The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-09-12
A CONTEMPTIBLE DEFENSE.

1Hefe Is no more reason TO question the
honorable acquiescence in the results Of the
war OF General Johnston, OF of Senator Hamp-
ton, or of Secretary Lamar, than there was
for Washington to doubt the loyalty to the
Constitution of Patrick Henry or Edmund
Randolph, or Col John Lamb, all of whom
had strenuously opposed its adoption. Mr..
Randolph was one of the three members Of
the constitutional convention who refused to
sign his name to the Constitution. But
Washington made him Attorney general.
Patrick Henry led theaVirginia opposition to
the adoption of the Constitution. But Wash
ington offered him the Secretaryship of State
when Jefferson resigned. And although Col.
John Lamb, in New York, was so conspicu-
ously opposed to the Constitution that his
house was mobbed, Washington made him the
first collector of the port-Harpers Weekly.
To what extremities are mugwumps driven
to find some kind of apology for the sin Of
having betrayed their friends to the enemy.
The above is a paragraph in an editorial di-
rected against Mr.. Shermans recent speech,
in which he demanded political equality for all
men. Mr.. Curtis goes little further than
any Of his fellows have thus far dared,
and has needlessly cast slur upon
men whom the country has long
revered as patriots. The Hon. George Will
lam Curtis names Johnston, Hampton and
Lamar as typical of the Southern rebel,
and through them seeks to make rebellion
honorable by comparing them with honorable
and patriotic men of the past Patrick Henry.
Edmund Randolph and Col. John Lamb op-
posed the adoption of the Constitution, as
they had an undoubted right to do. This far
there is a parallel between them and John
ston, Hampton and Lamar. But there the
parallel ceases, and the trios take diametric-
ally opposite roads, the one to honorable fame
as the men who loved their country better
than they did their own Wishes the
others-truth compels US to say it
descended to the infamy of seeking by blood
shed to tear the Republic in twain. When
the people decided against Randolph, Henry
and Lamb, they abided by the decision, and
were as unfalteringly loyal as though they
had personally written every word of the Con
stitution The men typifed by Lamar,
Johnston and Hampton, were of vastly diff
ferent mold. 1t is useless here to recount
how when they could not have their own way,
they naugurated rebellion and war. Without
desiring to reopen the wounds of the war, it is
but fair to say that the typical Southern rebel
in rebellion can no more be compared with
Patrick Henry and his kind than Judas
Iscariot can be compared with the apostle
Peter. These men may have learned the folly
and the crime of their action in 1860, but that
does not change the character of their offense,
nor lift them out Of the depth of shame
while they were in the commission
of it. If the gentlemanly mugwumps can
not think Of some other means of defense and
apology, they would better not attempt any.
No man can be built up in honor by attempt
ing to tear down another These sophistries
may deceive those who compel themselves to
believe them; they can deceive no others. 1t
is contemplate to resort to such means of
defense.