to them. In other words,
it was _a solemn covenant_.*1* If the proclamation was a snare, to bring
the people to fight against their countrymen, as it has been generally
thought, it was a breach of faith in those commanders, and not binding
upon the people;*2* and the sooner they could avoid the treachery the
better. Then, upon this view of the case, the more wicked were the
orders of Lord Cornwallis, issued on the unsound principle of a
faithless proclamation. Again, if it was intended as a covenant; as the
paroles issued under it made them prisoners; the people, from the terms
and the nature of it, ought to have been suffered to remain at home, in
peace and quiet; for being prisoners, they could not, consistent with
reason or principle, serve under those who held them in imprisonment.
Further, the second proclamation declaring all paroles, after the 20th
June, to be null and void, was an arbitrary change of what had been
agreed upon by one party, the strongest, without the consent of the
other; which, in the language of civilians, _is odious_.*3* Then the
British commanders, having broken their covenant and declared it void,
upon what principle could the people be punished by a breach of it? Upon
none; for it did not exist. But further, the taking up arms in favour of
the British, in nine cases out of ten, was compulsory; and could have no
binding effect, either legally or morally speaking.

*1* Puff. L.N. viii.6.24. Vatt. B.2.C.14. S.214-15.

*2* Ibid, B.2.C.13. S.200.

*3* Vattel B.2.C.17. S.304. B.3.C.13. S.201.

In addition to the enormity of the principle, upon which such men were
to suffer, was the uncertainty of the law; for Lord Cornwallis' orders
are so confusedly drawn, they will admit, as against the accused, of any
latitude of construction: yet they denounce confiscation, imprisonment
and death. Under the circumstances stated, the confiscations of Lord
Cornwallis were robberies, his imprisonments were unjust and cruel, and
his executions, always upon the gibbet, were military murders. And if,
to gain his point, he did not, like the Duke of Alva, (employed in a
similar vocation) make use of the rack, the stake, and the faggot,
yet Lord Cornwallis resorted to every other mode of punishment, a more
improved civilization had left him, to suppress civil liberty. Such was
the character of the commander in chief of the British forces in South
Carolina.

Now, we hold a generous foe en