Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1860-06-26

1t IS question whether the Democratic psrty ii /
said States slal be ostracised and branded as I'M
worthy Of utilization with the national organization.
1t IS question whether persons iTTegulary called, /
who Withdrawing from the regular Convention. /
shall have the sanction Of the National Convention
TO raise the flag Of rebellion against their respective
State organizations. Il is question whether the /
Convention itself shall repudiate its own deliberate
action at Charleston. We 90 not magnify the impor
tance of these questions when we assert that upon
their proper solution depends the fact as 10 whether
there shall be National Democratic Party OF nOk /
The task viii not be difficult to show that the action
recommended By the majority Of the Committee IS
grossly inconsistent and should be reprobated and
condemned by this Convention. But to the task,
without further preamble.
ReserYing 70 the closing portion Of this report the
cases Of contested seats the Massachusetts and
Missouri delegations we come at once to the cases
of the delegates who withdrew from the Charleston
Convention. This convention, on the eve OF ITS ad-
journment at Charleston and IN the great cause Of
the restoration Of harmony to our distracted party,
A" respectfully recommended to the Democratic party
Of the several States 20 make provision for supply
ing all vacancies in their respective delegations TO
this Convention when it shall re-assemble' We cali
particular attention 70 the wording OF the resolu-
1 ton. Certain delegates had Withdrawn. They had
placed on the Convention the reasons Of their with
drawal
They STILL however, were the Representatives of
the Democratic party Of their several States. Their
/ withdrawal was not a resignation. Ii was not so
/ considered BY the convention. The vacancies re-
ferred to had reference to the contingency of va
l cancies at tiaeg re assembling, and the resolution
proposed 70 provide for supplying them. The con-
ventiou did not presume to touch the question to
whether the withdrawal Of the delegates constituted
resignation, had it any right to interfere in the
matter A resignation must be made to the appoint
ing power, and to be complete and final must be ac
copied by the appointing power. It was well known
on the adjournment Of the convention at Charleston
thatthe Withdrawing delegates desired the iBstruc-
ton Of their several constituencies before deciding
I on their future course.
Such the spirit and purpose Of their dellbera-
1 tons at Charleston They consulted their respee-
tive CONTINGENCIES. In every case except the case
of South Carolina, their constituencies directed and
authorized them-the vacancies being filed or con
/ tempated in the resolution Of the Conventions
/ repair to Baltimore, and there IN earnest efforts
with their brethren of the convention, 20 endeaVor
once more to unite their party and promote harmo-
ny and peace In the great cause Of their country
! The resolution Of the convention did not prejudice
the question: since so strenuousy raised that their
4 withdrawal was q resignation, but left the whole
question the said delegates and their respective
Constituencies to the end that every State Of this
Union might be represented in Baltimore
/ The committee has passed resolutions, declaring
by a vote of l6 to 8, that the delegation from Louis
lsna headedEby Pierre Soue, by vote of IA to II;
that the delegation from Alabama, headed by Per
sons and by vote Of Is to TO- that half Ofeach dele
CATION claiming seats from Georgia, entitled 10
seats in the convention. The resolutions recommend
ed by the undersigned to the convention declare the
right Of the delegates elected to Charleston with va
cancles supplied as contemplated in the resolution of
the cOnventonuo which reference has been made and
accredited to Baltimore, to said seats. The Commit
| tee which thus recommend the irregular delegates
from these three States have rejected the irregular
delegates from Delaware, and admitted the Charles
ton delegates
It has admitted irregular delegates from Arkan-
sas and rejeeted portion Of the Charleston dele
gates as modified by the filling of vacancies. Il has
admitted the (CharlestOn) delegates from Mississippi
by a vote of rs 20 2 and the (CharlestOn) delegates
from Texas by vote of l9 to 6. The fact that dele
cations not contested does not establish the right
TO seats IN the convention. There may be Irregular
delegates without contest and there may be con-
test between two sets Of irregular delegates. The
right of persons to seats delegates Is to be deter
mined by the fact to whether they appointed
BY the constituency which they claimed torepresent
and appointed according to the usages of said con-
stituency Wanting these essential prerequisites,
they are not entitled to Seats if there be no
contestants and having these their right to seats is
not impaired or affected by constants
The committee in deciding by vote Of 70 to 2,
that the Charleston delegates from Mississippi are
entitled 70 seats in the Baltimore convention have
decided rightly, just because they were duly &C
credited to Charleston, have never since resigned,
and have received instructions from the State Of
Mississippi, through convention called Of the De-
mocratic Executive Committee of the State, to re-
turn to Baltimore.
