Evening star., 1948-07-22
When the Democrats First Split
Todays Party Upheaval Recalls Some of the Details
of 1860, Prelude to Civil War
By Francis p. Douglas
Abraham, Lincoln.
Stephen A. Douglas.

Abraham Lincoln. Stephen A. Douglas
The split In the Democratic Party in
Birmingham, Ala, 1s4s, has reminded many
Of Charleston, 8. c., 1860.
There are parallels but fortunately the
parallels do not carry very far.
The split in the Democratic Party in 1860
meant the party's collapse and temporary
eclipse-and war. What the split means this
year is too early to tell.
In 1860 the Southern revolt against the
party was the rumbling thunder Of the ap-
preaching revolt against the Union. The ac-
tion of the Southern Democrats in 1948 is
described similarly as revolt, but it is solely
a party revolt. It may result in q political
realignment that some have hoped for; it may
result in two-party system in the South.
States rights was the cry heard this year
States rights was a cry in 1860, but the South
erners went beyond, that. They demanded
the aggressive protection of slavery in the
States and in the Territories awaiting adrnis-
sion to Statehood.
In the end the South of 1860 rejected Sera-
tor Stephen A. Douglas, the man whose doc
trine of popular sovereignty" was the epit-
OluG Oh 0tdCSS TlSIGS nc Wdo VIC VlIlJ AldA
who had any chance whatever of holding to-
gether the Democratic Party and, perhaps the
Nation But the Southern revolt was too deep
for him to bridge.
There is no need to go further back than
1854 in this tragedy of Douglas and the South.
In that year Douglas reported out Of his Sen
sate Committee on Territories repeater of
the Missouri Compromise of 1920 which eX-
cluded slavery from the territory of the Louisi-
ana Purchase west of Missouri and north OF
the line of her Southern border.
I'm Their Own Way"
Douglas Kansas-Nebraska bill provided, in
stead, that the inhabitants of that area would
be free to form and regulate their domestic
institutions in their own way" The bill raised
storm in the North and divided Democrats
there Douglas pushed it through believing
it promised settlement of q troublesome
problem.
Then came the test of the measure offered
by Kansas and the question whether it should
come into the Union free or slave. The bloody
actions of the Free Sellers there were accom-
panied by the proslavery fraud of the States
Lecompton constitution. President Buchanan
countenanced that fraud; Douglas rebelled.
He had caused dissension among the North
ern Democrats which had left scars. The Re-
publicans profited. He could not 60 the whole
way with the Southern Democrats.
When 1860 came Douglas was the outstand-
ing Democrat. But there was an explosive
feeling as the Democratic delegates gathered
for their convention at Charleston on April %.
The lines were drawn quickly. The Southern
States backed platform declaring it the duty
of the Federal Government to protect the
rights of persons and property (slaves were
property in the Territories; that when the
Territories were ready for Statehood they should
come in whether their constitutions permitted
or prohibited slavery; that the enactment OF
State laws to defeat the Fugitive Slave Law
was subversive of the Constitution.
This was in the majority report of the Reso-
lutfons Committee. The Northern States re-
jected it and rested on a simple declaration
pledging adherence to Supreme Court de-
cisons on constitutional questions.
In the two days of violent debate William
L. Yancey of Alabama argued for an hour and
half that slavery was right and must be
protected. The Southerners lost, and half of
them withdrew from the convention.
Douglas Lacked Two thirds.
Mississippians then as in 1948 announcing
their bolt, said their State demanded recog-
milton of her constitutional rights which was
denied.
The convention ground on for ten days.
Fifty-seven ballots were taken. The official
proceedings of the convention indicate that
Douglas obtained bare majority on the
23d ballot and the 32nd, 33d, 34th and 35th
ballots The two-thirds rule prevented his
nomination. however and the weary conven-
ton finally adjourned to meet again in Baltt-
more on June 49,
In the meantime the boilers, representing
about dozen States, met in another hall for
four days, adopted the Southern platform and
adjourned to meet in Richmond June II. That
meeting was held, but adjourned almost at.once
until June 81 to wait and see what the Bal
timore convention would do.
The Baltimore convention splintered again.
When the Credentials Committee seated Doug
las Democrats from States where there were
contests there was another bolt, led by Vir-
ginia.
This convention lasted six days. On the final
day Douglas was placed denomination and re-
ceived 173h votes of the 1901 votes cast, but
still not the two thirds vote of the whole con-
vention. On the second ballot he receivedaS1h
of the 194h total. It appeared it would be
Charleston over again.
At this juncture the convention adopted
resolution short-circuiting the two-thirds rule
Dy declaring tiidt SlIlc6 OOuSldS ldQ ICScASCu
two-thirds of the votes cast he be declared the
nominee. It was adopted by IAN overwhelming
and unanimous 'aye,'p in the words Of the off,
cial proceedings.
A Three-Way Split
David Tod of Ohio who was presiding, an
nounced that Douglas was the conventions
nominee and added fervently, And may God
in his infinite mercy protect him and, with
him. this Union
The convention nominated Benjamin Fitz-
patrick of Alabama for the vice presidency
Fitzpatrick declined the nomination after the
convention had adjourned and the National
Committee chose Herschel w.. johnson of
Georgia.
In the meantime the Baltimore boilers met
in another hall, adopted the Southern platform
and nominated John c. Breckenridge Of Ken
lucky for President and Joseph Lane of Oregon
for Vice President ~