Brevet Lieutenant General Winfield Scott to Brigadier-General Benjamin F. Butler, April 27, 1861

Headquarters of the Army, WASHINGTON, April 27th, 1861

Brig. Gen. B. F. BUTLER

THE undersigned, General-in-Chief of the Army, has received from the President of the U. States the following communication:

“To the Commanding General of the Army of the United States

“You are engaged in repressing an insurrection against the laws of the United States. If at any point on or in the vicinity of the military line which is now used between the City of Philadelphia, via Perryville, Annapolis City, and Annapolis Junction, you find resistance which renders it necessary to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus for the public safety, you personally, or through the Officer in command at the point where the resistance occurs, are authorized to suspend that Writ.”

ABRAHAM LINCOLN

IN accordance with the foregoing warrant the undersigned devolves on Major General Patterson commanding the Department of Pennsylvania, Delaware & Maryland; Brig. General Butler commanding the Department of Annapolis; and Col. Mansfield commanding the Washington Department, a like authority, each within the limits of his command, to execute in all proper cases the instructions of the President.

WINFIELD SCOTT

SOURCE: Jessie Ames Marshall, Editor, Private and Official Correspondence of Gen. Benjamin F. Butler During the Period of the Civil War, Volume 1: April 1860 – June 1862, p. 51

Nathaniel Peabody Rogers: Constitutionality of Slavery, September 8, 1838

The second “unprovided-for difficulty” of the Keene Sentinel, in the way of the anti-slavery movement is, that “slaves are property.” We deny that they are property, or that they can be made so. We will not argue this, for it is self-evident. A man cannot be a subject of human ownership; neither can he be the owner of humanity. There is a clear and eternal incompetancy on both sides, — on the one to own man, and on the other to be owned by man. A man cannot alienate his right to liberty and to himself, — still less can it be taken from him. He cannot part with his duty to be free — his obligation to liberty, any more than his right. He is under obligation to God and humanity and his own immortality, to retain his manhood and to exercise it. He cannot become the property of another, any more than he can part with his human nature. It would be utterly repugnant to all the purposes of his creation. He is bound to perform a part, which is totally incompatible with his being owned by any body but himself; which requires that he keep himself free. He can't be property, any more than he can be a horse, or a literal ass. We commend our brethren of the Sentinel to the eighth Psalm, as a divine authority touching the nature and destination of man. He can't be property — he can't be appropriated. His mighty nature cannot be coped by the grasp of ownership. Can the Messrs. Sentinel be appropriated? We put it sternly to them, in behalf of their, and our own, and the slave's common nature, — for we feel that it is all outraged by their terrible allegation. Can the editors of the Sentinel become property? the goods and chattels, rights and hereditaments of an owner? If they can't, no man can. If any man can, they can. Can the Hon. Mr. Prentiss, with all his interesting qualities and relations, by any diabolical jugglery, be converted into a slave, so as to belong to one of his fallen, depraved fellow-men? Can he suppose the idea? Is he susceptible of this transmutation? He is, if any body is. Can he be transferred, by virtue of a few cries and raps of a glib-tongued auctioneer? Could a pedler sell him, from his tin cart? Could he knock him off, bag and baggage, to the boldest bidder? Let us try it. No disrespect to our esteemed senior. — We test his allegation, that a man is property. If one man can be, any man can — himself, or his stately townsman, Major-General Wilson, who would most oddly become the auction platform. If a man can be property, he can be sold. If any man can be, every man can — Mr. Prentiss, Gen. Wilson, Rev. Mr. Barstow — every man. Let us try to vendue the Sentinel. Advertise him, if you please, in the Keene paper. On the day, produce him — bring him on — let his personal symmetries be examined and descanted on — his sacred person handled by the sacrilegious man-jockey, — let him be ordered to shift positions, and assume attitudes, and display to the callous multitude his form and proportions — his points, as the horse-jockey would say. How would all this comport with the high sense of personal honor, wont to be entertained by the Sentinel? How would he not encounter a thousand deaths rather than submit to it? How his proud spirit, instinct with manhood, would burst and soar away from the scene! Who bids? an able-bodied, capable, fine, healthy, submissive, contented Boy, about fifty — sound wind and limb — sold positively for no fault — a field hand — come of real stock, — faithful, can trust him with gold untold — will nobody start him? — shall we have a bid? — will nobody bid for the boy? Now we demand of our respected brother, whose honor is as sacred in our regard as in his own, what he thinks of the chattelism of a slave, — for we indignantly lay it down as an immovable principle that the Hon. John Prentiss is as legitimate a subject of property and of sale, as any the lowest of his race.

