Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1863-12-14


ting and terminating this war, Between which the
people of this country will have to choose. We
| there eudeavored to lay down the distinction be
tween a civil and foreign war known TO the law
of nations, and then proceeded TO state the ques-
/ ton whether the principles of that law. by which
We must be bound IL we mean to follow any rule
whatever, will not oblge rs To abstain from
transcending the limits of the Federal Constitu
ton by the acquisition of powers and authorities
not embraced IN that instrument.
| Ise then, the proposed scheme of conQuering
the Southern States and treating them as con
quered countries capable of being recoaciled with
rules of the law of nations which govern the con
/ duct Of sovereigns in civil warsf Or to pro
pound this question in another form-is sover-
eign. in dealing with rebellous provinces or their
inhabitants, at liberty to act without regard to
the limitations which his own municipal law af-
hxes to his authority, and to assume and exer
else those full beligerent rights which accrue to
| q eonqueror who has seized and detached a por-
ton of the territory of another nationl To this
question we conceive that there can be but one
answer given by any jurist or pubcist who un-
derstands the system which governs the rights of
soveregns and subjects, aud who has the slight.
est regard for the moral laws which that sys-
| tenn Is founded.
l. We take It TO be an indisputable principle of
the modern law Of nations that a sovereign who
has occasion to assume belligerent attitude to-
ward portion of his own dominions for the re-
covery of his legitimate authority is restricted to
the restoration of that authority the result of
bis exercise of belligerent rights. If his own
sovereignty Is one of a limited character, while
be may exercise all the ordinary rights of bel
lgerent during the progress of hostities in order
to restore his rightful authority, he cannot at
the end of those hostilities legitimately compel
the revolted province TO submit TO an unlimited
sovereignty of his dictation. His military con-
quests differ in this respect from those of SOW
| ereign who wages war against foreign country
The latter has the right to acquire, as a legal
consequence of his victory and possessions, the
political allegiance of the inhabitants of the con-
lqueted territory, and may impose such govern.
ment as he pleases, saving, however the rights
of private property. Tn former fights for the
recovery of rights that have been withheld from
him; but he cannot superadd to these any rights
which he did not before possess. Nations, in
other words. do not conquer" their domn
ions, in the full sense and with all the conse-
quences Of conquest" when they have occa
sion to reprcss unlawful or rebellious combi-
nations against the sovereign power, any
more than they conquer" individuals whom they
punish by force, through the action of their pub
lie tribunals. for violations of law. They may
use belgerent rights while the civil wal is going
on. but they do not merge their sovereign rights
| or their sovereign character in the belligereDt
just what it was. no more and no less. when the
contest is ended and the belligeren; capacity no
longer required.
| From the principle which rendered it necessary
to terminate a civil war by an amnesty, when the
sovereign has prevailed 50 far as to compel the
insurgents to sue for one, il follows that he can
not demand more than submission to his lawful
authority, as it existed when the civil began.
He cannot make il condition of terminating
jects shall, as a body or community. forfeit all
their political rights and submit to him as for
eign conqueror. for this would be the exact oppo-
Site of an amnesty. When they are ready to lay
down their arms and to submit to his lawful
authority, he is bound to grant an amnesty, with
such exceptions as to individuals as be NAV see
fit to make one of its conditions. He is bound to
grant it, because the amnesty is granted in bis
own interest--because it becomes the means OF
restoring and preserving his authority; and be
cause the limits of that authority are the limits
of what he may rightfully exact.
There is also further principle in reference to
the termination of civil war by an amnesty
which is not to be overlooked An amnesty sig
ni6es a complete oblivion OF past offenses, and
sets aside all the legal consequences of rebellion
1t may be granted by the successful sovereign
of bis own motion, or it may be stipulated for By
the insurgents, a condition of their submission
When the latter is the case, the sovereign i:
bound by his agreement; for although there have
been instances in former times in which such a.
greements have been disregarded by soyereigns
and the principle has been proclaimed and acted
upon, that compacts between sovereigns and reb
ell subjects are void or voidable. ithas been vel
said by an eminent foreign writer that ''in the
present day no civilized government would dare
to profess such principle"
In the same way it follows from the nature Of
civil war, such as that in which we are engaged
that the party claiming sovereignty over the
other party to the war cannot convert that sal
& into foreign war, and proceed to make terrific
rial coDquests as of the territory Of foreign ma
ton. without admitting that other party to be- in
law as well as in fact, an independent belligeren
power. Military occupation of portions or of the
whole of tue insnrgent country may be necessary
in civil war; but like all the other incidents oil
the belligerent character assumed by the soyer-
eign tor the purpose of compelling submission tc
his authority. this kind Of occupation has speci
al and limited, and general and unlimited pur
pose. Ii is not territorial conquest, drawing
after it all the consequences which attach to the
occupation and possession of portions of an enc
mys country in foreign In order to make
those consequences attach to military occupation
i is necessary not only to continue the bellger
ems character, but to lay aside the pretensions
and claims of constitutional sovereignty. and tc
put on the character of belligerent waging a
-
distinction between the belligerent character as
sumed by sovereign against his insurgent sub
jects, and the belligerent character assumed by
sovereign in a war with another sovereign. In
the latter character, as we have seen, territorial
conquests can be made; in the former they can
not be-
Are the people of the United States, then, pre-
pared TO admit that the people of lbe sceedec
States are foreign nationsf Ii so, we must &C
back To the act which they claim TO have
severed them from the Union. and must sck nowl
edge the validity of those facts. and must give M
our professions and claims Of consli tutional sov
ereignty over the inhabitants of those States
We must either adhere to the theory on which
we began the war, or we must abandon it. w,
cannot sit upon two stools, or halt between tw,
opinions. We cannot claim that we are out o.
the Union because put them out. We mus
either admit that they took themselves out Of n,
Union. or must deny that the facts h I'd any valid
ICY or in any way changed their relations TO th
Federal Government. We must, therefore, de
liberatelv look in the face all those consequence
which will attend the adoption Of the theory tina
we TO end this by the conquest and polit
ical subjugation of the Southern States; impos-
ieg upon them the character OF conquered coun
tries, demanding changes in their internal polio
as conditions Of re.admlssions into the Union, o
keeping them out of the Onion territorial an,
subjugated provinces.
The FIRST consequence to be considered Is. tina
such an affirmation of the principles OF secession
by the people OF the United States will work Oh
most disastrous results In their future condition
IL would establish the doctrine only that
State can secede from the Union, but that, whe
il has undertaken TO do so, it may be conquere
as foreign nation. Let such doctrine b