Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1861-08-28
WEEKLY SENTINEL.



had advocated similar views to those expressed
by the Cincinnati Press. which subjoin.
amiable neighbors Of the indianapolis Journal
would have pronounced them reasonable.
While not asserting dissenting from the
doctrines and arguments of the Press, We repro
duce them as eminently worthy of consideration.
and as thoughts worthy of the times and the cri-
sis of the country We differ with the Press,
and our Republican friends who think with it,
as to the value of the Union to the people of the
North We believe that the Union, as it has
been, is of incalculabIe advantage to all sections
of the country, as much to the North as to the
South. and for that reason have done all in
our power to perpetuate and cement it. What
has been the policy Of England and the secret of
her success-the agencies by which she has OBJ
tanned power, wealth and greatnessI 1t hasbeen
her commercial polcy-the furnishing of markets
for the enterprise and industry of her people. The
Interstate free trade of our own country has been
the secret Of our rapid advancement in all the
elements of national greatness. Shall we sacri-
fee this policy and consent to a disunion-a sepa-
ration which will deprive US Of the advantages
of free trade where the reciprocal benefits are so
obvious? For these reasons we have advocated
Union and opposed disunion, in opposition to the
arguments advanced by the indianapolis Journal,
the Cincinnati Press and a large number of the
Republican papers in favor of division, sepa-
ration Of the Confederacy into rival Governments
with opposite and contending interests. Not
withstanding such are our views to the true
policy of the Government, willing that
those who favor an opposite policy shall be heard
and their arguments duly considered. For these
reasons we present the following extract from an
article in the Cincinnati Press in favor of divi
sion of the Confederacy as the true policy of the
North:
Whether il is best for the North mt the close of
the war i'm which it is engaged with the South, to
be in a state of separation from it, or To be re-
stored to the old political unity, is question up
on which, in this country of tree speech, a free
press, and free institutions, difference of opin-
ion, sufficient, at least for safe discussion, ought
to be allowed. Ii is an important question, and
one upon which there may be fairly two sides.
If there are reasons upon the one hand, there are
certainly reasons upon the other. The logic is
surely not all upon the side of unity; and if one
newspaper among the many thousands with which
this community is afflicted, should happen to set
forth the ide, that there are things worse to be
dreaded than diSunity, it ought, at least, ID be
permitted to say its say, upon the ground that
being in a minority so terrible, there plenty
of antidOtes for all the poison it will be able to
dispense.
We hold that the fact that the South desires to
be released-it il does desire to be released
from all political connection with the North, does
not of itself supply sufficient ground for the
North to refuse. 1t may be, in general, good
diplomacy-it is, certainly, the most common of
any-for people, State, to deny, simply be
cause another State or people requests; but it
would be unwise to make such rule universal
Suppose that the South demands to be set free;
admitting that this demand furnishes no reason
for compliance, it certainly should furnish no
reason against it,
If we are in favor of secession, as some people
ridiculously phrase it, or of division ofthe Union,
it is because we believe it to be for the interest of
the North Its simply question of interest, of
home interest-the highest of all interests-that
which relates to ourselves, our friends, the people
among whom we live, the society to which we
belong We utterly refuse to take into conside
ration the interests of the South, or its concep-
tons of interest; or its feelings or desires. We,
the people of the North, are in a condition now,
in which, irrespective of all past compacts or OBJ
legations we have the right to think and act orr
in proportion as we shall do so, solemnly, fairly,
Justly and judiciousy, will the result be good or
evil. The South may or may not be released
from all obligations to US; but surely we are re-
leased from all obligations to her. She has set us
free and given the title to consider and decide
upon the relations which we are to hold to her in
future, the same as if no relation ever before ex
listed.
We were accustomed before secession be-
gan, 70 discuss the effects of division of the
Union upon the South, showing the miserable
consequences that would accrue to her from such
an event. We have done considering that branch
of the subject. We dispense also with all ques
ton as to the right of secession and the right of
revolution They are obsolete. Their signif-
canoe is past. They not facts. We, the peo-
pie of the North, are ere long to learn that the
Management of the facts of our case. will afford
us all the occupation that we desire. Whether
the civil war in which we are engaged is for a
restoration of the Union, or for a separate
independence, it will furnish with full EN-
plOyment. Ii is not the part of wise men to
take too much upon their shoulders at once.
The fact that with one hundred thousand men
in the field, and with especial attention
given to that point, the seat of the National Gov
eminent is threatened the facts in Virginia in
Missouri, in Maryland and the coming facts in
Kentucky, all indicate the possibility that too
large contract may be undertaken They at
least suggest the question whether, suppose the
South can be conquered and subdued. we want il
for political cOpartner afterwards. We suspect
that it would be an uncomfortable one. So far
a we can remember, il has always been We
do not certainly know that war, conquest and
subsection will kindle new love for Us in its be-
som The daIliance of armies, the social en-
counters of battles, the pleasant memories of
slaughtered men and burned homes, and desolate
cities and devastated fields are not the events by
which friendships formed and consolidated.
For future unity and amity, we are taking
course such as men never pursued before since
the foundation of the world.
We deny that the Union is rightly the nara
mount idea at this criss There is something
higher, better, nobler more worthy of effort and
sacrifice than that: honor peace and independ-
ence We prefer the honor, peace independence,
TO the unity. If unity Is tie paramount idea,
there is no escaping the conclusion that the
course we are pursuing is the most idle, unwise,
ill-suited and fanatical that was ever devised.
Talk of conquerng, beating, subduing. harrow
ing people into state of peace, amity, politi-
cal unity and republican equality with ourselves!
were there ever such means proposed for th e
production of such endl
If the Union is rightly the paramount idea,
then the difference between those who urge war
and those who advocate compromise for its sake
is simply a formal one. The Unionst BY cDer-
cion to-day, finding his coercion neiieciual, will,
must, of necessity, become Unionist by com
promise to morrow. He has nowhere else to go.
Now, for ourselves-and this explains our posi-
tion-we prefer no Union to an Union established
upOnc-Oncessions 10 the South.
ssSecession and CoerciOn.-
Our very amiable friend, the editor Of the In
dianapoIis Journal. begs off from personal con-