Thus, according to our highest tribunal, the rule in civil war and international war is the same.
Charles Sumner
The Public Record
Charles Sumner was an American lawyer and statesman who represented Massachusetts in the United States Senate from 1851 until his death in 1874. Before and during the American Civil War, he was a leading American advocate for the abolition of slavery, and after the war he was a key figure in the Reconstruction era, during which he and other Radical Republicans successfully fought to end slavery and ensure basic rights for Black Americans. He continued advocating for racial equality until his death, lobbying in his final days for a civil rights bill that served as a model for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Historians credit Sumner with coining the phrase "equality before the law," which he first used as part of an early attempt to integrate Boston's public school system.
gutenberg.org
Here is the Supreme Court solemnly recognizing the rule of International Law, even to the extent of embracing under its penalties all the people of the hostile community, without regard to their sentiments of loyalty.
But again I say, this is war; or rather, it is rebellion which has assumed the front of war.
I take it as I find it, affirmed by great authorities of International Law, and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States.
I adduce it now because it serves to illustrate vividly the line of law.
The most remarkable instance of forbearance, under this head, was that of the Duke of Wellington, as he entered France with his victorious troops, fresh from the fields of Spain.
I have always regarded it as the high-water mark of civilized war, so far as war can be civilized.
The small sum which you vote will be a precedent for millions.
Of course, if justice requires, let it be done, even though the Treasury fail.
We must consider the present case as if on its face it involved not merely a few thousands, but many millions.
Pay it, and the country will not be bankrupt, but it will have an infinite draft upon its resources.
If you would have a practical idea of the extent of these claims, be taught by the history of the British Loyalists, who at the close of our Revolution appealed to Parliament for compensation on account of their losses.
What it did was in compassion, generosity, and bounty,--not in satisfaction of a debt.
Such a mode of compensating the claims of the Loyalists would do the country the highest credit.
But I cannot be controlled on this occasion by my sympathies.
Everywhere and in every household there has been suffering which mortal power cannot measure.
If your allowance is to be on account of merit, who will venture to say that this case is the most worthy?
But there are others, not now before us, where the suffering has been greater, and where, I do not hesitate to say, the reward should be in proportion.
Therefore do I say, in the name of justice, Wait!
It is this: Assuming that this claimant is loyal, I honor her that she kept her loyalty under the surrounding pressure of rebellion.
The practical question is, Shall she be paid for it?
As the liability of the Nation is urged on the single ground that she kept her regard for the flag truly and sincerely, it is evident that this loyalty must be put beyond question; it must be established like any other essential link of…
The Nation, at every cost of treasure and blood, broke into that prison-house, and succeeded in rescuing the Loyalists; but the terrible effort, which cost the Nation so dearly, involved the Loyalists in losses also.
And now we are asked to pay for this property damaged in our efforts for their redemption.
Is it not unreasonable to expect us to pay for this breaking?
Politicians like Charles Sumner
