Senator John Sherman to Lieutenant-General William T. Sherman, August 9, 1867

MANSFIELD, OHIO, Aug. 9, 1867.

Dear Brother: . . . It is now becoming extremely important to know precisely what Grant wants in connection with the Presidency. If he has really made up his mind that he would like to hold that office, he can have it. Popular opinion is all in his favor. His position is the rare one of having that office within his easy reach, and yet it is clear that his interest is against his acceptance. The moment he is nominated, he at once becomes the victim of abuse; and even his great services will not shield him. Our politics for years will be a maelstrom, destroying and building up reputations with rapidity. My conviction is clear that Grant ought not to change his present position to that of President; and if he declines, then by all odds Chase is the safest man for the country. He is wise, politic, and safe. Our finances, the public credit, and the general interests of all parts of the country will be safe with him. His opinions are advanced on the suffrage question, but this waived, he would be a most conservative President. He is not a partisan, scarcely enough so for his own interests; still, if Grant wishes to be President, all other candidates will have to stand aside. I see nothing in his way unless he is foolish enough to connect his future with the Democratic party. This party cannot dictate the next President. They would deaden any man they praise. Even Grant could not overcome any fellowship with them. If they should take a wise course on future political questions, their course during the war will bar their way. You may not think so, but I know it. The strength is with the Republicans. Not of the Butler stripe, but with just that kind of men who would be satisfied with the position of Grant. The suffrage and reconstruction questions will be settled before the election, and in such a way as to secure the Republican party an even chance in every Southern State except Kentucky. . . .

I agree with you that Indian wars will not cease until all the Indian tribes are absorbed in our population, and can be controlled by constables instead of soldiers.

I mean to remain as quiet as possible this fall. I am not now in high favor with the Radicals, and can afford to wait awhile. The election in Ohio will go as usual. The suffrage amendment will be adopted by a close vote, and that will settle forever the negro question in Ohio. A reaction and struggle may occur in the South, but no change will occur in the loyal States until they decide on financial questions. This is inevitable after the next election..

Affectionately yours,

JOHN SHERMAN.

SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 292-4

Diary of Gideon Welles: October 11, 1865

The elections in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Iowa come in favorable, though the vote and the majorities are reduced from the Presidential election. I am glad that the Union party has done well in Philadelphia, for if we had lost the city or given a small vote, there would have been a claim that it was in consequence of my circulars. As it is, I get no credit, but I escape censure for doing right.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 381

William T. Sherman to Minnie Sherman, December 15, 1860

ALEXANDRIA, LA., Dec. 15, 1860.

DEAREST MINNIE: I have been intending to write you a good long letter, and now I wish I could send you all something for Christmas, but I thought all along that Mama and you and Lizzie, Willie, Tommy, and all would be here in our new house by New Year's day. The house is all done, only some little painting to be done. The stable is finished, but poor Clay¹ has been sick. In the front yard are growing some small oak trees, to give shade in the hot summer days; now however it is raw and cold, the leaves are off and it looks like winter, though thus far we have had no snow. Maybe we will have some snow at Christmas. In the back yard I have prepared for a small garden, but the soil is poor and will not produce much, except early peas, lettuce and sweet potatoes. The house itself looks beautiful. Two front porches and one back, all the windows open to the floor, like doors, so that you can walk out on the porch either upstairs or downstairs. I know you would all like the house so much — but dear little Minnie, man proposes and God disposes — what I have been planning so long and patiently, and thought that we were all on the point of realizing, the dream and hope of my life, that we could all be together once more in a home of our own, with peace and quiet and plenty around us. All, I fear, is about to vanish, and again I fear I must be a wanderer, leaving you all to grow up at Lancaster without your Papa.

Men are blind and crazy, they think all the people of Ohio are trying to steal their slaves, and incite them to rise up and kill their masters. I know this is a delusion — but when people believe a delusion, they believe it harder than a real fact, and these people in the South are going, for this delusion, to break up the government under which we live. You cannot understand this but Mama will explain it to you. Our governor here has gone so far that he cannot change, and in a month maybe you will be living under one government and I another.

