This meant to carry out the doctrine laid down in the Dred Scott decision, and was in conflict with the "popular sovereignty" doctrine of Douglas, which was that right of the people to make a slave territory or a free territory is perfect and complete. The minority, composed of the extreme Southern men, rejected the former plan and insisted
1. "That the Democracy of the United States hold these cardinal principles on the subject of slavery in the territories: First, that Congress has no power to abolish slavery in the territories. Second, that the territorial legislature has no power to abolish slavery in any territory, nor to prohibit the introduction of slaves therein, nor any power to exclude slavery therefrom, nor any right to destroy or impair the right of property in slaves by any legislation whatever."
2. That the Federal government must protect slavery "on the high seas, in the territories, and wherever else its constitutional authority extends."
Both majority and minority agreed in asserting
1. That the Personal Liberty laws of the free states "are hostile in their character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect."
2. That Cuba ought to be acquired by the United States.
3. That a railroad ought to be built to the Pacific.
Their agreement was a minor matter. Their disagreement was so serious that when the minority could not have its way, it left the convention, met in another hall, and adopted its resolutions.
The majority of the convention then adjourned to meet at Baltimore, June 18. 1860. As it was then apparent that Douglas would be nominated, another split occurred, and the few Southern men attending, together with some Northern delegates, withdrew. Those who remained nominated Stephen A. Douglas and Herschel V. Johnson.
The second group of seceders met in Baltimore, adopted the platform of the first group of seceders from the Charleston convention, and nominated John C. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, and Joseph Lane, of Oregon.