The Vindicator, June 8, 1860, p. 2, c. 4
We publish elsewhere a communication from a Democratic friend, who assigns some reasons for differing with the editor of this paper and those in the South who are willing to accept the nomination of Judge Douglas for the Presidency, believing him to be the most available man that can be presented to the American people at this time. The ground over which our correspondent travels is so very familiar to every intelligent reader that we shall not consume time and space by following him through the various stages of the Kansas embroglio, &c. Suffice it to say, that we have never believed Judge Douglas was responsible for the division in the Democratic party. It was a point about which there was no two opinions, that the people of Kansas should regulate their own domestic affairs to suit themselves. This was the express declaration of the Nebraska bill--it was a policy to which the Democratic party and the President were fully committed, and which the whole country was prepared to see carried out. The action of the fraudulently elected Constitutional Convention was designed to defeat this idea, by not submitting unreservedly the Constitution they had framed to the ratification or rejection of the people. Judge Douglas took the position that the Constitution should, without qualification, be submitted to a vote of the people of the Territory, who had to live under it, to accept or reject.--The President endorsed the action of the Convention, and favored the idea of submitting only the slavery clause to the voters of the Territory. This, Judge Douglas contended, was a violation of the spirit and intent of the Nebraska Bill, and the President's own instructions to Governor Walker--that it was forcing upon an unwilling people a system of State government repugnant to their wishes. The sequel showed that Judge Douglas was right and the President wrong. Judge Douglas adhered to the Kansas-Nebraska bill, which was the law of the land, and the President did not. Hence, we assume that the division in the Democratic party is not chargeable to Judge Douglas, upon any assumption of fairness or legitimacy. Any "paralyzation" to the "arm" of the Administration, therefore, is necessarily the fruit of Mr. Buchanan's own action--the offspring of his departure from the declared policy of the Democratic party.
The idea that Judge Douglas "dictated" his platform to the Charleston Convention is simply ridiculous, and is not warranted by anything in the whole dispute between Douglas and the Administration. In response to a private letter he wrote a private letter giving his views of what the Democracy should do and what he was willing to do. Any other man thus written to, and occupying a similar position, would have answered as he did. His letter was published, and this fact is to be construed into a "dictation" to the Charleston Convention! There is about as much justice in this charge as in many others preferred against Judge Douglas, all of which are without the least foundation in fact.
The assumption of our correspondent that Judge Douglas tendered the "squatter sovereignty" issue to the South 12 months ago, is unsustained by the history of the Territorial question. Judge Douglas has tendered no new issue. He stands precisely where every prominent Democrat stood in 1856, asserting and maintaining with singular ability and force the great doctrine of non-intervention by Congress with slaver in the Territories, and insisting that the country is pledged to this policy by all that is binding in legislation and obligatory by solemn compact. He plants himself upon the legislative compromise of 1850 and 1854, and the Democratic platforms of 1852 and 1856--legislation and platforms suggested and demanded by the South, and to which she is honorably bound to adhere. Any departure from it, is a violation of ratified terms of agreement and the initiatory step to the tearing up of the compromises upon which the perpetuity of our government is based. Mr. Douglas and his friends do not insist upon an empty abstraction, as insinuated by our correspondent. They resist the attempt to force upon the Democratic party a new test of orthodoxy, which is inexpedient in policy and speculative in fact. They resist, and rightly do so, the imposing upon the Northern Democracy an issue which cannot fail to crush them hopelessly. They are now recovering partially from the blow they received in 1854 in the passage of the Nebraska bill, repealing the legislation of 1820, which discriminated against the South. They fought for our cause then and were beaten. The sober second thought of the people, however, has induced many to return to the Democratic party, and if no new test is presented, by which the Northern mind can be inflamed by the appeals of the Black Republican party against the Democracy, they will again triumph, and restore the Democracy to the power which she lost by defending the demands and the rights of the South in 1854. The popular mind is now settled down upon the policy of non-intervention and popular sovereignty--a policy advocated and enforced by the South--and to re- open the agitation of this subject will be suicidal to our friends at the North, and a virtual dismemberment of the Democratic party. Judge Douglas is firm in his maintenance of the fixed position of the Democratic party, and any action contemplating a departure from that position must come from those who are desirous of breaking up our present organization and destroying that basis of national fraternization which has been so significantly endorsed by the American people.
