Delaware gazette. [volume] (Delaware, Ohio) 1855-1886, 1863-08-07
Hon. John Sherman's
GREAT SPEECH
Ar DELAWARE, TUESDAY EVE. july 28, 186
vALLANDIGHAM DIssECTED HIS RECORD
EXAMINED

J
the midst off great civil war, in which it
safe TO say that one million of men are no,
/ arryed in arms against each other. Their
/ are perhaps now from Ohio one hundred thou
/ sand of her best and bravest citizens in tb
| field, in hospitals or camps, sharing the bur
+ dens of war. The immediate stake involves
| is nothing less than National existence, whiI
/ the ultimate stake involves nothing less thai
: Civil Liberty for generations yet to come. Il
the midst of this contest the Democratic party
through its most eloquent orators, endeavor Il
make personal issue. They propose to with
e aw our armies. to abandon the war and try
the question whether their candidate for Gov.
ernor has been legally convicted as traitor
to his country. We are assured by Mr.. Pugh
the Democrotic candidate for Lieutenant Gov
ernor, who is one of the most eloquent and able
young men in the State, that here in Ohio WE
have been subjected to tyranny as intolera
bic as that of King Bomba of Naples. When
we ask for evidence OF this tyranny, we are
told that Clement L. ValIandigham has been
Illegally convicted and illegally banished; and
that if we fit to be free we must stop and
examine the record in his case; and not be
turned from ii by clamors about prosecuting
the war, or of concluding peace. And we are
told that if we don't do all this we are help
less slaves aud deserve no better fate. Now,
as do not desire 10 he slave. and do not
wish the people of my native State to be slaves,
| will so far depart from my usual course in
political discussion as 10 examine the personal
issue thus made.
1 had supposed, fellow citizens, that no.
where in the wide world did people live as
free from oppression as in the State of Ohio.
But the Democratic party has sounded the
alarm that Mr.. VaIlandigham has been, as
they assert, illegally convicted and banished-
Before alluding to matters of more general in
terest propose to consider that question.
The candidate of the Democratic party was
convicted by a military tribunal for aiding
the enemy with whom we are at war. For
this be was expelled beyond our lines and was
within the lines of the enemy when nominated
for Governor of Ohio. By the Judgment of a
military tribunal, composed mainly of his po,
litical friends; approved by Gen. Burnside,
the chief military officer within the State;
sanctioned by Judge Leavitt-a Judge seIec-
ted by ValIandigham himsell-of the United
States Court, he was convicted and sentenced
to Imprisonment during the war By the
mercy of the President he was released from
Imprisonment and sent beyond our lines
While thus bauished a convicted traitor.
by military authority, the Democratic party Of
the State of Ohio nominated this man caadi-
date for Governor, and you are called upon TO
ratify and confirm that nomination, to entrust
1 bic H.
command of our militia, tie appointment of
all officers, and the management of the Exec.
utive authority of the State; and that too in
The midst of war with the rebels he was con-
victed of aiding.
This is startling position. L am surprised
that party could be found in Ohio to make
such nomination. Yet they had the rig BIT
to make it. 1t is for the people of Ohio to
say what shall be done with it. 1t will re-
quire some forbearance for the brave soldiers
who are now exposing their lives to the bull
let's of the enemy, to discuss this nomination,
and l admit that it tries the patience of patriot
ic citizens to discuss it with good temper
Yet the men who made the nomination had
the right to make it. They had the right to
nominate jeff Davis, Breckenridge or any
other rebel. They might have initiated a
practice which has become COMMON 10 Europe
and selected Greek Or other prince (laugh-
ter) The Constitution of the State does no t
limit even to citizen of the State the right
to hold the ciice OF Governor. Let us then
exercise our right to examine aud discuss the
reasons for this extraordinary nomination
And here before proceeding l will state that
if there is candid man here who desires to
ask any questions touching this matter shall
be most happy to answer his questions to the
best Of my ability.
1t is said that Mr.. Vallandigham has been
illegally convicted, and therefore we must
make him Governor. The familiar provisions
of the Constitution of the United States pro-
tecting the personal liberty of the citi-
zens by trial Of a jury arc quoted. With the
same application no rebel soldier could be shot
without trial by jury; no deserter could be
arrested without hearing before Judge; no
spy could be hung except upon conviction by
Petit Jury. War has its laws as well as
peace. They are entirely consistent with and
yet independent of each other Each has its
Office, its tribunal and its form of trial The
civil laws prescribe civil offences and the mode
of punishment; but these laws do not apply to
military offences committed in time of war
Nor is it possible TO define the latter class of
offences with the precision of civil laws and
tribunals. The general rule may be stated,
that any obstruction to the military force in
time of war within the lines Of military oper-
alton is an offence to be overcome aud punish
ed by military force in military tribunals, and
according to the usage of modern warfare
In the execution of this rule in time of war
military authority and military tribunals, are
substituted in the place Of civil laws and
courts.
This is the law which all good citizens aud
the civil courts are bound to recognize during
war. Now, that l may not stale wrong le-
gal proposition, will venture to read to you
from law book, from Halleck's International
Law:
when a military force is called out to re-
pei invasion or suppress rebellion, it is not
placed under the direction of the judiciary,
but under that of the executive. Suppose the
military force, legally, and constitutionally
called into service for the purpose indicated
should find it necessary, in the course of its
military Operations, 10 occupy ueId or gar
den, or destroy trees, or houses belonging to
some private person, can court by injunc-
tion restrain them from committing such
waste? 1t can do so in time of peace, and
if its powers are to continue in time of war,
the judiciary, not the executive, will command
the army aud navy. The taking or destroying
Of private property, in such cases, is a militia
ry act, an act Of war, and must be governed
by the laws of war; it is not provided for by
the laws of peace. In the same way, per-
son taken and held by the military forces
whether before, or in, or after a battle, or with
any hattie Mt all Is virtually a nrisnnar of war