Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1860-07-13

If our sole purpose were to justify ourselves we I
could declare that We earnestly employed every ex
pedient in Ur power to avert dissolution Of the |
Convention and when it became inevitable we exert
ed all our influence to give conservative direction
to the excited elements. The truth of these decla
rations would be maintained by the testimony of all
who were witnesses of our conduct. Though we |
very reluctant encounter the responsibilities
cast upon us IN the midst of conflicts and disasters
which we dld not produce, yet trust that they |
were encountered with that firmness which becomes
the representatives of Virginia. But you will de-
sire particular narration of events to enable
you to form proper judgment upon the present |
state Of public affairs.
1t is not province to sit in judgment upon the
parties to those conflicts which arose in the late
Convention, and award their relative shares of
praise or blame to each. Our present task OF ne
cessity, relates mainly to the faults of one party
1t will be performed without acrimony. and with
perfect fidelity to the truth, it appears to our
minds.
When the Convention first assembled at Charles
ton above one-third of its members were the avow-
ed and eager partizans of Northern candidate, who
remains tine conspicuous champion OF polItical
dogma which has been condemned as unconsutntoh-
al by the Supreme Court. AS now urgeu; u mas
degenerated into a mere antslavery prlnepe, tend
ing to divide parties by geographical me- Is
less candid but not less sectional than tne leading
tenet of the Republican party. In order to sustain
the position of that candidate, the leaders OF MS
party in the Convention were Obliged to organize
his partizans upon the basis OF an unconstitutional
prineiple and sectional sentiment adverse TO the
South Meeting with opposition from the South,
they became. at each successive stage OF the con-
aict more decided and resolUte in hostility to our
constitutional rights. In any other sense, we would
not accuse so large portion OF National Demo
cratic Convention of any design hostile to our inst
tutions but you ought to know by what process
the Convention was secticnalized
These partisans OF candidate were almost ex-
clusively Northern members, and they had secured
the alliance of the large delegation from New 1orK'
What was the nature of this alliance we were un-
able to Understand fer the New YORK delegation
seemed to us indifferent to the political principle on
which the organization was based, and not too zeal
GUS for its candidate. Even with the addition OF
New York that wing of the Convention was MI
nority. But by rule of voting invented for the
OCCASION it acquired the force ola majority. Thus
| the leaders of bare third of the Convention OBJ
tanned control its proceedings and they exert
ed their power in behalfot sectional principle.
The new rule to which alluded was, that in any
State that has not provided directed by its State
Convention how its vote may be given. the Conven
ton will recognize the right of each delegate to cast
his individual vote" The artifce concealed In this
rule will be presently explained The rule was sub
mitted to Committee of the Convention. and re-
iected when the Committee was full. Afterwards
| in the absence of the delegate from Virginia and
other members portion OF the Committee resolved
| to report it. Being Unexpectedly sprung upon the
Convention, it was hurried through without opportu
Ill.
died some special facts. not then generally known
could have foreseen its unfair effects and disastrous
consequences We opposed it as erroneous in prin-
ciple and contrary to ali former usages. Its special
design was afterwards discovered.
In the New York delegation there were twenty
votes bound t0 the alliance have mentioned, anG
fifteen votes in opposition. By the new rule those
fifteen votes were suppressed and the whole thirty
! five were cast as the majority determined; for a
State Convention had directed. In Pennsylvania
[ no plafi Of rpVprspd-SpVpntepn
votes being opposed to the sectional leadears and
| ten in their favor, or about those numbers. But
the State Convention had not directed that delega
ton how to cast its vote. If former usage or any
uniform rule had been applied both these power
full delegations and to others, the combination which
we have described would have always appeared to
be- as it really was, minority of the convention.
But when ten favorable votes in Pennsylvania were
set free and fifteen opposition votes in New York
were suppressed, the minority was made to appear
the majority, and, in fact, ruled the convention.
| This ascendancy became absolute and overwhelm-
ing after the secession at Charleston; although we
| succeeded IN retaining partial check upon 1t with
regard to nominations. 1t was by force of the con-
triyance we have explained that majority rejected
the platform supported by the minority. Its rejec-
ton caused severaSouthern States to withdraw from
the Convention at Charleston. Our conduct in that
crisis has already been indicated before you and
| received your approval But the hopes which we
| then entertained have not yet been realized.
| When the convention adjourned to meet in Baltl-
more, in expectation of assembling once more full
convention of the Democracy of all the States, the
| places of those delegates who had Withdrawn had
not been declared vacant. 1t was left to them and
their constituents TO decide whether a withdrawal.
which might be temporary, should be converted into
| an absolute vacation of their seats.
