Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1863-09-21
The Journals Record-A Soldiers
Inquiry Answered.

INDIANAPOLIS, september Ii, %
MR. EDITOR: For the past two years | have
been a private soldier on active duty. | have
always been a decided opponent of the Democrat
ic party. ] seldom see q Democratic PAPER, es-
p~ecially since ] have been in the service. Acct
dentally i got a copy of your paper of to day. and
/ must say / read with no little surprise your
statement OF the opinions expressed by the jour
nal upon the troubles OF the country, favoring dis
uniOn-a peaceable separation from all the States
that desired to withdraw from the Union, and
opposing the exercise OF force to compel them TO
submit to the national authority. Vallandigham's
record land / am most decidedly opposed TO his
views) is far better and more consistent than that
of the Journal, if you state IL correctly. He, as
/ understand him, is opposed 60 the war because
he believes that "war is disunion." He stands
just where he did before the commencement OF
hostilities, and not a jot more opposed to CO
ercion as a means of maintaining the Union than
was the Journal. Vallandigham. however,
as his record shows. was always opposed
to disunion; but the Journal, according TO your
statement, was not only willing tn let the dissatis-
fed States GO, but pledged the Republican party
not to use any force to compel them to continue
their allegiance TO the Federal Government. If
you can prove from the files of the Journal that il
has expressed the opinions that you attributed to
il, and to which l have briefly referred, / can
only say, as must every honest man. that its bitter
attacks upon Vallandigham, Voorhees,, and the
Democratic party generally, are not only infa-
nous, but exhibit a malice which has no
justification and which should receive the rebuke
Of every good citizen. and | say this as a Union
man. IL you have the proof. verifv your record
of the Journal; for if you rightly state it, his
present course exhibits a moral depravity-a
wi:kedness of heart. which will only find a par
allel in the history of Judas.
Yours, A SoLDIRR.
REPLY.
We have correctly given the record of the
Journal on the question of secession. The files
of that paper from November, 1860. to August
1861. furnish ample evidence that il earnestly and
deliberately advocated the opinions we attributed
to it in the article to which our correspondent
refers. We will, "a requested, verify the record
of the Journal as we stated it. and in its own
language:
l. IL pronounced secession to be revolution.
PRooF-Secession is revolution -Jourrfal,
November %, 1860.
2. 1t. declared that any State, or number of
States. had the right to separate from the Union
whenever in their judgment the Government be-
came oppressive to them.
PRooF-We having established our Govern
ment by revolution, on the right of a people at
any time 20 change a government which is OPP
pressive TO them, can not deny that right 10 those
who deliberately declare our Government oppres-
sive. What w claimed as our right we can not
deny to those vino claim it of Us, and helpei Us to
assert our claim at the outset. They may be
mistaken. In our judgment they are fatally
mistaken, but We can not Judge for then whether
the Federal Government is too oppressive for
endurance any more than England could judge
for us -(Journal, November %, 1860.
3. 1t has repeatedly declared that the loss of a
dozen States was a less evil than civil war.
PRooF.-we can imagine no evil equal to an
American civil war. The separation of the
whole Confederacy into independent nations
would be harmless beside it. We are. therefore,
clearly Of the opinion that any attempt to resist
by force the secession of any State. or combina-
ton of States, from the Union, would be unwise
and calamitous in fhe last degree-[Journal,
November l9, 1860.
4. When South Carolina passed her act of Sc
cession it stated that that act was a virtual disso.
luton of the Union.
PRooF-South Carolina has seeded
Well we are a severed nation. We are a divided
house. And we are none the worse for it.
journal, Dec. %. 1860.
5. 1t advocated peaceable separation from
the dissatisfied states, and argued the advantages
of separation.
PRoOF.-As to the seeding States. We say,
LET them go out."-(Journal, Dec. 7, 1860.
An alliance between the two sections may ex
list, but never an Union. The philosophy of Sc
cession, then, in our Judgment, ~justi6es us in ad
vocating the peaceable departure of the Gulf
States.-[Journal, Dec. IL, 1860.
Ii is as least as easy To keep up a profitable
business with the South as with England, if we
are willing to take the same steps to do il But
il we are not. and insist on preserving the Union
by force. we shall destroy all trade, North and
South. utterly -[Journal. Dec. 81. 1860.
6. 1t pronounced the Montgomery Constitu-
ton a better chart of government than our own
an improvement upon the Constitution OF the
United States.
PRooF-We have read it (the Constitution of
the slave Confederacy) carefully. and must con-
fess that. except its special provisions in regard to
slavery, il is about as good a charter of govern
ment as could have been devised . . and
improved in a few points, which experience
has shown to be imperfect, in ours. . In all
these particulars the Southern Constitution Is an
Improvement on ours.-[Journal, March %,
1861.
7. 1t not only opposed coercion. but pledged
the people Of the dissatisfied States that the Re
publican party would never consent to make a
war to force them to remain in the Union.
PRooE-No Republican will care 10 have them
stay. A Onion preserved only by intimidation
and force is n mOckery, and il is better broken
than whole. IL South Carolina and her assoc
ciates in folly really want to leave the Union they
go withOuta word OF objectiOn from any man north
of Mason and Dixon's line-[Journal, Nov. l3.
1861
The North will never raise or use an army to
force any State to stay in the Union.-[Journal,
Nov. Is, 1860.
3. II repeatedly declared that the Union could
not be maintained by force. and opposed a Union
in which one part would have to be pinned to the
other with bayonets.
PRooF-We deem il superiuous to argue that
a popular government can never be preserved by
force. The act compulsion changes il to a des-
potism so far a. the parties affected by it are
concerned .-[Journal, Nov. %, 1861.
Or what value will an Union be that needs
links of bayonets and bullets to hold it together.
journal. Nov. IS, 1860.
We could multiply these proofs indefinitely il
il were necessary. but we have presented ample
testimony to verify our charges against the
Journal and its record against coercion and in
favor Of peaceable separation. Four months
after the fall of Fort Sumter and about a month
after the FIRST battle OF Bull Run, the Journal
endorsed all the views it had previously. and to
which we have briefly referred We quote
it, own language:
If they (the rebels) will lay down their arms.
and now come To the nation for permission TO
separate. we shall again say yes" for we have