Des Arc weekly citizen., 1867-08-10

ilpeiai cAerclse oI tne paruOnlng pow CT, from which it may be claimed to imply that he would except some from the amnesty, but he could only except them for legal trial, and I suppose even Mir. Lincoln did not doubt the result of 8 fair legal trial, unless of some one who made war on the United States before the secession of his State. For though the result of the war did decide that secession was void, yet, as intent is the issue of crime, it did not and could not decide, that one who honestly believed that secession was legal, was bound to know it was void before the decision made it SO. And, though the result establishes that se- cession is and was and must remain void yet, "he who honestly believed, at the time, that secession was either a constitutional or revolutionary right, or that his allegiance was due to his State when secession Was asserted, or who believed the coercion of SNte was a crime, could not become crim- inal by acting on his honest belief. But if a man, before the secession of his State, made wal oh the United States by seizing her forts or otherwise; or, if while holding an office under an oath to support the Constitution of the Uni ted States, he used the functions of that very office, by overt acts, to de- stroy the Union, such man was a traitor and might, with some show of reason, have been excepted from the amnesty and reserved for trial. think, however, true wisdom and a peaceful future, required entire afnnes- ty for all the past, and careful absti- hence from all oppressive acts in all the future.
 During the war, Mir. Lincoln, as President of the United States, issued his proclamation, emancipating slaves in certain States and parts of States. But this, itself, was declared to be a war measure only. Afterward the Congress had proposed to the States an amendment to the Constitution slavery everywhere. But the States had not ratified it. It was, therefore, only proposition undeter- mined at the time of surrender. After the surrendeSthe slave States accepted and ratified this proposed amendment, and thus, by the act of the slave States after the surrender this amendment became portion of the Constitution. Therefore, the abolition of slavery may, ih fact, though not ir legal strict ness, be counted as one of tho things decided by the war, and as being part of the law of peace. It is noticeable fact, also, that although Mir. Lincoln included the acceptance of emancipa- ton as part of the terms at the confer encc in Hampton Roads, yet neither he nor Gen. Grant, nor any other power, alluded to this as part of the terms during the negotiations for, nor at the time of the acceptance of, the surrender. The only conditions of the surrender, were to submit to the laws, and not take up arias again against the United States.
 What, then, did the war decide, and what, by that decision, is the law of peace? Here it is, and here is ALL:
 Secession is void; the Constitution is maintained; the Union is preserved, with all the dignity equality and rights of the several States unimpair- ed, with the single exception of the abolition of slavery through tho con- sent of the original slave States.
 And when our people, after the sur render, took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the union of the States hereunder, they swore to support the above decis- ion, and nothing more.
 Tho meeting of the conventions in these States, to conform their consti- tutiohs and laws to the change brought by the abolition of slavery, was prop CT, and result of the agreement to emancipate. The appointment of pro- visional civil officers by the President to enable these conventions to be call ed and to act, was proper machinery to accomplish the end. Further than this no reconstruction was'ever needed or was legal or proper. But for the abolition of slavery the States would have been restored to their old Con- stitations and government, as they ex- isted at the time of secession.
 Every proposition in these military bills has been originated since the war, not one of them was demanded during the war, or was made a condi- tion of the surrender. There is not a respectable publieist or law-writer, an- cient or modern, heathen or christian, which can be quoted to sustain them.
 By every such author the attempt to prescribe new terms after the surren- der is infamous--is a breach of the peace; is new declaration of war, and is most perfdious abandonment of the most sacred of national obligations in the face of mankind.
 Nay, morei these military bills are disunion bills. Those who propose them are disunionists those who ad- vocate them are disunionists; those who eonsent to or accept them are dis unionists. And they arc disunionists, too, not like the secessionists, on a principle--asserting a simply doubtful right, but they are disunionists in the tnath \, tbn ..a,x- loo:.;o.. <r sl. ....