There may be an honest difference of opinion in regard to Mr. Douglas' availability. We are firmly convinced, that as parties now stand, Mr. Douglas is decidedly the most available man the Democracy can present to the people. Our correspondent thinks not. We believe Douglas, if nominated at Baltimore, will carry nearly every Northern State that voted for Pierce in 1852, as well as every one of the Middle States.--We believe he is the only man who can beat Lincoln in the North-west. Other persons may differ with us, however. He carried Illinois in 1856 over Mr. Lincoln, and can do it again, notwithstanding the doubts to the contrary of our correspondent. He gained in Lincoln's own county 750 votes, and carried the county. There was no summing up of the popular vote as between Douglas and Lincoln. It is only assumed by the opponents of Douglas that Lincoln received a larger popular vote than Douglas, because the combined votes of the Know Nothings, Black Republicans and Administration Democrats, was larger for State Treasurer and Superintendent of Public Schools than that cast for the regular Democratic ticket. Even this was effected by running the opposition ticket in the Southern part of the State, where Black Republicanism was unpopular, as Know Nothings and opposed to Lincoln, and in the Northern part, as Abolitionists. In the Southern part of the State, the Opposition candidates, who were leading Fillmore Know-Nothings, disclaimed the support of Lincoln; and by such management and combination, assisted by all the power and influence of the Administration, the regular Democratic candidates for State Treasurer and Superintendent of Public Schools, were defeated by a small majority. Douglas, however, carried the Legislature and was elected to the U. S. Senate over Lincoln and the Administration both, which is sufficient to justify us in the assertion that he can do it again.
The extract which we publish at the request of our correspondent, from the speech of Mr. Butler, of Mass., is a tissue of misstatements from beginning to end. Our correspondent terms Butler a Douglas delegate, sent by a Douglas constituency.-- Mr. Butler was elected as a Douglas Democrat, but on his arrival at Washington city it was discovered that he was a traitor in the camp, and would avail himself of the most opportune time to stab Douglas. His delegation, believing him to be treacherous, refused to make him its Chairman. Their suspicions were just, for at the very moment his vote would have served Douglas, by giving him a majority, he asked to have it changed; and after that voted for Jeff. Davis, who at no time received over one vote. This shows how far Butler was actuated by honest motives in declaring himself for Douglas before he was appointed to Charleston. He wars upon his face the marks of a dishonest man, and all the apologies man could offer for him, could never relieve him of the stamp of meanness which nature has written all over his countenance.
The assertion that the adoption of any rule was made the condition of the Middle State remaining in the Convention is simply untrue. Virginia had made no provision for dissolving her connection with the Convention, and did not intend to, notwithstanding the blatant threats of one or two members of the delegation. The assertion that Douglas was not the choice of a majority of the whole electoral vote, is simply untrue. The unit vote operated in his favor in New York, and against him in several other States. In Ohio and Indiana there was not a single delegate against him, and Mr. Butler falsifies the history of the Convention when he asserts that there were--Even if there had been, as there were in New York, the unit vote was simply carrying out the instructions of their constituents, and it is not legitimate to assume that the majority cast was not bona fide, when it was done in obedience to instructions from the creators of the delegations. In Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas, Kentucky and Louisiana, and perhaps other States, there were Douglas delegates who did not vote for him on account of either of the unit vote or of instructions--enough to have overbalanced the votes which were per se against him in the New York delegation.--Is it fair to take from him in the one instance, and not give to him in the other?--He went to the Convention to betray Douglas, and did so. We have before us a history of his entire manoeuvring, both at home and at Charleston, and we can draw no other inference from it, than that Mr. Butler is an unprincipled politician.
