The weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 186?-1869, 1867-06-26
2 -I-.|
in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid


ing the definition to plain overt acts, brings
these acts in conspicuous relief as being al
ways, and in essence, reasonable.
War. therefore, levied against the United
States by citizens of the Republic under the
pretended authority of the new State gov
ernment of North Carolina or of the so called
Confederate government which assumed the
title of the :. Confederate States was trea-
son against the United States.
1t has been supposed, and by some siren
uously maintained that the th-Carolina
Ordinance of 1861, which purported to re-
peal the North Carolina Ordinance of 1850,
by which the Constitution OF the United
States was ratified, and to repeal also all
subsequent acts by which the assent of North
Carolina was given to amendments of the
Constitution, did in fact repeal that Ordi-
nance and those acts, and thereby absolved
the people of the State from all obligation
as citizens of the United States and made it
impossible to commit treason by levying
war against the Nstioual government
No elaborate discussion of the theoretical
question thus presented seems now to be ne
cessary. That question, as practical one,
is at rest and is not likely to be revived 1t
is enough to say here, in cur judgment, the
answer which it has received from events, is
that which the soundest construction of the
Constitution warrants and requires
Nor can We agree with some persons, dis
tinguished by abilities and virtues, who in
sist when Rebellion attaans the proportions
and assumes the character of civil war, it is
purged of its reasonable character and can
only be punished by the defeat of its armies,
the disappointment of its hopes. and the
calamities incident to unsuccessful war.
Courts have no policy and can exercise no
political powers. They can only declare the
law. On what sound principle, then, can
we say judicially that the levying of war
ceases to be treason when the war becomes
| formidable2 that war levied by ten men or
ten hundred, is certainly treason, but is no
| longerIsuc when levied by ten thousand or
ten hundred thousands that the armed at
tempts of a few, attended by no serious dan
| ger to the Union and suppressed by slight
exertions of the public force, come, unques-
tionably, within the constitutional definition.
but attempts by vast combination, con-
trolling several States, putting great armies
in the field, menacing with imminent peril
the very life of the Republic and demand
ing immense efforts and immense expendi-
lures of treasure and blood for their defeat
and suppression, swell beyond the hounda-
ries of the definition, and become innocent
in the proportion Of their enermitys
| But it is said that this is the doctrine of
the Supreme Court. We think otherwise
In modern times it is the usual practice of
| civilized governments attacked by organized
and formidable rebellion, to exercise and
concede belligerent rights. Instead, under
such circumstances, ,of Furnishing rebels when
made prisonersin war as criminals, they agree
on cartels for exchange and make other muta-
ally beneficial arrangements; and, instead
| of insisting upon offensive terms and desg-
nations in intercourse with the civil or mill
tary chiefs, treat them, as far as possible,
without surrender of essential principles,
like foreign foes engaged in regulaS warfare.
But these are concessions made hy the
Legislative and Executive departments of
government in the exercise of Political dis
cretion and in the interest of humanity, to
mitigate viRdsctive pass ans infanied by
civil conflicts, and prevent the frightful evils
of mutual reprisals and retalatians. They
establish no rights except during the war.
| And it is true that when war ceases
and the authority of the regular geSernment
is fully re rc-established the penalties of VIOLA
ted law are seldom inflicted upon many.
| Wise governments never forget that the
criminality of individuals is not always or
often equal, to that of the acts committed by
the organization with which they are con-
nected. Many are carried into rebellion by
sincere though mistaken convictions; or
hurried along by excitements due to social
and State sympathies, and even by the COM
pulsion of a public opinion not their own.
When the strife of arms is over, such gov
ernments, therefore, exercising still their po-
litical discretion, address themselves mainly
\ to the work of conciliation and restoration,
and exert the prerogative of mercy, rather
than that of justice. Complete remission is
1 usually extended to large classes by amnesty
or other exercise of legislative or executive
authority, and Individuals not ineluded in
these clases with some exceptions of the
greatest offenders, are absolved by pardon,
either absolutely or upon conditions pre-
-seribed by the government.
These principles, common to all civilized
nations, are those which regulated the action
| of the Government of the United States du-
ring the war of the rebellion and have regu-
lated its action since rebellion laid down its
1 arms. =, 49,.
! In some respects the ,forbearance and lib
erality of the,nation exceeded all example.
While hostilities were yet fragrant one act of
Congress, practically abolished the death
/. penalty for treason subsequently committed,
and another provided mode in which citi-
zens of rebel States maintaining a loyal ad-
hesion to the Union, could recover after war,
the value Of their captured or abandoned
property.
The National Government has steadily
sought to facilitate restoration with adequate
GUARANTEES of union, order and equal rights.
! On no occasion, however, and by no act
have the United States ever renGunced their
constitutional jurisdiction over the whole
territory or over all the citizens of the Re-
public, or conceded to citizens in arms
/ against their country the character of alien
enemies, or admitted the existence of any
government, de facto, within the boundaries
of the Union, hostile to itself. as
In the Prize Cases the Supreme Court SIM
j ply asserted the right Of the United States to
treat the insurgents as Aelligerents. and to
claim from foreign nations the performance
.ofneutral duties under the penalties known
to international law. The decision recog-
1 nized, also, the fact of the exercise and
concession of helligerent rights, and affirm
ed, as necessary consequence, the propo-
sition that during the war, al, the In
habitants of the country contralled by the
rebellion, and all the inhabitants ofthe coun-
try loyal to ithe Union were senemies recipro-
;cally each of the other. But there is nothing
In that opinion which gives .eauntenance to
the doctrine which counsel endcaVor to de-
duce from it; that the insurgent States by
the actof rebellion, andby levying waragainst
the nation became foreign States, and their