Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1862-06-27
VYhither arc ne DrirLingl

In our issue of the 9th instant, we called
attention to the proceedings of the "Union
Convention Of Baltimore City, andexpressed
our fears that the attempt there ini;iated--to
turn over the (so-called) Union men of Mary
land to the Abolition cause--would be adopt
ed by that whole fraternity; and gave as a
justification for our apprehensions, the fact,
that several of the more prominent Union pa
pers in the State had endorsed the resolutions
of that convention, and concurred in the pro-
priety Of their being adopted by the uncon-
ditional Union men Of the State, who were
advised to proclaim it as a leading article
ia their creed" One Of the resolutions, above
referred to, declartdit " to be the dt4ty of the
loyal people Of Maryland TO adopt the policy
proposed by President Lincoln and that il
was their interes., more especially OF the slave
holders to remove from their midst an institu-
ton which has ceased to be profitable" This
convention be It remembered was styled the
Union Convention Of Baltimore City :" and
we have yet TO hear of the first (so-called)
Union paper in the State deny the right Of
that convention TO assume that name. 1t
must be taken for granted, therefore, that it
was really what it protested to be, the Union
Convention Of Baltimore City," according to
whose ethics, Abolition and Union are one
and the same thing. As a proof that the
convention was justified in assuming such
ground, we introduce, just here, short ex-
tract Of debate lately had in the House Of
Representatives, in the course Of which Mr.
Sedgwick, an abolition member from New
York, said, that there was not loyal slave
holder in all this country" Mr.. WcklifIe,
Of Kentucky, said q that the statement, there
was not loyal STAKEHOLDER in this country,
was false" The Speaker, abolition re-
minded Nj. Wickiife that he was ndulging
in personalities, and must take his seat. Mr..
Sedgwick remarked, that what he meant TO
say was this-the man who is not willing aud
anxious to sacrifice the institution Of slavery
to save the country, is not loyal and he
would say further, that he would not leave
one slave in the wake Of our advancing
armies" Thus, we have the issue plainly
made up--Abolition and loyalty are to occu-
py enc side, and the Constitution and disloy-
atty are TO be allotted the other side, or take
back seats.
But who, let us ask, gave the A." Union Con-
vention Of Baltimore City, the right to teach
Maryland Shareholders their dlay2 Who
gave them the right to dictate To the people
what is, or what is not, their interest, or what
is broftaJie OF not7 We cannot imagine an
instance Of more downright presumption or
impudence than this
The real friends Of the "Union" desire to
sec the re-es;ablishment ii possible, Of the
Union as it was they wish to sec The Consii-
tuition preserved az it is but, to accomplish
this, they believe that the Abolition party
must FIRST &c sunk. The Aboitionsis say,
perish the Union thousand times, rather
than that negro emancipation shall be aban-
doned." Who, then are the true friends Of
the Union7
But to come down to the Presidents policy
that the General Government should extend
psouniary aid TO any State that would adopt
bir gradual Emancipation scheme n THAT J