The Richmond Enquirer persists in its counsel, that the Richmond Convention shall await the action of the Baltimore Convention. One reason for this counsel is, that there is not time for sending Delegates to the Richmond Convention by the 11th of June, when the Richmond Convention is to meet; and yet, in the very columns of its editorial, there is the report of a meeting of the people in Barbour county, held on the 10th May, requesting their Delegates to the Charleston Convention to attend the Richmond Convention, “to participate in such preparatory action as may be deemed advisable in advance of the meeting of the Convention at Baltimore.” Could not the people of Barbour county, in the Northwest of Virginia, have, on this occasion, appointed Delegates to the Richmond Convention? and cannot the people of Virginia, by one month later, send Delegates, if they think proper, to this Convention? We cannot doubt it. The instructions of the people of Barbour county, to their Delegates of the Baltimore Convention show the reason they do not act. It is not for want of time, but of disposition.

Another objection urged by our contemporary against the independent action of the Richmond Convention, is, that after nominating for the Presidency a man true to the South at Richmond, the Baltimore Convention may nominate another, and thus the South will be divided between two candidates equally faithful to the South.

We think the Enquirer may dismiss from its patriotic anxieties all such romantic anticipations. The Squatter Sovereignty element—domineering in Charleston—will by no means be weaker in Baltimore from the new recruits invited into it from the South, by the Virginia delegation, and the nomination of Mr. LINCOLN, of Illinois, as the Presidential candidate of the Black Republicans. No man can be nominated at Baltimore faithful to himself, and on a platform faithful to the rights of the South; but if such an event takes place, the Enquirer may be assured that there will be no division in the South in supporting him. If the Baltimore Convention will not nominate the candidate of the Richmond Convention, nothing is easier than to withdraw the Richmond candidate. The same fidelity to the rights of the South which will have occasioned his nomination, will commend his withdrawal from the canvass; whilst his nomination at Richmond will go further than any other course to produce the nomination of a proper candidate at Baltimore.

As an inducement for the Richmond Convention to wait on the Baltimore Convention, the Enquirer says: “We feel confident that, unless a satisfactory platform is first agreed upon at Baltimore, all of the Southern States will withdraw.”

Now, perhaps, our contemporary does not know that the platform adopted by the Charleston Convention was followed by a motion to reconsider, and this motion was laid on the table. The matter of the platform is thus, according to the parliamentary rules adopted by the Convention, incapable of further consideration. No propositions with respect to it can be entertained by the Convention, but by unanimous consent. The Convention, then, after thus settling its platform, went into a ballot for the nomination of a Presidential candidate to represent it. This is the order of the Convention when it adjourned, and must be renewed when the Convention meets at Baltimore. Now, is there the ghost of a chance that the DOUGLAS delegates will unanimously assent that the balloting shall cease, and that the platform adopted, which is just as they want it to be, shall be revised and changed? The Enquirer‘s buoyant faith says, yes!

But if all the DOUGLAS Delegates were unanimously to consent that the platform shall be revised to suit the rejected demands of the seceding Delegates, is it probable that “a satisfactory platform” will be adopted by the Baltimore Convention? It is a part of the history of the Charleston Convention, that a platform may be perfectly satisfactory to Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky, but not at all satisfactory to Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina. The Richmond Enquirer, with great force, has shown that the Tennessee Resolution, declared in the Charleston Convention as “the ultimatum of the South,” to which the former States assented, is utterly inadequate and fallacious as regards the rights of the South. Now, what security have the Cotton States that anything better will be offered by the Baltimore Convention? We cannot expect the Freesoil States, to grant more than the Southern States shall demand. Would not the seceding States only go into the Baltimore Convention, to be cheated by words, or be compelled to withdraw again? And if they withdrew on a platform which Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky affirms to be “satisfactory,” how can these States withdraw with them, from the Baltimore Convention? They could not, and would not withdraw; and if the Cotton States withdrew, there would be an angry contest and division raised in the South itself—the very thing the enemies of the South would desire to produce. For such a purpose, we doubt not the Northern delegates in the Baltimore Convention might consent to any alteration in their platform, which, whilst it leaves them free on the hustings and in Congress, to advocate and enforce their policy of Squatter Sovereignty, would paralyse the South by divisions. We frankly say to the Enquirer, that although he may “feel confident,” we do not—that the Baltimore Convention will agree upon a platform satisfactory to the Cotton States—and that, if it is not satisfactory to them, that “all the Southern States will withdraw.” The Convention will agree to a platform satisfactory to the Frontier States, and they will not withdraw from the Baltimore Convention. In our judgment, the worst thing which can befall the South, is bickerings and contests amongst ourselves. The union of the Democratic party, demoralized as it is, into an organization hostile to the South, is of little moment, compared with the union of the South. If the seceding States in the Richmond Convention act in subordination to the Baltimore Convention, they will be cheated and disgraced; or the South must be enfeebled by exasperated divisions. Now, there is division on a mere matter of policy. The Frontier States remain in the Baltimore Convention, hoping to have the rights of the South yet acknowledged by that Convention. The Cotton States have tried fairly and patiently to have them acknowledged by the Charleston Convention, and, despairing of any agreement upon the essential rights of the South, they have seceded, and now call another Convention to enforce them. Let both parties of the South, without collision, pursue their respective courses, to maintain the rights of the South. If agreeing in principle, they will soon agree in policy. The course of consistency, dignity, and peace, it appears to us, requires that the seceding States shall carry out their purposes at Richmond, without any regard whatever to the Baltimore Convention.