Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-06-14

Forty or fifty journals having seen fit
to say that we have assumed or asserted
that there was no fundamental differ
ence between the late southern rebellion
and the American revolution, we are
moved to remind them that we consider
the two as wide ssunder as the poles,
the one a struggle for liberty the other
an effort to dIfuse and peFpetuate
slavery. If this is not a difference, we
know not what could be. But they are
alike in this-that each of them was a
formidable Instruction, under local
authority, against what had previously
been the paramount or national author
ity and they were alike in coming
within the purview CT the doctrine lid
down by Mr.. Webster in his earlier
Bunker Hill orstion-ss foAowsl
"The battle Of Bunker Hill was at
tended with the most important effects
beyond its immediate result as 3 military
engagement. Il created at once a state
of public war. There should now be no
longer q question of proceeding against
individuals, as guilty OF treason or rebel
lion.- That fearful crisis was past. The
-app@ now lay TO the sword and the
only question was, whether the spirit
and the resources of the people would
hold out till the object should be accom-
pIished."
Why IS it that most OF those who seea
to differ with US on this matter are as
shy Of this passage as the evil one of
holy water, or a mad dog Of water Of any
kind ? One valiant soul does venture to
say that The federal constitution defines
treason otherwise than above. But do
YOU fancy Mr.. Webster ignorant Of that
definition ? Yet do you observe how
broadly be takes his ground a. IL it
were universal and incOntrovertible ?
Now let u look at the constitutional
provision
"Treason against the United States
shall consist only in levying var against
them, Or In adhering to their enemies,
giving them aid and comfort
Here is a plain effort to so define trea-
sol as to preclude all constructive or ar
tifeial treasOns-tO eOnfne it within
narrower limits than those prescribed by
the common law. Evidently, no one
dreamed of duplicating a large class who
were not traitors by British law.
Who, then, are traitors by the terms
Of the federal constitution?
Not all who levy war against u
country for the British and the Next
cans have done that, yet were in no
sense tfalb9fs. nor YET Ill NuO I'VE III
this country yet levy wal upon us for
Indians often do that, yet are not held
guilty Of treason. Nor yet all that owe
allegiance to our government; for, when
the British, in 1913, undertook TO treat
as traitors the Irishmen lighting against
them in our armies, Gen. Scott resisted,
with the full approval Of Il govern
ment and people, and would have hung
every British officer then in our hands,
if the British bad shot or hung our Irish
soldiers as traitors.
Doubtless our governments might, in
the infancy OF the rebellion, have seized
and tried the leading secessiOnists as
traitors. But when the progress of
events had created what Mr.. Webster
terms ga state of open, public wal" and
We had recognized the fact by exchang-
ing prisoners, and wen privateersmen,
the case was brayely altered. There
could now be no longer q question OF pro-
eeeding against individuals as guilty of
treason or re~bellion.n So says Mr..
Webster and we do not believe an
American jury could be fairly selected
10 any state to reverse his Judgment.
TNetD York Tribune, Sd.