! Most of those delegations returned, and applied
| for admission into the convention at Baltimore.
Their return with the consent of their constituents,
was a fair offer of reconciliation. In inter
| course with them we found them disposed TO make
liberal concessions for the sake OF harmonlzGg the
| cOnyentiOn. They ought not to have been met, at
| such a time with churlish captious objections.
| 4 generous oblivion of former differences would
| have been more appropriate.
| The delegation from Mississippi, reasonably ex-
peeting to be admitted at once and without Objec-
Jion prepared paper to be laid before the conven-
| ton whenever they were admitted; and from that
paper we are permitted to make the following
! extract:
The undersigned are well assured of the graft
fying fact that other States have responded cor
drQv as the State of Mississippi to the invitation
addressed to ALL and their delegates, clothed with
| like authority as ourselves, so far it has been
practicable to obtain it, doubtless prepared as
| we do to Join in fraternal council and deberatiOn
on the questions which distract the party Inspired
with the hope of the preservation OF the Constitu-
ton and of the integrity of the Democratic party,
we will not for moment permit ourselves to doubt
] the existence of the same sentiment with equal
! ardor in the mind of every delegate here present
from the North, South, East, or West; and so be-
| lievng. it is but fair and reasonable to presume
that the invitation extended to the several States
provide for filling the vacancies in their respective
delegations and to meet in this city the 18th of
this month, was not designed as an invitation to
| come here on the barren and thanklesS errand of
ratfyng past decisions foregone conclusions, but
as an invitation meet together truly to deliberate
the and unexpected posture of affairs in the
Democratic party, and to consider all the issues
| which now embarrass its movements. In this hope
they confirmed by the action OF the convention,
subsequent TO the withdrawal of the delegates from
| Mississippi and by the zone of the conservative
| Democratic press throughout the country. With
this view and in this spirit the Democracy OF Mis-
sissipp acting as unit have accredited their dele
gates here, and now prepared to enter upon the
/ discharge of the duties assigned them"
The delegations from Mississippi and Texas ap-
peared without rival delegates to contest their right
| of admission. Yet, their admission was formally
opposed in the Convention their right was subject
ed to the scrutiny of committee, and an effort was
made TO exclude them by offensive resolution I'M
posing a special obligation of adherence to the Con-
| vention. The temper in which this opposition was
urged as soon as we assembled in Baltimore, almost
extinguished our hope of harmony IN the Convention
We had refused to separate from our Northern
associates at Charleston. While we remained there
| and afterwards we endeavored by the moderation
and fairness of conduct, to assuage their preu
dces and reconcile them to more liberal and con-
! ciliatory line of policy than had been pursued at
Charleston Yet on the first attempt to re-unlte the
! marty at Baltimore we discovered an uncOmprO-
missing spirit among those who controlled the chief
mower of the North and more liberal spirit among
| those who had felt constrained to withdraw from
| the Convention at Charleston.
| From the State of Georgia two sets of delegates
/ appeared. One of them was appointed ny State
Convention regularly called, and fully representing
| the Democracy of the State. The other set were
appointed by about an eighth part of the Con-
| vention retiring for the purpose, after they had
been defeated IL the full Convention. The commit
tee on credentials reported in favor of admitting
both sets, with equal power, and with prOviso
that if either declined to VOTE the other should cast
| the entire vote of Georgia This act of injustice
however was so gross. that the delegation from
! New York refused to sanction it; and the regular
delegates from Georgia, well as those from Texas
and Mississippi were finally recognized by the Con-
| ventiOn.
But there were rival claimants also from Ala
| bama and Louisiana. In Alabama a State COnyen-
ton, regularly called had commissioned a new del
egation composed almost entirely of the same dele
| Gates who withdrew at ChareIOn; and beyond
question in our judgment, they were the true rep
TesentatIves of the Democratic party in that State
Their right IN that respect appeared to clearer
| than that Of the delegation from New York for
whose admission of US felt constrained to vote
merely because they were, we thought. the ac-