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

Presidency and Vice-Presidency, not objectlona-
BILE Gin numbers) to any respectable portion OF the
party and therefore likely to receive its united and
harmonious support. For this purpose was the
tyothird rule adopted in the first National Demo
cratic Convention that ever held in this coun-
try; and actuated by the motives which begot 1t,
the Democracy have repeatedly in National ConVen.
ton, whenever a respectable opposition presented
itself refused to nominate of its abest states
men, and by the nomination of others less objec-
tionable. have marched on to victory, and the de-
yelopemept and enforcement of their principles
1t will be recollected that Mr. Van Buren, received
a considerable majority at the Democratic National
Convention in 1874, yet no one then commended
that he therefore, was entitled to the nomination
On the contrary, the Convention, regarding the
opposition of the minority to his nomination as en-
titled to consideration and respect, refused to
nominate him, but nominated Mr. Polk, against
whom there was no objectiOn:) and under his ban
ner, the democrats achieved one of its greatest
triumphs. twas this principle of harmony and
cession. of respect and consideration for the opn
ions and views of the minority, which bound the
Democracy together with bands of steel, and made
them invinCibe on the day of battle. 1t was the
talismanic motto under which we marched to vic
tory-the secret and the keystone to our success.
Far different was the spirit displayed at Charles
ton and Baltimore by the friends of Mr. Douglas.
They came to nominate HIM, or break up the Con-
vention. Many of their prominent men boldly
and openly avowed the purpose-"Rule or ruin"
was their motto. They met the opinions and
views of the seventeen reliable Democratic States,
almost united in opposition to the nomination of
Mr. Douglas, with insult and derision.
The Democratic States were welded to no one
man. They had their favortes, but they put forth
no claim that even of them should be nomina-
ted. They were willing to take any one of the
illustrious and distinguished statesmen of our par
ty, except Mr. Douglas. He had made himself OBJ
noxious to them for the already mentioned,
and they asked that he should not be thrust down
their threats. Was the request unusual one?
Our history as party shows that it was not. Was
the request an unreasonable one? Who will say so,
when they reflect that upon the States that made
it, chiefly devolved the task of elecring the nomi-
nees of the Convention? Yet the Douglas dele
gates not only turned deaf ear to this request,
but in the most high-handed and reckless manner
with sacriligious hands tore down the landmarks
of the party, and trampled upon Democratic conf
ty and usages, in order to foist that man upon
the Convention. With any other democrat they
could have had harmony and union, and presented
to-day the spectacle ofa united and invncibe party
We put it to the conscience and the judgment of
every honest man. Are they not guilty of setting
up this one man as paramount to the Union of the
States? Are they not guilty of having divided the
party? Did they not thus, take 'the first, fatal,
and irrcvocable stride towards disunion of the
States?" From this uneviable position no ingenui-
ty nor device, nor wholesale and reckless charges
against others, can relieve them. "Inexorable
logic stamps the grave crime upon their brows.-
Representing States, nearly all of which were
hopelessly Black Republican, they claimed that
they entitled to dictate both the platform
and the candidates, and to this end the system of
tactics, which we had witnessed outside of the
Convention, was, for the first time in history,
(and We earnestly hope the last steadily and per-
sistently enacted in it. Rules were made and vio-
lated at pleasure. The decisions of an impartial
President were adopted, and then overruled, as it
suited their purpose. The usages Of Democratic
Conventions were followed, and then shamefully
violated, it accorded with their designs. Eve
rythng was made to bend to the one great pur-
pose for which they assembled-the nomination of
MIR Douglas 1t cannot certainly be considered
strange that honorable men, unused to such scenes
should leave the Convention, and that it was final
ly virtually broken up.
The first act of injustice was
THE UNIT RULE.
The Committee OH Permanent Organization re-
ported the following rule, known as the unit rule:
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" This
rule in violation of the rule of all former con-
ventions, which left to the delegation from each
State the right to determine how the vote should
be cast and it was struggled into the report of the
committee and brought before the convention in
the following manner: At the first meeting Of the
committee, when all its members were present.
this rule was brought before the committee and
rejected. The committee went on, discharged
their own business, and adjourned to informal
meeting in the morning, to enable the chairman to
make out the report and submit it to the commit
tee for its approval At this latter meeting, when
some six or eight members of the committee op-
posed to the rule absent, not having received
notice of the called meeting for other business and
regarding the work as virtually finished, the rule
was again brought forward and adopted. In this
disrespectabe manner was this rule brought before
and adopted by the Convention.
BY it the votes of the minority, in the delega-
ons of Indiana, Vermont. New York, and Ohio
amounting to PA, or 50 delegates, opposed to Mr.
Douglas, were thrown for him; while on the final
ballot, at Baltimore, it gave him votes in Massa-
chusetts, 10; Pennsylvania, 10; New Jersey, p;
Maryland, %; Virginia, g. North Carolina, l; Ark
ansas, II; Missouri, Al; Tennessee, 3, and Ken
lucky s. in all Al, which he would not have re-
ceived had the ancient usages and rules of former
Conventions, leaving the majority in each State to
determine how the vote Of the State should be
cast, been adhered to, Yet the ink was hardly
dry that recorded the passage of the resolution,
before the very men who clamored for its adoption
sought to violate it, and actually succeeded in
their efforts