The globe. (Huntingdon, Pa.) 1856-1877, July 25, 1860, Image 1

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

Per annum in advance
Six mouths
Three moilths
A failure to notify a discontinnance at the expiration of
the term subscribed for will be considered a new engage.
1 insertion. 2 do.
Four lines or ............ 25 $ 373 A $ 50
One square, (12 lines,) 50 i 5 1 00
'LW squares,
Three squares,
Over three week and less than three mouths, •?5 cents
per square for each insertion.
3 months. 6 months. 1 mouths.
50 $.3 00 .$5 00
3 00 5 00 . 7 00
Six lines or less,
One sepiare,
Two squares,.
Thrce squares,
Four squares, 9 00 13 00 9 0 00
Half a column, 12 00 10 00 ...... ....24 00
One column, ` , O 00 30 00.... ..... .50 00
Professional and Business Cards not exceeding four lines,
ono year, . , .. $3 00
Administrators' and Executors' Notices, $1 75
Advertisenients not Marked with the number of inset ,
tions desired, will be continued till forbid and charged ac
cording to these terms.
[From the Bedford Gazette.]
To the Democratic Party.
It is, no doubt, already known to you that
the late National Convention at Charleston
and Baltimore, nominated Stephen A. Doug
las, of Illinois, for President, and H. V. John
son, of Georgia, for Vice President. It is
also, known
,that a portion of the Convention
seceded and nominated John C. Breckinridge,
of Kentucky, for President and Joseph Lane,
of Oregon, for Vice President. Having been
present at both sessions of the Convention,
and a spectator of all that transpired, I pro
pose to give a few of the reasons why I regard
the nomination of Douglas and Johnson as
the regular nomination of the party, entitled
to its universal support, and that of Breckin
ridge and Lane as irregular and disorgan
izing, meriting no favor at the hands of any
Democrat, but, on the contrary, as justly de
oerving the hearty condemnation of the whole
Under the regular call of the National Com
mittee, acknowledged by every Democrat in
the United States, and in conformity with the
universal custom of the party, the Convention
ze-smbled at Charleston, on the 23d of April,
18GO. After a preliminary organization,
made without objection from any quarter, it
was found that there was one contested seat
from the State of Massachusetts, one from
Maryland, eleven from Illinois and thirty
-live from New York. These cases were re
ferred to a Committee of thirty-three mem
bers, being one from each State.
After a careful and patient investigation
by the Committee, a report was made to the
Convention. This was unanimous in every
ease, except that of New York. Six members
of the committee made a minority report re
commending the admission of one half of each
delegation from that State. The report of
the committtee was adopted by the Conven
tion after a full discussion. The vote in every
case, except New York, was unanimous.—
That part of the report relating to the New.
York Delegation, tiva,s adopted by a vote of
2104- to 55.
This completed the organization of the Con
vention. The Rules of the House of Repre
sentatives of the United States were adopted
for the government of the Convention. This
was done by/the entire - vote of the Conven
tion. The rule requiring two thirds of the
votes given, to make a nomination, was also
unanimously adopted, as was a rule requiring
a two-third vote of the Convention to alter or
amend the Rules of the Convention. Every
Congressional District in the United States
and every State at large, was now fully rep
resented. There was not a single vacancy.
The Convention consisted of 303 members,
and continued in session for several days,
every member participating in the proceed-
Two principles of Legislative, or Parlia
mentary law, may be here stated, as they
nave important bearings upon the regularity
of the nomination now being considered.
First : Every Legislative Body shall judge
Oho qualifications of its own members.
Second: A majority shall constitute a Quo
ntillfor the transaction of business.
It is confidently asserted that both of these
propositions are clearly established by the
common law on the subject, in all civilized
countries, unless some statute should provide
otherwise. But in this case we are not only
left to the common law, but have also the
statute. The Convention, as we have seen,
adopted the Rules of the House of Represen
tatives. By these both of the propositions
above stated, are clearly maintained. In
deed, it could not be otherwise, as the Consti
tution of the United States declares the same
rules in the fifth section of the first Article
With the first of these propositions every
member of the Convention was fully satisfied,
because every one acquiesced in the decision
of the Convention and remained to participate
in the further proceedings thereof. The sec
ond proposition embraces two parts; to wit,
that a majority shall constitute a Quorum and
that less than a majority shall not constitute
such Quorum.
