Daily Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1860-1862, 1860-08-02

| euttTldlH.. 4
| But the letter does not urge disunion-doas
not advocate disruption, either of the DEM
| oeracy or OF the Union. Mr. Slaughter has
written 10 me urging me to abandon the
Democracy. as the great obstacle 10 Southern
union. | replied, refusing to go into his
| scheme. He called the Democratic part any
Augean siabls, and his scheme would clean
it out. [ denied that his scheme could sue
coed. He predicted good from its overthrow.
The letter refuses assent 10 his prediction
To wean him from his chimcrical and short
sighted policy, 1 suggested to him to aid in
extending the League: not to destroy the
party, which in the same letter had refused
to give countenance to, but 10 elevate and
purify the true men OF the country. Aud for
| what purpose? The Douglas papers and
orators, following the idea given by Mr..
Douglas himself, answer and say that pro-
claimed my purpose in that letter to be Ito
precipitate the cotton States in n reyoiu-
tion." l say that this is a gross perversion
| of the letter and spirit of that document
The letter itself says that the purpose was "a
prompt resistance on the merit OPPRESSION y that
''at proper nlonpent' this resistance can be
| made.
This. and this alone. Is the of nee in that
| letter. When it was written 1 had in ms
head no scheme of disunion. | have had
none sincc--I have none now. Then, as
| now, was for using all proper means for
/ maintaining our rights within theU nion-then
as now to elevate, purify. and bring the Dem
| oeratic party up TO strict maintenance of
| the full measure of our constitutional rights
and TO ignore all further compromises. To
| this end have | honestly labOrtd up to this
| hour. The whole tone and tenor of that let
| ter is to prepare for enforcing the platform
| of the United States Convention of Georgia
'on the next aggression" at a '.proper mo-
ment." When the hour arrives, shall be
| found prepared. That did not have in view
the destruction of the party and the Union
at Charleston is made evident by the fact,
that when its disruption was complete, on
| the adjournment at Charleston by the ceces-
| sion of eight Democratic and cotton States"
| so far from diScOuntenancing all efforts to
| heal the breach-So far from cndeayorIng to
widen it, and thus make it perpetual-so far
! from eXuling ov-r it, and looking upon it,
as charged and falsely charged in the eighth
and last allegation, las the period which was
| looked forward to (by me) when the Demo-
cratic party and the Union were to be over
Whelmed IN one common ruin, THE coun-
try we'll knows that as soon as a well groun-
ded hope OF harmony being restored was
held out, L seized upon that hope, and used
all my influences with reluctant friends to
obtain reunion Of the Democracy ut Balti-
more.
That a reunion was not effected at Balti-
more was not owing to any act or expression
OF mine, or of any of the seeding cotton
States. The Douglas fac ton We're pledged
committed against reunion with the true
Democracy of those States. 1t had advised
the holding of bogus Conventions, knowing
that III no other way could Douglas delegates
be returned from the cotton States. Thus,
when the bogus Douglas delegates presented
themselves from Alabama and Louisiana,
they were reported in favor of by Douglas
IL II
ton in the Convention. The only instance
in which bogus Douglas delegate was re-
jected was in the case OF the Georgia d~lega-
ton. The reason of that is plain. That del
egatiOn had not followed the instructions re-
ceiVed at Charleston. They weRt into a fair
contest in Georgia. within the Democracy,
and being overwhelmingly defeated, they Sc
coded from the regular Convention. This
was the objection to them. The Douglas
men at Baltimore could not and would not
indorse secedersi Had the Georgia Doug
lasites followed inslruc' ions and held a bogus
Convention they would have been admitted
at Baltimore, even if they could have pOllGd
but one hundred votes in Georgia.
Douglas and his friends were determined
to nominate him at all hazards; and they
succeeded in doing so, by shutting out six-
teen representatives of the genuine DemOc-
racy, aud admitting sixteen spurious and DO
gus delegates. But this violation of all
Democratic usage and principle not
enough, and further gross and glazing breach
of rules and usage was necessary.
The rule of that Convention-so ruled by
the President, and confirmed by the body
was that two-thirds of the whole electoral
vote of the Union should be necessary to
elect. The whole vote is sos. Twothirds
of that is 202. The States til Il seeded cast
In the Democratic Convention los votes for
Breckenridge and Lane, leaving 1913 votes
elsewhere. Several votes seeded from the
Theatrical Democracy of Front Street Thea
tire, who did not vote ia the Democratic Con
vention of Institute Hall. / allude to dele
gates from Iowa and Kentucky, and New
Jersey and Connecticut, as I understood at
the time.
Thus, even including those, who announced
that they would no lOngcr participate in the
proceedings of the Theatrical Democracy,
and who did not join the Democracy of In
stitute Hall. there was not a two-third vote
of the electoral college in the Theatrical
Douglas Convention.
But even this fact was made to give way
to that memorable and Unsuitable determine
ton to nominate Douglas at all hazards, and
nominate him they did; by resoluton-not
by two-third voIel He was nominated by
1914 votes. Take the sixteen spurious and
bogus delegates out, and it will be found
that he received on his nomination IT'S
votes, instead of 202 votes, or - votes less
than is required by the usage of the party
IT. then, it be true that Breckenridge and
Lane have not been nominated by the usual
rules of the party, it is equally clear that
Douglas and Johnson have not. Ii both,
then, stand as candidates, nominated each by
a fraction of the convention of the party, to
know which is the real choice of the party we
must look 10 all the facts of the case In
doing so we find that Breckenridge and Lane
were nominated 10y the delegates of every
State in the Union that can elect Demo
cratic electOr, save one; and that Douglas
was nominated by delegates, all representing
freesoil States save one; none able to elect u
Democratic elector.
Breckinridge and Lane, then, are the can
didates OF the Democracy in fact, are the Cam
didates of the Democratic maorites in every
Democratic State but one. Douglas and
johnson are but the candidates of the Dem
ocratic minorities IN the ireesoil States, sup
ported by the Democratic majority of but one
STATED
A Democratic Senate of the United States,
a Democratic Administration of the Union,
give their support to Breckenridge and Lane,
while they stand on a platform, not only APP
proved by these Democratic States, and by
the President, the Administration, and by
every Democratic member OF the Senate, save
two. but by the solemn, well considered and
deliberate opinion of the members of the Su-
preme Court of the United States.
How absurd, how audaciUus. how almost
contemplate, then, the gam, OF Messrs. Doug
las, and Carroll and Watterson, in under
fixing to restrain, and weigh down, and
shackle The great movement of the Constitu
uonal Democracy OF the country, North and
South, by the supposed msdeeds and opin-
ions of a single indvidual-an individual
who Is no candidate for Federal prefrrment
hoe hold m L Il -.
aud expects nothing either of Federal par
ties or Federal mnistrations