Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1849-07-12
8. Errors of The State JournaI.,,--No. 2.

Under the above head. in our paper of June 81,
(semi-weekly,) We copied in full, and commented
upon an article of the State journal of June %, the
design Of which article was, to make i, appear that
during the last Presidential canvass, the democratic
party was in favor of the extension of slavery, and
denied the power of congress to legislate at all upon
the subject.
We demonstrated the untruth of the statements
and assumptions of the Journal, by appealing to the
records of the last Baltimore convention, and to other
well established facts. The Journal was afraid to
copy these responses and facts, and does not dare even
to allude to them. But after a weeks preparation, it
merely ~reiterates its former untrue statements, which
it endeavors to fortify by extracts from The Nicholson
letter. and by other extracts of similar character,
which we shall notice in detail, hereafter.
The Journal renews it's labors by impu,ing to US a
lack Of courtesy, thus:
"Wheuever a proposition cannot be fairly met by facts
untrue erroneous and, not unfIequently, the harsher
term. falsehood-is applied as an answer to the proposition.
How far this mode of conducting a controversy may be sat-
isfactoty TO the honest cpouirer after Truth. we shall not s,op
TO determine. Our n%eighbors OF the Sentinel are peculiar
" addicted to this mode Of reply, as is shown by their paper
Our previous reply to the Journal affords no just
ground for such an imputation as this. We did not
% hWC vim WI" !" O0 guy hhuh
certain of the Journals tatements were untrue and
erroneous, but we did not even intimate that they
were intentionally so. We supposed, indeed, that
The Journal had been misled by ignorance, prejudice,
and by the false statements of others and we are
sorry that we can no longer continue of that belief.
We mean, while we are courteous TO opponents, to
write SO that the people can understand us; and if
the plain language of truth and honesty be offensive
to any, it is not our fault. If, therefore, we should
now use harsher language than before, we shall do
so because we consider the Journal more cuIpable for
this second. than for its first offence. 1t has siUned
against greater light, and it mus, endure the conse-
quences of its SHINING.
The entire tone of The present article, if not that
of its first article also, demonstrates the insincerity
or the State Journal, upon this whole question of
slavery, and shows that It's conductors occupy a posi-
ton similar to that of those who attempted to subsi-
die Mr.. eravens, the Free Soil candidate for Gov
ernOr. II they were sincere in their professions Of
hostility to Southern aCgressions, would they or could
they attempt TO Pardlyze the evident tendency of The
public mind among US, to cut loose from Southern
dictation! No matter how derelict the Democratic
party may have been in time past,-even if oil that
the Journal alleges, were irue,-nolc, that it has
taken ground for freedom, as the Journal half admits,
why should it be asssilcd by charges of past trans
gressions! Why, on the other hand. should it not
be encouraged in present we'll doing, instead Of being
tainted with the commission of errors in times gone
by! Why cannot the Journal enlarge its charity
enough to forgive sins repented of! Why cannot it
expand its grasp sufficiently wide upon this question
to take in all the People Of the West who begin to feel
upon their own limbs The CALLING shackles of Southern
C1---- ITL. -o1- - - -~. H. :. -
dom's favor. instead of joining in the effort to place
the West in the position of MANHOOD Can there
be any other honest answer to these questions, than
simply this: tha, the Journal regards the spoas of
governmental administration, as of infinitely more
consequence than the issues of freedom, of slavery,
or Of any thing else!
But, responds the Journal, the Democratic party is
insincere in its present professions. notwithstanding
its latest State, and Congressional, and county con-
ventions have, with almost unexampled unanimity,
passed strong resolutions in favor Of freedom, and
that too. as acknowledged, and established, and re-
~cognized by la1!
Insincere! What object could the Democratic party
have in being thus insincere! Has it the control of
the National patronage to dispense as rewards to
hypocritical leaders Could any thing be spared by
the hungry hordes of Wing office-seekers, for the re-
ward of such ~treachery and insincerity on the part of
Democrats! Could we, on the other hand, gain any
thing at home in the way Of popular appreciation and
popular strength! If the Journal ever asks itself an
honest question, and answers c~andidly, it will have
no difficulty in answering every one of these in favor
of the Democratic party.
We will not do such gross injustice to the mass of
the Wing party. as the Journal seems willing to in
hict upon the Democrats for General Taylor's benefit.
We believe that the great mass Of the Wings are
opposed to slavery extension, as sincerely as we are.
But they. as well as we. know full well the force of
party drill and party utilization. They know, that if
men be elected to Office without declaring their prin-
ciples. and without pledges, express or implied, they
will naturally be oyerruled by the active, the shrewd,
and the designing. They cannot therefore but be sure,
that if they elect men to Congress without pledging
them against slavery, they will re-enact the notable
per formances of Gale Smith and Dick Thompson, and
acknowledge allegiance TO Moloch.
The Journal itself is a confessed example of this
hagitious character. Who, in contemplating its pre-
sent. course, would believe, if they did not know it,
that it once declared, that a regard for Wing princi-
pies forbade the nomination of Taylor 1t now ad-
mits that the Cabinet have perpetrated wrongful nets,
but il excuses them, instead Of endeavoring to have
them corrected. Just so it will be, if a majority of
Congress shall devote the new territories to slavery.
In that event, We shall find the Journal ~iustifying
Taylor's approval of such a law. on the ground that
he promised to veto no act of Congress, good or bad!
We have said, and we repeat it, that The Demo-
cratic party aud its candidates in this State, are now
fully and fairly committed on this subject, by the res
olutions Of their State and Distric, Conventions, and
by the adherence of their candidates to the doctrines
Of those resolutions. On the other hand, the last