§  458.  Mr.  Justice  Grier,  in  answering  the  argument  which
opposed  the  treatment  of  the  Southern  citizen's  vessel  and  goods
as  enemies'  property,  and  which  urged  that  the  ordinances  of
secession  being  null  and  void,  the  Southern  people  were  still
citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  as  such  entitled  to  the  im-
munities and  privileges  established  by  the  Bill  of  Rights,  says
rather  pithily :  ^  "  This  argument  rests  on  the  assumption  of  two
propositions,  each  of  which  is  without  foundation.  It  assumes
that  where  a  civil  war  exists,  the  party  belligerent  claiming  to
be  sovereign,  cannot,  for  some  unknown  reason,  exercise  the
rights  of  belligerents,  although  the  revolutionary  party  may.
Being  sovereign  he  can  exercise  only  sovereign  rights  over  the
other  party.  The  insurgent  may  be  killed  on  the  battle-field
or  by  the  executioner ;  his  property  on  land  may  be  confiscated
1  2  Black's  E.  635.  2  Ibid.  672.
THE  MILITARY  ANr   "WAE  POWERS.  291

by  the  municipal  law ;  but  the  commerce  on  the  ocean,  which
supplies  the  rebels  with  means  to  support  the  war,  cannot  be
made  the  subject  of  capture  by  the  laws  of  war,  because,  it  is
unconstitutional!!!"^  He  then  proceeds  to  rebut  these  as-
sumptions and  to  repel  the  argument.
In  fact,  those  who  maintain  the  views  opposed  to  this  case,
are  inevitably  driven  to  the  position,  that  under  the  Constitu-
tion of  the  United  States,  a  civil  war,  however  great,  is  no  war,
but  only  an  aggravated  riot ;  and  the  armies  and  navies  used
in  suppressing  the  disturbance,  are  only  a  somewhat  excep-
tional posse  comitatus,  called  out  to  aid  the  sheriff  in  his  civil
duty  of  dispersing  the  unlawful  assemblages,  and  arresting  the
offenders.
