History of the United States, v.4, by James Ford Rhodes, 1910 [c1892].

Chapter 19, Part 2: Compensated Emancipation through Chicago Times Suppressed

In addition to military emancipation, the policy of the President comprised the giving of freedom to the slaves gradually in a way strictly legal, the compensation of the owners by the federal government and the colonization of the liberated negroes. In his annual message to Congress of December 1, 1862, taking as his text, "Without slavery the, rebellion could never have existed; without slavery it could not continue," he made an argument in advocacy of his policy, which, in his grasp of the subject, as tested by
________________
1 Lincoln, Annual Message, December 8, 1863
2 December 15, 1862, by a vote of 78 : 51.

succeeding events, marks him as one of the great statesmen of the world. He pleaded for gradual emancipation, appointing January 1, 1900, as the time when it should be completed, to spare " both races from the evils of sudden derangement." It is matter for regret that fortune had not at this time favored Lincoln with signal military victories to give to his words the strength that enforced the declarations of Caesar and Napoleon. Owing to distrust in him and his waning popularity, his recommendations in this message were not considered by Congress, nor had they, so far as I have been able to ascertain, any notable influence on public sentiment.1

Congress, however, made an attempt to fulfil the pledge which it had given at the previous session on the prompting of the President.2 The result of the election in Missouri3 showed that the people of that State were in favor of getting rid of slavery.4 In conformity with that sentiment, there was reported, January 6, from the select committee on emancipation to the House of Representatives a bill to apply 110,000,000 in bonds for the purpose of compensating the loyal owners of slaves in Missouri, if her legislature should provide for immediate emancipation. After a brief debate, the bill under the operation of the previous question passed the same day. It went to the Senate; and Henderson, who had charge of the measure, introduced a substitute for the House bill, which in its turn was amended, and occasioned a long and intelligent debate, that consumed a portion of many days for nearly a month. The bill, as it passed the Senate,
________________________
1 An attempt at colonization on a very small scale was made by the President under the authority of legislation of April and July, 1862. Nicolay and Hay give an interesting account of it, largely from MS. sources, in vol. vi. chap. xvii. The experiment was tried in the year 1863 and resulted in failure. N. and H. write at the close of the chapter: "No further effort was made by the President." See, also, Pierce's Sumner, vol. iv. p. 66.
2 See vol. iii. pp. 631, 635 ; ante, p. 70.
3 In Mov., 1862.
4 Noell in the House, Globe, p. 207; Appleton's Annual Cyclopaedia, 1862, p. 595.

gave ten millions for gradual emancipation, or twenty millions if the act of Missouri should provide for the manumission of all slaves by July 4, 1865.1 The measure in this shape went back to the House. An important change in the wording of the bill enabled any one member to send it to the committee of the whole, the "grave of any disputed measure;"2 it prevented a motion of non-concurrence and the reference of the matter to a committee of conference, and lost to the majority of the House the control of the bill. It became necessary to recommit the Senate measure, and to report to the committee of the whole a new bill, for the consideration of which the rules of the House allowed only one hour. This time the Democrats, aided by a Unionist from Missouri, used up in filibustering.3 Later, an endeavor was made to get the bill considered by a suspension of the rules, but the necessary two-thirds of the House could not be obtained. The

Republican historians are within the bounds of truth when they assert that compensated emancipation for Missouri failed on account of the strenuous opposition of the Democrats. The same explanation will apply to the case of Maryland ;4 and the failure of the measures for the relief of these States shows why no effort was made to proceed with the West Virginia bill, or to take up the question of compensating the loyal slave owners of Kentucky and Tennessee.5 Yet it is doubtful whether it is the whole truth to impute the defeat of this policy exclusively to the Democrats. Granted their opposition as a necessary factor, this might have been over
___________________
1 Globe, pp. 302, 351, 586, 611, 666, 762, 776, 897 ; Senate Journal. 2 Letter of Albert S. White, representative from Indiana, who had charge of the bill, to National Intelligencer, March 12.
3 Ibid. The Unionist was Hall. The Democrats were Vallandigham, Pendleton, Cox of Ohio, Norton of Missouri.
4 "The story of the Missouri bill (after it was returned from the Senate) is the story of the Maryland bill. It was filibustered out of Congress." — Letter of Albert S. White.
5 See Blaine, Twenty Years of Congress, vol. i. p. 446; Greeley, The American Conflict, vol. ii. p. 261.

come had the leading Republicans of the Senate and the House manifested zeal for the Missouri bill, had the far-reaching and generous policy involved in that measure lain as close to their hearts as it did to the President's. They voted for it, but they did not, to secure its passage, use the extraordinary care and exertions which they employed at this session in enacting other important bills.1

At this distance it seems surprising that Democrats and border State Union men should have combated a policy which was apparently in the interest of slave owners, but their opposition came from the belief that it was impossible for the North to conquer the South. The alternative was separation of the sections, with strong guarantees for slavery in the border States which remained with the North. The remark which it is said Lincoln made to Crittenden, "You Southern men will soon reach the point where bonds will be a more valuable possession than bondsmen,"2 was far from a self-evident proposition in February, 1863; in truth the reverse was the estimate of the Democrats. At this distance, too, the lukewarmness of the radical Republicans, which they might have expressed by this question, Why compensate for a wrong? may be pressed too far. The sincere support of the measure by Sumner, the genuine regret of Grimes at its failure, although he did not vote for the Senate bill compensating Missouri,3 will serve to invalidate a judgment that might
________________________
1 The principal authority for this account is the Congressional Globe, but the controversy afterwards between A. S. White, and the National Intelligencer throws light on the proceedings. See National Intelligencer, March 10, 12 ; see, also, St. Louis Democrat [Republican journal] cited ibid., March 10, 17; Boston Advertiser, March 6.
2 Blaine, vol. i. p. 448.
3 Globe, p. 902; Pierce's Sumner, vol. iv. p. 116. Grimes wrote in a private letter, March 27: "I regret as much as you can the failure of Congress to provide means to assist the States of Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware to secure emancipation. . . . Just such bills would have been a sort of culmination and rounding off of the acts of the late Congress that would have reflected glory upon it and upon the country." — Life of Grimes, Salter, p. 235.

seem to be confirmed by the rapid progress of opinion on the true policy of dealing with slavery.1

A gleam from the West lightened the intense gloom following the disaster at Fredericksburg. Influenced undoubtedly by the President's anxiety for a victory, and deeming the conditions auspicious, Rosecrans moved out of Nashville the day after Christmas with the purpose of attacking the Confederates. Skirmishing for a number of days as he marched forward, he took up a position within three miles of Murfreesborough, Tenn., where Bragg's army had gone into winter quarters. On the last day of the year he determined to make the attack; but Bragg had resolved to take the offensive at the same time, and obtained the advantage of the initial onset. The bloody battle of Stone's River2 ensued. The forces were equal.3 The Confederates gained the victory, but Rosecrans stubbornly maintained his ground. January 2, 1863, Bragg attacked the Union army and met with repulse. On the night of the next day, his troops being somewhat demoralized, he retreated from Murfreesborough. This gave Rosecrans a chance, of which he at once availed himself, to claim the victory in the campaign. The President telegraphed him, "God bless you." Halleck called it one of the most brilliant successes of the war. Throughout the North it was heralded as a victory. At last, ran the sentiment of the people, our great general has appeared. The loss on both
_________________
1 In his controversy with the National Intelligencer, White wrote, "The best evidence of the purposes and intentions of a party is its recorded votes." According to this gauge the Republicans appear well. The vote on the Missouri bill in the House was: Yeas, Republicans 65, Democrats 1, Unionists 7, total 73 ; Nays, Republicans 8, Democrats 27, Unionists 11, total 46. The leading Republicans of the House voted for the bill. The vote in the Senate on its bill was: Yeas, Republicans, 21, Unionists 2, total 23; Nays, Republicans 5, Democrats 8, Unionists 5, total 18. Of the prominent Republicans, Grimes and Fessenden voted against the bill. The objection of Grimes was one of detail, not of principle, and the same is doubtless true in regard to Fessenden.
2 Or Murfreesborough.
3 About 40,000 on each side. But see Ropes's Civil War, part ii. p. 424.

sides was very heavy.1 Both armies were so crippled that a long time was required to repair the damage. Although the casualties of Rosecrans were greater in number, so much larger were the resources of the North that in this respect the balance was against the Confederates, who sustained moreover the loss in morale.

If the student confines himself to the literature of this campaign alone, he will feel that the extensive claims of a signal victory by the President and the people of the North were a clutching at straws; but if he looks ahead he will see that they were wiser than they knew, for he will comprehend that to hold Tennessee Bragg needed a decisive success, that his failure and the serious crippling of his army opened the way the following summer to the Union advance to Chattanooga. The campaigns of Perryville and Stone's River were moreover a favorable augury to the cause of the North, inasmuch as they showed that in the Army of the West an education of generals was going on, that native military talent was in the process of development. George H. Thomas, a Virginian of the same good stuff as Washington and Robert E. Lee, served as second in command to Buell and to Rosecrans, and joined to ability in his profession and a scrupulous loyalty to his superiors a conviction of the justice of the cause he had, contrary to the example of his State, espoused. Although at first he had not unreasonably believed that injustice had been done him because he was not made commander of the Army of the Cumberland when Buell was displaced, he gave a magnanimous and efficient support to Rosecrans, who could say of him that he was as wise in council as he was brave in battle. Philip H. Sheridan had distinguished himself at Perryville, and now did gallant work at the battle of Stone's River.2
____________________
1 Union loss, 13,249 ; Confederate, 10,266.
2 O. R., vol. xx. parts i., ii.; Nicolay and Hay, vol. vi.; Swinton, Decisive Battles of the War; Cist, The Army of the Cumberland; Van Horne, History of the same; Ropes's Civil War, part ii.; Century War Book, vol. iii.; Diary of W. P. Cutler; Warden's Chase, p. 516. For the correspondence between Thomas and Halleck at the time of Buell's removal, see O. R., vol. xvi. part ii. pp. 657, 663.

