The Trial of Paroled Rebel Prisoners for Treason
Published: June 17, 1865
In deciding the question of trying Gen. LEE for treason -- and we believe it is not yet decided whether he will be so tried or not -- there are one or two points of great delicacy to be considered. Dr. LIEBER has discussed, with his usual acumen, the force and duration of the parole given on surrender, deciding that it lasts as long as the war lasts, and no longer, and that on its expiration, the person giving it becomes a civilian, and liable, like any other man, to any pains and penalties to which he may have rendered himself liable for violations of the laws. In other words, the parole of a prisoner binds him, and has to be respected by his captors, only so long as he would have remained in confinement had it not been given at all. Either the cessation of hostilities or a regular exchange puts an end to it, and reduces the prisoner, if an alien, to the condition of a foreign sojourner; if a rebel, to that of a simple citizen.
Under this view of the matter, LEE's agreement with GRANT protects him only as long as the war lasts. The war being now over, he is therefore exposed to the action of the law, in the same manner as if he had never been clothed with the immunities or privileges of a belligerent. If this were all, the government need have, and probably would have, little difficulty in deciding on its course. But this is not all. It has to take care of its own reputation, as well as see that traitors are punished. It has to take care that whatever LEE may deserve, its manner of dealing with him shall be such as befits its own honor and dignity.
The question naturally suggests itself, in determining what construction shall be placed on LEE's parole, what force he supposed it to have, and how long, or to what extent he understood it to be binding. If there is any means of getting at this, it is safe to say that it is worthy of attention. For if we have obtained his surrender, owing to his having understood the terms in a certain sense, sooner than we should have done, had he understood them differently, and his construction of the terms is one which, though not ours, may be fairly put upon them, and which, there is a good reason to believe, he did put on them when he laid down his arms, this is a consideration which it will be impossible with any regard to our own reputation to disregard. Whatever LEE may be, and however little indulgence he may deserve at our hands, we owe it to ourselves not even to seem to break faith with him. The question, therefore, did he understand when he accepted GRANT's terms, that they amounted to an amnesty, is worthy of attention; and perhaps the best way of answering it is to find out what GRANT thought himself. If he was of opinion that the conditions he offered LEE and his officers and men did not protect them against prosecutions for treason after the war was over, LEE may be fairly bound by his decision. Nobody will ever suspect GRANT of an afterthought or of a desire to take an unfair advantage of a disarmed and helpless adversary; and there is, perhaps, no officer in the service who better understands the force and value of words, or has less doubts about his own meaning.
nytimes.com |
