THE TRUTH
FROM AN HONEST MAN.
THE LETTER OF THE PRESIDENT.
PHILADELPHIA:
KING & BAIRD, PRINTERS, No. 607 SANSOM STREET.
1863..








PRESIDENT A LINCOLN'S VIEWS.
AN IMPORTANT LETTER ON THE PRINCIPLES
INVOLVED IN THE VALLANDIGHAM CASE.
CORRESPONDBNCE IN RELATION TO THE DEMOCRATIC MEETING,
AT ALBANY, N. Y.
PHILADELPHIA:
KING & BAIRD, PRINTERS, No. 607 SANSOM STREET.
1863.








LETTER OF THE COMMITTEE.
ALBANY, May 19, 1863.
To HIS EXCELLEBNCY THE
PRESIDENT OP SME UNITED STATX 8:=
The undersigned, officers of a public meeting held at the
city of Albany on the 16th day of May, instant, herewith
transmit to your Excellency a copy of the resolutions
adopted at the said meetihg, and respectfully request your
earnest consideration of them. They deem it proper on
their personal responsibility to state that the meeting was
one of the most respectable as to numbers and character,
and one of the most earnest in the support of the Union
ever held in this city.
Yours with great regard,
ERASTUS CORNING, Pre/idet.
Vice-Presidents.
ELI PERuR,               LEmMUEL W. RorDERS,
PETER GAsrmvooaR,        WILLIAM SEYMOUR,
PETER MOTEFAT11i        JERRMTAH OSBORN,
SAMUEL W-. GIBB,         WILLIAM S.& PrADOC,
JOHN NIBLACK,            J. B. SANDECAS,
H. W. MOCLELLAN,   EDWARD M&E1AiY,
D' V. WN. RADCLIFL,;
Secretaris
WILLIAW  A. RAC.,       M. A.  NO1 X,
EDWARD NEwCowB,          JoiE Rt. k'Essn,
R. W.. PrCKHAgm J.,.W. W -Ws.
(3)




RESOLUTIONS
ADOPTED AT THE MEETING HELD IN ALBANY, N. Y.,
ON THE 16TH OF MAY, 1863.
Resolved, That the Democrats of New York point to
their uniform course of action during the two years of
civil war through which we have passed, to the alacrity
which they have evinced in filling the ranks of the army,
to their contributions and sacrifices, as to the evidence of
their patriotism and devotion to the cause of our imperiled
country. Never in the history of civil war has a government been sustained with such ample resources of means
and men as the people have voluntarily placed in the
hands of the Administration.
Resolved, That as Democrats we are determined to
maintain this patriotic attitude, and, despite of adverse
and disheartening circumstances, to devote all our energies to sustain the cause of the Union, to secure peace
through victory, and to bring back the restoration of all
the States under the safeguards of the Constitution.
Resolved, That while we will not consent to be misapprehended upon these points, we are determined not to be
misunderstood in regard to others not less essential. We
demand hlttbt.e Administration shall be true to the Constitution; shall recognize and maintain the rights of the
States and the liberties.of the citizen; shall everywhere,
outside of the lines of necessary military occupation and
the scenes-of insurrection, exert all its powers to maintain
the supremacy of the civil over military law.
Resolved, That in view of these principles we denounce
the recent assumption of a military commander to seize
and try a citizen of Ohio, Clement L. Vallandigham, for no
other reason than words addressed to -a public meeting, in
criticism of the course of the Administration, and in condemnation of the militaiy orders of that general.
Resolved, That this assumption of power by a military
tribunal, if successfully asserted, not only abrogates the
(4)




right of the people to assemble and discuss the affairs of
government, the liberty of speech and of the press, the
right of trial by jury, the law of evidence, and the privilege of habeas corpus, but it strikes a fatal blow at the
supremacy of law, and the authority of the State and
Federal constitutions.
Resolved, That the Constitution of the United Statesthe supreme law of the land-has defined the crime of
treason against the United States to consist "only in levying war against them, or adhering to their enemies, giving
them aid and comfort;" and has provided that "no person
shall-be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of
two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in
open court."  And it further provides,, that "no person
shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand
jury, except in cases arising in the land and naval forces,
or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or
public danger;" and further, that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right of a speedy and
public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district
wherein the crime was committed."
Resolved, That these safeguards of the rights of the citizen against the pretensions of arbitrary power were intended
morte especially for his protection in times of civil commotion. They were secured substantially to the English
people, after years of protracted civil war, and were adopted
into our Constitution at the close of the Revolution. They
have stood the test of seventy-six years of trial under our
republican system, under circumstances which show that,
while they constitute, the foundation of all free government,
they are the elements of the enduring stability of the
Republic.
Resolved, That in adopting the language of Daniel Webster, we declare "it is the ancient and undoubted preroga:
tive of this people to canvass.public measures and the
merits of public men."  It is a "home-bred right," a fireside privilege. It has been enjoyed in every house, cottage,
and cabin in the niation. It is as undoubted as the right of