The immediate results of this campaign were not sufficient to lift Congress and the country for more than a brief period from the dejection into which they had fallen. Even the constrained rejoicing was brought to an end by the news that the expedition for the capture of Vicksburg, from which much had been hoped, had failed.1 The feeling of the radical members of Congress, although it was mainly their policy that was in the ascendant, is without doubt well exhibited by the confidences to his diary of William P. Cutler, a representative from southern Ohio: "Rosecrans's dearly bought victory [Stone's River] fails to give relief or inspire confidence. The failure at Vicksburg casts a deeper gloom over affairs. The feeling prevails that Lincoln allows the policy of the war to be dictated by Seward, Weed, and the border State men. . . . To human vision all is dark, and it would almost seem that God works for the rebels and keeps alive their cause. Our Potomac army is so far a failure, and seems to be demoralized by the political influences that have been brought to bear upon it. . . . All is confusion and doubt. . . . How striking the want of a leader! The nation is without a head. . . . All faith and confidence in everybody seems to give way. . . . The earnest men are brought to a dead-lock by the President. The President is tripped up by his generals, who, for the most part, seem to have no heart in their work. . . . God alone can guide us through the terrible time of doubt, uncertainty, treachery, imbecility, and infidelity. . . . The people are bewildered and in a fog." 2
_________________
1 The first intimation of this seems to have reached Washington through Confederate sources, January 7. — O. R., vol. xvii. part ii. p. 542. John Sherman wrote his brother, January 2: "We are watching with the most eager interest the progress of your expedition. We all hope its success will brighten the gloom cast by operations here." The General wrote the Senator, January 6: "You will have heard of our attack on Vicksburg and failure to succeed. The place is too strong, and without the co-operation of a large army coming from the interior it is impracticable." — Sherman Letters, pp. 177, 179.
2 Entries of January 17, 26, 27, February 2, pp. 297, 300, 302. John Sherman wrote his brother, January 27: "Military affairs look dark here in the Army of the Potomac. Burnside is relieved and Hooker is in command. The entire army seems demoralized." — Sherman Letters, p. 187. The feeling in the Northwest is illustrated by a letter of Joseph Medill to Colfax: "The public discontent waxes greater daily. Failure of the army, weight of taxes, depreciation of money, want of cotton—which affects every family — increasing national debt, deaths in the army, no prospect of success, the continued closure of the Mississippi, exorbitant charges of transportation companies for carrying the farmers' products eastward—all combine to produce the existing state of despondency and desperation. By a common instinct everybody feels that the war is drawing towards a disastrous and disgraceful termination. Money cannot be supplied much longer to a beaten, demoralized, homesick army. Sometimes I think nothing is left now but 'to fight for a boundary.' " —Hollister's Colfax, p. 203.

Sumner, although he appreciated the peril, had not lost heart.1 "These are dark hours," he wrote to Lieber. "There are senators full of despair, — not I. . . . But I fear that our army is everywhere in a bad way. I see no central inspiration or command; no concentration, no combination which promises a Jena."2 Greeley in his journal advocated the mediation of a European power between the North and the South, and to further this end he wrote to Vallandigham, the most extreme of the Democratic leaders in Congress, and held private interviews and opened a correspondence with Mercier, the French minister, setting forth that the people would welcome a foreign mediation which terminated the war. I mean to carry out this policy, he said to Raymond, and bring the war to a close. "You '11 see that I '11 drive Lincoln into it." 3 An offer of mediation between the two sections from Louis Napoleon, the Emperor of the French, was communicated, February 3, to the Secretary of State. It was declined at once by the President, the offer and response being published at the same time.4 Despite the rumors that had in some manner prepared the public mind for this step, the actual fact that a
_____________________
1 See Pierce's Sumner, vol. iv. p. 113.
2 Ibid., p. 114.
3 H. J. Raymond's diary, entries January 25, 26, February 12, Scribner's Monthly, March, 1880, pp. 705, 706, 708; New York Tribune, December 27, 1862, January 9, 14, February 13; Nicolay and Hay, vol. vi. p. 83; Life of Vallandigham by his brother, p. 223.
4 Printed in the newspapers, February 12, 13.

powerful nation impelled by motives of material interest was eager to interfere in the struggle startled the people and deepened the gloom.1

"The President tells me," wrote Sumner to Lieber, "that he now fears 'the fire in the rear' — meaning the Democracy, especially at the Northwest—more than our military chances." 2 Governor Morton of Indiana had telegraphed the Secretary of War: "1 am advised that it is contemplated when the Legislature meets in this State to pass a joint resolution acknowledging the Southern Confederacy, and urging the States of the Northwest to dissolve all constitutional relations with the New England States. The same thing is on foot in Illinois." 8 The legislatures of these States were Democratic, having been chosen the previous autumn as a result of the conservative reaction. Morton's alarming apprehensions came far from being realized, but his legislature quarrelled with him and refused its support to his energetic measures for carrying on the war. The Republican members took his part, and the wrangle became so bitter that finally the legislature adjourned without making the necessary appropriations for the maintenance of the State government during the ensuing two years. In Illinois, resolutions praying for an armistice, and recommending a convention of all the States to agree upon some adjustment of the trouble between them, passed the House, but failed by a few votes to obtain
___________________
1 Although I have brought the facts in juxtaposition, I know of no evidence which indicates that Greeley's intercourse with Mercier had any effect towards inducing this offer of mediation from France. a January 17, Pierce's Sumner, vol. iv. p. 114. 2 January
3, O. R., vol. xx. part ii. p. 297. See Morton's despatch of January 2, p. 294. The information which he gave Stanton by letter, not daring to trust the telegraph, was: "It has been discovered within the past two weeks that the treasonable political secret organization having for its object the withdrawal of the Northwestern States from the Union, which exists in every part of this State, has obtained a foothold in the military camps in this city. The testimony of a number of soldiers has been taken, showing up the whole matter clearly and conclusively. Some important arrests have been made, and investigation is still going on." — MS. War Department Archives.

consideration in the Senate. This legislature likewise fell out with its Republican governor.1

The term "Copperhead," which originated in the autumn of 1862, is now used freely. It was an opprobrious epithet applied by Union men to those who adhered rigidly to the Democratic organization, strenuously opposed all the distinctive and vigorous war measures of the administration and of Congress, and deeming it impossible to conquer the South were therefore earnest advocates of peace. It might not be accurate to say that all who voted the Democratic ticket in 1868 were, in the parlance of the day, "Copperheads," but such an inclusion would be more correct than to limit the term to those who really wished for the military success of the South and organized or joined the secret order of the Knights of the Golden Circle. In the Western States, at all events, the words " Democrat" and " Copperhead" became, after the middle of January, practically synonymous, and the cognomen applied as a reproach was assumed with pride.2
_______________________
1 Indiana in the War of the Rebellion. Official report of W. H. H. Terrell, Adj. General, p. 240 et seq.; Chicago Tribune, January 14, 15, 22; New York Tribune, January 10, February 14, 17; New York Times, February 13; Appleton's Annual Cyclopaedia, 1863, pp. 510, 529; Life of O. P. Morton by Indianapolis Journal, chap. viii. "Illinois is not alone in harboring a party that makes treason its watchword. While the echoes of the traitorous speeches that signalized the opening of the session of the Legislature at Springfield are still ringing in our ears, we have from Indiana the unwelcome news that the would-be rebels at Indianapolis are confederated with those of Illinois." "The Copperheads of the Legislature have undertaken to carry things with a high hand in the interest of the rebels . . . but it is beyond their strength to wrench Illinois from her Union moorings and annex the State to the dominions of Jeff Davis." — Chicago Tribune, January 14, 22.

2 I have made and had made a considerable search for the first use of the term "Copperhead." The earliest that I have found it employed is in the Cincinnati Commercial of October 1, 1862, in an article entitled "Comfort for 'Copperheads.'" The writer charges the Gazette (a rival Republican journal) with a course which is "driving the fighting Democrats into the ranks of the Vallandigham party." In the Commercial when used afterwards, Copperhead is printed without the quotation marks. It occurs several times in October, November, and December, 1862. The curious may also find several illustrative uses of the word in the Chicago Tribune, January 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 22; New York Tribune, January 12, February 11; New York Times, February 13 Robert C. Winthrop in Boston, November 2, 1864, spoke as if he were not ashamed of the name. "Abandon the Constitution," he said, "and the Ship of State is left tossing upon a shoreless sea, without rudder or compass, liable at any moment to be dashed to pieces on the rocks. And though I have no heart for pleasantry on such a topic, let me add that if in such a case the good old ship shall escape such a catastrophe and be rescued from final wreck, it will be only because she will have been treated in advance to a thorough sheathing of copper from stem to stern."
Harold Frederic wrote a graphic story entitled "The Copperhead," in which the hero is a striking character.

