against it in the Senate. He closed with these words: "In the discharge of my duty I have acted fearlessly. The events of the future are left in the hands of a wise Providence, and, in my opinion, on the decision which we make upon this question must depend union or disunion." and minority of the committee, again made opposite and conflicting reports on the question of slavery in the Territories. On this question the committee had divided from the beginning, the one portion embracing the fifteen members from the slaveholding States, with those from California and Oregon, and the other consisting of the members from all the free States east of the Rocky Mountains. On all other questions both reports substantially agreed. The following is the report of the major These sentiments were shared by many Americans, and the great majority of them drifted into the Republican party. The Abolitionists from the beginning of the struggle, allied themselves with the Repub-ity made on this subject by Mr. Avery, of licans, a few of their leaders proclaiming, however, that this party was not sufficiently advanced in its views. The Charleston Convention. North Carolina, the chairman of the committee: "Resolved, That the platform adopted by the Democratic party at Cincinnati be affirmed with the following explanatory resolutions: 1st. That the Government of a Territory, organized by an act of Congress, is provisional and temporary, and during its existence all citizens of the United States have an equal right to settle with their property in the Territory, without their rights, either of person or property, being destroyed or impaired by Congressional or Territorial legislation. 2d. That it is the duty of the Federal Government, in all its departments, to protect, when necessary, the rights of persons and property in the Territories, and wherever else its constitutional authority extends. 3d. That when the settlers in a Territory having an adequate population form a State Constitution, the right of sovereignty commences, and being consummated by admission into the Union, they stand on an equal footing with the people of other States, and the State thus organized ought to be admitted into the Federal Union whether its constitution prohibits or recognizes the institution of slavery." Such was the condition of the parties when the Democratic national convention met at Charleston, S. C., on the 23d of April, 1860, it being then the custom of the Democratic party, as it is of all majority parties, to call its convention first. It was composed of delegates from all the thirty-three States of the Union, the whole number of votes being 303. After the example of former Democratic conventions it adopted the two-third rule, and 202 votes were required to make nominations for President and Vice-President. Caleb Cushing, of Mass., presided. From the first a radical difference of opinion was exhibited among the members on the question of slavery in the Territories. Almost the entire Southern and a minority of the Northern portion believed in the Dred Scott decision, and held that slave property was as valid under the constitution as any other class of property. The Douglas delegates stood firmly by the theory of popular sovereignty, and avowed their indifference to the fact whether it would lead to the protection of slave property in the territories or not. On the second day a committee on resolutions consisting of one member from each State, selected by the State delegates, was named, and then a resolution was resolved unanimously "that this convention will not proceed to ballot for a candidate for the Presidency until the platform shall have been adopted." On the fifth day the committee on resolutions presented majority and minority reports. After some preliminary remarks, Mr. After a long discussion on the respective Samuels moved the adoption of the minormerits of the two reports, they were both, ity report as a substitute for that of the on motion of Mr. Bigler, of Pennsylvania, majority. This gave rise to an earnest re-committed to the Committee on Reso- and excited debate. The difference belutions, with a view, if possible, to promote tween the parties was radical and irreconharmony; but this proved to be impracti- cilable. The South insisted that the Cincable. On the sixth day of the Conven- cinnati platform, whose true construction tion (Saturday, April 28th,) at an evening in regard to slavery in the Territories had session, Mr. Avery, of North Carolina, and always been denied by a portion of the Mr. Samuels, of Iowa, from the majority Democratic party, should be explained and The following is the report of the minority, made by Mr. Samuels, of Iowa. After re-affirming the Cincinnati platform by the first resolution, it proceeds: 'Inasmuch as differences of opinion exist in the Democratic party, as to the nature and extent of the powers of a Territorial Legislature, and as to the powers and duties of Congress, under the Constitution of the United States, over the institution of slavery within the Territories, Resolved, That the Democratic party will abide by the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States upon questions of constitutional law." settled by an express recognition of the principles decided by the Supreme