Arkansas true Democrat., 1859-08-10
Tototot Redixim
Lme RoekAug. 5th
MR. JOHNSON

r''S 'NS' Dut' Trend has hioed me the
 6tate Rights Democrat, of tIled inst, and
 called my attention to an atcle headed
 i"tototiaha. " So far as " concerned
 the article might pass unnotice, but 1t con
 tains foul islander on two nok men. now
 If thelf graves, who. when liyg, were my
 friends and 1 should prove Gse to their
 memories shonld not notice Ie slur at-
 tempted to be cast upon them Those men
 were John Milton Butler all Robt. C.
 farrelley. Their Helena s!andef says this.
 " The central organ of the party tig thus s,,ogb,
 o' sl1ke down southern rights in oidst0 pin pet
 v, partisan triumph, was the I" hRKlsAs WHie.''
 published st Little Rock. its coials were the
 Hood gates through which bitter 3e of abuse
 ah1 misrepresentation poured sekly on the
 demDefatle hpniDer, his positions al supporters
 These assaults were Tot confined to it titaperatiye
 eHLpfla's, but came well from i elnbiitefed
 correspondents Of different parts of th. tate.''
 The editors of that paper, wbe Tototot
 wrote for it. were Mr FanelIyand. after
 him, Sir. Butler No tluer peiot than the former eyer breathed the ai of Little Rock and more free from the chrge of ut turing or writing anything abusie or yitu-
 pefatiye. John M Butler was a,rave and true man, passionate perhaps. Ut high toned gentleman. Let the edi)r oi the State Rights Democrat consult te volume of the Wing in his possession ar emulate the tone of Mr. Buffers writine. The, contained nothing abusive. no bier tide of interpretations or vituperatis editori- als. He was aD ardent Whig, bu even his political opponents bore witness hen, and will now, that lie was ever ourteous. high minded opponent, who neve stopped to personalities. They are dead nd gone, but from the depths of my soul believe that, were they living, they would his day be found in the ranks of the democatic par ty. They need no defence from n, but in order to attack me it was necessar for this newly imported specimen of ney tangled N0hi''' '"' t' "A"iiil' tllc H'hu i'll Nillly them. And it Is worthy of notice nat con sldefation for the living should hye re- strained this " 50 called" editor fDn this attack on the memory of Mir Butle. The Whig was owned by Mr. B., he vas part of tAe time the editor, and it was, enphnti- cally, his paper. The very volume this Helena editor now has in his possession was no doubt lent or given him by broth- CT of the deceased, and that bIothefis now fitting np his establishment in this ty to have published there, the [" Old Ine De mocrat," Yet he bcgs or bofrows vol ume of this paper and then stigmalises it as the central organ of il party that sought to strike down southern rights; whose col nmna were flood gates through which il tide ofabnse and misrepresentation was poured and the editorials characterized as yitupera tive, when many of those editorials were written by the brother of che lender of giyer. If John M Butler was liyingnow, he would be q bold man who would dare to stand be- fore him and use such language.
 Now, while the pen is in my hand. let me say something about the article copied from the Whig, of June, 1851. IL was written in that gossiping, easy style. adop- ted as best suited to communications for n newspaper. Neither in that, or anything ,lse l wrote, is there any bitterness or ma ignancy-nothing that a whig of that day might not believe Hon. R. w. Johnson opposed the '' conpromise'' of 1850. In common with great many whigs, (not all, for number sided with him. 1 was in favor of the compromise and as q whig naturally took sides with Mr. Preston.-- Now with all the italicising and capitaliz- ing the editor saw fit tO do, in the hope to change the tone and spirit of my article in 1851, it stands in flat contradiction of his assertions. Indeed had he given the whole article, the joaalar character would have been more apparent. You will remcmber that Mr. Preston, upon the disbandng of the whig party, joined the democraticparty,
 and two years since was the nominee of a democratic convention in Kentucky. Now if Mr. Preston, who opposed Mr. Johnson, canvassed part of the State and took stronger ground than did, could ,trike hands with his former opponent, suely might be permitted to do the same The State Rights Democrat with ever somuch
 fire in it's mouth and belly says of thecom- promise of 1850, that t was pretendel, in- iquitous, oppressive, fraudulent and 70 on. The democratic party confirmed thiscom- promise in conventions, and in the Cncin- natl plaform it is twice or thrice reerred to. In the same copy of the papc the editor swallows some of his formerlbuse of the whigs, and tries 10 honey-uggle them and calls the platform a noble &C., In the next article he repudiatas 1t l one of its most prominent features
 I have never denied that I was avhg, and an earnest one. And in provin this fact, which was admitted, it makes aooint that l will call attention to- If a ma was a whig for years in county and State where the democrats had such overvelm- ing majorities, is it not a proof that did not seek to get on the strong eide an that he was actuated by a sense ofright lnhose days the whigs, like the oppositionnow, saw in Mr. Johnson a1l his frien the ,treugth of ths democratic party. When ever di.organizer arose they backe him ID as the know nothings do Hind nn.- The " old liners" here put me in md of old times, when the whigs chucklsdover an apparent split in the democratic lnks. Here, in Little Rock, for two or threecars some of the smart ones amused thenelves by calling me " pizerinctum," and liked of my backing down from whig prinples, as if there is anything in the preseA Anon- grel opposition that bears the faintestrace