The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1880-03-16
SHALL THE TWO-THIRDs RULE PRE-
VAIL2


Pursuant TO resolution Of the st. Louis
convention Of 1876, this important question
n solemnly submitted 10 the consideration u
the Democracy OF tho several States, and rsDw
that delegates to the Cincinnati conveneou
are about to be chosen. the present Is 1T
ting time To recall the action OF former ra.
tional Democratic conventions on this sub.
ject and NJ the same time To inquire Into the
causes which led to the adoption or the two
| thirds rule by different national conventions
Of our party.
The first adoption Of the two-thirds rule
was Ia 1886, when Mr.. Van Buren,, then the
Vice President. and the favorite Of President
jackson, was unanimously nominated; and
Of course the rule had no effect upon the re-
suit.
In 1874 the two-thirds rule was again
adopted. and owing to its adoption the nomi-
nation Ok OK President Van Buren,. notwith.
standing his crushing defeat In 1Sa0, was pre-.
vented, and q party defeat averted. The dele
rates from the various States saw dangers to
the party by Van Buren's nomination which
Ind escaped general observation, and TO avert
The defeat which later an interchange Of
views among delegates) seemed likely to FOL
low such nomination, the two-thirds
rule was adopted, and MIR. Polk.
gentleman Of spotless character and
the lifelong friend Of Gen. jackson, was
nominated. His election was secured only
by the greatest possible effort, and the nomi-
nation Of Van Buren,. owing to his unsatis-
factory position on the question OF Texas an
nexation, would have thrown against him the
electoral votes Of Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana
ana South Carolina, and he would certainly
have been defeated. The nomination OF Mr..
Polk may have taken the country by surprise,
but II also sent dsmay to the heart OF Mr..
CLAY, the nominee Of the Wings. for 1t leaked
out afterwards that the great Kentuckian
privately admitted his approaching defeat ~
soon az he heard or Mr.. Folks nomination.
The two-thlrds rule secured the nomination OF
a ticket favorable to the annexation Of Texas,
and the election Of the ticket brought that
immense domain into the Union. The Mcxi-
can war followed. and It's result was the &c
QUESTION Or California, Nevada, Arizona.
Utah and New Mexico. with their mines OF
fabulous wealth, and resources opening up
thousands OF opportunities for the employ
kuSuL VI hmGLkGtAAl VAGCA RAsCus AAS ~ 49,
acquisition of California, continental rail-
road would now probably be only regarded
rs the visionary dream Of an enthusiast
Certainly the two-thirds rule Of ls44 pro-
duced the Rrandest results, In subsequent
years. to the whole country.
In 1sAs the two-thirds rule again prevailed,
and rec ulted in the nomination OF Gen. Case.
who stood In the front rank Of Democratic
states men, and only for the movement In
auRurated at Buffalo, q movement prompted
more by desire to harass the Democracy
than 70 advance any great principle, Gen.
Cass would have been elected.
In 1862 the two-thirds rule was again
adopted. and owing to the rivalry between
Gen. Case, Mr.. Dickinson. Mr.. Buchanan. ex-
Gov Marcy and Others the harmony Ok the
party was seriously disturbed, but the nomi-
nation Of Gen. Pierce. though he was not prom
inently known throughout the country, yet a
gentl eman Of excellent repute, awakened an
enth usiasm among the Democratic masses
such a. the country had seldom Witnessed
His triumph was 90 signal as to surprise his
most ardent admirers.
The two-thirds rule became the common
law Of the Democratic party. Repeated
efforts have been made to abolish the rule,
and the question was remitted to the Conven-
ton Of 1880 by the resolution Of the st. Louis
Convention Of 1876, viz:
Rsaolped That the States be requested to In
struct their delegates to the National Demo-
cratic Convention. TO DO held In 1880. whether It
be desirable to continue the two.thirds rule
that the National Committee insert such re-
quest In the call for the next con ventlon.
The question should receive careful con-
sideration, as 1t involves interests OF the
greatest magnitude. The point involved is
not whether majority Of the party or ma
jority OF Democratic States shall control the
nominations at Cincinnati. but whether dele
gates from anti DemocraticS States shall make
nominations which they can do nothing to-
ward electing. That the majority shall
rule is right as q general principle,
but there are many exceptions, and
restrictions are placed upon the majority In
many cases as safeguard to the rights Of
the minority. Under the system by which
Presidents are elected. taken In connection
with the basis Of representation In the Gin
cinnau convention, States which are hope
lessly Republican at present, and conse-
Quently can exert no power whatever In elect
Ing Democratic President, will have votes
In convention equal to pronounced Demo-
cratic States. For example, the States Of
Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Vir-
l-l~ y y,ck ~l,.10 n~vn