Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1862-11-24
more Romancing.

The indianapolis Journal, from the meeting OF
the 9Th of January Convention to the October
election, denounced its candidates and all who
participated in il as traitors. 1t likewise charac
terIzed the 30th Of July Democratic Convention
as a body of disloyal citizens-as TRAITORS In
council But change has come over the spirit
of its dreams. The election is over. There Is
no longer pressing necessity to impugn the mo-
tives and patriotism of the members OF an oppo-
site political organization. 1t now comedies that
Democrats can be, in fact are. equally as honest
equally as pure, and equally influenced 10y patri'
otto considerations as the best men of its own
party. Referring 10 the recent canard OF the
New York Tribune. that "clandestine negotia
tons" have been opened between certain parties
in New York and Richmond for the re construc
ton of the Union, upon basis almost identical
with what it had suggested itself as a means of
restoring peace, it says:
No man believes that William s. Holman,
James s. Athon, James A. Cravens, Matthew l..
Brett, or twenty other Democratic leaders we
could name, would lend any countenance to so
infamous a scheme. They are loyal. They de
sire the restoration vf the Government, and the
assertion of its RICH; of rule over those who have
so causelessly and treacherousy de6ed it. They
have no sympathy with those who would degrade
the nation that party might prevail. They are
dissatisfied with many acts OF the Admnistra
ton; so are We and so is every man in the
ton; but they more than we desire the over
throw of the Government for the ruin of its
temporary occupants. They can distinguish be
tween the Government and its officers. and, while
dissenting from much that the latter have done,
give all their zeal to the preservation of the
| former. Better loyalty than this do not care
| to see.
Mark the words. Read the confession of the
editor of the central organ of the Republican
party of Indiana. who for months denounced the
men as traitors, whom it now says "are loyal"
JAMES T. ArHox and MATHEW L. BRETT were
the nominees of what the Journal charged a
disloyal convention. They were endorsed by
another State mass convention which the Journal
denounced as a nest of traitors. Now it says
"they are loyal" More than this. 1t admits
that "they give all their zeal to the preservation
of the government" Further, 4" better loyalty
than this" it says. cit does not care to see u
Yet the election of these now 4" loyal" citizens
it pronounced to be "butternut" triumph
Messrs. HOLMAN and CRAvENs participated in the
proceedings Of the convention of the Both OF
July. which it said was composed of traitor:
in council;" but upon sober second thought i
pronounces them to be loyal to tie core
There is another notable feature in the extract
we copy from the Journal. 1t says there is
distinction between the government and its off
GERS. and dsapprova of the acts of the latter
is not incompatible with the highest loyalty to the
former.
Before the election it made no such distinction
Then opposition to the Administration was dis
loyalty to the Government How can THU
change of the Journal be explained? Why thi
difference in its estimate Of patrotism-of loyalt.
to the Government? Its charges of disioyalt,
against the Democratic party were only romance
They were made merely for political effect. l
misrepresented the motives and sentiments o
Democrats for partisan purposes--tO secure
party triumph. THIS is the confession of tn
Journal. IL admits that it endeavored TO mis-
lead its readers, the members of its own pOtica
organization. solely to advance its party's inter
ests Such, Republicans of Indiana, is tn
character of your central organ. 1t deals ii
fiction, not in truth or in fact.