Daily national Democrat., 1860-09-09
The Arguments of the Sccedcrs.

ner in which the Seceders attempt to prove
mated at Baltimore. After all their figuring
they dare not not deny the fact, that there
were in the Cony snton which nominated
Mr.. Douglas two hundred and twelve dele
gates, and that in the Convention which
nominated Mr. Breckinridge there were not
more than one hundred and five delegates
Now these Seceders think, if they could only
show that Mr.. Douglas was not regularly
nominated, they would save themselves from
impending doom. Hence, their first attempt
is, to Justify their secession. They make
great cry about what they allege to have
been tyranny and uniairness on the part OF
the supporters of Mr.. Douglas. They say it
was an outrage because, what they term the
unit rule, was adopted at Charleston, and
argue to show that if .he rule had not been
adopted, the platform demanded 10y few of
the Southern States might have been adop,
ted. But, they forget to tell us that the
rule was adopted by an overwhelming ma
jority, the South as well as the North voting
for it, We have already had something to
say about this rule, but we will re-publish it,
for we want people to see and Judge for
themselves as to whether it deserves the
name Of infamous" as applied TO it 10y the
Seceders. Here it is:
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
p1frbt Of 70, ;,lt lt,-t, ,It,,l
vote"
By denouncing this rule. the Seceders re-
pudiate their own action, for they voted for
it. But We pass on, without stopping to
show (what must appear to every one not
wilfully blind) that the rule was equitable
and just. "lf, say the Seceders, " this rule
had not been adopted, the result might have
been different" This 'if" is great word
with them. "If" rule had been adopted al
Charleston abrogating the instructions of the
State Conventions TO their delegates, or "if +"
! a rule had been adopted there compelling all
+ the delegations to vote as unit, the re-
jected platform might have been adopted
and there would have been no split-thus
argue the Seceders, and such is the whole
tenor of their argument. Again; "if certain
delegates had not been admitted at Balti-
t more, and if certain others had been ad-
mitted, then the last secession might not have
d taken place. But MS it is, the Secessionists
d will have to grin and bear it.
e But we are not surprised at the line of ar
d gument adopted by the Scceders. What
:, else can they say in their defence. They
Is can't say that Breckinridge was regularly
n nominated, ard all they can do is to attack
e the manner of Judge Douglas nomination
and this they do, by an exclusive use of the
Q word if" If" one of their own men had
# been nominated at Charleston even upon the
e platform adopted there, does anybody sup
n pose that another candidate would have been
i nominated to run upon different platform ?
The secession at Charleston was small as
compared with that at Baltimore; yet, Aus,
tin E. Smith, the spokesman of the Califor-
mia seeding delegates, tells us that the seces.
sion was caused by the rejection of the ma
l, jority platform, and that that platform was
!. rejected through the operation of the "unit
rule" which we have quoted above. If in
t his opinion the rejection of the majority
platform, through the operation of what he
= calls the infamous rule was cause sufficient
- for the secession. why didn't he leave at
l. Charleston He undoubtedly thought that
the secession was not large enough then, and
/ that it might be condemed by the people of
5 his State 1t was condemned. Not one of
! the Breckinridge papers in the State dared
approve it, But now, these same papers are
loud in their advocacy of Breckinridge, be-
cause they say he represents the great prin-
ciples of the Democratic party" The plat
form upon which he stands is the one reiec-
ted at Charleston. Why didn't these papers
come out for that platform then, and Justify
the Charleston secession because it was not
adopted? 1t was not until after the nomina-
tion of Breckenridge, by the squad of boilers,
that their eyes were open to the fact that the
rejected platform embodied the great prin-
eiPles of the Democratic party" They were
a long time, it appears to us, in making the
discovery.
They talk of unfairness and tyranny on
the part Of the Baltimore Convention. Who
were those who went to the Convention
demanding the adoption of certain resolu-
tions, and with the avowed determination to
withdraw if such resolutions were not adop-
ted E? From the commencement, the Seceders
acted the part of the bragadocio. Finding
themselves to be in a minority, they went
into the Convention with the intention to
dragon the majority into the adoption of
certain resolutions. Resolved to break up
the Convention, and divide the party, rather
than yield to the voice of the majority, they
withdrew. Let them go they have not de.
stroyed the Democratic party. 1t will live
despite them.
The PAvILIoN.-The building, yesterday,
was still pretty well thronged with visitors
Last evening the awards for articles on exhi-