We dispose of the position that “slaves are property,” by utterly and indignantly denying the possibility of it. We will rescue our brethren of the Sentinel from the imputation of this murderous idea, by erasing the semicolon after “property,” and making but one sentence of the second “difficulty,” turning it into an opinion that “slaves are property by the constitution and the laws;” throwing the infamy on to the old framers of the constitution, and all of us who have lived under it, with power to amend or nullify it. It would sink the whole of us. Constitution and laws! Is the Sentinel of opinion that a constitution could be framed by men, or by existences in the shape of men, that, instead of protecting human liberty and rights, should annihilate them? A constitution to enslave men! What would you say of a British constitution, that enslaved a British subject? Would you not scout the idea of it — of the British possibility of it? and can it be done here, and was it done here by revolutionary sages, who could not brook the restraints of British liberty? A constitution, that should provide for the enslavement of a man, would be a legal abortion. The bare engrossing of it would nullify it. It would perish by spontaneous annulment and nullification. It could not survive its ordination — nor could its infamous framers. We deny that an enslaved man is property by the constitution, and we might deny that any man can be enslaved under our constitution, and consequently, that he could be chattelized, if a slave were admitted to be property. Things may be appropriated — persons may not. They are self-evidently not susceptible of appropriation or ownership. By the constitution every body is spoken of as a person — no mention is made of human things. If a slave is alluded to, in that instrument, as a possible existence in point of fact, it is under the name of “person.” “Three fifths of all other Persons” — “migration or importation of persons” — “no person held to service.” These are the only instances in it where allusion is made to slaves, — and it no more, in those allusions, sanctions enslaving, than it does “piracies and felonies on the high seas,” which it also expressly recognizes, as they say of slavery. So it says “person,” where it solemnly asserts that “no person can be deprived of liberty or property, but by due process of law.” This clause prohibits the slightest approaches to enslaving, or holding in slavery, which is continued enslaving. No person's property can be taken from him; not his life even; infinitely less his Liberty, without due legal process. It is idle to say, that the framers of the constitution, or. those who adopted it and acted under it, did not mean to save the colored man from slavery, by this clause. In law they are to be held to mean so, because they said so. The intent of the framers is now to be gathered from what they said in the instrument itself — not their colloquies at the time or before or after — but what they put down in imperishable black and white. It is what they inscribed on the parchment for all time, that they legally intended, and there we are to go to get at their intent. If the words are obscure and ambiguous, we may gather their intent by aid of concomitant circumstances, &c. But there is no ambiguity here. The clearest words and best understood and most trimly defined of any we have, here set forth the essential doctrine, (without which a community of thieves and pirates could scarcely be kept together,) that life, liberty and property are sacred. Enslave man and leave him these three, and you may do it, maugre this clause of the constitution. However, you must leave him, by virtue of other clauses, a few other incidentals, such as compulsory process for calling in all witnesses for him, of whatever color; the inviolate right to be secure in person, house, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures; right of trial by jury in all cases over twenty dollars' value; the free exercise of religion, of speech, of the press, of peaceable assembly and of petition; the civil rights of republican government, which is guarantied to him in every state in this Union; the privileges and immunities of citizens in every state; in short, you must allow him a string of franchises, enumerated accidentally in that part of the old compact, called the preamble, viz., justice, domestic tranquillity, common defence, general welfare, and, finally, the blessings of liberty to himself and to his posterity; — moreover you may add, in repetition, — for in securing these breath-of-life sort of rights, people run a little into superfluity of words — you may add the unsuspendible privilege of habeas corpus — the old writ of liberty; — and perfect exemption from all attainder, or enslaving a man's children on his account. We will mention one more — that is the uninfringible right to keep and bear arms. All these and many other rights and immunities, "too numerous to be mentioned,” are secured to him by adamantine provisions in the constitution, and if you can chattelize him under them, so that Austin Woolfolk can trade in him, at your capital, or Wade Hampton or the American Board, can buy him and use him up in their service, or Doctor Ezra Styles Ely speculate in his soul and body, then your doctrine, Messrs. Sentinel, is sound, that he is recognized as property by the constitution.

We claim some exceptions, however, in case we cannot overthrow slavery in the slave states, by force of the national constitution. We cannot allow you to enslave any body in old Virginia. Look at her law paramount in our caption, declaring the Birth-Right, Inalienable Liberty Of All Men. In Maryland the right is constitutionally set forth a little stronger. You must not enslave a man in Maryland, — and we can't allow you to lay a finger on his liberties in the district of Columbia, because the constitutions of Virginia and Maryland are still paramount law there, by congressional adoption, at the acceptance of the cessions. And if he runs away from the district or a territory, or either of those two states, we can't allow you to arrest him and send him back.

We ask our legal friends, who think lightly of this “fanaticism,” to look into this constitutional and legal matter of slaveholding. We would like especially, that some of the neighbors of the Sentinel would give some exposition, during the coming convention, of the lawfulness of enslaving people in this country. We ask the Keene lawyers how this is. We want “the opinion of the court.”

For ourselves we venture the opinion, in light of what glimmerings of law scintillate about our vision, that holding a man in slavery is a violation of the law of this land, and of every part of it, not excepting our gory-fingered sister Arkansas, or our carnage-dripping sister Alabama, the haunt of christian enterprise from New England and the worn-out slave states in the north. A constitution that can avail to protect republican liberty to a single member of this community, inviolably secures it to every man, and condemns and prohibits slavery. It cannot otherwise be. Slavery is a mere matter of fact — in the face of the constitution — in the face of each state constitution — in the face of every court of justice which soundly administers the law of any state — in face of every thing, but a tyrant public sentiment, and a diabolical American practice.

The enslaved of the country are as much entitled to their liberty as any of us, by the law as it is. They have a right to throw off all violation of it by force, if they cannot otherwise. Nay, it is their duty to do so, if they can, — for it is not injury merely, that they are submitting to — not wrongs. They are rendered incapable of suffering injury — incompetent to endure wrong. The accursed system, that preys upon them, makes things of them — exterminates their very natures. This they may not submit to. They ought to prevent it, at every expense. They ought to resist it, as the Christian should the devil, for it wars upon the nature of man, and devours his immortality. If they could heave off the system by an instantaneous and universal effort, they ought to do it Individually we wish they could do it, and that they would do it. We may be wrong in this opinion — but we entertain it. If our white brethren at the South were slaves, we should wish them instantaneous deliverance by insurrection, if this would bring it to them. We wish our colored brethren the same. We do not value the bodily lives of the present white generation there a straw, compared to the horrible thraldom, in which they hold the colored people, and we value their lives as highly as we do the colored people's. But insurrection can't effect it. It must be done by the abolitionists. They must annihilate the system by force of their principles, and as fast as possible. And they must increase their speed. Men will have to groan and pant in absolute brutality, with their high and eternal natures bound down and strangled amid the folds of this enslaving devil, until we throw it off. To the work then, and Heaven abandon the tardy! If you wish to save your white brethren and yourselves, we commend you to this work, in sharp earnest We tell you, once for all, there is no time to be Inst!

There is no end to the theme — there must be to this article. We deny the truth and existence of the Sentinel's two difficulties, and if, in fact, they both existed, our movement “provides for them.” The people collectively have the power to declare slavery a crime in the slave states. Congress has the power to do what amounts to the same thing — by direct action. They can declare it criminal in the capital, and how long would it be esteemed innocent elsewhere? They can punish enslaving in the district, and the man-traffic between the states as piracy. Lex talionis would enslave the perpetrators — but that would be devilish, and ought not to be inflicted. But if hanging is lawful in any case, it is in this.

If the people collectively and Congress have no legal power over the slavery of the slave states, abolitionists have the power, ample and adequate, and they will “provide for the difficulty.”

The constitution and the laws do not recognize the slaves as property. We call for the proof. The Sentinel avers it. Let them point us to the spot where. And could they do this, the abolitionists have the power (consult rule of three for the time it will take) to change and redeem both the constitution and the laws, and transmute this property back again to humanity.

SOURCE: Collection from the Miscellaneous Writings of Nathaniel Peabody Rogers, Second Edition, p. 15-21 which states it was published in the Herald of Freedom of September 8, 1838.

