The Jeffersonian Democrat. [volume] (Chardon, Ohio) 1854-1865, 1863-07-17
The Case Of Vallandi ham Reply of
Pres't Lincoln 90 the Ohio Committee,

MeSSrs. BurchGrd ona Others:
GENTLEMEN; The resolutions of the
Ohio Democratic State Convention, which
YOU present me, together with your intro.
duc'lon and closing remarks, being in DO.
silon and argument mainly the same as
the resolutions of the Democratic meeting g
at Albany, New York, re er you to nv
response TO the latter as meeting most ol
the points fI the former. This response
you evidently used in preparing your re.
marks, and | desire no more than that it
be used with accuracy. In single read
ing Of your remarks, | only discovered one
lnsccuracy in matter which suppose you
took from the paper. 1t is where you say:
The Undersigned are unable to agree
with you in the opinion you have ex
pressed that the Constitution is different
in times OF insurreclion or invasion from
what it is IN time OF peace and public Sc.
curily." A recurrence to the paper will
show you that have not expressed the
opinion you suppose. l expressed the
opinion that the Consli ution is different
IN its application in cases Of rebellion or
invasion. involving the public safety. from
what il is in time of profound peace and
public security; and this opinion adhere
TO. simply because by the Constitution
itself things may be done in the one case
which may not be done in the other.
dislike to waste word on merely
personal point. but must respectfully
assure you that you will find yourselves
at fault should you ever seek for evidence
TO prove your assumption that l "opposed
in discussion before the people the policy
Of the Mexican war"
You say, "Expunge from the Constitu.
ton this limitation upon the power of
Congress TO suspend the wrIDf habeas
corpus. and ye; the other guarantees Of
personal liberty would remain unchsng.
ed" Doubtless if this clause OF the Con.
s'itu'ion, improperly called as think
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 re-
naming in it, in case of rebellion or inva-
81. H'un ,n'o',nS VOC puono safety II .he
noe'y .ou'u ~, oe 'uuu'sea " eAPung'ng
'ias .h. ',auSe' .a 'ue lever anu spr'', reai,y
,n'nh 'ne cohs'',u''oha' argument would
oe "'n you MY eeneIa' view on ms
ques''on was s'a'eu III .he h'oany res,
Pohse' a%u ".noe l. ~ nos s.a'e ~ u now.
oey auu ."a'' % seems " ule. 'ne oenen'
% " .no "'s 't " "ayeaI rI 'oFaS ,I 70 'ne s'e".
nanai eanS '"iH" ,;hns, "na'n VIC gua'antees o'
pe.:oua' pn"I. "oey n oon'..'eu auu niaue
A'"''"o'e ~ VIC 'a': ''so''' "nu Ioiiooo-
W',, ,a',,e y: .n's we" 10 'ne '"ol :ha' hlr'
.ai'anu'"s iam' ~ tne very ease III ques'
''on' uuuei "'o au''o0 Vi ao'e la"ye,S'
3D." uo' "'ere e'so 70 20 ou' 70 me "ooe'
10 'o,r@1. :, D' ~ t"1 Io'''''u'on 'ne
o.neI' y, .ut .ne "'n " .,' ""''uS eo"puS ,'se''
,nay oe suipenueu ; ,n mnen ~ cases o. re-
oeI'on o, INVASION Tue Puo''c sa'e'y may
require II.
You ask IN substance whether l really
cla'm 'ha' may ovetr'oe all me su"ran-
'eeo r'gh's o. 'nu,,au''s' On lhe plea OF
conserving 'ne Puonc Sa'e'y-"hen may
onooSe en- 70 say 'ne Puo'. sa'e,y requires H.
MS queS.on' Invested Invested o' Tue phfaSeo'o
gy calculated 10 represent me as ''rusg-
ing ,or an arp''rarY personal prerosauVe'
- ';. e''ner SIMPLY question "1e Sna'i ue,
| n