me, I cannot overlook the fact that the meeting speak as "Democrats."
Nor can I, with full respect for their known intelligence, and the fairly
presumed deliberation with which they prepared their resolutions, be
permitted to suppose that this occurred by accident, or in any way other
than that they preferred to designate themselves "Democrats" rather than
"American citizens." In this time of national peril I would have preferred
to meet you upon a level one step higher than any party platform, because
I am sure that from such more elevated position we could do better battle
for the country we all love than we possibly can from those lower ones
where, from the force of habit, the prejudices of the past, and selfish
hopes of the future, we are sure to expend much of our ingenuity and
strength in finding fault with and aiming blows at each other. But since
you have denied me this I will yet be thankful for the country's sake that
not all Democrats have done so. He on whose discretionary judgment Mr.
Vallandigham was arrested and tried is a Democrat, having no old party
affinity with me, and the judge who rejected the constitutional view
expressed in these resolutions, by refusing to discharge Mr. Vallandigham
on habeas corpus is a Democrat of better days than these, having received
his judicial mantle at the hands of President Jackson. And still more: of
all those Democrats who are nobly exposing their lives and shedding their
blood on the battle-field, I have learned that many approve the course
taken with Mr. Vallandigham, while I have not heard of a single one
condemning it. I cannot assert that there are none such. And the name
of President Jackson recalls an instance of pertinent history. After the
battle of New Orleans, and while the fact that the treaty of peace had
been concluded was well known in the city, but before official knowledge
of it had arrived, General Jackson still maintained martial or military
law. Now that it could be said that the war was over, the clamor against
martial law, which had existed from the first, grew more furious. Among
other things, a Mr. Louaillier published a denunciatory newspaper article.
General Jackson arrested him. A lawyer by the name of Morel procured the
United States Judge Hall to order a writ of habeas corpus to release Mr.
Louaillier. General Jackson arrested both the lawyer and the judge. A Mr.
Hollander ventured to say of some part of the matter that "it was a dirty
trick." General Jackson arrested him. When the officer undertook to serve
the writ of habeas corpus, General Jackson took it from him, and sent him
away with a copy. Holding the judge in custody a few days, the general
sent him beyond the limits of his encampment, and set him at liberty with
an order to remain till the ratification of peace should be regularly
announced, or until the British should have left the southern coast. A day
or two more elapsed, the ratification of the treaty of peace was regularly
announced, and the judge and others were fully liberated. A few days more,
and the judge called General Jackson into court and fined him $1000 for
having arrested him and the others named. The General paid the fine, and
then the matter rested for nearly thirty years, when Congress refunded
principal and interest. The late Senator Douglas, then in the House
of Representatives, took a leading part in the debates, in which the
constitutional question was much discussed. I am not prepared to say whom
the journals would show to have voted for the measure.
It may be remarked--first, that we had the same Constitution then as now;
secondly, that we then had a case of invasion, and now we have a case of
rebellion; and, thirdly, that the permanent right of the people to public
discussion, the liberty of speech and of the press, the trial by jury, the
law of evidence, and the habeas corpus suffered no detriment whatever
by that conduct of General Jackson, or its subsequent approval by the
American Congress.
And yet, let me say that, in my own discretion, I do not know whether I
would have ordered the arrest of Mr. Vallandigham. While I cannot shift
the responsibility from myself, I hold that, as a general rule, the
commander in the field is the better judge of the necessity in any
particular case. Of course I must practice a general directory and
revisory power in the matter.
One of the resolutions expresses the opinion of the meeting that arbitrary
arrests will have the effect to divide and distract those who should be
united in suppressing the rebellion, and I am specifically called on to
discharge Mr. Vallandigham. I regard this as, at least, a fair appeal to
me on the expediency of exercising a constitutional power which I think
exists. In response to such appeal I have to say, 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 by it.
I further say that, as the war progresses, it appears to me, opinion and
action, which were in great confusion at first, take shape and fall into
more regular channels, so that the necessity for strong dealing with them
gradually decreases. I have every reason to desire that it should cease
altogether, and far from the least is my regard for the opinions and
wishes of those who, like the meeting at Albany, declare their purpose
to sustain the government in every constitutional and lawful measure to
suppress the rebellion. Still, I must continue to do so much as may seem
to be required by the public safety.
A. LINCOLN.
TO THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 14, 1863.
HON. SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
SIR:--Your note of this morning is received. You will co-operate by the
revenue cutters under your direction with the navy in arresting rebel
depredations on American commerce and transportation and in capturing
rebels engaged therein.
A. LINCOLN.
TELEGRAM TO GENERAL TYLER.
WAR DEPARTMENT, June 14, 1863.
