Arkansas true Democrat., 1858-10-27
The For tie True DemoeSat

uef'ocrat (which is all profass to lifetime rule of political oo,;. " oe) wfose cure ao'sS ana not men," must regard tbs orn. now preached by many of our n.rtm n'' 'nat great democratic cbar,r;o LOT Douglas, of Illinois. with tba ,. 'yn' "e na- astonishment "i'n the profound est II our ancient usaoos ,
 party tests d., "'ases were set aside. o hr platforn, e'a'ea farce and the Cincinna hi oaa'o r',O'n fepudiated then my surnrisa mo, "a .sIa1:. . nul II democracy vet lives and ma tonn ,y ;, 'o It's time honored principles and as reno.. 'e'' or membership, in that ''' n my asfonishment is nnsneak an.
 ops in OSs tEa; ed'ors who have besz SO vocifer- faa nave engaged in the war sim 'O all a", who '0f the proofs on which tn p1n mn appeal 7 z. challenge them to sh =" Isnan'l'ions rest cincinnati platform w "na' cialse of the .hat principle of tknie mas violated against a. If against 1hat platform he has offend e given cause oe one, then to DO democrat has We should offence.
 le press to Ia E,ot allow the denunciations of ie O oeH0i HIGH. are IalllDle. Let them
 man saint or sinner god or devil, it matters not; it does not make him so. If he stands the tests of democracy, as laid down bv our national conventions, he is democrat to all lntents and purposes. Names don't make things principles make the democrat If :. Judge Douglas has been true to principle he ! has been true to the party, and unless his de. nouncers can show that he has been untrue 10 principle does it not follow that they them selves have been false to the party and unjust to one Of Its mightiest champions? " Let jus- tce be done, though the heavens fall.u In what l ask, has Douglas erred, that vtu peratlons so thick and fast should fall upon him? ol what crime is he guilty. that he should be expeiied Tn ignominy from the democratic church! The reply is that he was anti -Le- compton--that he opposed the Kansas policy of MT. Buchanan. Very good, if the issue was one of policy only, there could have been no principle involved. But will it be contended that differences in matters of policy are suii- clent grounds for ths exclusion of a democrat from his parsy? If so, how aud by whom is JN-o'HSHV IO Dc pTouOuuce0. There IS E no power yet created-no tribunal yet erected to whose arbtrament such disputes are to be erred and whose decrees are to be recognized proving their own infallble orthodoxy. The A1ocratc party is no despotism-it has no lMPERAToR within its ranks-no masked tv- rant empowered to coefce obedienca to his will. It's the private and personal right of every member of the party, in matters of policy. to square his conduct by his own conscience. and that alone. Let it be borne in mind that there n2s vast difference between policy and princi- De. The one Is merely the creature of circum ances, and dependent on conditions which may hange with every hour and be transformed by [ery breeze; the good policy of,to-day. may the bad of tomorrow. But principle is sFing, undying unchanging truth-as immu able and eternal and of kin to Deity himself -and IS alike suited to all times and to all cir Nmstances, to all countries and climates-the lme to-day, tomorrow and forever
 What was the principle involved in this Le. pmpton issue? IL the doctrine of popu ar sovereignty. Did the President and Judge NNo''' N1iiSi OH Ohtt' ANOG dU all. l neV con- ea red fully in the principle, that the people lad the right to form their institutions to shit hemSelvss, but they differed in the policy of ubmlttlng the Lecompton constitution in part pr in whole to popular ratification Both in- Sisted on the necessity of submisson-both thought It essential to the validity of the pro- posed constitution-but Mr. Buchanan was con ent with the submission of the slavery clauses Wly, while Judge Douglas regarded submission of the whole instrument as indispensable. This was difference in the degree and not in the thing--a difference in policy onlv--not in principle. Only narrow line separated them they were barely footstep apart And be- ;ing thus near, must one be declared an outlaw ecause his feet were not placed precisely where she other had planted his?
 am free to confess that acauiesced in MT. |Buchanan's view of the subject, as the best ,ossible solution of the' vexed question. and vas and am yet utterly opposed to Judge Dou- glas' position Tn the premises. Still regarded as matter of policy, about which democrats ad alright to differ without being ostracized To take any other ground would be to prost- 5fe the democratic party to one man dicta ia, and to reduce Senators to the base and sse condition of an assembly of pliant tools nvened merely to ratifv and enter up the shes md edlcts of tvrant, under the spe. ous name of President If it has come to is, that United States Senators. represenrino sovereignty of sovereign States, must yield b. views of policy to those of the executive
 state rights gone and Russian autocracv
 3iostituted for our vaunted federal system
 1t not self-evldent that in this issue of
 ", Judge Douglas had the right to differ
 n the President without being suspected
 sh less charged, with deserting his beloved
 ts@t whose vlndlcatlon he has received so
 Iy, So deep so honorable wounds? Could
 not disagree with MT. Buchanan without
 adoning the democracy and throwing him.
 into the embraces of black republicanism.
 se very touch he would loathe, whose
 idits he would scorn? Not breeze from
 plains of Illinois, waiting to us the burn
 denunciations heaped by Douglas on inc
 sof the south, but bears with it the fullest
 station of this monstrous and unfopnded
 rge. And yet southern editors refuse to
 this gallant man, engaged in the most gal
 fight Tn which mortal arm was ever raised
 ance broken, even the poor tribute of their
 dy sympathiesi
 would not Intentionally magnify the inn
 sanoe of the struggle, but might it not be
 ! death-grapple of the democratic party, a)se success regard as inseparabe from the
 snued existence of the Union? The de-
 ,f Douglas will be the annihilation of the
 scratic party in Illinois With Illinois
 70 the democracy, they would go into the
 t contest of 1860, with the goomiest fore
 ags--ther spirits weighed down, as with a
 en pail, by the certainty of defeat Then
 a have we to gain by the ostracism of
 aglas?
 puthern democratic editors are much divid-
 this Douglas question. One class of
 unfortunately as I think, have honestly
 to the conclusion (and not without much
 h,) that the Union has subserved all pur
 of advantage to the south to winch it
 oe applied, and will be known to us in the
 sonly by its wrongs and its curses. These
 men think it best for the southern States
 bede. Hence they unitedly onnose Dou