Court. The North, on the other hand, refused to recognize this decision, and still maintained the power to be inherent in the people of a Territory to deal with the question of slavery according to their own discretion. The vote was then taken, and the minority report was substituted for that of the majority by a vote of one hundred and sixty-five to one hundred and thirty-eight. The delegates from the six New England States, as well as from New York, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota, fourteen free States, cast their entire vote in favor of the minority report. New Jersey and Pennsylvania alone among the free States east of the Rocky Mountains, refused to vote as States, but their delegates voted as individuals. The means employed to attain this end were skillfully devised by the minority of the Pennsylvania delegation in favor of nominating Mr. Douglas. The entire delegation had, strangely enough, placed this power in their hands, by selecting two of their number, Messrs. Cessna and Wright, to represent the whole on the two most important committees of the Conventionthat of organization and that of resolutions. These gentlemen, by adroitness and parliamentary tact, succeeded in abrogating the former practice of casting the vote of the State as a unit. In this manner, whilst New York indorsed with her entire thirty-five votes the peculiar views of Mr. Douglas, notwithstanding there was in her delegation a majority of only five votes in their favor on the question of Territorial sovereignty, the effective strength of Pennsylvania recognizing the judgment of the Supreme Court, was reduced to three votes, this being the majority of fifteen on the one side over twelve on the other. The question next in order before the Convention was upon the adoption of the second resolution of the minority of the committee, which had been substituted for the report of the majority. On this question Georgia, Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Texas, Florida, and Mississippi refused to vote. Indeed, it soon appeared that on the question of the final adoption of this second resolution, which in fact amounted to nothing, it had scarcely any friends of either party in the Convention. The Douglas party, without explanation or addition, voted against it. On the other hand, the old Democracy could not vote for it without admitting that the Supreme Court had not already placed the right over slave property in the Territories on the same footing with all other property, and therefore they also voted against it. In consequence the resolution was negatived by a vote of only twenty-one in its favor to two hundred and thirty-eight. Had the seven Southern States just mentioned voted, the negatives would have amounted to two hundred and eighty-two, or more than thirteen to one. Thus both the majority and the minority resolutions on the Territorial question were rejected, and nothing remained before the Convention except the Cincinnati platform. At this stage of the proceedings (April 30th), the States of Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Texas, and Arkansas, having assigned their reasons for the act, withdrew in succession from the Convention. After these seven States had retired, the delegation from Virginia made an effort to restore harmony. Mr. Russell, their chairman, addressed the Convention and portrayed the alarming nature of the crisis. He expressed his fears that we were on the eve of a revolution, and if this Convention should prove a failure it would be the last National Convention of any party which would ever assemble in the United States. "Virginia," said he, "stands in the midst of her sister States, in garments red with the blood of her children slain in the first outbreak of the 'irrepressible conflict.' Put, sir, not when her children fell at midnight beneath the weapon of the assassin, was her heart penetrated with so profound a grief as that which will wring it when she is obliged to choose between a separate destiny with the South, and her common destiny with the entire Republic." Mr. Russell was not then prepared to answer, in behalf of his delegation, whether the events of the day (the defeat of the majority report, and the withdrawal of the seven States) were sufficient to justify her in taking the irrevocable step in question. In order, therefore, that they might have time to deliberate, and if they thought proper make an effort to restore harmony in the Convention, he expressed a desire that it might adjourn and afford them an opportunity for consultation. The Convention accordingly adjourned until the next day, Tuesday, May 1st; and immediately after its reassembling the delegation from Georgia, making the eighth State, also withdrew. In the mean time the Virginia delegation had consulted among themselves, and had conferred with the delegation of the other Southern States which still remained in the Convention, as to the best mode of restoring harmony. In consequence Mr. Howard, of Tennessee, stated to the Convention that "he had a proposition to present in behalf of the delegation from Tennessee, whenever, under parliamentary rules, it would be proper to present it." In this Tennessee was joined by Kentucky and Virginia. He should propose the following resolution