The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1860-08-03

was not adopted by the cOnventiOn-as be.
ing the voice Of majority of the States.
Several answers suggest themselves at once:
l. Such was not the method of voting adop.
ted by the convention, and never had been the
method in any previous convention.
2. If the rule had been that majority of the
committee should prescribe the platform and
not majority of the convention, it is evident
from their votes (afterward given) that several
of the States would have chosen other repre-
sentatives upon the committee.
3. The first majority report, as we have
shown, was not acceptable to the delegations
which subsequently retired. Every one of
them voted for its recommitment.
4. The second report of the committee never
did, as whole, command the assent of ma.
Jority; the committeeman from Missouri, (Gen.
Clark), announcing that he would move, at the
proper time, to strike out this all-impOrtant
resolution:
a 1b,s us "a departments 10 protect when necessary the
ieVer else Its constitutional authority exends'
1t required the committeeman from Mis-.
souri, to constitute the majority seventeen
OF which we have heard so much.) Without
lurtner argument, therefore, this ptetext dis
appears
1t has been said, finally, that the States
winch favored the second majority platte
were Democratic States, and that all the
others were hopeless, or at least, unreliable.
We could, if it were necessary, prove this
to be untrue; but even if it were true, in
the largest sense, what folly to be governed
by such considerations Those seventeen
States had not majority of all the cleo
toral votes, and could accomplish nothing
without assistance. No wise General, upon
the eve OF an engagement, would subtract
from the weakest column of his army il
order to reinforce the strongest; he would,
on the contrary, take means to strengthen
the feeble, even at the expense of the firm
But, in higher sense, and upon the no
blest consideration of Democratic policy.
such invidious distinction between the
States ought to be discouraged.
Our party has ever commended itself
alike to the North and to the South-a
party in which all the States will find their
interests equally protected, and their honor
equally observed and whenever we aban-
don that safe ground, we ialsiiy our ancient
and proudest profession, and degrade our
national convention to the level of the con-
vention at Chicago. Every true Democrat
believes that Massachusetts, as we'll as South
Carolina, would ensure her nOblest develop
ment, as State, under the influence of the
Democratic policy and therefore, in all
national conventions, the Democracy of
Observation-Disclosures and insignificant as
Others esteemed them-have been treated as
brethren, and as equals. By means of such
a rule, Polk, and Cass, and Pierce and Bu-
chanan, were nominated for the Presidency,
and three of them elected What need of
any other rule at Charleston? What, as
! suredly, but the presence, for the first time
IN our history. OF an intense, tanatical, and
mischievous spirit of sectionalism on the
part of the delegates who seeded?
If rule for which those delegates con-
tend had prevailed heretofore, some of our
national conventions would have been curl
Ously constituted. That OF 1914 would
have consisted only OF delegates from Ala
! bama, Arkansas, Illinois, Missouri, New
Hampshire, South Carolina and Virginia
that of lS48 of delegates from Georgia, In
diana Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Missis.
sippi, New York and Pennsylvania, in ad-
dition; that of 1852 of delegates from Ala
bama, Arkansas, Indiana, Illinois, 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 for
Mr.. Buchanln but included Maine, New
Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut,
New York, Maryland, Ohio, Michigan,
Iowa and Wisconsin, which voted against
him
1t will scarcely be argued that delegates
ought to be admitted into national con-
vention, and there denied the right of voting
in accordance with their own convictions
The objection amounts to nothing, there.
fore, unless to the disfranchisement, 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 rule operate four years
hence?
The boast of the democracy is in its Ma
T1oNAL character and sympathies there
fore, although our Democratic brethren of
Massachusetts have not achieved victory
in any Presidential election since 1920, We
do not despise them, but gladly admit them,
on terms of equality, to our national con-
veutiOns.
The truth is, that the seceders at Charles
ton were actuated by other motives than
sincere regard for the welfare of the DEM
ocratic party, or attachment to Democratic
usages and principles. They we're determined
to rule the party, or else to ruin it. No
political organization can exist upon such
terms; because be would be less than man
who could submit to them. We have sufi-
GENTLY guarded the rights of minorities
heretofore by requiring each of our nomi-
nees to receive two thirds of all the electoral
votes given in National Convention; but
whenever we acknowledge that one>ffth of
the delegates may las at Charleston) demand
AN ADDITION to our platform, and upon the
refusal of such demand, may righfully Sc
sede, we render 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 Sc
CEssION.
Finding itself thus suddenly deprived of
the counsel and assistance of the Democrat
ic party in eight States, the, Convention
abandoned all attempts to modify or enlarge
the Cincinnati platform, and proceeded to
the nomination of candidates. But in order
that no reasonable objection should be al