Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1860-06-01

WenS Stated

Wen stated.
The L~ynchburg Republican, whose edi-
! tor was = delegate to Charleston and a warm
supporter Of Mr.. Hunter, makes the fol-
lowing just and truthful remarks. We en-
dorse every statement of fact contained in
the article. We can testify to the calm,
cool, dignifed and gentlemaly demeanor Of
the Northern friendsof Judge Douglas, oven
when their candidate was denounced in the
most bitter t~erms-their nationality hooted
at-their remarks Kissed and sneered at
and they themselves stigmatized as abolition
lists and enemies of the South. Although
they had fallen at home in defence Of the
rights of the South, yet they were tainted
and reviled because their States were not
democratic. Although begging to be plas-
ed in a position to defeat and triumph over
the Black Republicans-our political foe
and place votes in Congress to defend our
rights, they were proclaimed to be abolition
lists and enemies Of the South. Although
presenting a record Of unvarying devotion
to the Constitution and the equality Of the
States; Of firm and ~tireless attachment to the
Democratic party; yet they were distrusted
and treated as enemies. Even under all these
circumstances, they never permitted an un-
kind retort, or INDUCED in elimination
Notwithstanding Southern delegations were
seeking to interpolate the Democratic plat
form with a doctrine that could not fail to
prove their destruction. The Republican
says:
The enemies Of Judge Douglas say that the sece-
ders at Charleston, wore forced out OF the Conyen-
ton by the obstinate conduct OF the Douglas men:
This is all CANNON. Judge Douglas friends did
not do a single dishonorable or unfair act in the
Convention. They did not attempt any innovation
upon the established usages of the party or its Con-
%ventions. They did not change Or seek to change
the two-thirds rule. which has always been regard
ed as the ample safeguard to the South. They did
not seek to change The Democratic Platform or
give to it their peculiar construction. On the con-
trary, they proposed a resolution to this effect
.'That, as there exists a difference of opinion a.
mongst Democrats as to the power OF the peo-
pie Of a Territory ON the question of slavery, we
agree to refer that difference to the decision OF the
Courts, and pledge ourselves to abide by and en-
force that d decision"
There was, therefore, no innovation or attempt
at innovation by tn Douglas men at Charleston
The only ~factious proceedings there were enacted
by the Southern Seceders, who sought to fight OFT
the vote on the platform in a manner which was
disgusting to many Of their own friends-so much
so that one of them fir I'm Florida protested against
it. The Douglas men acted fairly and honorably
throughout the whole Convention.
But, say these gentlemen, the Douglas men at
tempted to force their favorite upon the Conven-
ten ind would not withdraw him! This is cool,
certainly. Judge Douglas, with d clear majority of
the Convention, and a large majority of the popu-
lar Democratic vote Of the nation in his favor, is
blamed for not getting ont of the way for somebody
elseN Is there any sense or justice In such a COM
plant as this? We think the di~ctation, if any, was
clearly on the other side. The South attempted to
dictate to the North-the minority to the majority.
/ Virginia voted ftty-seven times for Senator Hun
ter. and kentucky the same number OF times for
Mr. Guthrie. Was this obstinacy ? Was this die
tations The Douglas men have made no such
charge against Virginia and Kentucky, though
| they could dc it with far more grace and truth
than a similar charge is made against them.
At no period OF the Convention was the South a
unit, on either principle or men. Her vote was
: split all to pieces between her leading statesmen
from first to last. The highest she gave for any
one candidate was about 81 for Guthrie: Thus d.
vided and distracted in her own counsels-unable
to present a solid front in favor of any one man
with what show of reason or %propristy can she assail
the friends of Judge Douglas for not abandoning
their favorite and going to them
But, it is said Judge Douglas is objectionable to
} the South, and therefore the North ought to yield.
The North, on the other hand, say that they do
not agree with So uthe TN Statesmen about Congress
sional intervention, and that they cannot carry a
single Northern State upon anv suca issue Or with
any such man. You, gentlemen, Of the South, are
strong, say they, and can vote for our man, though
you may differ with him on a particular point. We
Of the North are weak, from fighting your slavery
batties-we are besicged by a merciless army Of
crazy abolition fanatics, and we can't carry your
man. Now, be fnagnanimuas and give us our man
and we will carry the election and save the country.
Is not this appeal of the Northern Democracy as
strong as our appeal to them?
Again, it is said, that the South casts 1870 electo-
raj votes. all of which are certain for the Democrat
ic candidate. Therefore, say they the North ought
to yield their man and their views to the demands
of the South, because the North cannot give us as
surance of but one or two States, if any. This ar
gument would 90 very well-nay. it would be con-
elusive, if 120 electoral votes were all tn lat are re-
CURED to elect a President. But, unfortunately,
such is not the feet. ThirtyJfour Northern votes
are required to effect that object, and they are just
as necessary as the 100 Southern votes. No candid
mind will pretend to deny that Judge Douglas can
carry more than thirty four Northern votes, while
it is by no means certain that any other man can
carry half that number, If any at all. The friends
of Judge Douglas, therefore, have just as m UGH
reason TO adhere to their man as the South has to
oppose him. The Democracy of the South can no
more get along without the Democracy of the North
than the latter can get along without the former.