The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1867-06-11
TREASON IN CIVIL WAR.

! TREASON IN CIVIL WAR.
From the New York Tribune, May 9th, (Radical.)
Can government, which, after long aud
arduous struggle, put down an organized and
formidable rebellion, proceed to try and punish
| It's defeated adVersaries as traitors ?
The question is readily answered in the af-
hrmative by ignorance and passion-perhaps
also by wisdom and calm judgment. Let us
inquire and consider.
Unquestionably, Government may refuse
from the outset to recognize its domestic foes as
bclligerents, engaged in lawful war. It may
say to them, as Maximian did to his Mexican
adversaries-"You are not warriors, but banditti
l.-brlgands, robbers-whom, if captured by my
armies, l shall treat as arrested feons." But
this is a two-edged sword, as Max. is very likely
to discover The Government which treats It's
enemies as felons must expect to have its ad-
herents so treated by those adversaries--to have
its soldiers shot or huog when captured, if it
shoots and hangs those whom it captures
Whatever rule it acts upon will surely work
both ways. y..-* aE
On the main question, the doctrine generally
held by American statesmen and publicists prior
to 1860, will be found succinty set forth By
Daniel Webster, in bis address on laying the
cornerstone of Bunker Hill NJ onument (June
1tCu, 1OSOJ "ueTeiu ue says OF Tue COQSe-
quences Of that memorable combat:
"The battle of Bunker Hill was attended
with the most important effects beyond its i'm
mediate result as military engagement It
created at once state of open, public war
There could now be DO longer question of
proceeding against individuals, as guilty of
treason or rebellion. That fearful crisis was
past. The appeal now lay TO the sword; and
he op1v shor h. a
the resources of the people would hold out till
the object should be accomplished" s--
Bear in mind that our fathers had not even
declared their independence on the 18th of
June, ITS, when they fought at Bunker Hill ;
nay, they had not definitely resolved on separa-
tion from the mother country. In the eye of
British law-aud of the law of nations, for that
matter-they we're simply rebels, resisting the
authority and the army of their legitimate king.
Yet Mr. Webster holds that the naked fact that
they resisted in battle array, under the com:
mand of their constituted local authorities, pre-
cluded any civil proceedings against them as
individuals guilty of treason or rebellion
OF course, MIR Webster did not originate this
doctrine. He was not the man to dc the like
of that. He found it interfused throughout our
entire Revolutionary history and literature
Thus, Chief Justice Marshall, in his Life of
Washington, relates that, when Geperal Gage,
commanding the Kings forces in Boston, ar
rested several eminent Whig civilians and
lodged them 10 Jail, along with our captured
officers and soldiers, to be dealt with traitors,
Washington demonstrated ''very seriously against
this unjustifable MEASURE" (says Marsha1i,)
while General Gage "regarded the Americans
merely as rebels, and treated them as if the
great national resistance they we're making on
= Al n.
daring and turbulent Individuals" aud, as such,
wrote Gage, "prsoners whose lives are, by the
laws of the land, destined to the cord" Wash.
ington at once Instituted measures for retaliation,
should this violation of public law and of public
war be carried into effect, aud thereby brought
the British General to recognition Of the just
principles of civilized warfare, as euunciated by
Vattel and other writers on public law.
James Otis, the Wyclif of John Huss Of our
Revolution, Alexander Hamilton Gin The Fed
cralist,) and all our Revolutionary publicists of
any authority, refer to and quote from Vattels
Law Of Nations as setting forth the Judgment of
tie civilized world in accordance with The doc
trines of Webster and Washington above cited.
Vattel in his chapter on civil war, says:
s.But what conduct shall the sovereign OBJ
serve toward the insurgents | answer, in
general, such conduct as shall at the same time
be the most consoDant to justice and the most
salutary to the State. + Subjects who rise
against their prince without cause deserve Sc.
we're punishment; yet, even in this case, on ac-.
count of the number uf delnqueuts, clemency
becomes duty in the sovereign. A
civil war breaks the bonds Of society and gov
ernment, or, at least. suspends their force and
effect; it produces in the nation two independent
parties, who consider each other as enemies,
and acknowledge 90 common judge Those
two parties, therefore, must necessarily be con-
sidered as thenceforward constituting, at least
for time, two separate bodies, two distinct
societies. Though one of the parties may have
been to blame in breaking the unity of the State
and resisting the lawful authority, they are not
the less divided IN fact Besides, who shalf
judge them They stand, therefore, in
precisely the same predicament as two nations,
who engage 10 a contest aud, being unable to
come to an agreement, have recourse to arms.
This being the case, it is very evident that the
common laws of war ought to be observed BY
both parties in every civil war For the same
reasons which render the observance of those
maxims matter of obligation between State
and State, it becomes equally, and even more
necessary in the unhappy circumstances OF two
incensed parties laeerating their common coun-
try" s'Tbus there exist in the State two
separate bodies, Who pretend to absolute inde-
pendence, aud between whom there is no judge.
They decide their quarrel by arms not courts
Of civil law. and as two differest nations would
do. The obligation to observe the common laws
of war toward each other is therefore absolute
-indispensabiy binding on both parties, and
the same which the law Of nature imposes on
all natious in transactions between State and
| State"