The Van Buren press., 1860-05-25
Ia Arkansas for Disunion2

To this question we answer emphatically,
NO. That there are few demagogae pol
iticians, who have not the welfare of the
country at large, at heart, who are so dispos-
ed. we admit-but the people. the honest free
men of the State do no: entertain the ques-
mocracy of Arkansas if their sentiments
and wishes were fairly represented at
Charleston If they are ready for seces-
sion, and desire the dismemberment of the
Union. they may haye been fairly represen-
ted ; bat if they were not in favor of
the breaking up of this glorious confeiera-
cy. then. We say, they were not fairly rep
resented. The tendency of the seceders at
Charleston, was to weaken and finally de-
stroy the Democratic National Party of the
Union. Do this and disunion must inevi-
tably come, AMI the great aim of Seward
and his allies of the North, and Yancey and
the " fire-eaters" of the South, will be ac-
compiishei.
Some tell US these men are not Disun-
ionists. They may not profess to be-and
it matters not to US, whether they pRoFEss
to be or not. so long as every act of their
political life tends to this end We shall
judge them accordingly. >
Ever since 1882 this feeling of discomfort
among a certain class of politicians has been
manifest. We clip from the Cincinnati
Enquirer the following history of nu1lifica-
tion and disunion to the present time
"This is not the first time the Southern
Secessionists and Disunion:sts have boIted
the Democratic organization. In 1882,
under the name of Nulliicrs, they rallied
against the glorious patriot and horo Of
New Orleans. They threw South Carolina
against him, but their action had no other
effect than to increase his majority in the
nation. In 1886 they opposed Martin Van
Buren, and carried against him three South
ern Democratic States. He was elected,
nevertheless, by triumphant majority. In
ls4S the same VIM. L. Yancey, who is now
so conspicuous in the councils of the dis
unionists at Charleston, bolted the nomi-
nation of Gen. Lewis Cass, with all his
faction. They did not succeed, however
in carrying even Alabama. General Cass
unon the popular sovereignty platform
of his Michigan letter, defeated the
Disunionists in both Alabama and Missis-
sippi! We have no idea that the disunion.
lists are as strong in either Of those States
now as they Were then. In 1852 the Disun
ionists Of the Yancey school organized anoth
er bolt. They were profoundly indignant
because the Democratic National Conven
ton at Baltimore, which nominated Pierc.
and King for President and Vice-Presiden
would not denounce and rpudiatc the Com
promise Measures of 1850, instead of which
that Convention cordially indorsed them
They were for going straight out of tn,
Union. They nominated boiting ticket
'Throup, of Georgia, for President, anc
Quitman, for Vice Pres The movement
appeared to be formidable. but by the tim,
of the election it amounted to nothing. l
is no new thing for the fre-eatins Di>un
ionists to oppose the Democratic Nationa
organization. They have repeatedly don,
it in the last thirty years, but have neve
met with success. The solid and substan
tisi men of the Sputh are against them
They are Me foamnPon the waves of south
crn politics. Their connection with par
ty is more dangerous than their opposition