Year: 1863

The Case of Vallandigham-Reply


of President Lincoln to the Ohio


Committee.


WASHINGTON, D. c., June %, '63.


-HesSrs. BTehard and others:


GENTLEMEN: The resolutions of the


Ohio Democratic State Convention, which


you present me, together with your intro


ductIon and your closing remarks, being


in position and argument mainly the
same as the resolutions of the Democratic


meeting at Albany, New York, refer
you to my response to the latter as meet
ing most of the points in the former
This response you evidently used in pre-
pairing your remarks, and l desire no
more than that it be used with accuracy.
In a single reading of your remarks, l on
ly discovered one inaccuracy in matter
which l suppose you took from the pa
per. 1t is where you say: 'The under
signed are unable,to agree with you in the
opinion you have expressed that the Con-
stitution is different in times of insurrec-
ton or invasion from what it is in time of
peace and public security" A recur-
renee to the paper will show you that l


have not expressed the opinion you sup
pose. expressed the opinion that the
Constitution Is different IN its application
in cases of rebellion or invasion, involv-
ing the public safety, from what it is in
time of profound peace and public secu-
rity and this opinion l adhere to, sim
ply because by the Constitution itself
things may be done in the one case which
may not be done in the other.


l dislike to waste a word on merely
personal point, but / must respectfully as
sure you that you will find yourselves at
fault should you ever seek for evidence
to prove assumption that / opposed in
discussion before the people the policy of
the Mexican war. f...


You say, "Expunge from the Constitu-
ton this limitation upon the power of
Congress to suspend the writ of ha6eas cor
pUs, and yet the other guarantees of per-
sonal liberty would remain unchanged"
Doubtless if this clause of the Constitu-
ton, Improperly called as 1 think a Emi-
tation upon the power of Congress, were
expunged, the other guarantees would re-
main the same; but the question is, not
how those guarantees would stand, with
that clause ont of the Constitution, but
how they stand with that clause remain
ing in it, in case of rebellion or invasion
involving the public safety. If the iber-
ty could be INDUCED of expunging that
clause, letter and spirit, l really think
the constitutional argument would be
with you. My general view on this ques-
ton was stated in the Albany response,
and hence | do not state it now. | only
add that it seems TO me, the benefit of
the writ of hdbeaS corpus is the great
Ahror,vh 81, bo 0f
personal liberty are conserved and made
available in the last resort and corrobo-
rative of this view is the fact that Mr..
Vallandigham, in the very case in ques-
ton under the advice of able lawyers,
saw not where else to 60 but to the ha6eas
corpus. But by the Constitution the ben
eft of the writ of habeas corpus itself may
be suspended when in cases of rebellion
or invasion the public safety may require
it.


You ask in substance whether l really
claim that | may override all the guaran-
teed rights of individuals, on the plea of
the public safety-when may
choose to say the public safety requires it.
This question, divested of phraseology cal
culated to represent me as struggling for an
arbitrary personal prerogative, is eithersim-
ply question lchO shall decide, or an af-
firmation that nobody shall decide, what
the public safety require in cases of re-
bellion or invasion. The Constitution
the question'as as likely to oc-
cur for decision, but it does not expressly
declare who is to decide it. By necessa-
ry implication, when rebellion or invasion
comes, the decision is to be made, from
time to time and l think the man whom
for the time, the people have under the
made the Commander-in-
Chief of their army and navy, is the man
who holds the power and bears the respon-
sibility of making it. If he uses the power
Justly the same people will probably just
ify him: If he abuses it, he is in their
hands, to be dealt with by all the modes
they have reserved to themselves in Con-
stitution.


The earnestness with which you insist
that persons can only in time of rebellion
be lawfully dealt with, in accordance with
the rules for criminal trials and punish
ments in time of peace, induces me to
add word to what l said on that point
in the Albany response. You claim that
men may, if they choose, embarrass those
whose duty it is to combat against rebel
lion, and then be dealt with only in turn
aa if there were no rebellion. The Con-
stitution itself rejects this view. The mil
itary arrests and detentions which have
been made, including those OF MIR. Val
landigham, which are not different IN
principle from the other, have been for
1revenfOn, and not for Plt1'ishment-as in
functions to stay injury-as proceedings
to keep the peace-and hence, like pro-
in such cases, and for like rea-
sons, they have not been accompanied
with indictments, or trials by juries, nor,
in a single case, by any punishment what
ever beyond what is purely incidental to
the prevention. The original sentence of
in Mr.. Vallandigham's case
was to prevent injury to the military SER
vrce only, and the modification of it was
made as less disagreeable mode to him
of securing the same prevention.


l am unable to perceive an insult to
Ohio in the case of Mr.. Vallandigham.-I
Quite surely nothing of the sort was or is
intended. l was wholly unaware that
Mr.. Valiandigham was at the time of his
arrest, q candidate for the Democratic
for Governor, until so inform
ed by your reading to me the resolutions
Of the Convention. l am grateful to the
State of Ohio for many things, especi ally
for the brave soldiers and officers she has
given in the present national trial to the
armies of the Union.


You claim, as 1 understand, that &C
,ording to my own position in the Albany
Mr.. Vallandigham should be re-
leased and this because, as you claim, he
has not damaged the military service by
enlistment, encouraging de
or otherwise; and that if he had,