Daily national Democrat., 1860-09-14
RREcKINRIDGE ACcEPrsl

acceptance appeared III your paper OF lhe
10th inst. Its publication in this State has
carried CONSERVATION to the hearts of his
boldest supporters; it has opened the eyes Of
the honest and unsuspecting who are for
for him through a misunderstanding of the
true issues involved in this contest it fur
nshes the strongest argument, why all who
love their country are attached to the Union
and its Constitution, should vote against
him. Then keep it before the People The
Ohiee-Holders Party would gladly have it
forgotten-they may gain their selfish ends,
if they can succeed in deceiving the People
but they never can corrupt them. The
voters of California love the Union, and will
at the ballot-box place the seal Of their CON
demnation alike upon the Disunionist of the
South and the Abolitionist of the North.
Mr.. Breeknridge accepts a nomination
conferred upon him 10y a Convention consist
ing of representatives, from South Carolina,
Georgia, Alabama, Florida Mississippi, Lou
isiana. Arkansas and Texas, alone Con-
vention Acknowledged by every one to be
sectional one, with no siuge element of
nationality in its composition, but on the
contrary called for the purpose of counter
acting the policy of the Democratic Party.
In proof of tIis, it is only necessary, in con
necton with the fact that Mr.. Yancey, Of
Alabama, whose name is synonym for dis
union, was its leading spirit, to repeat the
language Of one or two of its members.
Mr. Rhett, of South Carolina, member of
the Convention, speaking of its object and
purpose, in a letter dated May 10Th, 1860,
uses the following clear and unmistakabe
language;
You say, Have ce not heretofore opposed
" national party conventions, and is not the
Richmond Convention a national party
convention ?"
/ answer, no. national party conven-
tion is the convention of party which is
" based on national principles, that is, prnci-
piles common to all portions of the United
States The Richmond Convention is not
such a convention; its declared principles
"are not national, for not single Northern
State has dared to avow them. 1t is a
Sectional Convention, called 10y one section
"of the Union to support rights and interests
belonging to one section of the Union and
acknowledged by but one section of the
Union. 1t arises out of the debris of the
great national party in the Union-the
"Dtmocratic Party-and is intended to
counteract its policy.
" 1t is true that all those of the Democratic
party in the United States, who agree with
" the platform the eight Southern States Law
down as their criterion of party afliliaton,
are invited to attend the Richmond Con-
vention. This is certainly an ohjectiona-
Die feature in the Convention, but it does
" not alter its character as Southern Con-
vention, to support Southern rights and
Interests"
Mr.. Burt, another member, said in the
Convention that elected him as delegate to
the Richmond Convention
81 have not one element Of the National
Democracy in me. l was raised a uulljfer
of the strctest sect was brought up at
the feet Of Gamaliel, and would be recreant
" not only to friendship but to principle. if
| were to apostacize and find myself in the
ranks of the National Democracy"
But it is unnecessary to produce profit
Is admitted every one knows, and the most
unscrupulous of the Office Holders Party
will not deny that the Richmond Conven-
ton was purely sectional convention, called
and controlled Ly those arch agitators of
secession aud disunion, Yancey, Rhett d Co..
whose greatest pride and loudest boast are
that, in their constitution, there is mot
single element Of National Democracy"
And yet Mr. Breckenridge accepts a nomi-
nation offered to him 10y such a convention,
and calls it "the Democratic Convention. =,
"and will strive to meet the confidence i'm
piled hy the action Of the convention
Mr. BrecAinridge knew the oil jects of that
convention and the character, motives and
purposes of the men that composed it. To
sly that he did not, would be to deny to him
even ordinary intelligence, but if any
argument were necessary to show his COM
plcity with the disunionsts Of that Conven-
ton, 1t would be sufficient to suggest that
those who gave him the nomination at Rich
mond were men who for years had lahored
and intrigued for the ruin of the Democratic
party, as the only means for bringing about
the dissolution Of the Union; who have been
toiling necessarily, in season and out of sea-
son, to tamiliorize the people of the Cotton
States with the idea of secession. They of
course knew his sympathies, and whether he
would further their designs or not they
knew Mr.. Breckinridge, and he suited them.
If he suits them, it must follow that he is
not the man for the National Democratic
Party to trust and honor.
Suppose, Mr. Editor, that convention of
Abolitioniss had met in Buffalo, or any other
place, and given to Stephen A. Douglas the
nomination for the Presidency, and MIR.
Douglas had formally accepted the nomina-
tion, what National Democrat could have
supported him? By accepting the nomina.
tom it is of course understood that the nom
inee agrees politically with those who nomi.
mated him and will endeavor to promote their
peculiar policy. Is there any difference be-
tween the two, the Dsuniouist and the Abo-
htionist? Are they not equally the abomin
alton of all Union loving men? But, oh.
how it would be shouted over the eoun-
Try, from the White House at Washington to