Daily Davenport Democrat. [volume] (Davenport, Iowa) 1864-1874, 1867-06-14

Forty or fifty journals having seen ct 10
say that we have assumed ar asserted that
there was no fundamental Il ference between
the late Southern rebellion ard the Amen
can Revolution, we are moved to remind
them that ws consider the Two as wide ns'n-
der as the poles-thc one 3 etingsle for
liberty; tie other al effort TO diiiase and
perpetuate slavery. If this is not differ
ence. we know not what could be. But
they are alike in tbis-tba each Of them
was formidable instruction, under local
authority, against what had previously been
the paramount or National authority aud
they were alike in coming within the pur
view Of the doctrine LAID down by Mr.
Webster in his earlier Bunker Hill GRAFTON
AS follows
"The battle Of Bunker Hill was attended
with the most important effects beyond it's
immediate result as a military engagement.
II created Mt once a state Of public war
| There should nov be no longer question
Of proceeding against individuals, as guilty
of treason or rebellion. That fearful crisis
vas past. The appeal now lay to the
sword ; and the only question was, whether
the spirit and the resources Of the people
would hold out till the object should be se.
complished"
Why is il that most Of those who seek %
differ with US on this matter are as shy Of
this passage as the evil one Of holy water,
or mad dog of water of any kind : One
valiant soul does venture TO say that the
Federal Constitution defines treason ether
wise than above. But do you fancy Mr.
Webster ignosan, Of that deIini,iouy Yet
do you observe how broadly he takes hi.
ground, as If il were universal and uncontro-
vortiblef
Now let US look at the Constitutions
provision
Treason against the United States ehal
consist only IN levJing war against them, o
in ndhcring TO their enemies, giving then
aid and comfort"
Here 10 plain effort to so define treason
as 10 preclude all cons ,ructive or artiticia
treasons : 20 contine it within narrower lin
its than those prescribed by the common
law. Evidently, no one dreamed Of impli'
eating large class who we're not traitors b.
British law.
Who, then, are traitors by the terms o.
the Federal Constitution
Not all who levy war against our country
Tor the British and the Mexicaus have done
that, yet were in no sense traitors Nor
yet Nil who live in this country yet levy
war upon us /; for Indians often do that We,
are not held guilty Of treason. Nor yet al
that owe allegiance TO our Government for,
when the British, in 1918. undertook to
treat as traitors the lrishmen lighting
against them in our armies, Gen. Scott re,
sisted, with the full approval Of our Gov>
ernmcnt and people; nnd would have hung
every British officer then in our hands, y
the British had shot or hung our Irish sol.
diers rs traitors.
/ Doubtless our Government might, in tn,
infancy of the rebellion, have seiz.d anC
, tried the leading s.cessienists ~ traitors =
But when the progress OF events had create,
what Mr.. Webster terms "a state of open
public war;" and We bad recognized the fac
10y exchanging prisoners. and even pTiva
, teersmen, the case was graveiy altered =
There could now be no },nger q auestio
Of proceeding against individuals as guilt
: OF treason or rebellion" SO says Mr. We
i, stcr and we do not believe an America
jury could he fairy selected in ANY State {
reverse his judgment Ner 1oyk Iribun
~