Lieutenant-General Winfield Scott to Brigadier-General Benjamin F. Butler, April 26, 1861

Headquarters of the Army, WASHINGTON, April 26th, 1861

General BUTLER

The undersigned, General-in-Chief of the Army, has received from the President of the U. States the following instructions respecting the legislature of Maryland now about to assemble at Annapolis, viz.:

It is “left to the Commanding General to watch and await their action, which, if it shall be to arm their people against the United States, he is to adopt the most prompt and efficient means to counteract, even if necessary to the bombardment of their cities, and, in the extremest necessity, suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.”

In the absence of the undersigned, the foregoing instructions are turned over to Brig. General B. F. Butler, of the Mass. Volunteers, or other Officer commanding at Annapolis, who will carry them out in a right spirit, — that is, with moderation and firmness. In the case of arrested individuals, notorious for their hostility to the United States, the prisoners will be safely kept and duly cared for; but not surrendered except on the order of the Commander aforesaid.

WINFIELD SCOTT.

SOURCE: Jessie Ames Marshall, Editor, Private and Official Correspondence of Gen. Benjamin F. Butler During the Period of the Civil War, Volume 1: April 1860 – June 1862, p. 43

Salmon P. Chase to Senator Henry Wilson,* Washington, December 13, 1860

Columbus, Dec. 13, [60.]

Dear Wilson, You will not I trust think me obtrusive if I give you briefly my thoughts concerning the duties of the hour.

Departure from the original policy of the gov^t. conc^g. Sl'y is the cause of our frequent dangers; return to that policy is the true remedy.

But this remedy cannot be applied by Republicans until they come into power. Its principal elements then will be, I think, maintenance of the union & enforcement of the laws against all opposition, by temperate but inflexible action; adhesion to the great principle of separating the Fed^l. Gov^t, fr Sl’y.; & manifestation of goodwill, real, unaffected goodwill — toward the slave States, & their people, by every concession consistent with adhesion to principle.

Under this last head of concession may be included such legislation as will provide compensation for escaping fugitives, if pursued, arrested, & proved to be such by the claimant, and means of settling them in Hayti or elsewhere, — or an amendment of the Constitution giving to the Slave States representation for their entire population in consideration of the abrogation of the Fugitive Surrender Clause.

But I expect the Republicans can do nothing in this way until they become responsible, under the recent decision of the people, for the Administration of the Gov^t.; and all attempts, on their part, to do anything, under existing circumstances will, I fear, prove unfortunate.

If my humble counsel might prevail I would say, Let Republicans simply insist that the actual Admⁿ. do its duty in maintaining the just authority of the Fed^l. Gov^t. & in enforcing the laws of the Union; let them hold the Pres^t. & the Party wh. elected him to their entire responsibility; let them proclaim their own purpose, when in power, to administer the Gov^t, fairly, honestly, & Firmly, in a spirit of true goodwill & perfect equity towards every section, every state, & every citizen without entering into any detail in regard to propositions to be made or measures to be adopted; and finally let them give an earnest of their readiness & ability to do their duty by urging as promptly as possible the consideration of the practical measures, now demanding the action of Congress.

Among these measures the most important seem to me to be these:

1. The admission of Kansas. Why cannot the Senate take up & pass the bill for her admission without delay — at least before Christmas? That w^d. do much to inspire confidence in its ability to meet the crisis.

2. The passage of the Tariff Bill. Whatever may be the defects of Mr. Morrill's bill — I have not studied it & do not know that it has any — it is clear that some measure must be adopted to revive the sinking credit of the nation; and this bill will certainly contribute to that result. A Treasury note bill without a Tariff bill is a dangerous experiment. The two together may answer a good purpose.

3. Provision for an Early election of Congressmen in States where no elections have yet been held; & for their election on the same day hereafter.

Why not provide for their election this year in March, on the day of the New Hampshire election, and in future years on the Tuesday following the 1st Mon. of Nov. which is now the day of the Pres1. election? The Pres^t. & Congress all to be elected on the same day.

4. The homestead bill. It has already passed the House. Why not take it up & push it through the Senate?

5. Whatever laws may be necessary to enable the Pres^t. to overcome forcible resistance to the execution of Existing laws. When I say forcible I do not mean peaceful resistance through judicial action. It must be an extremely extreme case wh. will warrant fed. interference, by force, with the action of State tribunals, through Habeas Corpus or other process. But whatever legislation may be necessary—and the message indicates the want of some — Should be provided & provided at once.

There may be other measures wh. need prompt action but these five are most prominent in my mind.

If the Repub^s. in Cong, will address themselves vigorously to this course of action and then let the country see that they have the dispo^n. & abily. to meet the need & perform the duty of the hour, they will inspire gen^l, confidence & prepare the success of the incoming admⁿ.

Weak concession will accomplish nothing, intemperate denunciation will accomplish nothing: manful discharge of present duty, with little talk and no delay, will accomplish much — I hope everything.

_______________

* From letter book 7, pp. 77-78. Henry Wilson 1812-1875. United States Senator from Mass. 1855-1873; Vice-President ol the United States 1873-1875.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 293-5

Governor Salmon P. Chase to Senator Charles Sumner, June 20, 1859

I send some papers by this mail.

Columbus, June 20, 1859.

I mark last Saturday with a white stone, for it brought me, dear Sumner, the most welcome intelligence of your almost assured recovery. God grant that the happy auguries of the present may be fulfilled and that completely. What a terrible experience has been yours! How fiery the ordeal you have been summoned to pass! Let us be thankful that memory cannot renew the suffering, and that the retrospect, while it makes one shudder, also brings a sort of sense of present triumph. How strange it seems that the assassin was so soon & so fearfully summoned to his account; and that he in whose behalf, or rather in whose pretended behalf, the outrage was perpetrated, was compelled so speedily to follow, while God in his wisdom, after allowing you to suffer so fearfully, seems about to restore you to the theatre of your usefulness & fame. Do not think however that I imagine your sense of triumph has in it any touch of exultation over the melancholy fates of your assailant and his uncle. I am sure it has not. I am sure that had it been in your power to reverse the decrees of Heaven's Chancery against them your magnanimity would have prompted the reversal. Your triumph is higher & purer: it is over suffering, over wrong, over misrepresentation— and it is for the cause as well as for yourself.

We have, here in Ohio, engaged in a new battle. Our state election takes place next October, and the tickets of both parties are nominated and the platforms of both have been promulgated. Our Republican Platform takes distinct ground for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act & against the extention of the five years term of naturalization. The occasion of the first was supplied by the recent trials at Cleveland — prosecutions against some of our best citizens for the alleged rescue of a Fugitive Slave, and the refusal of our own Supreme Court to set them free on Habeas Corpus, on the ground that the act is unwarranted by the Constitution — the occasion of the second was furnished by the two years amendment in Massachusetts which raised such a clamor among the naturalized citizens, and gave rise to such a torrent of accusations against the Republican Party that our Convention found itself obliged to speak out plainly & decidedly. I am glad of it, though great offence is given for the present to some whom I would gladly conciliate at any expense short of the sacrifice of our principles.

