Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1862-09-29
The Presidents proclamation.

The Presidents Proclamation.
The Journal, after long consideration, finally
half way indorses the Presidents emancipation
proclamation. 1t is our purpose at this time only
to refer points it makes in its effort to say
something upon the subject. The first is this:
The proclamation is too sweeping in enamel
pating the slaves of loyal men in the rebel
States
The Journal and the Republican prints gener
ally have asserted over and over again that there
is large Union sentiment in the South now
overridden anu kept in allegiance by the usurpers
who have control of the State Governments,
which only needs protection to be developed Is
not the proclamation, if it could be made effect
i've, a gross injustice to that class? The Journal
comedies that it is wrong in that regard. Again,
it SAYS:
Wherever that proclamation can be made ope
ratiye. there the rebellion loses its foundation.
And how is it to be made "Operativey" Can
it be in any other way than by overthrowins the
rebel armies, and occupying rebel territory? Until
our forces conquer the rebels the proclamation
cannot be made effective-it is as imperative as
useless, as the paper upon which it was written.
Even il the President had the right to issue the
edict of emancipation, it i'll timed and I'M
necessary What he intends to accomplish by it
has been practced wherever our army has had the
control And it would have been far wiser if he
had left the whole matter to the fate of the war
That would have been the true policy. But the
proclamation opens anew the discussion OF the
question. and the effect will be 10 introduce con
tention and doubt where harmony and confidence
are necessary to our national salvation. Instead
of weakening it will give strength and vigor to
the rebel cause The freeing of the slaves as
propos ed by Mr.. LINCOLN would not only destroy
slavery, but it would be the destruction of the
slave States, and loyal and disloyal would suffer
alike The sympathy of common interest will
consolidate the entire South, and instead of weak
ening the rebellion the proclamation will help to
recruit the rebel armies and excite renewed zeal
and still greater efforts in their cause.
If the President has the right to free the slaves
as it is claimed that he has under the war power,
as means necessary to suppress the rebellion, he
would have an equal right, for the same purpose,
to make bondmen of the negroes. If the Sc
ceded States are yet within the Union, as
Dir. LINCOLN and the party he represents
pronounce them 10 be, certainly the Con-
stitution must be operative over them.
In that case is not his proclamation an usurpaton
of power? If the seeded States are not in the
Union. and are not subject to the Constitution,
then proclamation by the President TO free the
serfs of Russia would be just as operative as the
one he has issued.
A fair construction of the Journals argu-
ments, if they can be dgnifed as such, amounts
to just this: that in its view the means justifes
the end-that the President can, in the prosecu-
ton of the war, do just what we charge against
the rebels, disregard all constitutional obligations
If violation of the Constitution and the laws by
the rebels is a crime, similar acts by those who
claim to be loyal citizens are none the less
censurabe
Emancipation proclamations have been tried
before The British Government in both the war of
the revolution and in the war 1912 issued proc
lamations offering freedom to all slaves who
would JON It's cause or come "lthin tneir lines,
but few responded Then the sentiment of our
own country revolted at what wasjustly regarded
as acts of barbarism In the controversy which
arose upon the subject in the war Of lsl2-l5,
JOIN QUINCY ADAMS, then Secretary of State, in
behalf of our Government, thus characterized this
measure of the British Government:
They (the British) had no right to make any
such Emancipation promises to the negroes
The principle is. that the emancipation OF an
enemy's slaves is not among the acts of legit-
innate war; as relates to the owners, it is de-
struction of private property nowhere warranted
by the usages of war.
rive years afterward Mr. ADAMS most emphat-
ically denied the right of belligerent to eman-
cpate slaves He said
No such right is acknowledged as a law of war