Year: 1860

FELLOW DEMoCRATs:-It is not at all
strange that in the present anomalous con
dition of political affairs, the question on
every hand should arise, "What is the
course proper to be pursue! by Democrats,
in the unfortunate distractions and divisions
which now threaten the party?' In at,
tempting the solution of this important
question, it is impossible to arrive at any
just conclusion without entering at some
length upon the consideration of many of
the peculiar circumstances bearing upon and
inv living the action Of the Convention at
Charleston and Baltimore. Before doing
so, however, il may not be improper to
premise ihat f"o", ".'atcse. stand pol9t we
view the two nominations-e lirotessing
to be Observation-Disclosures and perplex
tiles arise on every side, and it hehoves not
only every Demo crat, but every lover of his
country, to pause and consider well, lest by
precipitate action we not merely destroy til ,
Democracy, the great conservator Of the IN
ion, but the Union itself. Deeply AS we de
plore the existing condition of political at
fairs, we have our own clear conviclions OF
ultimate duty, both as partisans and as citi
zens. Without elimination or recrlinnation
Which would assuredv be out of place
here-we desire as briefly as may be to pre-
sent and commend to every candid mind a
fair statement Of the facts, which seem to
lead to the irresistible conclusion that the
nomination Of Judge Douglas was neither
regular and in accordance with the usages
of the party, nor in any manner binding up
on the National Democracy. In the first
place, careful examination of the record
will show that the Douglas, or, so called mi
nority platform, was not adopted by either a
majority of the States or majority of the
individuals comprising the original Charles
ton Convention. 1t would seem to be n
fair proposition, that the resolutions of the
National Democracy, to be obligatory, should
be adopted either by a majority Of the States
or of the delegates constituting the iConvcn-
ton, and that any other course would be
mauifestly unfair and unjust to the whole
party throughout the Union. Now what
are the facts:


At an early stage of the proceedings, the
Committee on Organization closed their re-
port by offering the following additional
rule, which, although containing the germ
OF disruption, was quietly and unsuspecting-
Iy adopted by the Convention:


"Resolved. That in any State which has
not provided or directed by its State Con-
vention how its vote may be given, the Con-
vention will recognize the right of each del
egate to cast his individual vote"


Under ordinary circumstances there could
be little objection to such q rule, which Pri-
ma facie appears not unfair E,ut it was
soon evident that this new regulation was a
part of a we'll laid programme. designed not
merely to cramp, but actually to prevent the
deliberate action of the Convention. Some
States had passed general and at the time
apparently meaningless resolution, recon-
mending or directing the delegation to vote
as a unit: while by far the greater npmber
had omitted entirely such action. The re-
suit, therefore, of the rule was found to be
that in those delegations where the friends
of Judge Douglas were in the majority Of
one two or more the voice of the minority
was entirely suppressed and unheeded while
ip Others, his friends. although in the mi
norty, were permitted to cast their indi-
vidual votes. II is only necessary to cite
two instances to exhibit the working of the
rule. In New York the delegation stood 90
for DougIas--l5 Anti-Douglas But the
whole vote, (s5,) was given for the former;
thus. practically disfranchisiug Is represen-
tatves efthe Empire State. On the other
hand, the delegation from Pennsylvania