Fremont journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County [Ohio]) 1853-1866, 1863-07-17
THE CASE OF vALLANDIGHAs1.
Reply OF President Lincoln 20 the Ohio

mainly the same as the resolutions of the Dem
ocratic meeting at Albany, New York, / refer
you TO my response to the latter 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 40
curacy. In single reading of your remarks,
only discovered one inaccuracy in matter which
suppose you took from that paper It is where
you say;--"The undersigned are unable TO agree
with you in the opinion you have expressed that
the Constitution is different in time of insur-
rection or invasion from what it is in time of
peace and public security" A recurrence TO
the paper will show you that have not express
ed the opinion you suppose. ! expressed the
opinion that the Constitution is different IN its
application in cases of rebellion or invasion. in
volving the public safety, from what it is in
times 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 a merely personal
point, 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 Constitution this
Limitation upon the power of Congress to sus-
pend the writ of habeas corpus and yet the 9TH
er guarantees of personal liberty would reman
unchanged" Doubtless if this clause of the
Constitution, improperly called as think lin
itation upon the power of Congress, were ex-
plunged, the other guarantees would remain the
same; but the question is, not how those guar
antees would stand, with that clause oat of the
Constitution, but how they stand with that
clause remaining in it, in cases of rebellion or
invasion, involving the public safety If that
liberty could be INDUCED of expunging that
clause, letter and spirit, really think the con
stitutional argument would be with you. My
general view on this question was stated in the
Albany response, and hence do not state it now.
only add that as seems to me, the benefit of
the writ ofhcbeds corpus is the great means which
the guarantees of personal liberty are conserved
and made available in the last resort and corro-
borative of this view is the fact that Mr. Vail
andigham, in the very case in question, under
the advice of very able lawyers, saw not where
else to go but to the hdbeGs corpus. But by the
Constitution the benefit of the writ of ha6eas COR
puS itself may be suspended when in cases of
rebellion or invasion the public safety may re-
qurc it,
You ask in substance whether really claim
that may override all the guaranteed rights of
individuals, on the plea of conserving the pub
ilc saiety-when may choose to say the pub
lie safety requires it. This question, divested
ofthe phraseology calculated to represent me as
struggling for an arbitrary personal prerogative,
is either simply question ,cho shall decide or
an affirmation that nobody shall decide, what the
public safety does require in cases of rebellion
or invasion. The Constitution contemplates
the question as likely TO occur for decision, but
it does not expressly declare who is to decide IL
by necessary implication, when rebellion or in
vasiOn 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 Commander in Chief of their army
and navy, is the man who holds the power and
bears the responsibility of making it. If he
uses the power justly the same people will prob
ably Justify him: if he abuses It, he ia in their
hands, to be dealt with by all the modes they
have reserved to themselves in the Constitu-
ton.
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 me to add word to what said
on that point in the Albany response You
claim that men may, if they choose, embarrass
those whose duty it is to combat giant rebell-
ion, and then be dealt with only in turn as if
there were no rebellion. The Constitution it.
self rejects this view. The military arrests and
detentions which have been made, including
those of Mr.. Vallandigham which are not diff
erent in principle from the other, have been for
prevention, and not for punisItmerit-as iniunct-
ions to stay injury-as proceedings to keep the
peace-and hence, like proceedings in such
cases. and for like reasons they have not been
accompanied with indictments, or trials bv
Jurles nor, in single case, by any punishment
whatever beyond what is purely incidental to
the prevention The original sentence of i'm
prlsonment in Mr. Vallandigham's case was to
prevent injury to the military service only, and
the modification of it was made as a less disa-
greeable mode to him of securing the same pre-
venton.
1 am unable to perceive an insult to Ohio in
The case OF Mr. Vallandigham. Quite surely
nothing OF the sort was or is intended. I was
wholly unaware that Mr.. VaIlandigbam was. at
the time OF his arrest, candidate for the Demo-
cratic nomination for Governor, until so inform
ed by your reading to me theresolutions of Your
Convention. l am grateful to the State of Ohio |
for many things, especially for the brave sold |
lers and officers she has given in the present ma
tlonal 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 be-
cause as you claim, he has not damaged the mil
itary service by discouraging enlistmeDts, en-
couraging desertiOns, or otherwise; and that if
he had, he should have been turned over TO the
civil authorities, under recent acts of Congress.
certainly do not knop that Mr. Vallandigham
has specially and by direct language advised
against enlisiments, and in favor of desertion |
and resistance to drafting. We all know that
combinations, armed in some instances, to resist
the arrest of deserters, began several months aqo
that more recently the like has appeared in re-
sistance to the enrolment preparatory to draft;
and that quite number of assassinations have
occurred from the same dnifaus. These had TO
be met by military force and this again has led
% bloodshed and death. And now, under a
tense of responsibility more weighty and en-
turing than any which is merely official 1 sol
,mnly declare my belief that this hiudrance of
he military, including manning and murder. is
iue to the course in which Mr. Vallandigham
las been engaged in agreater degree than to any
'ther cause; and is due to him personally in a Il
greater degree than to any other one man.
These things have been notorious, known TO all, Il
md, of course, known to Mr. Vallandigbam.-li
Perhaps l would not be wrong to say they or
ginated with his especial friends and adherants.
With perfect knowledge of them he has fre-
luently, if not constantly, made speeches in
congress and before popular assemblies, and lift
an be shown that with these things staring him /
n the face, he has ever uttered word of rebuke
n counsel against them, il will be fact greatly
o his favor with me, and one which, as vet, /
IN totally ignorant. When il is known that
he whole burden of his speeches has been to 4
tir up men against the prosecution of the war
nd that in the midst of resistance to it, he has |
lot been known in any instance, to counsel
gainst such resistance, it is next to impossible
o repel the inference, that be has counseled dir.
city in favor of it.
With all this before their eyes, the Convention
-ou represent have nominated Mr. Vallandigham
Or Governor of Ohio; and both they and Won
ave declared the purpose to sustain the Nation.
Union by all constitutional means. But of
curse they and you, in common reserve 10 L
ourselves to decide what ara conaf;tnt;o,.l II y