This cannot last long, and as I know it is best for you all to stay in Lancaster, I will not bring you down here at all, unless some very great change takes place. If this were only a plain college I could stay with propriety, but it is an arsenal with guns and powder and balls, and were I to stay here I might have to fight for Louisiana and against Ohio. That would hardly do; you would not like that I know, and yet I have been asked to do it. ²

But I hope still this will yet pass away, and that our house and garden will yet see us all united here in Louisiana. Your loving papa,

_______________

¹ The horse given to Sherman by Mr. Ewing. - Ed.

² This probably means that he was asked to stay as a neutral in case of Sherman's later letters indicate that such a proposition was made. - ED.

SOURCE: Walter L. Fleming, General W.T. Sherman as College President, p. 313-4

William T. Sherman to Ellen Ewing Sherman, December 15, 1860

December 15[?], 1860.

. . . I started to write a letter to Minnie but got drawn into this political strain that is not for her but you. Read her so much of the letter as you please and the rest to yourself.

Governor Moore has assembled the legislature in extra session at Baton Rouge and I have seen his message which is positive on the point of secession. You will doubtless have the substance of it before you get this; and I observe such men as Dick Taylor, the general's son, are in favor of immediate secession. I have scarce room now to doubt that Louisiana will quit the Union in all¹ January. The governor recommends the establishment of a large arsenal here. We now have a limited supply of arms.

I have announced my position; as long as Louisiana is in the Union I will serve her honestly and faithfully, but if she quits I will quit too. I will not for a day or even hour occupy a position of apparent hostility to Uncle Sam. That government is weak enough, but is the only thing in America that has even the semblance of a government. These state governments are ridiculous pretences of a government, liable to explode at the call of any mob. I don't want to be premature and will hold on to the last moment in hopes of change, but they seem to be pushing events ridiculously fast.

There is an evident purpose, a dark design, not to allow time for thought and reflection. These southern leaders understand the character of their people and want action before the spirit subsides. Robert Anderson commands at Charleston, and there I look for the first actual collision. Old Fort Moultrie, every brick of which is as plain now in my memory as the sidewalk in Lancaster, will become historical. It is weak and I can scale any of its bastions. If secession, dissolution and Civil War do come South Carolina will drop far astern and the battle will be fought on the Mississippi. The Western States never should consent to a hostile people holding the mouth of the Mississippi. Should I be forced to act promptly I will turn up either at St. Louis or at Washington. T. knows full well where I am but he is angry at me about his charge against Ohio of nigger stealing. You remember my answer from Lancaster. I am very well. Weather cold and overcast. . .

_______________

¹ "In all January" means "all in January.” Sherman made frequent use of this peculiar construction. – ED.

SOURCE: Walter L. Fleming, General W.T. Sherman as College President, p. 314-6

Diary of 5th Sergeant Osborn H. Oldroyd: July 2, 1863

This is Camp Tiffin. Our regiment was favored to-day with a large mail, and nothing could have been more acceptable. Letters from home were looked into first, and next, of course, came sweethearts. One letter was read aloud, describing the capture of a butternut camp, in Holmes county, Ohio. The fort was built on a hill, and manned with several cannon, to resist the draft. A few soldiers from Camp Chase, however, went over and soon put an end to that attempt at resistance. I regret to hear of such a disgraceful affair occurring in my native State. From other letters and papers it appears this thing occurs in many other Northern States, and of course it must give encouragement to the rebels.

The rumor now runs that the paymaster will be at hand tomorrow, but he is about as reliable as Johnston, for we have been something like a week looking for both these gentlemen. I confess I would rather meet greenbacks than graybacks.

This afternoon, with several others, I went blackberrying again, and in searching for something to eat, we paid a visit to a house where, to our happy surprise, we found a birthday party, brightened by the presence of no less than eleven young ladies. We asked, of course, where “the boys” were, and they replied, as we expected, “out hunting Yanks.” Well, we found it a treat to get a taste of sociality once more, after being so long famished. They were very nice rebel girls, though I think the color of the eyes of one of them was what I might call true blue. They asked us to lunch with them, which we did with pleasure. The eatables were good, and we had a splendid time—all the while, of course, keeping one eye on the girls and the other on the window. We told our experience at our last blackberrying excursion, when they assured as we had nothing to fear with them, for they were all “for the Union.” No doubt they will be whenever their “boys” come home.

This is a facsimile of a “hard-tack" issued to the author at Vicksburg.The scene upon it represents a soldier toasting his cracker, and the spots in the cracker were caused by the worms which inhabited it.

