Arkansas true Democrat., 1860-10-13
ua4srsasss:x,zau
The Union Guard.

thfougnont Arkansas, anu any one who has heard Bell and Everett speech, made up fdennnciations of the democratic party and islanders of the best and purest patriots and statesmen of the South, know without reading the Guard the character of its maudlin politics In the number before us-sept. 27th--the leading article is "The true issue: union or disunion" It is an elaborate attempt to prove batch of false- hoods. Every assumption is incorrect.- Without argument, without facts, without pretext, it is series of blundering sophisms shallow in conception and disgusting in execution. Here is the first assertion:
 "The Breckinridge organs and orators in the South, and the advocates of Lincoln at the North are keeping up an incessant din and chatter upon thesavery question if it the practical issue .a the pending contest. Y lheq hare a common obect-the dissolution of the Union."
 In the first place the question of slavery is a practical issue''-a cital issue for the South-if not why oppose the election of Lincoln? If the question has no vitalay the election of Lincoln would be desira- ble result--it would prove the question defunct and stop the agitation forever. In the second place it is grossly. wilfully, ma liciously false that either the Lineolnites or the advocates of Breckinridge desire "the dissolution of the Union.n D. The palpable, avowed, and manifest purpose of the black republicans is-to suLjugate the South, to circumscribe slave territory, to foist upon the cotton growing States, with the aid of the Bell men, a protective tariff, scarcely less odious than slavery restriction, and to do all this in Me Union
 On the other hand the objects of the state- rights democracy, of which ohn c. Breels- inridge is just now the standard bearer, are to counteract these unwaIrantable infringe ments on the constitution and the rights of the South threatened by the black republi- cans, the advocates of Bell and the squat terites of Douglas, to preserve the immuni- ties of every section intact, and to keep the ship of State true to its lofty destiny - This they propose to do io the Union--un- der the broad aegis of constitution that guarantees the rights of mnorites, and in accordance with strict democratic princi- pies. Why then pervert the truth as the Union Guard has done, and as every lii-1733e, would-be-union orator attempts to do?
 "The only issue now to be determined, the only issue that should be recognized by the prople is union or disunion. Upon this alone mast the result be decided. .''-Lnion Guard.
 We suppose, if this prophet be correct, that the election of either Breckinridge or Douglas will be construed into desire to dissolve the Union. Ifsuch an unexpected and wonderful event should happen as that the three other candidates combinel should getsnore votes than Mr. Bell solus, then by the above logic majority of the people of the United States are disunionists, and all the patriotism, all the wisdom, and all the potentiality of the republic will have pass ed away like a summers dream. This sounds like supelcilious arrogance, but we will be charitable enough to attribute it to an ignorance not less amusing than stupid. The idea of the Union p-a-r-t-y, composed of the debris of know nottingham, with a very few old line whigs as the fossil frame work of the patched-up skeleton, contain ing all the patriotism, brains and purity in the land, would be, fl true, the saddest com mentary on our beautiful system of govern ment, and a striking illustration of the adage of the narchists-'' Republics do not honor genius s''-for nothing can excel in diminishing ratio the attenuated states manship of the sham concern, except the exceedingly small quantum ofrespect which it commands. It claims to be the pany- the only national party to bear with it whether successful or defeated the ark of political safety, and yet, strange as it may appear after such egregious self conceit, the party does not contain within it's ampze folds half a dozen men of respectable states manship. What did Bell or Everett ever do, or suggest, to entitle them to the con fidence of. the people? The first is an old politician with dubious record, covered up in voluminous speeches, which no one ever read; and the other is a Fourth of July orator, whose splendid rhetoric has been exhausted in the decoration of common place ideas and threadbare aphorisms. It was happy conception to place them in the van of a rabble of bell-ringers, so that, like grey-beard kings in second childhood, they may imagine themselves for tran sient moment sceptred and regal in their crownless dotage, and mistake the tintinna- bulatons of their giddy followers for the triumphal shouts of grateful subjects. The grand old Lear was ''every inch king great even in his desolation-but Shaks- peare never anticipated the time, when in the new world, his immortal drama would be successfully burlesqued by the mimic aspirants in the presidential farce, played by the Union shriekers.
 His (Bell's) election will paralyze the demon of dsunion and drive sectionalism bowling back to the hell in which it was begotten. It will pour oil upon the troubled waters and still the storm that menaces with destruction the temple of liberty our fathers had cemented with their blood."-Un- ion Guard.
 This is a fair specimen of the sophomo- rical arguments of the Bell-Everites. How will his election $ drive sectionalism" from the country? How will it still the storm? What specific measure, what reasonable remedy is proposed? Is it the part of statesmanship to grope about in darkness?