Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1863-12-03
From the Indianapolis Journal
LEGAL CONDITION OF THE REB.
: aefe Ell STATES,

We are a nation with very short his
tory. Consequently we are nation with
few precedents for any present action
We have had little determined for us by
our ancestors, and less by the history of
other nations. Whatever we do has to be
built from the grounl, for there is neither
foundation or plan in the past. This alb
solute Liberty OF construction is not un-
suited to people OF eminent constructive
abilities. but it may sometimes happen
that we should be greatly relieved by the
discovery of some direction which. either
by authority or wisdom, could determine
fer us line of action the end of which it
is not easy to see. The healing Of this
article suggests case in which prece-
dent would save an immense amount of
discussion and of outpourings of less in
noeent kind. When we subdue the rebel
lion there viii be some of the restored
States without Government recognizing
our National Government Some, as Ten
nessee and Arkansas, will probably have
"unthreaded the rude eye of rebellion"
and got back to their places again before
the war is over; but others, as South
Carolina and Georgia, will probably be
left to be moulded into such shape as the
wisdom OF the nation may decide. Shall
they be States, lifted bodily ont of the
Confederacy back into the Union, or shall
they be Territories, to be held in pupilage
and pcnitent till we deem them discrete
and pure enough to resume their former
places? There is much to be said on both
sides Of the question. and prematurely as
we think, much has already been said on
at least one side CT it.
Senator Sumner has claborately and
ably maintained the territorial status of
the seeded States, and he mas an extensive
following OF able men. In fact we shall
not guess far from the mark if we said that
his was. as nearly as any new view can
be, the view of the more decided anti-slave-
ry men of the nation. But able men op-
Pose it, and they oppose it with such force
Of argument as makes it hard to say not
only which policy is right, but which will
most surely leave it in the power OF the ma
tion to protect itself against future rebel
lion by taking bail Of the rebel States on
releasing them from the Jail of war. 1t is
In this stress Of logic that we pray for a
precedent. If we had ever had a rebellion
big enough TO carry its penalties from in.
iividual sinners to a whole class or State
we might turn at once to the action taken
then, and decide our quandary by author
ity. But fortunately for ourselves, though
unfortunately for our case, we have had
no rebellion before that was bigger than a
riot. We can discern no mark in the past
lpointing way for us. Without assum-
ing to decide. even for ourself, which way
of the two alluded to is the best. or whcth.
er there may not be another better than eth
er. we desire to present as compactly a,
may be, the argument for the State a,
Iopposed to the Territorial policy Of re
construciton. Robert Dale Owen. Of thi,
State, whose radical anti-slavery views
and root and branch policy, generally
in regard to the conduct Of the war, arr
familiar to our readers. recently published
a letter in the New York papers, correct
ling the report that he concurred in Sum
ner's Territorial theory, and setting ou
distinctly what his views are. which EN-
bodies probably all that can be said. short
of an elaborate argument. for the State
policy, and we condense it for the instruc
tion of our readers.
Mr.. Owen contends that no act of tho
insurgent inhabitants Of a State, short o
q successful and recognized rev olution, car
take that State out of the Union. But any
number or all of the inhabitants may for
felt their political rights by crime, and
when all participate in such crime, or il
be SO perpetrated rs to be legally imputa-
ble to all, that State will have no citizen.
capable of executing its duties to the
Union; and till some one freed from of
fensc takes up the forfeited powers, the
States connection with the Union must
remain suspended. In other words, crime
may move all the inhabitants out of the
house. but the house remains for the oc-
cupancy of any entitled to enter it. The
rebellion has forfeited the rights of all in
| the rebel States, even OF those who resisted
1t. ei We are now enemies" legally, as
John Bright would be if England should
60 to war with us. though we have no
more ardent friend than John Bright
He cites the case of the schooner brilliant,
decided in the Supreme Court Of the
United States last spring, in support OF
this view. As all are enemies of our
Government in the eyes of the law, no one
can exercise any powers or fill any Office
in that State Government which we recog-
nize. The forfeiture of political rights is
not removed by the defeat Of the rebellion,
for insurgents. like other criminals, are on
ly discharged of offense by punishment or
pardon. They become enemies by the
act of war, but OF course do not become
foreign people by the same act, for ifthey
did the act of making war would deter
mine that for which alone the war is pros
ocuted. The rebels are ''enemies." and
therefore without rights under our Govern
ment, but they are citizens, and therefore
subject to the penalties of our laws But
these penalties may be removed by pardon.
Were this otherwise, says he. were these
disabilities permanent. and irremediable.
weretbere no constitutional mode by which
the insurgents could recover their lost po-
iiticai rights, is it evident that the Constitu-
tion and laws of State having no citizens
with legal capacity to exercise even the
Fundamental right of suffrage. would be-
| come nuiities. But. as IL Is, un,ier a mara