The best evidence we can adduce to sustain the assumption that the delegates to Charleston who seceded did not represent their constituents, is the fact that public meetings are being held in every one of the States whose delegates left the Convention, denouncing their action, and insisting on being represented at Baltimore. If they did represent their constituents, then those constituents are faithless to the compromises of the Democratic party entered into at the solicitation and upon their demand.--They are false to the solemn promises made both in word and act, and untrue to every obligation that a fair and legitimate contract imposes.
In regard to the action of the delegates from this District to Charleston, we have but a few words in reply to our correspondent.
We never assumed that Mr. Douglas was the first choice of the Democracy of this District--that he was preferred to Mr. Hunter or Mr. Wise previous to the meeting of the Charleston Convention. We assumed that if there was no chance for the nomination of one of Virginia's distinguished sons, then Mr. Douglas was their choice. We believe so yet, and the more so since the recent meeting in Rockingham endorsing the action of Dr. Moffett and Mr. Yost at Charleston, and the frequent and extensive intercourse we have had with the people since our return from Charleston. We believe--in fact we know--that in the present condition of political affairs, Mr. Douglas is now decidedly the choice of the Democracy of the Tenth Legion District, and it is our purpose at Baltimore to endeavor to represent that choice. We have assumed, and now assume, that we represented the District at Charleston. There has been no expression of dissatisfaction with the course we pursued there, save by three or four persons immediately in the vicinity of Staunton. We have been all the time perfectly willing to meet those gentlemen before a full meeting of the Democracy of the county, and test the matter, provided they would call such meeting, confident that we would be fully and almost unanimously sustained.--These gentlemen, and among them our correspondent, have not seen proper to call the meeting, for reasons doubtless satisfactory to themselves. Hence, until the contrary is shown, we contend that we have fully and fairly represented the District.
The Vindicator, June 8, p. 2, c. 6
It will be seen by a communication in another column, that the members of the M.E. Church in Staunton are dissatisfied with the action of the General Conference on the subject of slavery, and that a Convention is suggested of the laity and ministry of the Baltimore Conference. We give below a palliating version of the action of the Convention, to which, however, we do not subscribe. It is taken from a correspondence of the Baltimore Sun. We will discuss this matter more fully hereafter:
"The report of the majority as adopted is as follows: "We believe that the buying, selling, holding or using of human beings as chattels is contrary to the laws of God and nature, inconsistent with the Golden Rule, and with that rule in the discipline which requires all who desire to remain among us to do not harm, and to avoid evil of every kind.' Subsequent to the adoption of the above, a resolution was passed declaring the aforegoing as only 'advisory' and 'not bearing the force of law.' In other words, the whole chapter of the Discipline upon the subject of slavery has been stricken from the statutes of the church; and while it declares now in so many words that it has no law operating as such on its membership upon the subject of slavery, the church gives such advice and admonition in the Discipline as it deems salutary on this subject. Law has give place to 'admonition,' and such and no more is the result of this long and troublesome agitation."
The Vindicator, June 8, p. 3, c. 1
Mr. Editor: Permit me, a sincere well-wisher of the Democratic party, through your columns, to offer a few ideas which have presented themselves to my mind in connection with the Charleston Convention and its unfortunate disruption.
It seems to be a growing belief in this neighborhood, and you, sir, I am sorry to see, are laboring (honestly, no doubt) to crate the impression that the opponents of squatter sovereignty and its great embodiment were mainly instrumental in bringing about that result, so much to be deplored by ever democrat and lover of his country.
I take issue with you on this point, and will endeavor to state as concisely as possible my reasons, "for the faith which is within me."
