May 15, 1863. |
June 13. |
This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
[85]
friends of the Government.
When the news of his conviction and sentence was proclaimed throughout the land by the telegraph, Democratic politicians held meetings in several cities to express dissatisfaction with such proceedings.
One of these, in the city of Albany,
New York (to which the Governor of the State, Horatio Seymour, addressed an impassioned letter1), in a series of resolutions, denounced the proceedings in Vallandigham's case as unlawful--“contrary to the spirit of our laws and the Constitution,” and declared that they regarded “the blow struck at a citizen of Ohio as aimed at the rights of every citizen at the North.”
They implored the President to “reverse the action of the military tribunal ;” and they sent the chairman of their meeting (Erastus Corning) to Washington City to lay their resolutions before the Executive.
This was done.
The gravity of the subject required serious consideration, and it was given.
Then the President, in a long letter to the officers of the meeting,
ably defended the position taken by Congress and himself in the matter of the writ of habeas corpus and the arrest of seditious persons in time of rebellion, by citations of precedents found in our own history, and simple arguments based on the most tangible premises of common sense;3 and closed with the assurance that he should continue “to do so much as might seem to be required by the public safety.”
1 Mr. Seymour was an able public officer and an average statesman, with an irreproachable private character, and wide influence in society. He was one of the most conspicuous and uncompromising members of the Peace Faction; and was in full sympathy with the Conspirators concerning the doctrine of supreme State sovereignty, on which, if true, they justly founded their claim to the right of secession, and the severing of the bond which united them to the General Government, which was regarded by them as only “the agent of the States.” 1 On that account his words had great weight with the vast majority of the Opposition party. His letter to the convention was therefore of great Importance at that crisis, and was doubtless chiefly instrumental in fostering opposition to the war and to the measures used by the Government for carrying it on, which culminated, in the City of New York, a few months later, in a most fearful and bloody riot, as we shall observe presently. It was a highly inflammable missile, in which the Government was denounced as a despot, seeking “to impose punishment, not for an offense against law, but for a disregard of an invalid order, put forth in an utter disregard of principles of civil liberty ;” and he told the people plainly that if the proceedings in Vallandigham's case were upheld by the Government and sanctioned by the majority, they were in a state of revolution. By implication, in carefully guarded language, he exhorted the people to resistance. He declared that the Governors and the courts of some of the great Western States had “shrunk into insignificance before the despotic powers claimed and exercised by military men ;” and closed by saying: “The people of this country now wait with the deepest anxiety the decision of the Administration upon these acts. Having given it a generous support in the conduct of the war, we now pause to see what kind of Government it is for which we are asked to pour out our blood and treasure. The action of the Administration will determine in the minds of more than one-half of the people of the loyal States whether this war is waged to put down rebellion at the South, or to destroy free institutions at the North.” The action of the Administration thenceforth, until the rebellion was crushed, was according to the rule in Vallandigham's case, and four-fifths “of the people of the loyal States” sustained it, in spite of the efforts of the Peace Faction to the contrary. The great body of the people of those States were sound friends of the Union.
2 An amusing illustration of action in accordance with this idea may be found in “Letters patent” of Jefferson Davis, dated 5th of June, 1863, revoking the authority of a British consul at Richmond. He said: “Whereas, George Moore, Esq., Her British Majesty's consul for the port of Richmond and State of Virginia, duly recognized as such by exequatur issued by a former Government [United States] which was, at the time of the issue, the duly authorized agent for that purpose of the State of Virginia,” &c.
3 The question was raised, Who is authorized to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, according to the provisions of the 2d clause of section 9, Article I. of the National Constitution? The Opposition declared that only Congress, in regular session, could do so. The President and Congress declared that it was the right of the President to do so, if “rebellion or invasion,” during the recess of Congress, should show that the public safety required it. On this subject, see able essays by Horace Binney, of Philadelphia, published at about that time, and replies thereto, both in pamphlet form. The President, in his letter, said: “By necessary implication, when rebellion or invasion comes, the decision is to be made from time to time; and I think the man whom, for the time, the people have, under the Constitution, made the Commander-in-Chief of their army and navy, is the man who holds the power and bears the responsibility of making it.” Congress having justified the action of the President, and the people, by every demonstration of a desire to sustain the Government, having sanctioned the acts of Congress, the question of the constitutionality of the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and of arbitrary arrests was settled, and all opposition thereto was consequently factious and seditious.
Scanned printed text.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.