Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-07-13

laso for De conquered. No such new
lay would be tie highest law. Il St
lwsfe, Slasery would have existed BY viz
Tue Or the Bighestlaw, the lay of con
quest add force The right Of the con
queror Is simply the right to ygpyerns
His rights, IN their hrgest-deRelOpment
are She rtghss of despotam DMEng-
land govern Ireland after CRoMYELIi
conquered it. and impose disabilities Of
al sorts on Irish Catholics, by the high
st bswg Does Russia govern Poland
and Circassia by the highest law? The
daRtaf the Depot TO exercise despite
power does not exist. There is no such
riqht. onthe contrary, the right OF the
conquered to-resist is always pleaaryl
/ Spd Il is etemaL = RsststEueetq tyrants
is obedience to GoD." How then can
the lsw enacted by force, the law of
4 tyranny, be the highest lswP ~
BuRLAMAQUI says: of he who has
constrained another, by the superiority
Of his arms, 10 submit to his dominion,
had undertaken S war manifestly IN,
just. e sovereignty acs
quired In such circumstances would be
unjust; and 1 see no reason why the
vanquished people should be more OBJ
liged to keep such q treaty, than a man
Who had fallen into the hands Of rob
bers, would be under an obligation to
pay, at their demand, the money he had
promised them for the ransom Of his life
and liberty rN
Again be SAYS: 1.-THE end Of q just
war does not always demand that the
I Conqueror should acquire an absolute
and perpetual Sovereignty over the con-
quered. 4 IS only a Favourable occasion
Of obtaining It. and for that purpose
there must always be an express or tscit
consent Of the vsuquished. Otherwise,
the state Of war still subsisting, the
Sovereignty Of the Conqueror has no
other title than that Of force, and lasts
no longer than the r~aHquished are unable
to Hrow of tie yoke.'
And again; "Even supposilg the war
was undertaken for some apparent and
reasonable csuse, If the Treaty which
the Conqueror imposes on the van
pushed includes some condition mani
testify b-arbarous, and entirely contrary
TO humanity We cannot in those oireum-
stances, deny the vanquished a right Of
receding from their engagements, and Of
beginning the war afresh, in order to
free themselves, if they can, from the
hard and iuhuman condition to which
they were subjected, by the abuse their
enemy made Of his victory, contrary to
! the laws Of humanity. The jstsst tCar
docs not authorize The CoHqlsror TO keep
no measures, or to use all liberties with
( respect To the vanquished.n
And agaiu be SAYS Those who found
the right Of prescribing laws on the sole
I superiority Of strength, or on an irresisti-
ble power, establish an insufficient prin-
cfple, and which, vigorously considered,
I is absolutely false. In fact, it does not
4 follow. that berause L sm incapable OF
resisting 3 person, na hGs therefore b
right TO Command me, that is, ina l
am bound 10 submit to him, by virtue Of
a principle q obligation, and to sc-
knowledge his viii IS the universal rule
Of nv conduct. A person Who
alleges no other Eeason but 8 superiority
OF fs-se, does not propose a Daotigs SUIT
ciagt to 05ltgG the .lCN. The hrst
counsel which ressoa gives Us in regard
to q malignant power, is to EesisS and if
possible to destroy him. Now, if we
have 2 right to resist, this right is incon-
sisteut with the obligation Of obeying,
which IS evidently thereby excluded.
True it is, that II We clearly see that all
our efforts will be useless aHd that j
resistance must only subject us 10 s
greater evil, we should choose to submit
though with reluctance, for q while,
rather than expose ourselves to the at
tark end violence Of malignant tOESr.
Bat in this case We should be con
strained, though not under an obliga-
ton. We endure in sRR Of rs, the
effects Of a superior force, and, vhtist
We make an external submission, Us IN
ua~dW JEa orr nature rise and protest
against Il. This leaves Us always q full
right TO attempt all sorts Of Eeys Z
shake or the unjust and oppressive yoke
There is therefore, properly speaking,
no obligation in thai case nov the de-
fault Of obligation implies the default OF
right"
Elsewhere BURLAMAQUT repeats some
Of these positions, perhaps more forcibly.
Lawful conquest, bs says, supposes that
the eouqueror has had just reason e
wage war against the vanquished.
Without this, conquest is by no means
OF Itself a Just tile, no more g lawful
title to the s9versigEty than robbery is
q lawful % Of becoming rich"
And yet General L~ONGsTRFET thinks
that such a cogguest creates the high
est law" According to his idea, the
victory proves the Righteousness Of the
couquerors cpuse, and the soundness OF
his legal and constitutional opinions,
aud binds even the Courts OF the CON
que8d people to surrender their deliber-
ate opinions and accept and enforce
those Of the conquer0r; for, If the Courts
are not bound to DO this the people can
not he.
In our next we will consider General
LONGsTREET's law q little further.