Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1867-06-10
Treason.
from the New Y ork Tribune ]

Forty or fifty journals having seen fit to
say that we have assumed or asserted that
there was no fundamental difference be-
tween the Southern rebellion and the
American revolution, we are moved to re-
mind them that we consider the
two as wide asunder as the poles
the one struggle for liberty, the other
an effort to diffuse and perpetuate slavery.
If this is not a difference, we know not
what could be. But they were alike in
this, that each of them was formidable
insurrection, under local authority, against
what had previously been the paramount
or national authority; and they were alike
trine laid down by Mr.. Webster in his ear
lier Bunker Hill oration-as follows:
"The battle of Bunker Hill was attended
with the most important effects beyond its
immediate result as military engagement.
h 1t created at once a state of open public
war. There could no longer be a question of
proceeding against lndiUidudls, as gully of
treason on rebellion. That fearful crisis was
past. The appeal now lay to the sword;
and the only question was, whether the
spirit or the resources of the people would
hold out till the object should be accom-
plished.'' g.. ,a
| Why is 1t that most of those who seek to
differ with us in this matter are as shy of
this passage as the evil one of holy water,
or a ufad dog of water of any kind?
One valiant soul does venture to say that
the Federal Constitution defines treason
otherwise than as above. But do you fan
ry Mr.. Webster ignorant of that definition?
Yet do you observe how broadly he takes
his ground, as if it were universal and in
controvertiblc &
Now let US look at the Constitutional
provision:
Treason against the United States shall
consist only In levying war against them,
or in adhering to their enemies, giving
them aid and comfort"
Here is plain effort to so define treason
as to preclude all constructive or artificial
treasohs-to confine it within narrower
limits than those prescribed by the common
law Evidently, no one dreamed of impli-
eating 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 our coun-
try for the British and the Mexicans have
| done that, yet were in no sense traitors.
Nor yet all who live in this country yet
levy war upon us; tor 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 fighting
against them I'm our armies, General Scott
resisted, with the full approval of our Gov
! ernment and people, and would have hung
every British officer then i'll our hands, if
the British had shot and hung our Irish
soldiers as traitors.
! Doubtless, our Government.might, in the
infancy of the rebellion, have seized and
tried the leading secessionists as trail
tors. But when the progress of events
had created what Mr.. Webster terms g a
state of open, public war;" and we had
recognized the fact by exchanging priso-
ners, and even privateersmen, the case was
bravely altered. "There could now be no
longer question of proceeding against in
dividuals as guilty of treason or rebellion
So says Mr.. Webster; and we do not believe
an American jury could be fairly selected
in any State to reverse his judgment.