Here it will be well to remember that every
member of the whole Convention, including
the subsequent Seceders, or Bolters, voted for
the adoption of these rules.
The Convention continued in session with
.ts 303 members, until the seventh and eighth
clays. At this time, some of the delegates
became dissatisfied with the Platform adop
ted by the Convention, and for this reason
and for this alone, fifty-one members with
drew from the Convention, separated finally
and entirely from it, met in another part of
the city and attempted to organize another
Convention in opposition to the one they had
left. This they adjourned to Richmond.-
11lost, if not all of you, have always held that
every gentleman who agrees to enter a Con
vention, is in honor bound to abide by its de
cisions and. support its nominees. These
gentlemen, however, seemed to have adopted
a different course.
As already stated, the ground and the only
ground, of this secession was the Platform
adopted by the Convention. You will, doubt
less, feel anxious to know the character of
the Platform which could thus drive off one
sixth of the members of the Convention. I
think you will credit me when I assure you
that it was the identical creed of the party in
1844-1848 the compromise measures of 1850
—the Platform of Pierce, in 1852, the Kan
sas Nebraska Act of 1854, and the Cincin
nati Platform, of 1850. The Convention re
affirmed the Cincinnati Platform, upon which
James Buchananwas elected, and upon which
the great battle of 1856 was fought and won ;
and this was deemed sufficient to justify 51
members in bolting.
The Convention (252 members remaining)
continued in session and proceeded to ballot
for a candidate. Fifty-seven votes were taken.
On several of these, Judge Douglas received
a majority of the whole BleCtoral College—
the veto standing 152 e for Douglas, to O 0
for all others,
$1 50
1 50
5 00 8 00 .10 00
7 00 10 00 15 00
3 00
Before proceeding to a ballot, a proposition
was offered on behalf of some of the Southern
States remaining in the Convention, to the
effect that the President of the Convention
shoilld not declare any person nominated until
such person should have received a two-thirds
vote of the whole Convention when full.—
This was adopted by a vote of 141 to 112.
It was not offered as a rule, or as a change
of the rules, but simply as a resolution of
construction and direction to the Chair. On
the tenth day of the Convention, at Charles
ton, having failed to make a nomination and
the 51 seats being vacant, the Convention ad
journed to meet at Baltimore, on the 18th of
June, having first passed a resolution request
ing the Democratic party of the several States
to supply vacancies in their respective dele
On the 18th of Jane, the Convention re-as
sembled, at Baltimore. No delegates ap
peared from South Carolina and Florida.—
One delegation appeared from Mississippi—
these were the Seceders at Charleston, but
having been re-elected by a State Convention,
they were admitted.
One delegation (the Seceders) appeared
from Texas. This was not elected_ by the
people, or by any Convention, but was ac
credited by the State Central Committee.—
Owing to the position of Texas—her large
size and great distance from the Convention,
and difficulty of calling a Convention, this
delegation was also admitted.
There was one contested seat from Massa
chusetts, one from Missouri, one from Dela
ware, three from Arkansas, six from Loui
siana, nine from Alabama and ten from Geor
gia. These were referred to the Committee
on Credentials, then consisting of twenty-five
This committee, after a session of several
days reported by an average vote of about
fifteen to ten, in favor of the admission of the
Seceders from Delaware, two Seceders and
one new delegate from Arkansas, the new
delegates from Alabama and Louisiana, and
one-half of each from Georgia. The report
of the committee was adopted in every case,
except that of Georgia, in which all of the
Seceders were admitted. By this action of
the Convention, seventeen, votes were admit
ted to the Convention contrary to the views
of the Seceders. Although this could in no
way effect the result of the nomination, even
if wrong, and although every member of the
Convention had voted for and acknowledged
the rule which declared that the Convention
should judge of the qualifications of its own
members, yet this was considered sufficient
ground for.a, further secession of fifty mem
The Convention proceeded to make its nom
inations, passed an additional resolution on
the subject of the platform, appointed a na
tional committee and adjourned. Of the sev
enteen votes before mentioned, sixteen were
in lieu of Seceders from Louisiana, Alabama
and Arkansas—one half vote from Massachu
setts and Missouri each being contested on
other grounds-51 and 50, or 101 deducted
from 303, left in the Convention 202 mem
bers to which were added the 1G new dele
gates making 218 members.
