previous next


Chapter 43:

  • Subjugation of the border States, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri
  • -- a military force invades Maryland and occupies Baltimore -- martial law declared -- civil government of the state suspended -- unalienable rights of the citizens invaded -- arrests of citizens commenced -- case of John Merryman -- opinion of Chief Justice Taney -- order of commanding General to marshals to put test to voters -- the governor Appeals to President -- his reply -- voters imprisoned -- statement of the governor -- result of the election -- state constitutional convention -- emancipation hardly carried -- first open measures in Kentucky -- interference at the state election by the United States government -- voters excluded -- martial law declared -- the vote -- statement of the governor -- attempt to enroll able-bodied negroes -- the governor Visits Washington -- arrests, imprisonment, and exile of citizens -- suspension of the writ of habeas corpus by President Lincoln -- interference with the state election -- order to the sheriffs -- proclamation of the governor -- enlistment of slaves -- emancipation by constitutional amendment -- violent measures in Missouri -- the governor calls out the militia -- bravery of the governor -- words of the commanding General -- troops poured into the state -- proceedings of the state convention -- Numberless usurpations -- emancipation ordinance passed.

If the State government is instituted with certain powers which become ‘just powers’ by the formal consent of the governed, for the purpose of enforcing security to the unalienable rights of man, it must be evident that any interference with those rights by which their enjoyment is diminished, endangered, or destroyed, is not only an obstruction to the operation of the ‘just powers’ of the state government, but is subversive of the purpose which it was instituted to effect.

In this manner the state government of Maryland was subjugated. A military force, under the authority of the government of the United States, occupied the city of Baltimore at a time when no invasion of the state was threatened, and when there had been no application of the legislature, or of the Executive, for protection against domestic [389] violence, which circumstances alone could give a constitutional authority for this organized military force to occupy the state. The commanding general, Schenck, soon issued an order, of which the following is an extract:

Martial law is declared and hereby established in the city and county of Baltimore, and in all the counties of the Western Shore of Maryland. The commanding General gives assurance that this suspension of civil government within the limits defined shall not extend beyond the necessities of the occasion. All the civil courts, tribunals, and political functionaries of State, county, or city authority, are to continue in the discharge of their duties as in times of peace, only in no way interfering with the exercise of the predominant power assumed and asserted by the military authority.

It will be noticed that this military force of the government of the United States had no constitutional permission to come into Maryland and exercise authority; that the commanding general says that the civil government of the state is suspended within certain limits; that this suspension will be continued according to the necessities of the occasion; that the courts and political functionaries may discharge their duties, only in no way interfering with the exercise of the predominant military power. Now, where were the ‘just powers’ of the state government at this time? They were suspended in a part of the state, says the commanding general, and for so long a time as the military authority may judge the necessities of the occasion to require, and that the courts and political functionaries may discharge their duties while recognizing the supremacy of the military power. Thus was the state government subjugated.

A further subversion of the state government was now commenced by an invasion and denial of some of the unalienable rights of the citizens, for the security of which that government was instituted. The Constitution of the United States says:

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.1

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.2

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.3

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.4

The Declaration of Independence says:

That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that [390]

Davis House at Richmond

[391] among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.

Immediately upon the issue of the order of the commanding general, the arrests of citizens commenced by provost marshals. The family residence of a lady was forced open; she was seized, put on board of a steamer, and sent to the Confederate States. A man was arrested for being ‘disloyal’ to the United States government, and held for examination. Another was charged with interfering with the enrollment; he was held for further examination. Another, charged with being ‘disloyal’ to the United States government, took the oath of allegiance, and was released. A woman charged with the attempt to resist the enrollment was arrested, and subsequently released. A man, on a charge of ‘disloyalty,’ took the oath, and was released. Another, charged with having given improper information to enrolling officers, was released on furnishing the information. Another, charged with having powder in his possession, was released on taking the oath of allegiance. Two others, charged with abuse of the negroes laboring on the fortifications, were held for examination. Another, charged with rendering assistance to wounded Confederate soldiers, and expressing treasonable sentiments, took the oath of allegiance and was released. Another, charged with being a soldier in the Confederate army and paroled, was ordered sent across the lines. A man, charged with treasonable language, was ordered sent across the lines. Two others, charged with aiding Confederate soldiers, took the oath of allegiance and were discharged. Another, charged with receiving letters from Confederates for the purpose of delivery, took the oath of allegiance and was discharged. Another, charged with expressing treasonable sentiments, was held for examination. Two, charged with cheering for Jefferson Davis, took the oath and were released.

