Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1865-08-16
A New View of Gen. Lees Case.

a New view OF Gon. Lee OaSe'
DIR. j. f. SNoDGRASS has written letter
to the Lieut. Governor of Maryland, sug
gesting that General ROBERT +. LEE be
indicted by the authorities of Maryland for
the invasion of that State. He urges that
if the National authorities feel themselves
bound by the terms granted by GRANT to
the rebel chief not to proceed against him
for treason to the United States, that such
terms in no way compromised the right OF
Maryland to punish him for his invasion of
her territory Although it be the duty of
the general government to protect each State
against invasion, it has no power to compro-
mise the right of State when invaded to
pursue and bring to justice the guilty par
ties. He claims that the South is estopped
from combating the soundness of his posi-
ton. JACOB THOMPSON, in a recent letter,
said ''On the subject of treason, the u
nited States could declare no act treason, ex-
cept the making of war upon the United
States, and the giving Of aid and comfort to
the enemy. Each State, however, being
sovereign, and having larger scope of pow
ers, could declare almost any act treason. !"
In addition to the theory the South has furn-
ished precedent The case of JOHN
Brown is a remarkable parallel to that of
Cen LEE. He levied war upon Virginia
and was tried for his offense and executed.
He surrendered to the National military
forces, and the general government did not
attempt to question the right of Virginia to
indict and punish him. To the same au-
thority did LEE surrender, and there appears
to be no right in the National Government
to prevent Maryland or Pennsylvania
which has a stronger case if possible than
Maryland, the most enthusiastic rebel never
having claimed her as part of the Conted-
eracy-from indicting and furnishing him for
invasion.
DIR. SNoDGRAss quotes a portion of the
Indictment against JOHN BROWN, as Com
| mander-in- Chief OF his ''usurped govern
! ment," and says that the whole document
would be wonderfully appropriate as an in
dictment against LEE, by the mere substitu-
ton of his and his associates names for
'tJoHN Brown and his, and the name, for
| instance, of Antietam for that Of Harper S
| Ferry and of Washington county for 'Jef-
ferson, and Maryland for Virginia. . He
| claims that the parallel is most complete,
save in the degree of criminality, morally
considered, and the amount of property and
number of lives destroyed. The wonderful-
ly significant facts are not to be passed ovel
without notice that Gen. LEE, as ''Colone
ROBERT E. LEE, U. S. A, was partici-
pant in the scenes which closed with JOIN
| BRowN's execution, and it was to him, as
the commander of the United States forces
chat Brown surrendered.
How frightful is LEES crime, compared
with that for which JOHN BROWN died up
on the scaffold The lives taken in BRowN's
invasion of Virginia were counted by units
while those taken by LEE in his invasion o
Maryland were counted by thousands. The
property destroyed by Brown was easily es
timated; that by LEE remains yet incalcula
.ble BROWN fought for cause he believed
to be Just; LEE for cause he knew to b'
wicked and unholy. While sympathlsin!
for BROWN in his erratic enterprise, the just
ice of his punishment was universally con
ceded LEE himself aided in and justified
it. Is there as much reason to extenuat
LEES crime as there was to throw the man
tie of charity, mercy and forgivness over tn
erring enthusiasm of old JOHN BROWN
There is not Should not the fate metet
out to JOHN Brown, with the aid and con
currence of ROBERT +. LEE, be certainl
and inexorably meted out to himself? Thi
is the tenor of Dr. SNoDGRAss letter, whicl
will in due time, we doubt not, receive tn
calm and deliberate attention the importanc
of the subject demands.