Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1865-05-11

/
observation and Of the stcrncst integrity, 1t is
10 Dc hoped that his appeal to President Joux-
sroN may not be in vain, Should it bo-shoula
our "oVernmont adopt a revongcful policy, and
inauguratc system of capital punishment for
the leaders Of the Rebcllion-that peaco which
is now at the thrcshhOd may be far IN III. E,
turo.-ED. REr.l
PETERBoRo, April 9th, 1865.
President JOHNSON:
HoNoRED AND DEAR SIR: Only ton dovs
ago and the country felt sure of an imme.
ulate peace, The only apprehension vas
'Aat It's terms would be easier than il
was prudent to grant. To-day, there is .
strong and widespread fear that peace Is
"taF oil. Whence this great change? |,
comes from the assassination of Abraham
! Lincoln; and from you taking his place.
Jst, For, W. tho incessant demand
iot bloody and rigorous policy toward
Inc conquered rebels met with no res
ponSe IN the remarkable kindness and
compassion of Mr.. Lincoln, it is apprehen-
ded that there may be qualities in YOUR
sell to which such a policy, unless CON
demned 10y your judgmen t, would be en-
tirely welcome. Then, by your contact
with the rebellion-by your personal OBJ
sorvalton of its crimes, and especially by
what you and your family and friends had
suffered from those crimes your temper
unless marvolously controlled, could not
I have failed TO be excited, and TO call for
the severest punishment on the leaders of
the rebellion.
! I'd. While Mr.. Lincoln was yet alive.
Government was lncessantly called on by
presses and public meetings, 10y sermons
saturated with the vindictive and blood
thirsty spirit Of the Jewish theology. and
10y voices innumorable, not to spare lhese
leading rebels. No wonder then, that the
manner OF his death is made use of TO in
crease their thirst for blood. For, absurd
as is the charge, that the assassin was
their tool, it nevertheless gains extended
credence. They all knew Mr.. Lincoln's
characteristic clemency, and that the
terms of peace he was intent on were oy-
ctedipgly mild. Hence, how insane is lhe
supposition that aUy of them sought his
death
to Gat aa6Th ThS Sf sSReRla geGa 2 a one a;e
eu to, this rigorous aud bloody policy =
| Why should not government deal with
the conquered in this war, as it would deal
with the conquered, were it successful in
a war with Mexico? The answer is-be-
cause it is civil war. But is il not such
a civil war as the ablest puJlicsts bold
should be conducted by the rules of inter
national war. Says Nattel:
" But when a Iation becomes divided into two
plrtieF absolutely indepenle lent, and no longer a,-
! knowiedging com mon superior, the state is
dissolved, and the war between the two parties
stands on the same ground, in every rcspect, as
! public war between two different nations
They decide their quarrel by arms AS two
different nations would do. The obligation to
observe the common laws of war toward encn 9th q.
or is therefore abs bsolutc-ndispensahly bi.,dirr
to both parties, and the samo which the law nf
nature imposes o7 all nutiQDg Ia traLsaction, bc.
tweea state and state"
How emphatically this applies TO our
case Ihe So athern half OF our nation,
conta'nlr, many millions oF people, broke
away rom the Northern halG, and became
NJ manifestly a nation dc .flcso rs was the
Northern half. We could not proceed
against these many millions as against
traitors and pirates, and try them by mu.
|, nicipal law. Theca'e went immeasurably
beyond the scope OF the Constitution, and
took its place uEder the provisions of in.
ternaticnal law. Belligerent rights were
accorded to our enemy 10y our own as well
as by other nations. There were truces
: that the dead might be buried and for
= other purposes. Captives were not killed
bat held as prisoners Of war. There were
negotiations tor peace ard that one occa
sion the President and Secretary of State
were our negotiatorS, and went to meet
theirs, showed, not only our respect foi
the enemy, but how entirely we recognized
i the Law Of war in our contest with him
!. Both parties we're vitally interested in
n subiecting the contest TO this law, and IN
c not letting it sink into an internecine anG
g piratical one. Both parties were equally
U concerned to save life, town and property
u and TO have the war of so civilized n type
d that their citizens would not shrink from
n becoming soldiers and sailors. God for
It bid that now, when the tide of war set
y strongly in our favor, we should be guilty
2. of thTustng the Constitution into tn
II place Of the code Of war, and Of holdinI
% and trying as traitors those whom w
e (none the less really if Indirectly agreed
G TO regard hut as enemies ; and whom, b.
all the conclusive reasons Of the case asid
, from such agreement, we are bound to re
!, gard in that light only, We must not b
!. guilty of this bad faith. We must no
70 break this solemn bargain. The Soutl
# would hate us for it The world woult
despise us for it! And would not tn
i North herself, il not despising us for it
- be, at least, fearfuIly divided in regard L
:, it? Greatly should we all love our coun
- try. But there is one thing we shold al
~ love more; and that is fair dealing. "Ou
. country right mot "our country RICH
ID or wrong !"-should be our motto.
But there was another aud no less con
elusive argument for conducting the cor
at test with our enemy on the most libera
n and humane principles. It was that it
10 reasonable. and charitable 10 conclude, nc
ar only that there must in order to NOV
N such vast numbers. bo their sincere bell.