One case more must be stated. On May 25, 1861, John Merryman, a most respectable citizen of the state, residing in Baltimore County, was seized in his bed by an armed force and imprisoned in Fort McHenry. He petitioned the Chief Justice of the United States that a writ of habeas corpus might be issued, which was granted. The officer upon it was served declined to obey the writ. An attachment was issued against the officer. The marshal was refused admittance to the fort to serve it. Upon such return being made, the Chief Justice said:

I ordered the attachment yesterday, because upon the face of the return the detention of the prisoner was unlawful upon two grounds:

1. The President, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, can [392] not suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, nor authorize any military officer to do so.

2. A military officer has no right to arrest and detain a person not subject to the rules and articles of war for an offense against the laws of the United States, except in aid of the judicial authority and subject to its control; and, if the party is arrested by the military, it is the duty of the officer to deliver him over immediately to the civil authority, to be dealt with according to law.

Under the Constitution of the United States, these principles are the fundamental law of the Union. In relation to the present return, I propose to say that the marshal has legally the power to summon out the posse comitatus to seize and bring into court the party named in the attachment; but it is apparent he will be resisted in the discharge of that duty by a force notoriously superior to the posse comitatus, and, such being the case, the Court has no power under the law to order the necessary force to compel the appearance of the party.

I shall reduce to writing the reasons under which I have acted, and which have led me to the conclusions expressed in my opinion, and shall report them, with these proceedings, to the President of the United States, and call upon him to perform his constitutional duty to enforce the laws; in other words, to enforce the process of this court.

During the month of July arrests were made of 361 persons, on charges like the above mentioned, by the military authority. Of this number, 317 took the oath of allegiance to the government of the United States and were released; 5 were sent to Fort McHenry, 3 to Washington for the action of the authorities there, 11 to the North, 6 across the lines, and 19 were held for further examination.

On September 11, 1863, one of the city newspapers published the poem entitled ‘The Southern Cross.’ The publishers and editor were immediately arrested, not allowed communication with any person whatever, and on the same day sent across the lines, with the understanding that they should not return during the war. On July 2d an order was issued which forbade the citizens of Baltimore city and county to keep arms unless they were enrolled as volunteer companies. The Fifty-first Regiment of Massachusetts Volunteers was placed at the disposal of General E. B. Tyler, assisted by the provost marshal and the chief of police. The soldiers, in concert with the police, formed into parties of three or four, and were soon diligently engaged in searching houses. Large wagons were provided, and muskets, carbines, rifles, revolvers of all kinds, sabers, bayonets, swords, and bird and ducking guns in considerable quantities were gathered. The Constitution of the United States says:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.5 A further subversion of the state government of Maryland was next [393] made by a direct interference with the elections. An election was to be held in the state for members of the legislature and members of Congress on November 3, 1863. The commanding general, on October 27th issued an order to all marshals and military officers to cause their direct interference with the voters. The governor (Bradford) applied to the President of the United States to have the order revoked, and protested against any person who offered to vote being put to any test not found in the laws of Maryland. President Lincoln declined to interfere with the order, except in one less important point. The governor issued a proclamation on the day preceding the election, which the military commander endeavored to suppress, and issued an order charging that the tendency of the proclamation was to invite and suggest disturbance. One or more regiments of soldiers were sent out and distributed among several of the counties to attend the places of election, in defiance of the known laws of the state prohibiting their presence. Military officers and provost marshals were ordered to arrest voters guilty, in their opinion, of certain offenses, and to menace judges of election with the power of the army in case this order was not respected.

But perhaps the forcible language of the governor to the legislature will furnish the most undeniable statement of the facts. He says:

On Monday evening preceding the election I issued a proclamation giving the judges of election the assurance of the protection of the State to the extent of its ability. Before the following morning, orders were sent to the Eastern Shore, directing its circulation to be suppressed; the public papers were forbidden to publish it, and an embargo laid on all steamers in port trading with that part of the State, lest they might carry it.

