Year: 1860

| UNION OR DISUNION.
AN ADDRESS To TIE DEMOCRACY OF VIRGINIA.


The undersigned, a committee appointed at Demo-
cratic meeting recently held in the city OF Petersburg
to ratfy the nominees Of the late National Democratic
Convention at Baltimore deeply impressed with the par
amount necessity that Virginia should in all times
past give the weight of her numerical strength and the
greater weight Of her moral influence TO the nominees oi
the National Democracy beg leave to present to our TEL


low citizens Of the State some OF the reasons which con-
strain US to adhere ancient party organization and
! support its unanimously accredited candidates.


Coneeiying that our object best be attained by
candid examination OF the arguments presented by those
who have determined to adopt different course, we
shall follow in the main the address recently published
by the seeding Virginia delegates, in vindcaon oil
their acon-and examine whether he asset ons OF facts
therein will bear the test OF scrutiny and whether even


if true they would furnish the slightest excuse for their
unprecedented action and the attempted disruption OF
the National Democracy of the Union. We invoke from
our feow-demccrats unbiased consideration OF the
question knowing that they have the independence to
follow the dictates Of Duty and the conclusions OF their
| Judgment TO any issue. The first allegation OF the Ad
dress refers the condition Of things at the opening oil
the Charleston Convention, aud is couched in these
| terms:


"When the Convention first assembled at Charleston,
about onethird Of its members were the avoSed and
eager partisans of a Northern candidate, who remains
the conspicuous champion OF political dogma which
has been condemned as unconstitutional by the Supreme
Court As urged, it has degenerated into mere
ant-savery principle tending to divide parties by geo.
graphical line 1t is less candid but not less sectional
thar the leading tenet Of the Republican party. In Or
der the position Of that candidate the leaders
of his party in the Convention obliged to organize
his parsaus upon the basis Of unconstitutional pn-
| ciple and sectional sentiment adverse to the South
Now whatever may have been the elsewhere, It
is fact capable of authorization by hundred Wit
nesses that both of the delegates sent from the Peters
burg District Charleston, in terms and In person,
pledged themselves to give TO the claims of this con
SpicUOus champion of dogma condemned as unconst-
utional by the Supreme Court consideration equal to


that which they would accord to any other Democrat
North South after their respective avorites. As Mr.
Breekinridge not the ayrtc OF either, II follows
that they pledged to the Democracy OF the Dis
trct to give Douglas as fair chance for the nomination
| as Breckenridge


Again il is fact capable Of equally conclusive authen


cition that both Of these gentlemen, the one IN per-
son aud the other by the mouth of friend discalmed
all desire effect any alteration in the Cincinnati Plat
FORM aud by obvious inference avowed their Willingness
support this champion OF an unconstitutional dogma,
| ,gifioHt any Tcp,ldid,i0H Of that dogiHa.
Aud lastly, the imputaon that We and that large body
of Southern Democrats VINO support Judge Douglas the
johnson s. SOues, Rusis, Forsyths, Mlers-ae advanc-
ing "a mere sntisavery piucll less candid but not
less sectional than the leading tere Of the Republican
party is sander that secrespect demands Us TO repel
and in unmistikabe termj the people OF Nir-
ginia will not endorse it.


The authors OF the Address proceed to make their


FIRST specific charge Of unairness and quote their Ian
guage


"Thc new rule TO which we alude was, 'that in any
State which has provided directed by rs State
Convention how its may be given, the Convention
viii recognize the right of each delegate 10 cast his iudl'
vidua vote The arthee concealed in this rule Will be
presently explained The rule first submitted 10
committee OF tho Convention, aud rejected when the
committee was full AlterNardS in the absence OF the
Virginia aud other members, portion OF the committee
resolved to report it Being Unexpectedly sprung upon
II, ~ 4 fhp hp1t
nifty for discussion. None but those WHO had studied
sOme special facts then generally known cOul have
loreSecu ts ulfr effects and disastrous consequences
We opposed il III principle and contrary TO
all former usage Its special design was afterwards d''
| covered"