whenever it would be in order: Resolved, That the citizens of the | votes, 202 votes being necessary to a nomiUnited States have an equal right to set- nation. tle with their property in the Territories of the United States; and that, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which we recognize as the correct exposition of the Constitution of the United States, neither the rights of person nor property can be destroyed or inpaired by Congressional or Territorial legislation. Until 1824 nominations had been made by Congressional caucus. In these none participated except Senators and Democratic States, and Representatives from Democratic Congressional districts. The simple majority rule governed in these caucuses, because it was morally certain that, composed as they were, no candidate could be selected against the will of the On a subsequent day (May 3d), Mr. Rus- Democratic States on whom his election sell informed the Convention that this re-depended. But when a change was made solution had, "he believed, received the to National Conventions, it was at once approbation of all the delegations from perceived that if a mere majority could the Southern States which remained in the Convention, and also received the approbation of the delegation from New York. He was informed there was strength enough to pass it when in order." Mr. Howard, however, in vain attempted to obtain a vote on his resolution. When he moved to take it up on the evening of the day it had been offered, he was met by cries of "Not in order," "Not in order." The manifest purpose was to postpone its consideration until the hour should arrive which had been fixed by a previous order of the Convention, in opposition to its first order on the same subject, for the balloting to commence for a Presidential candidate, when it would be too late. This the friends of Mr. Douglas accomplished, and no vote was ever taken upon it either at Charleston or Baltimore. nominate, then the delegates from AntiDemocratic States might be mainly instrumental in nominating a candidate for whom they could not give a single electoral vote. Whilst it would have been harsh and inexpedient to exclude these States from the Convention altogether, it would have been unjust to confer on them a controlling power over the nomination. To compromise this difficulty, the two-thirds rule was adopted. Under its operation it would be almost impossible that a candidate could be selected, without the votes of a simple majority of delegates from the Democratic States. This was the argument of its friends. It had now become manifest that it was impossible to make a nomination at Charleston. The friends of Mr. Douglas adhered to him and would vote for him and him alone, whilst his opponents, apprehending the effect of his principles should he be elected President, were equally determined to vote against his nomination. Before the balloting commenced Mr. Howard succeeded, in the face of strong opposition, with the aid of the thirty-five votes from New York, in obtaining a vote of the Convention in re-affirmance of the In the hope that some compromise two-thirds rule. On his motion they re- might yet be effected, the Convention, on solved, by 141, to 112 votes, "that the Pre- the motion of Mr. Russell, of Virginia, sident of the Convention be and he is here- resolved to adjourn to meet at Baltimore on by directed not to declare any person Monday, the 18th June; and it was "renominated for the office of President or spectfully recommended to the Democratic Vice-President, unless he shall have re-party of the several States, to make proceived a number of votes equal to twothirds of the votes of all the electoral colleges." It was well known at the time that this resolution rendered the regular nomination of Mr. Douglas impossible. The balloting then commenced (Tuesday evening, May 1st), on the eighth day of the session. Necessary to a nomination, under the two-thirds rule, 202 votes. On the first ballot Mr. Douglas received 145 votes; Mr. Hunter, of Virginia, 42; Mr. Guthrie, of Kentucky, 35; Mr. Johnson, of Tennessee, 12; Mr. Dickinson, of New York, 7; Mr. Lane, of Oregon, 6; Mr. Toucey, of Connecticut, 2; Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, 1, and Mr. Pearce, of Maryland, 1 vote. The voting continued until May 3d, during which there were fifty-four additional ballotings. Mr. Douglas never rose to more than 152, and ended in 151 vision for supplying all vacancies in their respective delegations to this Convention when it shall re-assemble." The Convention re-assembled at Baltimore on the 18th June, 1860, according te its adjournment, and Mr. Cushing, the President, took the chair. Immediately after the reorganization of the Convention, Mr. Howard, of Tennes see, offered a resolution, "that the Presi dent of this Convention direct the sergeant-at-arms to issue tickets of admission to the delegates of the Convention, as originally constituted and organized at Charleston." Thus the vitally important question was distinctly presented. It soon, however, became manifest that no such resolution could prevail. In the absence of the delegates who had withdrawn at Charleston, the friends of Mr. Douglas constituted a controlling majority. At the threshold they resisted