Arkansas true Democrat., 1860-07-14
THE DIFFERENCE.

| The eQlLOT Ok tlc Olu AIuO DOAAoei"' seeks to evade the charges brought against him by the Note Book, and proven by ex- tracts from his editorials in the Blooming ton, (Ill. Statesman, by quoting the views entertained by enc of the editors of this paper. If we were guilty it would not ex- culpate him. There is however no pa rallelism between the cases. One striking difference is manifest. The senior editor of the True Democrat Is not ashamed of what he has done-he is not afraid to ayow his honest sentiments, and neither to catch the popular favor nor at the bidding of any man (can our neighbor say the same? will he ever suppress his political views. The essential difference between us is this the editor of the Old Line De- mocrat has directly indorsed the "squatter sovereignty" views of Mir. Douglas; this is proven by extracts from his paper as we'll as by the admissions of Hon. T. C.. Hindman in his canvass with Col. Car roll True our neighbor says that this was not an issue in the canvass: so much the worse-there cannot then be any pallla- tion for the indorsement. On the other hand the senior editor of this paper, while he was willing to take Doug las as po- litical necessity, and at one time supposed him the only alternative to defeat the black republican candidate for the next Presi- dency, always objected to his squatter sov- ereignty notions, and never contemplated his receiving the nomination on such a platform. There is an essential difference between supporting candidate and en- dorsing yitAom reservotion all his politi- cal principles, and supporting him with an express protest against his views in given case The Hon. Jeff. Davis, now con- fessedly the gallant leader of the southern democracy, supported the nominees on the Cincinnati platform, after expressly dis senting from it in regard to the question of non- intervention.
 At one time we were confident Douglas would be the democratic nominee on a sound platform-as such we believed the south would be compelled to support him. But circumstances have changed. His chances are now not so good as those of MT. Breck inridge. Neither of them may be elected. If not, Lincoln will be. This acW pro- duce dissolution of the Union. In an- ticipation of this result, we desired be- yond all other political aims, to preserve intact the nationality of the democratic party. We desired to make an honest ef- fort to preserve the Union with the consti- tuition as the unimpaired ark of safety.- We looked the question fairly in the face regarded it in the light of dsinterested patriotism and sound statesmanship-and our conclusion was that Douglas in cer- tain contingency might preserve the Union, and might receive the support of the south without compromise of her constitution al principles.
 But state of facts different from that anticipated presents itself The democratic party has divided on this question. We regard the Douglas wing now in the light of faction. A great many anti-Douglas men, north and south, think the issue was made prematurely. But the fact stares us in the face-it is made Some of the lead ing spirits in making the issue are now most anxious to heal 1t for time. Ar effort has been made in several states to run only one electoral ticket, and to leave it to the discretion of the electors to cast their votes for the most available man, Douglas or Breckinridge. This shows a decided reaction in favor of the plan we advocated six months ago. Itwas practl- cable then, 1t is not so now.. The rival houses of Capulet and Montague can never be united again, we fear, except in the tragic nuptial couch of Romeo and Juliet Parties can be kept together by the exer- else of prudence and forbearance, but once divided, and the breach widens like the nipples on the ocean, When it is too late, when Lincoln is elected, and southern rep resentatives resign their seats--when the south is compelled to look to her own strength as the only alternative-then thou sands will regret the disruption of the only national party-a result we deplored in advance and strove to prevent.
 When however that issue is presented we will not fater or fail in our devotion to the south. The next best thing to pre- serving our rights in Me Union, is to pre- serve them out of it. To accomplish the former we were willing to make considera ble sacrifices of personal preferences and individual wishes Breckinridge was our first choice, but we were willing to support Douglas on a sound platform provided he was the nominee.
 We are not ashamed of the above views. We will not disavow them either in Ar kansas or in Illinois. It is we'll known that we expressed long ago a preference for Breckinridge as our first choice. We will give hereafter our reasons for preferring him now far more strongly than we did formerly. One reason is that we think 1t all-essential to keep the south unit. Let us not divide United we may yet have the moral influence to preserve our rights in the Union. Especially do we wish Ar kansas to have but one electoral ticket that for Breckinridge and Lane. We be- lieve that at least two thirds of the State will prefer this ticket A respectable mi nority sympathize with Douglas, but we hope they will resign personal preferences for the sake of harmony at home.
 Having stated the opinions we have b;tbarto antertainad we are willinp that