Of course I am not a candidate for reelection as Governor. It is generally supposed that if we carry the State Legislature — a result not quite certain — that I shall be reelected to the Senate; and there is a very general disposition in Ohio and several other States to press my nomination for the Presidency as a Western man & on the whole the most available candidate. Our friend Seward will also be urged strongly from New York, and I presume that my friends, if they find that my nomination cannot be carried, will generally go for him as a second choice. His friends will probably make me, also, their second choice if he cannot be nominated. Of course I cannot claim to be indifferent when a position which will afford so grand an opportunity for renovation of admn [administration?] at home & of policy abroad, is thus brought within the possibility of attainment, but I am certain that I would not imperil the triumph of our cause for the sake of securing the opportunity to myself rather than to another.

I presume you will see our friend Bailey. The prayers of thousands follow him abroad. I earnestly pray that he may find the great blessings of health & strength which he seeks. We are now — he & I — both turned of fifty & no longer young. My general health yet remains apparently unbroken but I feel & observe symptoms which admonish me that my hold on life is not so strong as it was. Kate thinks she must send a few lines.

Good bye—May God bless you.

Affectionately,

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 280-1

Diary of John Beauchamp Jones: September 19, 1863

The reports from Western North Carolina indicate that much bad feeling prevails there still; and it is really something more than a military trick to obtain a command. But I think the government had better keep out of the field its assistant adjutant-generals, and especially those in the Bureau of Conscription, unless they are put in subordinate positions. Some of them have sought their present positions to keep aloof from the fatigues and dangers of the field; and they have contributed no little to the disaffection in North Carolina. Gen. Whiting suggests that one of Gen Pickett's brigades be sent to Weldon; and then, with Ransom's brigade, he will soon put down the deserters and tories. The Governor approves this plan, and I hope it will be adopted.

The Northern papers say President Lincoln, by proclamation, has suspended the writ of habeas corpus throughout the United States. This is good news for the South; for the people there will strike back through the secret ballot-box.

They also say an expedition is about to sail up the Rio Grande, where it will come in collision with the French, now occupying Matamoras.

And it appears that Lord John Russell will not prevent the sailing of our monitor-rams from British ports without evidence of an intention to use them against the United States. He will do nothing on suspicion; but must have affidavits, etc.

A young lady, Miss Heiskell, applied yesterday, through the Hon. A. H. H. Stuart, for a passport to Philadelphia, to be married to a young merchant of that city. Her father was a merchant of that city, though a native of Virginia. I believe it was granted.

The country is indignant at the surrender of Cumberland Gap by Brig.-Gen. Frazier, without firing a gun, when his force was nearly as strong as Burnside's. It was too bad! There must be some examples of generals as well as of deserting poor men, whose families, during their absence, are preyed upon by the extortioners, who contrive to purchase exemption from military service. The country did not know there was such a general until his name became famous by this ignominious surrender. Where did Gen. Cooper find him?

SOURCE: John Beauchamp Jones, A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capital, Volume 2, p. 47-8

Resolutions of the New York Democratic Committee, May 16, 1863

Resolved, That the Democrats of New York point to their uniform course of action during the two years of civil war through which we have passed, to the alacrity which they have evinced in filling the ranks of the army, to their contributions and sacrifices, as the evidence of their patriotism and devotion to the cause of our imperiled country. Never in the history of civil wars has a Government been sustained with such ample resources of means and men as the people have voluntarily placed in the hands of this Administration.

Resolved, That as Democrats we are determined to maintain this patriotic attitude, and despite of adverse and disheartening circumstances to devote all our energies to sustain the cause of the Union; to secure peace through victory and to bring back the restoration of all the States under the safeguard of the Constitution.

Resolved, That while we will not consent to be misapprehended upon these points we are determined not to be misunderstood in regard to others not less essential. We demand that the Administration shall be true to the Constitution; shall recognize and maintain the rights of the States and the liberties of the citizen; shall everywhere outside of the lines of necessary military occupation and the scenes of insurrection exert all its powers to maintain the supremacy of the civil over the military law.

Resolved, That in view of these principles we denounce the recent assumption of a military commander to seize and try a citizen of Ohio, Clement L. Vallandigham, for no other reason than words addressed to a public meeting in criticism of the course of the Administration and in condemnation of the military orders of that general.

Resolved, That this assumption of power by a military tribunal if successfully asserted not only abrogates the right of the people to assemble and discuss the affairs of government, the liberty of speech and of the press, the right of trial by jury, the law of evidence and the privilege of habeas corpus, but it strikes a fatal blow at the supremacy of the law and the authority of the State and Federal Constitutions.

Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States — the supreme law of the land — has defined the crime of treason against the United States to consist “only in levying war against them or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort,” and has provided that “no person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of witnesses to the same overt act or on confession in open court.” And it further provides that “no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury except in cases arising in the land and naval forces or in the militia when in actual service in time of war or public danger;” and further that “in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right of a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime was committed.”

Resolved, That these safeguards of the rights of the citizen against the pretensions of the arbitrary power were intended more especially for his protection in times of civil commotion. They were secured substantially to the English people after years of protracted civil war and were adopted into our Constitution at the close of the Revolution. They have stood the test of seventy-six years of trial under our republican system under circumstances that show that while they constitute the foundation of all free government they are the elements of the enduring stability of the Republic.

Resolved, That in adopting the language of Daniel Webster we declare “it is the ancient and undoubted prerogative of this people to canvass public measures and the merits of public men.” It is a “homebred right,” a fireside privilege. It had been enjoyed in every house, cottage and cabin in the nation. It is as undoubted as the right of breathing the air or walking on the earth. Belonging to private life as a right, it belongs to public life as a duty, and it is the last duty which those whose representatives we are shall find us to abandon. Aiming at all times to be courteous and temperate in its use except when the right itself is questioned we shall place ourselves on the extreme boundary of our right and bid defiance to any arm that would move us from our ground. “This high constitutional privilege we shall defend and exercise in all places — in time of peace, in time of war, and at all times. Living, we shall assert it; and should we leave no other inheritance to our children by the blessing of God we will leave the inheritance of free principles and the example of a manly, independent and constitutional defense of them.”

