The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1860-08-03
credited equally to Baltimore and Rich

convention was afterwards assembled. In
each congressional district, however, two
conventions had been called, the delegates
to which had been all appointed prior to
the meeting of the Charleston convention,
and, of course, without reference to its ac>
ton, to nominate candidates for Congress.
These two conventions assumed the author
ity to appoint delegates to the Baltimore
convention.
In the First congressional district mass
meeting of the National Democracy was
called, by advertising in the papers pub
lished in the district, and others out of it
having circulation there, which was numer-
ously attended, and which, with unusual
unanimity, appointed four gentlemen of
character and distinction to represent that
district in the Baltimore convention. Three
of them attended, and were permitted by the
Committee on Credentials to cast one vote.
The Second congressional district having
called no meeting, the same committee per-
mitted the delegates appointed by the Con-
gressional convention, together with the
seceders and appointees of the First Con-
gressional convention, to cast two votes,
leaving one vote to be cast by Messrs.
Flourney and Stillman, whose right to cast
it was contested by neither party, they hav-
ing never seeded. Mr.. Sherman, however,
declined to vote after the secession of the
majority of the Virginia and other Southern
delegations, which left but one vote and
half cast by Arkansas for Mr.. Douglas. 1t
must be conceded that the report of the
Committee upon Credentials was so liberal
and conciliatory towards the seceders and
their friends as to be hardly just to the rep
resentatives of the National Democracy from
this state.
GEORGIA.
In this state, after the Charleston seces-
sion, a regular state convention was called
at Milledgeville, and all the delegates, as
well those who had seeded as those who
had not, were reappointed as delegates from
Georgia to the Democratic National Con-
vention at Baltimore, and also appointed
delegates to the Convention at Richmond.
A large minority of this convention pro-
tested against the act accrediting delegates
to Richmond, declaring that an act of hos
tility toward the national organization of
the Democratic party, and refusing to en-
gage in any such scheme. This minority
withdrew from the convention, and, uniting
with the representatives of several counties
who had refused to participate in it, organ
lied separate convention, and appointed a
full delegation accredited to Baltimore only.
The National Convention at Baltimore,
with extravaganza of liberality, rather than
sense of justice, excluded the delegation
thus accredited to itself alone, and admitted
the delegation accredited as we'll to Rich.
mond.
ACTION AT BALTIMORE.
1t appears, from what we have said, that
all the delegates to the Richmond Conven.
ton, except from the four States Of South
Carolina, Florida, Louisiana and Alabama,
were actually admitted, as delegates, in the
National Convention at Baltimore; that
convention, sacrificing the usages of the
Democratic party, and even las we think
its proper self-respects, for the sake OF re-
union, harmony, and ultimate success.
South Carolina and Florida did not ap.
ply for admission; and, therefore, it cannot
be said that any injustice was inflicted upon
them.
In the cases of Louisiana and Alabama,
the new delegations were admitted, and
those who represented the Charleston Sc
ceders were rejected. The decision of these
two cases, therefore, must constitute the
sole pretext for the secession at Baltimore.
We have related the facts of each case, as
understood by the majority Of the committee
on credentials, and by the majority of the
convention; and although confident in our
opinion that the convention erred in admit
ting single delegate accredited to the rival
convention, at Richmond, we, nevertheless,
submit to you, fellow-ctizens, whether de-
cision between two delegations from Louis
lana and Alabama (even treating the decis-
ion as erroneOus) constituted any sufficient
excuse to those delegates from Virginia,
Maryland, North Carolina, Kentucky, Ten>
nessee, California, Oregon, and other States,
who seeded, therefore, at Baltimore. Was
it not pretext industriously sought, and at
the instigation of men-Cabinet officers,
Senators and Representatives in Congress,
placemen or contractors of Mr.. Buchanans
choice--to whom the Democracy of their
own States had not confded the duty of
selecting our candidates for President and
Vice>President We can give TO this
whole affair no other Interpretation; and
we denounce such meddlesomeness, therefore,
as an attempt to usurp the control of the
Democratic party, and even to dictate its
nominees, by those to whom the people
never entrusted any such task. That any
delegate should have been so far deceived as
to become an instrument of this conspiracy
against popular rights, against Democratic
principles and policy and usuages, we do
exceedingly regret; but the whole case is
now before you, and it is for the wisdom and
virtue OF the people, in every State, to re-
dress an outrage so unparalleled.
SECESSION AT BALTIMORE.
The sole pretext for this, we repeat, was
the admission of certain delegates from
Louisiana and Alabama, and the rejection
OF their adverse claimants. The Convention
had decided similar controversies at Charles
ton with regard to the States of New York
and Illinois, but no secession or even dis
turbance ensued. In the case of New York,
the Louisiana delegation voted unanimously
upon one side, end the Alabama delegation
unanimously upon the other What if they
had then parted company? -..
1t is too ridiculous-Or, rather, would be
ridiculous but for the gravity of its conse-
quences-that delegates from Virginia,
Maryland, North Carolina, Kentucky, Ten.
nessee, California and Oregon, who declined
J.