New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1866-06-18
RECONSTRUCTION AND BELLIGEREET
RIGHTS

The logic employed by Mr.. Smith is in some re-
spects similar to that Of MIR. Stevens OF Pennsyl-
yauia. He contends that the States which con-
federated to resist the authority of the United
States constituted themselves into government
de faeto That in their oonfederated relations they
actually acquired belligerent rights, as fully Is if
they had sen admitted into the family of nations
That the existence of these rights was aeknow-
lodged by the principal nations of the civilized
world, and was conceded by the government of
the United States. That this recognition was
eyinced by the agreement between the two govern
ments for exchanges of prisoners; by the various
military eonventonsswhich were agreed upon; by
| the conferences held between President Lincoln
and the peace commissioners from Richmond, and
by various other acts of equal significance. That,
as result of these concessions on the part of the
United States, the Confederate States became de
facto independent, subject like other States to the
rules Of war, and liable, when their armies had
been destroyed to be held at the discretion of the
United States as subject provinces, under other
restrictions than thel Of humanity and the rules
of war as interpreted by the civilized nations of
modern times.
| From this state of facts, he deduces the oonclu-
sion that neither Mr. Davis nor any other citizen of
the late Confederate States can be legally tried
for treason; that they are in precisely the same
relation to the United States government as the
soldiers or citizens of France, or England, or Mex
leo would be, if those countries were subjugated
by the American arms that under tile interna-
tional code, such persons as may have set at de-
fance the rules of civilized warfare, are liable to
De adjudged by military tribunals for the murder
Of prisoners of war, or for other acts of cruelty
or barbarity which are violations Of the accepted
system of modern warfare. But that the citizens
| of the late Confederate States are in no way re-
sponsible to the civil tribunals Of the land for their
acts during the existence of the Confederate gov
ernment-their responsibility to the municipal
laws being merged and lost in the question Of bel
lgerent rights.
| This, as we understand, is essentially the argu,
ment of Mr.. Smith. 1t accords, too, with that of
Mr.. Stevens who, like Mr.. Smith, claims that the
responsibility of Southern citizens to the munich
pal law ceased with the concession of bellfgerent
rights.
/ 1t will be seen that this argument leads, by a
different route, to the same conclusion reached by
| the advocates of secession. The latter urge that
each State, by the action of its convention ex-
pressing the will of sovereign State, dissolved
all relations with the Federal government, and es-
tablished the State at once as separate and indie
| pendent power. We thus see that Mr.. Harris Of
| Maryland, and Mr. Gerritt Smith of New York
reach the same result, by different systems of
logic, and agree that the Southern States were in
fact independent, and that as necessary result of
the overthrow Of their governments, they are now
! in the attitude of subjugated people, precisely
| as Northern Mexico became when acquired
| BY the arms of the United States. As necessary
sequence to their conclusions, they must also con
cur III the ooroary to their proposition, that the
theory on which President Johnson bases his policy
Of reconstruction is erroneous.
Let US examine however, more closely the
theories of the advocates of subjugation, and see
if they necessarily lead to the conclusions which
are deduced from the arguments advanced. IT is
needless to discuss here the theory of Mr.. Harris,
as to the right Of peaceable secession. It was
tried and the question has been efectualy decided
by force Of arms, Besides, the right was denied
and is sti denied, by the majority Of every North
ern State. Though the South may have become
independent, they all agree that it was not by the
process Of secession, which, they claim, was a null
| lily. The subjugation theorists say they became
| in fact, independent but by another Prossss-ale
establishment of new goveruMsAt of such
strength as to compel the concession 81 belgerent
rights.
Between these two theories ia that Of President
Johnson, which we do not deem inconsistent with
the theory of Mr.. Smith, though his conclusions
are entirely different He agrees with Mr. Smith
that the attempts of the Southern States to sever
by State action, their relations with the Federal
government were totally ineffective. He has
also, in various ways, approved of acts which
concede to the late Confederate States the
existence of their rights as a belligerent power.
But he practically denies that such CON
cession is an acknowledgment that The rela-
tons Of these States to the Federal Union were at
any time severed. There may have been an inter
ruption in the current Of Federal relations, but
with the removal of the causes of the obstruction,
the current would at once resume its former chan.
mel. The belligerent attitude of the Confederate
States constituted this obstruction. They became
a de facto government which, for a time, effectu-
ally checked the flow of the Federal current (; but
with the destruction of this government, and the
consequentremovalo of the obstacle whichhad been
nterposed, the stream would at once return to its
former channel and the ancient Federal relations
would be restored.
There is nothing in this theory at all inconsistent
with Mr.. Smiths conclusions in reference to the
extent of belligerent rights acquired by the Con.
federate States. We agree with him in most Of
those conclusions, which are alike cTeditable to
his head and his heart. Even had the Southern
States been an integral part of consolidated gov
eminent, the proportions which the strife assumed
would have entitled them under the accepted laws
of war, to a recognition of their beigerent rights
with all the advantages aeoruing from the new
relation which, for the time being, they had ac-
quired. This position is conceded by the writers
on international law, who claim that all interneeine
strife which passes beyond the limits Of an nsur-
reetion and assumes the dimensions of a civil war
should be governed by the general laws of war
and that military conventions and otherarrange
ments between the parties to the conflict are as
binding as upon separate nations. This is claimed
even in contests for power between parties
which claim the same government in the country
which is the scene Of their struggles How much |
palmer then is the proposition, when applied to
two distinct sections which claim separate govern
ments, and where each has the power to cause its
laws to be respected and enforced within the limits
of its own section!
We claim, therefore, with Mr.. Smith. that the
contest between the two sections Of tile country
assumed such proportions that the question oil
treason became merged in that Of beligerent
rights and that any subsequent action on the part