The Western partisans also gloried in the name "Butternut." "The War Democrats," in contradistinction from those who favored peace, acted at elections in the main with the Republicans, voting the Union ticket, as it was called in most of the States. It may safely be said that the men who adhered with fidelity and enthusiasm to the Democratic organization and name, found their notions represented by either Horatio Seymour, of New York, or Clement L. Vallandigham, of Ohio, both of whom had the peculiar ability which establishes political leadership. The tendency of the Eastern Democrats was to gravitate to Seymour, that of the Western Democrats to the more extreme views of Vallandigham. After the fall elections Seward wrote, "Party spirit has resumed its sway over the people." 1 This is indicated by a contrast of the inaugural message of Seymour as governor of New York, January 7, 1863, with the speeches he made during the canvass. His inaugural displayed less moderation and no magnanimity. He was trenchant in criticism, but did not seem to appreciate the difficulties under which the government labored, nor to understand that the utmost forbearance was required of one in his high position. Nevertheless the course which he laid out was in the main the right one for the opposition, and, while his message was exasperating to the Republicans, there is little in it that ought to receive condemnation at the judgment bar of history.2
_________________________
1 November 15, 1862, Life of Seward, vol. iii. p. 143. * The message is printed in the Public Record of H. Seymour (1868), p. 88. The Indiana legislature declined to receive Governor Morton's message, but passed a joint resolution thanking Governor Seymour " for the able and patriotic defence of the Constitution, the laws and liberties of the American citizen."
The feeling of the Democrats is well described by August Belmont, himself a Democrat who had confidential relations with the New York leaders, in his letters of November 25, 1862, to Lionel de Rothschild, London, and of December 6, 1862, to E. G. W. Butler, New Orleans. — Letters privately printed, pp. 73, 75.

Far otherwise is it with the speech of Vallandigham, January 14, in the House of Representatives. "I learned my judgment from Chatham," he said: "' My lords, you cannot conquer America.' And you have not conquered the South. You never will. . . . The war for the Union is, in your hands, a most bloody and costly failure. The President confessed it on the 22d of September. . . . War for the Union was abandoned; war for the negro openly begun, and with stronger battalions than before. With what success? Let the dead at Fredericksburg and Vicksburg answer. And now, sir, can this war continue? Whence the money to carry it on? Where the men? Can you borrow? From whom? Can you tax more? Will the people bear it? ... . Will men enlist now at any price? Ah, sir, it is easier to die at home. I beg pardon; but I trust I am not 'discouraging enlistments.' If I am, then first arrest Lincoln, Stanton, and Halleck, and some of your other generals; and I will retract; yes, I will recant. But can you draft again? Ask New England, New York. Ask Massachusetts. . . . Ask not Ohio — the Northwest. She thought you were in earnest, and gave you all, all — more than you demanded. Sir, in blood she has atoned for her credulity, and now there is mourning in every house, and distress and sadness in every heart. Shall she give you any more? But ought this war to continue? I answer, no — not a day, not an hour. What then? Shall we separate? Again, I answer, no, no, no! What then? . . . Stop fighting. Make an armistice." Accept at once friendly foreign mediation,1 "the kindly offer of an impartial power to stand as a daysman between
_______________
1 Although the communication from the Emperor of the French had not yet been received, rumors were now rife that he would offer mediation.

the contending parties in this most bloody and exhausting strife. ... If, to-day, we secure peace and begin the work of reunion, we shall yet escape; if not, I see nothing before us but universal political and social revolution, anarchy, and bloodshed, compared with which the Reign of Terror in France was a merciful visitation." 1

Under a constitutional government, where speech and the press are free, we must grant the necessity of an opposition in time of war, even when the Ship of State is in distress. It is not difficult to define a correct policy for the Democrats during the civil conflict, when, as was conceded by every one, the republic was in great danger. In Congress they should have co-operated to the full extent of their power with the dominant party, in its effort to raise men and money to carry on the war; and in any opposition they ought to have taken the tone, not of party objection, but of friendly criticism, with the end in view of perfecting rather than defeating the necessary bills. While in the session of this Congress which ended March 4, 1863, they failed to rise to this height, they did not, on the other hand, pursue a policy of obstruction that would be troublesome if not pernicious. It is doubtful whether, under the able and despotic parliamentary leadership of the majority in the House by Thaddeus Stevens, they could by obstructive tactics have prevented the passage at this session of the two bills which gave the President control of the sword and the purse of the nation; but a serious attempt in that direction, with all that it involved, would have thrown the country into convulsions.2 There must therefore be set down
__________________
1 Globe Appendix, pp. 55, 59, 60. The opinion of Republicans is well expressed by Cutler in his diary: "We had in the House a full exhibition of treason in Vallandigham's speech, in which he counselled peace and submission to the rebels." January 17, p. 297.
2 The Democrats had able men in the House. Vallandigham, George H. Pendleton, and Samuel S. Cox, of Ohio, and Daniel W. Voorhees, of Indiana, were ready debaters, possessing likewise the quality of leadership. The Democrats were not strong enough in the Senate (having 8 to the Republicans 31 and Unionists 10) to venture on obstruction, had they been so disposed.

to the credit of the Democrats in Congress a measure of patriotism that almost always exists in an Anglo-Saxon minority sufficient to preserve the commonwealth from destruction.

More severe criticism than is due for any positive action in the House or the Senate must be meted out to the leaders of the party for their speeches in and out of the legislative halls, and to the influential Democratic newspapers in their effort to form and guide a public sentiment which should dictate the policy of the government. One fact they ignored, that peace was impossible unless the Southern Confederacy were acknowledged and a boundary line agreed upon between what then would be two distinct nations. They pretended to a belief, for which there was absolutely no foundation, that if fighting ceased and a convention of the States were called, the Union might be restored.1 Hence proceeded their opposition to the emancipation policy of the President as being an obstacle to the two sections coming together. But men who loved their country better than their party ought to have perceived, for it was palpable at the time, that the Southern States had not the vaguest notion of consenting on even the most favorable conditions to the Union as it was, and that the President had been brought to his decree against slavery by the logic of events. Apologists for slavery as the Democrats had been for so many years on the ground that it was a necessary evil, they could not give hearty support to emancipation, but, influenced by the consideration that slavery was morally wrong, they could with patriotism and consistency adopt the position of Henderson, the Unionist senator from Missouri, that the proclamation was a military order, and, having been made, should be executed.2 Without the pursuit of an impossible attainment, without a factious opposition
________________
1 "' Ay crowd to council citizens,' Turnus cries,
'and sit praising peace While they rush armed on empire.'" — The AEneid, book xi.
2 Globe, p. 356.

to the acts of the President and Congress, there remained scope for a healthy opposition which would not have left the name Copperhead-Democrat a reproach for so many years; in truth, the Democrats might have deserved well of the muse of history. Indeed they did well in advocating economy and integrity in the disposition of the public money, and they might have gone further and applauded Chase in his efforts to secure the one and Stanton in his determination to have the other. Their criticisms of the Executive for suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, for arbitrary arrests, for the abridgment of the freedom of speech and of writing, were justly taken, and undoubtedly had an influence for the good on the legislation at this session. Had they concentrated their opposition on these points, their arguments would have carried greater force, and would have attracted men who were disturbed at the infractions of personal liberty, but who were repelled by the other parts of the Democratic programme.

In consideration of our own practice, the decision of our courts, the opinions of our statesmen and jurists, and English precedents for two centuries, it may be affirmed that the right of suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus was vested by the Constitution in Congress and not in the executive.1 The President, in assuming that authority and applying the suspension to States beyond the sphere of hostile operations, arrogated power which became necessary to support the policy of arbitrary arrests so diligently pursued by Seward at first and afterwards by Stanton. Such pretensions that revolt the spirit born to freedom may be oppugned by arguments drawn from the storehouse of British and American liberty. The defence made was that these things were done under the pressure of necessity. Our own precedents were set aside because our State now stood in its greatest
_____________________
1 See vol. iii. p. 439, note 1; James A. Garfield's argument in the Milligan case, Works, vol. i. p. 158 et seq.; contrariwise, Lieber to Sumner, January 8, 1863, Life and Letters, p. 328.

