The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1865-07-14


our race, have declared with admitted authori-
ty the doctrines of political morality which are
the true foundations of public law.
so far as my humble voice can reach them
through your columns, entreat the attention
OF the American government and the Ameri-
can people to language which they may rest
well assured conveys the sentence of the civil
with the following salutary warning: ssf
/ ut is aquestion very much debated wheth-
er sovereign is bound to observe the COM
mon laws of war towards rebellious subjects
who have openly taken up arms against him.
fatterer or prince of cruel and arbitrary
disposition viii Immediately pronounce that
the laws of war were not made for rebels, for
whom no punishment can be too severe"
We may be sure that q sovereign people are
no more removed from the banefu1 influence
of 'fatterers" than despotic princes; nor is a
triumphant democracy less exposed to the
temptations of q ''cruel and arbitrary DISPOSE
ton than any other depositary Of absolute
lpower. Let them, too, then listen to the
warnings of the great publicist: = aa
ly, and reason from the uncomfortable principles
above laid down. In order clearly to discover
what conduct the sovereign ought to pursue
towards revolted subjects, we must, in the first
place, recOllect that all the sovereign's rights
are derived from those of the stete or of civil
society, from the trust repOsed in him, from
the obligations he lies under of watching over
the welfare of the nation, of procuring her
greatest happiness, of maintaining order, JUS
tice and peace within her boundaries" 81.
Having thus profoundly indicated the true
conditions of the inquiry, Vattel proceeds to
discuss the character of rebellion or insurrec-
ton. He contrasts the wise clemency of Hen
ry ~ with the suicidal barbarity of the Duke
Of Ava. He then continues to discuss the ma
ture of civil war: ,,.a..,.,...
"When a party is formed in q State who no
longer obey the sovereign, and are possessed
of sufficient strength to oppose him-or when
in republic the nation is divided into two OPP
posite factions, and both sides take up arms,
this is called civil war. Some writers con-
fine this term to just insurrection of the SUBJ
jects against their sovereign, to distinguish
that lawful resistance from rebellion, which is
an open and unjust resistance. But what ap.
pellation will they give war which arises in
republic torn by two factions, or in mon
archy between two competitors for the crown?
Custom appropriates the term of civil war to
every war between the members of one and
the same political society. If it be between
part of the citizens on one side and the sover-
eign, with those who continue in obedience to
him, on the other, provided the malcontents
have any reason for taking up arms, nothing
further is required to entiLle such disturbance
to the name of civil war, and not that of re-
bellion. This latter term is applied only to
such an instruction against lawful authority
as is void of all appearance Of justice. The
sovereign, indeed, never fails to bestow the
appellation of rebels on all such of his sub.
jects as openly resist him but when the latter
have acquired sufficient strength to give him
effectual opposition, and to oblige him to carry
On the war against them according to the es-
tablished rules, he must necessarily submit to
the use of the term civil war;
"a civil war breaks the bands of society and
government, or at least suspends their force
and effect; it produces in the nation two indie
pendent parties who consider each other as
enemies and acknowledge 20 common Judge
Those two parties, therefore, must necessarily
be considered thenceforward as constituting
at least for time, two distinct societies
Though one OF the parties may have been to
blame in breaking the unity of the state and
wrestling the lawful authority, they are not the
less divided in fact. Besides, who shall Judge
them? Who shall pronounce on which side
the right or the wrong lies? On earth they
have no common superior. They stand, there
fore, in precisely the same predicament as two
nations who engage in q contest, and, being
unable to come to agreement have recourse to
arms. This being the case, it is very evident
that the common laws of war-those maxims
of humanity, moderation and honor which we
have already detailed in the course of this
work-ought to be observed by both parties
in every civil war. For the same reasons
which render the observance of those maXims
matter of obligation between state and state
it becomes equally and even more necessary in
the unhappy circumstances of two incensed
parties lacerating their common country.
Should the sovereign conceive he has the right
to hang up his prisoners as rebels, the Oppo-
site party will make reprisals; if he does not
religiously observe the capitulations and all
other conventions made with his enemies
they will no longer rely on his word. Should
he burn and ravage, they will follow his ex-
ample. The war will become cruel, horrible
and every Gay more destructive to the nation
Whenever, therefore, numerous body of men
think they have right to resist the sovereign
and feel themselves in q condition to appeal to
the sword, the war ought to be carried on by
the contending parties in the same manner as
by two different nations and they ought to
leave open the same means for preventing its
being carried to outrageous extremities and
for the restoration of peace"
Thus far Vattel has been discussing the case
in which subjects take up arms without ceas-
ing to acknowledge the sovereign, and only for
the purpose of obtaining redress of their
grievances; and it is of such q case that he
adds:
"When the sovereign has subdued the oppo-
site party, and reduced them to submit and sue
for peace, he may except from the amnesty the
authors of the disturbance, the heads of the
party; he may bring them to q legal trial, and
punish them if they be found guilty. He may
act in this manner particularly on occasion of
those disturbances in which the interests of the
people are not so much the object in view as
the private aims of some powerful individuals
and which rather deserve the name of revolt
than of civil war"
But having thus dealt with this limited
kind of civil war, where allegiance isnot Who'll
ly broken of, he proceeds to deal with differ
ent state of things. thus:
s'But when q nation becomes divided into
two parties, absolutely independent, and no
longer acknowledging common superior. the