The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1896-07-06

years and, in fact, until 1856, had been the
great convention city. In 1856 the Demo-
Gratis had met at Cincinnati and there had
adopted a platform which became one Of
the bones of contention at Charleston four
years later.
The Cincinnati platform declared against
the renewal, in congress or out, of the
slavery question, and more distinctly to
meet the issue, declared that it repudiated
"all sectional parties and platforms con-
corning domestic slavery which seek to en-
brOil the states and incite to treason and
armed resistance TO law in the territories
and whose aYoWed purpose, If cOnsum-
mated, must end in civil war and disun-
ion" It recognized and adopted the prin-
ciples contained in the organic laws estab-
fishing the territories OF Nebraska and
Kansas as embodying the only sound and
safe solution of the slavery question upon
which the great national idea of the people
of this whole country can repose in its de-
termined conservation of the Union and
noninterference of congress with slavery in
the territories or in the District of Column
bia. - 1t held that this was the basis of the
compromises of 1850, ratified by the people
in the election of 1852 and rightly applied
to the organization of the territories in
1854 It held that by the uniform appli-
cation of the Democratic principle to the
organization of territories and the adHnis-
sion Of new states with or without domestic
slavery, as they may elect the equal rights
Of all the states will be preserved intact,
the original cOnlpacts of the constitution
maintained 1nvIOlate and the perpebuity
and expansion Of the Union insured to its
utmost capacity of embracing in peace and
harmony every future American state that
may be constituted or annexed with re-
publican form Of government" 1t de-
clared the right of the territories to form
constitutions and be admitted to the Union
IT,
without domestic slavery"
This was the platform which many of
the delegates to the Charleston convention
wanted to affirm without modification. But
this platform was like most Of the declara-
tons of the Republican and Democratic
parties on the currency question of recent
years 1t was ambiguous, and each sec
ton gave it a different Interpretation. The
southern delegates went to Charleston with
the avowed determination of having an
unmistakable slavery plank put in the
platform
The Charleston convention began with
vigorous, rancorous contest over seats.
New York and Illinois sent two full dele
cations each, and in the preliminary or
ganization the seats from each of these
states were given to the delegations which
were understood to favor the nomination
of Stephen A Douglas Douglas was the
idol of the northern DemOcracy-alnost as
much an idol as James G. Blaine was in
the Republican party afterward. The
northern Democrats went to Charleston
with the avOwed intention of nominating
him, and the action of the convention in
seating the Douglas delegations from New
York and Illinois gave plain indication
that his friends were in the majority. 1t
was plain, too, that the vote on credentials
determined what the platform would be,
for Douglas would not run on platform
representing the views of the southern del
egates, and the convention early deter
mined to make the platform before nam
ing the candidate.
1t was Lincoln who had made Douglas
impossi BILE as a candidate of the south. He
asked him question in joint debate which
pinned him to a slavery policy obnoxious
to the south. Before asking it Lincoln
said he was about to put Douglas on rec
ord, so that if he answered one way he lost
the senatorship from Illinois and if he
answered the other way he lost the presi-
dency. Lincoln's sagacity was made evil
dent by the issue Douglas lost the presi-
dency and gained a seat in the senate.
Though they were almost hopeless Of
combating the determination of the north
to make 4 platform which their candi-
date could run, the southerners succeeded
in making Caleb Gushing Of Massachu-
sets, one of their sy1npathizers, perma-
nent chairman and in manipulating the
on resolutions in such way that they
controlled the committee.
Mr.. Avery of South Carolina reported
the platform agreed upon by majority Of
the committee. Henry 3. Payne Of Ohio
presented minority report for the north
ern delegates, and Ben Butler of Massa-
chuSctts and James A. Bayarl of Delaware
presented other resolutions. The Avery
platform affirmed the Cincinnati platform
of 1856, with the addition of five resOlu-
tions, the first of which declared: ''That
the national Democracy of the United
States hold these cardinal principles on the
subject OF slavery in the territories First,
that congress has no right to abolish sla-
very in the territories; second, that the
territorial legislature has 10 right to abol-
ish slavery in the territories nor to prohibit
the introduction of slaves therein nor any
power to destroy or impair the right of
property in slaves by any legislation what
ever. The second resolution declared
legislation by state Legislatures to defeat
the fugitive slave law unconstitutional
and revolutionary. The other resolutions
did not apply to the slavery question.
Mr.. Payne's report, which was signed by
all the free states except California, Ore
gon and Massachusetts, reaffrmed the Gin
cinDati platform, declared that all rights
of property are judicial in character and
that the Democracy pledge themselves to
defer to the decision of the supreme court
on the subject, and declared state resist
ance TO the fugitive slave law revolutionary
and unconstitutional.
General Buffers platform reafffrlned the
Cincinnati platform on the subject Of
slavery.
Mr.. Bayard's platform was designed to
reach the same result as the majority re-
port, but in different language.
After fierce debate the platform was re-
committed to the committee on resolu-
tions, but a motion to instruct that com
mittee to report a compromise presented by
Mr.. Bigler of Pennsylvania was lost