peril since the adoption of the Constitution. Still, in England during the years of the war against the revolutionary government of France, when discontent at home and the sympathy of a band of reformers with the Democratic sentiment across the channel scared the statesmen and the bulk of the upper and middle classes, who were agitated by the terrors of the French Revolution, into a belief that the Constitution and the throne were in danger, neither the King nor the ministry claimed the right to suspend the habeas corpus act. It was done by Parliament, which limited in each of the acts passed the suspension to less than one year. When this time expired the ministry were obliged to bring in a new bill which was open to debate in both houses. Summing up the months covered by different measures, Parliament granted the withdrawal of the privilege for only five out of the nine years of the war. Besides, men, though arbitrarily detained, were arrested according to law. Acts were passed to suit the exigency of the time, and many of the suspects were brought to trial before a jury in the civil courts. From April to December, 1798, — the period, as it appears, of the largest number of arrests, — seventy or eighty persons had been apprehended but not brought to trial. At the time of the earnest discussion of such violations of personal liberty1 in the House of Commons in December, only a few still remained in prison; and the place of their confinement had become known as the Bastile. From May, 1799, to February, 1800, but three men had been arrested; yet it was a subject of indignant remonstrance by two lords in a session of their body that twenty-nine persons were still immured in jail without being brought to trial. In our own country during the civil war the number of arrests of political prisoners must be counted by thousands.2 In England lists of the prisoners had
____________________
1 Charles James Fox wrote, March 9, 1798: "What an engine of oppression this power of imprisonment is." — Fox's Correspondence, vol. iii. p. 277.
2 Bad as is our record in this particular, it has been exaggerated. In his article on Habeas Corpus in Lalor's Cyclopaedia, Alexander Johnston wrote: "The records of the provost-marshal's office in Washington show 38,000 military prisoners reported there during the rebellion." The context shows that political prisoners are meant. Col. F. C. Ainsworth, Chief, Record and Pension Office, War Department, very kindly made at my request a thorough search of the records, and the result is given in his letter to me of June 1,1897: "A Commissary-General of Prisoners was appointed to date from October 7, 1861, and the records of his office, which cover the period from February, 1862, until the close of the war, contain the names of 13,535 citizens who were arrested and confined in various military prisons during the war. After a protracted and exhaustive examination of these records it has been found impossible to determine with even approximate accuracy how many of these prisoners were charged with any particular class of offences. The records are very incomplete, and in many instances do not show the charges on which arrests were made. In addition to this many prisoners were confined in two or more different prisons, the records of which do not agree as to the causes of the arrests. Some of the charges recorded are as follows: 'Treason, disloyalty, inciting or participating in riot, aiding and abetting rebels, defrauding government, stealing government property, robbing U. S. mail, blockade running, smuggling, spy, enticing soldiers to desert, aiding and harboring deserters, defrauding recruits of bounty, horse-stealing.' For the reasons stated above, however, it is impossible to ascertain how many arrests were made on any one of these charges.
"It is certain that a considerable number of arrests of civilians in addition to those reported to the Commissary-General of Prisoners were made during the war, because it is known that prisoners of this class were confined by military authority in State prisons and penitentiaries, the records of which are not on file in this department, and nothing has been found to show that prisoners of this class were reported to the Commissary-General of Prisoners. It is also probable that the records of that officer do not contain the names of many persons who were arrested by order of the Secretary of State or the Secretary of the Navy.
"I have given the subject of your inquiry much attention, and several of the most experienced clerks in the office have made an examination of all records likely to throw light upon the subject, but I regret to say that the result of the investigation is far from being satisfactory. I am convinced, however, that it is impossible to compile a statement with regard to this subject that will be of more value to you than that given above.
"In reply to your inquiry as to the accuracy of the statement made by Mr. Alexander Johnston, in Lalor's Cyclopaedia, to the effect that 38,000 prisoners were reported to the Provost-Marshal-General during the Rebellion, I beg to say that a thorough search of the records has been made for the purpose of determining if possible the authority upon which this statement was based, but nothing whatever relative to the subject has been found. I am satisfied that this statement was based upon an' estimate' that may have been made by Johnston, or by some one for him, and was really nothing but a guess."
I dislike to take up space in showing the processes by which I arrive at a statement, but this subject is open to misconception and has been full of difficulty. Mr. Ainsworth's careful and scientific report was the end of my investigation. As authorities before I reached this point at which I was delivered from the maze, I will mention: Vallandigham in his speech in the House of February 23,1863, declared that at one time there had been confined for "treasonable practices " 640 prisoners at Camp Chase, Ohio. The assistant provost-marshal-general of Illinois stated in his report of August 9, 1865, that the number of arrests exclusive of deserters, from the date of the organization of his office to May 31, 1865, was 443. In regard to the number of arrests and lists of persons confined at Forts Lafayette and Warren and other places furnished by the military commandants, see O. R., series ii. vol. ii., "Treatment of Suspected and Disloyal Persons North and South," pp. 102, 113, 154, 165, 202, 271; Appleton's Annual Cyclopaedia, 1863, p. 484; also American Bastile, Marshall, and History of the Secret Service, Baker, passim.

been called for and sent to both houses of Parliament. By the act of March 3, 1863, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of War were required to furnish lists of "State or political prisoners" to the judges of the United States Courts, but no lists, so far as I have been able to ascertain, were ever furnished; and in truth the relish for autocratic government had so developed that in September of this year Chase was surprised that the provisions of this act were unfamiliar to the President and to all the members of the cabinet except himself.1

In both countries those opposed to the government called the state of things a "reign of terror;" in both cases the phrase was a misnomer; in neither country up to the present time have the great principles of liberty been invalidated by the exercise in its crisis of those extraordinary powers. In Great Britain the government displayed method in its rigor. It instituted prosecutions in Scotland, where, the rule being different from that in England, the courts had "unrestricted power to visit sedition with the penalty of transportation" and cruel punishments were inflicted for insignificant offences. The special acts of Parliament were more comprehensive and severe than those of Congress, and they led in England to prosecutions which were unreasonable and unjust.2 In the
__________________
1 Chase's diary, MS., loaned me by the kindness of Professor A. B. Hart.
2 Fox wrote in a private letter of April 12, 1795: "The bills of this year appear to me to be a finishing stroke to everything like a spirit of liberty." In 1800 in a letter to Gray he spoke of the country as being "both corrupted and subdued." — Correspondence, vol. iii. pp. 105, 307.

comparison one is struck with the more careful observance of the forms of law in the older country. Most of the harshness was committed in a regular manner which was rendered easier by the subservience of Parliament to the king and the ministry, the stricter execution of the laws in the Great Britain of 1793-1802 than in the United States of 1861-65, and the greater devotion of the bench to the government. In Scotland this subordination amounted to servility: indeed one judge instructed the jury in a charge that bestowed upon him the nickname of Jeffreys. With us there were no individual cases of so extreme hardship as in Scotland. Four able and educated men were sentenced to fourteen years' transportation to Botany Bay1 because they had advocated parliamentary reform and universal suffrage. It falls not to me to tell a tale of suffering on board the hulks, of the lives of aspiring men crushed by the cruelty of the law, nor have I to mention a monument like the Martyrs' Memorial on Calton Hill in Edinburgh; but, on account of the wholesale violations of personal liberty by our government, it well may be that the mass of suffering in our land was even greater.2
_______________
1 A fifth, a clergyman, was sentenced for seven years.
2 My authorities for this discussion of affairs in Great Britain are the different statutes suspending the habeas corpus act, beginning with 34 Geo. 3, ch. 54; the Treasonable Attempts act, the Seditious Meetings act; the different debates in the House of Commons and House of Lords on the suspension of the habeas corpus, Pari. History, especially Pitt, Fox, and Courtenay, May, 1794, Courtenay and Tierney, December 1708, Sheridan, Lord Eldon, Hobhouse and Canning, Lords King and Holland, February 1800; Journals of the House of Lords and House of Commons; Buckle, History of Civilization, vol. i. p. 348 et seq.; May, Constitutional History of Eng., vol. ii. p. 134 et seq.; Twiss's Life of Lord Eldon, vol. i.; Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors, vol. vi.; Fox's Correspondence, vol. iii.; The Story of the English Jacobins, Smith; Adolphus, History of George III., vols. vi. and vii.; Alison, History of Europe, vols. iv., v., vi.; Green, Hist" of Eng., vol. iv.; S. R. Gardiner, article "England," Enc. Brit., vol. viii. p. 361; Life of Cartwright, vol. i.; Bradlaugh, Impeachment of the House of Brunswick; Life of Francis Place, Graham Wallas.
For my purpose I have not deemed it necessary to run the parallel to the violations of personal liberty in England in a time of peace. For the repressive measures of 1817, and the "Six Acts" of 1819, see Const. History of England, May, vol. ii. p. 183 et seq.; Life of Place, Wallas, p. 120.

After careful consideration of our own case, I do not hesitate to condemn the arbitrary arrests and the arbitrary interference with the freedom of the press in States which were not the theatre of the war and where the courts were open. I do not omit to take into account that, bad as was Vallandigham's speech in the House, even worse was much of the writing in the Democratic newspapers; that the " Copperhead" talk on the street, in the public conveyances, and in the hotels was still more bitter and vituperative; that the virulence was on the increase, and that constant complaints of "the utterance of treasonable sentiments" were made by patriotic men to the authorities. Nevertheless I am convinced that all of this extrajudicial procedure was inexpedient, unnecessary, and wrong; that the offenders should have been prosecuted according to law, or, if their offences were not indictable, permitted to go free.1 "Abraham Lincoln," writes James Bryce, "wielded more authority than any single Englishman has done since Oliver Cromwell." 2 My reading of English history and comparative study of our own have led me to the same conclusion, although it must be added that the power which Cromwell exercised far transcended that which was assumed by Lincoln, who governed with less infraction of the Constitution of his country than did the Protector of the Commonwealth.3 Moreover, there was in Lincoln's nature so much of kindness and mercy that he mitigated the harshness perpetrated by Seward and by Stanton. The pervasion of his individual influence, his respect for the Constitution and the law which history and tradition ascribe to him, the greatness of his character and work have prevented the generation that has grown up since the civil conflict from appreciating the enormity of
______________
1 See vol. 111. p. 555; ante, p. 165. 1 American Commonwealth, vol. i. p. 61. 8 It may be interesting to consult Gardiner's History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate, vol. ii. chap" xxvi., pp. 244, 247, 253, 278 et seq., 315.

the acts done under his authority by the direction of the Secretaries of State and of War. While I have not lighted upon an instance in which the President himself directed an arrest, he permitted them all; he stands responsible for the casting into prison of citizens of the United States on orders as arbitrary as the lettres-de-cachet of Louis XIV., instead of their apprehension, as in Great Britain in her crisis, on legal warrants.1

