The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-04-18
A QUESTION OF PRINCIPLE.

If the North expects the South to weep for
Grant, may not the South expect the North
to dismiss its malignity at the side of an open
grave, and treat Jefferson Davis, the United
States officer, the United States Senator, and
once the Secretary of War, with becoming
respectf We shall see if sectionalism is dead.
Macon (Ga.) Telegraph.
The Telegraph, in common with a great
majority of Southern men and papers, makes
the mistake Of rating this question as Sec
tional. The Telegraph ought to know, and
would know if it could free itself from the
dead skin of prejudice, that it is not section
alism, but a principle that is involved. Loyal
men who could but feel an antipathy for
Southern ~disunionists, felt contempt in addi-
ton to this for such men in the North as were
foolish enough to favor the dismemberment Of
the Nation. The men who were loyal during
1861-65 held no malice against the South as
the South, nor against Southern people as dis
tinguished from those of any other portion of
the Union. The government has been very
magnanimous toward those once in rebellion.
All who care to be are reclothed with all the
rights and privileges of citizenship, and that,
too, in a government stronger, better, richer,
and mere liberal than ever before in it's his
tory. TIL offense of the South, as forced uron
it by a few Of its leaders, was an offense pecu-
liar to them, in the commission of which
a very broad difference was made
between Grant and Sherman, Sheridan and
Hancock, on the one side, and Davis, john
ston, Beauregard and Jackson on the other.
The fact that Davis was once United States
senator and Secretary Of War only increases
his culpability. Defying the laws under
| which he had sworn to maintain, uphold and
| defend the Constitution, and which had held
| good for nearly three-quarters of a century,
he and others went into armed rebellion
without cause, while General Grant
stood with the loyal men who saved
| the Union from disruption. One defed his
country; the other defended it. The Tele-
graphs hiatus in the history Of Jefferson
| LAWS 10 SlEulllC0lt. Ii ~ " AO44OW AAAiAA
further than it did without confessing his
treachery or defending the right of Sc
| cession.
1t is useless to argue with such papers as
the Telegraph with the hope of converting
them. It's editor either knows that secession
was a crime, or, like Gen. d. III. Hill, will
Give and die a confederate-heart, soul and
spirit In either case it is foolish to waste
words, except to lay bare the soph'
istry Of the argument employed, lest
it deceive those anxious to be deceived. The
argument resorted to to acquit Jake Thomp
son and jeff Davis would be equally plausible in
defense of a horse-thief, OF, perhaps we should
say, murderer. By exactly the same process
Of reasoning, James D.. Fish, recently con
victed Of fraudulent practices in banking
must 60 acquit. 1t were well for the fame o
Davis had his public life stopped with thu
portion related by the Telegraph, and it wer'
we'll for many a desolated household in thil
land had he and his fellows never conceived
the Rebellion. There would not then have
been such an impossible gulf between thu
characters of Davis and Of Grant. There new
er was any sectionalism in this land that thu
South did not insist upon; never any between
East and West nor between either Of thes