The abuses commenced even before the opening of the polls. On the day preceding the election, the officer in command of the regiment which had been distributed among the counties of the Eastren Shore, and who had himself landed in Kent County, commenced his operations by arresting and sending across the bay some ten or more of the most estimable and distinguished of its citizens, including several of the most steadfast and most uncompromising loyalists of the Shore. The jail of the county was entered, the jailer seized, imprisoned, and afterward sent to Baltimore, and prisoners confined therein under indictment set at liberty. The commanding officer gave the first clew to the kind of disloyalty against which he considered himself as particularly commissioned, by printing and publishing a proclamation in which, referring to the election to take place on the next day, he invited all the truly loyal to avail themselves of that opportunity and establish their loyalty, ‘by giving a full and ardent support to the whole Government ticket, upon the platform adopted by the Union League Convention,’ declaring that ‘none other is recognized by the Federal authorities as loyal or worthy of the support of any one who desires the peace and restoration of the Union.’

This Government ticket was in several, if not all, of those counties designated [394] by its color. It was a yellow ticket, and, armed with that, a voter could safely run the gantlet of the sabers and carbines that guarded the entrance to the polls, and known sympathizers with the rebellion were allowed to vote unquestioned if they would vote that ticket, while loyal and respected citizens, ready to take the oath, were turned back by the officer in charge without even allowing them to approach the polls. In one district the military officer took his stand at the polls before they were opened, declaring that none but the ‘yellow ticket should be voted,’ and excluded all others throughout the day. In another district a similar officer caused every ballot offered to be examined, and, unless it was the favored one, the voter was required to take the oath, and not otherwise. In another district, after one vote only had been given, the polls were closed, the judges were all arrested and sent out of the county, and military occupation taken of the town. Other statements might be made.

These abuses present a humiliating record, such as I had never supposed we should be called upon to read in any State, still less in a loyal one like this. Unless it be, indeed, a fallacy to suppose that any rights whatever remain to such a State, or that any line whatever marks the limit of Federal power, a bolder stride across that line that power never made, even in a rebel State, than it did in Maryland on the 3d of last November. A part of the army, which a generous people had supplied for a very different purpose, was on that day engaged in stifling the freedom of election in a faithful State, intimidating its sworn officers, violating the constitutional rights of its loyal citizens, and obstructing the usual channels of communication between them and their Executive.

The result was the election of a majority of members of the legislature in favor of a state constitutional convention. The acts necessary for this object were passed. At the election of delegates, the military authority again interfered in order to secure a majority in favor of immediate and unconditional emancipation. The so-called convention assembled and drafted a so-called constitution, in which the twenty-third article of the Bill of Rights prohibited the existence of slavery in the state, and said, ‘All persons held to service or labor as slaves are hereby declared free.’

It was urged, in objection to the adoption of the so-called constitution by the convention, that ‘the election by which the Convention was called and its members elected was not free for the legal voters of the State, but was held and conducted in clear violation of the rights of voters, in consequence of which a majority of the legal voters of the State were excluded from the polls.’ A rigid article on the qualifications of voters at the state elections was embodied in the constitution, with the shameless provision that it should be in force at the election for ratification or rejection of the so-called constitution which was to create the disabilities. The instrument also authorized a poll to be opened in each company of every Maryland regiment in the service of the United States at the quarters of the commanding officer, and that the [395] commissioned officers of such company should act as the judges of election. The aid of the President of the United States was also obtained to help on the ratification of the new Constitution, and he concludes a letter on the subject by saying, ‘I shall be gratified exceedingly if the good people of the State shall, by their votes, ratify the new Constitution.’

Notwithstanding the aid of the President, of the soldiers' votes, and a most stringent oath, and the exclusiion of every person who had in any manner, by word or act, aided the cause of the Confederacy, the majority for the so-called constitution was only 375. The total vote was 59,973. In 1860 the vote of the state was 92,502. Thus was the state government subjugated and made an instrument of destruction to the people; thus were their rights ruthlessly violated, and property millions of dollars in value annihilated.

The reader must have noticed, in all these proceedings which resulted in the subjugation of the state governments, the cautious and stealthy manner in which the government of the United States proceeded at the outset in each instance until it got a strong foothold, that then the mask was thrown off, and both governor and people were made the unresisting victims of its unscrupulous and lawless outrages.

In the state of Kentucky the first open and direct measures taken by the government of the United States for the subjugation of the state government and people, thereby to effect the emancipation of the slaves, consisted in an interference with the voters at the state election in August, 1863. This interference was by means of a military force stationed at the polls to sustain and enforce the action of some of the servants of the government of the United States, the object being to overawe the judges of election, secure the administration of a rigid oath of allegiance, and thereby the rejection of as many antagonistic votes as possible. Indeed, it was intended that none but so-called ‘Union’ men should vote—that is, men who were willing to approve of every measure which the government of the United States might adopt to carry on the war and revolutionize the state. At the same time, no man was allowed to be a candidate or to receive any votes unless he was a well-known advocate of the government of the United States. It will be seen that these measures excluded the largest portion of the former Democratic party, although they might be practically ‘Union’ men, and placed everything in the hands of the administration party, where, by the use of similar machinery, it remained a great many years after the war closed.

