Sugar planter. [volume] (West Baton Rouge [i.e. Port Allen, West Baton Rouge Parish, La.]) 1856-1925, 1861-03-23
TmK CONVENTION.

I w ~ 0s0VS NVuvSUt1VU Iu S@SOosU6 ~ 0VO-
NIT toe Constitution ofthe Confederate States
to the people Of Louisianas for ratification OF
rejection. Uron MIR. CxN~oN's bill, or ordi:
nance, to submit It to the people, after much
debate on both sides, the result was IS fol-
lows: Yeas, 26: nays, 70. Amongst those
voting in the Affirmative were our Senatorial
representatives, Messrs. HEKRoN and FUQuA.
Our parish representatives. name does not
appear in the vote. 1t is somewhat strange
that the people should have been ignored in
this matter and we confess to being some
what in the dark as to the true meaning. II
the popular vote Of the State was for seces-
sion why refuse to submit to their Cons;dera-
ton . subject which was of the same character
and in full unison with that vote 1t is
conceded on all hands that at least Nv -thirds
Of those who voted for cooperation ere heart
in hand with those who, at the same election,
voted for straight-out secession. in fact it may
be said that We are almost a unit upon that
question, and yet the Convention declines
placing the Constitution of the Contede, cy
before rs for an expression Of opinion
thereon. We think the Convention has act
ed unwisely and that it will tend much to
impair public confidence in that body.
With all Difference to the wisdom and man.
agement Of the Convention in the present
crisis, they are in our opinion. exercising pow
ers never delegated to them by the people.
Although in one sense they are the peoples
representatives, they are not masters to as
sumo dictatorial powers, and withhold from
the people an expression Of their sovereign
will upon 4 matter Of the most vital import
acce to them and their posterity. How much
better and more satisfactory It would have
been to the voters Of this State to have rati-
fed that Constitution at the ballot box. there
by showing to the world that the people of
Louisiana endorse the acts of the State Con.
vention and that We are all a unit in matters
Of public policy. As it is, it will 20 fo:th
that our Convention does not reflect the pub
lie sentiment Of the State, and that it fears
to submit to the people a vote which nigh,
a great difference of opinion between
the Convention and the people To say the
least Of it, the Convention has acted in a verv
hish-handed manney,, totally ignoring and re-
pudisting their mas:en-the people. Suppose
the State Convention Of 1852 hed adopted
The Constitution of their own creating with |
submitting it to the people, would it not
likely have produced a revolution in our
Although it was ratified, there was
much objection to it, as it was known there
would be, still they could not do otherwise
shan they did. There is no difference between
The people then and now OF, if fanny. it is in favor
Of consulting them more directly than ever.
We are in the midst o ftroublous times. when
every true Southern man must stand IN to
Me enemy and undinching1y face them. We
must act it, concert-there should be no Jar
hg or jangling in our ranks everything tend
to destroy our harmony must be uncere-
mon'ous'y thrown overheard. These facts
patent to every rejecting mind, and vet
our State Convention throws the frs, fire.
brand into our midst by refusing to consult
he people upon a matter Of so great an i'm
Because we are somewhat embittered
against the action Of our Convention in re-
using to submit to the people of the State
he Constitution of the Confederacy for a
thereon, it must not be construed into
IN opposition to its adoption. Far from it.J
think it in many respects, far superior to
he Constitution Of the old Confederacy, and
would SAaxe unhesitatinsly voted for it. and
lNesay ~infusaeewe might possess to secure
u adoption by our pasfsh, hhadit been refer
ID to the people. Out ofthe eryIlassensjcri.
y given in this parish for Co0peration, we
'on't think there can be found ten men who
would have voted against that Constitution
Ind in the same ratio Of Cooperationists.
in our opinion: have been the result
the State.
Sine the above was written. and in TYNE
find the .Advocate in its issue of Wednesday
Eakes up the cudgels Justify in behalf o: t,e
outraged people That able paper charges
he Convention directly with transceod;ny
he powers delegated to it, ard in emphatic
language warns that BODY to TO longer persist
n 4 course that must result in dissatisfaction.
t not worse, on part of the people. In a
'aragraph Of the .Advocate's article above
to, occurs in the following sentence
lin redistricting the State for Congressional
'epresentatives):
Is there a scheme On foot in the Conven-
ION to gerrymander the districts and thus