In the first place, some two years ago, Judge Douglas entered into a bitter feud with a Democratic administration, which has made useless all its measures, paralyzed its arm, and withal proved the "direful spring of woes unnumbered' to the Democratic party. I will not stop to enquire who was right or wrong in that struggle; I will not attempt to judge between Lecompton and anti-Lecompton, but will only express my curiosity to know how the gentleman who pressed Congress to go behind and reverse the action of a Convention of an inchoate State reconciles that position with his present rampant, non-intervention views. Again, some twelve months ago, Mr. Douglas with an arrogance heretofore unheard of in an aspirant for the Democratic Presidential nomination, presumed to dictate his platform to the party, kindly consenting to rule over us for the next four years in accordance with those views, but stoutly refusing the nomination if the Convention in its insolent disregard of the self-constituted dictator of the Democracy should decide to frame a 'slave code' for the territories, as he sneeringly denominated congressional intervention for the protection of slave property in the territories.
Thus we see that two years ago, Judge Douglas for trifling cause, divided and distracted the Democratic party (for whether the Kansas Lecompton constitution was just or unjust, whether Congress had a right to interfere and disregard and reverse the action of a legally constituted Convention for the framing of a State Constitution or not, the admission of Kansas under that Constitution would have resulted in injury to no one, for if distasteful to the people, it could be changed by the popular vote at any time.) And we also see that twelve months before the meeting of the Charleston Convention, Mr. Douglas had presented the squatter sovereignty issue to the South fairly and squarely, and fairly and squarely we had to meet it or surrender everything.
Again: The Democracy North and South have agreed that when a territory proposed to enter the Union as a State, it had a right to establish or prohibit slavery as a majority of its people chose. When then in the name of expediency, in the name of common sense, in the name of the harmony of the Democratic party and the country, does Mr. Douglas persist in vesting the territorial legislature with a power which we are all agreed the constitutional convention of the territory is clothed?
But Mr. Douglas and his friends, especially those who vegetate South of Mason and Dixon's line, assume to treat the whole question as an empty abstraction, of no practical effect either for or against the South; either for [or] against the North. So much the worse for them, so much the more heinous their sin. How dare they force a useless and abstract question of no practical importance upon the Democracy, destructing the party even to disruption and threatening the Union? What excuse will they give to this and succeeding generations for thus wantonly sacrificing the only National party, for thus madly jeopardizing the existence of the most beautiful system of government the world has ever seen?
The difference between us of the South and Mr. Douglas and his friends, is that we are willing to disband the Democratic party--to burst the bonds which bind these States in Union--to shake this Government for turret to foundation, in defense of a principle which we believe to be of vital importance to the South and its institutions, and in opposition to a policy which in our opinion is pregnant with the doom of our section, which they are ready to sever the Democratic party--to endanger the Union--to subvert the Constitution (for many of them, yourself among the number, acknowledge that the opinion of the Supreme Court expressed extra judicially, is with us) upon an issue which they themselves have pronounced an empty and miserable abstraction.
But my principle object, in writing this article was to combat the (in my opinion) erroneous idea of Mr. Douglas' availability, which seems to be his tower of strength in the South. In the Convention we learn from a speech of the Hon. B.F. Butler, of Massachusetts, a Douglas Democrat, representing a Douglas constituency, that the bare majority of Mr. Douglas was 'more apparent than real."
In regard to his strength before the people, we have the stubborn fact staring us in the face, of six Democratic States seceding from the Convention and declaring their determination no to support a squatter sovereign man on a squatter sovereign platform. I know it has become the fashion for the Douglas men to affirm that the seceding delegations did not represent their constituency! What more right have you, sir, to say that those instructed gentlemen who seceded in obedience to their instructions, did not represent their constituency, than they have to say that you and your colleague, who if instructed at all, acted in conflict with your instructions, did not represent your people. No, sir, those delegates did represent the people who sent them to the Convention! It is hardly probable that one District Convention should be so packed as to send delegates to a National Convention to misrepresent the sentiment of the people of the district,--it is hardly possible that a whole State should do such violence to the people as to misrepresent them in Convention but it is too much for human credulity to believe the remarkable coincidence of six States misrepresenting their people at Charleston! If you convince me of the existence of this monstrous fact, then I am convinced that Conventions are stupendous fraud on the pole, wrong in theory and infamous in practice. But I think it will not be denied by any candid man that those States which seceded are uncompromisingly opposed to Douglas and squatter sovereignty. Then where is his strength? It cannot be in the other Southern States,, for though a large majority of the Democratic party will sustain him if nominated, yet there is a respectable minority, sufficient I firmly believe, in many Democratic States to turn the scale against him.