Resolved, That in the election of Governor Seymour the people of this State by an emphatic majority declare their condemnation of the system of arbitrary arrests and their determination to stand by the Constitution. That the revival of this lawless system can have but one result: to divide and distract the North and destroy its confidence in the purposes of the Administration. That we deprecate it as an element of confusion at home, of weakness to our armies in the field and as calculated to lower the estimate of American character and magnify the apparent peril of our cause abroad. And that regarding the blow struck at a citizen of Ohio as aimed at the rights of every citizen of the North we denounce it as against the spirit of our laws and Constitution and most earnestly call upon the President of the United States to reverse the action of the military tribunal which has passed a “cruel and unusual punishment” upon the party arrested, prohibited in terms by the Constitution, and to restore him the liberty of which he has been deprived.

Resolved, That the president, vice-president and secretary of this meeting be requested to transmit a copy of these resolutions to His Excellency the President of the United States with the assurance of this meeting of their hearty and earnest desire to support the Government in every constitutional and lawful measure to suppress the existing rebellion.

SOURCE: The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series II, Volume 5 (Serial No. 118), p. 654-6

The Ohio Democratic Committee in the Case of Clement Vallandigham to Abraham Lincoln, June 26, 1863

WASHINGTON, June 26, 1863.

His Excellency the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

The undersigned, having been appointed a committee under the authority of the resolutions of the State convention held at the city of Columbus, Ohio, on the 11th instant, to communicate with you on the subject of the arrest and banishment of Clement L. Vallandigham, most respectfully submit the following as the resolutions of the convention bearing upon the subject of this communication, and ask of Your Excellency their earnest consideration. And they deem it proper to state that the convention was one in which all parts of the State were represented, one of the most respectable as to numbers and character and one of the most earnest and sincere in support of the Constitution and the Union ever held in this State:

Resolved, That the will of the people is the foundation of all free government; that to give effect to this free will, free thought, free speech, and a free press are absolutely indispensable. Without free discussion there is no certainty of sound judgment; without sound judgment there can be no wise government.

2. That it is an inherent and constitutional right of the people to discuss all measures of the Government, and to approve or disapprove as to their best judgment seems right. That they have a like right to propose and advocate that policy which in their judgment is best, and to argue and vote against whatever policy seems to them to violate the Constitution, to impair their liberties, or to be detrimental to their welfare.

3. That these and all other rights guaranteed to them by their constitutions are their rights in time of war as well as in time of peace, and of far more value and necessity in war than in peace, for in peace liberty, security, and property are seldom endangered. In war they are ever in peril.

4. That we now say to all whom it may concern, not by way of a threat, but calmly and firmly, that we will not surrender these rights nor submit to their forcible violation. We will obey the laws ourselves and all others must obey them.

11. That Ohio will adhere to the Constitution and the Union as the best — it may be the last — hope of popular freedom, and for all wrongs which may have been committed or evils which may exist will seek redress under the Constitution and within the Union by the peaceful but powerful agency of the suffrages of a free people.

14. That we will earnestly support every constitutional measure tending to preserve the union of the States. No men have a greater interest in its preservation than we have; none desire it more; there are none who will make greater sacrifices or will endure more than we will to accomplish that end. We are as we have ever been the devoted friends of the Constitution and the Union and we have no sympathy with the enemies of either.

15. That the arrest, imprisonment, pretended trial, and actual banishment of Clement L. Vallandigham, a citizen of the State of Ohio, not belonging to the land or naval forces of the United States nor to the militia in actual service, by alleged military authority, for no other pretended crime than that of uttering words of legitimate criticism upon the conduct of the Administration in power and of appealing to the ballot box for a change of policy — said arrest and military trial taking place where the courts of law are open and unobstructed, and for no act done within the sphere of active military operations in carrying on the war — we regard as a palpable violation of the following provisions of the Constitution of the United States:

1. “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

2. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

3. “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger.

4. “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law.”

And we furthermore denounce said arrest, trial, and banishment as a direct insult offered to the sovereignty of the State of Ohio, by whose organic law it is declared that no person shall be transported out of the State for any offense committed within the same.

16. That Clement L. Vallandigham was at the time of his arrest a prominent candidate for nomination by the Democratic party of Ohio for the office of Governor of the State; that the Democratic party was fully competent to decide whether he is a fit man for that nomination, and that the attempt to deprive them of that right by his arrest and banishment was an unmerited imputation upon their intelligence and loyalty, as well as a violation of the Constitution.

17. That we respectfully, but most earnestly, call upon the President of the United States to restore Clement L. Vallandigham to his home in Ohio, and that a committee of one from each Congressional district of the State, to be selected by the presiding officer of this convention, is hereby appointed to present this application to the President.

The undersigned, in the discharge of the duty assigned them, do not think it necessary to reiterate the facts connected with the arrest, trial, and banishment of Mr. Vallandigham — they are well-known to the President and are of public history — nor to enlarge upon the positions taken by the convention, nor to recapitulate the constitutional provisions which it is believed have been contravened; they have been stated at length and with clearness in the resolutions which have been recited. The undersigned content themselves with brief reference to the other suggestions pertinent to the subject.

They do not call upon Your Excellency as suppliants, praying the revocation of the order banishing Mr. Vallandigham as a favor, but, by the authority of a convention representing a majority of the citizens of the Slate of Ohio, they respectfully ask it as a right due to an American citizen, in whose personal injury the sovereignty and dignity of the people of Ohio as a free State have been offended. And this duty they perform more cordially from the consideration that at a time of great national emergency, pregnant with danger to our Federal Union, it is all important that the friends of the Constitution and the Union, however they may differ as to the mode of administering the Government and the measures most likely to be successful in the maintenance of the Constitution and the restoration of the Union, should not be thrown into conflict with each other.

The arrest, unusual trial, and banishment of Mr. Vallandigham have created widespread and alarming disaffection among the people of the State, not only endangering the harmony of the friends of the Constitution and the Union and tending to disturb the peace and tranquillity of the State, but also impairing that confidence in the fidelity of your Administration to the great landmarks of free government essential to a peaceful and successful enforcement of the laws in Ohio.

You are reported to have used, in a public communication on this subject, the following language:

It gave me pain when I learned that Mr. Vallandigham had been arrested; that is, I was pained that there should have seemed to be a necessity for arresting him, and that it will afford me great pleasure to discharge him so soon as I can by any means believe the public safety will not suffer.