The infractions of the Constitution caused concern to many Republicans, and were the subject of earnest debates at this session of the Senate. More notable was the special message to the Pennsylvania legislature of Curtin, one of the great "war governors," attached to Lincoln, and from the first a zealous supporter of the emancipation proclamation. In this message he protested by indirection, though with entire plainness, against the arbitrary acts of the government, and suggested that there was no need of infringing upon the
__________________________
1 Through the kindness of Thornton K. Lothrop, I have seen the originals of several orders for the arrest of persons and their commitment to Fort Warren or Fort Lafayette which were sent from the State and War Departments at Washington to the United States authorities in Boston. The following are examples: [Telegram] "Washington, September 14, 1861. United States Marshal: Arrest Leonard Sturtevant and send him to Fort Lafayette, New York, and deliver him into custody of Col. Martin Burke. Wm. H. Seward"; [Telegram] "War Dept., Washington, October 19, 1861. Richard H. Dana, Jr., U. S. Dist. Atty.: Send Wm. Pierce to Fort Lafayette. F. W. Seward"; [Telegram] "Washington, September 2, 1864. United States Marshal: John M. Watson is in Boston, Number 2 Oliver Place. He will to-day or to-night receive goods from Lawrence, New York, probably nautical instruments, care of Winser & Son, also clothes and letters from St. Denis Hotel. Watch him, look out for the clothes and letters, and seize them and arrest him when it is the right time. When arrested don't let him see or communicate with any one, but bring him immediately to Washington. The letters and goods should be had by all means. E. M. Stanton." Similar orders are printed in Marshall's American Bastile, and in O. R., series ii. vol. ii.
As to Great Britain see 34 Geo. 3, ch. 54, and the statutes continuing the suspension of the habeas corpus act After a careful reading of the debates in Parliament, I believe that the restrictions in these statutes were observed by the government; but see Hobhouse in House of Commons, February 19, and Sheridan, December 11, 1800.

Constitution.1 Moved by this sentiment among Republicans, by the wholesome criticism of the Democrats, and the verdict of the ballot-box in the autumn of 1862, Congress passed an act which, although belated one year, is worthy of approbation. It authorized the President "during the present rebellion, . . . whenever in his judgment the public safety may require it," to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in any case throughout the United States or any part thereof. It directed the Secretary of State and the Secretary of War to furnish to the judges of the United States circuit and district courts lists of political prisoners now or hereafter confined within their jurisdiction, and made it the duty of the judge to discharge, after they had taken the oath of allegiance to the United States government, those prisoners against whom the grand jury in his jurisdiction at its regular session found no indictment. If the lists were not furnished within twenty days from the time of the arrest, and if no indictment were found, relief was provided for any citizen who suffered from the arbitrary action of the authorities.2 Had this statute been strictly observed, no lasting hardship, nothing but transient injustice, would henceforward have been done. I have said that Congress gave the President the control of the sword and the purse of the nation. Owing to the discouragement at the defeats in the field, the feeling of weariness at the duration of the war, and the improved state of business, which opened many avenues of lucrative employment, volunteering had practically ceased. To fill the armies some measure of compulsion was necessary, for the efforts at drafting by the States had not proved satisfactory. The
______________
1 This message of February 12 is printed in the Phila. Inquirer, February 13. The governor ended it thus: "I recommend the passage of a joint resolution earnestly requesting that Congress shall forthwith pass laws denning and punishing offences of the class above referred to, and providing for the fair and speedy trial, by an impartial jury, of persons charged with such offences in the loyal and undisturbed States, so that the guilty may justly suffer and the innocent be relieved." See New York World, February 14. 2 Approved March 3; ante, p. 231.

Conscription Act,1 now passed, operated directly on the people of the nation instead of through the medium of the States, which had previously been the machinery for raising troops. The country was divided into enrolment districts, corresponding in general to the congressional districts of the different States, each of which was in charge of a provost-marshal. At the head of these officers was a provost-marshal-general, whose office at Washington formed a separate bureau of the War Department. All persons subject to military duty 2 were to be enrolled, and provision was made for drafting men for the military service when necessary. Any person drafted could furnish a substitute or pay three hundred dollars to the government as an exemption.

The financial legislation was alike drastic. One year previously the country had started on the road of irredeemable legal-tender paper: there was now no turning back. The maw of our voracious treasury again needed filling. Spaulding,3 who spoke for the Committee of Ways and Means, said in the House: "Currency has been scarce all the time for the last eight months, and is now very difficult to be obtained in sufficient quantity to meet the business wants of the country. . . . Legal-tender notes are not plenty among the people, who are required to pay your taxes; they are continually asking for more. Why, then, should we be alarmed at a further issue of legal-tender notes? So long as they are wanted by the business of the country, demanded by the soldiers for their pay, begged for by all the needy creditors of the government, surely Congress ought not to hesitate in an exigency like the present. It is no time now to depress business operations, or hold back the pay due to honest creditors of the government. It is much better to stimulate, make
______________
1 Approved March 3. 2 These were "all able-bodied male citizens of the United States" and foreigners intending to become citizens "between the ages of twenty and forty-five years." Sec. 2 of the act, which is chap. lxxv., provided for exemptions. Sec. 3 made a classification favorable to married men.
2 See vol. ill. p. 562.

money plenty, make it easy for people to pay their taxes, and easy for government to make loans."1

The difficulties were so great that there was confusion in the councils of the nation. The President, in approving, January 17, the joint resolution which authorized, or in fact under the existing circumstances directed, the Secretary of the Treasury to issue at once $100,000,000 United States legal-tender notes for the prompt discharge of the arrears of pay due the soldiers and sailors, said in words which sound as if they had come from Chase: "I think it my duty to express my sincere regret that it has been found necessary to authorize so large an additional issue of United States notes, when this circulation and that of the suspended banks together have become already so redundant as to increase prices beyond real values, thereby augmenting the cost of living, to the injury of labor, and the cost of supplies, to the injury of the whole country." 2

Spaulding explained to the House that in the next eighteen months there must be borrowed $1,000,000,000. The expenses of the government were $2,500,000 a day, Sundays included. The receipts from customs, taxes, and other sources would not exceed $600,000, leaving the balance, a daily outgo of $1,900,000, to be obtained by borrowing of some kind.3 Congress, in what is known as the nine hundred million dollar loan act, authorized more bonds, more Treasury notes, bearing interest, which might be made a legal tender for their face value, more non-interest bearing United States legal tender notes, and a large amount of fractional currency to take the place of the imperfect substitutes issued in lieu of silver change, as silver had long since disappeared from circulation. It gave large discretionary powers to the Secretary of the Treasury. Before the constitutional meeting of the next
________________
1 January 12, History of Legal-Tender Paper Money, Spaulding, pp. 175, 176.
2 Lincoln, Complete Works, vol. ii. p. 300.
3 Spaulding, p. 174; see, also, letter of Chase to Fessenden, January 7, Globe, p. 270.

Congress, he might issue of the different forms of paper obligations authorized a total of $900,000.000.1 Congress, in pursuance of the recommendations of the President and Secretary of the Treasury, also passed at this session an act creating National Banks, which was the nucleus of our present system.2
_____________
1 Chap. lxxiii., An Act to provide Ways and Means for the support of the Government.
2 Approved February 25. The course of the legislation constituting national banks is well seen in Dunbar's Laws of the U. S. on Currency, Finance, and Banking, pp. 171, 178. In the Theory and History of Banking (p. 134), Dunbar writes : "An act for the purpose was passed in February, 1863 (12 Statutes at Large, 665), but in many points of detail this proved to be so unsatisfactory and incomplete that only 134 banks were organized under it in the next nine months, and the number had risen to less than 450 in sixteen months. A revised act, making important changes, was therefore passed in June, 1864 (13 Statutes at Large, 99), and ample provision having been made under which banks chartered by the States could be reorganized as national banks, the extension of the new system went on rapidly. Its adoption was further stimulated by an act laying a tax of ten per cent. on all notes of State banks paid out by any bank after July 1,1866 (13 ibid. 484). The certainty of the practical exclusion of all State banks from the field of circulation caused the speedy reorganization of the greater part of them as national banks ; and thus the national system, numbering 1,634 banks on July 1,1866, at once assumed the pre-eminence which it has easily maintained."
Spaulding (p. 187) writes: "No National Bank currency was issued until about the first of January, 1864. After that time it was gradually issued. On the first of July, 1864, the sum of $25,825,695 had been issued ; and on the 22d of April, 1865, shortly after the surrender of General Lee, the whole amount of National Bank circulation issued to that time was only $146,927,975. It will therefore be seen that comparatively little direct aid was realized from this currency until after the close of the war. All the channels of circulation were well filled up with the greenback notes, compound interest notes, and certificates of indebtedness, to the amount of over $700,000,000, before the National Bank act got fairly into operation." I have not verified exactly these figures which Spaulding has used, but, from amounts given at other dates in the reports of the comptrollers of the currency, I have no doubt that they are correct. His deductions, which are the important matter, are undeniable.
Another act of importance at this session was the admittance of West Virginia into the Union "on an equal footing with the original States." This new State was carved out of Virginia, and was required to adopt a plan for the gradual abolishment of slavery. This condition being complied with, West Virginia became a State sixty days after April 20, by a proclamation of the President in pursuance of the act of Congress. As to the constitutionality of this act, see the opinions of six members of his cabinet and Lincoln's own opinion, Nicolay and Hay, vol. vi. p. 300 et seq. This measure is discussed in an interesting way by Blaine, Twenty Years of Congress, vol. i. p. 466.

