Daily State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1862-01-15

and this controversy. which has been carried on
for twenty year.. has been controversy on Their
side for the Constitution and the Uni0n an oa
tie other. % say Tie very lest. a Termination
Co deprive slavery Of every right which iagenuity
could take away from is constitutional guaran-
tees, and TO embarrass and render valueIess. by
personal liberty bills and otherwise IL enjoyment
Of those rights which no ingenuity could take
wholly away from IL.
In what respect can il be claimed that the
great. division Of parties for the past twenty
wears bad What Is called "a elimination in
the war; As If the two parties bad steadfastly
differed. until they finally took up arms, and pro-
ceeded 20 fght about their diHerencesi
The faliacy Of tire idea Is manifest from his
tory. The Democratic party. who were on the
constitutional side OF the controversy, are GER
tainly not the rebels More than this the rebel
lion was not begun for the defense Of Democrat.
ic principles. IL was the work of men who
avowed dizunion their object, and used anti
slavery rs their means Of rallying forces
Nor were Southern Democrats the side OF
the rebellion Virginia would not joint. North
Carolina would not join H. Tennessee weuid not
join il. South Carolina was the only State In the
South where there is any reason 70 believe there
was a majority in favor Of dis1nion one year ago.
There were more SOutherners and advocates OF
slavery in the South wear ago who we're opposed
TO the rebellion than who favored H. IL has been
stated hundred times by every Northern paper.
and no one doubts il, that Slavery" was actually
in majority, for the Union. 1t is hardly worth
while in the face Of that fact. 10 call the rebel
lion Continuation of the controversy of the
past twenty years
q Let any man carry himself back 70 the position
one year ago, and ask i the rebellion now in pro
gress the elimination of party differences? Nil.
lions of shareholders we're then standing up for
the Union. They warned the nation that among
the Southern people were disunionists who gained
strength out Of Northern fanaticisms. They be-
sought the North for help against rebellion in
tones that VIII ring with melancholy cadence
down the future ages of our national life. They
pleaded with the Northern States in terms that
might have moved the hearts Of rocks. To send
them assurances that the Constitution would be
upheld, and Southern rights respected. Did Mas
sachusetts repiyl Did New York replyG What
were their replies!
They asked arguments with which 10 save the
4 South from the wiles Of the disunionists They
said. "Repesl your personal liberty bills do any
thing by which we can prove that Won are not the
fanatics these disuniOnists among Us say that you
are"
Were those men, the large majority of the
Southern shareholders, the men who had been
active for years IN the controversy OF which the
World speaks. were these men rebels. and was
the rebellion they seeking TO quell the "cul.
mination' of their side of the controversy? The
idea Is untenable. and history will not accept IL
We look back ut the Peace Convention of last
spring with indescribable sorrow. There were in
il good true Southern men. ready to sacrifice lite
property. anything for the Union, who begged
with tears tor some help against the disunionists
among them at the South. There were men
there from the North. who scoffed at their tears,
derided their forebodings, had engagements in
court, when the final vote TO save or SINK the
Union came on; and perhaps we ought not to be
surprised II Northern members of that COnven-
ton are now found circulating petitions for uni
versa emancipation. and teaching that the Con
stituton is already dissolved
Here is the point where the historical connec
ton fails The men of the South who helped to
annex Texas. To repeal the Missouri Compro
mise to do all the other acts that are charged ON
slavery, were opposed in majority, TO the rebel
lion, and were only sencei by the vigor Of a
minority Now what becomes of the sequence
of events? Ii Is plain that all the events and
charged had no necessary effect in producing re
belliOn that they did not grow to rebellion. nor
were they the seed, or the stem, from which il
sprung; and it is equally plain that the support
ers of slavery were not even in majority. for re
bellion. What then has become of the argument
that slavery is responsible for the rebellionl
Ii is. perhaps. vain TO attempt the conversion
of any man from his views on this subject which
have been formed during these trying times
We, all of Us, think quickly, but We think strong
y, and find it difficult to get rid of ideas once
formed
But to our minds. IT is the height Of injustice
to charge on the Democratic party that its prnci
pies have eliminated in this rebellion. when the
truth stares us in the face that for wears North
ern party denounced the Constitutions and de
manded its overthrow, and Democratic principles
North and South, have been sternly set against
that party.
We have said, and we repeat, that the rebellion
is the child of sin. But that it was begotten oil
Abolitionism. nursed by Aboiitionism, educated
fed clothed. aud at last turned loose the world
by Aboltionsm to perform its horrible miss on
is truth that is written OH its very visage. W,
fear the child will not be removed to deserved
DEATH till its father and its nurses. from whom il
derives its chief support to day, are either re
moved or converted into loyal constitutional
citzens.-N. Y. Journal Of Commerce