Meantime, on July 31, 1863, the commanding general of the [396] Department of the Ohio issued an order declaring the state under martial law, and said, ‘It is for the purpose, only, of protecting, if necessary, the rights of loyal citizens and the freedom of elections.’ He would have more correctly said, ‘It is for the purpose of enforcing and securing a majority for the candidates of my views.’ The general in command in the western part of the state issued an order to regulate the election in that quarter, and the colonels at every post did likewise. In Louisville, on the day of election, there were ten soldiers with muskets at each voting place who, with crossed bayonets, stood in the doors, preventing all access of voters to the polls but by their permission, and who arrested and carried to the military prison all whom they were told to arrest. Out of some eight thousand voters in the city, less than five thousand votes were taken. How many of the missing three thousand were deterred from attempting to vote could not be ascertained, nor was it necessary, for the intimidation of three thousand voters is no greater outrage than the intimidation of only three hundred. The interpretation generally put on the order of the commanding officer by the opposition party was that no man was to have the privilege of having his right to vote tested by the judges of election if he was pointed out to the guard by any one of the detectives as a proper person to be arrested. As the commanding officer had not the semblance of legal or rightful power to interfere with the election, the most sinister suspicions were naturally aroused, and very many were said to have been deterred from going to the polls through fear that they would be made the victims to personal or party malice. Similar intimidation was practiced in other parts of the state. The result was that there was not only direct military interference with the election, but that it was conducted in most of the state under the intimidation of the bayonets of the government of the United States. The total vote was 85,695. In 1860 the vote of the state was 146,216. The governor-elect in his message spoke of such an unjust election as follows:

The recent elections clearly and unmistakably define the popular will and public judgment of Kentucky. It is settled that Kentucky will, with unwavering faith and unswerving purpose, stand by and support the Government in every effort to suppress the rebellion and maintain the Union.

The true sense of this language is that the government of the United States had so far subverted the state government and destroyed the sovereignty of the people that they could not withstand its further aggressions.

The government of the United States was now ready to move forward in its design to destroy one of the most valuable institutions of [397] the state. Steps were taken by its officers to enroll all able-bodied male negroes in the state between the ages of twenty and forty-five years, that they might form a part of its forces. The effect of this measure was to break up the labor system of the state, and meanwhile the pseudophilanthropists furnished food for powder and indulged their ideas of freedom at their neighbors' expense. The excitement produced caused the governor to visit Washington and effect agreements by which all recruiting should cease when a county's quota was full, all recruits should be removed from the state, and other similar provisions. A year later he said to the legislature: ‘Had these agreements been carried out, a very different state of feeling would have existed in Kentucky. But, instead of carrying them out, the most offensive and injurious modes were adopted to violate them.’

The next step taken by the government of the United States in the subversion of the government of Kentucky was the destruction of the unalienable right of personal liberty of the citizens, which the state was in duty bound to protect. The Union governor of the state, whose election was aided by the United States military officers, as above stated, is the witness for the facts. In his message to the legislature of January, 1865, he says:

The gravest matter of military outrage has been, and yet is, the arrest, imprisonment, and banishment of loyal citizens without a hearing, and without even a knowledge of the charges against them. There have been a number of this class of arrests, merely for partisan political vengeance, and to force them to pay heavy sums to purchase their liberation. How the spoils so infamously extorted are divided, has not transpired to the public information. For partisan political ends, General John B. Huston was arrested at midnight preceding the election, and hurried off under circumstances of shameful aggravation. He was, however, released in a few days; but that does not atone for the criminality of his malicious arrest and false imprisonment. The battle-scarred veteran, Colonel Frank Wolford, whose name and loyal fame are part of his country's proudest memories, and whose arrest for political vengeance should put a nation's check to blush, is yet held in durance vile, without a hearing and without an accusation, so far as he or his friends can ascertain.

Lieutenant-Governor Jacobs, whose yet unclosed wounds were received in battle for his country, was made a victim to partisan and personal enmity, and hurried without a hearing and without any known accusation through the rebel lines into Virginia. The action in this case is in defiance of Federal and State Constitutions and laws, in defiance of the laws of humanity and liberty, dishonors the cause of our country, and degrades the military rank to the infamous uses of partisan and personal vengeance. Other cases might be mentioned, but these are selected because they are known to the whole country; the acts of these men are part of the glorious history of loyal heroism.

