Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1849-07-19

we cOhUnde our exposure OF tie errors OF lne Otate
Journal, as contained in an article of July %. The
Journal observes, referring TO the sentiments Of the
Nicholson letter, that
The attempt made By the Sentinel to get out OF the
dilemma. places one Of The Editors Of that paper in a very
beautiful CONDITION. lie was a delegate to the Baltimore
Convention. and voted fr the nomination Of Gen. Cass ON
every ballot that was given. Can IL be said that he did not
know Gen Cass's opinion on the slavery question ? The
plea 81 ignorance, certainly, will not be put 10 to relieve
bhn fiom the difficulty in which he has placed himself."
Now this comes with a very bad grace from the
Journal, in view IF the fact, that its own responsible
editor was a delegate to the ''slaughter-housc 4" con
vention at Philadelphia, and much against his own
will was forced into the nomination of Taylor! Can
it be supposed hat he did not know the opinions and the
practices Of Taylor in regard to slavery H. cannot
put in a plea of ignorance, certainly. He wsnt it
blind, with has eyes open! He had already, by de-
claratiohs through tie Journal, showed that be agreed
with Webster, that ''the nomination of Taylor was
no, fiji 10 be mede;' and we know that be hin sci
nominated McLane, for the same reason. We are
ready 10 compare notes with Mr.. Defrees upon this
subject, in ererg particular. IF one of our editors
appears to have been Inconsistent, the editor Of the
Journal is in a thousand times worse predicament.
He had better be careful how lie throws stones at US
His conscience must convince him of this.
Our editor did just what he would do again, under
the same circumstances. The nomination of Gen.
Cass, like that of Taylor, was a +" ~foregone conclu-
sion.' No one man could have prevented it, had he
desired. All that remained to be accomplished, was
TO keep the party right on The question Of Slavery.
That was more important than even the election of
any man. upon il-deGned or wrong issues. Our edi-
tor did all that one man, of his limited capacity and
influence could do, to accomplish the more important
point. He therefore made personal preferences sub
ordinate TO this end. He looked TO something beyond
a mere hope of temporary success. He thought it
was really better for his party to BE- right, than to
attain the nominal possession of the Presidency for a
single term! Can the Journal comprehend thisi If
not, we can talk more plainly.
We supported Gen. Cass both in the convention and
afterwards, upon the principles recognized and defined
by the Baltimore Platform, and upon no other Upon
the same basis we should have aided in sustaining
him had he been elected. As to measures not settled
by that declaration, we should have been guided by
The rule of right, according to our own judgment.
We said before the election, that we were i" for Cass
and free soil - and we never had an idea of changing
that position. Can the editor of the Journal say as
much!
There is a homely old saying, that ga lie well
stuck to is as good as the TRUTH" and we are
sorry to confess, that there is too much truth in it as
regards politics. Perhaps it is because of u reliance
upon it, that the Journal, varying its language only,
repeats a statement which we have already comment
ed upon. 1t says
"Duling the canvass Immediately following the nominal
olutnn, not a single Democratic paper nor a single Dem
ocratic elector, within our knowledge, failed TO defend
General Cass's Nicholson letter against the attacks made
upon il by the supporters of General Taylor. If there be
one single Democratic paper, or a single eectOr that de-
nOunced that letter, we should like to have Them named.
Phey cannot be found. The Washington Union, in almost
every number, told its readers that Gen. CaSs would veto the
WiImot Pioviso, and that Gen. Taylor would sign il. We
extract the following from that paper:
At all events we are happy to understand BY private let
ter that General Cass frmly stands the ground which he has
taken. Being applied to formally by a man or two of the
his Nicholson letter and To- the Baltimore plat form and that
If elected PreSidsat he rOuld rdo the Wiimot PrOuiso. Dare
Gen. Taylor make such a statement
=" Here il an assurance made By an authority which cannot
be disputed, that Gen. Cass adhered 10 his Nicholson Latter
aud to the B ,liim' re pla form.' His Nicholson letter and
the Baltimore platform, on the slavery question, were re-
gaTded by him and by his supporters as IDENTICAL
As t. tire Electors. how does the Journal know any
thing about their speeches, except by guessa Did it
ever see one in print! Very few, if any. we i'm
agine. Such speeches, as every sensible man knows,
are generally modified to suit localities differing in
sentiment. Every one who heard the speeches of
whig electors. remembers this very well. They are
VI u IAttiC u(CouIlt ouy way
But newspapers are of rather more importance.
What does the Journal mean by - Democratic papers,"
in this connection Does it include or exclude all
those papers in New York, Pennsylvania, and else
where, which either maintained complete silence on
the Nicholson letter positions,-o which supporting
ICaSs, protested against those positions,-or which
repudiated Cass and supported Van Buren, because Of
theml
Not having all q demo ncea" the letter, the Journal
would gladly have US suppose that they all approved
of it! Could " denunciation " have been reasonably
expected? There were supposed TO be some other
matters in issue besides the slavery question, both by
wings and democrats, and the doctrines of the Mich
olson letter, and The practical slayeholding notions of
Taylor, were not generally denounced - by their
supporters, in the free States, for reasons which must
be plain enough to every man of common sense. The
folly of this plea of the Journal must be apparent to
every body but itself. But the Washington q Union,"
not in every number. but once, affirmed that Cass
would veto the Wilmot p~roviso, if he had a chance.
Yes, aud the Journal, and hundreds of other wing
papers seized upon that declaration as a devil send.
Il was legitimate capital for them and gained them
thousands Of votes in the free States. Yet the decla-
ration was made sDiihoat authority, as we have rea-
son for believing. and the Union" took back or
modified the statement, Immediately after it was
made.
To all the " documentary evidence" thus adduced
by the Journal, it adds a resolution of a single county
convention in this State of an hundred counties, pro-
nouncing in favNr of "a non-intervention - But it
Immediately admits, that
"When the sh Of January convention assembled, il was
determined 10 change front on This question. for the pur-
u poson ~ unsffnr NTH haa uh ratau nmf ufngt a. frnsf Con