Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1866-09-14


over their citizens respectively, and the hight,
willie the war lasted, TO punish as traitors,
those of their respective citizens, who COM
nitted acts which would have rendered them
punishable as such by an independent ma
ton. The bands of society and government
we're broken. Oh. at least their fierce and effect
snsp ssaed, how then could any one commit
treason against government which, as to
him. no longer existed What cruelty could
compel him to fall under the axe Of his own
party, to whom bis allegiance was due, as to
a separate and independent State lat least for
the time, or, escaping that, become victim
to the restored laws Of the other government?
This question turns then not upon the g right
Of secession" but upon the universal p1inci
pics Of international law.
How any one can therefore conclude that
the attempt Oh the part OF the Southern
States to secure their independence was a re-
bcllion we are at loss to conceive, and
most heartily dissent from this conclusion,
stated by Mr.. Baldwin to be his legal opin-
ion. We can not see that the g right of Sc
cession" has anything whatever to do with
determining the character of the war, as to
its being rebellion or civil war; Wheth-
er we had the right to secede or did not have
| that right, the dimensions and objects Of the
contest alone determined the character of the
war and placed it, unquestionably, in the cat
egory of civil wars Hence the unwarrant-.
ed conclusion of Mr.. Baldwin in chasing it
as rebellion, and in consequence the equal
| ly unwarranted conclusion that each and CIV
cry one of us is guilty Of treason.
In our complex system of Government
the citizen, owing allegiance to both State
and Federal Governments according to Dir.
Baldwin, is liable, in cases of conflict be-
tween them, to be tried and punished for
treason by his State for siding with the Fed
eral Government, or by the latter for obey
ing the laws of his State. A wonderful di-
lcmna for the citizen, for 60 which way he
will he cannot escape, but must suffer the
penalty of treason to one or the other.
We disagree also in the assertion of Mr..
Baldwin that every pardon sought and ac-
cepted admits doubt of the defence to be
made before a court and jury. We do not
conceive that it admits this doubt at all
Many persons never thought of the matter in
the light Of a jury trial. With pardon
{ they believed they would be free from law
lessness and violence, without it heys4eared
they would not It seemed to them a neces-
sity they were forced to, by the edict of the
Chief Magistrate of the country, in order to
save what little of property they had left and
not that they could not make good their de-
fence, for a trial for treason never entered
| their thoughts. As proof Of this, men of
property who had taken but little or no part
in the struggle sought and accepted pardon,
while many who were active participators
and owned nothing have never given the sub
ject Of pardon a second thought, and are to
this day unpardoncd. They assign as rea-
son for it, that they have no property to lose
Surely life is more precious than property
and if they had for moment thought they
could be tried or that they could not make
good their defence, they would have applied
for and secured the PARDON.
With his remarks concerning the contin-
ued Imprisonment Of Jefferson Davis we cor
daily concur, bat regret exceedingly that
this letter, as a whole has gone before the
people of the country. It will be heralded
as the legal opinion Of lawyer of eminence
among US, who comedies that both law and
right are against US, and may be productive
Of harm, and especially to our imprisoned fell
low Southron, whom he so fcelingly compass
slonates, but can not be productive of good