREDATORY remarks. 1t became very
evident during the session Of ouI
last State CoLyention that the ma.
jority Of our party in Tennessee
were opposed TO the selection of Hon
S. A. Douglas as our candidate, snd
/ that they desired from the National
Convention some expression OF the
disappsobation of the right of Ter
ritorial Legislature to impair or de-
strey the rights Of slaveholders in
the Territories. We proceeded to
Charleston with this impression on
our minds, although firmly intend
ing, if his nomination were properly
sc,ompli, he'd according TO the usages
aud rules of the convention, that Ke
would oheerfully submit to and ablds
by its decision
| When We reached Charleston We
found the delegates tosthat couyen-
ton very nearly equally divided
both on the subject of expressing
any opinion as to the powers OF a
Territorial Legislature over the in.
stitution of slavery in its borders,
and in their preference or dislike oi
Mr Douglas, as our candidate for the
Presidency.
Tbs majority Of the States, en-.
brscing almost the entire list of those
Who were reasonably certain to give
d Democratic vote iu the, Electoral
College, were against the doctrine Of
Popular or Squatter Sovereignty,
and opposed to Dir. Douglas. The
numerical majority AS given under
thesrules Of the convention. we're op.
posed TO the enunoiatien of any
opinion as to the power of Terri
torisl Legislature over the institution
Of slavery, and were fayorablc to tho
claims Of Mr.. Douglas. In the COW
stitution of. the Committee on Res
olutions, the opposers OF Mr. Douglas
had the advantage, and in the vote
on their adoption by sbe convention,
his friends could reverse the action
Of this committee. ~ ge1
We firmly believe and assert that
the ascendency Of the friends Of MIR.
Douglas in the numerical vote Of the
convention vas the result OF party
tectics, rather than any real express
sion of opinion. By some exercise
Of skill 10 State Conventions, where
ever Mr.. Douglas bad the strength,
the delegations we're instructed to cast
their votes as q unit, whilst bis op.
ponents hid not used this strategic
skill, but generally speaking, left
each delegate TO vote as be pleased,
and carry out his own particular
views. This result was very disas-
trous TO Us throughout all our actiens
and deliberations, it tied Up many
votes in Northern States which never
could be given or appreciated, whilst
it unlossed some one or two votes
in most of the Southern States that
were given for Douglas, and ,yorse
than all, it entirely destroy ed the
weight always due to the deliberate
expression of the opinion Of q myor-
ity. .s'
The opponents. Of 9 Mr. Douglas
could say With truth that they vere
outvo.ed by majorities ranging from
one to thirty, yet this would 7bavs
been reversed at any moment when
a free expression could he giseoso
the opinion Of the individual dele
gstes, and they naturally thought
that such results were oppressive
and unjust. The majority Of the
Committee on Resolutions represent
ing seventeen States, reported fol
adoption the following Platform:
Rssolrsd, That the platform adopt.
ed by the Democratic party al Gin
ciunati be affirmed, With the follow
ing explanatory resolutions:
1st. That the government Of :
territory, cresnizet by an act Q
Congress, is PROVISIONS, md !snoora
a .g = tas ssesssss,