Daily State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1862-03-03
The TergiyersatiOns Of AbOiitiOnism

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 AbolitOniSm. Eight years ago there
Was visible disunion party in the North, outside
of the Garrison Abolitoni-ts, whose representa-
tive paper was the New York Tribune Ii was
at about that time that that paper published
series o. editorial articles seeking show, by
statistics, that the North would be the gamer, in
dollars and cents, by separation from the South
As late the middle of December. 1861 the
language OF Abolltlonism, uttered through the
New York Tribune was: Whenever "A consid-
cradle section OF the Union shall deliberately
solve to 20 out, We shall resist all cOerclye inca
sures designed to keep it in. We hope never 10
live in a Republic whereof one section is pinned
to another by bavOnets." Again: "lf the cot
ton States unitedly and earnestly wish to with
draw peacefully from the Union, think they
should and would be allowed to do So" And
again: "If the Declaration OF Independence jus
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 lS6l ?"
This, We say, was where AbOlitionism stood up
to the time OF Southern secession. And why had
Abolitionism stood thusg Because. by disSOlu-
ton, the free States would be released from their
constitutional obligations concerning slavery and
hindrance lt was n sudden deSertion by aboli-
tioniSm from this attitude after "a considerable
section of the Union" had deliberately resolved
Ia 20 out" From a peaceful dissolution party il
abruptly became coercion Union party. IL be-
came the vehement advocate of the doctrine that
no State had 4 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 ere fixed by the Constitution, and that
h.. oh.
amendment OF the Constitution IL was by this
doctrine that AbOlitionism justified the war and
insisted that it must be fought through. We do
not OF course give AbOlitOniSm credit for cenu-
ineness of conversion tO the true doctrine of the
Constitution. We shall presently show that there
was no genuineneSs about il. AbOlitonism be
came convert 10 the war because in the war il
/ thought il saw successful crusade against slave
ry. 1t thought it could better carry on this cru
SADIE under coercive policy to keep the South i'm
/ 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 rea-
| ton OF the States the Union were fixed bv
the Constitution. and that these relations could
not be changed except by amendment of the Con
stitutiOn Let Us now test the sincerity of this
advocacy. What is the present doctrine of Alb
/ OlItl0niSmI Ii Is that the rebelous States have
committed teIo de Se-that they are suicides
and that the lands of which they formerly con
sisted shall he organized into Territories without
regard to former State lines. The reader sees
how contrary doctrine this is to that suddenly
embraced by AbolitouiSm at the breaking out of
the rebellion. He sees how unconstitutional IL is
IT the other doctrine is the true doctrine of the
Constitution.
Abolitionism is consistent in but one thing, and
that Is IN its hatred 10 slavery. In every other
thing il l. Inconsistent In its pursuit of slavery
il makes ever, thing bend to that one object 1t
will embrace policy to day, and another and
directly opposite policy to morrow, as the one
or the other will better for the time subserve It's
single purpose lie i tor the Union or against
it. ~ Union or dissolution will enable il to strike
the hardest blow nj slavery.
1t this be a party which should be permitted to
live in the country, then why should not the
party of the other anlipode be permitted 10 live
alsol Is the one better than the other! Do
degrees OF latitude determine the degree OF guilt
OF traitors Is he more a traitor who would de
stroy the Union ia the interest Of slavery than he
Who would destroy II in the interest of abolition?
Is the question OF the existence or demolition of
slavery paramount to the question of the exist
ence or demolition of the UnionI-ChieaQo
Times