SOURCE: Osborn Hamiline Oldroyd, A Soldier's Story of the Siege of Vicksburg, p. 72-3

Colonel Rutherford B. Hayes to Sardis Birchard: August 6, 1863

Camp White, Charleston, West Virginia, August 6, 1863.

Dear Uncle: — I received yours of the first yesterday morning. Lucy writes that she expects to go to Delaware and Columbus about the middle of this month, and to visit you before her return. I begin to feel about those visits to you a good deal as mother does — that the care and trouble they make for you more than overbalances your pleasure in them; but you ought to know best.

The money that I supposed was in Stephenson's hands, is somewhere, and I'll inquire until I find it and let you know.

I think it probable that we shall remain in West Virginia. The enemy has become alarmed by our movements against the Tennessee Railroad, and has been strengthening their posts in front of us until now we have twice our numbers watching us. To keep them out of mischief, it is more likely that our force will be increased rather than diminished. A gunboat has come up to help us within the last half-hour. Our Wytheville raid did the Rebels more harm than was reported. Five thousand suits of clothing, over four thousand new arms, and quantities of supplies were burned. I think they will not attempt to drive us out in their present scarcity of men and means.

The Kentucky election pleases me. I hope Ohio will do as well.

Sincerely,

R. B. Hayes.

S. Birchard.

SOURCE: Charles Richard Williams, editor, Diary and Letters of Rutherford Birchard Hayes, Volume 2, p. 426-7

Diary of Colonel Rutherford B. Hayes: July 16, 1863

At Fayette, heard that Morgan was in Ohio at Piketon, leaving there for Gallipolis. General Scammon wisely and promptly determined to head him [off] by sending me. (This was after a sharp controversy.) [The] Seventeenth with [the] Twenty-third and Thirteenth took steamboats from Loup Creek for Gallipolis.

SOURCE: Charles Richard Williams, editor, Diary and Letters of Rutherford Birchard Hayes, Volume 2, p. 420

Colonel Rutherford B. Hayes to Sophia Birchard Hayes, July 16, 1863

Fayetteville, July 16, 1863.

Dear Mother: — We have been into Dixie and are safe out again into our own lines — a very lively and pleasant raid.

I see Morgan is raiding in Ohio. I hope he will be caught. It will not surprise me if we are called home to look after him. I regard this as one of the reckless efforts of a despairing and lost cause. Certainly the Rebel prospects were never before so dark, nor ours so cheering.

I am very well. No time to say more.

Affectionately,

R. B. Hayes.

Mrs. Sophia Hayes.

SOURCE: Charles Richard Williams, editor, Diary and Letters of Rutherford Birchard Hayes, Volume 2, p. 419

Senator Salmon P. Chase to A. M. G.,* February 15, 1855

Washington, Feb. 15, 1855.

Dear Friend, It is impossible for me to change my ground. I went into the Peoples Movement last year heartily and in earnest. I am for going on with it, proscribing nobody who does not manifest a disposition to proscribe us. I shall not complain, if not elected as a candidate for Governor, on any personal ground. To leave me off the ticket would be rather a favor personally than otherwise. If it be done and done honestly for the good of the cause, & not with a view to convert the People's Movement into a simple Know nothing organization, neither I nor any of my friends could object to it. If, however, it should be done merely to satisfy a proscriptive spirit the case would be different. If it should be attempted to impose the K. N. Shibboleth upon all the candidates for public suffrage in the People's Convention; — there might be & would be a duty to perform by those who cannot accept it. For myself I shall be, come what may, true to my antecedents & my democratic faith. I do not seek any position on the ticket. I could not accept a nomination for a Judgeship. Whether I would take any other would depend on the character of the nomination and the platform.

It seems to me that no such other movement as you suggest is likely to occur. Of course I could not participate in any such, unless the course of events should show that those who think & feel as I do are to be rejected by the People's Movement, which I do not anticipate. If that movement should be so perverted from its original objects that we could not net with it, then we should be obliged to shape an independent course for ourselves. It is too early yet to determine what that course should be.

If you would abate something of your tone against the Kns I think it would be wise. Indeed if I were editing the paper I should say little about them. What there is objectionable in their organization will be most likely to cure itself; if you only keep up an intelligent, animated war against slavery, and insist that in the People's Movement there must be the most liberal toleration of differences of opinion & oposition, with a view to the denationalization of slavery & the overthrow of the Slave Power. Keep your own democratic ideas prominent. Claim toleration & give it.

