Des Arc weekly citizen., 1867-08-03

be deemed totally incapable. Even in cases of revolt, when the revoltcrs are subdued and sue for peace, the amnesty may exempt the authors of the disturb ance, but even then only that they "may be brought to legal trial and punished if found guilty"
 ssAt the present day it seldom happens that either of the belligerents perseveres to tLe last extremity before he will consent to peace. Though n nation may have lost sev- eral battles, she can still defend herself; as long as she has men and arms remaining she is not destitute of all resource. If she thinks fit, by disadvantagcous treaty, to procure a necessary peace--if by great sacrifices she delivers herself from immediate danger or total ruin-the residue which remains in her possession is still an advantage for which she is indebted to the peace; it was her own free choice to prefer certain and immediate loss, but of limited extent, to an evil of a more dreadful nature, which, though yet at some distance, she had but two great reason to apprehend.
 But how does she have 'residue of rights remaining according to the terms of the peace, if new terms of to- tai ruin may be prescribed after the peace? How is the extent of the loss limited" by the terms of her surren- der, if unlimited exactions may be made by the victor afterward What ever the conqueror demands he must demand while his adversary has linen | and arms remaining A conquered people are never subject to the WILL of the conqueror." None but very barbarous people and Northern Radi- calls and Southern renegades ever said so. A conquered people are subject to the TERMS OF THE CONQUEST made known and demanded before or at the time the conquest is admitted, and to no after terms or will whatever; and none but treacherous conqueror would demand more; and none but a more treacherous and base conquered would concede more. Rapacity only claims more than the bond. Servile cowardice alone consents to more.
 ''lf an unjust and rapacious conqueror subdues . nation, and forces her to accept of hard, ignominious and insupportablc condi- tions, necessity obliges her to submit; but this apparent tranquility is not peace; it is an oppression which she endures only so long as she wants the means of shaking it off, and against which men of spirit rise on the first favorable opportunity.
 Will any man pretend that a people so op- pressed would not be justifable in seizing a convenient opportunity to recover their rights, to emancipate themselves, and to ex- pei or exeirminate the horde of greedy, inso- lent, and cruel usurpers? No! such a mon- strous absurdity can never be seriously maintained. Besides, were you to preach up the contrary doctrine, which is so repugnant to all the feelings and suggestions of nature, where could you expect to make prosclytes.' ''
 lVattel.
 Must the answer to the question of this noble writer who lived in former generation and in the midst of Euro pean despotism, be that proselytes to a doctrine is repugnant to the feelings of nature as found here in free America in proud Southern America. Yea, more; that here, in Georgia, men claiming to be leaders, favorite advis- CTS of the people, long trusted by the people, are to be found teaching the people that they are not only bound to submit to hard and ignominious terms which they have accepted, but they are bound to submit and ought to submit to such terms when they have not &C., cepted them, and that they are bound to submit and ought to submit to W hat ever the will of a conqucror may de- mand after they have laid down their arms? Still more, not only submit but consent to accept and defend and jus tify such terms of the conqueror l. terms that abrogate their governments and adopt new governments made by their former slaves to please and suit only their oppressnrsl
 l wish to call the readers attention to one rule to be observefin ascertaining the terms of peace, and then we will proceed to apply the rules to ascertain the terms of peace between the parties | to our late civil war, and what are the | rights of the conqueror and the obliga- tions of the conquered. The rule is this; So far is it from being true that the will of the conqueror is the law oi the conquered, that all points of doubt | in ascertainins shc terms of the peace as fixed before the surrender, arc to te construed against the conqueror.
 'In ease of doubt, the interpretation goes against him who prescribed the terms; for as it was, in some measure, dictated by him, it was bis own fau't if he neglected to express himself more clearly, aad by extending or restricting the signiheation of the expression to that meaning which is least favorable to him, we either do him no injury, or we only uo HIAi tuut tp NulCu nc nus WlIluily eIpOSeu himself; whereas, by adopting contrary mode of interpretation, we would incur the risk of converting vague or ambitious terms into so many snares to entrap the weaker | party in the contract, who has been obliged to subscribe to what the stronger had die tated,-[ vattel.
 So we sec, in all wars, the conqueror must not only make known his terms before his adversary's surrender is &C., l cepted, and ''while his men and arms are remaining" but he must make known his terms DISTINCTLY, and if he fails to be distinct, the injury shall re- suit alone to the conQueror, because a contrary rule would entrap the weaker party. What would become of the wrecked party if the conqueror was not only relieved from the duty of making known his terms beforehand, but was allowed to prescribe terms ac- cording to his own will after the peace was declared? The very thought is horrible to all honorable minds, whether of the conqueror or the con- quered.
 Whether the late war was a rebel lion, a civil war or a foreign war, the terms of peace are not doubtful. They were prescribed by the conqueror--the United States--most solemnly prescrib- ed while the ''arms and men" of their adversary were remaining" They induced thousands to lay down their arms in advance; even to desert their colors. They prevented the independ- ence of the Confederate States by giv- ing strength to internal treachcry, and now 10 insist. upon other terms, having no law but the will of the conqueror, as expressed by a fragmentary conclave of Congressional members, is to insist upon a treachery which would shame the tyranical conqueror of the unfort- unate Montezuma. To these terms of peace the readers attention will be in- vited in the next note.