GENERAL TYLER, Martinsburg: Is Milroy invested so that he cannot fall back
to Harper's Ferry?
A. LINCOLN.
RESPONSE TO A "BESIEGED" GENERAL
TELEGRAM TO GENERAL TYLER.
WAR DEPARTMENT, June 14, 1863.
GENERAL TYLER, Martinsburg:
If you are besieged, how do you despatch me? Why did you not leave before
being besieged?
A. LINCOLN.
TELEGRAM TO GENERAL KELLEY.
WASHINGTON, June 14, 1863. 1.27 P.M.
MAJOR-GENERAL KELLEY, Harper's Ferry:
Are the forces at Winchester and Martinsburg making any effort to get to
you?
A. LINCOLN.
TELEGRAM TO GENERAL HOOKER.
WASHINGTON, D. C., June 14, 1863.3.50 P.M.,
MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:
So far as we can make out here, the enemy have Muroy surrounded at
Winchester, and Tyler at Martinsburg. If they could hold out a few days,
could you help them? If the head of Lee's army is at Martinsburg and the
tail of it on the plank-road between Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville,
the animal must be very slim somewhere; could you not break him?
A. LINCOLN.
TELEGRAM TO GENERAL R. C. SCHENCK.
WAR DEPARTMENT, June 14, 1863.
MAJOR-GENERAL SCHENCK:
Get General Milroy from Winchester to Harper's Ferry, if possible. He will
be "gobbled up" if he remains, if he is not already past salvation.
A. LINCOLN, President, United States.
NEEDS NEW TIRES ON HIS CARRIAGE
TELEGRAM TO MRS. LINCOLN.
WAR DEPARTMENT, June 15, 1863.
MRS. LINCOLN, Philadelphia, Pa.:
Tolerably well. Have not rode out much yet, but have at last got new tires
on the carriage wheels and perhaps shall ride out soon.
A. LINCOLN.
CALL FOR 100,000 MILITIA TO SERVE FOR SIX MONTHS, JUNE 15, 1863.
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A Proclamation
Whereas the armed insurrectionary combinations now existing in several of
the States are threatening to make inroads into the States of Maryland,
West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, requiring immediately an additional
military force for the service of the United States:
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States and
Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy thereof and of the militia of the
several States when called into actual service, do hereby call into the
service of the United States 100,000 militia from the States following,
namely:
From the State of Maryland, 10,000; from the State of Pennsylvania,
50,000; from the State of Ohio, 30,000; from the State of West Virginia,
10,000--to be mustered into the service of the United States forthwith and
to serve for a period of six months from the date of such muster into
said service, unless sooner discharged; to be mustered in as infantry,
artillery, and cavalry, in proportions which will be made known through
the War Department, which Department will also designate the several
places of rendezvous. These militia to be organized according to the rules
and regulations of the volunteer service and such orders as may hereafter
be issued. The States aforesaid will be respectively credited under the
enrollment act for the militia services entered under this proclamation.
In testimony whereof...............
A. LINCOLN
TELEGRAM TO P. KAPP AND OTHERS.
WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C., June 10, 1863
FREDERICK KAPP AND OTHERS, New York:
The Governor of New York promises to send us troops, and if he wishes the
assistance of General Fremont and General Sigel, one or both, he can have
it. If he does not wish them it would but breed confusion for us to set
them to work independently of him.
A. LINCOLN.
TELEGRAM TO GENERAL MEAGHER.
WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C., June 16, 1863.
GENERAL T. FRANCIS MEAGHER, New York:
Your despatch received. Shall be very glad for you to raise 3000 Irish
troops if done by the consent of and in concert with Governor Seymour.
A. LINCOLN.
TELEGRAM TO MRS. LINCOLN.
WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C., June 16, 1863.
MRS. LINCOLN, Philadelphia:
It is a matter of choice with yourself whether you come home. There is
no reason why you should not, that did not exist when you went away. As
bearing on the question of your coming home, I do not think the raid into
Pennsylvania amounts to anything at all.
A. LINCOLN.
TELEGRAM TO COLONEL BLISS.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 16, 1863.
COL. WILLIAM S. BLISS, New York Hotel:
Your despatch asking whether I will accept "the Loyal Brigade of the
North" is received. I never heard of that brigade by name and do not know
where it is; yet, presuming it is in New York, I say I will gladly accept
it, if tendered by and with the consent and approbation of the Governor of
that State. Otherwise not.
A. LINCOLN.
TELEGRAM TO GENERAL HOOKER.
WASHINGTON, June 16, 1863.10 P.M.
MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:
To remove all misunderstanding, I now place you in the strict military
relation to General Halleck of a commander of one of the armies to the
general-in-chief of all the armies. I have not intended differently, but
as it seems to be differently understood I shall direct him to give you
orders and you to obey them.
A. LINCOLN.
TELEGRAM TO GENERAL HOOKER.
WAR DEPARTMENT WASHINGTON D. C., June 17, 1863.
MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:
Mr. Eckert, superintendent in the telegraph office, assures me that he has
sent and will send you everything that comes to the office.
A. LINCOLN.
TELEGRAM TO JOSHUA TEVIS.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 17, 1863.
JOSHUA TEVIS, Esq., U. S. Attorney, Frankfort, Ky.:
A Mr. Burkner is here shoving a record and asking to be discharged from a
suit in San Francisco, as bail for one Thompson. Unless the record
shown me is defectively made out I think it can be successfully defended
against. Please examine the case carefully and, if you shall be of opinion
it cannot be sustained, dismiss it and relieve me from all trouble about
it. Please answer.
A. LINCOLN.
TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR TOD.
[Cipher.]
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON,
June 18, 1863.
GOVERNOR D. TOD, Columbus, O.:
Yours received. I deeply regret that you were not renominated, not that
I have aught against Mr. Brough. On the contrary, like yourself, I say
hurrah for him.
A. LINCOLN.
TELEGRAM TO GENERAL DINGMAN.
WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C., June 18, 1863.
GENERAL A. DINGMAN, Belleville, C. W.:
Thanks for your offer of the Fifteenth Battalion. I do not think
Washington is in danger.
A. LINCOLN
TO B. B. MALHIOT AND OTHERS.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 19, 1863.
MESSRS. B. B. MALHIOT, BRADISH JOHNSON, AND THOMAS COTTMAN.
GENTLEMEN:--Your letter, which follows, has been received and Considered.
"The undersigned, a committee appointed by the planters of the State of
Louisiana, respectfully represent that they have been delegated to seek of
the General Government a full recognition of all the rights of the State
as they existed previous to the passage of an act of secession, upon the
principle of the existence of the State constitution unimpaired, and no
legal act having transpired that could in any way deprive them of the
advantages conferred by that constitution. Under this constitution the
State wishes to return to its full allegiance, in the enjoyment of all
rights and privileges exercised by the other States under the Federal
Constitution. With the view of accomplishing the desired object, we
further request that your Excellency will, as commander-in-chief of the
army of the United States, direct the Military Governor of Louisiana to
order an election, in conformity with the constitution and laws of the
State, on the first Monday of November next, for all State and Federal
officers.
"With high consideration and resect, we have the honor to subscribe
ourselves,
"Your obedient servants,
"E. E. MALHIOT.
"BRADISH JOHNSON.
"THOMAS COTTMAN."
Since receiving the letter, reliable information has reached me that a
respectable portion of the Louisiana people desire to amend their State
constitution, and contemplate holding a State convention for that object.
This fact alone, as it seems to me, is a sufficient reason why the General
Government should not give the committal you seek to the existing State
constitution. I may add that, while I do not perceive how such committal
could facilitate our military operations in Louisiana, I really apprehend
it might be so used as to embarrass them.
As to an election to be held next November, there is abundant time without
any order or proclamation from me just now. The people of Louisiana shall
not lack an opportunity for a fair election for both Federal and State
officers by want of anything within my power to give them.
Your obedient servant,
A. LINCOLN.
TO GENERAL J. M. SCHOFIELD.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON
June 22, 1863.
GENERAL JOHN M. SCHOFIELD. MY DEAR SIR:--Your despatch, asking in
substance whether, in case Missouri shall adopt gradual emancipation, the
General Government will protect slave owners in that species of property
during the short time it shall be permitted by the State to exist within
it, has been received. Desirous as I am that emancipation shall be adopted
by Missouri, and believing as I do that gradual can be made better than
immediate for both black and white, except when military necessity changes
the case, my impulse is to say that such protection would be given. I
cannot know exactly what shape an act of emancipation may take. If the
period from the initiation to the final end should be comparatively short,
and the act should prevent persons being sold during that period into more
lasting slavery, the whole would be easier. I do not wish to pledge the
General Government to the affirmative support of even temporary slavery
beyond what can be fairly claimed under the Constitution. I suppose,
however, this is not desired, but that it is desired for the military
force of the United States, while in Missouri, to not be used in
subverting the temporarily reserved legal rights in slaves during the
progress of emancipation. This I would desire also. I have very earnestly
urged the slave States to adopt emancipation; and it ought to be, and is,
an object with me not to overthrow or thwart what any of them may in good
faith do to that end. You are therefore authorized to act in the spirit
of this letter in conjunction with what may appear to be the military
necessities of your department. Although this letter will become public at
some time, it is not intended to be made so now.