Will he carry many of the Northern States which went for Fremont in '56? I think not. Will he with his low tariff vows, find favor with the iron interest of Pennsylvania? That too, I think, is doubtful.
Lastly, can he carry Democratic Illinois? If reasoning from the past is legitimate, I can hardly doubt every candid mind will decide that the chances are against him; in '59, in the midst of the Lecompton excitement, when the whole North welcomed him as its great Democratic champion (and when too he first distinctly affirmed his squatter theory to sweet to Northern palates,) when he had an opportunity to bring all his tremendous powers as a popular debater and stump orator to bear on the canvass, he was beaten before the people by a majority of five thousand. Besides the facts which I have cited, there is an administration party not to be despised in every Northern State, justly incensed with Judge Douglas and uncompromisingly opposed to his aspirations.
After this brief and imperfect survey of the field, I ask is the nomination of Mr. Douglas expedient? As this article is already longer than I had intended, but I cannot conclude without adverting to one other subject, which more nearly concerns this district.
You have given two reasons why you and your colleague determined to break the unity of the Virginia delegation at Charleston, 1st because you believed Judge Douglas to be the real choice of your constituency. 2d because the unit system bore oppressively upon Western Virginia. For your former reason if it be true, as you believe that Mr. Douglas is the choice of hits district, you acted very inconsistently in pleading yourself before the District Convention to vote for Mr. Hunter as long as any chance of his nomination remained, and for your second, pardon me if I assert that to establish the existence of the fact, you have brought no particle of proof or argument.
But let the facts be as they may let me ask shall the unity of the Virginia Delegation be broken for the purpose of placing the most distinguished district of the Commonwealth--the renowned Tenth Legion--prominently before the country in opposition to what many, very many, Southern statesmen believe to be the best interests of this section? Shall all the ancient usages and land marks of the Virginia Democracy be swept away for the purpose of forcing down the throat of a reluctant and protesting South a platform and man peculiarly obnoxious to her? I am sure if the voice of the gallant Democracy of this district could be fairly heard they would answer emphatically in the negative.
VIRGINIAN
The Vindicator, June 15, p. 1, c. 7
On Thursday night last, Mr. Benj. Thacker, living a few miles east of Balesville, in this county, was shot and killed while asleep in his bed. He was an inoffensive old man, between 65 and 70 years of age, and deaf and partially blind. Pryor Wood, James Wood, alias Sprouse, and Mary Sprouse, a girl of 17 years of age, have been arrested and lodged in jail, charged with the murder. A called Court will sit on Tuesday next to examine into the charge. The principal witness against them is a little girl seven years old, who states that Thacker was shot with a short gun, (rifle.)
The Vindicator, June 15, 1860, p. 2, c. 3
We understand that a paper is now in circulation in this community for the signature of the stockholders in the Central R. R., the object of which is to request the President and Directors of that Road to call a meeting of the Stockholders to take into consideration the matter of Sunday mails. It is proposed by this paper to inquire into and decide upon the policy of running the cars to Gordonsville, and then stopping them there on Sunday, and to discuss the expediency of discounting Sunday trains altogether, or if Sunday trains are to be run, to ascertain why it is they cannot be continued to Staunton, where the mails diverge more generally than at any other point between Richmond and Covington. Our people have borne this discrimination against them until it has become intolerable. We intend to act in the matter, and if the inconvenience cannot be remedied in one way it may be in another.
It requires one-tenth of the stock of the Company to call a meeting of the stockholders. This can easily be obtained, and then we can have a full discussion and examination into the matter.
