The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1860-08-21

to their vorite, and the greater will be the danger
that shall lose the State in November-Rd1
Standard.
No one denies the right of the Douglas men to
assemble in Convention, but the propriety of such
action the part of those protesting to be demo-
Gratis is very questionable. Does Douglas stand
the least chance of getting North Carolina? Sure
ly, one will pretend that he does. Then is it
not plain that no good can result to the democratic
party from Douglas movement, and are not those
who engage in such movement liable to the
charge of being disorganizers We have never
denounced the Douglas men, nor has any other
democratic paper in this State denounced them.
Since the adjournment of the Baltimore Conven-
ton, while We have cordially supported Breckin-
ridge, we have carefully RETAINED from publishing
harsh word against Mr. Douglas or his friends,
not deeming it at all necessary to do in order to
carry the State for Breckenridge. But the Doug
las men themselves have not shown a similar con-
ciliatory spirit. In the Standard of the 18th of
| July, a communication was published ridiculing,
disappearing and denouncing the democratic
editors of the State because they fit to rally to
the support of Breckenridge and Lane. At the
time we considered it very unkind in the editor of
the Standard to admit such a communication, as
it attacked and misrepresented those who had al
ways been his true friends. And since then, COM
ed so as to make the impression that the Breckin-
ridge party is disunion party. What good does
it do for the Standard to counsel peace and har-
mony, when nearly every issue of that paper con-
tains communications from Douglas men calculated
to produce anything else but harmony, and some
of them threatening to 60 over to the opposition
unless their terms are acceeded to?} But let
all that passive merely mention these things to
show that instead of the Douglas men being de-
nounced by the Breckenridge men, they them
selves have unnecessarily attacked the friends of
the latter gentleman.
Further: Is it not well known that the Douglas
men have been attempting to produce the impress
sion that the supporters of Breckenridge were dis
unjoniSts? Even while We were engaged in
warm State contest some of the friends of Doug
las were using arguments and making assertions
which afforded Pool and his party some excuse for
charging disunionism upon the supporters of Gov.
Ellis and Mr. Breckinridge. Articles from the
Standard quoted against us by Mr. Pool DR..
Speed, and almost every opposition speaker and
paper in the State; but we submitted to it all in
silence rather than do anything to produce angry
feelings We allude these things now for the pur
pose of showing that if any persons have right to
complain, they tie friends of Breckenridge and
not Douglas. Why, Mr. Dicks call for Douglas
Convention contains language calculated to insult
the friends of Breckenridge and Lane. He calls
upon the friends of Douglas and johnson to rally
"unaeed by dictation from the administration
ut Washington city on the hand, the Yam
cey secessionists on the other" To say the least,
such remarks as these are unkind on the part of
Mr. Dick He has held federal appointment
throughout Mr. Buchanan's Administration, and
if the attempt to awe him or any other democrat
in North Carolina has been made Dy the Admins
tration, we have never heard of it, And why does
Mr. Dick speak Of the "Yancey secessionistsP Are
not the gentlemen who withdrew from the Doug
las Convention at Baltimore good Union men
he any other Douglas man? Will any one
pretend to say that Bedford Brown, John Walker,
VIM. Lander, W. w. Avery, DIR. Mills, w. L.
Steele, James Fulton, S. P. Hill, w. S. Ashe,
Samuel Hargrave, and other members of the n. c.
delegation who withdrew, are disunionists? Their
lives and conduct would emphatically contradict
such a charge. Then, certainly, MIR Dicks re-
mark about "Yancey secessionists' is gratuitous
and uncalled for.
We commenced this article only for the pur-
pose of saying that the friends of Douglas in North
Carolina had no right to complain of unfair or in
proper treatment by the supporters of Breckin-
ridge and Lane, and we have extended our re-
marks further than we contemplated. But we
will say now, as we have said before, we have no
desire for discussion with any one who processes
to be democrat, but we cannot and will not re-
main silent when we disposition on the part
Of Douglas friends to create sympathy by trying
to make it appear that they have been unjustly
dealt with. Our readers bear witness that we
have heretofore carefully refrained from publish
ing anything which would tend to engender bad
feeling between the admirers of Douglas and the
friends of Breckenridge. Of course, any one who
chooses can support Douglas-we deny one
the right to do that-but do contend that it is
the daty Of all democrats to support Breckenridge
and Lane, and to avoid any action that would en-
courage the opposition party in the State.
-~
at is now apparent that if the friends of Equal
Taxation had known their strength, they could
easily have carried the State; but they thought
the majority against them was too great to over
come IN one canvass; therefore concluded to divide
1t, and leave part of the work for another heat.