U.C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES

€03^33353

University of California • Berkeley

Hollinger Corp.
pH8.5

CORRESPONDENCE

IN RELATION TO

THE PUBLIC MEETING AT ALBANY, N. Y.

LETTER OF THE COMMITTEE AND RESOLUTIONS.

ALBANY, 'May 19, 1863.

To his Excellency the President of the United States :

The undersigned, officers of a public meeting held at the city of Albany on
the 16th day of May instant, herewith transmit to your excellency a copy of
the resolutions adopted at the said meeting, and respectfully request your earnest
consideration of them. They deem it proper on their personal responsibility to
state that the meeting was one of the most respectable as to numbers and char-
acter, and one of the most earnest in the support of the Union, ever held in this
city.

Yours, with great regard,

ERASTUS CORNING, President.
ELI PERRY, Vice-President.
PETER GANSEVOORT, Vice- President.
PETER MONTEATH, Vice President.
SAMUEL W. GIBBS, Vice- President.
JOHN NIBLACK, Vice-President.
H. W. McCLELLAN, Vice-President.
LEMUEL W. RODGERS, Vice-President.
WILLIAM SEYMOUR, Vice-President.
JEREMIAH OSBORN, Vice-President.
WM. S. PADOCK, Vice-President.
J. B. SANDERS, Vice-President.
EDWARD MULCAHY, Vice- President.
D. V. N. RADCLIFFE, Vice-President.
WILLIAM A. RICE, Secretary.
EDWARD NEWCOMB, Secretary.
R. W. PECKHAM, JR., Secretary.
M. A. NOLAN, Secretary.
JOHN R. NESSEL, Secretary.
C. W. WEEKS, Secretary.

Resolutions adopted at the meeting held in Albany, N. Y., on the 16th day of May, 1863.

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

Resolved, That, as democrats, we are determined to maintain this patriotic attitude, and,
despite of adverse and disheartening1 circumstances, to devote all our energies to sustain the
cause of the Union, to secure peace through victory, and to bring back the restoration of all
the States under the safeguards of the Constitution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY.

EXECUTIVE MANSION,

Washington, June 12, 1863.
Hon. Erastus Corning and others :

GENTLEMEN : Your letter of May 19, enclosing the resolutions of a public
meeting held at Albany, New York, on the 16th of the same month, was re-
ceived several days ago.

The resolutions, as I understand them, are resolvable into two propositions —
first, the expression of a purpose to sustain the cause of the Union, to secure
peace through victory, and to support the administration in every constitutional
and lawful measure to suppress the rebellion; and secondly, a declaration of
censure upon the administration for supposed unconstitutional action, such as
the making of military arrests. And, from the two propositions, a third is de-
duced, which is that the gentlemen composing the meeting are resolved on
doing their part to maintain our common government and country, despite the
folly or wickedness, as they may conceive, of any administration. This posi-
tion is eminently patriotic, and as such, I thank the meeting, and congratulate
the nation for it. My own purpose is the same; so that the meeting and myself
have a common object, and can have no difference, except in the choice of
means or measures for effecting that object.

And here I ought to close this paper, and would close it, if there were no
apprehension that more injurious consequences than any merely personal to
myself might follow the censures systematically cast upon me for doing what,
in my view of duty, I could not forbear. The resolutions promise to support
me in every constitutional and lawful measure to suppress the rebellion ; and I
have not knowingly employed, nor shall knowingly employ, any other. But
the meeting, by their resolutions, assert and argue that certain military ar-
rests, and proceedings following them, for which I am ultimately responsible,
are unconstitutional. I think they are not. The resolutions quote from the
Constitution the definition of treason, and also the limiting safeguards and
guarantees therein provided for the citizen on trials for treason, and on his
being held to answer for capital or otherwise infamous crimes, and, in criminal
prosecutions, his right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury. They
proceed to resolve " that these safeguards of the rights of the citizen against
the pretensions of arbitrary power were intended more especially for his protec-
tion in times of civil commotion." And, apparently to demonstrate the propo-
sition, the resolutions proceed : " They were secured substantially to the Eng-
lish people after years of protracted civil war, and were adopted into our Con-

