Glass £ 4 5 g 
 
 .3 
 
 c^ 
 
M 
 
 i 
 
 THE TRUTH 
 
 FROM AN HONEST MAN. 
 
 THE LETTER OF THE PRESIDENT 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 KING & BAIRD, PRINTERS, No. C07 SANSOM STREET. 
 
 18 6 3. 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 ^mm^ 
 
 *g^^ 
 
PEESIDENT LINCOLN'S VIEWS, 
 
 AN IMPORTANT LETTER ON THE PRINCIPLES 
 INVOLVED IN THE VALLANDIGHAM CASE. 
 
 COKEESPONDENCE IN EELATION TO THE DEMOCKATIC MEETING, 
 AT ALBANY, N. Y. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA; 
 
 KLVG & BAIRD, PELXTERS, No. 607 SANSOM STREET. 
 
 18 6 3. 
 
 r... 
 
.LIS 
 
 Co'l'iM Z/ 
 
LETTER OF THE COMMITTEE. 
 
 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 character, 
 and one of the most earnest in the support of the Union 
 ever held in this city. 
 
 Yours with great regard, 
 
 EEASTUS CORNING, President. 
 
 Vice-Presidents. 
 
 Eli Perby, Lemuel W. Eodgers, 
 
 Peter Gansevoort, • William Seyaiour, 
 Peter Monteath, Jeremiah Osborn, 
 
 Samuel W. Gibbs, William S. Padoce, 
 
 John Niblack, J. B. Sanders, 
 
 H. W. McClellan, Edward Mulcahy, 
 
 p. V. N» Badcliffb. 
 
 Secretaries. 
 
 William A, Rice, M. A. Nolan, 
 
 Edward Newcomb, John R. Nessel, 
 
 E. W. Peckham, Jr., C. W. Weeks. 
 
 (3) 
 
RESOLUTIONS 
 
 ADOPTED AT THE MEETING HELD IN ALBANY, N. Y., 
 
 ON THE 16TH OF MAT, 1863, 
 
 Resolved, That tlie Democrats of New York point 'to 
 tlieir 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 to the evidence of 
 their patriotism and devotion to the cause of our imperiled 
 country. Never in the history of civil war has a govern- 
 ment been sustained with such ample resources of means 
 and men as the people have voluntarily placed in the 
 hands of the Administration. 
 
 Resolved, That as Democrats we are determined to 
 maintain this patriotic attitude, and, despite of adverse 
 and disheartening circumstances, to devote all our ener- 
 gies 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 misap- 
 prehended 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 Con- 
 stitution ; shall recognize • and maintain the rights of the 
 States and the liberties of the citizen ; shall everywhere, 
 outside of the lines of necessary military occupation and 
 the scenes of insurrection, exert all its powers to maintain 
 the supremacy of the civil over military law. 
 
 Resolved, That in view of these principles we denounce 
 the recent assumption of a military commander to seize 
 and try a citizen of Ohio, Clement L. Vallandigham, for no 
 other reason than words addressed to a public meeting, in 
 criticism of the course of the Administration, and in con- 
 demnation of the military orders of that general. 
 
 Resolved, That this assumption of power by a rhilitary 
 tribunal, if successfully asserted, not only abrogates the 
 (4) 
 
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 privi- 
 lege of habeas corpus, but it strikes a fatal blow at the 
 supremacy of law, and the authority of the State and 
 Federal constitutions. 
 
 Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States— 
 the supreme law of the land— has defined the crime of 
 treason against the United States to consist " only in levy- 
 ing 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 person 
 shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous 
 crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand 
 jury, except in cases arising in the land and naval forces, 
 or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or 
 public danger ;" and further, that " in all criminal prosecu- 
 tions, 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 citi- 
 zen against the pretensions of arbitrary power were intended 
 more especially for his protection in times of civil commo- 
 tion. 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 Eevolution. 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 
 Eepublic. 
 
 Resolved, That in adopting the language of Daniel "Web- 
 ster, we declare "it is the ancient and undoubted preroga- 
 tive of this people to canvass public measures and the 
 merits of public men." It is a " home-bred right," a fire- 
 side privilege. It has been enjoyed in every house, cottage, 
 and cabin in the nation. It is as undoubted as the right of 
 
breathing tlie ait 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 oilr ground. " This high consti- 
 tutional privilege we shall defend and exercise in all places 
 — ^in time of peace, in time of war, and at all times. Living, 
 we shall assert it ; and should we leave no other inheritance 
 to our children, by the blessing of God we will leave 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 emphatic majority, declared their 
 condemnation of the system of arbitrary arrests and their 
 determination to stand by the Constitution. That the re- 
 vival of this lawless system can have but one result : to 
 divide and distract the Korth, and to destrby 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 Presi- 
 dent of the United States to reverse the action of the mili- 
 tary 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 secre- 
 tary of this meeting, be requested to transmit a copy of 
 these resolutions to his Excellency the President of the 
 United States, with the assurance of this meeting of their 
 hearty and earnest desire to support the Government in 
 every constitutional and lawful measure to suppress the 
 existing rebellion. 
 
MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY. 
 
 EXECUTIVi: MANSIOK, WA-SHINGTOIT, 
 Jane 12, 1863. 
 
 Hon. Erastus Coening, and others : 
 
 Gentlemen : — Yout letter of May 19, inclosing the reso- 
 lutions of a public meeting held at Albany, N. Y., on the 
 16th of the same month, was received 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 consti- 
 tutional and lawful measure to suppress the rebellion ; and 
 secondly, a declaration of censure upon the Administration 
 for supposed imconstitntional action, such as the making of 
 military arrests. And, from the two propositions, a third 
 is deduced, 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 thiey may conceive, of any Administration. 
 This position 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 conse- 
 quences than any merely personal to myself might follow 
 the censures systematically cast upon me fpr 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 know- 
 ingly employed, nor shall knowingly employ, any other. 
 But the meeting, by their resolutions, assert and argue that 
 certain military arrests, and proceedings following them, 
 for which I am ultimately responsible, are unconstitutional. 
 I think they are not. The resolutions quote from the Con- 
 stitution the definition of treason, and also the limiting 
 safeguards and guarantees therein provided for the citizen 
 
 (7) 
 
ou trial for treason, and on his being lield to answer for 
 capital or otherwise infamous crimes, and, in criminal 
 prosecutions, his rights to a speedy and public trial by an 
 impartial jury. They proceed to resolve, " that these safe- 
 guards of the rights of the citizen against the pretensions 
 .of arbitrary power were intended more especially for his 
 protection in times of civil commotion." And, apparently 
 to demonstrate the proposition, the resolutions proceed: 
 "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 Eevolution." 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 Eevolu- 
 tion, 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 rebel- 
 lion or invasion, the public safety may require" their sus- 
 pension. The resolutions 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 Eepublic." No one denies that they have 
 so stood the test up to the beginning of the present rebel- 
 lion, if we except a certain occurrence at New Orleans; 
 nor does any one question that they will, stand the same 
 test much longer after the rebellion closes. But these pro- 
 visions of the Constitution have no application to the case 
 we have in hand, because the arrests complained of were 
 tiot made for treason — that is not for the treason defined in 
 the Constitution, and upon conviction of which the punish- 
 ment 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 constitutipnal or 
 legal sensC) "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 pos- 
 sible, 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 officical 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 parties. The insurgents had been pre- 
 paring for it more than thirty years, while thu Government 
 had taken no steps to resist them. The former had care- 
 fully considered all the means which could be turned to 
 their accoimt. It undoubtedly was a well-pondered reli- 
 ance 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 ty^ 
 keep on foot among us a most efficient corps of spies, in- 
 formers, 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 sus- 
 pend it ; meanwhile, their spies and others might remain 
 at larg(^ to help on their cause. Or, if, as has happened, 
 the Executive should suspend the writ, wjthout 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 bo raised iif regard to this, which 
 
^ 
 
 10 
 
 miglit be, at least, of some service to tlie insurgent cause. 
 It needed no very keen perception to discover this part of 
 tlie 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 indi- 
 viduals, 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 powerful 
 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 Constitution that " the 
 privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be sus- 
 pended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the 
 pnblic safety may require it," is ilxe 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 
 
11 
 
 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. In- 
 deed, 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 per-centage of ordinary 
 and continuous perpetration of crime ; while the latter is 
 directed at sudden and extensive uprisings against the 
 Oovernment, which, 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 
 \yd 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 
 pothing 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 arrest shall never be made until 
 defined crimes shall have been committed, may be illustra- 
 ted by a few notable examples. Gen. John C. Breckinridge, 
 Oen. Eobert E. Lee, Gen. Joseph E. Johnson, Gen, John B. 
 Magruder, Gen. William B. Preston, Gen. Simon B. Buck- 
 ner, 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. 
 