The Vindicator, June 22, 1860, p. 2, c. 2
The Romney (Va.) Intelligencer tells of the mobbing of a citizen of Springfield, Hampshire co., by a party of negroes in Blairsville, Pa. He had gone thither in pursuit of fugitive slaves. He was unarmed at the time of the assault and was very severely beat. The Blairsville Record says:
"It is supposed there were not less than fifty persons looking with apparent complacency on this barbarous and inhuman tragedy, many of whom would have the world believe that they are quite intelligent and respectable characters.
We have only limited time and space to say, that officers of the law were present, whose duty it is to maintain the public peace, and we expect to see those darkies and those who countenanced them brought to condign punishment. We intend to recur to this diabolical and disgraceful affair next week."
The Intelligencer says:
"We are informed by one of the party, that shortly after arriving at the county seat of Indiana county, two of the party, wearied and fatigued, they were waited upon by the Attorney for the Commonwealth of that co., a beautiful specimen of a conservator of the peace he must be, who informed them, that he was authorized or rather deputised by a public meeting to say to them that fifteen minutes would be allowed to them to leave the place, and that in case they did not do so, they would be tarred and feathered, and that he, although sworn to see that the laws were not violated, would assist in doing it! Out upon such a rascal!"
The Vindicator, June 22, 1860, p. 2, c. 4
BALTIMORE, June 18.--The Convention assembled here at [?] o'clock to-day. The Theatre was densely packed. The assemblage was called to order by the Hon. Caleb Cushing. Prayer was offered by the Rev. Dr. McCro--. The President congratulated the Convention on its re-assembling, and expressed the hope that harmony would prevail.
The New York delegation introduced a resolution that the claims to seats by delegates from the Cotton States be referred to the Committee on credentials, and that the report of that committee be final, with the understanding that no one be admitted who does not pledge himself to abide by the decision of the Convention, and support the nominees.
An hour was spent in discussing points of order and motions to adjourn. The New York delegation . . . [word missing] . . . to sustain the call for the previous question, which was lost.
Mr. Gilmer, of Pa., offered the following resolution:
Resolved, That the President of this Convention be directed to issue tickets of admission to seats in the Convention to the delegates from the States of Texas, Florida, Mississippi and Arkansas, in which States there are no contesting delegations.
The Convention then adjourned 'till 5 o'clock, P. M.
The Convention re-assembled at 5 o'clock. The President stated that he had had placed in his hands credentials of gentlemen claiming seats in the Convention from the States of Delaware, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and Arkansas, including in that . . . [text missing] . . . in this place, by Mr. Howard, of Tennessee, in behalf of the gentlemen claiming seats from the State of Mississippi, and in addition to that, there has been addressed to the chair a communication from Mr. Chaffee, claiming a seat from the State of Massachusetts.
Mr. Gilmer, for the purpose of arranging difficulties, withdrew his resolution, and asked leave to offer another, embodying the original resolution with an addenda, as follows:
Resolved, That the President of this Convention be authorized to issue tickets of admission to seats in the Convention to the delegates from the States of Arkansas, Texas, Florida and Mississippi, in which States there are no contesting delegations; and that in those States, to wit: Delaware, Georgia, Alabama, and Louisiana, where there are contesting delegations, a committee on credentials shall be appointed by the several delegations to report upon said States.
A spirited and able debate was continued up to near nine o'clock. The previous question on the pending resolution and amendments was moved and seconded, when a motion to adjourn until ten o'clock Tuesday morning prevailed.
SECOND DAY.--BALTIMORE, June 19.--The Convention met this morning at 10 o'clock.
The resolutions on the admission of delegates were amended so as to read that the credentials of all persons claiming seats in this Convention, made vacant by the secession of delegates at Charleston, be referred to the committee on credentials.
This was adopted under a call for the previous question.
The Convention then adjourned until 5 P. M., to await the report of the committee.
