Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1867-06-02
TREAsONM CIVIL WAR
From the New York Tribune. May 2


Can government which, after long
and arduous struggle, has put down an or
ganized and formidable rebellion, proceed
20 try and punish its defeated adversaries
as traitors .......
This question Is readily answered in the
affirmative by ignorance and passion-per-
haps also by wisdom and calm Judgment.
Let us inquire and consider
Unquestionably government may refuse
from the outset to recognize its domestic
foes as belligerents, engaged in lawful
var IL may say to them, as Macmillan
did to his Mexican adversaries-'Yo are
not warriors, but banditti--brigands, rob
bers-whom, if captured by nv armies, /
shall treat as arrested felons" But this is
a two-edged sword, as Max is very likely
10 discover. The government which treats
its enemies as felons mist expect 10 have
its adherents so treated by those adverse
ries-to have lis soldiers shot or hung when
captured, If it shoots and hangs those whom
il captures. Whatever rule it acts upon
will surely work both WAYS.
On the main question, the doctrine gener-
ally held by American statesmen and pub
licists prior to 1860, will be found succinct-
ly set forth by Daniel Webster, in his
address on laying the cornerstone of Bun
ker Hill Monument tune 18th, 1881
wherein he says of the consequences of that
memorable combat:
"The battle of Bunker Hill was attended
with the most important effects beyond its
immediate result as a military engagement.
1t created at once a state Of open, public
war. There could now be no longer a
question of proceeding against individuals,
as GUILTY Of treason or rebellion. That
fearful crisis was past. The appeal now
lay 10 the sword; and the only question
was, whether the spirit and the resources
Of the people would hold out till the object
should be accomplished"
Bear in mind that our fathers had not
even declared their independence on the
18th of June, 1875, when they fought at |
Bunker Hill-nsy, they had moi de6ni
lively resolved on separation from the |
mother country. In the eve of British |
law-and the law Of nations, for that mat
ter-they were 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 ar
ray, under the command of their consti-
tuted local authorities, precluded any civil
proceedings against them as individuals
guilty Of treason or rebellion"
OF course, Mr. Webster did not originate
this doctrine. He was not the man 10 do
the like Of that He found il interfused
throughout our entire revolutionary his
tory aud literature Thus. Chief Justice
Marshall, in his Life Of Washington, re-
laies that, when Gen. Gage. commanding
the Kings forces in Boston, arrested sew
eral eminent Wing civilians and LODGED
them in Jail, along with our captured Off
Gers and soldiers, TO be dealt with as trail
tors, Washington demonstrated every Sc
riously against this uniustifable measure"
tsays Marshall) while Gen. Gage re-
garded the Americans merely as rebels
and treated them as il the great NATIONAL
they were making ON principle
was % be viewed as the act OF few daring
and turbulent andiudHals," and, as such,
wrote Gage: prisoners whose lives are
by the laws Of the land, destined 10 the
cord" Washington at once instituted
for retaliation, should this viola
ton OF public law and Of the laws of war
be carried into effect, and thereby brought
he British General to a recognition Of the
ust principles of civilized warfare as
BY Naitel and other writers on
public law.
Jar9es Otis the Wyclif or John Huss of
,ur revolution, Alexander Hamilton lin
he Federalis,) and all our revolutionary