Arkansas true Democrat., 1860-09-08

ioeoiseu couoiueIdDle majority at the democratic national convention in l844. yet no one then contended that he, there fore, was entitled to the nomination. On the contrary, the convention, regarding the opposition Of the minority to his nomna- ton as entitled to consideration and re- spect, refused to nominate him, but nomi- hated Mir. Polk, (against whom there was no objection, and under his banner, the democratic party achieved one of it's great est triumphs. It was this principle of har- mony and concession, of respect and con- slderation for the opinions and views of the minority, which bound the democracy to- gether with bands of steel, and made them lnvlncible on the day of battle. It was the tallSmanlc motto under which we marched to victory-the secret and the key stone to our success
 Far different was the spirit displayed at Charleston and Baltimore by the friends of Mr. Douglas. They came to nominate htna, or break up the convention. Many of their prominent men boldly and openly avowed the purpose" Rule or ruin'' was thelr motto. They met the opinions and views of the seventeen reliable democratic States, almost united in opposition to the nomination of MT. Douglas, with insult and derision.
 The democratic States were welded to no one man. They had their favorites, but they put forth no claim that even one of them should be nominated. They were will ling to take any one of the illustrious and distinguished statesmen of our party, ex- cept Mr. Douglas. He had made himself obnoxious to them for the reasons already mentioned, and they asked that he should not be thrust down their throats Was the request an unusual one? Our history as party shows that it was not Was the re- quest an unreasonable one? Who will say so, when they reflect that upon the States which made 1t, chiefly devolved the task of electlng the nominees of the convention? Yet the Douglas delegates not only turned a deaf ear to this request, but in the most high handed and reckless manner with sa- crlllgious hands tore down the landmarks of the party, and trampled upon democratic comlty and usages, in order to foist that one man upon the convention. With any other democrat they could have had har- mony and union, and presented to-day the spectacle of united and invincible party. We put It to the conscience and the iudg- ment of every honest man, are hey not guilty of setting up this one man as para mount to the union of the States? Are they not guilty of having divided the party? Did they not thus take "the first, fatal and irrevocable stride towards disunion of the States?" From this unenviable position no ingenuity nor device, nor wholesale and reckless charges against others, can relieve them.s .s lnexorable logic" stamps the grave crime upon their brows. Represent ing States, nearly all of which were hope lessly black republican, they claimed that they were entitled to dictate both the plat form and the candidates, and to this end the system of tactics, which we had wit messed outside of the convention, was, for the first time in our history, (and we ear nestly hope the last, steadily and persist ently enacted in 1t. Rules were made and violated at pleasure The decisions of an impartial President were adopted, and then overruled, as it suited their purpose. The usages of democratic conventions were fol- lowed, and then shamfnlly violated, as it accorded with their designs. Everything was made to bend to tine one great purpose for which they assembled nomination of Mir. Douglas. It cannot certainly be considered strange that honorable men, un used to such scenes, should leave the con- vention, and that it was finally virtually broken up.
 The first act of injustice was
 THE UNIT RULE.
 The committee on permanent organiza- tion reported the following rule, known as the unit rule: "That in any State which has not provided or directed by it's State convention how it's vote may be given. the convention will recognize the right of each delegate to cast his individual vote" This rule was in violation of the rule of all for mer conventions, which left to the delega- tion from each State the rightto determine !how the vote should be cast; and it was smuggled into the report of the committee and brought before the convention in the following manner: At the first meeting Of the committee, when all its members were present, this rule was brought before the committee and rejected The committee went on, discharged their other business, and adjourned to an informal meeting in the morning, to enable the chairman to make out the report and submit 1t to the committee for it's approval. At this latter meeting, when some six or eight members of the committee opposed to the rule were absent, not having received notice of called meeting for other business and re- garding the work as virtually finished, the rule was again brought forward and adopt ed. In this disreputable manner was this rule brought before and adopted by the convention.
 By it the votes of the minority. in the de- legations of Indiana, Vermont, New York, and Ohio, amounting to 274 or 5 dele for him. while on the final ballot, at Balt more, it gave him votes in Massachusetts, 10; Pennsylvania, 10; New Jersey, 21; Maryland, 2; Virginia 8; North Carolina, 1; Arkansas, II; Missouri, 4; Tennessee, 3; and Kentucky, 8; in all fl, which he would not have received had the ancient usages and rules of the former copventions, leaving the majority in each State to deter mine how the vote of the State should be cast, been adhered to. Yet the ink was hardly dry that recorded the passage of the resolution, before the very men who clam ored for its adoption, sought to violate 1t, and actually succeeded in their efforts! In the case of New Jersey, where the State convention recommended the dele- gates to vote as unit, the Douglas dele gates overruled the decision of the Presi- dent that by the term recommended the con- vention had provided the mode for casting 1 the vote of the State, and allowed the two or three Douglas delegates to cast their in. | dividual votes.
 WITHDRAWAL OF DELEGATES FROM THE | CHARLT TsToN CONVENTION. The record of proceedings shows this withdrawal was done in sorrow and not in anger; not for the purposes of disunion, but to receive instructions from their con- sttuents. The friends of Mr. Douglas at least, should not complain. Words, how ever, are inadequate to express the bitter ness of their animosity. Had not the de- mocracy of the South the same right to