The Vinita daily chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1902-1913, 1912-06-13
THE NOMINATION
OF ABE LINCOLN
NATIONAL CONVENTIONS.
(By Frederick ]. Haskin.
THE GREAT DEMOCRATIC SPLIT,

The only national convention of one
of the principal political parties that
resulted in a serious split and the con-
sequent nomination of two candidates
for president was the democratic con-
vention of 1860 True, the Barnburn-
er detection from the democratic con-
vention of 1S4S defeated the party
that year, and there were serious di-
visions in both democratic and repub
can conventions in 1885, but the
only actual split was that of 1860
Slavery in the territories was the
whole issue Thomas Jefferson, Vir-
ginia slave holder, wrote into the pro-
vision that that territory should be
forever free of slavery. The Wilmot
Proviso, written by Judge Brinkerhoff,
an Ohio Democrat, using the exact
language of Jefferson, kept slavery off
the Pacific Coast. The whole ques-
ton was compromised in 1920 and
again in 1850, by Henry Clay. In 1854,
Douglas, assisted by President Pierce,
obtained the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise in 1920, and the whole
question of the extension Of slavery
was reopened.
The democrats how had come to the
parting of the ways. The south held
that the territories were federal and
belonged as much to the slave states
as to the free, and that, until they be-
came states, the federal Constitution
was their only law. The Constitution
permitted slavery by its silence. and
this theory would make them slave
territories. The north held that con-
gress~esufd tegislate slavery out of a
- Xerritory but could not legislate it in
that the territories must be free.
Douglas took the middle ground and
declared in favor of Popular Sow
ereignty;" that is, permitting the peo-
pie of a territory to decide the slav-
cry question for themselves. This the
opposition sneered at as "Squatter
Sovereignty"
The democratic platform OF 1856 de-
clared in favor of policy of tlon-inter-
ference on the part of congress. BY
1860 non-interference was not popular
with either side. The democratic ma
tional convention met at Charleston
on April 23 1t was the only national
convention ever held south of the Po-
tomac. There were full delegations
from all the states and contesting del
egations from Illinois and New York.
From Illinois there were Douglas and
anti-Douglas delegations, and from
New York the Hards and Softs, the
J Softs being favorable to Douglas and
( the Hards to the Southern view.
The national committee, following
the precedent established at Cincin-
natl four years before, when for the
first time a national committee at
tempted to pass on contested delega-
4 tions. undertook in advance of the
\ meeting of the convention to decide
/ both these contests. The Douglas men
controlled a majority of the commit
/ tee. and. as always has been the case,
/ they settled both contests in favor OF
Douglas. This probably was right in
the case of Illinois, but in New York
NJ 5e Hard delegates had been elected
I in districts, while tn Softs, who were
seated, had been chosen at a state
convention under circumstances OF
I doubtful regularity. But, being Doug
las men, tthey were seated Against
this action the southern delegates pro
tested and, as soon as the convention
was organized, an angry debate was
precipitated on this question.
1t was evident that Douglas had
much larger support than any other
candidate, and therefore the southern
ers essayed first to fix the platform to
suit themselves. Aided by California
and Oregon, the southerners got con
( troll of the committee on resolutions
and reported platform. This was