Daily national Democrat., 1860-08-09
Appeal to the Democracy of the United
States.

SphiuiSSAOh ilVAh NuO DtlutCA"S1 IA A'AN'SN"'
Convention assembled, address lengthy
communication to the Democracy of all the
States, in which they show the regularity of
the Convention which nominated Douglas
and the correctness of the principles enunei-
ated in its platform.
As for the proof Of the CORE ,tness of the
principles, We think it unnecessary to repeat
the arguments used. They are citations from
of the country, from 1913 down to 1854 and
since, and our readers are familiar with chat
portion of our political history. In fact, the
platform Of the Charleston Baltimore Con-
vention is precisely the platform upon which
the Democracy have always stood and no
flaw can be found in it.
AS TO the excuses of the Secessionists for
Withdrawing from the National Convention,
the first and main one is, that the unit rule
was adopted. This rule was as follows:
THAT in any State which has not provided or
directed, by its State Convention, how its vote
may be given, the Convention will recognize the
right OF each delegate to cast his individual VOTE
The rule was adopted by vote of S94 to
2O7, which demonstrated its fairness Had
it not been fair, would such majority have
been pronounced in its avor2 Tbs rule was
applied in the votes upon msny and various
yuestions, long before th5 Seceders concluded
to retire, and nod protest was en-
tered against IT, nor any motion made to
change II, neither did the Seceders, on re-
tiring, complain of it. The first complaint
that was made in regard to it, was in the
Address published by eighteen members of
Congress, after the Convention had adjourned
from Charleston to Baltimore. The rule
operated as hard upon one side as the other,
for certain delegates from Alabama and Lou
siana were compelled TO withdraw from the
Convention by the act of their colleagues,
while ten delegates from Georgia were ST.
fenced because the majority of the delega
ton were against them and the unit rule had
to be carried out, the Georgia delegation
being instructed.
another complaint" says the Address,
sis, that the report of the majority of the
Committee OH Resolutions was not adopted
by the Convention-as being the voice of
majority of the States. Several answers sug.
gest themselves at once.
l. Such was not the method of voting
adopted by the Convention, and never had
been the method adopted by any previous
Convention.
.. If the rule had been that a majority of
the committee should prescribe the platform,
and not majority of the Convention, it is
evident from their votes afterwards given)
that several of the States would have chosen
other representatives. upon the Committee.
8. The first majority report. as we have
shown, was not acceptable to the delegations
which subsequently retired. Every one Of
them voted for its reeommitment
A. The second report of the Committee
never did, as whole, command the assent of
a majority, the Committeeman from Missouri, |
General Clark announcing that he would
move, at the proper time to strike out this
all important resolution
That it is the duty Of the Federal Government,
IN all its departments to protect, when necessa
ry, the rights Of persons and property in the Ter
ritorles, and wherever else its constitutional an
thoTlty extends
1t required the Commit eeman from Mis-
souri, to constitute Che majority (seyenteen)
of which we have heard SO much Without
further argument, therefore, this pretext dis
appears"
The seats of the Seceders at Charleston
were declared vacant, and Seceders held a
Convention of their own then and there in |
which they acknowledged their eternal sever |
ance from the National Convention. When !
any of them came afterwards to the Balti-
more Convention, asking admission, it was a
mere act of grace from the Convention to
admit them at all. Those who happened to
be regularly accredited to Baltimore and
whose seats were not contested, were ad-
mitted, Notwithstanding they were opposed
to Douglas. In the admission of the contest
ed delegates, the Convention exercised the
discretion which always belongs to such a
body, and decided who should come in and
who should not. The delegation from South
Carolina did not come in, because they were
accredited to Richmond, aud had no creden-
tials for Baltimore The same was the case
with the Florida delegation. The Mississippi
delegation (all this, mind you, is after the
secession at Charleston were accredited both
to Baltimore and Richmond, circumstance
which should have vitiated their title to seats
in the regular Convention; but that body
magnanimously waived this objection and
admitted them. The Texas delegation were
in the same predlcament but were admitted
In regard TO Louisiana, the Seceders avoided
trial before a regular Convention of the
Democratic party, but called upon the dele
gates by whom they had been chosen-dele-
gates whose duty and Office had expired
to reassemble at Baton Rouge, and repre-
sent the Democracy in circumstances not
contemplated at the time of their appoint
ment. A mere "rump" of those delegates
did reassemble, without authority from the
people, and reappointed the Seeeders as dele
gates to the Democratic National Convention
at Baltimore, and also appointed them as
delegates to the Convention at Richmond.
Meanwhile, in pursuance of call from
several Democratic associations in New Or
leans, sanctioned by the representative of
Louisiaaa in the National Democratic Com
mittee, the Democracy of the State assem-
bled in Convention at Donaldsonville, by
1al INN a1t FOL Oh h.