The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1866-05-23

pUT0IHnGnG AITDglAnC0
government, cannot be amenable to the general
goVernment for rendering obedience to the author
ity OF his State government, notwithstanding, by
30 doing, he will violate his Federal allegiance.
contrary doctrine, in conflict between q State
and general government, would rendor the escape
Of citizen from the crime Of treas IN Impossible;
for the obedience of ono would constitute treason
against tho othor.
The late disastrous war, then, could not have
been simple rebellion: What was it's charaoter3
1t Mas between distinct spvereignties tn set
tie question OF governmental power The States
that engaged in the contended they had q
sovereign right to resume the power originally
granted by them to tho Federal Governments; that
Government denying tho right, u conflict of arms
WAS the result, which decided tho issue against
the States placing the constitutional Government
established by the Federal Union upon a basis of
permanepcy and perpctuty which it never before
possessed. However sad and unfortunate the
war and it's consequences to society and the coun-
try, 1t has settled great and absorbing question,
to witt that no Stale has the right or will be per-
mitted to secede from tho Federal Union and CO.
tabsh either by itself or in connection with other
States, q Government on this continent, indopen-
don't Of the Government of The United States.
The recent war, as defined by writer's on inter
national law, was a 'Civil War;" and not a rebel
lion.
Custom says Vattel, "appropriates tho term
OF Civil War to every war between the members
OF one and the same political society If it is be-
tween part of tho citizens on ono side, and the
Sovereign with those who continue in obedie nee ON
tho other, provided the malcontcnts have any
reason Tor taking up arms, nothing farther is re.
Civil War, and not that of rebellion."-Vattel L.
Nations, p. 424
In addition to the abovo distinction between
sciv war" and srebelliNn," to show the charac,e or
Of the recent war between the Southern and
Northern States, wo have only to refor to some Of
the recent decisions of the Supreme Court of tho
United States to settle the matter.
In the prize cases of schooner Brilliapte, Cron-
shave, barQue Biawatha a al us. United States
the court decided tho recent war was ''ciyl war;"
They divide upon tho question us to tho period
when tho samc became actually civil war, the mi
nority OF the court contending that it. had not
assumed the character and dignity of civil war
til the passage or the Act OF Congress rccogni-
zng the existence OF the war, to wit: on the 18th
of July, 1861; but tho majority OF tho court decide
that it had become civil and territorial pre-
vious to the passage of said Act aud that the citi
zens of each section. by reason the 'eof, had bo-
come enemies to each other, and were subject to
all the beligerent rights and liabilities of nations
at WAR; Black's Rep. S. Q. U. s., 669 to 674 nclu
siye.
we also call attention to the cotton case of Mrs.
Alexander, who attempted to show that she was
loyal citizen of the United States and claimed pro-
lection to her right of property, under tho Con-
stitution and laws thereof. Tho Court, however,
dcci!e that no distinction could be mado between
the property OF loyal or dsloyal citizens; that all
alike we're subjected by international law to the
same rule; that residence in an enemy's territory
fixed the status Of the resident and his property;
o1 hee on
and her cotton was subject to seizure and confis-
cation, as enemy's property Wallace Rep. S. @.
U g. 41s, 4l9 and 420; The Court, in this case,
go still farther, and show tho utter impotency Of
the Constitution and laws Of the United States to
afford her protection by declaring s'that Mrs.
Alexander, being q resident in the enemys terri
tory, had no right to be heard in the Courts OF the
United States" 1b. page 421 same doctrine affirm
ed in the case OF the Circsssian.-Ib page 14S
We deem it unnecessary to multiply authorities
to establish the fact, that the late war between
the North and South was, in the fullest acce pta-
tion of the term, q s'civil war"
We next proceed to inquire how the laws Of the
,,,,E, 90 1k.l
war; and Vattel says IA civil war breaks the
bands Of society and government, or at least sus-
pends their force and effect it produces in the ma
other as enemies, and acknowledge no common
judge. Those two parties, therefore, must neces-
sarily be considered as theme. forward constitute
distinct societies" ''They stand, therefore, in
precisely the samo predicament as two nations
who engage in contest, and being unable to come
L. Ma. 425. And again: ''When q nation becomes
divided into two parties absolutely independent,
aud no longer acknowledging common superior,
two parties stands on the same ground, in every
respect, as public war between two different ma
tions":1b. page 427. The same doctrine is af-
leck on international law and laws of wsr.
Also in the case of the 'Santissima Trinidad" {"
The Supreme Court of tho United States decide
that nation involved in "civil war" with the
mother country, has, as belligerei,t nation lin
the language Of tho court) "the sovereign rights
OF war;" and can purchase and own pubic vessels.
which will be respected ruch by neutral nations
z Wheat. 3S7 Is Con- Rep. 284)
What, then, was the effect produced on the
Constitution and laws of the United States during
the existence of the late "Civil War" and what
power became vested in the Confederacy, formed
by the belligerent States2 The foregoing doc
trines from Vattel and others establish, that 80
soon as the Confederacy was created and civil war
commenced, the Constitution and laws of the
United Stateso "the force and effect Of them" as
he expresses it, were suspended throughout said
Confederacy. The cotton case, before referred TO-
OF Mrs Alexander, also settles that no protection
to person or property could be afforded by said
siding within said Confederacy.
We cannot hold that the suspension Of the Fed
eral Constitution and laws left the Confederate
States in perfect anarchy, with no law controlling
contracts or rights Of property. But we conceive
that al the States continued all their power and
before the war, and created dc fdcto govern
ment with belligerent power, the two combined
possessed authority to enforce the law and give
ample protection and validity to tho property,
rights aud contracts Of the citizens. The COM
mon and municipal laws Of the States, regulating
not affected BY the war, but remained intact,
within the jurisdiction OF the Confederate States
we are brought, then, to consider the condition
OF tho Confederate States Government pending
tho war, and to ask what were its powers during
it's de tdcto existence. We arc told by Vattel that
for the purpose Of the war, it was in the position
OF an independent nation; and we are informed
by the Supreme Court OF the United States in the
'Santissama Trinidad" case, that as bellgerent
nation, it possessed the Sovereign Rights OF
Rights of War;" Most clearly, as the term soyer-
eign itself implies. full, perfect and complete
power Of doing and performing all things in rela-
ton to the war which would have q tendency to