East Saginaw courier. (East Saginaw, Mich.) 1859-18??, 1860-08-02

their lutefcStS SQuohf pioseSs~~ "'fe s''~'-
honor equally observed; and, whenever
we abandon that safe ground, We falsify
our ancient and proudest profession, and
degrade our national convention to the
level of the convention at Chicago. Ev-
ery true democrat believes that Massa-
chusetts, as we'll as South Carolina,
would ensure her noblest development,
as State, under the influence Of demo
cratic policy; and therefore, in all nation
al conventions, the democracy OF Massa-
chusetts-feeblc, and even insignificant,
as others esteemed them-~-haye been
treatedas brethren and equals. BY means
of such rule, Polk, and Cass, and Pierce,
and Buchanan were nominated for the
Presidency, and three of them elected
What need Of any other rule at Charles
ton? What, assuredly, but the pres
ence, for the first time in our history,
of an intense, fanatical, and mischieveous
spirit Of sectionalism on the part OF the
delegates who seeded?
If the rule for which those delegates
Contend had prevailed heretofore, some OF
our national conventions would have been
curiously constituted. That Of 1874
would have consisted only of delegates
from Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Mis-
souri,, New Hampshire, South Carolina
and Virginia. that of 164s Of delegates
from Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine,
Mi,higan, Mississippi, New York and
Pennsylvania, in addition; that of 1852
of delegates from Alabama, Arkansas,
Illinois, Indiana. Iowa, Maine, Michigan,
Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire,
Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia
and Wisconsin; while that Of 1856 would
have excluded the States of Tennessee
and Kentucky, which voted forlMr. Blu.
chanan, but included Maine, New Ham.
pshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New
York, Maryland, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa
and Wisconsin, which voted against him.
1t will scarcely be argued that dele
gates ought to be admitted into nation
al convention and there denied the right
of voting in accordance with their own
convictions The objection amounts to
nothing, therefore, unless to the dis
franchsement, from time to time, of such
of the States as for any reason, peculiar,
local or temporary, vote against our
Presidential nominees. How would such
a rule operate four years hence?
\ The boast of the democracy is in its
national character and sympathies; there
fore, although our democratic brethren
Of Massachusetts, have not achieved = VIC
tory in any Presidential election since
1920, we do not despise them, but glad
ly admit them, Oh terms Of equality, to
our national conventions.
The truth is, that the secedcrs at
Charleston were actuated by other mo-
tives than sincere regard for the well
fare of the democratic party, or attach
ment to democratic usages and princi-
pies. They were determined to rule the
party, or else to ruin it. No political
organization can exist upon such terms;
because he would be less than q man who
could submit to them. We have suflici-
emily guarded the rights Of minorities
heretofore by requiring each Of our nom-
inees to receive two-thirds of all the cleo
toral votes given in national conven
ton; but whenever we acknowledge that
one fifth of the delegates may las at
Charleston) demand an addition to our
platform, and, upon the refusal of such
demand, may rightfully sccede, we rem
der it impossible for our party to exist
any longer. Let no man deceive himself
in this regard; because here is the whole
controversy at Charleston reduced to
plain, definite, and unavoidable issue.
WHAT OCCURRED AT CHARLESTON AFTER
TnE SECESSION.
Finding itself thus suddenly deprived
of the counsel and assistance Of the demo-
cratic party in eight States, the conven-
tion abandoned all attempts to modify or
enlarge the Cincinnati platform, and pro-
cceded to the nomination OF candidates.
but, in order that no reasonable OBJ
lection should be alleged to the validity
of its nominations, the convention alter
ed the rule.of all former conventions, AMI
required not merely two-thirds of the
electoral votes given, buttwo.thirds of all
the electoral votes.
Fifty-seven ballots ensued, and in tho
course of those ballots, repeatedly, q ma
jority of the entire convention indicated
Stephen A. Douglas as their choice for
the Presidential office.
The enemies of that distinguished
statesman have asserted many times that
bis friends were disposed to force him
upon the national convention. The falsity
of this will appear from the fact that his
friends could have nominated him at
Charleston, after the sece ,sion, it accord.
ance with the ancient rule demanding
two-thirds of the votes given; whereas
they altered that rule immediately, and
required two-thirds of all the electoral
votes, or nearly four-ffths Of the votes
which remained.
ADJOURNMENT TO BALTIMORE.
At last, unable to discharge satisfae-
torily the trust con6ded to il by the DEM
ooratic party of the United States, in
consequence Of the secession to which we
have referred, the convention adjourned
from the Sd of May to the 18th Of June,
and from the city Of Charleston to the
city of Baltimore, calling upon the do
mocracy Of the several States whose
delegates had retired to fill tho vacancies
sAt Baltimore ON motion of Governor wicklifs,
Of Indiana, the following resolution was adopted
unanimously in iiou of that proposed by Mr.. Samuel