It is easier to criticise the legislative body of a democracy than to praise it. Especially is this true in a country as large as our own, with interests apparently so diverse; for even in 1863, although the West and the East were knit in devotion to the common purpose of the war, the variance between the sections at times cropped out. The policy of give and take in compromise, the essence of legislation, prevented Congress at this session1 from satisfying any ideal, yet as a whole the work of the Republican majority deserves the highest commendation. They realized that only by victories in the field could the clouds of trouble and gloom be dispersed, and that they must show the country an agreement among themselves upon such measures as was their due contribution to military success. Their distrust of the President's ministers did not cease with the termination of the so-called cabinet crisis of December.2 Thaddeus Stevens at one time thought of moving in a caucus of the Republicans of the House a resolution of want of confidence in the cabinet.3 The radicals were not reconciled to the retention of Seward, and continued their efforts to have him removed, although they did not allow the President's firm resolve to keep him to prevent them from voting the administration ample powers. All the Republicans in Congress were of the mind of John Sherman, who may be classed with those inclining to moderation. "I cannot respect some of the constituted authorities," he wrote his brother, the general, "yet I will cordially support and aid them while they are authorized to administer the government." 4 Military success could be obtained only by
________________
1 The session expired March 4
2 Ante, p. 203.
3 Diary of W. P. Cutler, entry January 27.
4 January 27, The Sherman Letters, p. 187.

giving the President extraordinary powers, and both senators and representatives perceived the inevitable and submitted to it.1

The country's response to the work of Congress was heard in enthusiastic "war" or "Union" meetings held in many cities and towns in divers States. Those in New York were characteristic. Noted and popular Democrats addressed a "magnificent uprising of the people" at Cooper Institute. "Loyal National Leagues " or " Union Leagues" were formed, of which the test for membership was a brief emphatic pledge that was subscribed to by many thousands. These leagues held one large meeting at the Academy of Music, another at Cooper Institute, and still another to celebrate the anniversary of the firing on Fort Sumter. To this period belong the organization and the furthering of the Union League Clubs
_________________
1 That this was also the case with other leaders of public opinion is shown by a private letter of Joseph Medill from Chicago to A. S. Hill, dated March 20: "Our view is, that we ought to do all we can to strengthen the hands of the administration until the crisis is past. . . . An awful responsibility rests upon our party. If it carries the war to a successful close, the people will continue it in power. If it fails, all is lost, Union, party, cause, freedom, and abolition of slavery. Hence we sustain Chase and his National Bank scheme, Stanton and his impulsiveness, Welles and his senility, and Lincoln and his slowness. Let us first get the ship out of the breakers; then court-martial the officers if they deserve it."—A. S. Hill papers, MS.
John Sherman's letter of March 20 to his brother as a summary of his work and opinion is interesting. "I opposed arbitrary arrests, general confiscation, the destruction of State lines and other extreme measures, and thereby have lost the confidence of some of my old friends. On the other hand, I have taken my full share in framing and supporting other great measures that have proved a success, and think I may fairly claim credit for many of the most valuable features of our financial system, which has been wonderfully sustained under enormous expenditure. I can also claim the paternity of the Bank Law yet to be tested by experience, and for the main features of the Conscription Law. This latter law is vital to our success, and although it was adopted with fear and trembling and only after all other expedients failed, yet I am confident it will be enforced with the general acquiescence of the people, and that through it we see the road to peace. But, after all, Congress cannot help us out of our difficulties. It may by its acts and omissions prolong the war, but there is no solution to it except through the military forces." — Sherman Letters, p. 195.

of Philadelphia and New York, and the Union Club of Boston, the object of their formation being distinctly patriotic.1 There prevailed a feeling of comparative cheerfulness due to the energy with which Congress had buckled to the task of rescuing the country from the depression that followed Fredericksburg, to the excellent reorganization of the Army of the Potomac, and to the known confidence of the President and his cabinet in ultimate success.

When Congress assembled, the finances were at a low ebb. Many of the soldiers had not been paid for five months, and to all of them the paymaster was at least three months in arrears,2 so that by January 7, 1863, the amount due the army and navy had probably reached the sum of sixty millions.3 The bonds of the government were not selling. Now all was changed. The Secretary of the Treasury had devised a plan of offering the five-twenty bonds4 to popular subscription through the employment of a competent and energetic general agent, who, by a system of sub-agencies, wide advertising, and
______________
1 The Union League Club of Philadelphia was organized December, 1862, and occupied the "League House," 1118 Chestnut Street, February 23, 1863; the Union League Club of New York was organized February 6,1863; its club-house, No. 26 E. 17th Street, was opened May 12. The formal inception of the Union Club, Boston, was February 4. "We want," said one of its founders, "a place where gentlemen may pass an evening without hearing copperhead talk." The club-house, No. 8 Park Street, was occupied October 15. See History of the Union League of Philadelphia, Lathrop; A Brief Sketch of the History of the Union Club, Boston, Thorndike; New York Evening Post, May 16, 1863; Boston Herald, January 8, 1899.
2 "The troops have been paid with punctuality whenever funds were furnished for the purpose, nearly all having been paid to June 30, 1862, and many to August 31." —Report of acting Paymaster-General U. S. Army; see, also, report of Secretary of War, December 2, 1862. General Rosecrans wrote to Stanton from Nashville, November 23, 1862: "Maj. Larned informs me that he needs $1,000,000 to complete payment to this corps to August 31. Many have been led by lack of pay to temporarily desert, to look after their families. They are poor men and much in need of money. Officers are without the means of subsistence. . . . Many regiments have received no pay for six months." — O. R., vol. xx. part ii. p. 91.
3 Letter of Chase to Fessenden, chairman of Senate committee on finance, Globe, p. 270.
4 Authorized by the Act of February 25,1862, see vol. iii. pp. 563, 572.

other business methods, appealed to the mingled motives of patriotism and self-interest and induced the people to lend large amounts of money to the government. An impetus was given to this process by the general character of the financial legislation of Congress, and in particular by the clause in the nine hundred million dollar loan act which limited to July 1st the privilege of exchanging legal-tender notes for five-twenty bonds. Immediately after the adjournment of Congress the confidence of the people began to show itself by the purchase of these securities. By the end of March Chase told Sumner that he was contented with the condition of the finances,1 and ere three months more had passed by, he could see that his popular loan was an assured success. The subscriptions averaged over three million dollars a day.2 The Germans were likewise buying our bonds. April 26, Sumner wrote to the Duchess of Argyll: "The Secretary of War told me yesterday that our rolls showed eight hundred thousand men under arms, — all of them paid to February 28, better clothed and better fed than any soldiers ever before. . . . Besides our army, we have a credit which is adequate to all our needs; and we have powder and saltpetre sufficient for three years even if our ports should be closed, and five hundred thousand unused muskets in our arsenals, and the best armorers of the world producing them at the rate of fifty thousand a month." 3 Again he wrote to John Bright: "The Democracy is falling into line with the government and insisting upon the most strenuous support of the war."4 In view of succeeding events this last is too strong for a historical statement, but it is undeniable that during the months of March and April there was a lull in the bitter opposition of the Democrats to the administration.5
__________________
1 Pierce's Sumner, vol. iv. p. 130.
2 Belmont to Lord Rokeby, May 7, Letters privately printed, p. 85.
3 Pierce's Sumner, vol. iv. p. 137.
4 March 30, ibid., p. 130. 6 The "feeling for a vigorous prosecution of the war [is] stronger than ever, and [there is] a complete unanimity of feeling against foreign intervention and any peace except upon the basis of a reconstruction of the Union. The violent language of Jefferson Davis and his organs has produced quite a reaction at the North, and has silenced entirely the few peace-at-any-price men who had sprung up after the elections of last November." — Belmont to Lionel de Rothschild, April 3, Letters, p. 77. See, also, Belmont to Rokeby, May 7, ibid., p. 84.

Yet all was not bright. The iron-clad fleet, which had been carefully and expensively fitted out, failed to reduce Fort Sumter to ruins and to take the city of Charleston, — a result confidently expected by the naval officers engaged, the department in Washington, and the people at large.1 The tidings which came from another movement against Vicksburg, under the personal command of Grant, are spoken of as "bad news." 2 "But," Sumner wrote to Bright, "we are not disheartened. These are the vicissitudes of war. . . . Our only present anxiety comes from England. If England were really 'neutral,' our confidence would be complete." 3 The intelligence came that more cruisers for the Confederates were being built in British ports with the design of preying upon our mercantile marine. This news, together with the frequent reports of the capture and burning of our vessels by the Alabama, whose escape through the negligence, or as most people then believed through the unfriendly animus, of the British government, made the links of "England and our blazing ships " 4 complete, and caused emotions of sorrow, anger, and bitterness which long endured.5
_______________
1 The attack was made April 7.
2 Sumner to Bright, April 7, Pierce's Sumner, vol. iv. p. 131.
2 Ibid.
4 The heading of an article in New York Times, March 7.
5 Bryant wrote to Bigelow, December 3, 1862: "The English have lost more ground in public opinion in America within the past year and a half than they can redeem in a century." — Life of Bryant, Godwin, vol. ii. p. 183. August Belmont wrote Lord Rokeby, May 7: "The fitting out of armed war vessels like the Alabama and Florida ... in your ports in open violation of the Queen's proclamation and the foreign enlistment act have produced a most painful feeling here." — Letters privately printed, p. 83.
My authorities for this account other than those mentioned are : New York Tribune, March 7, 10, 16, 21, April 13; New York World, March 16; see, especially, articles in the Boston Advertiser of March 19, and the Phila. Inquirer, June 24 ; Chicago Tribune, May 16; Moore's Rebellion Record, vol. vi. Diary, pp. 45, 48, 59,62 ; Pierce's Sumner, vol. iv. p. 129 et seq. ; Diplomatic Correspondence, 1863, part i.; Nicolay and Hay, vol. vii.; the Atlantic Coast, Ammen; The Mississippi, Greene; Schuckers's Chase; Report of the Secretary of the Treasury, December 10, 1863.