The undersigned assure Your Excellency from our own personal knowledge of the feelings of the people of Ohio that the public safety will be far more endangered by continuing Mr. Vallandigham in exile than by releasing him. It may be true that persons differing from him in political views may be found in Ohio and elsewhere who will express a different opinion. But they are certainly mistaken. Mr. Vallandigham may differ with the President, and even with some of his own political party, as to the true and most effectual means of maintaining the Constitution and restoring the Union, but this difference of opinion does not prove him to be unfaithful to his duties as an American citizen. If a man, devotedly attached to the Constitution and the Union, conscientiously believes that from the inherent nature of the Federal compact the war in the present condition of things in this country cannot be used as a means of restoring the Union, or that a war to subjugate a part of the States, or a war to revolutionize the social system in a part of the States could not restore but would inevitably result in the final destruction of both the Constitution and the Union, is he not to be allowed the right of an American citizen to appeal to the judgment of the people for a change of policy by the constitutional remedy of the ballot box?

During the war with Mexico many of the political opponents of the Administration then in power thought it their duty to oppose and denounce the war and to urge before the people of the country that it was unjust and prosecuted for unholy purposes. With equal reason it might have been said of them that their discussions before the people were calculated to discourage enlistments, “to prevent the raising of troops,” and to induce desertions from the Army and to leave the Government without an adequate military force to carry on the war.

If the freedom of speech and of the press are to be suspended in time of war, then the essential element of popular government to effect a change of policy in the constitutional mode is at an end. The freedom of speech and of the press is indispensable and necessarily incident to the nature of popular government itself. If any inconvenience or evils arise from its exercise they are unavoidable. On this subject you are reported to have said further:

It is asserted, in substance, that Mr. Vallandigham was by a military commander seized and tried “for no other reasons than words addressed to a public meeting in criticism of the course of the Administration and in condemnation of the military order of the general.” Now, if there be no mistake about this, if there was no other reason for the arrest, then I concede that the arrest was wrong; but the arrest, I understand, was made for a very different reason. Mr. Vallandigham avows his hostility to the war on the part of the Union, and his arrest was made because he was laboring with some effect to prevent the raising of troops, to encourage desertions from the Army, and to leave the rebellion without an adequate military force to suppress it. He was not arrested because he was damaging the political prospects of the Administration or the personal interests of the commanding general, but because he was damaging the Army, upon the existence and vigor of which the life of the nation depends. He was warring upon the military, and this gave the military constitutional jurisdiction to lay hands upon him. If Mr. Vallandigham was not damaging the military power of the country, then his arrest was made on mistake of facts, which I would be glad to correct on reasonable satisfactory evidence.

In answer to this, permit us to say, first, that neither the charge nor the specifications in support of the charge on which Mr. Vallandigham was tried impute to him the act of either laboring to prevent the raising of troops or to encourage desertions from the Army; secondly, no evidence on the triad was offered with a view to support any such charge. In what instance and by what act did he either discourage enlistments or encourage desertions in the Army? Who was the man who was discouraged from enlisting and who encouraged to desert by any act of Mr. Vallandigham? If it be assumed that perchance some person might have been discouraged from enlisting, or that some person might have been encouraged to desert on account of hearing Mr. Vallandigham's views as to the policy of the war as a means of restoring the Union, would that have laid the foundation for his conviction and banishment? If so, upon the same grounds every political opponent of the Mexican war might have been convicted and banished from the country.

When gentlemen of high standing and extensive influence, including Your Excellency, opposed in the discussions before the people the policy of the Mexican war, were they “warring upon the military,” and did this “give the military constitutional jurisdiction to lay hands upon” them? And, finally, the charge in the specifications upon which Mr. Vallandigham was tried entitled him to a trial before the civil tribunals, according to the express provision's of the late acts of Congress, approved by yourself July 17, 1862, and March 3, 1863, which were manifestly designed to supersede all necessity or pretext for arbitrary military arrests.

The undersigned are unable to agree with you in the opinion you have expressed that the Constitution is different in time of insurrection or invasion from what it is in time of peace and public security. The Constitution provides for no limitation upon or exceptions to the guarantees of personal liberty, except as to the writ of habeas corpus. Has the President at the time of invasion or insurrection the right to ingraft limitations or exception's upon these constitutional guarantees whenever, in his judgment, the public safety requires it?

True it is, the article of the Constitution which defines the various powers delegated to Congress declares that “the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety requires it.” But this qualification or limitation upon this restriction upon the powers of Congress has no reference to or connection with the other constitutional guarantees of personal liberty. Expunge from the Constitution this limitation upon the power of Congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, and yet the other guarantees of personal liberty would remain unchanged.

Although a man might not have a constitutional right to have an immediate investigation made as to the legality of his arrest upon habeas corpus, yet his “right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed” will not be altered; neither will his right to the exemption from “cruel and unusual punishment;” nor his right to be secure in his person, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable seizures and searches; nor his right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor his right not to be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous offense unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury, be in anywise changed.

And certainly the restriction upon the power of Congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in time of insurrection or invasion could not affect the guarantee that the freedom of speech and of the press shall be abridged. It is sometimes urged that the proceedings in the civil tribunals are too tardy and ineffective for cases arising in times of insurrection or invasion. It is a full reply to this to say that arrests by civil process may be equally as expeditious and effective as arrests by military orders.

True, a summary trial and punishment are not allowed in the civil courts, but if the offender be under arrest and imprisoned and not entitled to a discharge on writ of habeas corpus before trial, what more can be required for the purposes of the Government? The idea that all the constitutional guarantees of personal liberty are suspended throughout the country at a time of insurrection or invasion in any part of it places us upon a sea of uncertainty, and subjects the life, liberty, and property of every citizen to the mere will of a military commander or what he may say that he considers the public safety requires. Does Your Excellency wish to have it understood that you hold that the rights of every man throughout this vast country are subject to be annulled whenever you may say that you consider the public safety requires it, in time of invasion or insurrection?

You are further reported as having said that the constitutional guarantees of personal liberty have—

No application to the present case we have in hand, because the arrests complained of were not made for treason — that is, not for the treason defined in the Constitution, and upon the conviction of which the punishment is death — nor yet were they made to hold persons to answer for capital or otherwise infamous crimes — nor were the proceedings following in any constitutional or legal sense “criminal prosecutions.” The arrests were made on totally different grounds and the proceedings following accorded with the grounds of the arrests, &c.

