Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1862-03-03
The Regeneration. of Abolitlonism

We have hitherto shown that the doctrine of
the right of State TO secede from the Union is
of New England origin. Up to about the time
of Southern secession this doctrine was held by
Northern Abolitionism Eight years ago there
was visible dsunion party in the North, outside
of the Garrison AbOliti0nists, whose representa-
tive paper the New York Tribune 1t was
at about that time that that paper published
series of editorial articles seeking to show, by
statistics, that the North would be the gamer, in
dollars and cents by separation from the South.
AS late as the middle of December, 1861, the
language of Abolitonism, uttered through the
New u rk Tribune, was: Whenever IA cOnsid-
cradle section of the Union shall deliberately re-
solve to go out, we shall resist all coercive mea
sures designed to keep it in. We hope never 20
live in a Republic whereof one section is pinned
to another by bayonets." Again: "If the cot
ton States unitedly and earnestly wish to with
draw peacefully from the Union, we think they
should and would be allowed to do So" And
again: elf the Declaration of Independence jns-
titled the secession from the British Empire of
three millions of colonists in l776, we do not see
why it would not justify the secession of five
millions of SOuthrOns from the Union in 1861. "
This, we say, was where Abolitionism stood up
to the time OF Southern secession. And why had
AbolitiOnism stood thus? Because. by disSolu-
ton, the free States would be released from their
constitutional obligations concerning slavery and
could thereafter make war upon slavery without
hindrance. 1t was a sudden desertion by aboli-
tionism from this attitude after ga considerable
section of the Union" had deliberately resolved
to go out" From peaceful dissolution party it
abruptly became coercion Union party. 1t be-
came the vehement advocate of the doctrine that
no State had a right to secede and that the Fed
eral Government had no right to permit State
to secede-that the relations of the States to the
Union were fixed by the Constitution, and that
those relations could not he changed except by
amendment of the Constitution 1t was by this
doctrine that AbOhtionsm justified the and
insisted that it must be fought through. We do
not of course give Abolitionism credit for genu-
ineness of conversion to the true doctrine of the
Constitution. We shall presently show that there
was no commences about il. Abolitionism be-
came convert to the war because in the war it
thought it saw successful crusade against slave
nv. Ii thought it could better carry on this cru
SADIE under a coercive policy to keep the South in
the Union than under any prabable policy after
the South had gone peacefully out of the Union
That this was its animating motive the sequel
has proved.
We have said that when Southern secession
had occurred Abolitionism suddenly became the
vehement advocate of the doctrine that the rela-
ton of the States 10 the Union were fixed by
the Constitution, and that these relations could
not be changed except by amendment of the Con-
stituton. Let now test the sincerity of this
advocacy. What is the present doctrine of Alb
olitionism? 1t is that the rebelious States have
committed felo de Se-that they are suicides
and that the lands of which they formerly con-
sisted shall be organized into Territories without
regard to former State lines. The reader sees
how contrary doctrine this is to that suddenly
embraced by AbOlitOnism at the breaking out of
the rebellion. He sees how unconstitutional it is
if the other doctrine is the true doctrine of the
Constitution.
Abolitionism is consistent in but one thing, and
that IS in its hatred to slavery. In every other
thing it is Inconsistent In its pursuit of slavery
it makes every thing bend to that one object 1t
will embrace one policy to day, and another and
a directly opposite policy to morrow, as the one
or the other will better, for the time subserve its
single purpose. 1t is for the Union or against
it, as Union or dissolution will enable it to strike
the hardest blow at slavery.
If this be party which should be permitted to
live in the country, then why should not the
party Of the other antipode be permitted to live
alsoY is the one better than the other? Do
degrees of latitude determine the degree of guilt
of traitorsl Is he mote a traitor who would de
stroy the Union in the interest of slavery than he
who would destroy it in the interest of abotionY
Is the question of the existence or demolition of
slavery paramount to the question of the exist
ence or demolition of the Union?-ChicagO
Times