to the armies and should not visit the homes of families or private interests. But in other examples a different rule obtained the sanction of historical authority. I will only instance that when in the reign of William and Mary the English army occupied Ireland, then in a state of revolt, the inhabitants were actually driven into foreign lands and were dispossessed of their property and a new population introduced. To this day a large part of the north of Ireland is held by the descendants of the Scottish emigrants sent there by William's order and an act of Parliament.
The war which now prevails in our land is essentially a war of races . The Southern people entered into a clear compact of government, but still maintained a species of sperate interests, history, and prejudices. The latter became stronger and stronger till they have led to a war, which has developed fruits of the bitterest kind. We of the North are beyond all question right in our lawful cause, but we are not bound to ignore the fact that the people of the South have prejudices which form part of their nature and which they cannot throw off without and effort of reason or the slow proceeds of natural change. Now, the question arises, should we treat as absolute enemies all in the South who differ from us in opinion or prejudices, kill or banish them, or give hem time to think and gradually change their conduct so as to conform to the new order of things which is slowly and gradually creeping into their country?
When men take arms to resist or rightful authority we are compelled to use force, because all reason and argument cease when arms aero resorted to. When the provisions, forage, horses, mules, wagons, &c., are used by our enemy it is clearly our duty and right to take them, because otherwise they might be used against us. In like manner all houses left vacant by an inimical people are clearly our right, or such as are needed as store-houses, hospitals, and quarters. But a question arises as to dwellings used by women, children, and non-combatants. So long as non-combatants remain in their houses and keep to their accustomed business their opinions and prejudices, can in nowise influence the war, and therefore should not be noticed; but if any one comes out into the public streets and creased disorder, he or she should be punished, restrained, or banished, either to the rear or front as the officer in command adjudges. If the people or any of them keep up a correspondence with parties in hostility they are spies, and can be punished with death or minor punishment.
These are well-established principles of war, and the people of the South having appealed to war are barred from appealing to our Constitution, which they have practically and publicly defied. They have appealed to war, and must abide its rules and laws. The United States as a belligerent party, claiming right in the soil as the ultimate sovereign, have a right to change the population, and it may be and is both politic and just we should do so in certain districts.
When the inhabitants persist too long in hostility it may be both politic and right we should banish them and appropriate their lands to a more loyal and useful population. No man will deny that the United States would be benefited by dispossessing a rich, prejudiced, hard-headed, and disloyal planter, and substituting in this place a dozen or more patient, industrious, good families, even if they be of foreign birth. I think it does good to present this view of the case to many Southern gentleman who grew rich and wealthy, not by virtue alone of their personal industry and skill, but by reason of