Democrat and sentinel. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1853-1866, 1860-06-13

400 for an election. I au wiling to
;s.re surr the public to decide between me and
20 go sssailants on this point.
Bnt hsgreat complaint of ell is. that she
.a;oT.y of the delegation did not vote for
- Dcuelas. This complaint is as unrea-
able as any thing else that has been said,
~ only goes to prove that in the ardor of
4 ~ admiration for Mr. D. certain of his
@ s.;"nds are utterly incapable of looking at
/ 1otL sides of the question and judging i'm
.s,tislly. We certainly never pretended to
I. or Mr.. Douglas. therefore,, no one is de-
..iyed. L: was perfectly well known when
:. we're elected delegates that We preferred
a,bsr candidates to Mr. Douglas But it is
.,,smpted to End liz the large vote received
= him reason-to some a conclusive rea-
why we should have abandoned our
srortes and gone for Mr. ID. Under ordi-
..-v circumstances there would be great. if
=, conclusive, force in this view of the case.
so4I do not hesitate to say to you, that with
,,.rieious surroundings, and where the al
,sr6stives involved only choice of men,
9TH about equal chances of success at the
.'rs, it would have Influenced my actions to
=, iuconsiderable degree; but to my mind
he Surroundings utterly forbade that we
.bould 90 for Mr.. Douglas. As the case then
.,o5d, his nomination could have resulted
only il utter defeat to himself and the party.
! You must keep in mind the fact that We did
not ballot for candidate at all until the del
47atious from eight States and the half of
,Se delegation from Delaware had retired from
,be ConveDtion, on the ground that they
could not staud by the platform of principles
;, then adopted. Had the Pennsylvania and
,rber delegations yielded at this juncture aud
d Eron,inated Mr.. Douglas, every body knows
-. the ccceding States would forthwith have
Nominated Southern candidate, and proba-
Ehlv called Convention of all the Southern
ESfstes to have ratified that nomination, and
Etbus. sir, the democratic party, that glori-
rs old organization which has done SO much
10 advance the prosperity of our great coun-
Esry. and vindicate the principles of our Re-
Enablcau system of government, would have
been shattered into fragments and prostrated
r,bably forever. Whatever | might have
hone uuder other circumstances, thought it
duty-a an imperative duty-to the demo-
cratic party and the country to stand out
ssins: the nomination of Mr. Douglas, as
bngs then stood. Surely the friends of Mr..
do not seek to nominate him for the glory
the nomination alone. take it they de-
ire to see him made President. and, in my
clsnent no act could have more completely
rscosed all his chances at this time than TO
,Ta nominated him in a divided Convention,
J. myself. | preferred to look rather to
harmony aud success of the party
81 to the nomination of any favorite cau-
date
Nor, sir, is il more than just to say that
aggregate vote as recorded In the Couven
len il favor Of Mr. Douglas did not truly re-
ret the Individual preferences of its mem
srs nor did i. reflect the choice of the States
al all the delegations voted as unit I'm
l. neither rule could Mr.. ID. have received
(sIftLe votes Of the Convention. His large
};e Vas, therefore, in some measure, facti-
T. On the rule of voting per capita he
guld have received from I25 to 12S votes.
li By delegations from l30 10 140. This is
be most liberal cOGEt that can be truthfuliy
ade for him. In the New York delegation
une there we're fifteen or sixteen delegates
hO preferred other candidates, and SO voted
their caucus meetings, aud there was a
lmber in Ohio and Indiana whose individ-
Preferences were not for Mr.. d. Yet all
these votes we're forced to him by the ac-
% Of the majority. Now, sir. will be
lns enough to confess TO you that, had the
rge vote of Mr.. d. resulted TO him unier
I'D rule that prevailed at Baltimore and
ueinnati l should not think it generous to
axe this poiot; but L make it because the
s vas changed; and it was the chanqe of
rule aud not the tndiridual desire of the
.TeLtion. The Cincinnati rule allowed
majority of each delegation to determine
= the vote Of the State should be cast
s:her as unit or as the individual dele
<; preferred. The Charleston rule so far
anged this law as to take the power from
majority of the several delegations. if not
strue;ed, and give the minority equal rights
ih the majority. Hence where, as in Pa.
new Jersey, there was large minority |
NJ. u. they were permitted to vote for !
While IN New York, and in other States
allegations being instructed to vote as |
ne received the entire number by the !
aasa ola mere majority. Every body who |
a. charleston knows that the friends of /!
D. greatly rejoiced at the adoption this I
= ana regarded it as strong poiut in his I
o. as | am sure L did | am not nista- |
about the two rules, for [ have read /
both within an hour, so that [ might I
tie difference correctly,
! 40; Will it DO. in presenting this case fair
qua "a Impartlally, to overlook the fact that |
\ -,een Southern States and the Two Pa
eaies-all that are counted certain for
\ - ,-slocFatlc nominees minority
j ~-sSoun and Maryland. and two or three
;; 'hng delegates elsewhere in the South,
! agaiast the nomination of Douglas, and
4 "a "a With his friends as to the platform of
o PeS; as did a majority of the delega-
8 non Pennsylvania and New jersey
= =, Inc hopeful Northern States-le leaving
= enilfe vote in States admittedly re-
i .;1n' With the exception of Indiana and
u vs. II Is thus seen how necessary it was
$ = NE States intact that were against