The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-05-27
JEFFERSON DAyIs's RESPONSIBILITY.

The Journal, in a recent editorial.
commented on the inconsistency of our
Southern brethren who admit that the
preservation of the Union was the best
thipg that could have happened, and re-
l0lce that they are still under the old
fag, and yet continue to honor the
memory and weep over the remains Of
the man who was chiefly instrumental
IN bringing on the war; meaning, of
course, jefferson Davis The argument
OF the editorial was that if the Southern
people admit it is good thing the re-
bellion did not succeed, they ought also
to admit that theieaders in the rebellion
were false leaders, and their memories
unworthy ofperpetuation. The Charles
ton News and Courier. replying to the
Journals article. says:
IL is charitable to say that orr contem-
psfary does not know what it Is talking
ABOUT Mr. Davis was not chiefly instru-
mental In bringing on the war. lie re-
sisted by every honorable means In his
power the dismem berment of the Union.
He sought TO arrive at some peaceable
me thod of settling the differences between
the sections. As long as he had q sea. in
Ihe Senate his best efforts were directed
to the maintenance of the Constitution the
Union resulting from 1t. and to make the
general government an effective agent of
TIE states for It's prescribed purpose"
w hen Mississippi Withdrew from the Union
he went with his state. holding that his
hrst allegiance was due to his State.
Perhaps, instead of saying that Mr.
Davis was chiefly instrumental in bring
ing on the war, the Journal should have
said he was one of the chief instruments.
That statement Is, we think, fully sub
stantiated by the facts of history. The
News and Courier says Mr.. Davis ire
sisted, by every honorable means in his
power, the ACKNOWLEDGMENT of the
Union" and "only embarked in the Sc
cession movement. when his State Sc
ceded." If this surprising statement is
true. and if, as it implies, Jefferson Da-
Wis was one of those Union men who re-
luctantly and regretfully followed his
State out of the Union, history will have
TO be rewritten. But it is not true. Mr..
Davis's whole public life and political
career were devoted toadvocacy of doc
trines whose logical result was seces-
sion and which made the dissolution of
the Union, or an attempt to dissolve it,
inevitable. The doctrine of State SOW
ereignty, which he advocated all his
life. EMBODIED the doctrine of secession
as truly as bud does the leaf.
and the contention that the Constitu-
tion by it's own force carried slavery
into all the Territories of the United
States made civil war inevitable. Mr.
Davis never was national man, and,
therefore, was not a Union man In a
large or honest sense. He was State
nan, Mississippi man. and when his
State went out of the Union he prompt
ly and gladly went with it. For years
before he had been pointing the way
and furnishing arguments to justify
secession. He opposed every compro-
mise intended to allay sectional differ
ences by abating something of the claims
of slavery. AS early as 1851 no was
candidate for Governor of Mississippi
on O State rights ticket. in opposition
to the compromise of 1850. and was de-
feated by Henry s. FoOte, who ran as
Union man. In his farewell speech in
the United States Senate, delivered Jan.
81, 1861, Mr.. Davis said: cit is known
to Senators who have served with me
here that have for many years advo-
Gated, as an essential attribute of State
sovereignty, the right of State to
secede from the Union" As he placed
his State above the United States so he
placed slavery above the Union. There
never was day in his life when he
would have consented to sacrifice an
iota of the claims of slavery to the
preservation of the Union. By his per-
sistent advocacy of these doctrines and
the insidious teaching that the election
of Republican President would be
justifiable cause for the secession of the
Southern States Mr.. Davis became one
of the chief instruments in bringing on
the war