The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1865-05-16
Gan BelHgersnt Rebels be Punished as
Traitors2

all subjects, who uniustly take up arms
against the ruler of the society, whether their
view be to deprive him OF the supreme author
fly, or resist his commands in some par ticular
stance, and to impose conditions upon niln'
Sec. 288.
"a popular commotion is concourse Oh peo,
ple who assemble in tumultu0us manner ana
refuse to listen TO the voice of their superiors,
whether the design of the assembled muiutuoe
be levelled against the super1ors tneMseiyss, =.
only against some private lndlviduals' vloien.
commotiona of this kind take place Wnen the
neonle think themselves aggrieved; and there IS
no order of men who SO frequently give rise to
than az the tax gatherers. II the rage of the
indictments be particularly levelled at the mag
iHtrates or others vested with the public authori-
ty, and they proceed to formal disobedlence, or
acts OF open violence, this is called o sediti0n.
when the evil spreads, when it infects the ma
jority Of a city or province, and gains such,
strength that even the sovereign is no longer
obeyed--it is usual more particularly to distin-
guish such disorder by the name of insurrec-
fion." Sec. 2S9.
Changing terms to correspond with the he
publican character ofour government, we may
conclude that the term rebels has been cor
recily applied to the so-called Confederate
community, being a body Of citizens. who
have supjustly taken up arms to deprive the
elected rulers Of the supreme authority, or TO
resist their commands in some particular in
stances, and to impose conditions upon them
las that the constitution should be altered
or laws passed or abrogated whereby the
claims Of persons to hold slaves might be made
more secure. We may presume too that Pres
ident Lincoln, when he styled the proceed
ings Of those persons in his proclamation of
April 10th 1861, as an Insurrection, used the
term In it's legal sense as applicable to malcon-
tents forming the majority of province or sec
tlon, disobeying the sovereign majority as rep
resented in the naiionallaws
Now what does Vattel affirm about the pun
ishment of the persons implicated as rebels
In such insurrection?
can these violences disturbed the public order,
and are state crimes even when arising from just
causes Of complaint. But what
conduct shall the sovereign observe towards the
insurgents answer in general, - such con-
duct as shall be at the same time most conso-
nant to justice and the most salutary to she
state. Although it is his duty to rspress those,
who unnecessarily disturb the public peace, he
is bound to show clemency towards unfortunate
persons, to whom just causes Of complaint have
been given and whose sole crime consists in the
themselves
rise against their prince deserve severe punish
ment; yet even in this case, on account OF the
number of the delinquents, clemency becomes
duty in the sovereign. ANY punishment, how
ever Just in itself, which embraces too many per-
sons becomes On act of downright cruelty
Crimes in which number Of
persons are involved are to be punished by pen
altes which shall equally fall on all the parties
concerned; the sovereign may deprive town Of
her privileges, at least till she has fully acknowl
edged her fault: as to corporal Puntshment--let
that be reserged for the outhors of the dsturban-
ces-for those incendiaries tUho inctte the people
torepolt.' Sec. 240.
From these principles it seems that the doc
trine of international law Is that rebels deserve
severe punishment, that the actual punish
ment visited upon them, is to be mitigated not
in Difference to any rights Of theirs, but to JUS
tice, the safety of the state, and the humane
sentiments Of mankind.
It is necessary however to add that Vattel
holds that when in republic a part Of the cit
izens take up arms against the constituted au-
thorities, the instruction may become civ-
Il ,cGr, provided the malcontents have any
cause for taking up arms, though even in that
case, from the point Of view of the sovereign
or the government, those resisting 1t will be
considered rebels. Accordingly q series Of
proclamations by the President Of the United
States from April 18th 1861, and all the legis-
lation Of Congress during the war have reoog.
nized the war as an jnsurrection and rebellion
and those waging it against the government as
insurgents and rebels. During the tendency Of
what may thus be ciUa acGr to disinterested
nations looking on, though revolution to one
party and rebellion TO the other Of the BEL
Ngerents, Vattel insists that all truces, am
nesties, agreements and pledges made between
the combattants by authorized persons are to
be sacredly kept, Except that the sovereign
may justly revoke any pernicious concessions
which he has been obliged to make, provided
tie revocation be sanctioned by the consent CT
the nation But
"When the sovereign has subdued the opposite
party and reduced them to submit and sue for
peace, he may except from the amnesty the au-
thors Of the disturbances the heads Of the party;
he may bring them to legal trial and punish
them if they be found guilty" Sec. 2s6
It would thus appear that the United States
has proceeded thus far in the treatment of the
rebellion, or Tilt may be so called the ciuil
lcar precisely in accordance with the princi-
pies Of international law. During the war 1t
faithfully kept all its pledges and conventions
with the insurgents. It will revoke none of
those conventions unless pernicions ones at
the dictation Of the nation. In Difference to
the p6biie opinion of the world it long ago
promulgated on just conditions and still holds
forth an ample amnesty for the great mass OF
the insurgents. But now that the rebellion
has been subdued though 1t has not offensive
ly announced, it has not renowned in the ex-
ercise Of its independent sovereignty, the right
to bring to legal trial and to punish those who
obstinately refuse the amnesty, and especially
the heads of the party the authors efthe dis
turbances,' the incendiaries soho melted the
people to reuolt.'
Other reputable writers on International
Law do NOT disagree with Vattel Bello says:
ssWhen sovereign has conquered the party
opposed to him, and obliged it to ask for peace
us customary to concede to it q general am
nesty, ercepting from it the authors and chiefs,
tchom he maypunish according to the lasos."
Hslleck in his work on International law
asserts that:
AN modern ethical writers regard an un;nst
war as not only immoral, but as one Of the
greatest OF clrmes--murder on alarge scale.''
wars OF instruction and revolution are in one
sense csvit aUors; but this term is more usnsllv
applied to those contests which are waged be.
tween rival IL lies or factions, for party as
berment. or torlo radical change IN lis oopsrn-
msnt- Each party IN such case is usually emit
tied to the rights Of war as against The Other
aud also in respect to neutrals Mere rehel;ons
however, are considered as exceptions to this
rule as every government treats those bo vsha1
against its authority according to its own mn
nicipal laws, and without regard to the genera
rules Of war, which international Jurisprudence
establishes between sovereign states"
But international law has no sanction but