Evansville daily journal. (Evansville, Ind.) 1863-1866, 1866-03-14

MM MWMHGNtAAp uMAf GQAA IA EAA tA4E
upon one of our recent articles, makes
use Of the following argument:
TThs Courier assumes that the msu who seaght
against th0 Union during the war ere now hon.
sstly seriFlng for the restoration of the Union,
but must not be expected 20 tndorB8 aud approve
tho war. We think the OouFier Is Illogical. Va
who fought agasnBt the Goysfnmenf, Ia iBdoralDg
fhe war for the suppression Of rsbsIlion than Ia
seeking TO consolidate the Government they have
are d ow honesagf sfriving for the raatorasion Of
the Buton,' they must have been eonFincass thar
they were wrong In attempting It's destruction
fhey were wrong and IN indorslag the instFu-
mentality that convinced then'ef tier dsiusion
and srrorf"
The Journal can see no more incon-
sistency in indorsing the war than IN
submitting to It's results Ila prejndiees
evidently warp its judgment, and prevent
it from reaching fair and reasonable
conclusion. It seems to rs that nothing
can be clearer, than that the men who
fought on thes Of the rebellion eannot
honestly indorse the war against which
they fought, although they may be en-
tirely faithful 10 the oaths they have
taken and the pledges they made in their
surrender. Itmakes bnt little difference
what their opinions may be, provided
they ere now loyal, law-abiding citizens.
It 10 their acts, not their thoughts or
opinions, which concern the Government,
and IL is certain that II they were TO as 1
sert that they believed that the Govern.
mens was right i'm whipping them back
into the Union, no one would have the
slightest confidence in their assertions.
---LeuispilEe Courier.
Tbs Courier. must have been taking
lessons from Dickens character Of the
"Artful Dodger." We did net say that
" we could see no more Inconsistency in
indorsing the war than in submitting to
its resalts" What we did say was, 1--WE
can see no more inconsistency on the
part of those who fought against the
Government, in isdOrsing the soar for
the Suppression Of rebellion, than in
seeking TO CONSOLIDATE TIE
GOVERNMENT they hare heretofore
been endsavoring TO DIVIDE"
Now will the Courier look ct its po-
sition again Ii does seem to as it
must realize that it cannot maintain its
conclusions upon the narrow premises
on which they are based. The incon-
sistency Of the thing is glaring We
wish not 10 be- regarded as illiberal, I'M
generous, or ovsrbsaring % the con-
trary, we are anxious to treat those who
recognize their great mistake and wrong
against the Government, and heartily
repent Of the same, rs returning prodi>
gals, and are willing to kill for them the
fatted calf But when they come back
de6antIy and boaatingly, and propose to
take charge of the household, our i'm
patience win express itself IN words of
condemnation.
The argument Is 80 simple that We
cannot see how the Courier could err SO
badly, nnIess it is wong maIiciously.
We copy it's 6rat statement second
time: 81 $ 4Jaws1 e7Ie
The Journal Louisville says that it
does not itself indorse tbs whole war
from beginning to end, yet it seems 70
think that the men who fought against
the Union in that war, but who are nov
honestly striving for the restoration Of
the Union, are not entitled TO credit for
their Intentions unless they do what 1t
refuses to do itself. .iHr agVa1a
Our proposition il this: |" The men
who fought against the Government" {"
are now satisfied that they we're right
or surong in so doing. If they still feel
that they did right, they can mot honest
" seek to restore or sustain that which
they think it right 70 destroy. III they
are convinced they were wrossg, there 10
no Inconsistency in confeasing the
wrong and bringing forth fruits
meet for repentance Tn the latter case
alone can they honestly strive for the
restoration of the Union. a
It seems 70 us the Louisville Courier
win End it hard to prove that unrepent-
ing rebels may honestly seek to gain
control Of the Goverement.