On the first and second ballots at Balti
more, several of the delegates declined to vote
—on the second ballot Judge Douglas re
ceived 1814 votes to 15 for all other candi
dates and the remainder blank. After the
first vote Gov. Church, of New York, offered
a resolution declaring hint nominated and by
implication rescinding the resolution of inter
pretation and instruction to the Chair adop
ted at Charleston. Objection being- made,
Gov. Church withdrew his motion. After
the second ballot it was renewed by Mr.
Clark of Missouri and a delegate from Vir
ginia. It was then distinctly put by the
President (both the affirmative and the neg
ative) and adopted by acclamation and with
out a dissenting voice in the Convention.
As we have already seen, the Seceders at
Charleston adjourned to meet at Richmond,
on the 11th of June. At that time and place,
they met and adjourned until the 21st of the
same month.
At Baltimore the 50 Seceders were joined
by 40 of the Seceders from Charleston (South
Carolina with 8 members and Florida with 3
remaining at Richmond) met in another part
of the city, organized an opposition, or hos
tile Convention, gathered up some fifteen ad
ditional delegates from some quarter or other,
and with 105, delegates of all descriptions,
nominated Breckinridge and Lane. At least
90 of those delegates were in the Charleston
Convention and aided in the adoption of the
rules of that body, one of which required a
majority, or 152 members to constitute a
quorum for the transaction of any business.
I have already stated that the admission of
17 votes contrary to the wishes of the Sece
ders did not affect the result. On the second
ballot, Judge D. had 181 k votes. All oth
ers 15.; the balance declining to vote. De
dUct the 17 votes from 181 k and you have
1641, and add them to 15 you have 32 votes
for all others. There is still being more
than a quorum present and voting and Judge
Douglas having received more than two
thirds of the votes given, be is clearly enti
tled to the support of every Democrat who ac
knowledges the binding force of nominating
conventions. To say that he is not and that
Breckinridge is the regular nominee of the
party seem to me to be an insult to the un
derstar ding of every impartial voter. I
have full confidence in the wisdom and pa
triotism of the masses of the Democratic par
ty of the country, and hope that upon sober
reflection the people everywhere will as here
tofore rally to the support of regular nomi
nations, and preserve the integrity. of the
party. In the present aspect of affairs, it
becomes important to determine correctly
who is responsible for the present situation
of the party. I assert that the Seceders and
their allies and abettors, alone are responsi
ble. - There are but two reasons given by
themselves for the secession. The platform
at Charleston and the admission of the 17
delegates at Baltimore. Those I propose to
consider very briefly. Before I do this, how
ever, I venture to assort that there are at
least three causes which have led to this re
sult: First, the failure of the Convention to
adopt " Intervention" instead of " Non-In
tervention" by Congress with the question
of slavery in the territories. Second the de
sire among the friends of the Seceders, if
not among themselves, to bring about a dis
solution of the Union itself. Third, the per
sonal hostility of some of these gentlemen,
and others high in authority, towards Judge
Douglas. These propositions shall also be
briefly considered. The first secession of 51
members took place at Charleston on the
adoption of the Platform. This we have
already seen was a simple re-affirmation of
the Cincinnati platform of 1856. The bolt
ers desired the convention to declare in fa
vor of Congressional Intervention in favor
slavery in the Territories. The same doc
trine was demanded by Mr. Yancey, of Ala
bama, from the Baltimore Convention in
1898. He there obtained 36 votes for it to
216 against it. He demanded it in 1852 and
failed to obtain it. I learn that Mr. Yancey
who headed the Secession at Charleston, de
clared before the Committee ma--eredentials
that he had opposed General Cass in 1848,
and General Pierce in 1852, because he failed
to obtain a recognition of his doctrine by
the nominating Conventions. Time will not
permit a further examination of this reason
for the secession. It was upon a question of
doctrine—one of the cardidal principles of
the party. The Convention stood upon the
same ground occupied in former times, ad
hering to the Cincinnati platform. The Se
ceders demanded a change and because it
was refused, withdrew. The Republicans of
the North declare that it is the right and
duty of Conrgess to intervene against slavery
in the Territories—the Seceders declare that
it is the right and duty of Congress to inter
vene in favor of slavery in the Territories.—
The Convention regarded both propositions
as erroneous in principle, and adhered to the
old doctrine of the party that it belonged to
the people to regulate their domestic affairs
in their own way, subject only to the Con
stitution of the United States. True, there
was, to some extent, a difference of opinion
as to the time when the right to legislate on
the subject of slavery commenced. But the
Convention, by an almost unanimous vote,
disposed of this subject, by a resolution de
claring it the duty of all good citizens to
abide by the decisions of the Supreme Court
upon this question.
