Richmond daily Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1842-1861, 1861-07-17

SOME REFLECTIONS ON TEE SUBJECT OF III
PRESENT WAR IN AMERICA C0NSIDERls
TbEREiN: ~
FIrse The REALTORS of the principe parties in refs
eDoe to 5sii9uent rigl,s aud herein il kan ned the
sugpion of the Government Of the Tilted States th
the Confederate States not to DO cnsidsred Is b
iistrsn,s an -a5
Seeond certrin questions arising out Of tie ettenc
Of the war in relation 10:
l.. Pfivateer;ng
2. B!otkadss.
3. Neutral righs, and Neutr. obligations % tho nc
speeiVe partee--so far as this branch Of tie erqur
may not be disposed Of under the foregoing hea6s:
Having disposed of The fret leading head viz: "7A
relations cfh principal parties" and IA ,former com
munication published in the Redmond Wig Of the 2st
Of June 1861 and having thus laid the foundation L
sustain the following n9ss, propose nov 20 edvarc
70 consideration OF the other opics according to b,
arrangement prescribed D the caption.
But, 10 o.der 10 preserve, u neafure the contnui
ty OF the fubsct and 10 ket in view tho partial .psn
delce OF these subsequen. osiors ON those fornsri,
tdvar eei Ii may be somewAt useful, especially TO any
RAIDER o!this who may not ESQ have pefued Vie former
article simply to rscapituatssome Of the point therein
sought to bo established with particular reference 10
the authorities by which they sustSad I lope
this course mey be attended with the furlr ed, anisge
OF facilitating in small degree, the lers of
oller writer who may be induced to illustrate these inn
portant themes, in less supei6 iI sHd upre profound
| maunsr. ~
Ii vindication Of the doctrine that the seeded nov
tie Confederate States emil led 10 aHlsiiigereat
isLt aud in rsuaiion OF the Northern assumption OF
the contrary position, in confident reliance principles
that seemed 10 u, beyond the reach Of oijec.ioR
made 4hese CONCESSIONS:
l. We waived for the most part the consideration Of
the important fast that the que stion already real
ty pr,juiged that The enlightened opinion Of Mankind
neludi, Erglnud and France, without hesitation, had
rebuked The Federal assumption, aud maintained these
bcllgsrent ligtis.
q We waved in like manner, consideration OF the
States rights doctrine Of secession, and the Irresistible
force Of the causes which provoked the exercise OF that
right. We know, however intrins;caiy forcble the
combined existence OF the nked right aud the provoca
lion its exercise WERE thosc had both been disputed
by our enemy; whereas The grounds on which we prin
,spay rlIed were int national in their ''-|
,,cen maintained as law for all TIE world aud by none
moro Professionally than our enemy
Tho points relied on mainly were:
|. Tho principle OF the right oil sel'Governmen'
which both parties the present war Insisted on in the
rs American rsvolutiona prime established in the
ussd States by The Of that war and Afterwards
declared in al the fundamental Institutions Of Govern
ment both Federal and State.
2 The absolute rule, settled by tho Law OF nations
which determines that in civil war well in any
other war beligereDt rights must DO conceded to the
party seeking to establish is political independence a
well BY the opposing beigerents as by neutral powers
reIcrrig fer the complete support OF this doctrine, tt
va,,eps Law of Nations chapter xviii "of civil war,
sectons 2g2, 293 and 294, and Wheaton's Elements o.
International Law, led. 1855, chapter pages 81 ant
60 In this conne1icn, an in:imaton vas furnished o.
the Differences bstseon rebellion insurrection and civi
war, relerri5g, by way OF Illustrating What had bear
ur,,vcrfy regarded rebellion merely TO An sooeua
of the trial Of the Western insurgents" flor the ospst
commonly known as the Whisky Insurrection,) WhAr
tons State Trials of tho u s, p. l02 ssq, and to "Ar
account Of the Northampton insurgents" p. 1853 the
distinction between civil and rebellion being referred
anly to the magnitude and extent of resistance to h
cd government Where in the above referee
to- the resistance was corfucd small lumber Of Ter
SONS and 10 small district Of country and could be sup
pressed by the old government, without affecting h
commerce interests Of natious or SutCs not parties
II might be termed rebellion Otherwise i. must be cvi
war.
8. To conclusvey establish both the validity Of tn
above rule and its exact application, it was shewn tha
tho United States Government ITSELF through both il
political and judicial Department. under circumstances
pte cissy similar to those existing, 10 number
instances bad established the doctrine that notwthstand
log there bad been recognition by the United State
Of the political independence Of colony, seeking to es
tabsh such Independence Of the mother country in
civil war yet the United States Government boun
to concedo tho resisting colony the same bsseren
shls granted the old government; referring therein
,he Uri,ed States Va. Palmer ct al Wheaton's Rep
6lO; the San,issma Trinidad & 81. Ander, Z Wharton
R,p 2s3, ard Wheatons Rep, 52 aud 497; also to
letter from mr. Webster, Secretary Of State under Nj
Fillmore, TO Mr. Rivcs, Einister at Paris, Cotg. Doc
| 1852 vel 4, Doc. IL.
To proceed now according to tho arrangement Of ID
subject propose to examine tho topics OF privateer
aud Joekao and in order to reach the latter srtjrc
(abich is invested with unusual Importance before III
lime and spice to which this examination must be mi
ed are exhausted tie fist Of these topics cannot receiy
| tie full consideration lis consequence merits.
| pRIyArEYRIYd.
The practice Of commissioning private armed vessc
for beeerent purposes has been resorted to in amo
all modern wars, and is treated as beligerent right
all elementary writers public law.
Some powers have deprived themselves Of the right
employ this service by treaty spulaticns. Amorg Il
movers 20 restrained E1glaDd France spd other pa
ties 10 the treaty Of Paris Of 1856 The United State
when invited TO become party to that treaty, decline
To do 90 only because it unwilling to surrender Il
right to resort TO pryateeting in any wcr in which
night be cpgsg.d The able letter Of Mr.. Marcy,
Secretary of State, which has recently excited nut
attention. yndicatirg the action OF the United States
refusing to r,irqush this right, justified the position
hi, Government, by reasons which cannot be r'si,tcd
The example aud force of the position Ct the Unit
s.tss han furnish conclusive vindcaon Of tie cour
of the Confederate States NOE. Our enemy now has
supericr public naval force, which he would urqueso
ably employ ia making war on our commerce at sea-
mnst RELY on the merchant marine service to count,
balance this power. 10 respect to this question, the Vi
,sd s.atss in this war stands where Mr.. Marcy plac
Great Britain In 1886 and the Confederate States
now in the attituds the Usited States then we're b
the sound philosophy Of the United States them rema
ing upchar Red Ia the philosophy Of the present moe
It was said by the parties to the treay OF Paris tt
priya.eerng was rule Of the law Of Nations justly
Gus at this day. because it sanctioned the coIh'caton
sea Of such property, by the mi'gaed usages Of me
ern warfare was exempt from cOrhscation on land
Marcy, while approving the force Of this reasouir
very eorclussey denied the application made Of it.
abolition Of Irvateerirg only, as be explained, VOL
not destroy the light to ke just the same ebnoxic
war on private property at sea- in public armed vess'
The abuse would be still p'rpetuated; and this Unjust
would be perpetrated 10 war between belgerentp