There in a great struggle going on in the Kn organization between the Anti Slavery & the proslavery element. At present the antislavery clement has the advantage. But the elements cannot dwell together. Be patient and time will separate the progressive from the conservative.

Would it answer for you to assume the sole editorial care of the Columbian? I suppose Mr. Hamlin would be glad to be released, and in that event you could have the benefit of my contribution to the support of the paper, so far as it should be necessary. I merely suggest this.

A few days ago I received a letter from a prominent Whig in Ohio who asked if Mr. Hamlin was my organ & said that his course in the Columbian was injuring me. I replied that Mr. H. was not my organ in any sense, but edited the Colⁿ, so far as he edited it at all on his own responsibility and in his own way, I added that I regretted the tone & tenor of the articles in reply to the Sandusky Register and on the Knownothings. I said nothing about his course injuring me. I saw no evidence of it.

I just mention this because I thought it best you & Mr. Hamlin should be apprized of whatever I do. But do not think that I desire to control you in anything. I will give you my ideas frankly: but you must allow them no weight beyond that which your judgment sanctions — none at all merely because they are mine.

Wilson is true as steel on the Slavery question: so are others here. They will break up the order sooner than see it used for the purposes of slavery. You must take the action of these men and the current of opinion in the free states in estimating the probable action of the Kn organization. I do not myself believe that it can be made as proslavery as either of the old parties. Still it occupies dangerous ground in this respect: and we must keep a look out. If they are liberal in Ohio this year I think we may be pretty confident that the movement will liberalize itself ultimately so as to do little harm to anybody.

In haste,

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

_______________

* From the Hamlin collection.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 271-2

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, February 9, 1855

Washington Feb 9. 1855.

Dear Hamlin, A much longer time has slipped by without my writing to you than ought; but you know what my situation is & your charity will excuse me.

The papers, which are really hearty against Slavery, are, I perceive, unanimous in urging my name for Governor, & I have assurances from whigs and democrats that if I become the Peoples Candidate there will be large support from the liberals of all sides. I appreciate these manifestations of regard very — very highly. Whatever proximate results may be they bind me by fresh ties to the Cause of Liberty & Progress. There seems now to be little opposition to my nomination except with the inconsiderable number who look with alarm or dislike upon the progress of our doctrine, unless the Kns¹ shall take distinct ground against me. The opposition of the former class may be safely disregarded — that of the latter will probably divide the People's Movement if based on the ground that nobody is to be supported by the Kns unless a member of their order.

Judge Spalding was here a day or two since, and sought a conversation with me in relation to the Governorship. I was very explicit on all points:

1. That the nomination and election would doubtless gratify me as an endorsement of my course & a manifestation of confidence from the People of Ohio.

2. That I could not accept a nomination or be a candidate on any platform which did not represent my convictions. Of course, I wd. not insist on the expression of all I wished; but the actual expression must be right & in the right direction.

3. That in no case could I suffer my name to be used to divide the opponents of slavery in Ohio; but, in case the Convention should take ground on which I could not honorably act, I should regard myself as having no present work to do in Ohio.

He seemed to have been a good deal under the impression that the Whigs would not support me, because of the events of 1849, & to have inclined to the idea that it would be best to defer to this sentiment & nominate another man: but he left apparently determined to use his influence with us.

Here the members of Congress all seem willing to support me, except perhaps, Campbell. He manifests a disinclination to touch the subject at all. I think he wishes to await the decision of the Kns. It is curious that he, a Seward Whig, should be apparently the chief of the western Knownothings. But strange things are happening now a days.

The elections of the last few weeks have produced a marked effect here. Harlan, Wilson, Durkee, Seward, are all regarded as hot shot from abolition cannon. Then the action of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin has startled the politicians — & the Judges too — not a little — and now even while I am writing comes the election of Trumbull in Illinois — Anti Douglas & Anti Nebraska at all events & an election which in this [illegible] at least a triumph. Everything indicates that the Antislavery Sentiment will [go] on & on to its final triumph now. What part Ohio shall have the next few months will go far to determine.

Write me soon & tell me all you learn. It seems to me you have said enough agst the Kns, and had better hold up. Give them credit for [illegible] in Massachusetts & wait till [illegible] if ever, to renew the combat. My idea is fight nobody who does not fight us. We have enemies enough in the Slaveholders & their aiders.

I write [illegible] about the paper.

_______________

¹ The Know Nothing Party

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 269-70

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, January 22, 1855

Washington, Jan’y 22, 1855.

My Dear Sir, I am in fault as usual about my correspondence. My only excuse is that I have more to read, write & talk than one man can do.

Your article in the Columbian was very bold: bolder than I should have ventured to write. I refer of course to the one in reply to the Sandusky Register. It is not, however, at all clear to me that your policy is not the wisest and most safe. At any rate I am disposed to confide entirely in your judgment, so far as the interest of the Ind’. Dem^c. wing of the Peoples Movement is concerned.

It is disagreeable to me to have the battle for a decided recognition of Antislavery principles & movement by the new organization carried on over my person. The Governorship is only desirable so far as I am concerned as a simple endorsement of my course in the Senate, & especially on the Slavery question, by the People. In other respects the reasons against being a candidate rather over balance the reasons for being one: and I am by no means persuaded that I ought to accept a nomination even if one should be tendered me. Certain it is that I do not wish my name to be the cause of division among the sincere & earnest well wishers of the Peoples Movement. Taking their ideas as my guides I shall patiently await the course of events for a few months before I determine positively what I ought to do.

Houston is going to Boston. He will probably lecture there on the [last of] this month. He is the favorite of the Massachusetts Kns¹ for the Presidency: and I think he will have a chance for the nomination of the order if he does not injure himself in Boston.

It is now certain almost that Wilson will be chosen Senator from Massachusetts. He cannot back out on the Slavery question and his election will be a decided triumph of the Antislavery element in the K. N. organization. It may lead to disruption. It guarantees, I think, against the order being converted into as mere a tool of the Slave Power as the old organizations have been. This, however, is a future event.

I am assured by reliable men in Ohio that there is no possibility of the order there being made proslavery. They may be deceived, but I am sure they don't mean to deceive. Those who write me feel somewhat sore about your course & Bailey's. They think that the tone of your editorials and his is calculated to weaken the hold & influence of Antislavery men, & to make the members of the sides less disposed than they would be otherwise to cooperate with outsiders on the Slavery issue. They think it would be better if you admitted that there was some ground for the [union] of the people against papal influences & organized foreignism, while you might condemn the secret organization & indiscriminate proscription on account of origin or creed. You know best how much weight to give to these suggestions. To me they seem to indicate about the wisest course; but I repeat I am disposed on these matters to confide more in your judgment than in my own.

I saw Judge Myers here. He seemed to think the prospect of election on the Convention Platform rather blue. He said Medill talked of resigning the nomination, but had concluded to hold on, and he seemed to have had the same idea & to have come to the same conclusion. The ticket must be [illegible] unless the Kns determine to claim all the nominations for members of the sides: in which event the result would be more doubtful. Certainly we ought to do nothing & say nothing calculated to prevent entire harmony of cooperation among all opponents of Sly. & the Slave Power upon fair & honorable principles & terms. So far as I can see there is nothing to be expected from the Old Line Democracy in its present position. It will be time enough to consider whether we ought to act with them when they place themselves in a position which renders such action possible & compatible with our consistency and honor. I want to write you often & to hear from you often, but I am much pressed for time & constantly interrupted.

_______________

¹ Knownothings.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 267-9

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, January 22, 1854

Washington Jany 22, 1854

My Dear Sir, I think you are mistaken in the am^t, of my debt to you — it was for one letter instead of two or three when you wrote last, and it is for two now. I am quite willing however that the balance in this account should be decidedly against me, as your letters have much more interest for me than mine can have for you; and besides I am harder pushed than you can be.

I don't feel a great deal of interest in the election of Senator, since our side has nothing to expect. If it could be postponed we should have a fair chance:— as it is, I suppose, we have none though I feel right sure that the time is not distant when men who now vote to have Ohio represented here by a Hunker will rue it as a foolish & unnecessary act.

My great anxiety is to have our friends in Ohio buckle on their armor & go to work to redeem the State. We can do that I am sure if we will & by our means. I think, circumstanced as you now are, you ought to reestablish your connection with the press, or at least take up your location in a part of the State where you can advantage the cause — say, Toledo Cleveland or Cincinnati. You ought to resume the Editorial charge of the True Democrat. Wade says he will give you his interest of $1000 — I will give you mine of $200 — if an arrangement can be made by which you will become permanently interested & Editor. I should think you would feel as deeply as I do on the subject of wresting Ohio from the Hunkers.

The Nebraska Bill is the principal topic of conversation here. What is the prospect of the Resolution on the subject in our Legislature? I enclose the Washⁿ. Sentinel that you may see with what insolence the Editor speaks of our State. It makes me repent my vote for Tucker for printer, & wish I had voted for some one wholly unconnected with the Political Press or for Bailey. It will prevent me from voting to give him the Patent Report to print which he needs much.

Benton says (I dined with him yesterday) that Douglas has committed political suicide He is staunch against the repeal of the Missouri Prohibition. Gov. Allen, & two of the members for R. I. will vote against it. The Governor has written to R. I. for Legislative instructions, which if they come will fix his colleagues. Mason, of Virginia told Fish that he did not want the Nebraska Bill: he was content that things should stand as they are. Douglas, I suppose, eager to compel the South to come to him has out southernized the South; and has dragged the timid & irresolute administration along with him.

Won't you write a strong article for the Columbian on the Sentinel Article?

Let them know immediately the prospect of the Resolution in the Senate & House. It should be pushed to a vote at the earliest moment.

Tell me the names of the most prominent men of the two Houses, with short sketches of them. Do you know Makenzie? Give me all the information you can. Where is Townshend? What of his wife's health.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 254-6

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward L. Pierce, January 17, 1854

Washington, Jan’y 17, 1854.

My Dear Sir: I thank you for little note and for your kind appreciation of my wishes rather than my successes in serving you. I am glad you are in Cincinnati, for you are almost the only man in Ohio to whom I confidently look for a real appreciation and sympathy with my views and plans for the advancement of our great and noble cause. The notions of so many are contracted — their aspirations so low — their sympathies so phlegmatic — and what might else be in them noble and generous so turned awry, dwarfed and cramped by the incessant claims of mere business, or the debasing influences of party that I sometimes feel as if I hardly knew where to look for a genuine, whole man on whom I can confidently lean. May I not hope to find such a one in you?

And now with this preface I shall ask you, at once, for a little service. I want you to become acquainted with the conductors of the Times and the Columbian; ascertain their tendencies, and see whether they are not willing to render me some justice.

About everything I have done for Ohio and the West has been positively ignored. I, first, introduced a successful motion for Custom Houses including apartments for Post Office, Courts, etc. etc. The precedent which I established in the cases of Cincinnati & St. Louis has been followed at other points and now the West begins to receive some share of the Public Expenditures in these respects. I, first, introduced and carried through the Senate a proposition to cede to Ohio the Public Lands within her limits. It failed in the House, no Ohio member taking enough interest in it to secure for it even a fair hearing. Again I introduced the bill in a modified form last session. But the session being short and business crowded & the Committee reluctant, I did not get it through the Senate. I have again introduced the same measure this Session and shall I think get it through. I have a favorable report made yesterday. It now includes all the Lands in the Va. Mil. District, which, under an amendment which I had inserted in a Bill relating to Va. Mil. Scrip, were relieved from the trust in favor of Virginia. Again I introduced and carried through the propositions which have initiated the Pacific Railroad. I might go on; but I won't weary you. Who, in Ohio, knows what I have done? Never, it seems to me, has a man who was earnestly laboring to accomplish practical good, been more poorly sustained.

I confess it galls me to read such a paragraph as the following from the Chillicothe Advertiser of the 13th inst. [newspaper clipping] “We hope the Legislature of Ohio will elect a Democrat Senator who will give character and importance to the State in the United States Senate. It is undoubtedly useless to express such a hope, for we believe the men of that body to be men who will so act, without reference to personal feelings or outside appliances, as will, in their judgments, conduce, in the largest degree, to the honor of the State and the glory of the Democratic party.”

The implication that Ohio has not had a Democratic Senator, who gives character to the State, is in keeping with the course such persons have uniformly pursued towards me.

You know enough of my course and can inform yourself sufficiently in respect to it by examining the Columns of the Globe to form a correct opinion of such an estimate. I desire no comparisons with my predecessors; but I shrink from none.

Now if you can write a few articles and have place further in the Times and Columbian, they will be copied into friendly papers, and do something at least towards changing this current.

If you see Miss Chalfant, I pray you to assure her of my warm regard and kindest remembrances. Has her sister, Mrs. Marshall, returned from California? I hear so; but can hardly believe it.

Yours cordially,

[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. 252-4

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Senator Charles Sumner, September 3, 1853

Ravenna, Sep. 3, 1853.

Dear Sumner, I mourn with you over the opinion of Judge McLean; but I expected nothing otherwise. His whole course of judicial action in reference to cases under the act of '93 had prepared me for it. With a kind heart & honest purposes he has suffered his reverence for imagined rights under the constitution to lead him into conclusions from which you & I must ever shrink. Well, we must look to the future!

Prospects in Ohio are as good as could be expected. Nothing can be definitely said respecting the result; but we are all cherishing good hopes.

I have spoken in about twenty counties, and our candidate for Governor, Mr. Lewis, in nearly fifty. The people turn out well and we hope to cast such a vote as will — if not elect our candidate, — at least put an end to triangular contest.

We think much can be done by three great meetings — say one at Cleveland or vicinity — one at Mt. Vernon in Knox County & one at Cincinnati or vicinity. Can you not give us — or me — your powerful aid, say for the last week in this month. The journey & speeches need occupy no more than ten days.

Yours cordially

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

Answer immediately to Cincinnati

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 252

Edwin M. Stanton to Lieutenant-General Ulysses S. Grant, September 11, 1864 – 7:55 p.m.

WASHINGTON, September 11, 1864 — 7.55 p.m.

Lieutenant-General GRANT:

It is not designed by this department to delay the draft a single day after the credits are made up and quota ascertained. The Provost-Marshal-General has been directed to lose no time in that work. It is represented that the first recruits were a hard lot, but that recently the volunteers are equal to any that have taken the field during the war. The local authorities have been slack in paying their bounties and this has occasioned some delay. I would be glad if you would send me a telegram for publication, urging the necessity of immediately filling up the army by draft. The most difficulty is likely to be in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, from the desire of candidates to retain their men until after the election. We have not got a single regiment from Indiana. Morton came here specially to have the draft postponed, bur was peremptorily refused. But the personal interest to, retain men until after the election requires every effort to procure troops in that State, even by draft. Illinois is much the same way. Not a regiment or even company there has been organized. A special call from you would aid the department in overcoming the local inertia and personal interests that favor delay.

EDWIN M. STANTON,       

Secretary of War.

SOURCE: The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series I, Volume 42, Part 2 (Serial No. 88), p. 783-4

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, June 28, 1852

Washington, June 28, 1852.

My Dear Sir, I received only today your letter of the 15th. I left the city on the adjournment over upon the assembling of the Whig Convention and was detained by the necessity of making some summer arrangement for my daughter who is at school in New York, and whose school has a vacation at this time. I was detained beyond my expectation and only reached the City this morning.

I agree with you in thinking that I cannot consistently sustain Pierce, King, and the Slavery Platform of Baltimore. I have declared my purpose not to do so. What is to be done beyond I am not so clear about. If we could have an Independent Democratic Rally, thoroughly democratic in name & fact, without wild extravagance and without any shrinking from a bold avowal of sound principles, I should support it cheerfully. But a mere freesoil rally will simply elect Pierce and, I fear, ensure the indefinite extension of slavery. Can we have such a rally?

We might have had, could we have prevailed on the New York Barnburners to stand firm. Indeed if they had only stood firm we should never have been placed in a situation making a rally necessary. If 1 had time I could tell you much on this subject. Now without a single New York leader remaining firm what can we do? Whom can we nominate? At present it seems to me that we must endeavor to organize without nominations—upon the Herkimer principle of refuting our support to nominations we cannot honorably support. A Democratic Association with its members pledged to carry out their democratic principles in to practical & consistent application to the slavery & other questions, & refusing their support at this election to Pierce & King, because of their own positions & the character of the platforms they are nominated upon — this seems to me the best present measure Next we should do what is possible to have a good nomination on a right platform & under the right name at Pittsburgh. If Wilmot and some good western Democrat say Spalding could be nominated for President & Vice President we could get a good vote for them of the right sort. Hale don't want the nomination. He wishes to be free to canvass New Hampshire.

My impression derived from a journey in New York is that Pierce will not carry that State. The Whigs here are confident that Scott will carry Ohio. What do you think?

I wish we could have the right kind of a Press in Ohio. But where can we get the money. I wd. give $500 — who besides?

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 242-3

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