Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1862-09-29
The Journals Dilemma.

The Journal is exceedingly troubled over the
reproduction of the sentiments it expressed
during the fall of 1860 and the winter of 1861
81. in favor of separation of the States, rather
than suffer the evils of civil war. The extracts
We published from that print were not garbled or
distorted, it alleges in its issue OF yesterday,
but fairly represented the views it advocated
with great earnestness and zeal Neither did we
charge that tine Republicans generally were
engaged IN 4 conspiracy to dissolve the Union,
but that from the evidence we produced there
could be no reasonable doubt but that leaders in
that party were in favor of letting the Southern
States depart in pence rather than to attempt to
coerce them to remain in the Union. Such we're
the sentiments unequivocally expressed by the
Journal, the prOfessed representative of the
Republican party of Indiana. And the Journal
yet adheres to them. In its issue of yester
day it says: These views, fairly expressed,
commend themselves to the practical good sense
of the country" We gave the Journals own
expression of them fairly in tie extracts we
made from il, and now in reaffirming them it
says they commend themselves to the good
sense of the country" Certainly this is an I'M
equivocal Endorsement of its disunion sentiments
and sympathies.
But let look at the logic of the Journal
little in its silly attempt to evade the response
bility Of its deliberately expressed views in favor
of letting the States that desired to leave the
Union 60 in peace. 1t says:
"lst. That as the quotations are made and
used the makers lie and know it," and
18th. These views, fairly expressed, commend
themselves TO the practical good sense of the
country"
And to give it the full benefit of its effort to
evade the crushing effect of its own declarations,
we quote still further:
We said: eff the seeded States which had not
then made war, would come to the Union and
ask permission TO leave, thus acknowledging the
right OF the Union 10 hold them if deemed wise
70 do so. we, for one, would vote to give them
the permission. rather than begin a war to keep
them in" This is all we ever believed or said
of the policy ofletting the rebel States go.
In the first place. we challenge the Journal to
show wherein We have misrepresented or per
verted It's sentiments in the quotations we made
from IT, II we had bad the space we should have
preferred to have given the articles entire that we
quoted from. for they would have made its posi-
ton in favor of division, rather than the alterna
tive of civil war; much stronger than the extracts
we gave
Now for few brief quotations from the
Journal to refute. TO snnihilate in fact its own
Interpretation of its position during the fall and
winter of ls60-6l. which it says was:
eff the seeded States who had not then made
war would come to the Union and ask permission
20 leave" &c
We quote from its own columns
Let the two OF three, or four States which are
bent on disunion go out and 60 to ruin. They
solicit their peril, and we are willing they should
experience its virtues.-Nor. 10, 1860.
Nothing there about "asking permission to
leave"
Again:
They know very well that If they are deter
mined to leave the Union, no Republican oiH care
20 ha1e tten stay. A Union preserved only by
intimidation and force Is a mockery, and IL is
better broken than rhoie. If South Carolina and
her associates in folly really want to leave the
Union, they can 90 without word Of objection