stitution at the close of the revolution." Would not the demonstration have
been better, if it could have been truly said that these safeguards had been
adopted and applied during the civil wars and during our revolution, instead of
after the one and at the close of the other? I, too, am devotedly for them after
civil war, and before civil war, and at all times, " except when, in cases of re-
bellion or invasion, the public safety may require" their suspension. The reso-
lutions proceed to tell us that these safeguards "have stood the test of seventy-
six years of trial, under our republican system, under circumstances which show
that while they constitute the foundation of all free government, they are the
elements of the enduring stability of the republic." No one denies that
they have so stood the test up to the beginning of the present rebellion, if
we except a certain occurence at New Orleans ; nor does any one question
that they will stand the same test much longer after the rebellion closes.
But these provisions of the Constitution have no application to the 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
any 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. Let us consider the real case with which we are
dealing, and apply to it the parts of the Constitution plainly made for such cases.
Prior to my installation here it had been inculcated that any State had a lawful
right to secede from the national Union, and that it would be expedient to exercise
the right whenever the devotees of the doctrine should fail to elect a President
to their own liking. I was elected contrary to their liking ; and, accordingly,
so far as it was legally possible, they had taken seven States out of the Union,
had seized many of the United States forts, and had fired upon the United
States flag, all before I was inaugurated, and, of course, before I had done any
official act whatever. The rebellion thus began soon ran into the present civil war ;
and, in certain respects, it began on very unequal terms between the paities. The
insurgents had been preparing for it more than thirty years, while the govern-
ment had taken no steps to resist them. The former had carefully considered all
the means which could be turned to their account. It undoubtedly was a well-
pondered reliance with them that in their own unrestricted efforts to destroy Union,
Constitution, and law, all together, the government would, in great degree, be
restrained by the same Constitution and law from arresting their progress.
Their sympathizers pervaded all departments of the government and nearly all
communities of the people. From this material, under cover of " liberty of
speech," " liberty of the press," and " habeas corpus" they hoped to keep on
foot amongst us a most efficient corps of spies, informers, suppliers, and aiders
and abettors of their cause in a thousand ways. They knew that in times such
as they were inaugurating, by the Constitution itself, the " habeas corpus"
might be suspended ; but they also knew they had friends who would make a

question as to who was to suspend it ; meanwhile their spies and others might re-
main at large to help on their cause. Or if, as has happened, the Executive should
suspend the writ, without ruinous waste of time, instances of arresting innocent
persons might occur, as are always likely to occur in such cases ; and then a
clamor could be raised in regard to this, which might be, at least, of some ser-
vice to the insurgent cause. It needed no very keen perception to discover
this part of the enemy's programme, so soon as by open hostilities their machinery
was fairly put in motion. Yet, thoroughly imbued with a reverence for the
guaranteed rights of individuals, I was slow to adopt the strong measures which
by degrees I have been forced to regard as being within the exceptions of the
Constitution, and as indispensable to the public safety. Nothing is better
known to history than that courts of justice are utterly incompetent to such
cases. Civil courts are organized chiefly for trials of individuals, or, at most,
a few individuals acting in concert ; and this in quiet times, and on charges
of crimes well defined in the law. Even in times of peace bands of horse-
thieves and robbers frequently grow too numerous and po »verful for the ordinary
courts of justice. But what comparison, in numbers, have such bands ever
borne to the insurgent sympathizers even in many of the loyal States? Again
a jury too frequently has at least one member more ready to hang the panel
than to hang the traitor. And yet, again, he who dissuades one man from
volunteering, or induces one soldier to desert, weakens the Union cause as much
as he who kills a Union soldier in battle. Yet this dissuasion or inducement
may be so conducted as to be no defined crime of which any civil court would
take cognizance.

Ours is a case of rebellion — so called by the resolutions before me — in fact,
a clear, flagrant, and gigantic case of rebellion ; and the provision of the Consti-
tution that " 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," is
the provision which specially applies to our present case. This provision plainly
attests the understanding of those who made the Constitution, that ordinary courts
of justice are inadequate to "cases of rebellion," — attests their purpose that, in
such cases, men may be held in custody whom the courts, acting on ordinary rules,
would discharge. Habeas corpus does not discharge men who are proved to be
guilty of defined crime; and its suspension is allowed by the Constitution on
purpose that men may be arrested and held who cannot be proved to be guilty
of defined crime, " when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may
require it." This is precisely our present case — a case of rebellion, wherein
the public safety does require the suspension. Indeed, arrests by process of
courts, and arrests in cases of rebellion, do not proceed altogether upon the same
basis. The former is directed at the small percentage of ordinary and contin-
uous perpetration of crime, while the latter is directed at sudden and extensive
uprisings against the government, \vhich, at most, will succeed or fail in no
great length of time. In the latter case, arrests are made, not so much for what
has been done, as for what probably would be done. The latter is more for the

preventive and less for the vindictive than the former. In such cases the pur-
poses of men are much more easily understood than in cases of ordinary crime.
The man who stands by and says nothing when the peril of his government
is discussed, cannot be misunderstood. If not hindered, he is sure to help the
enemy; much more, if he talks ambiguously — talks for his country with " buts '
and "ifs" and "ands." Of how little value the constitutional provisions I have
quoted will be rendered, if arrests shall never be made until defined crimes shall
have been committed, may be illustrated by a few notable examples. General
John C. Breckinridge, General Robert E. Lee, General Joseph E. Johnston,
General John B. Magruder, General William B. Preston, General Simon B.
Buckner, and Commodore Franklin Buchanan, now occupying the very highest
places in the rebel war service, were all within the power of the government
since the rebellion began, and were nearly as well known to be traitors then as
now. Unquestionably if we had seized ~and held them, the insurgent cause
would be much weaker. But no one of them had then committed any crime
defined in the law. Every one of them, if arrested, would have been discharged
on habeas corpus were the writ allowed to operate. In view of these and similar
cases, I think the time not unlikely to come when I shall be blamed for having
made too few arrests rather than too many.