The next step in the progress of the subjugation of the state [398] government was taken by President Lincoln on July 5, 1864, when he issued a proclamation establishing martial law throughout the state, and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Civil proceedings were allowed to be continued, ‘which did not affect the military operations or the constituted authorities of the Government of the United States.’ Arrests of individuals by military force soon commenced, and a large number of eminent Kentuckians of all professions and pursuits were imprisoned. A group of persons, consisting of judges, magistrates, wealthy merchants, and young women, without having been allowed a hearing, or trail, or any opportunity to vindicate themselves, were banished from the state. In this destruction of the unalienable right of personal liberty, the state government was passive; indeed, it was powerless to resist.

A state election was to be held on the first Monday of August for local officers and a Judge of the High Court of Appeals from one district. Chief Justice Duvall was one of the two candidates. On July 29th an order was issued by the Major General, commanding, to the sheriffs of the counties concerned, as follows:

You will not allow the name of Alvin Duvall to appear upon the poll-books as a candidate for office at the coming election.

Another name was substituted. The election of a President of the United States was to be held in November, but the government of the United States seems to have regarded the vote of the state as unnecessary to secure the reelection of its officials, and refrained from interference. Under these circumstances, the governor of the state took courage and issued a proclamation to the election officers. It is of no importance except as showing their powers and duties, and how grossly they had neglected them at previous elections. He said:

As no officer of any rank, from the President down, has any right or authority to interfere with elections, no order to do so can legalize the act. If there be sufficient power in the citizens present, at any place where such interference may be attempted, to arrest the offenders, and hold them over to answer to the violated laws, it will be the duty of the sheriff to make the arrest in such case. He has authority to require the aid of every citizen, and it should be readily and promptly given, in defense of a common right—of a blood-bought franchise. If the force employed to interfere with the election be too great, at any place of voting, to be arrested, the officers of election, in such case, should adjourn and not proceed with the election. If you are unable to hold a free election, your duty is to hold none at all.

By enlistment, over twenty-two thousand of the most valuable slaves in the state had gone into the service of the United States, and on March 3, 1865, its Congress passed an act declaring that the wives and children [399] of all such soldiers should be free. But the final moment was near at hand when the annihilation of more than one hundred millions of property and the destruction of one of the most important institutions of the state was to take place by one of those fictions so peculiar to this administration of the government of the United States. That was the pretended adoption of a constitutional amendment, prohibiting the existence of slavery in the United States. When a whole people suffers itself to be cajoled in this unaccountable manner by its unscrupulous rulers, it argues as little regard for the fundamental law of the Union as for the rights of the states.

The subversion of the state government of Missouri by the government of the United States was more rapid and more desperate than in the case of Kentucky. As previously stated, the governor of the state, at the commencement of the difficulties, proposed the most conciliatory terms to the government of the United States, which were rejected. He then, like a governor sensible of his duty to protect the rights of his people and of the sacred obligations of his official oath, issued his proclamation calling into active service fifty thousand of the state militia, ‘for the purpose of repelling invasion, and for the protection of the lives, liberty, and property of the citizens.’ He said:

A series of unprovoked and unparalleled outrages have been inflicted upon the peace and dignity of this Commonwealth and upon the rights and liberties of its people, by wicked and unprincipled men, professing to act under the authority of the Government of the United States; solemn enactments of your Legislature have been nullified; your volunteer soldiers have been taken prisoners; your commerce with your sister States has been suspended; your trade with your own fellow-citizens has been and is subjected to the harassing control of an armed soldiery; peaceful citizens have been imprisoned without warrant of law; unoffending and defenseless men, women, and children have been ruthlessly shot down and murdered; and other unbearable indignities have been heaped upon your State and yourselves.

The plea of the invader was contained in an order issued from Washington to the commanding general in these words:

The President observes with concern that, notwithstanding the pledge of the State authorities to cooperate in preserving the peace of Missouri, loyal citizens in great numbers continue to be driven from their homes. It is immaterial whether the outrages continue from inactivity or indisposition on the part of the State authorities to prevent them. It is enough that they continue, and it will devolve on you the duty of putting a stop to them summarily by the force under your command, to be aided by such troops as you may require from Kansas, Iowa, and Illinois. . . . The authority of the United States is paramount, and, whenever it is apparent that a movement, whether by order of State authority or not, is hostile, you will not hesitate to put it down.


