The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1860-07-03
OUR POSITION.

OUR POSITION.
4 1t may be supposed by some that in supporting
the action of the States Rights National Demo
cratic Convention at Baltimore, and its nominees,
Breckenridge and Lane, we have changed our po-
sition. But such is not the case-ve have not
changed, but are now acting in accordance with
previous positions assumed after the adjourn
ment of the Charleston Convention. And to the
record we appeal to sustain what We say. In speak
ing of the result of the deliberations at Charleston,
We said:
The vote of the State North Carolina) was cast
in favor of platform fully avowing the rights of
the South and in accordance with the Constitution
of the country; and though our delegates did not
get the platform they preferred, they determined
to remain in the Convention and try to secure the
nomination of true national man, believing that
upon the preservation of the great democratic par
ty depended the existence of the Union. We hope
the State will be fully represented at Baltimore,
and that the delegates aoiU again contend for a
distinct oroacol Of the rights Of Tie Souh, and for
a nominee who will give satisfaction to all sec
tons"
It will be seen by the above that Immediately
after the adjournment of the Charleston Con-
vention, expressed the hope that delegates
would go to Baltimore and ''again contend for a
distinct avoaoal Of the rights Of the South, and for
a nom inee uho wiU gire Satisfaction to all sec
tons"
With regard TO the question of admitting the
Seceders at Baltimore, in issue of the 9Th of
June We published the following article:
"THEY ARE ENTITLED.-It is said that a large
number of those who seeded from the Charleston
~ ID = IL
seats again, and the question has been raised, are
they entitled to seats in that body? We think
they are, certainly. If the seceders are willing to
unite with the party and the South again, and work
together for satisfactory nomination, We hope no
objection will be raised to their doing We
think they acted too hastily at Charleston, but if
they are anxious to make another effort TO unite
the party we have no doubt they will have an OPP
portunity to prove their good Intentions
The seceders did apply for admission at Balt-
more, but unfairly excluded, and in some in
stances men were admitted in their places who
were contestants for the seats of the Mississippi
and Texas delegations, yet the Douglas for
FIVE days refused to admit them We still think
some Of our southern friends acted too hastily at
Charleston, but they certainly had right to act
they thought proper, and the fact that they ex-
ercsed that right did not afford sufficient
for excluding them from the Baltimore convention.
In no instance have we ever expressed opin-
ion in favor of the nomination of Mr. Douglas, but
always preferred the nomination Of some one else,
usually naming Gen Lane as our first choice. 1t
is true we have defended Mr. Douglas when we
thought he was unnecessarily assaied, (and we
but as will be seen by the above extract desired
the Democratic Convention to make platform
distinctly avowing the rights of Che South, and
nominate man who would give satisfaction to all
sections of the Union. Had we been in favor of
Douglas nomination, after seeing the unfairness
practised towards Southern men at Baltimore
after seeing that the Douglas men were unwilling
to make the least concession to the South-after
seeing that they determined to have Douglas nomi-
mated at the sacrifice of harmony and good feeling
and thus force him and his declarations upon
southern men without the slightest explanation
We say that after seeing all this, had advo
Gated his nomination, we should feel bound to re-
pudate him and condemn the conduct of his
friends We have always been willing to do all
we could, consistent with duty, to harmonic the
party, but we will not assent to and countenance
what we consider unfair action, though mere policy
might dictate otherwise. Whatever may be the
and Lane -