New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1865-06-14
TREAsON.
Nm, and esteemed Sir.

eynRr SMrH-Dsdy and esteemed Sir;
yopr feeling delneatlon of the beauty and bless
.d,es, of mercy made almost sink the impas5onate
dictates of the Judgment in the tide of sentiment 1t
vas easy In listening 10 you to forget that this was
merely side issuethat the negation OF the main ques'
ton lis there right TO punish Tmakcs mercy entirely
superAuous The objection Of Mr.. Train to the British
,.bliests on the ground Of their nationality, is of
course absurd, and calculated for effect only with
suoh minds as tako The Nep-York Herald for
sude Bns i object to their citation, because
all their precedents and arguments necessarily
refer TO such governments existed in Vattes time OF
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Of the few over the many.
70 nrthe. than Vatte and declare that Hnder d" Ct"
eumsdnces against monaroheai or o''s''o"'''
Sorenmeaf 10 ,npossibe for oil such governments az
themselves based betrayal Of and fraud upon Inc
peoples brtbrights and treason against treason 's
eon,radtctio In So With democracies, however 'ne
case is bravey altered The majority governs ana II
a uinorty wish TO separate from the same they may
40 So but in lawful and orderly manner bnt
10 do 10 by fraud end force at once without
having attempted TIE legal method CLEARLY con-
ss,,u.e. treason, xho,erer dimensions The act may
..,sux In q government by force, the people
have no redress grievances except rebellion Hence
,nder such Government rebellion oan never, morally
be Treason for treason is a crime. while rebellion for
liberty is lust act Under Government by consent
the people have or procure means Of redressing all
grievances legally Hence there never be iusti'
noation for violence in a democratic republic whhe
pacific measures have been neglected
This radical difference between q rebellion against
uoualchy and q rebellion against republic also de-
stroys all paraelism between the examples you have
cited Of Poland Hungary, &C., and our case.
Nv father YVES an arch.rerel In his native land In
1sIs-a traitor i-ueverl proud Of his deeds,
-t.4xx o,ncta f.nvQr m
nent az do the pestienee, Would you defle your
lure hand BY grasping that Of Davis Would you not
On the contary. delight to salute Garibaidi'
Secondly has our Gov eminent any right 10 declare
Nhis Nation discovered into 1.-TWO Independent parts.
Or to formally acknowledge such severance as you say
Il has donei If circumstances compelled the Govern
ment to act In practical details IL the Nation ~er
severed does that make nso1 No power esn justly d
vide the Nation except o. the will Of the Nation ITSELF
expressed in Convention, or C2) the viii of God ex
dressed in irresistible The will Of the Nation
has not been that way, you know. Events have not
dissolved it. as you You may soy II was temporarily
Dissolved by events. Granting this for argument soke'
was not the crime Of Davis Co. committed before the
dissolution On fact their crime consists in bringing
about Illegally such events as I'D to that dissolution
hence their crime have been prior Can the SUD
ssgsent accomplishment Of the separation possibly justify
Al
divided as you say, by our Government, are not the
acts which caused such division and which e1torted
from such admission. still criminsli
Again If you admit that at any time the CoDfederacy
formed de jure nation distinct from why not have
acknowledged the fact at formally, granted the
Rebels their let alone" Which 4" all they asked.
snd stopped most nnrighteous Of subugatiOn II
ne we're. you to say. two nations by right the
var on our part was an aggression, ard ne were the
criminals 1.-THE separation however, existed only IN
fs and not by right how IL have exercised pros.
pecve and Retrospective effect changing the moral
and legal status of is Detersf Cen wrong by merely
boidng sway long time and wide country,
kscome right
1t is easy prove that Rebels by their crime.
t<, Constitutional rgLsj but how state Of warfare.
By them illegally commenced could GIVE them any erra
Constitutional rights and ytvlegss such immunity
rom punishment. is incomprehen sble.
These are the two main points: ]. All unnecessary
violence against q popular government is treason
Treason cannot be justified by it, extent
supplementary point to the lst but irIelevent to the
main question Isl; Treason against a government Of
privileged class is impossible.
There are other minor points. which time viii not
DOW allow me discuss but the preceding are sui'
sen to show that the guilt OF Southern Rebels has
10 logical psllston; for admitting that treason
q crime nothing further can be urged In its favor
0bich would net also apply 10 other crimes which you
must unquali6edly condemn.
Whether, after acknowledging their gall and our sub
equsn, rish pnNh them mercy she'll ssP In in their
behalf not is quite another question. the merits VI
which need not be discussed.
Vindictiveness Of all faults, disclaim-equsly so
Me Old Testament idea Of justice that guilt must be
ssosed for II the Rebels shall be punished for treason
claim snch punishment the only ground on which
punishment Justly be basedshs prevention future
primes. All castgation should lave this aim. End no
Dther. you show that this aim will be better sab
served by letting traitors 60 UNPUBLISHED than by an
opposite course. shah unite with you in calling for
mercy.
But the proposition that we have no lawful righ to
prnish be far from me- for ever
With very deep respect, your friend,
Etx- York, June Q. 1865. GCsTAvUs MULLER