The assertions of this paragraph substantially first
that the 'unt rule is coudly that il hur
ried through without opportunity for discussion.
As the second charge, it not only is inconsistent
with the statement Of the authors OF the Address that
hsy opposed he re, bat is tltly conradcted by the
published report of the proceedings at Charleston We
quote from the SemWeekly Richmond Eng"'rer OF
April 26th:


sened an ddtonal rue providing that in every State
which has provided directed by The State Conven'
tiou how it, may be cast the Convention will recog-
nze the right OF each delegate 20 east his individual vote


"A warm debate the rule, in shich Mr. Rich.
ardson Mr. McCcOk Mr. Cessna, of Pa, NJ. Barry, OF
Mississippi Josiah Randall and others took part several
Southern members earnestly opposing it, The charge
Of want Of discussion is riumphanty reuted, and the
charge Of undue haste still further rebuted by be fact
that the rule not voted on a. its hrst dscussion but
Law over until the next session.


Nor il the essential Justice Of toe rule less deiensibe
than the mode OF It's adoption Several States regularly
instructed their delegates 10 vote az unt and when TINS
was true the Convention assumed no right to disturb the
arrangement but where rule was prescribed, 1t ap-
pears obviously firest the delegates aireSt to the
constituencies and best calculated to elicit the honest
preferences Of the people to permit each delegate TO cast
his vote tor himself.


For these reasons it cannot be matter Of surprise
that the motion lay this rule the table was lost by


vote of hvo to one and the rule adopted by accama-
ton


The case of Peuns vsna chosen by the authors Of the
address show the unfarness Of the ruiz particularly
unfortunate the ruling OF the Convention Was IN ac-
cordance with the uniform practice in Pennsylvania,
whose delegates have in any instance cast united
vote save when they were united in sentiment. There
was in short violation Of principle in the rule and II
is as fair to assume that those who opposed it were actu
aed by the hope of undue advantage which its re-
lection would secure them to charge the advocates
Of il with a similar motive The Address proceeds


at was BY force of the contrivduce have explain
ed that minority rejected the platform supported by the
majority. Its rejection caused several Southern States to
withdraw from the Convention at Charleston Our con-
duct in that crisis has already been yndcaed before You
and has received your approval


What was their conduct thus viudcated aud approved
by the people Of Virguiay It was this the unanimous
aud deliberate reSOUe Of tie Prginid delegation SOT TO
SECEDE and the resolve equally deliberate as we shall
show directly, TO accept the minority platform so called
with what prOprety may be from the fact that its
first resolution passed the Convention by vote OF 2S7!
ayes 65 nays, and the remaining resolutions by ae-
elamation."


To have seeded at Charleston in view Of the fact that
their constituencies had clothed them with discretion
10 that effect would have been monstrous assumption
of authority How much uujustihable was their
secession at Baltimore after they had gathered the seuti
ment of their constituencies approving their refusal to
secede at Charleston


The address here concludes its account Of the Charles
ton Convention and if any evidence in addition to the
facts Just detailed wanting r. establish the fact that
up 10 this time there was no plausible for
son il furnished in the act of the Virginia delegates
who 10. only declined 10 secede but took their iu share
in the acts Of the Convention for three days subsequent
10 the adoption Of the nov obnoxious platform, endedU
oriaq for ty-seren ballots 10 put their favorte on that
platform candidate for The Presidency! The con-
cusion il irresistible either that they and Mr. Hunter
endorsed the Platform that they engaged in the
attempt to launch the National Democracy into cam
paign with platform looking way and candidate
the other"


The address Eow proceeds 10 give an account OF the
adjourned convention at Baltimore, and dkeepng in mind
the fact that the Virginia delegates by the most solemn
unanimous and unquivocal acts declared that up to this
period there just for secession, let US ex-
anime their statements OF fact the Baltimore meet
ing.


The first charge made by the address against the Bal
timore convention the attempt TO exclude the dele
gates from Mississippi, Texas and Georgia, upon which
the address enlarges The seceiers certainly do not
mean TO assert that the convention showed any dspos
ton to exclude the delegates from Mississippi and Texas
No charge could be more gratuitiOus The eonnitee
reported in favor Of their admission, and the convention
confirmed the repOrt-in each admitting the dele