Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1860-05-25
An Insolent Document.

1
We lay before our readers to-day the ad-
dress of small number Of the members OF
the present Congress to the delegates who
seeded from the Charleston Convention -
This presumptuous paper, which doubtless
originated in the prolific brain of that nm
scrupulous politician, Slidcll, Of Louisiana,
is IN keeping with the character, spirit, and
purpose Of the Senate's resolutions, and is
concurrent evidence Of design on the part
ola Senate caucus to attempt to stide the
voice and suppress the thoughts of the peo-
lple, by usurping the functions of the Dem
cratic National Convention, and practically
taking the nomination of President and Vice
President from the popular Conventions,
called and controlled ordinarily by the peo-
pie, with view to the transfer of that duty
to Congressional caucus. Deeming the
address merely an arrogant and silly mani
festo from irresponsible and self-constituted
political leaders and philosophers, we should
let it pass without notice, to receive its de-
served fate of contempt from the masses,
were it not that the two Senators from Vir-
ginia have affixed their names to it. With
out questioning the taste of one of these
gentlemen in presenting himself, at this
time and under existing circumstances, be-
fore the country as the suppliaut at the feet
|of a few mad-cap disunionists, we shall
briefly consider the paper in its relation to
fact, design and pasicy.
! Whether chargeable to wilful purpose
to mislead the unsuspecting, or an inexcu-
sable ignorance of the data upon which it
assumes to be predicated, is of little impor-
lance, inasmuch as the Misrepresentation
it contains bring with them equal criminal
ity in the one case as the other, for igno-
rance of the law excuseth no man. In sta
ting that the delegates from the seventeen
States, whose representatives in the com
mittee on platforms voted for the majority or
Intervention platform, "adopted with re-
markable unanimity platform of princi-
ptes," &c., there is palpable divergence
from the truth, which suggests curious
suspicion as to the exact motive of the au-
thor Of the sentiment. While the commit
tee men from Virginia and Missouri voted
for the majority report, ii is well known
that they did not do so with the remotest
idea that the report would be adopted. In
deed. the majority of the delegation from Vir-
ginia were committed, before they went to
Charleston, against the doctrine of interven-
ton; and one-half Of the delegation from
Missouri voted and acted against it at every
stage of the proceedings. Tennessee, Ken
lucky, North Carolina and Maryland, were
alike hostile to any interference with the
Cincinnati platform, as an original question,
and only voted for the majority report, know
ing that it could not be adopted, to appease
the clamors, with an empty concession, Of
Alabama and Mississippi. This certainly
was the position Of Virginia and Missouri,
for it was well known that Mr.. Barbour, Of
Va, was totally opposed to an interference
with the doctrine of non-intervention and
Mr.. Clarke, of Mo-, stated in the Conven-
ton, that he voted for the majority report
merely as question of present policy
California and Oregon were Indifferent in
regard to the platform, and would have been
satisfied with either the majority or minor
ity reports, so Douglas was not the nomi-
nee. So the assertion that the seventeen
States adopted with remarkable unanim-
ity," the majority platform, is entirely gra-
tuitous, and unsupported by the facts in the
case.
Equally unfortunate as veracious polit-
lcal record is the address we are now con-
sidering, in the statement that the Southern
States remaining in the Convention did SO
only "after distinctly declaring their deter
mination to withdraw if their just expec-
tatious should be Disappointed in 'obtain-
ing some satisfactory recognition of sound
principles" At no one time was the prop
osition either offered or considered, in the
Virginia delegation, of seeding from the
Convention in the happening Of any contin-
gency. One or two Of the delegates did
declare, upon their own responsibility, that
they would leave the Convention if that
body refused to adopt the rule requiring
two-thirds Of the electoral votes of all the
States necessary to make nomination.
But in no instance was the ;ntimation
thrown out that Virginia would leave the
Convention because Of the defeat of tie ma
jority report. How could she have assumed
such position? Were not a majority of
the delegates from this state elected upon
the idea of non interference with the Cincin-
natl platform ? and did not that same ma
jority vote for the Cincinnati platform, which
was adopted, in Convention With what
show Of consistency could Virginia, then,
have threatened to secede, after the Conycn-
ton had adopted the very platform the peo-