Arkansas true Democrat., 1858-09-29
The Illinois Election and the False ras,.
 attempted to be made in :.

IS itsstrange! Did MT. Douglas retire from tbs iaSt congress, as he had always done before in good cohhexlon with the democratic party? On the contrary, had he not fought the democratic party during the whole session? Had bo no, fought It Tn the Senate and in the House-or the Lecompton bill, the Montgomery bill and hnaly on the English bill? h every one ot these hard-fought pitched battles, did he moi draw all the enemies of democracy. black re- pupiicans and know-nothings, to his standard ale' heading the combined column. did he not stand Tor weeks and months holding democracv a. ueaahce' heaplng upon it all sorts of abnse-- ci'afsihs It With outra9ing all the principles of iee overnment-supporting the foulest frauds ""u SeeA'iS eo iaSten the vilest swindle ever perpetrated on reluctant and helpless neonle2 ? l NOW, all thls and more he uttered day after day, and the abolition papers and a few demo oiauo ones repeated the foul accusations. Du- | ring 1hls protracted and bitter fight. vote after No'e was takeh and recorded in both houses. showing as clear as day that nine-tentbs of tbe uei'eefaeic part y thought he was wrong-wrong ID denounclng hls own party friends-wrono in heading the columns of black-renpblicanisrn ana know-nothlngism-wron in taking a course so we'll calculated to keep alive that fatal ones ton which it was for the best interest of do mocracy, and of the nation, should then he mt to rest forever
 At last the day of final decision arrived: the English bill was passed; democracy at least niie-eehths Of It, rejoiced; the President. his caolhet' the members of Congress, the demos cratic party, rejoiced. But Stephen A. DougI las would not rejoice; Hale, nor Trumbull. nor Orttenden, nor Bell, of the Senate, would not reloice; nor would Giddings and his abolition allies of the Honse. Sad sorrowful. but re. VengeiuI Douglas and his allies returned from the held of battle, and soon thereafter Congress adjourued.
 NOW, up to this moment, what good demo- jcrat ever expected again to vote for Stephen A Douglas unless he should give full explanation and make concession for conduct so extraordi- | nary? Mary of his friends declared that al- though he had united with the black-republi. cans on tals one occasion, yet he did not mean to desert his old party; but that party having voted him down, and adopted its own policy, he, as a good democrat, intended hereafter to acquiesce in that decision, and to abide by it. Such was the opinion of his peculiar friends, who de- clared that he would probably make known these his intentions before Congress adjourned, or, at all events on opening his canvass in Hi nois.
 Now, how did matters stand when Mr. | Douglas arrived in his own State? He found two conventions had been held by the demo- crats of that State-one for Douglas. the other supporting the administration. Both had made nominations as they respectively agreed, with | the one or the other. The Douglas convention denounced Lecompton and declared their una bated confidence in Mir. Douglas; the admins tration convention declared for the English Dill as finally passed, and their unabated confidence in James Buchanan. In the mean time the back-repubicans had held their convention and designated MT. Lincoln as their senatorial can ddate. In this condition of affairs, what was it the duty of Mr. Douglas to have done on reaching the State? We edistinctly answer, that I he ought to have redeemed the assurances of his friends by explaining and defining anew his true position? He ought to have -SGd to his old constituents, now divided and distracted, Gentlemen, 1 opposed the Lecompton consti- tuition; advocated different policy because I believed it to be right; but my own party, by an overwhelming ma jority, decided against me. l mean to abide by that decision, to acquiesce in it, and to cooperate with my party as fully | hereafter as l have ever done" If Stephen A. | Douglas had done this much, and this only. in his first speech at Chicago, how surely would all his enemies have made the same speeches
 
 they had declared this. then harmony would have been restored Douglas and his friends would have walked up on the English platform. on which the administration party stood, and by little effort the two sets of candidates could have been reduced into one
 But MT. Douglas would make no such speech He would hold out 20 such olive branch. In hls opening speech he denounced the adminis- tratlon democracy for supporting fraud and swlndle; he still eulogzed the Montgomery amendment, and poured out his vals of wrath on the English bill, for which he knew nine tenths oi the democrats in Congress had so- lemnly voted. Here we pause to note the great fact, which cannot be lost sight of that when an opportunity had been fairly offered to him he would not say that he would abide by the English bill, but he denounced it as bitterly as he did when standing up surrounded by all the enemies of the democratic party in the halls of Congress. We repeat, that he would give no assurance that he would abide by the settlement 1 and decision made by his own party: and if he will not do that in what does he differ from the common enemy? Now, we ask all candid and all honorable men whether, at the time that Chicago speech was made looking to the tone and temper of 1t, and especially to the denun- cations of It, either the administration demo- crats in Illinois, or anywhere else in the Union could have declared a reconcilition with him or willingness to vote for him as the representa- tive of their principles without shame and deg radiation to themselves and to their party?
 All chance for conciliation having been cut off by Mr. Douglas himself in his first speech the campaign of elimination and recrmination opened and is still progressing
 We wish to note some of the erroneous and indeed impudent, assumptions of the friends of Mir Douglas
 They contend that the Douglas nominees are the nominees of the true democracy, thereby lnslnustng that-the administration democracy are the false or sham democracy. Well. take them to the best standard Look at James Buchanan, surrounded by the host of demo. crats Tn both houses of Congress, advocating and sustaining the English bill, and then look at stephen A. Douglas, surrounded by little more than half dozen democrats, and all the balance of his allies the oldest and btterest enemles democracy ever had How in the name of reason, can it be that nine.tentbs of the democrats of Congress, represepting the like proportion in the whole Union. are false and spurious, whilst the one-tenth arc sopnd and orthodox in their faith?
 But 1t IS said that the Douglas democracv ara the true ones, because they have the orpaniza. ton Tn Illinois. What signifies the or9aniza- ton in. Illinois What signifies the organza- tion? That depends on mere numbers. The test is not the mere organization of party but which organization, few or many, weak or strong, holds the must orthodox doctrine? To know thls when the question is started in any one Stato, you must compare the creed in dispnte with the creed held by the majority of the party in Congress-in the State legislatures and in State conventions. Tried by these standards. (and they are the only oncs,) it is undeniable that the administration democrats of Illinois have clearly the advantage over those of the Douglas party.
 But there IS another pretence more ground less than any other. The Douglas party in and out of Illinois, is perpetualy reminding the country that he is in mortal struggle with the black-republicans, and that if the admnistra. tiop democrats of Illinois do-s t-eeae- te- his relief Lincoln may beat him for the. Senate.