The Charleston delegates, both from Alabama and
stdliu precisely ll6 SAINT pusltlOA 4ucg
were also duly accredited to Charleston They
withdrew and never resigned. They returned to
their respective constituencies. The Executive Com
mittees in these States in the Of Mississippi
called convention of the party. The conventions
met The delegates in the case Of Mississippi, |
submitted their action to the conventions and these
conventions approved their course. continued their
powers and accredited them to Baltimore Their
rights stand precisely the same basis, and is sus
tanned by the same authority as IN Mississippi The
contestants aOnOiutpd nv b0dV authorized
to meet according to the usages of the party IN
these States and not entitled to any consdera-
/ ton whatever.
In the case of Alabama, the convention assembled
on the call Of the Democratic Executive Committee
addressed TO the Democracy Of the State,1 very
largely attended, nearly every county the State
having been represented. A small number Of per-
sons however, issued notice, which was published
in only three newspapers in the State-n two papers
the notice was without sgners and in the third paper
Mobile Register 1t was signed by John Forsyth and
thirty-fVe others. The notice in paper called
upon all Democrats and all other perSons-in the Sc
cond paper upon Democrats and all conservatives,
and in the third paper Mobile Register upon the
people Of Alabama, to hold county meetings and send
delegates TO State convention, to be held IN Mont
gOmery or Selma, the 4th day of June, to appoint
delegates TO Baltimore. Twenty-eght counties only |
out of fifty-twO were represented.
Il was the coming together of persons from all |
parties outside Of the regular organization to strike
down the Democracy of the State. 1t was aall |
without any Olncal aubnOrlty whatsoever. We Ihus
find the Democracy of the State assembling in con-
venton according to the usages of the party and we
find at the same time persons assembling at the call
of unauthorized individuals In the former case the
whole State was represented. In the latter about |
half of the State. Yet the majority of the committee
have endorsed the action of the latter the action
of the Democracy of Alabama, and have repudated 4
contrary to all precedent usage, right and justice
the action of the former not only this, they have
repudiated the principles Of their own action in the
case of the Mississippi delegation.
But the action of the majority Of the committee in
the of Georgia has gone step further IN lis
disregard of the acknowledged principles OF the |
party. The Convention which the committee put on |
an equality with the regularly authorized Conven-
ton, consisted in part of persons who just partlci
pated in the regular Democratic Convention Of the
State The regular called Convention consisted Of
nearly four hundred delegates representing nearly
all the counties of the State The resolutions of the
Convention having been adopted by vote of 299 to
Al, these latter withdrew from the Convention and
organized anew. Thus the majority Of your COM
mttee have exalted the pretensOns OF less than one
eighth of the delegates Of the State Convention to an
equality with the rights of seveneighths Of the De-
mocracy of the State.
In the case of Louisiana, the old convention,
which originally appointed the delegates TO Charles
ton re-assembled, on the cal Of the Executive
Committee of the State and by decisive majority
accredited the Charleston delegates to Baltimore
The reasons this action have their parallels in the
case of Texas and Delaware, which have received
the sanction OF the COMMITTEE. IN IeXas Jne Oeie-
gates came back accredited by the Democratic Ex-
ecutive Committee simply it being manifest inn
possibility from want of time, to assemble the party
in a State convention and in Delaware, under the
usages and rules of the party, the old convention
was re-assembled. In Louisiana there was time to
assemble the old convention butnot to order an cleo
ton of delegates in the several parishes to meet
new convention. The Executive Committee did
everything it could to get the expression Of the
views of the State. Hre-assembled the old cOnyen-
tion nearly every parish in the State being repre-
sented and accredited the Charleston delegates to
Baltimore.
But the convention whose delegates to Baltimore,
who have been endorsed by the majority of your
Committee, was called at the instance of two local
organizations and of DR.. Cottman, former mem
Der of the National Executive Committee Of the
party. The calls were somewhat conflicting. The
notice did not reach many parishes in the State.
Only parishes out Of SO pretended to be repre-
senfed and in several of these there is reason to
doubt the fact that the delegates did not leave be-
hind them a single constituent agreeing with them
in sentiments. In not a single parish was this call
responded to by majority of the Democratic voters
The convention only represented very small por-