The Bolivar bulletin. [volume] (Bolivar, Hardeman County, Tenn.) 1865-1888, 1867-02-09

OF any war OF modern times.
which continued upwards Of four years.
During the first year Of the war the Conted-
crate states were recognized as beligerant
power not only by the United States, but also
By France, England and other leading ma
tons Of Europe.
The war, on the part Of the south, was no
5pasmodic rebellion; 1t was q well devised |
plan Of regOlution-a war for independence, |
and q separate national existence.
The writer's on international law have /
classified wars according to their origin, OBJ /
iects and effects-having reference also to /
the character Of the parties which engage in /
them-such as
/. Wars Of Intervention;
,. Wars Of instruction;
8. Wars Of conque8t
4. Wars of opinion;
5. Religious wars; 81
6. Wars for Independence
Z, Civil wars.
See section 3, Haleck S international laW
page 800 The same author o. 331, sec. 81 |
says: +" Wars Of revolution are generally
undertaken to gain or regain the liberty or
Independence Of the party or state which
undertakes them, as was the case Of the war
of the American revolution in 1776, the war
of the Greeks against the Turks in 1921.
and OF the Hungarians against the Austriane
in 1913"
It may be safely said that the late war be-
tween the states of this Union embraced
most Of the elements Of religious war,
war of opinion, war of revolution, and
war for independence So far as the present
inquiry IS concerned, it is useless to speeu-
late upon the causes of the war. 1t Is sufii-
cient to know that the clergy both north and
south had forgotten all the precepts of
christian charity, and they had been In the
h9bit Of scandaliziEg the people Of each
section for many years before the commence
ment Of actual armed hostilities The legis-
latures of thirteen northern states had in
terposed the state veto, not only upon an
act of. congress, but upon a provision of the
federal constitution which the people Of the
southern states deemed vital TO their inter
ests. Inl660 a president of the United
States was chosen by strictly northern
vote These, with tariff regulations dis
terminating in favor of northern industry,
were among some of the causea which in
duced the south to appeal to arms for their
independence.
During the war the law of nations super
ceding the municipal law, took charge of the
country, and determined the rights of both
parties
1t is claimed by the administration of the
general government now in power, as well as
by congress, that the conquering party has
the right to dispose Of the lives and property
Of the people lately IN rebellion In
other words, that the lives and estates Of the
southern people only exist BY the sufferance
of their cOnquerors. Such was the doctrine
and practice of the world during what are
known as the middle or dark ages" Then
1t was common to put oaptives to death or to
sell them into slavery, and to confscate
their property. 1t was then common saw
T. 10 r.
doctrine of barbarous ages is now revived in
this country it is publicly advocated in many
pulpits and in congress, and the people look
on with stoical Indifference. But there Is a
power which lntervenes between the con
queror and the captive, and sets limit to
the revengeful passions of men, and checks
the arrogance of cOnquerors. That power is
the law Of nations, which congress cannot
modify or repeal II is the law Of the land
for determining all questions growing imme-
diately out of tie late war Of sections.
civil war, says Vattel, (book 3, chap Is,
p. 425,) breaks the bands of society f&d
government, or AZ least suspends their force
and effect; 1t produces IN the state two indie
pendent parties, who consider each other as
enemies, and acknowledge no common Judge.
These two parties, therefore,. must necessarily
be considered as thenceforward, az least for
a time, two separate bodies two distinct So
cieties. Though one only of the parties may
have been to blame for breaking the unity
of the states and resisting the lawful au-
thOrity, they are none the less divided in
fact Besides who shall Judge them? Who
shall pronounce on which side the right or
the wrong lies On earth they have mo
common superior They stand in precisely
the same predicament as two nations who
engage IN a contest and, being unable to
come to an agreement, have recourse to arms.
This being the case, it is very evident that
the common laws of war-those Inaxims Of
humanity, moderation and honor, which form
the body of public law-ought to be observed
by both parties in every civil war For the
same reasons wLttn render the observance
OF those maXlms a matter of obligation be-
ween states and states. it becomes equally
and more necessary IN the unhappy circum-
stance of two ineensed parties lacerating
their common country Whenever
therefore, numerous body Of men think
they have a right to resist the sovereign,
and teel themselves IN q condition to appeal
TO the sword the war ought 70 be carried on
BY tie cOntepdlng nations, and they ought
to leave open the same means for preventing
It's being carried to outrageous eXtremities,
and for the restoration OF peace
The same great author continues, and in
sec. 295, p. 427, says I" When nation be-
comes QiFIUelt INTO TWO parties, absolutely IN
dependent, ana no longer acknowledging
common superior, the state is dissolved, and
the war between the two parties stands on
the same ground, IN every respect as war
between two Different nations. Whether
republic be split into two factions, each
maintaining that It alone constitutes the body
Of the state, or a kingdom be divided be
tween two competitors for the crown, the ma
ton is severed into two parties, who viii
term each other rebels Thus there exists
Ia the state two separate bodies. VINO pretend
to absolute independence, and between whom
there Is no judge They decide their quarrel
by arms, as two different nations would do
The Obligations to observe the common laws
of war toward each other is, therefore, absO-
u5e-IndispensablY binding on beth parties.
and the same which the law Of nature i'm
poses on all nations IA transactions between
state and state
The foregoing texts fix, beyond question,
the legal status Of the two beiigerents Ia i
the principles here expressed, Vattel is sus-
tanned by more recent writers (See Phiii- I
more On international Law, vol. 3, page 498; +