n 
 
 By the third resolution, the meeting indicate their opin- 
 ion that military arrests may be constitutional in localities 
 where rebellion actually exists, but that such arrests are 
 unconstitutional in localities where rebellion or insurrec- 
 tion does 7iot actually exist. They insist that such arrests 
 shall not be made " outside of the lines of necessary mili^ 
 tary occupation, and the scenes of insurrection." Inasmuch, 
 however, as the Constitution itself makes no such distinc- 
 tion, I am unable to believe that there is any such constitu- 
 tional distinction. I concede that the class of arrests 
 complained of can be constitutional only when, in cases of 
 rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require them ; 
 and I insist that in such cases they are constitutional 
 wherever the public safety may require them; as well in 
 places to which they may prevent the rebellion extending 
 a& in those where it may be already prevailing ; as well 
 where they may restrain mischievous interference with the 
 raising and supplying of armies to suppress the rebellion, 
 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 constitu- 
 tional at all places where they will conduce to the public 
 safet}'-, as against the dangers of rebellion or invasion. Take 
 the particular case mentioned by the meeting. It is as- 
 serted, in substance, that Mr. Vallandigham was, by a mili- 
 tary 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 contlemnation of the 
 military orders of the General." Now, if there be no mis- 
 take 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 
 understand, was ma,de for a very different reason. Mr". 
 Vallandigham avows his hostility to the war on the part of 
 the Union ; and his arrest was made because he was labor- 
 ing, with some effect, to» prevent the raising of troops ; to 
 encourage desertions from the army ; and to leave the re- 
 bellion without an adequate military force to suppress it. 
 He was not arrested because he was damaging the political 
 
13 
 
 prospects of the Administration, or the personal interests 
 of the commanding general, but because he was damaging 
 the army, upon the existence and rigor of which the life of 
 the nation depends. He was warring upon the military, 
 and this gave the military constitutional jurisdiction to 
 lay hands upon him. If Mr. Vallandigham was not dam- 
 aging 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 con- 
 sidering, to be in favor of suppressing the rebellion by 
 military force — by armies. Long experience has shown 
 that armies cannot be maintained unless desertions shall' 
 be punished by the severe penalty of death. The case re- 
 quires, and the law and the Constuittion sanction, this pun- 
 ishment. Must I shoot a simj)le-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 inju- 
 rious 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 agitator and save the boy is not only consti- 
 tutional, but withal a great mercy. 
 
 If I be wrong on this question of constitutional power, 
 my error lies in believing that certain proceedings are con- 
 stitutional whan, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the 
 public safety requires them, which would not be constitu- 
 tional when, in the 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 time of profound peace and public secu- 
 rity. The Constitution itself makes the distinction ; and I 
 can no more be persuaded that the Government can con- 
 stitutionally take no strong measures in time of rebellion, 
 because it can be shown that the same could not be law- 
 
14 
 
 fully taken in time of peace, than I can be persuaded that 
 a particular drug is not good medicine for a sick man, 
 beqause it can be shown not to 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, through- 
 out 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 re- 
 mainder 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, with full re- 
 spect for their known intelligence, and the fairly presume^ 
 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 them- 
 selves as "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 
 Qur ingenuity and strength in finding fault with, and aim- 
 ing blows at each other. But, since you have denied mc 
 this, I will yet be thankful, for the country's sake, that not 
 all Democrats have done so. He on whose discretionary 
 judgment Mr. Yallandigham 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. Yallandig- 
 ham 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 Demo- 
 
15 
 
 crats 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 Presi- 
 dent 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, 
 Gen. 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. Louiallier pub- 
 lished a denunciatory newspaper article. Gen. Jackson 
 arrested him. A lawyer by the name of Morel procured 
 the United States Judge Hall to issue a writ of habeas 
 corpus to relieve Mr. Louiallier. Gen. 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," Gen. Jackson arrested him. When the officer 
 undertook to serve the writ of habeas corpus, Gen. 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 a treaty of peace was regularly 
 announced, and the judge and others were fully liberated. 
 A few days more, and the judge called Gen. Jackson into 
 court and fined him $1,000 for having arrested him and 
 the others named. The General paid the fine and there 
 the matter rested for nearly thirty years, when Confess 
 refunded principal and interest. The late Senator Doug- 
 las, 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 Cod- 
 
16 
 
 stitution 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 Gen. 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. Val- 
 landigham. 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 partic- 
 ular case. Of course I must practice a general directory 
 and revisory power in the matter. 
 
 One of the resolutions expresses the opinion of the meet- 
 ing 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. Vallandig- 
 ham 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 re- 
 gard 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. 
 
 Abraham Lincoln. 
 
 ^*