American politics (non-partisan) from the beginning to date : $b embodying a history of all the political parties, with their views and records on all important questions. Great speeches on all great issues, and tabulated history and chronological events.Cooper, Thomas V. (Thomas Valentine)
History
American politics (non-partisan) from the beginning to date : $b embodying a history of all the political parties, with their views and records on all important questions. Great speeches on all great issues, and tabulated history and chronological events.
Cooper, Thomas V. (Thomas Valentine)
Political parties -- United States; United States -- Politics and government
In the hope that some compromise might yet be effected, the Convention,
on the motion of Mr. Russell, of Virginia, resolved to adjourn to meet
at Baltimore on Monday, the 18th June; and it was “respectfully
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.”
The Convention reassembled at Baltimore on the 18th June, 1860,
according to its adjournment, and Mr. Cushing, the President, took the
chair.
Immediately after the reorganization of the Convention, Mr. Howard, of
Tennessee, offered a resolution, “that the President 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 In the absence of the delegates who had withdrawn at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.[7]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account