The right to hold slave property in the
Territories, even against an enactment of the
Territorial legislature, involving as is does,
a case at law, or in equity, as well as the .
constitutionality of the supposed law, is com
mitted by the Constitution, directly to the
judiciary. Should the decision of that tribu
nal be in favor of the right to hold the slave,
all the powers of the Federal government
are pledged to enforce the judgment. This is
imously adopted at Reading, iu March, 1860.
substantially the doctrine of the platform unan-
The second and only remaining reason
given by themselves, to justify their secession,
was the action of the Convention on the con
tested seats. Here it will be well to observe
that had not the first secession taken place,
no such reason as the second would ever
have existed. If then the judgment of the
country should be that the adoption of the
Cincinnati platform was no good cause of
complaint, the entire responsibility for the
present state of affairs rests with the Sece
ders. Had they remained in the Convention
at Charleston, there would have been no con
tested seats at Baltimore.
We have already seen that a majority, or
152 delegates, constituted a quorum, and that
the Convention was to judge of the qualifi
cations of its own members. From such a
decision there could be no appeal. In our
State, the Lower House of the Legislature,
consists of 100 members, 51 being a quorum :
the Senate consist of 33 members,l7 being a quo
rum. Suppose ten seats in the House and five in
the Senate are contested. They are, howev
er, settled—even erroneously if you please.
Some law receives 26 votes in the Lower
House with 25 against it, and 9 votes in the
Senate with 8 against it, being signed by
the Governor, even though 5 of the 9 votes
in the Senate and 10 of the 26 in the House
were members whose scats were contested,
it becomes as binding upon all the citizens of
the Commonwealth as though it had re
ceived one hundred votes in the House and
33 iu the Senate, and no seat in either branch
had ever been contested. As well might the
criminal on his way to the gallows, or to the
prison, call upon the people to assemble in
town meeting for his rescue, because the laws
which tried and condemned him, were not
regularlyl.:Jsed according to his notions of
justice, as for these gentleman to say that
these nominations were not regular.
But there is no just ground for complaint.
In Massachusetts Mr. _Hallett was elected a
delegate, Mr. Chaffee was elected alternate,
Mr. li. could not go to Charleston. H. noti
fied Mr. Chaffee of his inability to attend,
and as I learn, he (Mr. IL) removed with
his family, from the District. The seat was
contested at Charleston and decided unani
mously in favor of Mr. Chaffee. At Balti
more Mr. H. appeared and claimed his seat.
Ile was rejected. In Arkansas neither Con
vention was regular nor in accordance with
the usages of the party. Both were admit
ted—the seceders with power to cast two
votes—the new delegates to cast one. The
Missouri case was similar to that from Mas
sachusetts. In Louisianna two Conventions
were called. The one a Convention of the
people—the other the old Convention whose
time had expired and who had no more pow
er to send delegates than any other similar
number of individuals accidentally called to
The new delegates were admitted—the old
ones were liable to the objection already
stated and also to the same objections here
after given in the Alabama case. The old
delegates from Georgia were liable to the
same objection. Yet, the Convention refused
to admit the new delegates, and actually ad
mitted the old delegates, because a part of
the delegates to the Georgia Convention, by
whom the new delegation was chosen, at first
met in Convention with those who had sece
ded at Charleston. It was because a portion
of these had seceded or bolted, that their rep
resentatives were rejected.
