Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1864-02-08
The Journals Assaults ON Judge Per-

Our very learned neighbor, the central organ
of the Republican party of Indiana. and most of
our readers have probably witnessed exhibitions
Of learned pigs. has been devoting the columns
of that print in what we presume it regards re-
views Of the opinion recently delivered by Judge
PERKINS upon martial law, military law, or the
war powers of the President ofthe United States
Tn its issue of Friday it says the opinion "con
cludes with labOred attempt to prove that The
rebellion and the revolution alike right.
alike in origin, purposes and in defenders against
INSCRIPTIONS tyranny'in the governments they
were resisting" The opinion makes DO attempt
Of that kind Ii only asserts, so far as the re-
beIIion is concerned. and which every honest man
must be willing 10 concede to be true that the rebel
the governments of the United States Quoting the
language used by the Court. "The rebellion con-
sists in attempt, if have read Alright, to
withdraw a certain portion Of people ard territory
from under the Jurisdiction of the Government of
the United States-tO diUide the Union, leaving
placing the South under a newly created govern
ment" Upon this statement of the facts in the
case. for no intelligent person denv that the
Confederates before the commencement of hos
tilities sent commissioners to Washington to ne
gotiate peaceable separation, an equitable divi-
sion of the Union, the Journal charges that the
opinion attempts to prove that the rebellion and
the Revolution were alike right. 1t expresses no
sentiment of that kind ALI the rebels have ever
asked is division of the Union, "placng the
South under newly created'uvernment."
But if we concede all that the Journal charges,
that the opinion is a labored attempt to prove
that the rebellion and Revolution were identical
in origin and purposes, the central ergau of the
Republican party of Indiana should
have mOdesty enough and should be the
last TO call in question and condemn the express
sion Of that sentiment from any source. After
the election Of Mr. LINCOLN, and when secession
appeared inevitable, the Journal for months
argued with both zeal and ability that the dissat
isfed States had right, or were justified upon
the principles on which our government was
based 10 sever their connection with the Union
In proof Of what We state. we quote the following
extract from editorial in the Journal of No
vember D. 1860: 1--WE, having established our
government by revolution on the right of u
people at any time to change government which
Is oppressive to them, clnnot deny that right to
those who declare our government oppressive.
What we claimed as our right we cannot deny
to those who claim it of us and
helped assert claim at the
outset They may be mistaken In our Judge
ment they fatally mistaken; but cannot
JUICE for them whether the Federal Gov
eminent is too oppressive for endurance any
more than England could judge for US. We
know how elOquently may be urged the glory of
this great country and the Union cemented by
the blood of our fathers but it is all wasted be-
side the one plain. simple fact that if any State
in this Union feels the Union to be injurious and
oppressive. civil war won't change her opinion,
in fact it is not calculated to change it.; and if
she 1iH not stay in the Union it will be cheaper
and kinder to let her go. The argument that
secession is unconstitutional, and involves ever
so many violations OF law and party pledges, is
little better than trifing with so serious sub
ject. Men do not treat revolution as they
would a trespAss, and urging the enforcement of
the Constitution remedy for secession is just
as wise as urging man whose house is on fire 10
keep it in good repair"
In the same article the Journal declares that
secession is revolution" ard that the people of
any dissatisfied State had the right To withdraw
from the Union if in their opinion that govern
ment had become oppressive them. There can
be no more complete justification of the rebel
lion than the argument of that print.
The Journal in its reviews criticisms only
takes exception to the argument Of the Court
Ii does not attempt to controvert. as it cannot
successfully. the legal positions announced in
the opinion. Hence We must conclude that even
the Journal considers that the usurpatons of
power by the President under the plea of
military necessity are gross violations Of the
Constitution and the rights of the citizen which
that instrument was created TO secure and pro-
tect- We copy another extract from the same
editorial of the Journal from which we have
quoted, to chow that il is now arguing for or sus-
tainiug despotism in opposition to popular
rights. IL says: I'VE deem it superfuous tie
argue that u popular government can never be
preserved by force. The act of compulsion
changes il 10 despotism so far as The parties
affected by it are concerned. IL Is no
government Of tleirs any longer, and despotism
is simply government that the governed don't
create. Consequently if"coercion" preserves the
body. il surely destroys the life of this great pop
ular government. II secures US an union with
out unity. an aggregation of States without sym
patty. And il does no more"
After expressing such sentiments and justify
ing "coerciob" which may preserve the body,
while il surely destroys the life of this heretofore
great popular government, the Journal attempts
to condemn the court and bring il into disrepute
By attribuLing to it opinion which it never ex-
pressed, but which. strange to say, is identical
with the sentiments il advocated when
secession was threatened not only, but after the
overt act was committed. Certainly, the journal
should not object to the Court reiterating its
deliberately expressed opinions. Il occupies,
however, in so doing. most remarkable posi-
ton After stating that il was supeffuous to
argue that popular government can be main
tanned by force, il has become a most violent
advocate Of force 70 maintain the Uuion, admit
ting at the same time that such Union is not
worth preserving and that this act vi c0mpulson
changes the government to a despotism. With
such record, can arrive at any other con-
cluson than that the journal, representing the
Renublican marty of Indiana. IL the arrlogist Of