The conclusion to be drawn from this position of Your Excellency is that where a man is liable to “a criminal prosecution” or is charged with a crime known to the laws of the land he is clothed with all the constitutional guarantees for his safety and security from wrong and injustice, but that where he is not liable to “a criminal prosecution” or charged with any crime known to the laws if the President or any military commander shall say that he considers that the public safety requires it this man may be put outside of the pale of the constitutional guarantees and arrested without charge of crime, imprisoned without knowing what for and any length of time, or be tried before a court-martial and sentenced to any kind of punishment unknown to the laws of the land which the President or the military commander may see proper to impose. Did the Constitution intend to throw the shield of its securities around the man liable to be charged with treason as defined by it and yet leave the man not liable to any such charge unprotected by the safeguards of personal liberty and personal security?

Can a man not in the military or naval service nor within the field of the operations of the army be arrested and imprisoned without any law of the land to authorize it? Can a man thus in civil life be punished without any law defining the offense and describing the punishment? If the President or a court-martial may prescribe one kind of punishment unauthorized by law, why not any other kind? Banishment is an unusual punishment and unknown to our laws. If the President has the right to prescribe the punishment of banishment, why not that of death and confiscation of property? If the President has the right to change the punishment prescribed by the court-martial from imprisonment to banishment, why not from imprisonment to torture upon the rack or execution upon the gibbet?

If an indefinable kind of constructive treason is to be introduced and ingrafted upon the Constitution unknown to the laws of the land and subject to the will of the President whenever an insurrection or an invasion shall occur in any part of this vast country, what safety or security will be left for the liberties of the people?

The constructive treasons that gave the friends of freedom so many years of toil and trouble in England were inconsiderable compared to this. The precedents which you make will become a part of the Constitution for your successors if sanctioned and acquiesced in by the people now.

The people of Ohio are willing to co operate zealously with you in every effort warranted by the Constitution to restore the union of the States but they cannot consent to abandon those fundamental principles of civil liberty which are essential to their existence as a free people.

In their name we ask that by a revocation of the order of his banishment Mr. Vallandigham may be restored to the enjoyment of those rights of which they believe he has been unconstitutionally deprived.

We have the honor to be respectfully, yours, &c.,

M. BIRCHARD, Chairman, 19th Dist.

DAVID A. HOUK, Secretary, 3d Dist.

GEO. BLISS, 14th Dist.

T. W. BARTLEY, 8th Dist.

W. J. GORDON, 18th Dist.

JOHN O'NEILL, 13th Dist.

C. A. WHITE, 6th Dist.

W. E. FINCK, 12th Dist.

ALEXANDER LONG, 2d Dist.

J. W. WHITE, 16th Dist.

JAS. R. MORRIS, 15th Dist.

GEO. L. CONVERSE, 7th Dist.

WARREN P. NOBLE, 9th Dist.

GEO. H. PENDLETON, 1st Dist.

W. A. HUTCHINS, 11th Dist.

ABNER L. BACKUS, 10th Dist.

J. F. McKINNEY, 4th Dist.

F. C. LE BLOND, 5th Dist.

LOUIS SHAEFER, 17th Dist.

SOURCE: The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series II, Volume 6 (Serial No. 119), p. 48-53

Abraham Lincoln to Matthew Birchard et al, June 29, 1863

WASHINGTON, June 29, 1863.

Messrs. M. BIRCHARD [and others]:^*

GENTLEMEN: The resolutions of the Ohio Democratic State convention which you present me together with your introductory and closing remarks, being in position and argument mainly the same as the resolutions of the Democratic meeting at Albany, N.Y., I refer you to my response^† to the latter as meeting most of the points in the former.

This response you evidently used in preparing your remarks and I desire no more than that it be used with accuracy. In a single reading of your remarks I only discovered one inaccuracy in matter which I suppose you took from that paper. It is where you say the undersigned are unable to agree with you in the opinion you have expressed that the Constitution is different in time of insurrection or invasion from what it is in time of peace and public security.

A recurrence to the paper will show you that I have not expressed the opinion you suppose. I expressed the opinion that the Constitution is different in its application in cases of rebellion or invasion involving the public safety from what it is in times of profound peace and public security; and this opinion I adhere to simply because by the Constitution itself things may be done in the one case which may not be done in the other.

I dislike to waste a word on a mere personal point, but I must respectfully assure you that you will find yourselves at fault should you ever seek for evidence to prove your assumption that I “opposed in discussions before the people the policy of the Mexican war.”

You say, “Expunge from the Constitution this limitation upon the power of Congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and yet the other guarantees of personal liberty would remain unchanged.” Doubt less if this clause of the Constitution, improperly called, as I think, a limitation upon the power of Congress, were expunged, the other guarantees would remain the same; but the question is not how those guarantees would stand with that clause out of the Constitution, but how they stand with that clause remaining in it in case of rebellion or invasion involving the public safety. If the liberty could be indulged of expunging that clause, letter and spirit, I really think the constitutional argument would be with you.

My general view of this question was stated in the Albany response, and hence I do not state it now. I only add that, it seems to me, the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus is the great means through which the guarantees of personal liberty are conserved and made available in the last resort; and corroborative of this view is the fact that Mr. Vallandigham, in the very case in question, under the advice of able lawyers, saw not where else to go but to the habeas corpus. But by the Constitution the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus itself may be suspended when, in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.

You ask, in substance, whether I really claim that I may override all the guaranteed rights of individuals, on the plea of conserving the public safety, when I may choose to say the public safety requires it? This question, divested of the phraseology calculated to represent me as struggling for an arbitrary personal prerogative, is either simply a question who shall decide or an affirmation that nobody shall decide what the public safety does require in cases of rebellion or invasion. The Constitution contemplates the question as likely to occur for decision, but it does not expressly declare who is to decide it. By necessary implication, when rebellion or invasion comes, the decision is to be made from time to time; I think the man whom for the time the people have under the Constitution made the Commander-in. Chief of the Army and Navy is the man who holds the power and bears the responsibility of making it. If he uses the power justly, the same people will probably justify him; if he abuses it, he is in their hands to be dealt with by all the modes they have reserved to themselves in the Constitution.

The earnestness with which you insist that persons can only in times of rebellion be lawfully dealt with in accordance with the rules for criminal trials and punishments in times of peace induces me to add a word to what I said on that point in the Albany response. You claim that men may, if they choose, embarrass those whose duty it is to combat a gigantic rebellion, and then be dealt with only in turn as if there were no rebellion. The Constitution itself rejects this view. The military arrests and detentions which have been made, including those of Mr. Vallandigham, which are not different in principle from the other, have been for prevention and not for punishment as injunction to stay injury, as proceedings to keep the peace; and hence like proceedings in such cases, and for like reasons, they have not been accompanied with indictments or trials by juries, nor in a single case by any punishment whatever beyond what is purely incidental to the prevention. The original sentence of imprisonment in Mr. Vallandigham's case was to prevent injury to the military service only, and the modification of it was made as a less disagreeable mode to him of securing the same prevention.

