Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1861-01-30
-.r-- For the Daily State Sentinel.
Rev. Mr. Hall ARaiua


such quick succession that the mind is embar-
raised as to which to seize upon. We can not
hope ito follow the gentleman through the labyrinth
of falsehoods and Misrepresentation which he has
so dexterously woven, and must, therefore, con
tent ourself with the refutation and exposition of
some of his most salient points.
1t is difficult, sometimes, to precisely under
stand the reverend politician. In one breath
(page 81 he asserts that the trainers of the Con
stitution contemplated not the spread, but rather
the extrpaton of human bondage" and (page 10y
that they were careful not to recognize the insti
tuition of slavery. In the next breath (page I'D
he tells us that slavehoIding interests by special
favor, obtained an implied sanction by the Con-
stitution In the spirit of this instrument laws
were enacted carrying out its provisions. That
interest, thus protected and provided for, grew
strong and became insolent." Now, which of
these contradictory statements is true? Weleave
the gentleman to decide. If he chooses the former,
then we say to him that, if the trainers of this
Government contemplated the extrpation of
slavery, they took very poor way to show it, for
they provided in the Constitution not only for the
rendition of fugitive slaves, and thus threw the
shield of its protection slavery permanent
institution but the ninth section of the first art
Gle actually provides for the continuance of the
African slave trade until the year 1908. A very
strange mode, certainly of justifying their dislike
of slavery and their great desire for its extirpa-
toni The latter position of the reverend gentle
man is true. The Constitution recognizes, sane
tions provides for, and protects the institution of
African slavery, and is for this protection, guar
anteed to them by the Constitution, the South is
now contendng, and it is this protection, which
the gentleman admits the Constitution gives them,
that he and his Black Republican cOnfederates
deny to them, and which, sooner than surrender,
he is willing to sunder the bonds of this Union,
and engulf the country in the "frightful ravages
of intestine rar, We thank him for the unwill-
ing admission that, in this controversy, the South
has the Constitution on her side, and that he and
his party friends are arayed against that sacred
| instrument
We pass now to the galaxy of falsehoods con-
tanned in the eleventh page of this precious docu-
ment. The reverend politician asks the question,
what have we not done to pacify the South and
gain their good willY and answers in this way:
| "In 1903 we purchased for them largely, if not
exclusively. the Louisiana purchase, at cost of
$4,000, 600. In 1921, we again gave all they
asked adopting their own proposition and allow
| ing them to go to the limits prescribed by them
selves. In lS45, we annexed a State large
enough for empire all of which was given to
their control. In 1861, we carried on an ex-
|
to this territory In 1880 we legislated ourselves
into grand police force to assist them in recap
turing their fugitive slaves. In 1854, We took
down the limit established in 1891, and invited
them to 90 and possess the lands from which they
/ had been excluded"
Seldom we say it more in sorrow than in an
ger, seldom have we seen many falsehoods
crowded into small space. Does this man
know anything of the history of his country? Is
he L. ha
against light and knowledge? We bought the
Louisiana territory to pacify the South! That
will be news indeed to the reader of American
history Who is ice? Does this man not know
that when the United States buy property or ter
ritory il is paid for out of the common treasury,
by the money of the people South as well as
4 NORTH? Does he not know that the Louisiana
territory was paid for almost exclusively with the
money of the slave States, there being then only
two free States in the Union? Does he not know
that this territory was acquired not to pacly the
South, but to gain possession of the Mississippi
river and its mouths, and that the acquisition is
. as important to the free West as to the Soulful
Does he not know that out of this very territory
J purchased for the South three free States have
been carved out, and that three more free States
now Territories will shortly be admitted into the
Union? And yet this acquisition was for the ex
elusive benefit of the SOUTH If the gentleman
, knew these facts, how dare he get up before al
. intelligent audience and so belle the history o.
his country?
,, In 1921, he says, we again gave the South al
she asked, adopting their own proposition Wa
2 falsehood so glaring ever so unblushingly pu
forth before? Oh it takes a political parson Il
tell uhopper, from which the most hardenec
political sinner would shrink Why, this man
who sets himself up an instructor of the people
in political love, and keeper of therconsciences
is ignorant even of the year in which the Missouri
compromise, as it is generally called, was passed
The compromise passed in 1871 had references
alone to the clause in the Constitution of Mis-
E souri, in regard to the exclusion of free negroes
What politicians call the Missouri compromis,
was adopted in 1890. Missouri applied for ad
mission as a slave State. She part of thi
| very Louisiana purchase which the gentleman
saws was purchased for the South. Yet, for tn,
first time in the history of this Government
resistance made to her admission because sh
e recognized slavery in her Constitution. A Ion;
and angry debate ensued, and the matter wa
finally compromised by the passage of the Mis-
souri, compromise whereby slave territory wa
converted into free territory. 1t was brough
e forward by Northern men, and encountered tn
strenuous opposition of a very large portion o
the South. And yet this reverend politician Ia
. the audacity to say that Gin 1921 we again CAV
D all they asked, adopting their own propositionl
This brings us to the annexation of Texas, "Gl
OF which, ne says. was gwen 20 their COntrOi
Really it is difficult to calmly refute such sta:
: which every school boy in the country knows u
e be false Is this political parson really ignoran
of the fact that the Missouri compromise was ex
, tended over Texas, and that the resolutions o
annexation provided that out of the four States il
\ addition to the State of Texas to be carved ou
4 of the Territory, all north of SO deg. 80 min
q should be free States? Yet, he had the ASSURANCE
to proclaim from the pulpit that "au was given u
the control of the SOUTH
n In regard to the repeal of the Missouri compro
e mise in 1854, and the fugitive slave law in 1e5O
it is only necessary to say that the latter en-
acted in accordance with the Constitution of tn
United States, and does not legslate the people O
the North into grand police force for the recap
/ ture of fugitive slaves. That is simply fancifu
fight of his imagination. The repeal of tn
Missouri compromise was induced by the bad faitl
d of the gentleman's party, who were very anxiou
to apply it when it robbed the South of slave ter
ritory, but repudiated it when it was sought to b
: applied to free Territory. To both these meas
u ures his party made stern resistance.
:, As to the war with Mexico, every novice il
d politics knows that it was not undertaken for tn
!. benefit of the South, nor were such its results
: When the gentleman was summing upwhat eve
/ had done for the South, why did he forget to tel
e the benefits received by the North. Did he no
n know that this Mexican war brought the rio
possessions of California, standing in the Unto
to-day as free State, and pouring her rivers O
Re gold into thelap of the Union? Did he not kno,
If that the very soil he treads-hat this great Stat
with its fine rivers, majestic forests, beautiful
prairie, and rich SOIL is the gift of slave State
e Did he not know that six of these North-wester
e States, teemng now with the hum of industry
" and every year increasing in population an
wealth. forming in themselves vast empire, wer
freely given us by old Virginia2 If he did, whe
he was arraigning the South, why did he not Civ
her credit for this act of mulifcence? Supprcssi
N ueri, suggcstio faIsi, "The suppression of tn
ID truth is the suggestion of a falsehood."
4 But the most infamous portion of this discours
- is where this minister of the gospel this followe
: of the meek and lowly Jesus, actually recon
g mends civil war Yes, sooner than comprOmis,
% sooner thar give the South her rights sooner tina
d give slavery the protection which he admits til
Constitution guarantees, this minister of the 90:
pei of peace and good will to men, would preft
rs the horrors of Give years" civil war. SLAYER,
90 Il a..