The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1860-08-28

than pursued the course Mr. Douglas announced in
his Dorr letter he would pursue in the event of his
platform not being adopted; for, if he could not
stand on different platform as a candidate, it
logically followed that his position was that of
tagonsm and resistance both to platform and can
didate.
But, notwithstanding the withdrawal of 6fty-one
delegates, no nomination was made at Charleston;
and after struggle of 10 days, an adjournment
had to Baltimore, under the following resolution:
"Resolved That when this Convention adjourns it
adjourn to reassemble at Baltimore on Monday, the
18th of June next, and that it is respectfully
mended to the Democratic party of the several States
to make provision for supplying all vacancies in their
respective delegations to the Convention when it shall
reasonable"
BALTIMORE CONVENTION.
The Convention met at Baltimore. Most of the
States responded to the invitation above rected,
and their delegates presented their credentials, and
asked admission into the Convention. How were
they treated by the friends of Mr. Douglas?
BOGUS TES-MASsACHUSETTS.
Benjamin F. Hallett was regularly appointed
delegate from Massachusetts, to the National Con-
vention; the same Convention appointed s. l..
Chaffee as his alternate. Owing to Sickness Mr.
Halett was unable to attend the Convention at
Charleston, and, in his absence, Mr. Chafee, his
alternate, took his place. At Baltimore, however,
MIR Hallett was present, but the Convention actually
delegate, and gave the seat to his alternate!
MISSOURI.
The same course was adopted in regard to the
Eighth Electoral District of Missouri. Mr. john
son B. Garder the regular delegate uncere
moniously ousted out of his seat, and Mr. O'Fallon,
the contingent, voted in. Heretofore, it has al
WAYS been considered that the alternate acted only
in the absence of the principal, but this Conven-
ton gravely determined that the true test for
admission into that Convention consisted in an
affirmative answer to the question, Are you tor the
nomination of Stephen A. Douglas?
LOUISIANA AND ALABAMA.
The next step was to vote out the regular dele
CATION from the State of Louisiana, who were reap
pointed to Baltimore by the convention that origi-
nay appointed them and also to exclude the regu-
lar delegates from Alabama, who appointed
by new convention called by the Democratic
committee of the State. The history of the case
is this. After the secession at Charleston, the
Democratic Central Committee of Louisiana, the
only association in that State having the power to
assemble the Democracy in convention, called to-
gether the State convention representing every coun
tv in the State, and that convention reapponed the
same delegates to Baltimore A few irresponsible
men called another convention, at which the De-
mocracy of the State were not represented. In
the case of Alabama, the Democratic Central Com
mttee called convention to be elected by
the Democracy of the several counties. This con-
vention met, and sent back the regular delegates
to Baltimore. A number of persons however, issu-
cd CALL published in three papers in the State,
addressed to the peop(e, not the Democracy Of
Alabama, for another convention, which met and
appointed set Of delegates, the leader of whom
never cast Democratic vote in his life, and who
openly avowed that he was going to Baltimore to
vote for Mr. Douglas, in order to break up the
Democratic party! Yet the so-called national con-
vention voted out the regular delegates ell cted by
the Democracies OF these States and voted in the
bogus delegates!
ARKANSAS
In the case of Arkansas, the Congressional
Convention of the State which nominated the
Democratic candidates for Congress, re-apponted
the delegates to Baltimore. Yet this Convention
deliberately voted ont the regular delegates so
elected in the first district; while they declared
that the regular delegates, elected an the same
manner in the second district, were entitled to
their seats! and then, in defiance of the resolution
of the Democratic State Convention of Arkansas
nstructing the delegates to vote as unit, and in
utter violation of their o,cn AMT resolution, they
divided the vote of the State, giving the bogus
delegates from the first district the right to
vote, and the regular delegates from the second
district two votes; nay, they even went further,
and resolved that, in case the regular delegates
from the second district did not vote, the bogus
delegates from the first district were to cast the
full vote of the State! And yet, after such high
handed procedure as this, we are meekly told by
the Douglas Committee that Git must be conceded
that the report of the Committee on Credentials
liberal and conciliatory towards the seceders
and their friends as to be hardly just to the
representatives of the National Democracy from
this State!'
GEORGIA.
In the case of Georgia the Douglas men them
selves called State Convention for the purpose
of having the seeding delegates repudiated by the
Democracy Of that State. Every shade of the
Democratic party of that State participated in the
election of delegates. The Convention met, and
upon taking vote, the regular or seeding dele
gates sent back to Baltimore, by vote of
299 to Al. The forty-one Douglas delegates then
bolted and also appointed delegates. Yet the
defiance again of the resolution of the Georgia
Convention instructng their delegates to vote as
unit and ia utter violation Of their own rule upon
the subject, reported in favor of dividing the vote
Of the State, giving one-half to the regular dele
gates, and one-half to the bogus appontecs of the
Al boilers! But this too great outrage
even for this Convention, and they voted to admit
the regular delegates, and thus placed the brand
of bcgus upon the brow of III. V. johnson the
Douglas candidate for Vice President Comment
ing upon this action, the Douglas Executive Com
mittee characterizes it as an "extravagance of
liberality"'
Thus the Democracy of sovereign States
wantonly DISTINGUISHED in a National Convention,