Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1868-08-27

pAihStpiO "J"CI hiSy hiduC wal. ltut
went out in fdctO) ITO this the Mort
did not conccde" (de .facto) "but conclu
dcd that they could not get out of the u
ion" (kecp. euD ''unless they, the Nortl
proycl themselves incompetent to coerc
them" That is, to verify the principle IL
jure by the circumstances in facto, which
circumstances were surrender and submis
sion. 'Thc war then was struggle oil
the one 81 lc to 60 out ofthe Union," (by
no means, Mr. Vero, they were already on
in facto, because the declaration of seces
sion went ahead of the war and the wa
was means only of defense of accomplish
ed secession; equally was the organization
into a confederacy a coincidence with the
secession in 1861; and preceding the wal
that much as 1t was necessary for the pros
ecution of the war; ION the other to pre-
vent them from going out Of the Union. ~
No, sir, to bring them back or at least the
territory, for these traitors might all have
gone to the Brazils or have died in the las
ditch, leaving but empty space hehint
them,-again into the internationally rec
ognized sovereignty of the United States
where the principle IN ,jure was onesided
ly violated in fdctO and where consequent
ly the guilty party, the whole South, 20
litically and collectively speaking, for rea
son of the minority participating in the fate
of the majority dejure ct IN fucto had to
submit TO the North de jurc as they did dc
also ia fdcto Internationally.
'The party claiming that they had 6
right to dissolve the compact was forced
10 admit that it still was supreme
No, sir they were not forced to such an ad
mittance, for such would premise CORE
spending proposition, and this proposition
although made by Gen. Sherman to Gen.
Johnston was not accepted 10y President
Johnson, the surrender remained un-
conditionally irrespective of their admittan-
ces, just as Grant made it with Lee. "and
that il failed to create the severance No
sir! no such formulation; you had better
say that the severance ia facto came to an
end in fdctO. The U. S. although in
jure negating the right of secession, still
acknowledged the secession an .fdcto, by
having official intercourse Of certainly a
modified nature with the confederates and
which modification was necessary to save
the principle la .jure. They made mutual
agreements as to contingencies with the
confederacy, and above all, granted them
the international right of belligerents, prov
Ing thereby their views as to the difference
between ia fdcto, and ia .jure.
"Had the South been victorious, then
would the compact have been rescinded by
force" You acknowledge, then, that force
is somewhat above or at least paramor t
with jure, but in your assertion there Sas
no force in facto during the four We N of
war. You are wrong; the compa/ would
not have been rescinded because IN fdcto
1t was such already four years agc and this
four year old rescision would simply have
been acknowledged by treaty as the rebels
would have dated their independence from
1861. 'But so long as they were obliged
to submit to the North" (you mean to say
as soon as they were obliged for they
were not obliged during four long years,
Gl to '65 inclusive, and when they became
obliged 10 submit to The North they did SO
Internationally and felt very much obliged
10 the North for his generosity, or at least
should feel yet so for not having them all
hung as traitors at that time of uncondi-
ional surrendcr.) $50 long did the COM
pact remain good" You mean to say so
soon the compact became good again, don't
you? Very fine theory, yours. 1t always
takes two parties to make or renew con-
tract, and when broken once ii must, to be
valid in future, be renewed by the consent
Of both parties. A party that uncondition-
ally surrenders the claims upon what the
was broken once, surrenders the
contract as bidding form in future as re-
CARDS rights arising from, the more so, il
his contract contains stipulation to that
effect in case Of coutraventiOn. The Con-
siitution of the United States says some
Thing about treason. / believe Il Furnishes
Ihe crime with death. Now, 1t docs not
matter whether single individual or more
Tho poturo IF fl,a oct ro,o.;,,, ty,o eor,o =,
individual citizen commits treason because
his relation to the government is that of a
The United States give protec-
lion, security and personal rights, the indi-
vidual recognizes his duty Of obedience
and allegiance. Certainly an individual
should not be punished until after due pro-
cess before competent court. When such
a large number of citizens commit treason,
the population of State using the State
to execute treason, then the
State commits treason. We have then a
persona norolis committing the act, and
in the eyes of the Constitution ii does no
matter whether such person is morals or
the nature OF the deed is the
same. In such case il is not necessary
to bring each individual inhabitant of a
State before court. Such pro
ceeding would be but farce on account
Of the means necessary. but the war as the
of the treason of rebellious
State is considered the final trial and the
surrender of the party is the
guilty" of the accused. The whole pop
ulation ofa State can not be hung, there
fore the victorious rarty prescribes such
conditions to the state as necessary to IN
sure peace and 10 prevent a renewal of dis
putc.
"Thc war, it is true, prevented the exc
cution of its requirements (of tie compact)
in those States" All. you make then the
concession Of severance in fdcto. "but
that could not prevent an annulment Of its