In the State of Alabama, the delegation
admitted to seats, were chosen by a State
Convention called together by the people,
" for the purpose of appointing delegates to
the National Democratic Convention at Bal
timore, to nominate candidates who may be
able to save the Government from the hands
of these who will not regard our constitution
al rights, and be the means of securing the
perpetuity of the Constitution and the anion."
The Seceders from this State, were rejected.
They were elected to the Richmond Conven
tion—a body hostile to the Democratic party
and proposing to nominate their own candi
dates. The meetings by which the delegates
to the State Convention which elected the Se
ceders were chosen and the speeches made
at those meetings, were almost entirely of a
character hostile to the Democratic party.—
One of their orators (and a Delegate) said of
the Baltimore Convention, that " the man
who would represent Alabama in that Con
vention should be branded with the brand of
Cain. Though not a murderer of his kin, he
would be a murderer of principle and of the
constitutional rights of his section, that he
would be more than the assassin who but
takes the life of a fellow man."
Others declared " that to entertain the prop
osition to send delegates to Baltimore, would
be at once to step with a coward's tread from
the highest pinnacle of honor to the lowest
depths of degradation and abasement."
Such was the tenor of all their meetings
and speeches. Their Delegates showed cre
dentials to Richmond and utterly refused to
be bound by the action of our Convention.—
Under these circumstances, the Convention
deemed it wise to learn whether the great
horse contained soldiers who were allies, or
enemies, before it should be safely stabled
within the gates of Troy. I have before stated.
that the admission of the 17 delegates already
named, did not affect the general result. I
have shown that on the vote given. I now
desire to show the same thing in case no se
cession had taken place. 101 delegates sece
ded. Of these South Carolina and Florida re
mained at Richmond. This left 90. From
this number deduct 16 Seceders whose places
were supplied by new delegates, and. we still
have 74, who, by the action of the Baltimore
Convention, had at any moment a right to re
sume their seats. There remained in the
Convention 21 ; from Maine, 21 from Connec
ticut, 41 from New Jersey, 17 from Pennsyl
vania, 31 from Missouri, 2 from Delaware,
and 7 from Kentucky, in all 39, who declined
to vote for Judge Douglas. These added to
the 74 Were more than sufficient to prevent
his nomination.
It is well known that some persons in the
South have for a long time desired a dissolu
tion of the Union. I believe some, if not all
of the South Carolina Delegation to Richmond,
avow that desire. This Convention at Rich
mond also nominated Breckinridge and Lane.
Some declare that the election of a Republi
can President will be sufficient ground for a
dissolution. Those who really desire a dis
solution, could scarcely devise a surer method
to accomplish it than by the dissolution of the
Democratic party, thereby promoting the elec
tion of Mr. Lincoln. Is not the fact that
such sentiments are avowed, a sufficient rea
son for all true Democrats to shun the nom
ination of Breckinridge and Lane, as they
would shun the enemies of their country ?
Hostility to Mr. Douglas has had much to
do with effecting the secession. That this
Hostility is unwise and unfounded in reason,
public judgement and future history will
surely determine. That ho is able, patriotic
and capable few if any will deny. That this
hostility exists, a very few examples will
clearly prove. In Massachusetts, three gen
tlemen were elected to Charleston as the open
and avowed friends of Judge Douglas. All
three of them were found among the Seceders
at Baltimore. Two of them were appointed
to high positions and lucrative offices after
their election as delegates and before the
meeting of the Convention. The third has
been similarly rewarded since the adjourn
ment of the Convention. Almost all the of
ficers of the General Government and all the
papers under their control, are now bitter
against Douglas and warm for Breckinridge.
All the rules, usages and customs by which
they went into power are now disregarded
and held inferior to the personal hatred and
subserviency of at least some of the minions
of power. It is no use to multiply examples
on this point.
The two causes of Secession given by those
who withdrew and the reasons to which their
conduct has been attributed, have been hasti
ly considered.
