Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1862-01-20
INDIANAPOLIS, ND, MONDAY
The war not the CuimInatfon of the
Political Differences OF the Past


Political Differences OF the Past
Twenty Years. fst t.tf
We replied yesterday to the latter part Of the
Worlds remarks By answering their request 10
state what were in our opinion, the causes of the
war. We did not intend to avoid distinct re-
ply to their argument, designed 20 show that
slavery was the responsible cause, but we reserved
such reply and propose TO make il now. III is
deserving Of careful attention, for not only our
cotemporary, but many others have been mis-
led by this error. which mistakes mere success.
sion Of events for logical sequence OF cause and
effect
The proposition is that "the rebellion is the
elimination OF controversy which commenced
most without interruption down 20 the Inaugural
ton of President Lincoln" OF this proposition
the World asks the Journal ssto make either an
explicit admission or an explicit denial"
We deny II explicitly. The rebellion is but an
event occurring in the course of years after the
various events in the great controversy between
the Democratic party and their opponents. That
controversy was national in Maine as strong as in
Louisiana. To charge that the elimination of
that controversy is the present war, is TO charge
the rebellion on the Democratic party, and TO
make rs hosts, who have been the immense ma
j0rity in many parts of the North as well as the
this revolt, which was accomplished by handful
Of designing men, aided in getting up rebellion
by furious party in the North whose very
motto was that the Union was q compact with
hell.
The men who we're in what the World calls
the interest of slavery" were. throughout this
controversy, the defenders of the Constitution
against the assaults of its enemies. Had they
succeeded in controlling the nation. the rebellion
would never have been heard of, except as it had
been for forty years, in Northern anti-savery
meetings thinly attended, and in southern Rights
conventions which were hardly esteemed worth
reporting. ff
IL is favorite way Of avoiding the effect of
this view, to charge that the Democratic party
we're working for slavery. The charge is false,
as the world now knows. The Democratic party
found that slavery had constitutional rights. If
Northern fanatics had never attacked those
rights, il would never have become necessary to
select them out from other constitutional provi-
sons for especial defense aud support There
were other constitutional rights which all men
conceded, and no man attacked. If party had
been raised TO attack the right of trial by jury,
or to claim for States sovereign powers delega-
ted to tae General Government by the Constitu-
ton, or to urge any other opposition to that in
strument, either the Democratic party, some
other party, would have risen TO the defense Of
the Constitution. The constitutional rights of
the slave owner, as il happened. were selected for
special attack, and. true to their ancient prnci-
pies, the Democrats stood by the Constitutions
and this controversy which has been carried on
for twenty years, has been a controversy on their
side for the Constitution and the Union, and on
the other, to say the very least. determination
to deprive slavery of every right which ingenuity
could take away from its constitutional guaran-
tees, and to embarrass and render valueless, by
personal liberty bills and otherwise its enjoy ment
of those rights which no ingenuity could take
wholly away from it.
In what respect can it be claimed that the
great division of parties for the past twenty
years had what is called "a elimination - in
the war2 As if the two parties had steadfastly
differed, until they finally took UP arms and pro-
ceeded to fight about their differences
The fallacy of the idea is manifest from his
tory. The Democratic party, who were on the
constitutions! side of the controversy, are cer
tainly not the rebels. More than this the rebel
lion was not begun for the defense of Democrat
ic principles. Ii was the work Of men who
svowed disunion as their object, and used anti
slavery as their means of rallying forces.
Nor were Southern Democrats on the side Of
the rebellion Virginia would not joint North
Carolina would not join it. Tennessee would not
join it. South Carolina was the only State in the
South where there is any reason to believe there
a majority in favor of disunon one year ago.
There were more SOutherners and advocates of
slavery in the South year ago who were opposed
to the rebellion than who favored it. IL has been
stated a hundred times by every Northern paper.
and no one doubts it, that slavery" was actually,
in majority, for the Union. 1t is hardly worth
while, in the face of that fact, call the rebel
lion "culmiEation" of the controversy of the
past twenty years.
Let any man carry himself back to the position
one year ago, and ask is the rebellion now in pro-
gress the elimination of party differencesi Mil
lions of shareholders then standing up for
the Union. They warned the nation that among
the Southern people were disunionists who gained
strength out of Northern ianaticisms. They be-
sought the North for help against rebellion in
tones that will 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 reply? Did New York replyY What
were their replies?
They asked arguments with which to save the
South IRON the wiles of the disunionists. They
said, Repeal your personal liberty bills, dc any
thing by which can prove that you 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 were seeking to quell the "cul-
mination'' of their side of the CONTROVERSY The
idea is untenabe, and history will not accept il.
We look back at the Peace Convention of last
spring with indescribabIe sorrow There were in
it good true Southern men, ready to sacrifice life,
property, anything for the Union, who begged
with tears for some help against the disunionists
among them at the South. There were men
there from the North, whe 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 if Northern members of that Conven-
ton are now found circulating petitions for uni
versal emancipation. ard teaching that the Con
stitution 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 silenced by the vigor of a
minority Now what becomes of the sequence
of events2 1t is plain that all the events and acts
charged had no necessary effect in producing re
bellion; that they did not grow TO rebellion, MOI
were they the seed, or the stem, from which II
sprung; and it is equally plain that the support
ers of slavery were, not even in majolity. for re
bellion. What then has become OF the argument
that slavery is responsible for the rcbeionf
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 our ideas onc'
formed.
But TO our minds, II is the height of injustic'
TO charge on the Democratic party that its princi
plies have eliminated in this rebellion, when thu
truth stares US in the face that for years North
ern party denounced the Constitution and de
manded its overthrow, and Democratic principles
North and South, have been sternly set sgains
that