Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1862-01-27
MISREPRESENTATION.

The Republican organ few days ago stated
that the resolutions of the Democratic State Con-
venton nowhere condemn the rebels" and this
charge is re-echoed by AL the satellites Of that
party Read the 9Th resolution of the platform
for complete refutation of this false allega-
ton:
1--WE are utterly opposed to the twin heresies,
Northern sectionalsm and Southern secession, as
inimical to the Constitution"
Again: from the same source it is charged that
the resolutions nowhere oppose the war" Read
the resolutions again. The sixth says:
THE maintenance of the Union upon the prin-
ciples of the Federal Constitution should be the
controlling object of all who profess loyalty to
the Government"
The tenth declares:
1--WE will sustain with all our energies a war
for the maintenance of the Constitution, and of
the integrity of the Union under the Constitution,
but are opposed to a for the emancipation
of the negroes, or the subiugation of the South
ern States"
The Journal is the organ of the Republican
party of Indiana, and we suppose reflects its SEN
timeats. The position announced in the platform
of the 9Th of January convention in the extracts
we have quoted is identically that which the
Journal has over and over again deliberately an
nounced as the objects and purposes for which
the war should be prosecuted. 1t not only takes
this position, but it declares that it would consent
to separation from the rebel States. On the
18th of November, 1850, it commenced series
of articles upon the disunion movements in the
South. and which it continued in the same spirit
for several months. In its issue of that date,
referring to "the parade of military organza-
tons, and forcble resistance" then making in
several OF the Southern States, it said:
They know very well that if they are deter
mined to leave the Union, no Republican will
care to have them stay. II South Carolina and
her associates in folly really want to leave the
Union, they can go without word of objection from
any man North of Mason and Dixon's line. We
would not turn our hand over to have them stay
if they must stay with the feeling of hostility and
distrust which they proclaim the only feeling
they can ever hold toward the North
We do not believe in resisting any secession moUe
ment in The least. Those who think the Union
too bad Tor them to endure, are just those the
Union can best do without. Let all go who want
to, we say. and let them go quietly"
We can produce large lumber Of extracts
from the same paper. after this date, and during
the winter following, of the same import, and
more strongly expressed On the Dist day of
last August, more than four months after hostil-
tiles had commenced, this same Journal said:
eve are not fighting to suojugate any body
but simply to resist an attempt by force of arms
to subvert our Government. If they (the
rebels) will Law down their arms and come now
to the nation for permission to SEPARATE we shall
again say YES" for ICE haze seen no reason to
change the uie,cs pe ADVOCATED last icinter"
This is the record of the Journal, speaking for
the Republican party of Indiana, print which is
daily charging disloyalty and treason upon all
who are not Abolition Republicans and who
solemnly declare that they are utterly opposed
to Southern secession" and twill sustain with all
their energies war for the maintenance
of the Constitution and of the integrity
of the Union, under the Constitution"
which the Republican organ says is the object of
the war. The Democratic Convention declared
that it was for maintaining the integrity of the
Union, under the Constitution, but the Journal,
before the war, willing that the Government
should be disrupted without resistance, and now
it is willing that the rebel States shall separate
from the balance If the rebels will lay down their
arms and ask permission to go.
Upon its own standard of judgment is not the
Journal guilty of disloyalty and treason 70 the
Government? The meanest Secessionist in the
rebel States is more honorable in comparison
EDIroR SENTINEL: Will you please republish
the following article for the sake Of the informa-
ton of the public. the cause o. truth aud history,
and much obIige A SuBscnIBER.
From the Cincinnati Enquirer
Would the south have Accepted the
Crittendcn Compromise--AnI Import
ant Page i'm POLITICAL History.
IsDIsNAPoLIs, July 80, 1861. I.
To the Editor Of the Enquirer;
/ have seen statement in the Enquirer, copied
Into the Sentinel, Of this city. that the Southern
secessionsts, repre<ected by their lea iers, Jef
ferson Davis aad Robert Toombs, were willing TO
take the Crittenden compromise last winter, and
save the Union. but the Republican Senators re-
fused to adopt the measure. and hence pres
ent troubles and disaster. This statement Is We
hemently denied by my Republican friends. They
say that the cotton States-headed by Davis and
Toombs--woud not take that compromise, and
that no proof can be given that they would Seve-
raj of them admit that If they lcontd haze taken IT,
terrible responsibility rests upon the Republi,
cans for refusing it. and they declare they will
never support the party hereafter if it can be
shown by documentary evidence. Can You give
me any additional particulars Of the sircumstan-
ces under which Mr.. Douglas bore the testimony
which you published in the Enquirer few days
since in reference to the willingness Of the South
TO take the Crittenden COMPROMISED
DEMOCRAT.
We have before us the Congressional Globe and
appendix for the session of 1860 and 1861. If
our correspondent win turn to the Congressional
Globe OF March IL, 1861. he will find in il a de
bate in the Senate Of March 2, upon the Corwn
resolution 10 amend the Constitution of the
United States In the course Of the debate,
Senator George T. Pugh said:
The Crittenden proposition has been indorsed
by the almost unanimous vote OF the Legislature