The Burlington weekly hawk-eye. [volume] (Burlington [Iowa]) 1860-1876, 1863-04-18

nominal adherents a. by It's reputed oppo-
nents. belonged, need not say, to the
latter class, not that was much OF q Bell
and Everett man, for if, in parliamentary
phrase, it had been possible to divide the
question, should have voted against the
candidate for the Vice Presidency on that
ticket. Ibid all in my power to prevent
his nomination and to get him excused
when it was made. admit, however, that
without being much of a partisan, belong
then? There is a loyalty of opposition as
well as loyalty of support. Shall I, be-
cause am not a political supporter of the
Administration, sit quietly by and see the
Government overturned and the country
dismembered. Because we did not vote for
Mr.. Lincoln's Administration, must we
hold back from the vigorous prosecution Of
from installing himself at Washington?-
Because we may disapprove of the remov-
al Of General Mcclellan, shall we do what
we can to paralyze the arm of his successor?
But it may be asked again, how can we
support an Administration which adopts
measures that we deem unconstitutional?
should certainly be a very unfaithful pupil
Of the political school in which was train
ed, if could ever hear the sacred name of
the Constitution justly invoked, without
respect, or yield to it any thing less than
an error to appeal to it where it does not
apply, as to disregard it where it does; and
! must say that the study of our political
history ought to teach us caution in this
respect; for from the formation of the Gov
eminent in 1889, to the present day, there
has not been an important controverted
meaSure-no, not one-which its party OPP
70 hoH p,n 6annnnNQ6 q q II.
ional. It is one of the doctrines of the Sc
ceding school, that the Government OF the
United States could not constitutionally
wage war against sovereign State. But
how if the sovereign State strikes the first
blow, fires on your vessels, bombards and
captures your forts, threatens your Capital,
and invades the loyal members ofthe Union
who refuse to join in the war of aggression?
Few, suppose, will doubt that the United
States may constitutionally wage war Of
self-defense against any enemy-domestlc
or foreign. But in waging this war of self
defense we can not, in the opinion OF some
persons with whom have usually acted,
and whose Judgment greatly respect, go
beyond the powers specially granted by the
Constitution to the General Government,
for the purposes of ordinary administration
in time of peace. This seems, to me, to rest
on a misconception of the authority under
which war is waged. The Constitution au-
thorizes Congress to declare war, to raise
and support armies, and to provide and
maintain q navy, and clothes the President
with the power of chief It
goes no further. 1t prescribes nothing as
to the enemy against whom, the measures
by which, nor the ends for which, the war
may be carried on. IT. gives no more power
to wage war with foreign State than with
q domestic State; and it is as silent on the
subject of blockading the ports, as of seiz-
no oil
of a district in rebellion. The rights of war
belong to the more comprehensive, in some
respects the higher, code of international
law, to which, not the Government of the
United States alone, but all civilized gov
ernments are amenable. BY this august
code, all unjust wars are forbidden, and all
unjust modes of waging just wars, no mat
ter who may be the enemy or what the pre-
text; while by the same code, all just wars,
and eminently all wars of self-defense, and
all warlike measures sanctioned by our
Christian civilization are permitted, unless
so far as they may be expressly prohibited
by the municipal law of our own country.
Now, to say that no just war can be
waged against any but foreign power is
simply begging the question. l cannot
conceive proposition more eXtravagant
than that provocation the most offensive,
and acts of aggression the most intolerable,
which would, in every sane mans judg-
ment, authorize instant hostilities against
foreign State, must be tamely. borne if
committed under the pretended authority
of a State associated with others in a feder-
al union. Certainly, if any State connected
with the British Government, by whatever
relation, whether that of constitutional
union, as Scotland or Ireland, or RESPONSE
bic colonial government, like the Anglo
American provinces, or some more absO-
lutte form of political independence, had, af-
ter years of preparation3 public and pri-
vate, the organization and draining Troops,
and the purchase Of arms, and, eventually,
by more definite military measures, such
as the construction and armament of forts
and the concentration of soldiers, and, final
ly, by overt acts firing upon provision
ships sent to supply the imperial garrisOns,
the bombardment of the national forts, and
the capture of the troops by which they
are held, the seizure. of arsenals, minis,
cutters), levied actual war against the Cen
trail Government, any person who should
deny the authority of that Government, by
every means which the law. of nations per-
mits, to wage war, not only until the
outrage was chastised, and effectual securi-
ty obtained that it would never be repeated.
W ould, in any country but this, be deemed
a.driveler. 7. sDu
Even if it were true that the Constitution
S4 ulllSIeuC uIOuC VI N1H5 VII
war in the cases of foreign and domestic
enemy, which it certainly does not, the
people of the seeding States not only claim
to be foreigners but we are compelled by
the magnitude of the forces engaged, and
by the course of the great lnaratime pow
ers in recognizing them as belligerents, to
regard them ourselves in that light In
stead of Furnishing them as traitors and
rebels when they fall into our hands, as the
municipal law would warrant us in doing,
We treat them ofnecessity as alien enemies.
Prisoners are exchanged and paroled, flags
OF truce sent and received; and they enjoy
IN all respects the privileges, and are sub
jet to all the obligations, which, by the Law
OF Nations, pertains to public war. These
privileges and these obligations are not de-
fined by the Constitution of the United
States, but by the International Code. 1t
Is this, and not the municipal law, which
authorizes the blackade of the ports. the
occupation of the citioA. end the invasion
of the territory of tho secetling States. and
would eastrange inccnseauence to hold
that the same persons could, as citizens of
the United States, though in rebellion, de-