At 5 o'clock the Convention met pursuant to adjournment, and the Committee on Credentials not being ready to report, adjourned until to-morrow.
THIRD DAY.--BALTIMORE, June 20.--The Convention met at five o'clock, and adjourned till ten to-morrow. The Committee on Credentials are still unable to report.
Mr. Avery, of North Carolina, Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, and other Southern Delegates, waited on Dean Richmond, Chairman of the New York delegation, to- day, with a proposition to admit all the seceding delegates, with the understanding that no candidate shall be nominated who was voted for at Charleston, thus excluding Douglas, Hunter, Dickinson, Lann, Guthrie, Davis and Johnson, but it is not probable that the proposition will be accepted.
There is no foundation for the report that the Douglasites have threatened to withdraw from the Convention under any circumstances.
It is rumored that the delay of the report of the Committee will embarrass the Seceders, as the Convention in Richmond is advertised to meet to-morrow. But this is not entitled to credence, as it is known that the President of that Convention, together with the South Carolina delegates and others, are now in Richmond, ready to meet at the appointment of the time, and adjourn from day to day till the rising of the Convention here.
The Vindicator, June 29, 1860, p. 2, c. 2
L. Waddell, Jr., and Wm. H. Waddell, of this place, have within a few days patented a 'car couple," which is destined, in the opinion of all practical men, who have examined it, to supersede all other contrivances for uniting railroad cars.
The invention is most ingenious, simple in construction, and strong. We will not undertake to describe it. But this much we can say, that by its use a train of any number of cars can be coupled by simply backing them together--and a boy ten years old, standing upon the platform of a passenger car, or on top of a freight car, out of all danger, can uncouple a single car, or an entire train, either when in motion or standing still--on a level or on a grade--No backing or 'stacking up" of the train is necessary before uncoupling. And by the use of this invention, an engineer seeing danger ahead, could detach the whole train as easily and as quickly as he could sound the steam whistle, and thus prevent a catastrophe, from dragging the train after the locomotive off the track, or over an obstruction.
In the hands of a yankee this patent right would be an immense fortune. We understand that our townsman, J.D. Imboden, Esq., has purchased an interest in it, and the exclusive right for five years to control and sell the patent right throughout the United States. Mr. Imboden is now in Richmond, making arrangements to put it upon all the Railroads in Virginia, and in a few days will proceed to Baltimore to have it tried upon the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad.
This is a great Southern invention, and we hope to see it come as speedily into universal use as it would if some yankee had discovered it.
The Vindicator, June 29, 1860, p. 2, c. 2
The Seceders from the Baltimore Convention met in the Maryland Institute, Baltimore, on Saturday last, and organized by the appointment of the Hon. Caleb Cushing as President, with one Vice President and Secretary from each State represented. There were over 200 delegates present. After adopting a platform, the Convention proceeded to the nomination of candidates for President and Vice President, which resulted in the unanimous choice of John C. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, for President, and Joseph Lane, of Oregon, for Vice President. The Convention then adjourned sine die.
The Vindicator, June 29, 1860, p. 2, c. 7
Mr. Editor, Respected Sir: The action of the last General Conference on the subject of slavery has created a profound sensation throughout this entire valley. We shall not stop to inquire whether the people in many portions of our Conference acted prematurely, or whether they should have waited patiently the action of our next Annual Conference. Neither is it necessary to discuss the question as to the meaning of the new chapter on slavery--whether it be statutory or advisory--is a matter of small moment just now. It is enough for us to know, that in any light in which it may be regarded, it is sufficiently offensive to our people to require some action upon our part, before the sitting of the Annual Conference in Staunton. The necessity is upon us, and willing or unwilling, we must meet it, and do so promptly. Neither will it be profitable to animadvert upon the course of our delegates, the editor of the Baltimore Advocate, or any other of our brethren. They are all doubtless good men and true, having the same great object in view-- the glory of God, and the welfare of our beloved Methodism. In a word, an question that is at all calculated to widen the breach that now unhappily divides us, should be ignored, and the one great effort should be to bring about a unity of feeling and action; otherwise, we are torn into fragments, and a state of things heretofore unknown upon the border realized. Our only hope, as we humbly conceive, is in concert of action. Whatever is done by us, let it be done as a whole. Such is my confidence in the Baltimore Conference as a whole, that I would be willing, almost unconditionally, to say "thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God." Never were mortals more deceived, than we should be did she violate her solemn pledge made at the last session in Winchester. But she will not, nay, she cannot.
