Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1863-11-16

suucteQ mlnu, that Two Tor even three or f0ur)
free republics within the present limits of the
United States would be preferable to one great
centralized despotism if there were a fair proba-
bility that such republics could CO exist side BY
side with more than are usual among
c0teFmin0us nations. No man whose prefer
ence for republican government is intelligent and
foundee on principle, would hesitate even to take
the chance of such wars in preference to witness
ing the failure of the republican experiment on
this continent. The United States would have
set glorious and inspiring example 60 nations
struggling against their oppressors even if we
had never made the Louisiana nor the Florida
purchase, nor annexed Texas. nor acquired Cali
fornia. No particular number of States or def
mite territorial magnitude is essential TO our sys
ten. Our country was as glorious, and its sys-
TEN of government as nearly perfect, when il con-
sisted of only thirteen, or eighteen, or twenty
four States as at any subsequent period. Our
chief boast has always been of our free institu-
lions secured to us by our admirable Conittu-
ton. Ii this should fail. it would be no compen-
sation (scarcely consolaton) to see It replaced
by gigantic despotism, like Russia, holding out
living provinces. like Poland. in unwilling sub
lection.
The Democratic party would not consent to
the continuance of this war for another day, il
they did not suppose the conquest Of the South
to be compatible with the preservation of our free
success
i've engagements of our territorial limits which
the people would have consented to purchase at
the peril of the Constitution: nor are any of them
lost, worth re-acquirng at that fatal price. The
great problem now given TO the nation to solve is
TO recover the revolted States without subverting
our form Of Government
The most important reason why. at any cost
short of the Constitution, we must conquer and
hold the seeded States. is that two separate re-
publics would never live in peace. Two nations
would be modern rehearsal of Athens and
Sparta. whose discord and jealousies drenched
Greece in blood, subverted its independence and
/ overthrow its liberties The North and South
would, as two nations, bate aud fear each other
like the rival republics of Rome and Carthage
and we should be afflicted with wars worse than
Punic until one or the other was exterminated
We cannot afford to have two rival governments;
still less afford to lose the Constitution
1t is indispensable, therefore, that we should
adopt policy toward the South which shall save
US from the rpinous necessity of holding it by
sheer force, when We have conquered il by our
arms
The Republicans scott at the idea that the war
should be conducted with intermxture of con
C liation. They profess to consider such a prop
osition absuriity in terms--as contradicting
the very idea of war. But they take counsel
of their passions rather than of reason or history
| I
anybody, understood what was consistent with
war; that he, if anybody, would, in an attempt to
blend policy with war. place at least due reliance
on the latter. What this incompatible captain
would not undertake TO accomplish by war alone,
it is absurd for this Black Republican Admins
tralion to think they can drive through by sheer
military force. Napoleon, in his conversations
at St. Helena, made his projected invasion of
England frequent topic, and both to Las Casas
/ L.. l. Il.
often as he mentioned the subject he gave great
prominence to his intended measures of concilia-
ton, as a reason for thinking that he should have
succeeded. 81 should have entered the British
capital" said he to Las Casas mot as a con-
queror. but as a berator. 7 should have been
another William III. but wodld have acted with
greater generosity and dis;nterestedness. The
| discipline of my army perfect. My troops
would have behaved in London the same as they
would in Paris. No sacrifices, not even
contributions, would have been extracted from
the English. We should have presented our.
selves to them not as conquerors but as brothers.
l would have declared that only wish
was to be able to rejoice in the happiness and
prosperity of the English people, and TO these
professions | would have strictly adhered" Ma
poleon took pains TO explain that il was only by
these conciiiatOry means that he had entertained
any hope of success had he landed in England
with an invading army. 1t was a leading part of
his plan 70 conciliate and gain over the people.
eff. indeed" said he to O'Meara. they supposed
that meant to render England proyipce of
France, then indeed would the national spirit do
wonders" To the clumsy and shallow rdicule
of the Republicans we oppose the authority Of
/ Napoleon; but, in our view. reason and common
sense can stand on their own legs, and need not
the authority of great names to support them.
For the last ten years, at least. it has not been
supposed that Louis Napoleon is quite simple
ton; but in his recent conquest of Mexico he took
the most studious pains to conciliate the people.
Instead of aggrayating their rancor and firing
their opposition BY threats of wholesale confsca-
ton if they did not submit, his mouth has, from
the beginning, been full OF conciliatOry words and
fair promises. People may believe what they
please respecting the sincerity of these profess
sions; the fact that they are so assiduously made
proves that they thought an important means
of success. Gen. Forey has not allowed his SOL
diers TO rllage the Inhabitants; he and his i'm
perial master have constantly affirmed that the
people of Mexico should have a fair opportunity
to establish government of their own choice.
Clever despots are too wise to exhibit their chains;
but our abolition rulers seem to think brandishing
the yoke a promising mode of securing submits
son With minds too narrow TO hold two ideas
at once, they consider and conciliation iucom-
patible, and think an enemy is more easily re-
duced to submission the more you make il bis
interest to fight
OF all nations, ancient or modern, the most
successful in making, holding assimilating
conquests, were the Romans. Their far sighted
and able policy, formed on a correct knowledge
of human nature and of the principles of govern
ment, gave them the empire of the world. Their
treatment of the conquered was the reverse of
of that of Carthage. Rome preserved to con-
quered people their municipal governments. toll
Grated their religions, and frequently admitted
them to the full rights of citizenship in the mpe-
rial city. Carthage treated those she conquered
with great severely; but Rome, after their defeat
left them TO conduct their fairs pretty much
they pleased, provided they only recognized her
supremacy.
"Theae differences i'm the manner of treating
the conquered, saws French historian, care
important to remark. for they explain the power
of Rome and the feebleness of Carthage" Thus
we see that leaving the authority Of the.Consti-
tuition out of view, and reasoning as if we pos
sessed over the South the unlimited rights of
conqneror, even on that suppOsit!on successful
policy of conquest requires the blending of mag
nanimty and foroearance, with the vigorous ex-
ertion of military power New York World.
Shall the Presidents salary be Tn
| creased!
Some of the abolition journals have revived
the Question of the proprety of raising the Pres
L. l.