6
breathing the air or walking on the earth. Belonging to
private life as a right, it belongs to public life as a duty,
and it is the last duty which those whose representatives
we are shall find us to abandon. Aiming at all times to be
courteous and temperate in its use, except when the right
itself is questioned, we shall place ourselves on the extreme
boundary of our own right, and bid defiance to any arm
that would. move us from our ground. "This high constitutional privilege we shall defend and exercise in all places
— in time of peace, in time of war, and at all times. Living,
we shall assert it; and should we leave no other inheritance
to our children, by- the blessing of God we will leave them
the inheritance of free principles, and the example of a
manly, independent, and constitutional defence of them."
Resolved, That in the election of Governor Seymour the
people of this State by an emphatic majority, declared their
condemnation of the system of arbitrary arrests and their
determination to stand by the Constitution. That the revival of this lawless system can have but one result: to
divide and distract the' North, and to destroy its confidence
in the purposes of the Administration. That we deprecate
it as an element of confusion at home, of weakness to our
armies in the field, and as calculated to lower the estimate
of American character and magnify the apparent peril of
our cause abroad. And that, regarding the blow struck at
a citizen of Ohio as aimed at the rights of every citizen of
the North, we'denounce it as against the spirit of our laws
and Constitution, and most earnestly call upon the President of the United States to reverse the action of the military tribunal which has passed a "cruel and unusual
punishment" upon the party arrested, prohibited in terms
by the Constitution, and' to restore him to the liberty of
which he has been deprived.
Resolved, That the president, vice-presidents, and secretary:of this meeting, be requested to transmit a copy of
these resolutions to his Excellency the President of the
United States, with the assurance of this meeting of their
hearty and earnest desire to support the Government in
every constitutional and lawful measure to suppress the
existing rebellion.




MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY.
EECUTU    XAioSI0g, WAS nOiGtO,
HoN. ERASTUS CORNING, and others:
GENTLEMEN: —YaOr letter of May 19, inclos-ing the resolutions of a publie meeting held at Albany, N. Y, on the
16th of the same month, was received several days ago.
The resolutions, as I understand them, are resolvable
into two propositions, first, the expression of a purpose to
sustain the cause of the Union, to seceure peace through
victory, and to support the Administration in every constitutional knd lawful measure to suppress the rebellion; and
secondly, a declaration of censure upon the Administration
for supposed unconstitutional action, such as the making of
military arrests. And, from the two propositions, a third
is deduced,. which is, that the gentlemen composing the
meeting are resolved on doing their part to maintain our
common government and country, despite the folly or
wickedness, as: they may conceive, of any Administration.
This position is eminently patriotic, and as such I thank
the meeting and congratulate the nation for it. My own
purpose is the same; so that the meeting and myself have
a common object, and.can have no difference except in the.choice of means or measures for effecting that object.
And here I ought to close this paper, and would close it,
if there:were no apprehension that more injurious consequences than any merely personal to myself might follow
the censures systematically cast upon me for doing what,
in my view of duty, I could not forbear. The resolutions
promise to support me in every constitutional and lawful
measure to suppress the rebellion; and I have not knowingly employed, nor shall knowingly  employ, any other.
But the meeting, by their resolutions, assert and argue that
certain military arrests, and proceedings following them,
for which I am ultimately responsible, are unconstitutional.
I think they are not. The resolutions quote from the Constitution the definition of treason, and also the limiting
safeguards and- guarantees therein provided for the citi'en
(7)




