Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1867-06-03
IFrom the New Y ork Tribunel
Treason in Civil War.

appearance. a '-e.a ..ff ~ 'o'a''
a2' ''d GFrom the New Ork Tribune.l .='
Treason in Civil War.
Can Government, which, after long
and arduous struggle, has put. down an or
ganized and formidable rebellion, proceed
to try and punish its defeated adversaries
as traitors? TE5l sac 5a4-
The question is readily answered in the
affirmative by Ignorance and passion--per-'
haps also by wisdom and calm judgment.
Let us inquire and consider. ,- ertt
Unquestionably Government may re-
fuse from the outset to recognize its domes-
tic foes as belligerents, engaged in lawful
war. 1t may say to them, as Macmillan
did to his Mexican adversaries: ]" You are
not warriors, but banditti, brigands, rob-
bers-whom, if captured by my armies,
shall treat as arrested felons. But this is q
two-edged sword. as Max. is very likely to
discover. The, Government which treats
its adherents so treated by those adversar-
ies-to have its soldiers shot or hung when
captured, if it shoots and hangs those whom
it captures. Whatever rule it acts upon
will surely work both ways. s,,Is
Onthe main question, the doctrine gen.
ally held by American statesmen and pub
licists prior to 1860, will be found succinet-
ly set forth by Daniel Webster, in his ad-
dress on laying the cornerstone of Bunker
Hill Monument (June II, 1926, wherein he
says of the consequences of that memora-
Bile combat: ..l...t-..l ...
ssThe battle of Bunker Hill was, attended
with the most important effects beyond its
immediate result as military engagement.
1t created at once state of open, public
war. There could noio be no longer a question
Of proceeding against i,.diuiduals, as Guilty Of
treaseH.or rebellion: That fearful crisis was
past, a The appeal now lay to the sword !;
and the only question was, whether the
spirit and resources of the people would
hold out till the object should be accom-
Bear in mind that our fathers had not
even declared their independence on the
18th of June, 1775, when they fought at
Bunker Hill-nay, they had not detnitive-
ly resolved on separation from the mother
country. In the eye of British law-and
of the law of nations, for that matter-they
were simply rebels, assisting the authority
and army of their legitimate king. Yet
Mr.. Webster holds that the naked fact that
they resisted in battle array, under the
command of their constituted local author
tiles, .precluded any civil proceedings
against them as individuals guilty of trea-
| son or rebellion.n Ec7->zoEr n q alEErAt'
| OF courses Mr.. Webster did not originate
1
thellike of that. He found 1t interfused
throughout our entire Revolutionary his
| tory and literature. Thus, Chief Justice
Marshall, in his Life of Washington, relates
i that, when General Gage, con manding the
4 Kings forces in Boston, arrested several
eminent Wing civilians and lodged them
i in Jail, along with our captured otficersan
soldiers, to be dealt with as traitors, Wash
4 ingtonD demonstrated ''very seriously
against this unjustifiable measure (says
| MarshalE, IS while General Gage regarded
the Americans merely as rebels, and treated
4 them as 1.-THE great national resistance they
were making on principle was to be viewed
assthe act OF few daring and turbulent IN
dioidadls, - and, as such, wrote Gage: ssPris
oners whose lives are, by the laws of tht
1 land, destined. to the icord."d Washington
4 at once instituted measures for retaliation
4 should this violation of public law and o
i the laws of war be carried into effect, ant
/ thereby brought the British General to {
! recognition of the just principles of civili
4 zed warfare, as enunciated by Vattel anC
4 other writers on public law.
James Otis, the -Wyclif or John Huss, O
4 our Revolution, Alexander Hamilton (ir
. the FederGlist), and all our Revolutionary!
/ publicists of any authority. refer to an(
i quote from Vattels Law of Nations as set
4 ting, forth the Judgment of the civilized
4 world in accordance with the doctrines o
4 Webster and Washington. above .cited.-
4 Mattel, in his chapter on Civil War, says:
! stBut what conduct shall the sovereign
observe toward the insurgents?o Ianswer
in general. such conduct as shall at the SAM
time be the most consOnant to justice ant
the most salutary to the State.
Subjects who rise against the prime
without cause, deserve severe punishment
yet, even in this case,, on account of TIN
number of the delinquents. elemency be
comes a duty in the sovereign" = 4
A civil war breaks the bonds of society anC
government or, at least suspends their tore
and effect; it produces in the nation tw,
independent parties, who consider eacl
other as enemies and acknowledge no com
mon Judge. Those two parties, therefore
must necessarily be considered as theRcefoT
,odrd constituting, at least for time, tw'
separate, bodies, two distinct societies.
Though one of the parties may have beel
to blame in breaking the unity of th'
State and resisting the lawful authority
they are not the less divided in fact. Be
sides, who shall Judge them? **
They stand, therefore, in precisely tn
same predicament as two nations who, en-
gagged in contestant being unable to com
to an agreement, have recourse to arms. Thi
being the case, it is very evident that tn
common laws of war ought to be observes
by both parties in every civil war. Fo
the same reasons which render the observ
/ anee of those maxims matter OF obliga
ton between Stated and State, 1t become
equally, and even more necessary in tn
unhappy circumstances OF two incense
parties laeerating their common country.
THUS there existin the State two separat
- bodies, who pretend to- absolute independ
ehce. and between whom there is no judge
They decide their quarrel by arms (nC
= courts OF civil law, and as two diferer
nations would do The obligation to OF
serve the common laws Of war towar
e each other is therefore Observation-Disclosures
sably- binding on both parties, and til
same which the law of nature imposes O
IL al 9stions, i, transactions II . sac between Sta