I am unable to perceive an insult to Ohio in the case of Mr. Vallandigham. Quite surely nothing of this sort was or is intended. I was wholly unaware that Mr. Vallandigham was at the time of his arrest a candidate for the Democratic nomination for governor until so informed by your reading to me the resolutions of the convention. I am grateful to the State of Ohio for many things, especially for the brave soldiers and officers she has given in the present national trial to the armies of the Union.

You claim, as I understand, that according to my own position in the Albany response, Mr. Vallandigham should be released, and this because, as you claim, he has not damaged the military service by discouraging enlistments, encouraging desertions, or otherwise, and that if he had he should be turned over to the civil authorities under the recent acts of Congress. I certainly do not know that Mr. Vallandigham has specifically and by direct language advised against enlistments and in favor of desertion and resistance to drafting. We all know that combinations (armed in some instances) to resist the arrest of deserters began several months ago; that more recently the like has appeared in resistance to the enrollment preparatory to a draft, and that quite a number of assassinations have occurred from the same animus. These had to be met by military force, and this again has led to bloodshed and death. And now, under a sense of responsibility more weighty and enduring than any which is merely official, I solemnly declare my belief that this hindrance of the military, including maiming and murder, is due to the course in which Mr. Vallandigham has been engaged in a greater degree than to any other cause, and it is due to him personally in a greater degree than to any other man.

These things have been notorious, known to all, and of course known to Mr. Vallandigham. Perhaps I would not be wrong to say that they originated with his especial friends and adherents. With perfect knowledge of them he has frequently, if not constantly, made speeches in Congress and before popular assemblies, and if it can be shown that, with these things staring him in the face, he has ever uttered a word of rebuke or counsel against them, it will be a fact greatly in his favor with me, and one of which as yet I am totally ignorant. When it is known that the whole burden of his speeches has been to stir up men against the prosecution of the war, and that in the midst of resistance to it he has not been known in any instance to counsel against such resistance, it is next to impossible to repel the inference that he has counseled directly in favor of it.

With all this before their eyes, the convention you represent have nominated Mr. Vallandigham for governor of Ohio, and both they and you have declared the purpose to sustain the National Union by all constitutional means. But of course they and you in common reserve to yourselves to decide what are constitutional means, and, unlike the Albany meeting, you omit to state or intimate that in your opinion an army is a constitutional means of saving the Union against a rebellion, or even to intimate that you are conscious of an existing rebellion being in progress with the avowed object of destroying that very Union. At the same time your nominee for governor, in whose behalf you appeal, is known to you and to the world to declare against the use of an army to suppress the rebellion. Your own attitude, therefore, encourages desertion, resistance to the draft, and the like, because it teaches those who are inclined to desert and to escape the draft to believe it is your purpose to protect them and to hope you will become strong enough to do so.

After a short personal intercourse with you, gentlemen of the committee, I cannot think you desire this effect to follow your attitude, but I assure you that both friends and enemies of the Union look upon it in this light. It is a substantial hope, and by consequence a real strength to the enemy. It is a false hope, and one which you would willingly dispel. I will make the way exceedingly easy. I send you duplicates of this letter, in order that you or a majority may if you choose indorse your names upon one of them and return it thus indorsed to me, with the understanding that those signing are hereby committed to the following propositions and to nothing else:

1. That there is now a rebellion in the United States, the object and tendency of which is to destroy the National Union, and that in your opinion an army and navy are a constitutional means for suppressing the rebellion.

2. That no one of you will do anything which in his own judgment will tend to hinder the increase or favor the decrease or lessen the efficiency of the Army and Navy while engaged in the effort to suppress the rebellion; and

3. That each of you will, in his sphere, do all he can to have the officers, soldiers, and seamen of the Army and Navy, while engaged in the effort to suppress the rebellion, paid, fed, and clad and otherwise well provided for and supported.

And with the further understanding that upon receiving the letter and names thus indorsed I will cause them to be published, which publication shall be within itself a revocation of the order in relation to Mr. Vallandigham.

It will not escape observation that I consent to the release of Mr. Vallandigham upon terms not embracing any pledge from him or from others as to what he will or will not do. I do this because he is not present to speak for himself or to authorize others to speak for him; and hence I shall expect that on returning he will not put himself practically in antagonism with his friends. But I do it chiefly because I thereby prevail on other influential gentlemen of Ohio to so define their position as to be of immense value to the Army — thus more than compensating for the consequences of any mistake in allowing Mr. Vallandigham to return, so that on the whole the public safety will not have suffered by it. Still, in regard to Mr. Vallandigham and all others, I must hereafter as heretofore do so much as the public service may seem to require.

I have the honor to be, respectfully, yours, &c.,

A. LINCOLN.

_______________

* See signatures to the letter of the 26th to the President, p. 48.  Those names were all included in this address.

^† For Lincoln to Corning and the others see p. 4

SOURCE: The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series II, Volume 6 (Serial No. 119), p. 56-9

Diary of Colonel Rutherford B. Hayes: Tuesday, March 24, 1863

Rain all night and this A. M.! Army movements very slow. Vicksburg the great point of interest for a month past. Things looking like fight in Rosecrans' vicinity; Charleston also a point of attack.

In the North a reaction favorable to the war is taking place. The peace men, sympathizers with the Rebels, called Copperheads or Butternuts, are mostly of the Democratic party. They gained strength last fall by an adroit handling of the draft, the tax-law arrests, the policy favorable to the negro, and the mistakes and lack of vigor in prosecuting the war. This led to overconfidence, and a more open hostility to the war itself. The soldiers in the field considered this a "fire in the rear," and "giving aid and comfort to the enemy." They accordingly by addresses and resolutions made known their sentiments. Loyal Democrats like John Van Buren [and] James T. Brady begin to speak out in the same strain. A considerable reaction is observable. The late acts of Congress, the conscription, the financial measures, and [the] Habeas Corpus Act, give the Government great power and the country more confidence. If the conscription is wisely and energetically administered, there is much reason to hope for good results.

In the meantime the Rebels are certainly distressed for want of provisions. The negro policy doesn't seem to accomplish much. A few negro troops give rise to disturbances where they come in contact with our men and do not as yet worry the enemy a great deal.

SOURCE: Charles Richard Williams, editor, Diary and Letters of Rutherford Birchard Hayes, Volume 2, p. 397