There are two other causes of complaint,
not yet mentioned—these are not given in
justification of secession, but as reasons of
dissatisfaction. One of these was the course
of the convention in regard to the motion, or
resolution of construction of the two thirds
rule. This was, or was not, a rule of the
convention. If a rule, it never was adopted
because that (then) required a two-third vote
and this only received 141 to 112. If it was
not a rule, then it was a mere resolution,
subject to the will of the majority at any
time. It was clearly rescinded, or repealed,
by the motion made by Gov. Church and re
newed by Mr. Clark. Even if it had been
a rule, it was repealed, because the motion
was adopted unanimously. The motion
adopted. after the secession at Charleston,
never received a majority of a full convention,
and was repealed by the entire vote of the
convention, 218 delegates being present.
Another objection urged in some quarters,
was the unit rule of the convention.
This was simply.reducing the common law
of the party on the subject of voting to a stat
ute. The rule provided that minorities might
vote, except in eases when the State conven
tion had directed the vote to be cast as an
unit. Such had been almost the universal
custom of former conventions. The records
of conventions will show minority votes from
many of the States of the Union. Under the
old rules and practice, it seldom, if ever,
happened that the majority of an uninstruc
ted delegation attempted to stifle the will of
the minority. But from the fact that such
high-handed efforts were being made by some
of the delegations to this convention, the rule
was adopted. It *as fully considered and
discussed in committee, and passed by a vote
of 25 to 2. In the convention it was again
fully discussed and adopted by a vote of 107
to 1031. Indeed, the chief, if not the only
argument against it, was that it was unnec
essary, as the right to cast such votes already
existed. This rule received the votes of Ken
tucky, Tennessee, half of Deleware, nearly
all of Missouri and Arkansas, part of North
Carolina and several other delegates who af
terwards seceded. But aside from this, it
was right in itself. It provided that in cases of
instruction so to do, Delegations should vote
as a unit. In other cases, delegates should
be allowed to vote for themselves.
The first part of the Rule can not be objec
ted to. When a gentleman accepts the trust
under instructions, he does not represent
himself, but his State. He has no individual
views and if he had, he is in honor bound to
suppress them. Any other course of action
by the individual, or by the convention, would
conflict with State rights and State sovereignty.
This method made N. York, Ohio and In
diana unanimous for Douglas, and Georgia,
Aladama, Mississippi and Louisiana unani
mous against him.
On the other band, in all cases where the
State conventions had neglected or refused to
instruct, the delegates were allowed to vote
as they saw fit. Any other course would
again have been an interference with State
Sovereignty, in electing their delegations, and
an act of tyrrany by the majority towards the
minority. This method gave Judge Douglas.
a few votes in Pennsylvania, one in North
Carolina, one in Tennessee and one in Virginia.
It lost him 3 in Maine, 21 in Connecticut and
LI- in Minnesota. Maryland, Missouri and
Massachusetts, being equally divided, were
not affected by the Rule.
All these, however, appear to me to be ob
jections hunted up, on purpose, by, men de
termined in advance to be dissatisfied, and
going abroad iu search of reasons to justify
or bolster up as far as possible their course
of action. Half the effort to find reasons in
favor of the action of the national convention
of their party, and in support of its nominees,
would lead to a very different result.
Not only have we the regular nomination
of the National Convention to urge us to the
support of Douglas Johnson, but we have
also the action of our own delegation. Mr.
Douglas received 10 votes on both ballots at
Baltimore from our Delegation. This re
quired twenty members of our Delegation,
while it contained in all 54. In addition to
these 20 delegates, the nomination wits*rati
fied by several others of the delegation—
Messrs. Dawson, Hughes, Jones, McGee, Van
Zant, Blood, Brodhead, Clymer, Gloninger
and others.
Wo have then all the binding force of a
regular nomination and we have the usages
of the party urging us to the support of our
nominees. We have candidates in every way
worthy of our support. We have the union
and harmony of the Democratic party of the
country to preserve. Let no personal prefer
ences, or faint dissatisfaction, weaken our
strength or divide our forces. 'We have a
common enemy before us; let us have no
treason in our camp, but stand together as
one man for the success of our ticket and our
party. Above all, let us not for a moment
encourage those who in any event look to a
dissolution of the Union, as a remedy for their
fancied ills. Beware lest secession from the
organization of your party, may land you in
the ranks of an army, if not enlisted, at least
commanded by officers engaged in constant
efforts to accomplish a secession from the
Union itself. JOHN CESSNA.
