The Placer herald., 1866-07-21
NOT A WAR OF REBELLION.

SUBJECT OF "Oalhs, AmDesties and Re
bellons." We take from it the following
extract under the latter branch of the dis.
course:
hope that it is not inconsistent with the
new allegiance 10 which we have consented
to remark that the late war was not a rebel,
lion in the ordinary sense of the word.-
The world had heard before of tho rebellion
OF subjects against their Governments, of
provinces against the empire Of which they
were a part, of colonies against their metrop,
oils, OF the vanquished against the conquerer,
but never of the rebellion Of sovereign and
independent States against the confederacy
which they had created. This is something
new under the sun, TO which our minds cans
not be equally reconced Besides, as re-.
publicans Of the old, if not the black school,
as democrats, we may be permitted to have
some repugnance for the use of word which
we shall prove to be of monarchica origin.
Let us 60 back to the first republics of
which we have any history, to the republics
OF Greece. They had also their intestine
dissensions. One party would seize power
and drive its opponents into exile, or put
them to death and confiscate their properly
We find them applying to each other the
words traitor, enemy, parricide, etc, but
rebel, never. Between Greek and Greek
their could be treason and enmily. but no
rebellion. Rebellion implies interiority on
one side and severe ignty on the other
which could not be among the Greeks, as
they were all equals and sovereigns. 1t was
the same with Rome. In the whole history
of the Roman republic the word rebel is not
once applied to Roman citizen. When
the first secession of which we have any
knowledge took place among them; when
the people-the plebians-s seeded from the
patricians and retired TO Mount Aventine
they were not called rebels When Corio
anus put himself at the head of the Volsci
and marched against Rome he was not out.
lawed by the Roman Senate. They de-
nounced him merely as an enemy. When
be appeared before the walls of his native
city, which he had doomed to destruction;
when be scornful|y rejected the suppications
of bis patrician friends and the submission of
the repentant plebians who had offended
him; when he had treated in the same con.
temptuous manner the majesty of the gods
oP'oSo"'ou W too ~ iooIs duu tuo osldls,
there came his mother. We have on record
the speech which she addressed to him.
She calls him hostis-enemy; she calls him
parrcde, but rebel. no; and let US not forget
that, if he was rebel, nevertheless the Ro.
man matrons. when be died, went into
mourning for whole year. In the protrac
ted struggles between Marius and ScylIa, so
celebrated for their fables of reciprocal pro-
scription, the paaty who happened to repre-.
sent the government for the time being,
never dreamed that their opponents were
rebels Cicero exhausts against Cataline the
vocabulary Of epithets, but omits the word
rebel, which is not even to be found in any
of his many works. When Cesar crossed
the Rubicon the Roman Senate declared
that there was not rebellion, but "tumultus
in urbum" m"-tumut. The fact is that, &C,
cordirg to Roman ideas, Roman could not
be rebel He could be guilty of sedtio,
tumutus, insurrecto, but not rebellio. Ro.
mans were all equals. They did not owe
allegiance to each other. There was no re,
beion between Cassius and Brutus on one
side end Marc Anthony and Octavius on the
other, nor subsequently between Octavius
and Anthony, and when Octavius had he.
come Augustus, the conspiracy of Cuna
against the undisputed master of the world
if it bad ripened into an open conflict of
arms, would not have been deemed rebell
lion, because respect for old republican ideas
and forms was not yet entirely oblterated.
"Rebelio among the Romans was where
those who had been overcome in battle, and
had yielded to their suhjection, had made a
second resistance" See Encyclopedia Brit
onnica."
The Gauls, the spaniards, the Britons and
other conquered nations could be rebellious
against Rome but not to the Romans. All
Romans thought that they we're component
parts OF their Government The Govern.
ment could be divided into hostile fragments,
but it was not understood ia those days how
fraction of sovereignty could be rebelIious
against the other fractions. We hear of re-
bellious cons, because Of the natural allegi,
ance claimed by father, but we never hear
of rebelious brothers. The Italian repub.
lies of the Medieval ages were as sparing Of
the word rebel as their llustrious predeces
sors. Well! When the Greeks could not
be rebels against Greeks, Romans against
Romans, Italians against Italians, we have
precedeuts for saying that Americans pitted
against Americans should not be so fond Of
stigmatizing their brothers as rebels. OF
course don't mean to maintain that, legal,
ly speaking, Americans in their individuality
cannot be rebels under our Institutions, and
ought not to be proclaimed and treated as
such on proper occasions. But under what
circumstances is the word now used against
us9 1t must be emembered that, since the
formation of our Federal Government, the
people of the United States were divided in.
TO two parties-one advocating that allegi'
ance was first due to each respective State
by her citizens, and the other that the allie.
giance to the General Government was para.
mount. A short time before this cruel war;
if this great embarrassing question had been
put to The vote, it is doubtful which way the