In conclusion, let me suggest that we hold a Convention just as soon as the necessary steps can be taken to secure one; and in order that we may act in unison, let each circuit and station hold a meeting, composed of laymen, whose sole business it shall be to appoint delegates to a District Convention--let there be at least 2 delegates to each circuit and station--let it also be understood that no definite action, as it regards a separation from the M.E. Church, is even contemplated by the District Conventions, their main and perhaps their sole business being to determine on a General Convention, indicating the time and place for the same. We may discuss any question that may be deemed legitimate, and in this way let off the steam by the meeting of the General Convention. But our final action should embrace alone the items referred to. Some may ask what good these District Conventions will do, if nothing definite is accomplished looking toward a separation from the North? We reply, much, every way, in addition to taking off the gas, (and of course we mean no offense by this remark) we can, by this convening together, come to some definite understanding among ourselves before the meeting of the General Convention, and be prepared to act as a unit. This we conceive to be the great advantage to be derived from District Conventions. It has been suggested that the Presiding Elders meet and consult with a view to District or a General Convention. To this there can, in our judgment, be no objection, provided they have a meeting at an early day.
It may be proper, before we close, to remark that so far as our membership is concerned, they have the utmost confidence in the integrity of the Baltimore Conference, and most of them, (perhaps all,) to use the language of one of our most prominent official members, "would suffer any earthly privation rather than become the willing instrument in causing divisions among ourselves. This, we believe, is the universal feeling of Churchville Circuit.
Praying for the peace and unity of our beloved Methodism, we remain.
Yours respectfully,
D.W. Arnold
Valley papers please copy.
The Vindicator, June 29, 1860, p. 3, c. 1
Pursuant to notice a meeting of the members of the M.E. Church of Staunton Station was held in the Court house on Monday, the 25th of June. The meeting was opened with prayer by the Rev. F.C. Tebbs.
On motion, A.D. Trotter was called to the Chair, and W.T. Jewell appointed Secretary.
The object of the meeting was explained by Rev. Jos. R. Wheeler, pastor of the Church,, and on motion a committee of five, viz: Dr. H. Anderson, G.A. Armentrout, A.M. Simpson, John B. Evans, and Geo. W. Campbell--was appointed to prepare resolutions for the action of the meeting, who reported the following preamble and resolutions, which were adopted unanimously:
Whereas, the last General Conference, by a large majority vote, passed the new chapter on slavery, thereby invading our rights and interests by virtually making non-slaveholding a test of membership--therefore
Resolved, 1st. That it is the sense of this meeting that the time has fully come for a separation of the Baltimore Conference from the jurisdiction of the General Conference of the M.E. Church.
2d. That we earnestly recommend to our ensuing Quarterly Conference to take into solemn consideration our relative position as a church, and make such recommendations for a Convention or otherwise as may in their judgement most fully meet our necessities.
3d. That we express our continued and unabated confidence in the Baltimore Conference.
4th. That to Dr. Thomas E. Bond, editor of the Baltimore Christian Advocate, we tender our heartfelt thanks for his bold and manly defense of our cause, and especially for opening the opposition to the new chapter by his letters from Buffalo; and also that we will use our best efforts to increase the circulation of his journal, which has rendered us such invaluable service.
5th. That these proceedings be published in the Baltimore Christian Advocate, and our local papers.
On motion, the meeting then adjourned.
A.D. Trotter, Pres't.
W.T. Jewell, Sec'y.