Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1860-07-02
The VIRGINIA DELEGATES TO the Baltimore
Convention, in their address to the Democ-

racy say
"When the Convention first assembled at
! Charleston, about onc-thrd of lis members were
| the ayowcd and eager partisans OF Aortherh
candidate who remains the conspicuous champion
of a political dogma which has been condemned as
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. AS no"
urged, it has degenerated into mere anti slavery
principle tending to divide parties by geosraph-
ical line 1t is less candid but not less sectional
than the aiing tenet of the Republican party
In order to sustain the position Of that candidate,
the leaders of his party il the Convention were
! obliged TO organize his partisans upon TIE basis
| of an unconstitutional principle, and sectional
sentiment adverse to the South. Meeting WIN
opposition from the South they became at each
successive stage of the conflict more decided ana
resolute in hostility to our constitutional rights
In any other sense would not accuse 50 large
| a portion Of a National Democratic Convention oil
any design hostile to our institutions; but you
ought to know by what process the Convention was
| sectionaliZed.
These partisans of a candidate almost eN-
clusively Northern members, and they had sccur-
ed the alliance of the large delegation from Ne"
| York. What was the nature OF this alliance we
were unable to understand, for the New York del
egation seemed to us Indifferent to the political
principle on which the organization was based,
and not too Jealous for its candidate. Even with
the addition of New York, that wing OF the Con-
vention was Il minority. But by rule OF voting
invented for the occasion, it acquired the force OF
Il majority Thus the leaders OF bare third OF
the Convention obtained control over lis proceed
ngs, and they cXerted their power III behalf OF i
sectional principle
The new rule to which we alIudc WAS, ''that in
any State which has not provided or directed by
its State Convention how its vote may he gwen,
the Convention will recognize the right OF each
delegate to cast his individual vote The aruhce
concealed in this rule will he presently explained.
The rule was first submitted 10 committee OF the
Convention and rejected when the committee was
full. Afterwards, in the absence 81 the delegate
from Virginia and other members, portion OF the
committee resolved to report it. Beng uneX"ect-
eddy sprung upon the Convention, II was hurried
through without opportunity for diS"usslon.-
None but those who had studied some special
facts, not then generally known, could have fore
seen its unfair effects and disastrous consequences
We opposed it rs erroneous in principle and con
trary to all former usage. Its special design WAS
afterwards discovered.
In the New York delegation there we're twenty
votes bound 10 the alliance We have MENTIONED,
and fifteen votes in opposition. by the he" RUE
those fifteen votes were suppressed and the whole
thirty-tvc were cast the majority determined;
for II State Convention had so directed. in Penn
sylvania the relation of parties was reversed, sew
entecn votes being opposed TO the sectional leaders
But the State Convention had not directed that
delegation how TO cast its vote. II former usage
or any uniform rule had been applied to both
these powerful delegations and To others thc col M
bnaton which we have described would nave al
ways appeared 10 be, rs it really was, a minority
OF the Convention. Bat when ten favorable vote"
in PENNSYLVANIA were set free, and fifteen opposing
votes in New York were suppressed, the minority
was made toappear the ma ority, and, III fact raj
| ed the Convention. This ascendcncy became abSo-
lutte and overwhelming after the secession ut
Charleston, although We succeeded IN retaining Il
partial checkupon it with regard to nominations.
1t was by force Of the contrivanccwe have eXpianed
that aninorty rejected the platform supported by
the majority lis rejection caused several Southern
States 10 withdraw from shc Convention "a; Charles
ton Our conduct in that crisis bias already been
yndcatcd before you, and has received your ai'-
proval. But the hopes which we then entertain
ed have not been realized
When the Convention al ourncd to meet i'll Bal
timorc, in expectation Of assembling once more be
fore full Convention al the Democracy OF all the
States the places of those delegates who had with
drawn were not declared vacant II was left 10
them and to their constituents To decide whether
withdrawal which mi GIT DC temporary, should hc
converted into an absolute vacation "i ihe4r
seats.
Most Of those delegations returned, and applied
for admission into The Convention AT Baltimore
Their return, with the consent olthcir constituents,
was a fair offer OF reconciliation. In our inter
course with them we found them disposed to make
liberal concessions for the sake Of harmoEl1mg
the Convention. They ought not to have been
net, at such II time, with churlish or captlous OBJ
jcctions 4 generous oblivion Of former diifrrcn-
ces would have been more approprlate.
They then recount the proceedings had
with regard to the admission OF Delegates
- loo, l, r,
the public. and add
at was not the purpose Of most Of Us to join
! the Richmond Convention. We soon found our
selves surrounded by nearly al. the delegates from
the Democratic States Of the Union, North aud
South, and 10y many from other States. BY
prompt and energetic action, ii appeared possible
| to continue the existence Of the National Demo
cratic party. That duty we undertook in con unc-
ton with others. The results are already known
| to yor. 1t remains now with the people to pre-
serve Il National State Rights party liberated from
| unconstitutional and inSliouS scctIonnllsnl, and
purified from many corrnptlons.
Those who remained i'll the Northern Sectional
Convention, made nominations oi canGiiatvs for
the Offices Of President and Vice President. The
former is reported 10 have received only iSi3 votes
less than ,wo thirds OF Il full Convention. II
| we deduct votes improperly introduced, aud 9TH
crs improperly counted. We shall lind that we re-
ceived less than half the votes 81 the Representa-
;iycs Of the Democracy. This fact Is mentioned
i TO satisfy every one that could not have been
ac;uatcd in our conduct by mere hostility 10 that
candidate. Ii was manifest from the BEGINNING
that without retracting his unconstitutional here
sy, he could never be nominated in the Conv"n-
ton according to the established usage Of the par
IT, More recently it has been equally manifest
that the c0ndpct oil himself and his partiSans had
rendered such Il nomination absolutely and un-
conGtionally impossible. To have rcsorted 10 Vi
olcnt measures mercl to compass his defeat would
have been both needles aud tactiouS.
Fellow citizens, we recount these events with
painful emotions. Our consolation is, shat We
have done our duty according 10 the best dictates
of our conScicnces and our Judgments; that, al
least, we have preserved the honor Of Virginia
unsuied, and her rights unilnpaircd; that
have stood firmly against all ScctionaliSm eth
er hand: that we have secured for you ofp"rti-
nifty of preserving 1t sound. NATIONAL State Xxi gifts
| Democratic party: and shat Virginia has not,
| through our action. Swerycd from the consistent
support Of the rights uf The States, The Conatito
ton and the Union.
ChaS. ". Russell, ". D. Lcake,
John Brann0n, Walter Coles.
James Barbour, Levi: L. Haryc.
O. r. Funston, Henry Fitzhugh.
john Blair IIoae, L. W. Hubbard.
NJ. ". Fisher, II. I. Garrett,
Vim. \. Bucknor, j. v. Crockett,
". p. Cecil. john Seldom.
George Booker, K. \. Coshiu
p. L. Jones, VIM. I. Thompson.