We now come to the most celebrated case of arbitrary arrests during the war. Vallandigham is not an attractive character. Had his vehement opposition to the war been the bursting out of a soul which could not contain itself in view of the growing militant spirit of the people, of the corrupt and arbitrary methods of many in power, our sympathy might in a measure be drawn to him, as it goes out to many who in history have stood up for the rights of the minority. But his efforts were not spontaneous; indeed, if the traditions be true, he was cold, calculating, selfish, ambitious, vindictive. He lacked generous impulses. He accepted favors of pecuniary and other character, and when the chance came to return them which a gentleman of ordinary sense of gratitude would eagerly have embraced, he turned the cold shoulder. In any leader of men it is difficult to say how much is self-seeking, how much is patriotism; but there is reason to believe that in Vallandigham's mind the advancement of self dominated all other motives. His speeches and his action lend themselves to such a construction. In the first part of 1863 Horatio Seymour was the leader of the democracy. Had Vallandigham been content to follow, he would have taken the same line, acting in union with his colleagues in Congress, Pendleton and Cox, whose course approached the ideal of an opposition that I have set forth. But in that there was no leadership. By a violent and sensational antagonism, by making himself the exponent of the extreme Democrats of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, he might draw the party to him, he might become the chief of the Copperheads of the West. Such was his course, such the result. He was a man of parts, an attractive and bright public speaker. If it be true that he lacked sincerity, he imposed upon his fellow-citizens by the intensity of his utterances, the earnestness of his manner. He has been compared to Charles James Fox. In the opposition of the Englishman to the war against the thirteen colonies, the likeness fails for obvious reasons, but a comparison is pertinent between Vallandigham opposing Lincoln and Fox opposing Pitt in the war with revolutionary France.1 In every respect save in personal morals, Fox is nobler than Vallandigham. The Englishman had a warm heart, dearly loved his country, and was capable of making sacrifices for it;2 the American placed self first and country afterwards. One of the cleverest and most widely read sketches that grew out of the war was that written by Edward Everett Hale, whose conception was vitalized by the career of the Ohio Copperhead: "The Man without a Country " 3 struck the chord that recalled to the minds of the majority Vallandigham. When he was banished and on his way to the South, passing from the lines of one army to those of the other, a guard was needed to protect him from the fury of the Union soldiers, but no sentinels paced before his door as he slept in the domain of the Southern Confederacy.4

Better had it been to leave his punishment to public opinion. But Burnside, smarting under his defeat at Fredericksburg and the criticisms to which he was subject, had been assigned to the command of the Department of the Ohio, with headquarters at Cincinnati; and when he came in contact with the Copperheads of Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana, he began literally to breathe out threatenings. April 13 he issued his famous General Order No. 38, in which, after denouncing the penalty of death for certain overt acts in aid of the
________________________
1 How it appeared to a contemporary is shown by Lord Sheffield's words of January 23, 1793, to Gibbon: "Charles [Fox] seemed disposed to support the enemies of the country, against the country, as he and his Party did the last war." — Private Letters of Gibbon, vol. ii. p. 364.
2 See, for example, Trevelyan, The American Revolution, part i., passim, especially p. 246.
3 Published in the Atlantic Monthly for December, 1863. In thirteen years half a million copies of it were printed. See The Man without a Country and its History, Boston (1897).
4 Life of Vallandigham by his brother, pp. 298, 300.

Confederates, he said: "The habit of declaring sympathy for the enemy will not be allowed. ... It must be distinctly understood that treason, expressed or implied, will not be tolerated in this department" 1 Vallandigham, who had long been obnoxious to the Union men of Ohio, was a candidate for the Democratic nomination for governor, and was continually making speeches which were undoubtedly a source of irritation to Burnside. May 1 a Democratic mass-meeting took place at Mount Vernon. There was a large procession of citizens in wagons. Hickory poles, an emblem of the party since Jackson's time, were used to bear the American flags, and the conventional thirty-four young women rode in a decorated wagon to represent the thirty-four States of the whole Union. What was new in such a Democratic assemblage was the large number of butternut badges and of pins that were made of the heads cut out of old copper cents, and were worn with pride. Vallandigham was the chief speaker, and aroused much enthusiasm from the many thousands who had gathered there from all parts of Knox County. Two of Burnside's captains in citizen's clothes were taking notes, which are the only reports of the speech, and are of little value as historical evidence, for detached sentences and isolated remarks fail to give the tenor of a discourse; but it was undoubtedly harsh and violent, and went as near giving " aid and comfort to the rebellion " as any talk could that proceeded from a good lawyer who knew the law. The captains' reports, however, were sufficient to convince Burnside that his General Order No. 38 had been grossly violated. Without consulting his subordinates or au attorney, he ordered his aide-de-camp to go to Dayton and arrest Vallandigham. The aide with a company of soldiers took a special train, and reached his house at half-past two in the morning.2 They thundered at the doors, awaked the inmates, and, telling their errand, were refused admittance. They broke into the house, seized Vallandigham in his bed-chamber, and took him quickly
_______________
1 O. R., vol. xxiii. part ii. p. 237.
2 May 5,

to Cincinnati, where he was incarcerated in a military prison. May 6 he was brought before a military commission for trial. He denied the jurisdiction of the commission and refused to plead, but the trial went on. It lasted two days. There were two witnesses for the prosecution, the captains, and one for the defence, S. S. Cox, one of the speakers at the Mount Vernon meeting. There were no arguments, but Vallandigham made a protest. His attorney made application to the judge of the United States Circuit Court for a writ of habeas corpus, which was refused. May 16 the Commission found him guilty of "publicly expressing in violation of General Orders No. 38 . . . sympathy for those in arms against the government of the United States, and declaring disloyal sentiments and opinions with the object and purpose of weakening the power of the government in its efforts to suppress an unlawful rebellion." The Commission sentenced him to close confinement during the continuance of the war. General Burnside approved the sentence, and designated Fort Warren as the prison. The President commuted it to banishment, and directed that he be sent beyond our military lines to the Southern Confederacy.

From the beginning to the end of these proceedings law and justice were set at naught. The offence for which Vallandigham was tried was the violation of an order of a major-general. The only possible authority for this order was the proclamation of the President of September 24, 1862, itself of doubtful constitutionality.1 This proclamation was superseded by the Act of Congress of March 3,1863, inasmuch as a later and joint act of Congress and the President in undoubted accordance with the Constitution2 must abrogate an earlier decree of the President alone.

The right of General Burnside even to make the arrest may be questioned. The majority of the United States Supreme Court in the Milligan case maintained that the suspension of
__________________
1 See p. 170.
2 Opinion of Chief Justice Chase in the Milligan case, 4 Wallace, 133.

the writ of habeas corpus did not authorize the arrest of anyone.1 Conceding, however, this right, as it had hitherto been freely and recklessly exercised, the procedure should have been subject to the Acts of Congress of March 3, 1863, and July 17, 1862. The Secretary of War should have reported the arrest of Vallandigham to the United States judge of that jurisdiction, and if the grand jury found no indictment against him for giving "aid and comfort to the rebellion" or for any other offence, it became the duty of the judge to discharge the prisoner. The argument that southern Ohio was the theatre of war and therefore under martial law because Cincinnati and other parts of the State had been threatened in the autumn of 1862, cannot be maintained. The only safe rule is as old as the Parliament of Edward III.: "When the King's courts are open, it is a time of peace in judgment of law." 2 The United States courts were regularly open in the Southern District of Ohio. But, it is urged, a jury would not convict the prisoner. As the President said in illustration of this and in defence of his action: "A jury too frequently has at least one member more ready to hang the panel than to hang the traitor."3 To dispense with "the sworn twelve" because they will not find a person guilty, would obviously be subversive of personal liberty. The government of England during her war with revolutionary France tried men regularly for sedition and for treason, and while most of them were acquitted amid the shouts and cheers of the London mob the ministry never made a proposition to declare the country under martial law and try the accused by a military tribunal. Happily for us we have a Supreme Court which reviews proceedings and has laid down principles too clear for dispute, that should have guided the President, his
_______________
1 This case was decided December, 1866. The opinion of the court was delivered by Justice Davis. On this question the court divided 5 to 4. See Garfield's argument, Works, vol. i. p. 143.
2 Cited in the opinion of the court in the Milligan case, 4 Wallace, 128.
3 Letter to Erastus Corning and others, June 12, Complete Works, vol. ii. p. 347.

Secretaries, and his generals during the civil conflict. The judges were unanimous in declaring that the military commission which tried Milligan was illegal. By a parity of reasoning it follows unquestionably that the military commission which tried and sentenced Vallandigham had not a vestige of legal standing. The commutation of the President was likewise vitiated in law.

