Year: 1860

outrage, though perpetrated by strict party
vote, was not Thought by the Virginia delega-


ton in Congress just ground for a secession.
| 8. In the cases in Massachusetts and Mis-
souri, the Convention decid ed that when a
delegate fails from any cause to accept his


trust, and his alternate tai es his place, the lat
ter is forthwith invested with full powers as
| delegate.


Amy other course would, it appers to us,


lead to perpetual conflicts, to confusion and


uncertainty as to the limits of the power Of


the alternates, and to the waste of the time of
the Convention in petty personal squabbles as


it would be competent for principal to ap-


pear at any moment and oust substitute who
might have been so connscted with the action
of the body as comuittee S0faa, author of reso-
lutions or otherwise that The Substitution of a


new man would seriously retard the business
Of the body. By no fair construction can the
refusal of the principal to attend the Conven.
ton be regarded otherwise than as surrender


of his office, and as the alternate is always no


less the choice of the people than the princi
pal, it is obvious that no injustice can be done
to the constituencies except by the appointing
power, the people themselves.


Sd. In the case of Arkansas all the contes-
tants were admitted and authorized to cast in
conjunction the vote of the State-a decision
for which abundant precedent may be found
in the past history of Democratic Conventions
as, for example, in the case of Georgia in the


Baltimore Convention of 1852.


4th. There remain only the cases of Alaba-


bama and Louisiana, in each of which were
two sets of delegates-theS Seceders, and dele
cations appointed subsequent to the secession
by State Conventions representing the anti
seceders. The Convention was called on to
choose between them: there was no room for
for fha rof,1


mise. On the one side was party prepared
to abide the decision of the Convention, on
| the other a party instructed to withdraw if
they did not obtain their desires; a party
which had demonstrated its purpose of seces-
sion by previous consummation of that act.
Both claimed to represent the people, and it
cannot be thought a matter of wonder that
the Convention in each case admitted that
delegation which came prepared to act in
good faith for the common interest of all.
But admitting for the sake of argument
that the decision was erroneous, is it not the
extreme of absurdity to pretend that such an
objection furnished shadow of "a reason for
the rupture of the Democratic party2 Ina
gine the storm of indignant rebuke with which
the State Democratic Convention in Virginia
would have received a resolution instrucJing
the Virginia delegates to withdraw from a
National Convention unless their wishes as to
the decision of contested seats were complied
with! This was not the contingency provided
for in the Alabama resolutions.
Such an act of folly would have been as
promptly secuted there as here. Still on the
adoption of the majority report the represen-
tation of several Southern States abandoned
their seats, and twenty five Virginia delegates


who could not be driven out at Charleston on
| question of fundamental principle seeded


at Baltimore OH question of organization!-
an act we venture to affirm unwarranted by
any express or implied instructions, justified
| by consideration Of principle or true policy,
condemned in advance by the endorsement by


their constituents of the opposite course as
they themselves admit, and authorized by no


precedent in the history of Virginia Democra-
cy.


The Platform was not an insuperable objec-
| ton, for it must never be forgotten that they
| tried at Charleston for three days to place Mr.
Hunter upon it as the National Democratic


candidate for the Presidency. Hostility to
Judge Douglas, with all his unconstitutional


heresies, the Address in terms denies and dis
claims as a reason for this act. The ruling as
| to contested seats could not have been the
| reason however, it was made the occasion; foI


the cause is absurdly Inadequate to the effectl
What was the cause? A determination to


have Mr.. Hunter or nobody? A desire to spite
! the friends of Judge Douglas? A resolve to


rule or ruin? A tame subsertiance to the
| traitor spirit of disunion? We trust it was


meme of these. What then? The Address is


fatally silent. But it proceeds
"Those who remained iii the Northern Sec


tional Convention made nominations of candi-


dates for the offices of President and Vice


President The former is reported to have


received only 1917 votes-less than two thirds
| of n full Convention - H.N


! This is an error of fact: Judge Douglas re.
ceived the unanimous vote of the Convention,
| (Which "is reported" to have contained over
200 votes,) and considering how many more
| States were represented in that body than in


the Seceders Convention, we are at loss to


see the propriety of the term ttsectionap as
applied thereto. If the number of States or
| the number of delegates determine the ques-


ton of nationality, no one can be at loss to
| decide to which body this term applies.


! The secession having been effected, the


National Convention proceeded to nominate
| their candidate, which being accomplished, the
| following resolution was adopted as part of the
platform:


"Rcsolred, That it is in accordance with the


true Interpretation of the Cincinnati Platform,
| that during the existence of Territorial Gov
eminent, the measure of restriction whatever
it may be, imposed by the Federal Constitti-


tion on the powers of the Territorial Legisla-
ture over the subject of domestic relations, as
the same has been, or shall hereafter be, final
ly determined by the Supreme Court of the


United States, should be respected by all good
citizens, and enforced with promptness and
fidelity by every branch of the Federal Gov.
ernment." .;


A resolution which removes the last shadow
Of excuse for Southern opposition to the plat
form. sa iist
Hitherto we have confined ourselves to con-
siderations growing out of the facts of the
late Convention, abstaining from any reference
to the characters or purposes of the authors
of secession, and we make bold to claim that
there is not the semblance of reasonable pre-
text in those acts, for the disruption of that
historic party which for SO many years has
controlled the acts shaped the fortune, and
worked out the destiny Of this great republic.
The Address which we have briefly review


II ,x,x1;h;,eIS, aundr all dieauo-;oS, ~ ipdead