Arkansas true Democrat., 1860-07-14

brutal and insulting language" and whether the wild untutored mongrel," "Chero- kee," half breed," renegade" "refugee," copperhead," dung hill bantling" ssun- scrupulous tool" and "semi- barbarous, fierce and vindictive Indian," as our neigh Dor styles us, or the "polished," sdecent," !" "polite, " "high bred" courtly" chiv- alrous editor of the Old Line Democrat is most censurable for the use of "coarse, :" vulgar |" brutal and insulting language. !"
 
 The True Democrat says, that in Illinois in 1858, we supported Douglas with all his isns To this, we riumphanty reply, that MT. Black, senior editor of the True Democrat, ,n the State of ArkGnsas, late as April 1860, supported Mr. Douglas for the presidency with all his heresies and that too in di rect opposition to all Southern candidates save Breckinridge !-OM Line Democrat.
 Is that, if true, a justification of Mr. Peek? But it is not true. The senior edi- tor of the True Democrat never endorsed "all his hereses.' He always denounced the ''squatter sovereignty" doctrine, which Mir. Peek positively endorsed in Illinois. as heresy. But thinking like great many of Douglas bitterest opponents, that Doug las would be the nominee, and the South compelled to support him inpreference to a republican, he was willing to do so without endorsing his squatter sovereignty. This policy was simply holding the rights of the South in abeyonce,; regarding that issue not directly before the country, he was willing with many patriotic democrats to ignore it for the present with the hope of starving out the Black Republicans. We are not asham- ed of this opinion, which at the time it was uttered was honestly entertained,by ma iority of democrats North and South.- These were our sentiments under tAe circum- stances which then presented themselves We thought the only possible chance to beat Douglas was with Breckinridge, there fore he was our first choice. We thought he could divide the Douglas vote and pos sibly get the nomination. Recent events have established the general correctness of our views. Failing to defeat Douglas, we were then willing to unite on Douglas to beat the Black Republicans. If we had consulted our individual preferences, with out regard to surrounding circumstances, Douglas would not have been our second, third, fourth or fifth choice.
 Everything has been changed as with an enchanter's wand. Against our wishes the party has been rent asunder, and a fight on principle between two democrats inaug- urated. The issue has been made up and consistently, without any change of senti ment, we can support our first choice, John C. Breckinridge. He stands on platform that reflects in every particular our views.
 But the issue made with our neighbor is that he advocated the heresies of Douglas in Illinois and denied n when he came to Arkansas. Clear up that charge if you please. You have controdicted yourself.- We are not discussing the question wheth- CT you were right in Illinois or right in Ar kansas, but you certainly were not right in both, and still less can we justify you, in denying your past record till it was proved beyond the possibility of doubt, and then admitting it, and pointing with triumph ant smile to the senior editor of the True Democrat, and attempting to hide under the shelter of his opinions. Zs this inde- pendent journaltsms