The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1863-07-16
The Case OF vnIIandigham.
Reply Of President Lincoln TO the Ohio
Committee.
WAsurSerox. D. C. June 20, 1868.

George L. Converse, HanZO L. Noble. James
r. Morris, w. A. Hutchins Abner L. Backus,
j. F., Mckinney, P. G. LeBloud, Louis Sha-
fer: A& &E# a.E s
GENTLEMEN The resolutions of the Ohio
Democratic State Convention, which you pre-
sent me, together with your Introductory and
closing remarks, being i'll position and arg'.
ment mainly the same as the resolutions OF
the Democratic meeting at Albany ne"
York, | refer you to my response 70 tnelatter
as meeting most of the points IN the former
This response you evidently used IN
preparing your remarks, and desire no more
than that it be used with accuracy. In a
single reading of your remarks, only discov-
cred one inaccuracy in matter which | sup
pose you took from that paper. It 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
time of instruction or invasion from what it
is in time ofpeace and public security" A
recurrence to the paper will show yon that |
have not expressed the opinion you suppose.
Iexpressed the opinion that the constitution
is different ln its 0ppijcatiO in cases Of REBEL
ion or invasion, involving the public safety,
from what it is in times of profound peace
and public security and this opinion | adj
here 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 per-
sonal points, but | must respectfully assure
you that you will find yourselves at fault
should you ever seek for evidence to prove
your assumption that | opposed in discus
sion before the people ths policy of the Mex
lean war"
You say, 'Expunge from the Constitution
SC Vo fto of
to suspend the writ of habeGS c0rpus, and yet
the other guarantees of personal liberty
would remain unchanged" Doubtless if this
clause of the constitution improperly called
as | think, a limitation upon the power of
Congress, were expunged, the other guaran-
tees would remain the same; but the question
is, not how the guarantees would stand, with
that clause oUt of the Constitution, but how
they stand, with that clause remaining in it,
in cases of rebellion or invasion, involving
the public safety. Ifthe liberty could be in
dulged Of expunging the clause, letter and
spirit, | really think the constitutional argu-
ment would be with you. My general view
Oh this question was stated in the Albany re-
spouse, and hence do not state it now. | |
only add that as seems to me, the benefit of |
the writ of hGbeaS corpus is the great means
through which the guarantees Of personal lib !
erty 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
habenS corpus. But by the Constitution, the
benefit of Inc writ of hHbens corpus itself
may be suspended, when in case Of rebellion
or invasion, the public safety may require
it.
You ask i'll substance whether L really
claim that | may override all the guaranteed
rights of individuals, on the plea of conserv-
ing the public safety-when may choose to
say the public safety requires it. This ques
ton, Invested of the phraseolo@y calculated to
represent me as struggling for an arbitrary
personal prerogative, is either question rh0
shall decide, or an affirmation that nab =
shall decide, what the public safety does re-
quire in cases of rebellion or invasion The
Constitution contemplatcs the question as
likely to occur for decision, but does not ex-
pressIy declare who is to decide it. By nee
essary implication, when rebellion orinvasion
comes the decision is to be made from time
to time; and think the man whom, for the
time, the people have under the Constitution
made the COMMANDMENT Chief Of their army
and navy, is the man who holds the power
and bears the responsibility of making it, i'll
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 law
fully dealt with, in accordance with the rules
for criminal trials and punishments in times
of peace, induces Inc to add word to what
said on that point in the Albany response.
You claim that men may, if they choose en-
barrass those whose duty it is to combat
giant rebellion, and then be dealt with only
in turn as if there were no rebellion. The
Constitution itself,rejects this view. The mill
tary arrests & detentions which have beenmad
including those of Mr. ValIandigham, which
are not different in principle from the others,
have been for prereation not for pnnjsbment
as inunctions to stay injury-as proceedings
to keep the peace-and hence, like proceed
ings in such cases, and for like reasons, they
have not been accompanied with indictments
or trials by juries, nor i'll a single sase, by
any punishment whatever, beyond what is
purely incidental to the prevention. Bhe
original sentence of imprisonment i'll Mr.. Val
landighams case was to prevent injury to-
the military service only, and the modifica-
ton of it was made as a less disagreeable
mode of securing the same prevention.
am unable to perceive an insult to Ohio
in the case of Mr.. Vallandigham. Quite sure
Iy nothing of the sort was or is intended.
was wholly unaware that Mr. Vallandigham
was, at the time of his arrest a candidate for
Governor, until 50 informed by your reading
to me the resolutions of the Convention.
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.
You claim, as | understand that according
to my own position in the Albany response
Mr.. Vallandigham should be released; and
this because as you claim, he has not damag-
ed the military service by discouraglng en-
lstments, encouraging desertion, or other
wise; and that if he had, he should have been
turned over to the civil authorities, under re-
cent acts of Congress. | certainly do not
knoc that Mr.. Vallandigham has specially
and by direct language advised against en-
listments, and in favor of desertion and against
drafting We know that combinations, arm
ed in some instances, to resist the arrest of
deserters began several months ago; that
more recently the like has appeared in resist
auce to the enrolment preparatory to draft
and that quite number of assassination have
occurred from the same aaiaauS, These had
to he met by military force, and this again
has led to bloodshed and death And now,
under sense of responsibilities more weigh
ty and enduring than any which is merely
official, | solemrly declare my belief that this
hindrance of the military including MAIN
ing and murder, is due to the cause in which
Mr. Vallandigham has been engaged, in a
greater degree than to any other course and
is due to him personally in greater degree
than to any other one man. These things
have been notorious, known toall, and, ofcourse,
known to MIR. Vallandigham. Perhaps would
NOT be wrong 10 say they ORIGINATED with his