The daily Mississippi clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1866-1866, 1866-04-08

THE TERM REBEL THE mis-applica-
ton of this term to the citizens of the Con
federate States, by Northern men and the
Federal authorities, is thus treated by the
Hon Charles Gayarre:
| viii avail myself of this opportunity to
say that if we are called rebels, we ought not
to subscribe to the appellation. | hope that
1t Is not inconsistent with the new alIegi-
ance to which we have consented. to remark
that the late war was not rebellion in the
ordinary sense of the word. The world had
heard before Of the rebellion of subjects
against their governments, of provinces
against the empire of which they were n
part, of colonies against their metropolis. of
the vanqulshed against the conquerer, but
never OF the rebellion of sovereign and i'll
dependent States against the confederacy
WhIcn they hdd orvototI. This il sometl1inss
new under the sun, to which our minds can
not easily be TecOnciled. Besides as repub-
hcans Ofthe old, if not the black school, as
democrats we may be permitted to have
some repugnance for the use of a word
which we shall prove to be of monarchical
origin. Let US 90 back to the first republics
ofwhich we have any history, to the Repub-
lies ofGreece. They had also their intestine
dIssenSons. One party would seize power
and drive its opponents into exile ,or put them
to death and contiscate their property We
find them applying to each other the words,
traitor, enemy, parricde, etc, but rebel,
never. Between Greek and Greek there
could bettreason and enmity but no rebel
lion. Rebellion implies inferiority on one
side, and superiority on the other; allegi-
ance on one side, and sovereignty on the
other-vhich could not be among the
Greeks, as they were all equals and SOW
erelgns 1t was the same with Rome. In
the whole history of the Roman Republic,
the word rebel is not once applied to Ro-
man citizen. When the first secession of
which we have any knowledge took place
among them, when the peOple-the Pile
beians-seceded from the patricians, and re-
tired to Mount ArentIne: they were not
called rebels. When Coriolanus put HIM
self at the head of the Volsci and marched
against Rome, he was not outlawed as a
rebel by the Roman Senate. They denounced
him merely as an enemy. When he APP
peaTed before the walls of his native CITY
which he had doomed to destruction. when
he had scornfully rejected the supplicatiOns
of his patricianlfriends, aud the submission
of the repentant plebeians who had Offend
ed him, when he had treated in the same
contemptnous manner the majesty of the
gods represented by the priests and by the
Vestals, there came his mother We have on
record the speech which she addressed to him
She calls HIM h0Stis-enemy; she calls him
parrlclde, but rebel, no; and let us not forret
that, if he was a rebel, nevertheless the Ro-
mau matrons, when he died, went into
mourning for whole year. In the pr0tract-
ed struggles between Marius and SylIa. 50
celebrated for their tables of reciprocal pro-
scription, the party who happened to repre-
sent the government for the time being, new
er dreamed that their opponents were rebels
Cicero eXhauStS against Cataline the vocab-
uiary OF epithets, but omits the word rebel
which is not even found in any of his MANY
works. When Cesar crossed the Rubicon,
the roman Senate declared that there was,
not rebellion bat tHRiHlias u. Hrben-tumult
The fact Is. that according 10 Roman ideas,
Roman could not be a rebel. He could
be gully OF SeditiO, tHiaalfuS insu9Yectio, but
no Ft0et40. Romans were all EQUALS They
did not owe allegiance to each other There
was 10 rebellion between Cassius and Bru-
tas on one side and Mark Antony and Octa-
Nius On the other, nor subseq quently between
Oc,2ylus and Anthony, and when Octavius
had become Augustus, the conspiracy of
emma against the undisputed master of the
VOID. If 1t had ripened into an open conflict
Of arms, would not have been deemed a re-
beltIon, because respect for old republican
ideas and forms was not yet entirely OBJ
hterated Rebeliio, among the Romans,
was where those who had been over
come in battle, and yielded to their
subiection, made a second resistauce.~ (See
encyclopaedia Brltannica.) The Gauls the
SpanlaTds, the Brltons and other conquered
nations could be rebellious against Rome,
but not the Romans. All Romans thought
that they were component parts of their
government. That government could be di-
videI into hostile fragments, but it was not
understood in those days how fraction of
sovereignty could be rebellious against the
other fractions. We hear ofrebeiIious sons.
because OF the natural allegiance claimed by
a afther, but we never hear of rebeIlions
brothers The italian republics of the Me-
dlieval ages were as sparing of the word
rebel as their illustrious predecessors. Well!
hen the Greeks could not be rebels against
Greeks, Romans against Romans. Italians
against Italians, we have precedents for
saying that Americans pitted against Amer
leans should not be so fond of stigmatizinr
their brothers as rebels. OF CO.. Sc. / do NOT
mean to maintain that, legally speaking.
Americans, IN their individuality, cannot 6e
fe9els under our institutions, and 0ught not
to be proclaimed and treated as such on
proper occasions