the admission of the original delegates, and contended that by withdrawing they had irrevocably resigned their seats. In support of this position, they relied upon the language of the resolution adjourning the Convention to Baltimore, which, as we have seen, "recommended to the Democratic party of the several States to make provision for supplying all vacancies in their respective delegations to this Convention, when it shall reassemble." On the other hand, the advocates of their readmission contended that a simple withdrawal of the delegates was not a final renunciation of their seats, but they were still entitled to reoccupy them, whenever, in their judgment, this course would be best calculated to restore the harmony and promote the success of the Democratic party; that the Convention had no right to interpose between them and the Democracy of their respective States; that being directly responsible to this Democracy, it alone could accept their resignation; that no such resignation had ever been made, and their authority therefore continued in full force, and this, too, with the approbation of their constituents. In the mean time, after the adjournment from Charleston to Baltimore, the friends of Mr. Douglas, in several of these States, had proceeded to elect delegates to take the place of those who had withdrawn from the Convention. Indeed, it was manifest at the time, and has since been clearly proved by the event, that these delegates represented but a small minority of the party in their respective States. These new delegates, nevertheless;appeared and demanded seats. * After a long and ardent debate, the Convention adopted a resolution, offered by Mr. Church, of New York, and modified on motion of Mr. Gilmore, of Pennsylvania, as a substitute for that of Mr. Howard, to refer "the credentials of all persons claiming seats in this Convention, made vacant by the secession of delegates at Charleston, to the Committee on Credentials." They thus prejudged the question, by deciding that the seats of these delegates had been made and were still vacant. The Committee on Credentials had been originally composed of one delegate from each of the thirty-three States, but the number was now reduced to twenty-five, in consequence of the exclusion of eight of its members from the States of Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Florida. The committee, therefore, now stood 16 to 9 in favor of the nomination of Mr. Douglas, instead of 17 to 16 against it, according to its original organization. *From Mr. Buchanan's Administration on the eve of the Rebellion, published by D. Appleton & Co., 1866. The committee, through their chairman, Mr. Krum, of Missouri, made their report on the 21st June, and Governor Stevens, of Oregon, at the same time presented a minority report, signed by himself and eight other members. It is unnecessary to give in detail these conflicting reports. It is sufficient to state that whilst the report of the majority maintained that the delegates, by withdrawing at Charleston, had resigned their seats, and these were still vacant; that of the minority, on the contrary, asserted the right of these delegates to resume their seats in the Convention, by virtue of their original appointment. On the next day (June 22), the important decision was made between the conflicting reports. Mr. Stevens moved to substitute the minority report for that of the majority, and his motion was rejected by a vote of 100 to 150. Of course no vote was given from any of the excluded States, except one half vote from each of the parties in Arkansas. The resolutions of the majority were then adopted in succession. Among other motions of similar character, a motion had been made by a delegate in the majority to reconsider the vote by which the Convention had adopted the minority report, as a substitute for that of the majority, and to lay his own motion on the table. This is a common mode resorted to, according to parliamentary tactics, of defeating every hope of a reconsideration of the pending question, and rendering the first decision final. Mr. Cessna with this view called for a vote on laying the motion to reconsider on the table. Should this be negatived, then the question of reconsideration would be open. The President stated the question to be first "on laying on the table the motion to reconsider the vote by which the Convention refused to amend the majority report of the Committee on Credentials by substituting the report of the minority." On this question New York, for the first time since the meeting at Baltimore, voted with the minority and changed it into a majority. "When New York was called," says the report of the proceedings," and responded thirty-five votes" (in the negative) "the response was greeted with loud cheers and applause." The result of the vote was 113 to 1384-"so the Convention refused to lay on the table the motion to reconsider the minority report." The Convention then adjourned until evening, on motion of Mr. Cochrane, of New York, amidst great excitement and confusion. This vote of New York, appearing to indicate a purpose to harmonize the party by admitting the original delegates from the eight absent States, was not altogether unexpected. Although voting as a unit, it * * * was