Year: 1861

itself is a hardship and calamity, and one of its fundamental rules is that each citizen partakes of the character of his sovereign, and that in condition of war every citi- Zen is regarded as an enemy to the country with which his sovereign is it war The object of all wars is to conquer all early and satisfactory peace, and in this age, when the commercial interest Is so much m the ascendent, the best way of promoting that object is to Usc every means recognized III the code of civilized warfare to cripple the material resources of the enemy and hls consequent capacity to war upon you. The general recognition of this system ot war fare will have the additional advantage oI putting the great commercial interest oi all countries permanently on the side ot peace. We are called upon to meet the living issues of the day. Tine conducting ol a war necessarily entails burdens upon our citizens to sustain 1t and supply the sinews of war. Resources are as necessary to conduct war as men, and It IS as 1eglu- mate mode of warfare to cripple the ma terial interests of the enemy and to levy tribute upon them as it is to kill hls men.

 Mir. Fishbac1 opposed all idea of eontis- cation If the government Of Nicaragua, d weak and indifferent power, had property in our midst, would it be right while we were at war with some other government to confscate herproperty. This was precisely what was proposed by the gentleman from Prairie. We are not more at war with prl- vate individuals at the North than we are with the neutral government ot Nicaragua, and the conGScation of the property ot pri

 vate citizens of the North would be as abhor- rent to all idea of justice as would the con hscation of the property ol Nicaragua or any other neutral power in the cas; Snp- posed The merchants of Arkansas had already had the benefit of these debts,- They were contracted with the pledge npon the part of our State authorities that we would enforce them, and the failure to do so now would be violation of public and private faith, disrcpntabie to the age and country in which we live. The gentleman from Prairie Nr. Totten) few days az" declared that he was historically incorrect in asserting that priyatcering Was not sns- tained by the public law of the worid; but he undertook to say that the whole clvill- ed world stands committed against the doe | Urine of coniiScation either upon sea or land. | Both sections of this country are commit ted to it. The bill involves a disgraccluI ignoring of the plighted faith of Arkansas and would never receive his sanction. He disagreed with the gentleman in regarding resources as the main element of strength. There was moral power and moral strength in the consciousness of doing right, which out weighed all consideration of numerical force and resources. Besides, it was not our policy to resort to this Sys- tenn of war We are dependent upon the North for our supplies of provisions, and this policy will cut off the very source oi our supplies.

 Mr. Grace disagreed entirely with the gentleman from s'ebastian MT. FishbaclS and hoped that his motion to lay on the table the amendment of the gentleman from Prairie wonld not prevail. Tho people oI the North are waging q war of eXtermina- ton against us. With us it is only q wal of defence, anl in dis>olving oar political connection with the North we only ask tC be let alone. AS the price of our main tainancc of the right of solf-gOyernment they force upon us extraordinary eXertion, and extraordinary expenses. They force upon us the expenditure of millions of mo

 ney and the sacrifice of the lives of oul gallant soldieIy After the North ha, forced upon us these extraordinary cXer

 tions, the gentleman from Sebastian woulo have us resort to heavy and enormous taxa

 tion to support these efforts, ainl yet re- quire that we hold sacred northern inlebt

 elne.s and keep it for them. In q word

 he proposes to tax the citizens of Arkansas to pay the expenses of northern aggrcs

 sions. They are lercing upon Us devaS

 tating war against our own will, ana yc

 ahlaGlG niat ne Wo0Iid nT6t resort t, a vii known usage of civilized warfare, the ci1cc

 of which would be to make the enemy ray 1 for their.0wn wrongs Such tender con sciences are unSuited 10 these war times

 and if the gentleman was sent forth to thC field he doubted not he would be found toe tender hearted and amabie even for the chaplaincy He desired this bill to pass for its moral effect abroad He desired it | tO go jD ibDHlOit anu -NtN b! h l ilt tolIl mcrcial interest which had lattcncd on the products of our labor were taking the lead in the contribution of means for onr subuga- 1 tion. Let us announce to them that we are ready for such war and that we will eX- | haust every means known to civilized war fare in the effort to maintain Onr independ- ence and our nationality. Our most eff cent weapon is to cripple their material interest and exhaust the resources with which they propose to desolate our homes and subjugate LIS to northern domination.

 Mr. Turner said that in prosecuting this war he was willing to go as far as necessary. He did not understand that the law of na- tions confscated the debts of alien enemies. Confiscation of private property on land Is unsanctioned by the laws and customs of civilized warfare. Most of the writers on elementary law admitted the existence of the mere right, but all without an impor- tant exception, deprecated it's use and re- garded 1t as opposed to the civilization of the age. The writers drew distinction between private personal property and debts of an alien enemy, and the confisca- tion of mere indebtedness was not so well sustained by the public law of the world as that of personal property. But there was difference between mere right and the propriety of exercising it, There were peculiar reasons why we should not confis- cate the indebtedness of northern creditors It could not be vindicated in sound morals These debts were incurred under the faith of that absolute free trade which has so long prevailed between the northern and southern States, and their 1epudiation, even under the exigencies by which we are surrounded, was indefensible in that code of morals by which civilized and christian people professed to be governed. Nor was it justified by sound policy. We are in no condition to invite war of retaliation, and we should not be the intiators of that po- Hey. Still, if northern States indicate disposition to pursue the policy of this bill he would favor it. Itwas an extreme mea- sure onnosed to his idea of morals, and if 1t