By the third resolution the meeting indicate their opinion that military arrests
may be constitutional in localities where rebellion actually exists, but that such
arrests are unconstitutional in localities where rebellion or insurrection does not
actually exist. They insist that such arrests shall not be made " outside of the
lines of necessary military occupation, and the scenes of insurrection." Inas-
much, however, as the Constitution itself makes no such distinction, I am unable
to believe that there is any such constitutional distinction. I concede that the
class of arrests complained of can be constitutional only when, in cases of re-
bellion or invasion, the public safety may require them; and I insist that in
such cases they are constitutional wherever the public safety does require them ;
as well in places to which they may prevent the rebellion extending as in those
where it may be already prevailing; as well where they may restrain mischiev-
ious interference with the raising and supplying of armies to suppress the rebel-
lion, as where the rebellion may actually be; as well where they may restrain
the enticing men out of the army, as where they would prevent mutiny in
the army ; equally constitutional at all places where they will conduce to the
public safety, as against the dangers of rebellion or invasion. Take the
particular case mentioned by the meeting. It is asserted, in substance, that
Mr. Vallandigham was, by a military commander, seized and tried " for
no other reason than words addressed to a public meeting, in criticism
of the course of the administration, and in condemnation of the military
orders of the general. " Now, if there be no mistake about this ; if this
assertion is the truth and the whole truth ; if there was no other reason for the
arrest, then I concede that the arrest was wrong. But the arrest, as I under-
stand, was made for a very different reason. Mr. Vallaudigham avows his hos-

tility 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 gen-
eral, 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. Vallan-
digham was not damaging the military power of the country, then his arrest
was made on mistake of fact, which I would be glad to correct on reasonably
satisfactory evidence.

I understand the meeting, whose resolutions I am considering, to be in favor
of suppressing the rebellion by military force — by armies. Long experience
has shown that armies cannot be maintained unless desertion shall be punished
by the severe penalty of death. The case requires, and the law and the con-
stitution sanction, this punishment. Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier boy
who deserts, while I must not touch a hair of a wily agitator who induces him
to desert ? This is none the less injurious when effected by getting a father, or
brother, or friend, into a public meeting, and there working upon his feelings till
he is persuaded to write the soldier boy that he is fighting in a bad cause, for a
wicked administration of a contemptible government, too weak to arrest and
punish him if he shall desert. I think that in such a case, to silence the agita-
tor and save the boy is not only constitutional, but withal a great mercy.

If I be wrong on this question of constitutional power, my error lies in be-
lieving that certain proceedings are constitutional when, in cases of rebellion or
invasion, the public safety requires them, which would not be constitutional
when, in absence of rebellion or invasion, the public safety does not require
them: in other words, that the constitution is not, in its application, in all
respects the same, in cases of rebellion or invasion involving the public safety,
as it is in times of profound peace and public security. The constitution
itself makes the distinction ; and I can no more be persuaded that the govern-
ment can constitutionally take no strong measures in time of rebellion, because
it can be shown that the same could not be lawfully taken in time of peace
than I can be persuaded that a particular drug is not good medicine for a sick
man, because it can be shown to not be good food for a well one. Nor am I able to
appreciate the danger apprehended by the meeting that the American people
will, by means of military arrests during the rebellion, lose the right of public
discussion, the liberty of speech and the press, the law of evidence, trial by
jury, and habeas corpus, throughout the indefinite peaceful future, which I trust
lies before them, any more than I am able to believe that a man could contract
so strong an appetite for emetics during temporary illness as to persist in feeding
upon them during the remainder of his healthful life.

In giving the resolutions that earnest consideration which you request of me,
I cannot overlook the fact that the meeting speak as "democrats. " Nor can I,

8

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 na-
tional 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. Bat, 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 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 relieve 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 Jack-
son 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 a
thousand dollars for having arrested him and the others named. The general
paid the fine, and there 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 constitu-

tional question was much discussed. I am not prepared to say whom the jour-
nals would show to have voted for the measure.

It may he 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 dis-
cussion, 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 con-
duct 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 n 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 de-
creases. 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 con-
tinue to do so much as may seem to be required by the public safety.

A. LINCOLN.

,3
7
1*43

Hollinger Corp.
pH8.5

Hollinger Corp.
pH8.5