Year: 1863


gentleman long an esteemed resident of a Western
Slave State, although native of New England.
We think every candid mind will appreciate the
wise and considerate view taken of the perplexing
subject by the able writer of the reply.


WASHINGTON, SEPTEMBER l. 1863
MY DEAR SIR: l am in receipt Of your favor OF the
25tb utmo with which particularly pleased,
count the frank spirit wherewlth you write admitting
Of doubt respecting your sentiments on the questions
OF the day 80 far AS they are referred to.


While am quite free to concede that slavery aud the
unreasonable demands of its supporters the fruitful
source OF our national troubles must confess that to
my mind it does not, it does to yours, appear clear
as the sun that it be remOped just upon the same
principle that my friends paatal mansion in the suburbs
of this your city has to be removed because it OBJ
sruets the sweep of our cannon To my apprehension
the cases are rslel That mansion must give way
o for any harm it has DONE but because its position IN
tereres with the safety of the city and all It contains by
protecting poI of the enemy from tie hre OF our
glns suppose that the exercise OF the discretion o
The Military Governor legally exerted beyond question,
would develop of euemy within the city, OF per-
sons otherwise Of undoubted ealty than the house could
uossby protect Of tho my beyond the walls would
deem the d. struction of the house discreet masure'
iuiagiue not.


B,t in this case the destruction of private property for
the public safety the principle to very different
from that Of attempting to overturn the institution Of
slavery by the power Of arms because It Is alleged TO have
been the Of he rebellion ln the one case no one
doubts the legality OF the act and no one questions Inc
right OF the of the property to compensation from
the Government 1t is therefore, matter OF no great
hardship TO the proprieor-perhsps IN advantage II he
b. lcyan enabling him to bring bis properly 10 good
market But il s not always tenable to contend tor Inc


destruction Of what may appear work injury to the body
poltie in way Interfere with private rights lt is
generally admitted these days. that private property
not subject T., destruction except in so far as 1t may DO
usad a. \ defence for The enemy be made to COZ
;c, Ia LSer support in the conduct of the war Aud all
civilized nations recognise this principle II IL lnerna
toosl law aud 6aramaqui (yol p li9) expressly do
cares Of the powers % the sovereign THAI IN seges he
may down houses and trees belonging 10 private per-
sons to end that the enemy may not be sheltered ~
them or the garrison incommoded" But while this ein
ueot authority comedies this power to the sovereign he
nowhere admits the authority for mpoVerishlng his SUD
ects or any great number OF lsm, en- dsse by the do
strueton Of their property for crimes OF conmnmtles
emphateay declaring (yo p li) that, IS ior crimes


committed b, body or community, those only really


cuipabe who have giRen their actual consent aud tbat


with respect to crimes committed BY multitude, rea-


sons Of state and humanity direct that should princi


usy punish thoss who riugleaders aud pardon tie


rest" Such been the policy o enlightened nasors
aad the most despotc Governments


The .Dwer oi the slave interest and the very numbers
involved which have rendered it the you say, o
the rebellion presents precisely case such as that to


which our author refers lat 1917 when be declares that
.. r. word the public advantage which is the true


ure of punishment sometimes requires that the soyer


should pardon because Of the great number oi crm
mails The prudence Of Government demands that the


Justice established Tor the preservation Of society should
not bs exercised 10 such manHer as to subvert the
State"


sovereign has not the power to aieDate part OF the
State lie cannot demise the property Of his subjects
His power s limited to the appropriation under certain
circumstances, OF portion Of mems estates BY way Of
taxes without mpoverishmen except in where the
necessities of the State require the Of the property of
the subject But the sovereign has right to destroy the
property Of any number Of the citizens except IN sede
fence and for an equivalent


conceive the duty Of sovereign protect his
iects in all their property and conceive the privilege
of the subjects when the Sste refuses or unable TO de-
feni or protect them to their original right OF
taking care Of themselves independently Of the State 10 the
manner they think most proper" And, in my opinion.
the II ability of this Government to protect its good and
Ioya subjects in their lives and property against the
wicked aud TebelOus men who assumed the direction OF
AT ira and LETT them poweTess to resist treason whereby
they Wetc compelled to recognise, however unwlllngy,
the authority assumed over them renders sll such
paratisey If altogether innocent and such entitled
to the fu,st amnesty returning to their allegiance,
when they can do so with sufficient guarantee for the
preservation of their liberty, lives and property and 10
,oy until such guarantee be afforded they neither
criminal by the law Of nations that Of God And if this
be So it is the duty Of the sovereign not only to receive
them as good and loyal subjects entitled to all the rights
aud mmuntes had aud enjoyed prior to the existence %


rebellion in the conception Of which they took part,
bot to all pinper means 10 encourage their return
The sovereign authority may for the veal aban
don part Of s subjects and their possessions leaving
them take Of Themselves best they may, to
become victims Of stronger power but has not tn. right
uaGSr any law example TO despo its subjects wien
abandoned any than when they to their ale
glance II The necessities Of the State require the posses
sion Of their property their loss be borne equally BY
others which involves the principle Of pensaton with
out which the seizure becomes an act Of tyranny.


States or nations where the power exists to enforce II
may made to repair whatever injuries they may have
committed by revolt rebellion, and individuals apen
able to puni hment for their crimes but It viii not do to
att mpt To punish the innocent in like with the
guilty II is laid down principle by the best authors
that that il just naugurstei either to defend
selves aud properly against those who endeayor to in
lure by osssung prsoBs and by taking away and
running estates" and IL the sovereign attempts
tLus the bia