BEDFORD, July 10th, 1860.
The Sunbury Gazette tells the whole truth
in the following article. Read it :
Most of our Democratic exchanges have
come to us, since the nominations at Bald
! more, in a very shaky condition, and piti
fully weak in the knees. They appear not
to know exactly to whom they belong, and
seem to be anxious for some high authority
to tell them for whom to go. Hence they
have declared neither for Douglas nor Brock
inridge. They present a beautiful specimen
of a sturdy press—an edifying example of
independent and conscientious journalism,
waiting for some action of the State Execu
tive Committee to remove all responsibility
from their shoulders ; in short, hesitating,
until a cabal of scheming politicians and in
terested office-holders shall give them their
instructions. Why, gentlemen, at this time
there is no reason for hesitation. On the one
band you have the nominees of the regular
Democratic Convention, and on the other the
men selected by a factious portion of that
body, who twice seceded from the regular
organization because they were not allowed
to dictate both the platform and the candi
date. You have Douglas who has fought out
an acknowledged principle of the party—
that of the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the
Cincinnati platform—fought it out in the
face of the most malicious persecution and
violent opposition ; and you have Breckin
ridge, that misguided young politician, who
has lent himself a willing tool in the hands
of Yancey, Jeff. Davis, Rhett, Toombs, Wise
and Slidell, who for years have openly avow
ed the treason of disunion. Is there reason
to waver between the representative of the
old doctrines and land marks of the party
and the representative of anti-Democratic
dogmas, recently devised, and designed ex
clusively for the protection and extension of
slavery ? Is there occasion for doubt and
uncertainty in selecting the standard bearer
from the two presented to the party—the one
springing legitimately from the regular or
ganization, and the other the offspring of a
factious assembly drawn off by conspirators
and governed by disunionists ?
The choice is easy, and the hesitancy dis
played most contemptible. It is not the duty
of the press to hesitate until a parcel of inter
ested politicians, government officials, Ad
ministration stipendiaries, custom-house offi
cers, tide-waiters, postmasters, Sc., shall
mark out the course to be pursued, but, as
the conservator of political honesty and the
leader of public opinion, the press should
Editor and Proprietor.
Weak in the .IKnees.
take the lead ; and when it abjectly waits to
receive instructions from those who are in
fact its creatures, it compromises its influence,
and very properly f - Jrfeits the respect of the
And had the Democratic press of the North
hitherto spoken out in plain terms against
the ruinous doctrines of Southern fire-eaters;
slavery extensionists, and clisunionistS, which
have been thrust upon the party as its polit
ical faith, we would not have been compelled
to witness in this section of the Union that
wholesale stampede from our ranks Which
has reduced us to a minority in the North;
and has swollen the ranks of the Republicans
until they threaten to overwhelm tis. And
if we continuo otir abject subserviency to the
slavery domination, y ielding td its every
demand, and asking nothing more than to b©
its menials; past experience is sufficient to
convince us that in a very short time there
will not be Democrats enough in the North
to elect a township constable. The fight for
Douglas is not merely fur principle, but it is
for the existence of our party.
NO. 5.
The advocates of the disunion ticket tell
us John C. Breckinridge is no secessionist—
that his opinions and sentiments are fervent
for the integrity of our great Confederacy.—
They point to his renowned ancestry, his gal
lantry as a soldier, his talents as a man, his
once popularity as a Democratic citizen, and
to his distinguished position of Vice Presi
dent, as overwhelming proofs of what they se
exultingly aver.
John C. Breckinridge was once a patriot,
and might have execrated as much as any
man those who would raise their felon hand
against the unity of these States. But, has
he not banded himself with secessionists ?