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TELEGRAM TO GENERAL J. HOOKER.
WASHINGTON, June 22, 1863
MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:
Operator at Leesburg just now says: "I heard very little firing this A.M.
about daylight, but it seems to have stopped now. It was in about the same
direction as yesterday, but farther off."
A. LINCOLN.
TO SECRETARY OF WAR.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 23, 1863.
HON. SECRETARY OF WAR:
You remember that Hon. W. D. Kelly and others are engaged in raising or
trying to raise some colored regiments in Philadelphia. The bearer of
this, Wilton M. Huput, is a friend of Judge Kelly, as appears by the
letter of the latter. He is a private in the 112th Penn. and has been
disappointed in a reasonable expectation of one of the smaller offices.
He now wants to be a lieutenant in one of the colored regiments. If Judge
Kelly will say in writing he wishes to so have him, I am willing for him
to be discharged from his present position, and be so appointed. If you
approve, so indorse and let him carry the letter to Kelly.
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TELEGRAM TO MAJOR VAN VLIET.
[Cipher.]
WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C., June 23, 1863.
MAJOR VAN VLIET, New York:
Have you any idea what the news is in the despatch of General Banks to
General Halleck?
A. LINCOLN.
TELEGRAM TO GENERAL COUCH.
WAR DEPARTMENT, June 24, 1863.
MAJOR-GENERAL COUCH, Harrisburg, Pa.:
Have you any reports of the enemy moving into Pennsylvania? And if any,
what?
A. LINCOLN.
TELEGRAM TO GENERAL DIX.
WASHINGTON, June 24, 1863
MAJOR-GENERAL Dix, Yorktown, Va.:
We have a despatch from General Grant of the 19th. Don't think Kirby Smith
took Milliken's Bend since, allowing time to get the news to Joe Johnston
and from him to Richmond. But it is not absolutely impossible. Also
have news from Banks to the 16th, I think. He had not run away then, nor
thought of it.
A. LINCOLN.
TELEGRAM TO GENERAL PECK.
WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C., June 25, 1863.
GENERAL PECK, Suffolk, Va.:
Colonel Derrom, of the Twenty-fifth New Jersey Volunteers, now mustered
out, says there is a man in your hands under conviction for desertion,
who formerly belonged to the above named regiment, and whose name is
Templeton--Isaac F. Templeton, I believe. The Colonel and others appeal to
me for him. Please telegraph to me what is the condition of the case,
and if he has not been executed send me the record of the trial and
conviction.
A. LINCOLN.
TELEGRAM TO GENERAL SLOCUM.
WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C., June 25,1863.
MAJOR-GENERAL SLOCUM, Leesburg, Va.:
Was William Gruvier, Company A, Forty-sixth, Pennsylvania, one of the men
executed as a deserter last Friday?
A. LINCOLN.
TELEGRAM TO GENERAL HOOKER.
WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C., June 27, 1863. 8A.M.
MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:
It did not come from the newspapers, nor did I believe it, but I wished to
be entirely sure it was a falsehood.
A. LINCOLN.
TELEGRAM TO GENERAL BURNSIDE.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 28, 1863.
MAJOR-GENERAL BURNSIDE, Cincinnati, O.:
There is nothing going on in Kentucky on the subject of which you
telegraph, except an enrolment. Before anything is done beyond this, I
will take care to understand the case better than I now do.
A. LINCOLN.
TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR BOYLE.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C., June 28, 1863.
GOVERNOR J. T. BOYLE, Cincinnati, O.:
There is nothing going on in Kentucky on the subject of which you
telegraph, except an enrolment. Before anything is done beyond this, I
will take care to understand the case better than I now do.
A. LINCOLN.
TELEGRAM TO GENERAL SCHENCK.
WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C., June 28, 1863.
MAJOR GENERAL SCHENCK, Baltimore, Md.:
Every place in the Naval school subject to my appointment is full, and I
have one unredeemed promise of more than half a year's standing.
A. LINCOLN.
FURTHER DEMOCRATIC PARTY CRITICISM
TO M. BIRCHARD AND OTHERS.
WASHINGTON, D. C., June 29,1863.
MESSRS. M. BIRCHARD, DAVID A. HOUK, et al:
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, New York, 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 merely 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." Doubtless, 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 on this question was stated in the Albany response, and
hence I do not state it now. I only add that, as 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; and I think the man whom, for the time, the
people have, under the Constitution, made the commander-in-chief of their
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 giant rebellion, and then be dealt with in turn only 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 others,
have been for prevention, and not for punishment--as injunctions 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 the 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.