Louisville Daily Courier, February 22, 1860

The resolutions adopted by the Democracy of Alabama have been condemned by some inconsiderate and unthinking Democrats even, in the Southern States, as unadvised, rash, and dangerous. An attempt has been made in certain quarters to create the impression that this convention did not reflect the sentiments of the gallant Democracy of that most loyal of States—that it was controlled and managed by fire eaters, secessionists, disunionists per se. Nothing could be more unjust. The convention was duly and properly called; the delegates were selected after due and sufficient notice; the meeting was largely attended; the committee on resolutions, consisting of two members from each Congressional district, selected by the delegates from the districts respectively, made a unanimous report, and the report was almost unanimously adopted. That the resolutions adopted by this convention fairly represent the views and opinions and wishes of the party in that State, cannot be reasonably questioned.

Nor have the Democracy of Alabama taken their position without having fairly and fully counted the cost. Their action was not unadvised. They did not pass resolutions and announce their determination to the world thoughtlessly, or in a mere spirit of spite or bravado. They but re-affirmed their old platforms and planted themselves anew in their old foot prints. No new principle was enunciated; no new plank interpolated; no new tests of party fealty incorporated; even old principles were not re-asserted in new or uncertain language. The old landmarks of the party were observed and adhered to. All honor to the consistent Alabama Democracy!

In 1848, their State Convention passed the following resolutions, among others:

That the opinion advanced and maintained by some, that the people of a Territory, acquired by common toil, suffering, blood, and treasure of the people of all the States, can, in any other event than in forming a constitution preparatory to admittance as a State into the Union, lawfully or constitutionally prevent any citizen from any such State from removing to or settling in such Territory [with his property], be it slave property or otherwise, is a restriction as indefensible in principle and as dangerous in practice as if such restrictions were imposed by [act of] Congress.

That it is the duty of the General Government, by all proper legislation, to secure [That the treaty of cession should contain a clause securing] an entry into those Territories (referring to the Territories acquired from Mexico) to all the citizens of the United States, together with their property of every description, and that the same should remain protected by the United States while the Territories are under its authority.

In 1856, they adopted the following resolution:

The unqualified right of the people of the slaveholding States to the protection of their property in the States, in the Territories, and in the wilderness in which Territorial governments are as yet unorganized. The Democratic platform is based on the recognition, not of one, but of both these principles; and when efforts are made to separate these two questions, the Democratic party, resting upon its platform, says: we cannot compromise either proposition, but stand united upon both.

The resolutions adopted by the last State Convention enunciate the same principles in almost the same language, nothing omitted, nothing added. But the 10th resolution adopted by the last convention, is the one upon which the strongest opposition is based. Men whose real objection is to the doctrines avowed in the preceding resolutions, make the one instructing the delegates to withdraw from the Charleston Convention in a certain contingency the scapegoat upon which to heap all the sins they find in the action of the meeting. That resolution reads as follows:

That our delegates to the Charleston Convention are hereby expressly instructed to insist that said convention shall adopt a platform of principles recognizing distinctly the rights of the South as asserted in the foregoing resolutions; and if said convention shall refuse to adopt in substance the propositions in the preceding resolutions, prior to nominating candidates, our delegates to said convention are hereby positively instructed to withdraw therefrom.

And what is wrong in this? The Democracy of Alabama have adhered firmly to their principles; they have often proclaimed them; they believe they are right; they are Democrats because they understand these principles to be those of that party; is it not right that they should stand by these principles now, firmly and regardless of consequences? If these principles are rejected at Charleston, they cannot as honorable men, remain in a convention which has repudiated their platform, and endorsed different views. To do so, would be to plead guilty to a charge of inconsistency, hypocrisy, and dishonesty. To do this, would be to admit that not principles, but the spoils of successful party conflicts; is the incentive to action and the object of their struggles. If they were honest in adopting their resolutions, they were right in demanding that they shall be recognized at Charleston. But the instructing resolution is not unprecedented. A similar one was adopted by the same Democracy in 1856. The language is scarcely different. The instructing resolution of 1856, is as follows:

That if said National Convention shall refuse to adopt the proposition embraced in the foregoing resolutions, our delegates to said Convention are hereby positively instructed to withdraw therefrom.

We may regard the platform and resolutions of the recent Convention at Montgomery as expressive of the deliberate and fully formed convictions of the Democracy of Alabama—convictions heretofore expressed, since re-affirmed, honestly entertained, and by which they will adhere unwaveringly. They deserve honor for their consistency and firmness, and the thanks of the people of the South for the correct and patriotic stand they have taken.