In this order the only pretext put forward is that of domestic violence. But in that case the Constitution of the United States gives no authority to the United States government to interfere except on the express conditions of an ‘application of the Legislature, or of the Executive, when the Legislature can not be convened.’ There had been no application of the legislature or of the Executive. On the contrary, the governor of the state, like a brave man, told the Executive of the United States to keep his hands off, and to keep his military forces without the state, and he pledged himself to preserve its peace and neutrality. But arguments or pledges on the part of the victim have never yet stopped the progress of the remorseless usurper. The subjugation of the state government of Missouri to the will and designs of the government at Washington had been determined upon, and the sovereignty of the people was to be crushed by troops from the sister states of Kansas, Iowa, and Illinois.

But the bravery of the governor and the determination of the legislature caused the government of the United States to depart from its usually stealthy progress in the invasion of the state government and the sovereignty of the people, and to adopt bolder measures. The governor was charged with purposes of treason and secession, for his attempt faithfully to discharge .the duties of a conscientious governor to the citizens. Says the commander of the United States forces, in his proclamation:

The recent proclamation of Governor Jackson, by which he has set at defiance the authorities of the United States and urged you to make war upon them, is but a consummation of his treasonable purposes, long indicated by his acts and expressed opinions, and now made manifest.

These are fine words to come from the satrap of a usurper who invades a state of the Union without lawful permission or authority, with the design to subvert its government and overthrow the sovereignty of its people, and to be applied by him to the only governor in the Northern states who strove defiantly to protect the unalienable rights and sovereignty of his constituents!

Troops were now poured into the state by the government of the United States so rapidly as to render the successful opposition of the lawful authorities impossible, and the control of a large portion of the state was soon held by the military forces. The governor, unable to resist, retired to the southern part of the state. Meantime the state convention, which had been called to consider the relations between the government of the United States and the state of Missouri, and to adopt such measures for vindicating the sovereignty of the state as ** [401] were necessary, reassembled on the call of its committee. Entirely forgetful of the objects for which the people had called it together, it proceeded to declare the state offices vacant, and to elect a provisional governor and other officers entirely subservient to the will and behests of the administration at Washington. The commanding general now declared martial law in the state, and the emancipation of all slaves belonging to persons who had taken an active part with us. This emancipation clause was soon modified by the President as in advance of the times.

The attention of the reader is called to the numerous usurpations and violations of constitutional principles and of laws, by the government of the United States and its champions, contained in the few lines of the preceding paragraphs, viz.: the invasion with military force, the expulsion of the lawful state authorities, the assumption by the state convention of unlawful powers, the election and introduction of persons to offices not vacant, the abandonment of all protection of the unalienable rights of the people, the declaration of martial law without any authority for it, and the attempt to emancipate the slaves in violation of every law and constitutional principle.

The severity of the Executive of the United States now began to be felt by the citizens of the state. All disaffected persons were silenced or arrested, prisoners of war were treated as criminals, and every obstacle to complete subjugation to the will of the conqueror sought to be removed. The state government was represented by a provisional governor; a state convention that adjourned its sessions from year to year, after dallying periodically with the subject of the emancipation of the slaves, finally passed an ordinance for that purpose, to take effect in 1870. This was not immediate emancipation, so the disturbances were kept up in the state until, at a session of the legislature in February, 1864, a bill was passed for a so-called state convention to revise the state constitution, and the election of delegates in November. It is remarkable how much the orders of the commanding general now contained relative to disorderly persons. This was preparatory to the occupation of the polls by the military force, and the exclusion of all opposition voters. The delegates were elected, and the so-called convention assembled on January 6, 1865. An immediate emancipation ordinance was passed, and the state organization was subjugated to do the will of the usurper and to disregard the will of the sovereign people.

1 Article V, amendment.

2 Article IV, amendment.

3 Article VIII, amendment.

4 Article I, amendment.

5 Article II, amendment

Creative Commons License
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.

hide People (automatically extracted)
Sort people alphabetically, as they appear on the page, by frequency
Click on a person to search for him/her in this document.
Abraham Lincoln (3)
John Merryman (2)
Alvin Duvall (2)
Frank Wolford (1)
Visits Washington (1)
E. B. Tyler (1)
— Taney (1)
Schenck (1)
Jacobs (1)
T. J. Jackson (1)
John B. Huston (1)
Jefferson Davis (1)
Bradford (1)
Appeals (1)
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: