Subjugation of the Northern States.--Humiliating Spectacle of New
York.--"Ringing of a Little Bell."--Seizure and Imprisonment of
Citizens.--Number seized.--Paper Safeguards of Liberty.--Other
Safeguards.--Suspension of the Writ of _Habeas Corpus_ absolutely
forbidden with One Exception.--How done.--Not able to authorize
another.--Abundant Protective Provisions in New York, but all
failed.--Case of Pierce Butler.--Arrest of Secretary Cameron.--The
President assumes the Responsibility of the Crime.--No Heed given to
the Writ of _Habeas Corpus_ issued by the Court.--The Governor
passive.--Words of Justice Nelson.--Prison overflowing.--How
relieved.--Oath required of Applicants for Relief.--Oath declined
by some.--Reasons.--Order forbidding the Employment of Counsel by
Prisoners.--Victims in almost Every Northern State.--Defeat at the
Elections.--Result.--Suit for Damages commenced.--Congress
interferes to protect the Guilty.--State Courts subjugated.--How
suspend _Habeas Corpus_.--Congress violates the Constitution.--What
was New York?--Writ suspended throughout the United States.-What is
"Loyalty"?--Military Domination.--Correspondence between General
Dix and Governor Seymour.--Seizure of Newspapers.--Governor orders
Arrest of Offenders.--Interference with the State Election.--Vote
of the Soldiers.--State Agents arrested.--Provost-Marshals
appointed in Every Northern State.--Their Duties.--Sustained by
Force.--Trials by Military Commission.--Trials at Washington.--
Assassination of the President.--Trial of Henry Wirz.--Efforts to
implicate the Author.--Investigation of a Committee of Congress as
to Complicity in the Assassination.--Arrest, Trial, and Banishment
of Clement C. Vallandigham.--Assertions of Governor Seymour on the
Case.
Now follows the humiliating spectacle of the subjugation of the State
government of New York--the "Empire" State, as she calls herself--
where, with all her men and treasures, it might have been supposed
that some stanch defenders of constitutional liberty would have
sprung up. On the contrary, under the pretext of "preserving the
Union," her deluded children aided to destroy the Constitution on
which the Union was founded, and put forth all their strength to
exalt the Government of the United States to supremacy. Thus the
States were brought to a condition of subjugation, and their
governments subverted from the protection of the rights for which
they were instituted. These unalienable rights of the people were
left without a protector or a shield before the crushing hand of the
usurper; the sovereignty of the people was set aside, and in its
place arose the sovereignty of the Government of the United States.
With the foundation undermined, the superstructure subverted, the
ends for which the Great Republic was organized entirely lost to
sight, and the true balance of the system destroyed, unless the
dormant virtue and love for their inherited rights shall arouse the
citizens to a vigorous effort to restore the republican institutions
and powers of the States, the emperors and kings of the earth have
only to await calmly the lapse of time to behold a fulfillment of
their evil prophecies in regard to the "Great Republic" of the world.
To show how the laws were disregarded, and how despotically the
personal liberty of the citizen was invaded, let this example bear
witness: The Secretary of State at Washington, William H. Seward, a
favored son of the State of New York, would "ring a little bell,"
which brought to him a messenger, to whom was given a secret order to
arrest and confine in Fort Lafayette a person designated. This order
was sent by telegraph to the United States Marshal of the district in
which would be found the person who was to be arrested. The arrest
being forcibly made by the marshal with armed attendants without even
the form of a warrant, the prisoner without the knowledge of any
charge against him was conveyed to Fort Hamilton and turned over to
the commandant. An aid with a guard of soldiers then conveyed him in
a boat to Fort Lafayette and delivered him to the keeper in charge,
who gave a receipt for the prisoner. He was then divested of any
weapons, money, valuables, or papers in his possession. His baggage
was opened and searched. A soldier then took him in charge to the
designated quarter, which was a portion of one of the casemates for
guns, lighted only from the port-hole, and occupied by seven or eight
other prisoners. All were subjected to prison fare. Some were
citizens of New York, and the others of different States. This manner
of imprisonment was subsequently put under the direction of the
Secretary of War, and continued at intervals until the close of the
war.
In the brief period between July 1 and October 19, 1861, the
Secretary of State, William H, Seward, made such diligent use of his
"little bell," that one hundred and seventy-five of the most
respectable citizens of the country were consigned to imprisonment in
this Fort Lafayette, a strong fortress in the lower part of the
harbor of New York. A decent regard for the memory of the friend of
Washington, and for the services rendered to the colonies in their
struggle for independence, might have led Mr. Seward to select for
such base uses some other place than that which bore the honored name
of Lafayette.
The American citizen has always, like the ancient Roman, felt that
his personal liberty was secure. He supposed himself to be surrounded
with numerous paper safeguards, which, together with the love of
justice and respect for law, common to his fellow-citizens, would be
sufficient for his protection against any usurper. These now proved
to be as weak as the paper upon which they were written. What were
these supposed safeguards? There was the Constitution of the State of
New York, an instrument for the protection and government of the
people. It had received the consent of the people of the State who
were governed by it, and therefore its powers were "just powers." Its
first object was to protect the unalienable rights of its citizens,
relative to which it contains various provisions in its Bill of
Rights: its declarations respecting personal liberty; its regulations
to secure and enforce the great writ of freemen, the _habeas corpus_;
the powers granted to the courts which it created; the Legislature;
the Executive, in whose hands was placed the richest purse and the
strongest sword of the sovereign States to protect the rights of its
citizens.
Further safeguards were placed in the Constitution of the United
States. These were designed to restrain that Government from any
invasion of the citizen's personal liberty. They are as follows:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . shall
not be violated, and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause,
supported by oath, or affirmation, and particularly describing . . .
the persons to be seized." [86]
Again:
"No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law." [87]
Again:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand
jury." [88]
Again:
"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, and to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted
with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for
obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of
counsel for his defense." [89]
Among the enumerated powers of Congress is the following clause:
"The privilege of the writ of _habeas corpus_ shall not be suspended,
unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may
require." [90]
This clause first forbids the suspension of the writ absolutely. A
single exception is then made by the words "unless the public safety
may require." A condition is attached to this exception which still
farther limits it, by the words "in cases of rebellion or invasion."
There is still another and far more sweeping limitation attached to
this clause. The writ must be suspended by an act of Congress, which
can be passed only when Congress is in session. This suspension must
be positive and absolute by Congress, not indefinite and dependent on
any future contingency. For the acts of Congress are not absolute
powers, if between enactment and enforcement they can be set aside by
a contingency, unless such contingency was attached in the clause of
the grant creating the power. But in these words, of the Constitution
there is no contingency expressed. Congress alone by positive
enactment can suspend the writ of _habeas corpus_. It can not
authorize the President to suspend its force, nor has he any
authority under the Constitution to do it. Neither can Congress make
an intermittent suspension of the force of the writ; but it must be
absolute under the specific condition.
It is evident that the citizen of New York was abundantly provided
with the safeguards of personal liberty; yet they all proved to be of
no avail to secure and enforce his right in the hour of trial. A few
instances will afford an illustration of the facts. Mr. Pierce Butler
was suspected of corresponding with persons in the Confederate
States. He was arrested in Philadelphia on August 19, 1861, by order
of Simon Cameron, then Secretary of War, without process of law and
without any assigned cause. His trunks and drawers, wardrobe, and
entire apartments were searched, and his private papers taken by the
marshal and his four assistants. His office was also examined, and
his books and papers taken, and within an hour he was on his way to
Fort Lafayette with an armed guard. After five weeks of detention he
was liberated. No reason was given for his discharge any more than
for his arrest. As Mr. Cameron was about to sail as Minister to
Russia, in January ensuing, he was arrested for assault and battery
and false imprisonment, at the suit of Mr. Butler. The case was
brought to the knowledge of the President of the United States, and
on April 18, 1862, the Secretary of State, Seward, replied as follows:
"The communication has been submitted to the President, and I am
directed by him to say in reply that he avows the proceeding of Mr.
Cameron referred to as one taken by him when Secretary of War, under
the President's directions, and deemed necessary for the prompt
suppression of the existing rebellion."
The writ of _habeas corpus_ was issued by some of the State courts,
directing the officer in command at the fort to bring some one or
other of the prisoners into court for an investigation of the cause
and authority for his detention. But no attention was given to these
writs by the officer. Neither did the Governor of the State make any
effort to enforce the processes of the courts. He, perhaps, expected
that his efforts might be resisted by an overpowering force. But
expectations, of whatsoever nature, do not justify or excuse the
neglect of a positive duty. It is through such weaknesses that the
liberties of mankind have been too often lost.
Thus the Constitution, the laws, the courts, the Executive of the
State of New York, were subverted, turned aside from the end for
which they were instituted, and all the specific arrangements were of
no avail to secure this guaranteed right of its citizens. Probably
every one of the prisoners was entirely innocent of any act whatever
that was criminal under the laws, either of the State or of the
United States.
In opinion they were opposed to the military proceedings of the
Government of the United States; and these opinions they had
expressed, which liberty is a part of the birthright of freemen.
Indeed, Judge Nelson, of the Supreme Court of the United States, in
the Circuit of New York, in an opinion delivered about this time,
thus expressed himself:
"Words, oral, written, or printed, however treasonable, seditious, or
criminal of themselves, do not constitute an overt act of treason
within the definition of the crime. When spoken, written, or printed,
in relation to an act or acts which, if committed with a treasonable
design, might constitute such overt act, they are admissible as
evidence, tending to characterize it and show the intent with which
the act was committed."
Finally, the prison in New York Harbor became so full that many
prisoners were sent to Fort Warren in the harbor of Boston. At this
time the Government of the United States used the Old Capitol at
Washington, Fort McHenry of Baltimore, Fort Lafayette at New York,
and Fort Warren at Boston, for the confinement of those whom the
usurper designated as "state prisoners." Still further to relieve the
fullness of the prisons, two men, John A. Dix, of the army, and
Edwards Pierrepont, of civil life, were sent to investigate the cases
of the prisoners, and release some who were willing to take an "oath
of allegiance." Next it was made a condition precedent to an
investigation that the said oath should be taken by the prisoner. As
an instance, this proposal was made to two persons named Flanders,
citizens of the interior of New York. The oath was as follows:
"I do solemnly swear that I will support, protect, and defend the
Constitution and Government of the United States against all enemies,
whether domestic or foreign, and that I will bear true faith,
allegiance, and loyalty to the same, any ordinance, resolution, or
law of any State Convention, or Legislature, to the contrary
notwithstanding; and, farther, that I do this with a full
determination, pledge, and purpose, without any mental reservation or
evasion whatsoever; and, further, that I will well and faithfully
perform all the duties which may be required of me by law."
These persons declined to take the prescribed oath. The reasons which
they gave for this refusal furnish painful evidence of the extreme
subjugation of the government of the State of New York, and its
silent submission to the arbitrary and unconstitutional acts of the
Government of the United States, even at the sacrifice of the most
sacred rights of freemen. They said:
"We have been guilty of no offense against the laws of our country,
but have simply exercised our constitutional rights as free citizens
in the open and manly expression of our opinions upon public affairs.
We have been placed here without legal charges, or, indeed, any
charges whatsoever being made against us, and upon no legal process,
but upon an arbitrary and illegal order of the Hon. William H.
Seward, Secretary of State of the United States. Every moment of our
detention here is a denial of our most sacred rights. We are entitled
to and hereby demand an unconditional discharge; and, while we could
cheerfully take the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United
States, because we are, always have been, and ever intend to be loyal
to that instrument (though at the same time protesting against the
right of the Government to impose even such oath upon us as the
condition of our discharge), we can not consent to take the oath now
required of us, because we hold no office of any kind under the
Government of the United States, and it is an oath unknown to and
unauthorized by the Constitution, and commits us to the support of
the Government though it may be acting in direct conflict with the
Constitution, and deprives us of the right of freely discussing, and
by peaceful and constitutional methods opposing its measures--a
right which is sacred to freedom, and which no American citizen
should voluntarily surrender. That such is the interpretation put
upon this oath by the Government, and such its intended effect is
plainly demonstrated by the fact that it is dictated to this as a
condition of our release from an imprisonment inflicted upon us for
do other cause than that we have exercised the above-specified
constitutional rights."
One important fact which illustrates the flagrant outrage committed
on all these prisoners should not be omitted. The Constitution of the
United States declares as follows:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . .
to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."
On December 3, 1861, the commanding officer at Fort Lafayette came to
the prisoners' quarters, and read a document, of which the following
is a copy:
"_To the political prisoners in Fort Lafayette:_
"I am instructed by the Secretary of State to inform you that the
Department of State of the United States will not recognize any one
as an attorney for political prisoners, and will look with distrust
upon all applications for release through such channels; and that
such applications will be regarded as additional reasons for
declining to release the prisoners.
"And, further, that if such prisoners wish to make any communication
to the Government, they are at liberty to make it directly to the
State Department.
"SETH C. HAWLEY."
Space will not permit me further to notice the instances of this
immense class of cases. In almost every Northern State the victims of
this violence were to be found. That there was no just cause for
these invasions of the rights of the States, and of the citizens, was
demonstrated in the most decisive manner. At this time (November 4,
1862) the friends of the Administration of the United States
Government were decisively defeated at the elections. On November 22d
ensuing, the War Department issued an order releasing all except
prisoners of war. The order was muffled up in a phraseology suited to
hide from the observation of the people that the result of the
elections had stricken home to the sensibilities of the usurpers. It
said:
"_Ordered_--1. That all persons now in military custody, who have
been arrested for discouraging volunteer enlistments, opposing the
draft,[91] or for otherwise giving aid and comfort to the enemy, in
States where the draft has been made or the quota of volunteers and
militia has been furnished, shall be discharged from further military
restraint."
Thus these arrests were for a short period suspended, and then
vigorously renewed.
Many of these persons who had been illegally seized and imprisoned
now commenced suits for damages. This led to another step on the part
of the Government of the United States, by which the judiciary of the
State was entirely subverted and deprived of all jurisdiction in
these cases. Congress passed an act on March 3, 1863, which provided
that any order of the President of the United States, or arrest made
under his authority, when pleaded, should be a defense, in all
courts, to any action or prosecution for any search, seizure, arrest,
or imprisonment made, done, or committed, or any acts omitted to be
done, under or by virtue of such order, or under color of any law of
Congress. The act further provided that all actions against officers
and others for torts in arrests might be removed for trial to the
next Circuit Court of the United States held in the district, and
said:
"It shall then be the duty of the State court to accept the surety
and proceed no further in the cause or prosecution, and the bail that
shall have been originally taken shall be discharged."
It will be noticed that by the terms of this act the case could be
removed to the Circuit Court when the defendant "filed a petition
stating the facts verified by affidavit." Thus the jurisdiction of
all the courts of the State of New York was made to terminate and
cease upon the simple word of the defendant accompanied by an
affidavit. But these courts were instituted by the consent of the
governed, for the protection of the personal freedom of the citizen;
yet in the cases brought before them they ordered the removal on the
ground that they involved the question of the constitutionality of an
act of Congress, over which the courts of the United States had a
jurisdiction. The absurdity of this plea is manifest; for it is
founded on the presumption that the question, whether, under
authority from the President of the United States, any one, without
intervention of the judicial tribunals, can incarcerate a citizen, is
a question which can be treated as constituting a case arising under
the Constitution of the United States. Any statute authorizing such
acts is palpably void, and not entitled to be a ground for a bearing
under an appeal.
The subjugation of the government of the State of New York was made
in another section of the same act of Congress of March 3, 1863. It
declares:
"That, during the present rebellion, the President of the United
States, whenever in his judgment the public safety may require it, is
authorized to suspend the privilege of the writ of _habeas corpus_ in
any case throughout the United States, or any part thereof."
Let us turn to the words of the Constitution of the United States
which are contained in the grant of powers to Congress:
"The privilege of the writ of _habeas corpus_ shall not be suspended,
unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may
require it."
It will be seen that two facts are required to exist before the
Congress of the United States can suspend the privilege of this writ.
Congress must, therefore, determine the existence of these facts
before it has power constitutionally to act. If it finds either fact
to exist and not the other, it has no power to suspend the privilege
of the writ. There must be rebellion, and the public safety must
require the suspension. When Congress finds these facts to exist, it
can enact the suspension. It is the judgment of Congress alone that
can determine that the public safety requires the suspension. This
can not be delegated to the judgment of any other department of the
Government. Therefore, when Congress tells the President, in the
above-mentioned act, that he is authorized to suspend the privilege
of this writ whenever, in his judgment, the public safety may require
it, then that body undertakes to do that for which it has no
authority in the Constitution. The States delegated the power solely
to Congress; an act to transfer the trust to any other depository
could rightfully have no force whatever.
Now, the State of New York, in which this writ was thus suspended by
the Government of the United States, was one of the Northern States
and a most ardent advocate of the Union. It had contributed more men
and money to support the Government of the United States than any
other State, and than some whole sections of States. Peace reigned
throughout all its borders. Yet, in this quiet and "loyal" State,
whose people had given so freely to aid the Government of the United
States, a claim was now set up to the right to nullify the rights and
immunities of every citizen, by that Government which had already
nullified the powers of every court in the State. This was done by
the declaration of the President that "the public safety" required
the suspension of the privilege of the writ of _habeas corpus_.
The act of Congress was passed on March 3, 1863, and on September
15th the President issued his proclamation, and, referring to the
authority claimed to have been granted by the act, he proceeded to
say:
"_Whereas_, In the judgment of the President, the public safety does
require that the privilege of said writ shall now be suspended
throughout the United States, in cases where, by the authority of the
President of the United States, military, naval, and civil officers
of the United States, or either of them, hold persons under their
custody, either as prisoners of war, spies, or aiders or abettors of
the enemy, or officers, soldiers, or seamen, enrolled, drafted, or
mustered, or enlisted in, or belonging to, the land or naval forces
of the United States, or as deserters therefrom, or otherwise
amenable to military law, or to the rules or articles of war, or the
rules and regulations prescribed for military and naval service by
the authority of the President of the United States, or for resisting
a draft, or for any other offense against the military or naval
service: Therefore I do hereby proclaim and make known that the
privilege of the writ of _habeas corpus_ is suspended throughout the
United States in the several cases before mentioned throughout the
duration of said rebellion."
No autocrat ever issued an edict more destructive of the natural
right to personal liberty. Not only was the State government of New
York deprived of the power to fulfill its obligations to protect and
preserve this right of its citizens, but every State government of
the Northern States was in like manner subverted. The only
distinction known among the citizens was that established by the
Government of the United States in answer to the question applied to
each one, "Is he loyal or disloyal?" The only test of loyalty was
based on submission, and, as usual in such cases, the most abject in
spirit were the most loyal to the usurper. Ail those liberties of
conduct and action which stamp the true freeman everywhere throughout
the world disappeared; and the suppressed voice, the apprehensive
look, and the cautious movements were substituted for the free
speech, the open brow, and fearless tread which had characterized the
American.
Another step in the subjugation of the government of the State of New
York was made by the domination over it of the military power of the
Government of the United States. This took place in a time of peace
in the State, when the courts were all open and the civil
administration of affairs was unobstructed. On July 30, 1863, the
United States commanding General of that department addressed a
letter to Governor Seymour, saying:
"As the draft under the act of Congress of March 3, 1863, for
enrolling and calling out the national forces, will probably be
resumed in this city (New York) at an early day, I am desirous of
knowing whether the military power of the State may be relied on to
enforce the execution of the law, in case of forcible resistance to
it. I am very anxious there should be perfect harmony of action
between the Federal Government and that of the State of New York; and
if, under your authority to see the laws faithfully executed, I can
feel assured that the act referred to will be enforced, I need not
ask the War Department to put at my disposal, for the purpose, troops
in the service of the United States."
Governor Seymour replied on August 3d:
"I have this day sent to the President of the United States a
communication in relation to the draft in this State. I believe his
answer will relieve you and me from the painful questions growing out
of an armed enforcement of the conscription law in this patriotic
State, which has contributed so largely and freely to the support of
the national cause during the existing war."
On August 8th General Dix writes again:
"It is my duty, as commanding officer of the troops in the service of
the United States in this department, if called on by the enrolling
officers, to aid them in resisting forcible opposition to the
execution of the law; and it is from an earnest desire to avoid the
necessity of employing for the purpose any of my forces, which have
been placed here to garrison the forts and protect the public
property, that I wished to see the draft enforced by the military
power of the State, in case of armed or organized resistance to
it. . . . I designed, if your coöperation could not be relied on,
to ask the General Government for a force which should be adequate
to insure the execution of the law and to meet any emergency growing
out of it."
Meantime Governor Seymour received no answer to his letter to the
President. He had asked for a suspension of the draft, on the ground
that the enrollments in the city were excessive as compared with
other portions of the State, and that due credit was not given for
the past. He therefore replied to General Dix, saying:
"As you state in your letter that it is your duty to enforce the act
of Congress, and, as you apprehend its provisions may excite popular
resistance, it is proposed you should know the position which will be
held by the State authorities. Of course, under no circumstances, can
they perform duties expressly confided to others, nor can they
undertake to relieve others from their proper responsibilities. But
there can be no violations of good order, or riotous proceedings, no
disturbances of the public peace, which are not infractions of the
laws of the State; and those laws will be enforced under all
circumstances. I shall take care that all the executive officers of
this State perform their duties vigorously and thoroughly, and, if
need be, the military power will be called into requisition. As you
are an officer of the General Government, and not of the State, it
does not become me to make suggestions to you with regard to your
action under a law of Congress. You will, of course, be governed by
your instructions and your own views of duty."
On August 18th General Dix thus wrote to the Governor:
"Not having received an answer from you, I applied to the Secretary
of War on the 14th inst. for a force adequate to the object. The call
was promptly responded to, and I shall be ready to meet all
opposition to the draft."
The force sent by the Secretary of War, to keep the peace and
subjugate the sovereignty of the people, amounted to forty-two
regiments and two batteries. There was no occasion for the exertion
of their powers, but the wrong to the State of New York was none the
less gross.
Again, the subjugation of the government of the State of New York by
the domination of the military power was made still more manifest by
another act on the part of the Government of the United States. A
spurious proclamation, seeming to have been issued by the President,
calling for four hundred thousand men, by a fraudulent imposition
appeared in two papers of New York City (the "Journal of Commerce"
and the "World") on the morning of May 18, 1864. It was immediately
contradicted by the authorities at Washington, and orders were
issued, under which the offices of these papers were entered by armed
men, the property of the owners seized, the premises held by force
for several days, and the publications suspended. At the same time
the office of the independent telegraph line was occupied by a
military force in the name of the Government of the United States.
The operators were taken into custody, and the proprietors of the
newspapers were ordered to be arrested and imprisoned. But these
orders were suspended.
Governor Seymour immediately instructed the District Attorney to
proceed against the offenders, saying:
"In the month of July last, when New York was a scene of violence, I
gave warning that 'the laws of the State must be enforced, its peace
and order maintained, and the property of its citizens protected at
every hazard.' The laws were enforced at a fearful cost of blood and
life. The declaration I then made was not intended merely for that
occasion, or against any class of men. It is one of an enduring
character, to be asserted at all times, and against all conditions of
citizens without favor or distinction. Unless all are made to bow to
the law, it will be respected by none. Unless all are made secure in
their rights of person and property, none can be protected."
An investigation was made by one of the city judges, and warrants
were issued for the arrest of Major-General Dix and several of his
officers. They voluntarily appeared by counsel on July 6th, and the
argument was set down for the 9th. On that day the counsel for the
defense said:
"Since this warrant was issued, the President of the United States
has issued another order to General Dix, which directs him that,
while this civil war lasts, he 'must not relieve himself from his
command, or be deprived of his liberty to obey any order of a
military nature which the President of the United States directs him
to execute.'"
The result of the arguments was that the officers were held to await
the action of the grand jury, who, however, took no action on the
charges. The guilty person was arrested in two or three days after
the appearance of the proclamation, and imprisoned in Fort Lafayette;
the newspaper and telegraph offices were restored to the owners, and
the publications resumed. But the government of New York never
obtained any indemnification of these losses by its citizens.
Another subversion of the State government was brought about by the
military interference on the part of the Government of the United
States with the State election. This was in 1864, when President
Lincoln and General McClellan were the candidates for the Presidency
of the United States. As usual, in all these cases, proceedings to
work up a pretended necessity for interference on the part of the
United States Government were commenced by the appearance of a
grandiloquent proclamation from the commanding General, Dix, telling
what horrible designs, there was reason to believe, the agents of the
Confederate States in Canada had prepared to be executed on
election-day, by an invasion of voters from Canada to colonize
different points. Therefore, to avert these dreadful dangers and
arrest the guilty parties, it was necessary that provost-marshals,
sustained by a military force, should be present with authority at
the polls. At the same time the State Department issued a dispatch,
saying:
"Information has been received from the British provinces to the
effect that there is a conspiracy on foot to set fire to the
principal cities in the Northern States on the day of the
Presidential election."
Thus was created an apparent necessity for the military force to be
very active on the day of election. Governor Seymour issued a
proclamation, saying:
"There is no reason to doubt that the coming election will be
conducted with the usual quiet and order."
Major-General Butler was sent to take command in the city, and seven
thousand additional men were placed in the forts of the harbor, and
proclamations were issued, threatening, by the United States
Government, the severest punishment upon every person who might
attempt improperly to vote at the election in the State of New York.
The State Legislature, at its previous session, had passed an act to
provide for the vote of the soldiers in the field, to be taken
previous to the day of election. Agents were appointed by the State
government, to the localities where the soldiers were stationed, to
receive the votes. The informers of the United States Government
immediately brought charges of fraud against some of these agents,
and they were seized by the military authorities, sent to Washington,
cast into prison, and held to be tried by a military commission. The
Governor of New York immediately appointed Amasa J. Parker and two
other most respectable citizens as commissioners, to proceed to
Washington in behalf of the State and investigate the difficulties.
They informed the Governor that several hundred ballots, which had
been seized, were given up, and that they visited the principal agent
of the State of New York in his prison, through the permission of
Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War. They reported thus:
"The undersigned availed themselves of the permit granted them to
visit Colonel North, M. M. Jones, and Levi Cohn. They found them in
the 'Carroll Prison,' in close confinement. They then learned that
Messrs. North and Cohn had been confined together in one room, and
had not been permitted to leave it for a moment during the four days
they had been prisoners, even for the purposes of answering the calls
of nature. They had been supplied with meager and coarse
prison-rations, to be eaten in their room, where they constantly
breathed the foul atmosphere arising from the standing odor. They had
no vessel out of which to drink water, except the one furnished them
for the purpose of urination. They had but one chair, and had slept
three of the nights of their confinement upon a sack of straw upon
the floor. They had not been permitted to see a newspaper, and were
ignorant of the cause of their arrest. All communication between them
and the outer world had been denied them, and no friend had been
allowed to see them. The undersigned complained to the acting
superintendent, who seemed humanely disposed, but justified his
course by the prison rules and the instructions of his superiors."
The commissioners further say:
"From the best investigation the undersigned have been able to make,
though there may have been irregularities, they have found no
evidence that any frauds, either against any elector or the elective
franchise, have been committed by any person connected with the New
York agency."
The commissioners then addressed a communication to the Secretary of
War. A few extracts from this communication will show how utter was
the subversion of the authority of the government of the State of New
York. They say:
"They, North, Cohn, and Jones, were not in the military or naval
service of the United States, and by no law of which we are aware
were they subject to the martial and military laws of the United
States, or to the orders of the War Department. . . . The charges, so
far as we can learn, are not for the violation of any law of the
United States, but relate to acts purporting to have been done under
the law of the State of New York concerning elections, and making
provisions for soldiers voting in that State; it being claimed that
certain irregularities hare intervened which give reason to suspect
that frauds and forgeries are intended, and may be consummated. These
suspected and anticipated frauds have respect solely to the election
laws of the State of New York, and the action of the Government in
making the arrest is claimed to be justified upon the ground that,
unless thus prevented, frauds will be perpetrated against the
ballot-box at the approaching election in the State of New York. We
beg leave, in behalf of the State, respectfully to protest against
this jurisdiction, assumed as well over the alleged offense as over
the persons of the accused, who are citizens of the State, in its
employ, and entitled to its protection. The proper business of the
State agency is greatly interfered with by the arrest and detention
of the agents, and the State is deprived of its proper jurisdiction
over its agents and citizens, over offenses against its laws, and
over its own ballot-box and the exercise of the elective franchise
within its limits."
The demands made by the State of New York through these commissioners
were refused. The persons arrested were finally tried before a
military commission, clearly without jurisdiction, in violation of
their personal rights, and in usurpation of the just powers of the
State. They were, however, acquitted and discharged, glad to get off
no worse.
The proposed limits will not permit me further to present the details
relative to the subjugation of the State government of New York by
the Government of the United States. Neither can space be spared to
relate the details of the subjugation of the government of each
Northern State. In many the events were similar to those in New York;
in others they arose under dissimilar circumstances; but, in all, the
sovereignty of the people was entirely disregarded, and the operation
of the institutions which had been established for the protection of
their rights was suspended, or nullified, by a military force of the
Government of the United States. Only such events, therefore, can be
stated as serve to show how universal and how complete was the work
done by the United States Government to secure a recognition of its
supremacy, over not only acts but even words, from every citizen. All
were its subjects; the "loyal," as some were called, were its
friends, and could be trusted; the "disloyal" were its disaffected
subjects, and must be watched by spies and informers, and, if
necessary, put in prison to secure their passive submission.
A military domination was established in all of the Northern States,
under the pretext of securing the arrest of deserters from the army.
This was accomplished on September 24, 1862, by the appointment of a
Provost-Marshal-General of the War Department at Washington, and in
each State one or more special provost-marshals, who were required to
report to and receive instructions from the Provost-Marshal-General.
It was made the duty of the special marshals--
"To arrest all deserters, whether regulars, volunteers, or militia,
and send them to the nearest military commander or military post,
where they can be cared for and sent to their respective regiments;
to arrest, upon the warrant of the Judge Advocate, all disloyal
persons subject to arrest under the orders of the War Department; to
inquire into and report treasonable practices, seize stolen or
embezzled property of the Government, detect spies of the enemy, and
perform such other duties as may be enjoined on them by the War
Department."
To enable these marshals to perform their duties efficiently, they
were authorized to call on any available military force within their
respective districts, or else to employ the assistance of citizens,
constables, sheriffs, or police officers, so far as might be
necessary. No trial was allowed to any person thus arrested except
before a military commission consisting of military officers
designated for the purpose; the prosecutor was the Judge Advocate,
and the punishments were exemplary, unusual, and too often such as
were unknown to the laws. The State governments within whose domains
the courts were open, the civil institutions in quiet operation, and
the transactions of peaceful life uniform and constant, were
powerless to protect their citizens in their unalienable rights of
freedom of speech and personal liberty, and the mandates of their
courts were treated with contempt. In utter disregard of the
principles of civil liberty, a military control was established in
every Northern State, the declarations of rights in their
Constitutions were violated, their laws nullified, and the authority
of their governments subverted by an absolute and direct usurpation
on the part of the Government of the United States.
The country was tilled with horror during 1865 by two trials held
before a military commission in the city of Washington. The first
commenced on May 13th, and ended on June 29th. The specification
was--
"That David E. Harold, Edward Spangler, Lewis Payne, John H. Surratt,
Michael O'Loughlin, Samuel Arnold, George A. Atzerott, Samuel A.
Mudd, and Mary E. Surratt, did on April 15, 1865, combine,
confederate, and conspire together to murder President Abraham
Lincoln, Vice-President Andrew Johnson, Lieutenant-General U. S.
Grant, and Secretary of State William H. Seward."
President Lincoln had been shot, and Secretary Seward was badly
wounded with a knife. The others were uninjured.
The sentence of the commission was that David E. Harold, G. A.
Atzerott, Lewis Payne, and Mary E. Surratt, be hanged by the proper
military authority, under the direction of the Secretary of War, on
July 7, 1865. The others were sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor
for a term of years or for life. With only one day's delay, the
sentences were carried into execution. John H. Surratt escaped before
trial. He was sought for by the spies of the War Department half
round the world, and after a long time was found serving as a soldier
in the corps of Papal Zouaves at Rome. He was brought back to
Washington, tried, and acquitted.
The insertion of my name with those of others, honorable gentlemen,
as "inciting and encouraging" these acts, served as an exhibition of
the malignant spirit with which justice was administered by the
authorities in Washington at that time. The case of Mrs. Surratt, at
whose house some of these persons had boarded, awakened much
sympathy. She was spoken of by her counsel, Reverdy Johnson, of
Maryland, as "a devout Christian, ever kind, affectionate, and
charitable," which was confirmed by evidence and uncontradicted. On
the day of the execution, her daughter, who was quite a devoted and
affectionate person, sought to obtain an audience with President
Johnson to implore at least a brief suspension of the sentence of her
mother. She was obstructed and prevented from seeing the President by
ex-Senator Preston King, of New York, and Senator James H. Lane, of
Kansas, who were reported to have been at the Executive Mansion to
keep guard over President Johnson. Each of these Senators at a later
period committed suicide.
The trial of Major Henry Wirz was the next in importance which came
before a military commission. In April, 1865, President Johnson
issued a proclamation, stating that, from evidence in possession of
the "Bureau of Military Justice," it appeared that I, Jefferson
Davis, was implicated in the assassination of President Lincoln, and
for that reason he offered a reward of one hundred thousand dollars
for my capture. That testimony was subsequently found to be entirely
false, having been a mere fabrication. The manner in which this was
done will be presently stated. Meantime, certain persons of influence
and public position at that time, either aware of the fabricated
character of this testimony or convinced of its insufficiency to
secure my conviction on a trial, sought to find ample material to
supply this deficiency, in the great mortality of the soldiers we had
captured during the war and imprisoned at Andersonville.[92]
Orders were therefore issued by the authorities of the United States
Government to arrest a subaltern officer, Captain Henry Wirz, a
foreigner by birth, poor, friendless, and wounded, and held as a
prisoner of war. He had been included in the surrender of General J.
E. Johnston. On May 7th he was placed in the "Old Capitol" Prison at
Washington. The poor man was doomed before he was heard, and the
permission to be heard according to law was denied him. Captain Wirz
had been in command at the Confederate prison at Andersonville. The
first charge alleged against him was that of conspiring with myself,
Secretary Seddon, General Howell Cobb, General Winder, and others, to
cause the death of thousands of the prisoners through cruelty, etc.
The second charge was alleged against himself for murder in violation
of the laws and customs of war.
The military commission before which he was tried was convened by an
order of President Johnson, of August 19th, directing the officers
detailed for that purpose to meet as a special military commission on
August 20th, for the trial of such prisoners as might be brought
before it. The commission convened, and Wirz was arraigned on the
charges above mentioned, and pleaded not guilty. At the suggestion of
the Judge Advocate, Joseph Holt, he was remanded to prison and the
court adjourned. The so-called trial afterward came on, and lasted
for three months, but no evidence whatsoever was produced showing the
existence of such a conspiracy as had been charged. Wirz was,
however, pronounced guilty, and, in accordance with the sentence of
the commission, he was executed on November 10, 1865.
On April 4, 1867, Mr. Louis Schade, of Washington, and the attorney
for Wirz on the trial, in compliance with the request of Wirz so to
do, as soon as the times should be propitious, published a
vindication of his character. The following is an extract from this
publication:
"On the night previous to the execution of the prisoner, some parties
came to the confessor of Wirz (Rev. Father Boyle) and also to me. One
of them informed me that a high Cabinet officer wished to assure Wirz
that, if he would implicate Jefferson Davis with the atrocities
committed at Andersonville, his sentence should be commuted. He (the
messenger, whoever he was) requested me to inform Wirz of this. In
presence of Father Boyle, I told him next morning what had happened.
The Captain simply and quietly replied: 'Mr. Schade, you know that I
have always told you that I do not know anything about Jefferson
Davis. He had no connection with me as to what was done at
Andersonville. If I knew anything of him, I would not become a
traitor against him or anybody else to save my life.' Thus ended the
attempt to suborn Captain Wirz against Jefferson Davis."
The following is an extract from a letter of Captain C. B. Winder to
Mrs. Davis, dated Eastern Shore of Virginia, January 9, 1867:
"The door of the room which I occupied while in confinement at the
Old Capitol Prison, Washington, was immediately opposite Captain
Wirz's door--both of which were occasionally open. About two days
before Captain Wirz's execution, I saw three or four men pass into
his room, and, upon their coming out, Captain Wirz told me that they
had given him assurances that his life would be spared and his
liberty given to him if he (Wirz) could give any testimony that would
reflect upon Mr. Davis or implicate him directly or indirectly with
the condition and treatment of prisoners of war, _as charged_ by the
United States authorities; that he indignantly spurned these
propositions, and assured them that, never having been acquainted
with Mr. Davis, either officially, personally, or socially, it was
utterly impossible that he should know anything against him, and that
the offer of his life, dear as the boon might be, could not purchase
him to treason and treachery to the South and his friend."
The following letter is from the Rev. Father F. E. Boyle, of
Washington:
"WASHINGTON, D. C., _October 10, 1880._
"Hon. JEFFERSON DAVIS.
"DEAR SIR: . . . I know that, on the evening before the day of the
execution of Major Wirz, a man visited me, on the part of a Cabinet
officer, to inform me that Major Wirz would be pardoned if he would
implicate Jefferson Davis in the cruelties of Andersonville. No names
were given by this messenger, and, upon my refusal to take any action
in the matter, he went to Mr. Louis Schade, counsel for Major Wirz,
with the same purpose and with a like result.
"When I visited Major Wirz the next morning, he told me that the same
proposal had been made to him, and had been rejected with scorn. The
Major was very indignant, and said that, while he was innocent of the
cruel charges for which he was about to suffer death, he would not
purchase his liberty by perjury and a crime, such as was made the
condition of his freedom. I attended the Major to the scaffold, and
he died in the peace of God, and praying for his enemies. I know he
was indeed innocent of all the cruel charges on which his life was
sworn away, and I was edified by the Christian spirit in which he
submitted to his persecutors. Yours very truly,
"F. E. BOYLE."
In the other case of the fabrication of evidence by some of the
authorities in Washington relative to myself, it will be sufficient
here to present what others have said and done. The subject is
noticed in these pages only to show the desperate extremities to
which the agents of the Government of the United States proceeded in
order to compass my ignominious death. Three principal measures were
resorted to for the accomplishment of this object: the charge in the
case of Wirz, above mentioned; the fabrications in the case now under
consideration; and the cruel and inhuman treatment inflicted upon me
while a prisoner in Fortress Monroe.
At the session of Congress of 1865-'66, a committee was appointed in
the House of Representatives "to inquire into and report upon the
alleged complicity of Jefferson Davis with the assassination of the
late President Lincoln," or words to that effect. George S. Boutwell
was chairman of the committee, and the majority of the members were
extreme advocates of the war. The charge emanated from the "Bureau of
Military Justice," as it was designated--a similar institution to
the "Secret Committee" of the French Revolution. Of this institution
Judge-Advocate Joseph Holt was the chief. After an investigation
continuing through several months, a majority of the committee made
their report to Congress.
"That report not only failed to establish the charge, but the
committee were forced to confess in it that the witnesses, on whose
testimony Holt had affected to rely, were wholly untrustworthy.
Shortly after this report was presented to the House, Mr. A. J.
Rogers, of the committee, a very respectable member from New Jersey,
made a minority report. He asserted that much of the evidence was
altogether suppressed, and that the witnesses, who had received large
sums of money from Holt for testifying to the criminality of Mr.
Davis, recanted their evidence before the committee, and acknowledged
that they had perjured themselves by testifying to a mass of
falsehoods; that they had been tutored to do so by one S. Conover;
and that, from him down through all the miserable list, the very
names under which these hired informers were known to the public were
as false as the narratives to which they had sworn." [93]
Much more might be added to show the evil purpose of these men,
together with the correspondence of Holt and his associates, but it
would be out of place if it was put in these pages.
Another case of this kind occurred in the State of Ohio, in April,
1863, in the arrest, trial, and banishment of Clement L.
Vallandigham. On April 13th Major-General Ambrose E. Burnside,
commanding the Department, issued an order, declaring--
"That, hereafter, all persons found within our lines who commit acts
for the benefit of the enemies of our country will be tried as spies
or traitors, and, if convicted, will suffer death." (The different
classes of persons were then named in the order.) "The habit of
declaring sympathies for the enemy will no longer be tolerated in
this department. Persons committing such offenses will be at once
arrested, with a view to being tried as above stated, or sent beyond
our lines into the lines of their friends. It must be distinctly
understood that treason, expressed or implied, will not be tolerated
in this department."
Mr. Vallandigham commented upon this order, on May 1st, at a public
meeting of citizens. Three days afterward a body of soldiers was sent
by railroad from Cincinnati to Dayton, who, with violence, broke into
his residence at three o'clock in the morning, seized, and hurried
him to the cars before a rescue could be made, and departed for
Cincinnati, where he was confined in a military prison. He was
brought to trial before a military commission on May 6th. The
specification made against him in the charge was that "he addressed a
large meeting of citizens at Mount Vernon, and did utter sentiments
in words, or in effect, as follows: declaring the present war 'a
wicked, cruel, and unnecessary war'; a war not being waged for the
preservation of the Union'; 'a war for the purpose of crushing out
liberty and creating a despotism'; 'a war for the freedom of the
blacks and the enslavement of the whites'; stating that, 'if the
Administration had so wished, the war could have been honorably
terminated months ago'; characterizing the military order 'as a base
usurpation of arbitrary authority'; declaring 'that he was at all
times and upon all occasions resolved to do what he could to defeat
the attempts now made to build up a monarchy upon the ruins of our
free government.'" He was adjudged as guilty, and sentenced to
confinement in Fort Warren, Boston Harbor, during the war. This
sentence was changed by President Lincoln to banishment to the
Confederate States. This military usurpation was spoken of by
Governor Seymour, of New York, in a letter written at the time, in
these words:
"The transaction involved a series of offenses against our most
sacred rights. It interfered with the freedom of speech; it violated
our rights to be secure in our homes against unreasonable searches
and seizures; it pronounced sentence without a trial, save one which
was a mockery, which insulted as well as wronged. The perpetrators
now seek to impose punishment, not for an offense against law, but
for a disregard of an invalid order, put forth in utter violation of
the principles of civil liberty. If this proceeding is approved by
the Government and sanctioned by the people, it is not merely a step
toward revolution, it is revolution; it will not only lead to
military despotism, it establishes military despotism. If it is
upheld, our liberties are overthrown. The safety of our persons, the
security of our property, will hereafter depend upon the arbitrary
wills of such military rulers as may be placed over us, while our
constitutional guarantees will be broken down. Even now the Governors
and the courts of some of the great Western States have sunk into
insignificance before the despotic powers claimed and exercised by
military men who have been sent into their borders."
A large number of such arrests were made in Ohio, newspapers were
suspended, and editors imprisoned. Like scenes were very numerous in
Indiana and Illinois. In Pennsylvania arrests were made, newspapers
suspended, editors imprisoned, and offices destroyed. In New
Hampshire, Vermont, and Wisconsin many similar scenes occurred. The
provost-marshal system was used as a weapon of vindictiveness against
influential citizens of opposite political views throughout all the
Northern States. No one of such persons knew when he was safe. A
complaint of his neighbors, supported by affidavit of "disloyal"
words spoken or "disloyal" acts approved, received prompt attention
from all marshals. Everything was brought into subjection to the will
of the Government of the United States and its military officers.
In view of all the facts here presented relative to the Northern
States, let the reader answer where the sovereignty _de facto_
resided. Most clearly in the Government of the United States. That
presided over the ballot-box, held the keys of the prisons, arrested
all citizens at its pleasure, suspended or suppressed newspapers, and
did whatever it pleased under the declaration that the public welfare
required it. But, under the principles of American liberty, the
sovereignty is inherent in the people as an unalienable right; and,
for the preservation and protection of this and other rights, the
State governments were instituted. If, therefore, the people have
lost this inherent sovereignty, it is evident that the State
governments have failed to afford that protection for which they were
instituted. If they have thus failed, it has been in consequence of
their subversion and loss of power to fulfill the object for which
they were established. This subversion was achieved when the General
Government, under the pretext of preserving the Union, made war on
its creators the States, thus changing the nature of the Federal
Union, which could rightfully be done only by the sovereign, the
people of the States, in like manner as it was originally formed. If
they should permit their sovereignty to be usurped and themselves to
be subjugated, individuals might remain, States could not. Of their
wreck a nation might be built, but there could not be a Union, for
that implies entities united, and of a State which has lost its
sovereignty there may only be written, "_It was_."
[Footnote 86: Article IV, amendment.]
[Footnote 87: Article V, amendment.]
[Footnote 88: Article V, amendment.]
[Footnote 89: Article VI, amendment.]
[Footnote 90: Article I, section 9.]
[Footnote 91: The first act of Congress providing for an enrollment and
draft was passed on March 8, 1363, three and a half months later than
this order.]
[Footnote 92: See chapter on exchange of prisoners.]
[Footnote 93: Baltimore "Gazette," September 25, 1866.]