Has he not compromised the historic past of
his own family by lending himself to the
traitorous aims and ambitious aspirations of
Southern disunionists ? Is he not the cho
sen candidate of that Southern Lucifer, whosd
aim for years has been to disrupt the great
Democratic party and "precipitate the cotton
States into a revolution ?" who, after his se
cession from the Charleston Convention, iz4
said to have declared that in that city, with
the associations of Calhoun clustering around
them, was the proper place, and that the time
to inaugurate a Southern Confederacy : and
who, in his speech at the Bolters' Convention
at Baltimore, proclaimed that because the
Congress of the United States had admitted
to the sisterhood of States the sovereign State
of California, in derogation as he thought of
Southern rights, he was prepared to break u
this mighty Confederacy, sanctified by the
patriotism of our Washington, and the last
best hope of oppressed humanity throughout
the world ? It will not do to say that this
man is not their exponent. Was ho not
their leader in secession at Charleston, their
chief counsellor at Baltimore and Richmond ?
And all know that in their meetings and con
ventions, their banner cry has been "Yancey I
Yancey !" John C. Breckinridge, say of him
what you will, is banded with disunionists.
He has his parallel in our own brief history
as a nation.
A son of clerical ancestry, of brilliant tal
ent, at an early age conspicuously and brave
ly participated in the struggle of the revolu
tion. Ile was brought into intimate soldiery
relations with Washington. He took part
in the heroic daring and suffering of the lit
tle American army that invested Quebec, and
when the brave Montgomery fell, dying at the
base of its craggy heights, this- young man,
his aid-de-camp, shouldered t body of his
general, and retreated through the deep snow,
until compelled to abandon his precious bur
den by the pursuing foe. Through all the
•war for independence, none bore a braver
part. And after its close, he rivalled Alex
ander Hamilton at the bar of New York anti
became the very Warwick of the Democracy
of that great State. No man was more pop
ular and facinating with the people. lle was
their idol, and their favor elevated him to the
Vice Presidency, and, like Breekinridge, hd
too presided over the Senate, but with far
greater ability. He even fiercely and almost
successfully contended with the great Jeffer
son fur the Presidential prize. For some
reason, perhaps because of disappointed Pres
idential aspirations, he too banded himself
with conspirators against the integrity of the
Union, and saught its dismemberment. The
strong arm of the government pursued hiat
to the far-off South, arrested him, and at the
city of Richmond Aaron Burr was tried as a
traitor. With scarcely a tithe of the treason
of a Yancey about him, Aaron Burr, the
once Vice President and the idol of his party,
died execrated in wretched poverty and ob
livion, and his once fair name went down to
posterity a hissing and a byword of reproach'
and ignominy.
At the same city in the State of Virginia,
where a Vice President was tried for treason,
Secessionists and Disunionists inaugurate
another Vice President for their leader.
Let John C. Breckinridge ponder well over
the cereer, and take warning at the fate of
Aaron Bum—State Sentinel.
Republican Relics of the Campaign.
The New York Herald publishes the fol
lowing list of relics, discovered by a political
antiquarian, which he proposes to tell cheap'
to those who may desire to adorn some cam
paign wigwam, The list NS ; ill be read with
1. Handle of the maul with which Lincola
split his first rail.
2. Chew of tobacco masticated during the
3. Waistband of breeches split during the
4. Patch of seat ditto.
5. Portrait of the man who stood against
tree looking at Old Abe . splitting the rail.—
[Old Abe told him if he kept on sogering
there he'd never go into Congress, and he
6. Horns of the oxen which hauled the rails.
7. Half pint of whiskey (rifle warranted
to kill at a hundred yards) distilled in the
hollow, by Old Abe.
8. Original tin pot out of which Old Abe
took his drinks.
0. View of that grocery, (by " our own ar
tist on the spot."
10. String of ono of the original brogans
worn by the prophet in his hegira from Ken
tucky to Illinois.
11. Half a pound of best Young flysori
sold by Lincoln, as a grocer, to the sire of
the first white child born in Sangamod
12. Pine knot front' the' original hut built
by Uncle Abe from lumber got out by hie
own hands.
13. Ilair from the mane' of horse which'
won a race of which Uncle Abe - was judge.
14. Ditto from tail of losing horse in the'
same race.
15. Tooth knocked out of man's head who
fought another man, and chose Honest Old
Abe for reference.
IG. Portrait of Old Abo when he tried to
look pretty and frightened a child of ono of
the first families in the country into convul
There is a Parallel.