known that her delegation were greatly | performance of his duties, stated that notdivided among themselves. The exact withstanding the retirement of the delegastrength of the minority was afterwards tions of several of the States at Charleston, stated by Mr. Bartlett, one of its members, in his solicitude to maintain the harmony in the Breckinridge Convention. He said: and union of the Democratic party, he "Upon all questions and especially upon had continued in his post of labor. "To the adoption of the majority report on cre- that end and in that sense," said he, “I dentials, in which we had a long contest, had the honor to meet you, gentlemen, here the line was strictly drawn, and there were at Baltimore. But circumstances have thirty on one side and forty on the other." since transpired which compel me to pause. The position of New York casting an un- The delegations of a majority of the States divided vote of thirty-five, with Dean Rich- have, either in whole or in part, in one mond at their head, had been a controlling form or another, ceased to participate in the deliberations of the Convention. power from the commencement. Strong expectations were, therefore, now In the present circumstances, I deem entertained that after the New York dele-it a duty of self-respect, and I deem it gation had recorded their vote against a still more a duty to this Convention, as at motion which would have killed the mi- present organized, * to resign my nority report beyond hope of revival, they seat as President of this Convention, in would now follow this up by taking the order to take my place on the floor as a next step in advance and voting for its re- member of the delegation from Massachuconsideration and adoption. On the even-setts. ing of the very same day, however, they reversed their course and voted against its reconsideration. They were then cheered by the opposite party from that which had cheered them in the morning. Thus the action of the Convention in favor of the majority report became final and conclusive. * * * * * I deem this above all a duty which I owe to the members of this Convention, as to whom no longer would my action represent the will of a majority of the Convention." Governor Tod, of Ohio, one of the VicePresidents, then took the vacant chair, and was greeted with hearty and long-continued cheers and applause from members of the Convention. 66 Mr. Cessna, of Pennsylvania, at once moved "that the Convention do now pro- Mr. Butler, of Massachusetts, now anceed to nominate candidates for President nounced that a portion of the Massachuand Vice-President of the United States." setts delegation desired to retire, but was Mr. Russell rose and stated, "It has be-interrupted by cries of "No," No," come my duty now, by direction of a large "Call the roll." Mr. Cessna called for the majority of the delegation from Virginia, original question, to wit, that the Convenrespectfully to inform you and this body, tion now proceed to a nomination for Presthat it is not consistent with their convic-ident and Vice-President. tions of duty to participate longer in its deliberations." Mr. Lander next stated "that it became his duty, as one of the delegates from North Carolina, to say that a very large majority of the delegation from that State were compelled to retire permanently from this Convention, on account, as he conceived, of the unjust course that had been pursued toward some of their fellow-citizens of the South. The South had heretofore relied upon the Northern Democracy to give them the rights which were justly due them; but the vote to-day had satisfied the majority of the North Carolina delegation that these rights were now refused them, and, this being the case, they could no longer remain in the Convention." The President here ordered the Secretary to call the States. Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont were called, and they gave an unbroken vote for Stephen A. Douglas. When Massachusetts was called, Mr. Butler rose and said he had a respectful paper in his hand which he would desire the President to have read. A scene of great confusion thereupon ensued, cries of "I object" being heard upon all sides Mr. Butler, not to be baffled, contended for his right at this stage to make remarks pertinent to the matter, and cited in his support the practice of the Conventions at Baltimore in 1848 and 1852, and at Cincinnati in 1856. He finally prevailed, and was permitted to procee l. He then said he "would now withdra v from the ConThen followed in succession the with-vention, upon the ground that there had drawal of the delegations from Tennessee, been a withdrawal, in who. e or in part, of Kentucky, Maryland, California, Oregon, and Arkansas. The Convention now adjourned at half-past-ten o'clock until the next morning at ten. Soon after the assembling of the Convention, the President, Mr. Cushing, whilst tendering his thanks to its members for their candid and honorable support in the a majority of the States; and further, which was a matter more personal to himself, he could not sit in a convention where the African slave trade, which was piracy according to the laws of his country, was openly advocated." Mr. Butler then retired, followed by General Cushing and four others of the |