The connection of Lincoln with this case is of interest. "In my own discretion," he wrote, "I do not know whether I would have ordered the arrest of Mr. Vallandigham. . . . It gave me pain when I learned that he had been arrested (that is, I was pained that there should have seemed to be a necessity for arresting him)."1 But when the arrest was reported by Burnside, he sent a quasi-approval of it through a despatch of the Secretary of War;2 and later wrote: "All the cabinet regretted the necessity of arresting, for instance, Vallandigham, some perhaps doubting there was a real necessity for it; but being done, all were for seeing you through with it."8 There can be no question that from the legal point of view the President should have rescinded the sentence and released Vallandigham. He chose, however, to assume the responsibility of the arrest, and in his letter to the Albany and Ohio committees he made the strongest argument in its support of which the case admitted. To Erastus Corning of the Albany committee he said: "I was slow to adopt the strong measures which by degrees I have been forced to regard as being within the exceptions of the Constitution and as indispensable to the public safety. ... I think the time not unlikely to come when I shall be blamed for having made too few arrests rather than too many. . . . Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier boy who deserts, while I must not touch a hair of a wily agitator who induces him to desert? This is none the less injurious when effected by
__________________
1 Letter to Erastus Corning and others, Complete Works, vol. ii. p. 351.
2 O. R., vol. xxiii. part ii. p. 316.
3 To Burnside, Lincoln, Complete Works, vol. ii. p. 342.

getting a father, or brother, or friend into a public meeting and then working upon his feelings till he is persuaded to write the soldier boy that he is fighting in a bad cause for a wicked administration and contemptible government, too weak to arrest and punish him if he shall desert."1

While the Republicans of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, meeting one extreme opinion with another, generally approved of the arrest, trial, and sentence of Vallandigham, many of them, indeed, believing that the sentence was not severe enough and that he deserved hanging, still a large portion of the Republican press of the East condemned his arrest and the tribunal before which he was arraigned. Yet when the President commuted the sentence to banishment to the Southern Confederacy, which was regarded by the people as a huge joke, the proceeding found a greater degree of favor; and when he wrote the two letters in defence of it,2 he carried pretty nearly his whole party with him. While he was adroit and sincere in his reasoning, and went as far towards proving a bad case as the nature of things will permit, he did not take the view of the broad statesman we may note in his papers on compensation to the border States and on the emancipation of the slaves. He employed rather the arguments of the clever attorney and politician eager to seize the weak points of his adversary and bring out in shining contrast the strong features of his own case. We may wish, indeed, that the occasion which prompted these letters had not arisen, yet their tone demonstrated that the great principles of liberty would suffer no permanent harm while Abraham Lincoln was in the presidential chair. The mischief of the procedure lay in the precedent, even as his intimate friend and appointee, Justice David Davis, expressed it in the opinion of the court in the Milligan case: "Wicked men ambitious of power," he said, "with hatred of liberty and contempt of law, may fill the place once occupied by Washington and Lincoln, and if
_____________
1 Lincoln, Complete Works, vol. it. p. 347 et seq.
2 The letter to the Ohio committee is printed, ibid., p. 360.

this right is conceded [that of a commander in a time of war to declare martial law within the lines of his military district and subject citizens as well as soldiers to the rule of his will] and the calamities of war again befall us, the dangers to human liberty are frightful to contemplate."1

The arrest and punishment of Vallandigham were not only contrary to the Constitution and statute, but were likewise bad policy. The Democratic press again became bitter in their criticism of the administration. Many public meetings were held condemning the "outrage." Most of these were marked by propriety, but the one held in New York City, where blatant demagogues roused the feelings of the basest element, was, in view of what occurred later, an admonition of the care that should be taken by the constituted authorities to observe strictly the letter of the law.

Had it not been for his arrest, Vallandigham would have been obliged to make a contest for the Democratic nomination for governor; now it came to him spontaneously and with almost the unanimous voice of an earnest and enthusiastic convention.2 After remaining awhile in the Southern States, he went by the way of Bermuda to Canada, whence he spoke as a martyr to his fellow-Democrats with a voice of greater power than if he had been able to declaim from the stump in every county of Ohio. It was a serious thing that such a man should become the candidate of a still powerful party in one of the most important States; indeed the hearty response to his nomination made it seem at first more than possible that he might be elected. True, he met with defeat by an overwhelming majority; but it was the victories of Meade and Grant that accomplished his overthrow, and they would have been potent in taking the sting from his words had he been roaming at will over his own State.3
_________________
1 4 Wallace, 125.
2 The convention assembled at Columbus June 11.
3 My authorities for this account other than those mentioned are: Life of C. L. Vallandigham by his brother; Trial of C. L. Vallandigham by a Military Commission, Cincinnati (1863); J. D. Cox, Reminiscences, MS; Appleton's Annual Cyclopaedia, 1863; The Quarterly Review, January, 1897, p. 215; New York Times, May 8, 19, 20, June 13, 15; Tribune, May 15, 18, 22, June 13; World, May 6, 19, 25, June 12; Herald, May 8,19, 20, 21, 22, June 11, 13; Evening Post, May 14, 19, 21, June 15; Columbus Crisis, May 13, 20, 27, June 3, 17, Letter from Mt. Vernon, May 2; Chicago Tribune, May 6, 19, June 13, Agate's letter to Cincinnati Gazette, June 11; National Intelligencer, May 27, June 16, 20; Boston Advertiser, May 19, 20, 22, June 13, 16; Boston Courier, May 7, 19, June 12, 13; Cincinnati Commercial, May 6,8, 15, 19, 22, 26, June 1.

By the President's approval of the arrest of Vallandigham Burnside was induced to further acts of folly. He issued an order announcing that "the publication or circulation of books containing sentiments of a disloyal tendency comes clearly within reach of General Orders No. 38, and those who offend in this manner will be dealt with accordingly."1 June 1 he promulgated General Order No. 84. The circulation of the New York World, it said, "is calculated to exert a pernicious and treasonable influence, and is therefore prohibited in this department. . . . On account of the repeated expression of disloyal and incendiary sentiments, the publication of the newspaper known as the Chicago Times is hereby suppressed." 2 Strange pronunciamentos were these to apply to the States of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, where there was no war, where the courts were open, where the people were living under the American Constitution and English law. Fortunately men bred in liberty do not easily forget their lessons.

June 3, at three o'clock in the morning vedettes galloped
__________________
1 June 2, O. R., vol. xxiii. part ii. p. 382.
2 Ibid., p. 381. I add a contemporaneous opinion on the Chicago Times, and one written after the close of the war: "Upwards of eighteen months that sheet had poured forth one continuous flood of disloyal and incendiary sentiments. It had gone beyond any print, North or South, in its opposition to the war and in its devotion to the interests of the rebellion." — Chicago Tribune, June 5. "Chief among these instigators of insurrection and treason, the foul and damnable reservoir which supplied the lesser sewers with political filth, falsehood, and treason, has been the Chicago Times, — a newspaper which would not have needed to change its course an atom if its place of publication had been Richmond or Charleston instead of Chicago." — Report of Acting Asst. Provost-Marshal-General of Illinois, August 9, 1865.

up to the Chicago Times office in Chicago. An hour later two companies of infantry arrived from Camp Douglas, took possession of the office, stopped the press, destroyed the newspapers which had been printed, placed a guard over the establishment, and patrolled the entire block during the remainder of the night. At noon a meeting of prominent citizens of both parties was held in the room of the Circuit Court. The mayor presided. By a unanimous vote the President was requested to rescind the order of General Burnside suppressing the Chicago Times. To the telegram to Washington which imparted this action Senator Trumbull and Representative Arnold1 added: "We respectfully ask for the above the serious and prompt consideration of the President."2 The legislature was in session at Springfield, and the House of Representatives denounced by resolution the Burnside order. In the evening, in Court House Square, Chicago, "twenty thousand loyal citizens," half of whom were Republicans, assembled to hear speeches condemning the arbitrary act of the general, and resolved that the freedom of speech and of the press must not be infringed and that the military power must remain subordinate to the civil authority. The next day (June 4) the President rescinded the part of Burnside's order which suppressed the Chicago Times,3 and the Secretary of War directed the general to make no more arrests of civilians and suppress no more newspapers without conferring first with the War Department.4

Nothing can be a more striking condemnation of the President's course towards Vallandigham than his own action in the case of the Chicago Times. Even in this he deserves no credit for the initiative in right doing; for he simply responded to the outburst of sentiment in Chicago,5 which was beginning to spread over the whole North. Nevertheless, in
___________________
1 Of Chicago.
2 O. R., vol. xxiii. part ii. p. 885.
3 Ibid., p. 386. The general also revoked his order concerning the New York World.
4 J. D. Cox's Reminiscences, MS.
5 See Lincoln, Complete Works, vol. ii. p. 525.

this censure of Lincoln it is well to remember that, overweighted by the heavy misfortunes of the last year, he came to the consideration of the Vallandigham case oppressed with anxiety at the terrible defeat of the Army of the Potomac at Chancellorsville.1
________________
1 My authorities other than those mentioned are: New York Tribune, June 6; Times, June 12, 13; Columbus Crisis, June 10; Chicago Tribune, June 4S 5; Boston Advertiser, June 6, 12.


Source: Rhodes, James Ford. History of the United States; from the compromise of 1850 to the final restoration of home rule at the south in 1877, v.4. New York: Macmillan, 1910 [c1892].