Bedford inquirer. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1857-1884, 1866-08-03
Miscellanepns.
THE PHILADELPHIA coNYENTIoN

Il + MA AOEN AON
The most earnest advocates of the pro-
posed Philadelphia Convention announce
that it is to form new party. They assert
that the Republican party was purely a sec
tional, and the Union merely a war party.
It is now necessary, therefore, in their judg-
ment, to assemble delegates from every
State and Territory, and lay down common
national platform, This is all well. This
seems very simple But declarations Of In
tentions have always most artless tone.
The late rebel leaders, Davis, Toombs, and
their allies, always insisted upon being called
NaEfOnal Union Democrats aud while
their mouths rang with patriotic yociieratioa
they were plotting disunion. 1t il necessa-
ry, therefore. to look at the facts. Us this
Convention likely to represent the trlae and
saving union sentiment of the country
VIII II be composed of those who have been
proved by experience to be the most faithful,
intelligent and consistent friends of the
Union Ifso, every honest man Will rejoice.
But it isnot enough to say that il viii be so
if such men choose to send delegates. The
question is, whether the terms and circum-
stances Of the call, and the manner in which
it has been received by the country, show
that it is intended and likely to include such
representatives.
The first significant fact then, is, that the
call is issued BY the three Senators who have
separated themselves from the Union ma
iority In Congress, by the Assistant POST
master General and two or three gentlemen
who approve that separation, and by two
Senators who have uniformly opposed the
action of the Union party, and who supper
ted the Chicago policy of surrender to the
4 Ill fTLo Nv,I
fact is, that it is urged upon the country by
the whole body of what are known, for good
reasons, as the Copperhead members OF
Congress, excepting Senators Salisbury and
Riddle OF Delaware, aud Representative
Harris Of Maryland, and the members from
New York city The third fact is, that it is
not approved by the Union members of Con-
gress in either House, nor by the e0nspicu-
Gus and representative Union journals OF the
country.
The Convention, therefore, viii be COM
posed of three classes FIRST, those whom,
nos for ofense bat for distinction, we may
call Mr. ThurloW Weeds party; second,
the Democratic party of the North; and
third, the Democratic ex-rebels of the South.
1t win not represent such Union men as
Senator Fessenden and x-Governor An
drew in New England Ward Hunt and
Charles J. Folger in New York Senator
Sherman and Chief Justice Chase in Ohio;
General Logan and Senator Kirkwood in
the Northwest Governor Fletcher and
Senator Brown 10 Missouri Horace May
nard in Tennessee, Judge Bond In Mary,
land Ambrose Spencer and the original
URionists In Georgia; Andrew j. Hamilton
and the voters against Throckmorton in
Texas. The question is therefore plain. Is
a Convention which, BY the nature of It's
call, excludes such men and those who SYM
pathize With them, representative Nation
al Union Convention? Do the the classes
that we have frst Damed, the party of Mr..
Weed and the old Democratic party, COM
pose more truly Union party than that
which Is now known as such
We say that they arc excluded BY the call
an9 by its general interpretation. The call
is issued in intentional disregard of the equal
rights of tho loyal Union colored population
of the Southern States, whom it proposes to
abandon to those who were lately in rebellion.
Ii does this under profession Of regard for
State rights, and In defiance Of the truth
now terribly dcmonstrated, that absolute
equality of inlii id1al rights before the law