Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1860-07-01


compromise could be effected and they drafted ard
sent US for our consideration the following resoh-
tion, which, in our opinion, embraced all that vAs
absolutely necessary 70 make sound Platform: T
RssoEred That the citizens of the United States \
have equal right to settle with their propertyin
the Territories; and that under the decision of the
Supreme Court, which we recognize as the CORRECT |
exposition of the Constitution neither the righ Of !
persons nor property can be destroyed or impaired |
by Congressional or Territorial legislation.
Thirdly: We remained in the Convention because |
Virginia North Carolina, Kentucky Maryland, Mis-
souri,, and part of Delaware, with our friend in
California, Oregon, New York, Pennsylvania and
other States deemed it most expedient to do so and
thought their opinion entitled to great weight.
Lastly We did not believe il possible that aomi-
neering majority in the North and East would final
ly unite on the nomination of Judge DOUGIAs and
thus energize the simple failure to enuncate aprin-
cipIe into an absolute and total abandonmeniof it,
We deemed it probable that if the Platforn was
kept in its shorn condition that would be allowed
to place, our candidates, persons who had kecog-
nzed in their action our Interpretation of the Qncin
matt Platform, and thus least have some heedgiven
to the opinion OF the Supreme Court of the United
States in the case of DRIED Scorr We were farther
assured (and this assurance was verifed) thlt by
construction of the twothird rule to be gwen by
the Convention, the vote of the absent States could
be entered against Judge DOUGLAS
In conjunction with North Carolina, Virginia,
Maryland and Kentucky we offered the resolution
just recited in the full spirit of harmony and conces
sion. 1t was drawn by a member of the New York
Delegation, and, as we were informed and believed,
met their appreciation. Its consideration was waiy-
ed foz time it was then out of order, but we
were again assured it would be considered and
adopted before final adjournment of the Convsn-
ton. We proceeded to ballot for candidate for the
Presidency; we nominated Hon. ANDREW JOHNSON
our candidate and voted for MIN as unit three
or four times; one District then deserted him and
voted for Judge DOUGLAS. The remainder of US
voted for Mr.. JOHNSON 81 times and as we received
no accession to candidate, except one vote from
Minnesota, we then deemed 1t our duty as patriots
to Withdraw his nslssa and Ter the sss11icsse
of our views who presented the greatest prospect
of success. We decided to vote for Hon. JAxEs
GUTHRIE, of Kentucky, he then being in the position
Of the foremost candidate before the convention next
to Judge DOUGLAS.
You are aware that no result could finally be at
tanned at Charleston, and we were compelled to
adjourn to Baltimore. Judge DOUGLAS on two or
three ballotings at Charleston received 1924 votes
being majority of the whole Electoral College, but
he never received twothirds of the whole uote ac-
tlagy cast in our ballots much less two-thirds of
the whole Electoral College His friends contended
that as he had majority ne was entitled to be de-
clared the candidate of the party and they cited
70 his declination in favor of Mr.. BUCHANAN four
years since under similar circumstances We utter
y deny the truth of this principle or the force of
the precedent. 1t has long been a conceded rule in
the National Democratic Convention that twothirds
shall be required for nomination, and we are in
formed that Judge DOUGLAS assisted in a stringent
application of this rule to Mr.. VAN BURENln 1874 and
although Mr.. VAN buren, had clearly defined major
ity, he was at last ruled off and beaten be-
fore the Convention of that year. The rule
was clearly intended for the protection of
a minority against the election of candidate
odious to them, although very acceptable to the
jOrity. As all parties obliged to be nearly har-
monioEs in order to secure election, it is there
fore, very important to procure person least obi
Gus to the greatest number, and we may remark
shat such the precise effect of the rule in 1874
and 1852, when we were successful in elections
If it be true that candidate who receives major
ity of the Electoral College is then entitled as
matter of right to receive the two-third vote and
thus get the nomination, then the two-third rule Is
cheat and deception it has lost its vitality and only
remains in the statutes as obsolete. We are told
our objections to Judge DOUGLAS were unreasonable
end we ought to have abandoned them. Now, we
utterly deny this assertion but if it were true the
like or dislike of people towards candidate, if
it cannot be changed by the day of his nomination
is thing not to be reasoned about but to be acnowl
edged and acted on. If Judge DOUGLAS, up to the
day of the adjournment of the Charleston COnven-
ton, could not remove even the prgudices of one
third of the Democratic party he ought to hare de-
clined; he had right to risk the consequences of an
adjournment and try to 1oeary Oaa his opponents By de-
delay. We insist therefore, he is liable for al that has
occurred.
We shall not be understood as nsinuating that the
friends of Judge DOUGLAS were bound, when he
withdrew, to vote for the candidate candidates
preferred by the minority. The Tennessee deega-
ton distinctly repudiated any such ground at Charles
ton, and hence they abandoned their own candidate
They thought it due the majority to let them ndi
cate second choice and with this view we implOr-
DSSHi-n1J
ed at Charleston, to naEie any sound Democrat &C
ceptable to them, and we would give him our SUPPORT
and endeavor to secure his election but they sts7y
refused.
During the interval between the adjournment at
Charleston and the meeting at Baltimore, spirited
attempt was made by the friends of Mr.. DOUGLAS in
several Southern States to reverse the position of
their Democracy at Charleston and send delegates to
Baltimore favorable to Mr.. DOUGLAS. This was ADAM
gerOus and disastrous for the final success of
ticket calculated to disorganize and weaker the
party on the eve of the conflict, and it thu
cessary result of the false position of Mr. DoUGIs in
remaining a candidate when he found nearly, iirot
quite one-haf of the party voting against hin, or
being opposed to him for fifty odd consecutvebal-
lettings.
We watched with some interest the progress of
jhis development and thought from all the infoma-
ton received that in every instance the seeding
delegates been re-chosen with singular unaninity
by the regular organizations of our party. We
deemed it probable that there might be somedis-
pute in one or two cases. but supposed the gen'ral
result would not be materially affected 1t vas
with some astonishment and dismay we learned, on
reaching Baltimore, that it was doubtful Whether
the convention would receive any of the seeding
delegates unless they would give parol of honor to
remain in the convention and abide its nomination at
all hazards in regard TO its final action Such
resolution soon introduced into the convention
and its adoption seriously pressed if it had been
passed, its friends well knew that no credentials
would ever have been presented to the convention |
by the opponents of Mr.. DOUGLAS and his frieids |
been the only applicants. The stern opposition of
Southern men induced a compromise on this mater |
and the whole subject was referred to the commit
tee credentials without any instruction. Now, it
seemed to u.s. although submitted to this arrange
ment that it irritating and useless thus to rtfer
the credentials of delegates, some of whose sats |
were wholly uncontested to a committe and so KEEP
them out of their places for two or three days.
The committee after session of two or thee |
days reported to the Convention, and such report
as was offered by the majority we have rarely heard
read They decided in the of Georgia that the
Delegation should be divided, and one half of ea.h
set admitted to the Convention although it was known
to every person that at the regular Democratic Cor
vention held in that State since the Charleston Cor
Vention, in which both parties were represented,
the vote the choice of delegates was 299 in favor
Of the seeding delegates and Al in favor of the