The Ashland union. [volume] (Ashland, Ashland County, Ohio) 1854-1868, 1860-08-08

previous question haYfng peen seconded and
sustained, by the convention, before the dele
gate from North Carolina had spoken. 49,
Pending this motion for reconsideration,
before any vote upon it, ana; consequently, be-
fore any amendment of Mr.. Samuel's resolu-
ton could be proposed, thss Alabama delega-7
tien withdrew from the followed
by ten of the delegates from Louisiana, thus
leaving that State withoqt vote; the entire
delegations from Mississippi, Texas, and Flori-
da, and the larger part of the delegations from
South Carolina, Georgia. and Arkansas
These delegations withdrew in the most formal
manner not contenting themselves with
speeches on the subject, but delivering writ
ten protests to be entered at large upon the
journal of. the convention. y 81
EXCUSES FOR TIE SECESSION AT
CHARLESTON. - r.
Various excuses have been assigaed for this
extraordinary conduct, but none of them, in
our judgement, viii bear examination.s It has
been said, for instance, that the convention
adopted an unfair rule; Of voting, or one which
enabled a minority sf 'the delegates to control
the majority. Here is the rule in so many
eThat in any State which has not provided aor
directed, by its State Convention, however its vote
may be given, the Convention will recognize the
right of each delegate to cast his individual vote
This rule was adopted on Tuesday, April
oath, by vote of 394 against 207 delegates !;
which sufficiently demonstrates Its fairness, if
any demonstration were REQUESTS. ~ IT acknewl-
edges the right of every State to bind her del
egates, but secures to each delegate his own
vote, as against any combination of his eol-
leagues, where the States has not chosen thus
to- subordinate him. The rule was applied, at
Charleston, in the decision of all questions !;
and no complaint was then made of it in their
protests or speeohes) by the delegations which
withdrew. The first complaint, so far as we
can ascertain, was in the address published by
eighteen members of Congress, after the Con-
convention had adjourned from Charleston to
Baltimore. The rule operated as hardly upon
the cne side as upon the other; witness the
the fact that delegates from Alabama and
Louisiana were compelled to withdraw from
the Convention, by the act of their colleagues,
against their own will, and that ten delegates
from Georgia who remained In the Convention,
were not allowed to vote (under General Cush-
ing's decision) because majority of the dele
cation had withdrawn.
Ofwhat possible importance can the asser-
ton be that different result, either in regard
to the platform or the candidates, would have
attended rule authorizing each delegate te
control his own vote, without reference to the
instructions of his State? In New York
| Alabama, Indiana and Louisiana, for example
| the convention which instructed the delegates
was the convention which appointed them
and but that all these delegates were under
stood to accept their appointments, severally
with an obligation to obey the Instructions, il
| is very certain the convention would, in eacf
| case, have made other appointments: And
after all how much reliance can be placed ii
assertions or circulations as to what any dele
i L
] ent circumstances. All such assertions or cir
culations are based on remorse, surmises, infor
nation at second hand, or assurances private
ly signifed. -
| We could, by the same style of argument
/ refute the whole of them but we choose Il
deal with the subject as men, and not to anus
ourselves with propositions or possibilities
! The method of voting was an affair to be de
termined by the convention: and it was deter
mined at Charleston, as we have shown, by
majority of almost two-thirds.
Another complaint is, that the report of th
majority of the committee on resolutions wa
| not adopted-as being the voice of majorit
of the States. Several answers suggest them
selves at once.
1. Such was not the method of voting b
the convention, and meyer had been the meth
cd in any previous convention.
j 2. If the rule had been that majority Q
the committee should prescribe the platform
and not the majority of the convention, it
4 evident from their votes (afterward given
that several Of the States would have chose
other representatives upon the committee
3. The first majority report, as We hav
shown, was not acceptable to the delegation
which subsequently retired. Every one c
them voted for its recommitment.
4. The second report. of the committe
i LII or,1 q fh<aa uor1fl r
a majority; the committeeman from Missonl
1 I(General Clark9 announcing that he woul
move, at the proper time, to this all-importar
resolution:
ssThat it is the duty Of the Federal Governmen
in all its departments, to protect when necessar
rights of persons and property In the Terrtoie
and wherever elseits authority exists
FL It required the committeeman of Nilsson
to constitute the majority (seyenteen9 Of Ehic
: we have heard SO much. Without farther, a
| gument, therefore, this pretext disappears.
j It has been said, finally, that the Stat
: which favored the second majority platfor
t were Deagocratic States, and that all the otl
: ers were hopeless, or, at least, unreliable. W
: could, if it were necessary, prove this to
3 untrue but even if it were true, in the large
sense, what folly to be governed by such col
. siderationsi Those seventeen States had N
j., majority of all the electoral votes, and cou
5 accomplish nothing without assistance. \
wise general, upon the eve of an engagement
would subtract from the weaker column of b
e army in order to reinforce the strongest
3 would, on the contrary, take means to strengt
: en- the feeble, even at the expense of the frr
But, in higher sense, and upon the noble
E consideration of Democratic policy, snch i
) vidious distinction between the States ougl
to be discouraged.
: Our party has eyer commended itself ALL
: to the North and to the South, as party
e which all the States will find their interes
8 equally protected. and their honor equally o.
served; and whenever we abandon that sal
: ground, we falsify our ancient and proude
e profession, and degrade our Notiopal Convel
ton to the level Of the Convention at Chic
s 60 Every true Democrat believes that Mas
! chusetts. as well as South Carolina, woul
4 ensure her noblest deyelopement, as a Stat
: under the influence of Democratic policy an,
f therefore, in all national conventions, the Den
!, ocracy of Massachusetts-feeb and even il
q signicant as others esteemed them-haye bee
t treated as brethren, and as equals. By meaI