Year: 1863




duties Of the Federal Government but interfering
in no way with the institutions Of those States.
This was the plan which the President aud
Congress OF the Unitei States began. and for
some time conducted the war; and perhaps il ia
needless for us TO say that II this plsn hsd not
been abandoned the war, in our opinion. would
have ended before now. How near We are 10 the
adoption of the first mentioned of these two
plans; how far We are advanced on the road 10
the former By having departed from the latter
We do not propose TO consider. Neither do we
propose TO draw into this present discussion the
particular opinions, acts views or conduct of in
dividuals. We discuss solely now theory which
our countrymen are asked TO adopt IN the prose
cution and ter nination of this war; and in dis
cussng it we deal With principles and not with
the men who PROFOUND them.


Let US assume then, that the Southern States
are 70 be proceeded against as States: to be con
quered, and TO be held as conquered countries un.
til we may fit 10 readmit them into, or to in
corporate them with the Union on such terms az
We may impose; or. in other words that we are
to hold them as conquered provinces for m in
definite period. The first observation TO be made
upon this plan is, that ts adoption will place the
government of the United States- obviously un-
der the necessity OF acting according TO the re-
qurenenis of public Law for we assume that il is
toasct. not arbitrarily and capriciously, but ac-
cordng to established principles 50 that It's eosrse
may stand justified to the civilized world snd 20
that individual rights and interests IS they nav
be effected by the result, may hereafter be found
to rest upon principles capable OF being admins
tered in the tribunals Of civilized justice IT, in
deed. We nre 10 throw aside all regard for princi-
pie, and 10 act upon the barbarous doctrine that
men have no rights because they happen 70 be in
portion of the country where a usurped author.
ity has made it necessary for them TO submit for
time TO rule which we say is unlawful, we
have no occasion to consider anything beyond
the maxim that might makes right" But if
we propose to remain in our place among the na-
tions of the earth which govern their conduct by
the great rules of public morality, then we have
something more to consider than questions of
physical power.


We remark, therefore. as a necessary conse
Quence of the plan which regards the United
States as future belligerent coaqneror of the
Soutner1 States. that under its adoption our
Government must proceed according to the law
of nations, and must be bound BY what that law
requires. The advocates of this plan will scarce
ly dispute this position, unless they mean to make
this war sn exertion Of mere victorious force un-
regulated by anv rule whatever. Unless they
mean to do this, they must accept the Public law
as rule for If they resort 10 a theory derived
from the rights of beligerents. and speak Of con-
quests obtsined in war. they must take the law of
nations as it exists in its normal application 10
such cases, according to the general acceptance
of mankind oi 3sf ala


The first thing, then, we have to do is to set
tie the question definitely whether this is civil
or foreign war. Whether it is the one or the
other, the law Of nations must be looked 20 the
source of the rules which are 10 govern its prose-
cution and termination; although those rules may
be different in some respects according as the
is TO be considered rs belonging 70 one or the
other Of these two kinds. To the one or the
other of these two kinds Of war the present war
must belong, since the usages of nations, the
principles Of action and adjudication, and the use
Of public force admit Of no other descriptions Of
war when waged by governments. sa


The established distinctions between civil and
foreign wars fully show what the character of the
present war necessarily is. Ii is a civil and not
foreign war, for the conclusive reason that the
latter is war waged against a foreign nation.
A civil war exists when nation is practically d.
vided into two parties, who acknowledge no COM
mon Judge, and who carry on their dispute by
recourse 10 arms Although the subject of that
dispute may be the dependence OF independence
of territorial portion Of the nation, II il still
civil war; and while the contest is raging it must
be conducted according TO the laws Of war which
applicable to the situation of the parties, who
are in many important senses belligerents toward
each other and toward other nations.


But there is an important difference in the
modes of terminating civil and foreign war
The latter is terminated by treaty of peace
there being two independent parties capable of
settling their differences by contract which is
to govern their future relations Bet when
sovereign has subdued party among his own
subjects whom he was obliged temporarially to
treat as belligerent-or, in other words. when he
has prevailed in civil war-the condition of
hostilities must be terminated by an amnesty,
from which. however. the sovereign may except
any of the authors or chiefs of the revolt. whom
he may punish according to the laws of his gov
eminent. Ii the sovereign does nor prevail. but
is obliged to consent TO the ACKNOWLEDGMENT of
his dominions. the war Is terminated by acknowl
edging the Independence OF the insurgents, who
thus become nation with whom a treaty of
peace can be made. This was the case between
Great Britain and ourselves at the end of the
revolutionary war.


This, then. being civil war, the next inquiry
is, does the law of nations establish any imita-
tions as TO the objects which NAV righnuIly be
accomplished By III Since il is not only evil
war, but a civil war wsged (on our purt) by a
government whose authority over the insurgent
peoples or provinces is limited by written con-
stitu,ion, il becomes OF the utmost importance TO
ascertain whether the public law will admit ofour
setting aside all the principles. guarantees, and
fundamental ideas of that Constitution. OF wheth-
t will require US to proceed no further than to
the restoration of its original authority. This
qIestion-whether we are 10 contine ourselves to
= restoration of that authority-is often treated
as question Of expediency or policy, by public
speakers writers who oppose or favor any en-
lsrgement of the objects or ends of the war be-
yond the simple restoration of the authority Of
the Federal Union as defined by the Constitution.


We desire now, however, 20 examine it from
a different point of yiew being firmly persuaded
that the law Of nations-which is an embodiment
of the principles OF public mortality acknowledged
by civilized nations as Of binding authority-will
not admit OF cur acting in disregard of the pow
ers Of the Federal Constitution and of the nature
of our national sovereignty. in the mode of ter
minating this war. We do not, indeed, under
value or wish to deDreciate the argument that is
derived from expediency. Our affairs are in no
situation 70 admit Of any dsparagement Of any of
the grounds on which the defenders of the Union
and Constitution NAV plant themselves. Thick
darkness encompasses us on every side. and there
is extreme danger that the public mind may 60
astray in It's search after pathway of escape
from It's terrible environment. Certainly, there
fore, we shall not overlook the considerations
which render it of infinite momeht 20 the Ameri-
can people not to lose their hold upon the Fed
eral Constitution, or upon a single one OF its fun
dsmental principles.


But for the present portion OF this discussion,
we coufine the inquiry 20 what the principles Of
public Law, applicable 70 the case, viii plainly
require of US. This inquiry we shall resume in a
future artcle.-lN. Y. World.


l.a.e IS - >-----------l---.I


cE-The Quincy III Herald savors General
MccIrLLAS for President. and General GHRsr
for Vice President Il says: -si "a tsf


With the popularity of Mcclellan in the East
ern and Middle States, and sith the Army Of the
Potomac, and with Grants popularity with the
people Of The Northwest and the great army Of