8
on trial for treason, and on his being held to answer for
capital. or otherwise infamous crimes, and, in criminal
prosecutions, his rights to a speedy and public trial by an
impartial jury. They proceed to resolve, "that these safeguards of the rights of the citizen against the pretensions
of arbitrary power wedr intended more - especially for his
protection in times of civil commotion."  And, apparently
to demonstrate the proposition, the resolutions proceed:
"They were secured substantially to the English people
after years of protracted civil war, and were adopted into
our Constitution at the cloee of the Revolution."  Would
not the demonstration have been better if it could have
been truly said that these safeguards had been adopted
and applied during the civil wars and during our Revolution, instead of after the one and at the close of the other?
I, too, am devotedly for them after civil war, and before
civil war, and at all times, "except when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require" their suspension. The resolutions proceed to tell us that these
safeguards "have stood the test of seventy-six years of
trial, under our rep'ublican system, under circumstances
which show that, while they constitute the foundation of
all free government, they are the elements of the enduring
stbility of the Republic."  No one denies that they have
so stood the test. up to the beginning of the present rebellion, if we except a certain occurrence at New Orleans;
nor does any one question that they will stand the same
test much longer after the rebellion closes. But these provisions' of the Constitution have no application to the case
we have in hand, because the arrests complained of were
not made for treason-that is not for the treason defined in
the Constitution, and upon conviction of which the punishment is death —nor vet' were they made to hold persons to
answer for any capital or otherwise infamous crimes; nor
were the proceedings following, in any constitutional or
legal sense, "criminal prosecutions."  The arrests were
made on totally different grounds, and the proceedings
following accorded with the grounds of the arrests. Let
us consider the real case with which we are dealing; and




9
apply to it the parts of the Constitution plainly made for
such cases.
Prior to my installation here, it had been inculcated that
any State had a lawful right to secede from the national
Union, and that it would be expedient to exercise the right
whenever the devotees of -the doctrine should fail to elect a
President to their own liking. I was elected contrary to
their liking; and, aicordingly, so far as it was legally possible, they had taken seven States out of the Union, had
seized many of the United States forts, and had fired upon
the United States flag, all before I was inaugurated, and,
of course, before I had done any officical act whatever.
The rebellion thus began soon ran into the present civil
war; and, in certain respects, it began on very unequal
terms between the parties. The insurgents had been preparing for it more than thirty years, while the Government
had taken no steps to resist them. The former had carefully considered all the means which could be turned to
their account. It undoubtedly was a well-pondered reliance with them that, in their own unrestricted efforts to
destroy Union, Constitution, and Law, all together, the
Government would, in great degree, be restrained by the
same Constitution and law from arresting their progress.
Their sympathizers pervaded all departments of the
Government and nearly all communities of the people.
From -this material, under cover of "liberty of speech,"
"liberty of the press," and "habeas corpus," they hoped to
keep on' foot among us a most efficient corps of spies, informers, suppliers, and aiders and abettors of their cause in
a thousand ways. They knew that in times such as they
were inaugurating, by the Constitution itself, the "habeas
corpus" might be suspended; but they also knew they had
friends who would make a question as to who was to suspend it; meanwhile, their spies and. others might remain
at large to help on their cause. Or, if, as has happened,
the Executive should suspend the writ, without ruinous
waste of time, instances of arresting innocent persons might
occur, as- are always likely to occur in such cases; and
then a clamor could be raised ir regard to this, which




10
might be, at least, of some service to the insurgent cause.
It needed no very keen perception to discover this part of
the enemy's programme, so soon as, by open hostilities,
their machinery was fairly-put in motion. Yet, thoroughly
imbued with a reverence for the guaranteed rights of individuals, 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. Nothing. is better known to history than
that courts of justice are utterly incompetent to such cases.
Civil courts are organ'ized chiefly for trials of individuals,
or, at most, a few individuals acting in concert; and this
in quiet times, and on charges of crimes well defined in
the law. Even in times of peace, bands of horse-thieves
and robbers frequently grow too numerous and powerful
for the ordinary courts of justice. But what comparison,
in numbers, have such bands ever borne to the insurgent
sympathizers even in many of the loyal States? Again:- a
jury too frequently has at least one member more ready to
hang the panel than to hang the traitor. And yet, again,
he who dissuades one man from volunteering, or induces
one soldier to desert, weakens the Union cause as much as
he who kills a Union soldier in battle. Yet this dissuasion
or inducement may be so conducted as to be no defined
crime of which any civil court would take cognizance.
Ours is a case of rebellion —so called by the resolutions
before me-in fact, a clear, flagrant, and gigantic case of
rebellion; and the provision of the Constitution that "the
privilege 6f the writ of habeas corpus shall not, be suspended, unless when, in cases. of rebellion or invasion, the
public safety may require it," is the provision which
specially applies to,our present case. This provision
plainly attests the understanding of those who made the
Constitution, that ordinary courts of justice are inadequate
to "cases of rebellion"-attests their purpose that, in such
cases, men may be held in custody whom the courts, acting
on ordinary rules, would discharge. Habeas corpus does
not discharge men who are proved to be guilty'of defined
crime; and its suspension is allowed by the Constitution




on purpose that men may be arrested and held who cannot
be proved to be guilty of defined crime, " when, in cases of
rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require -it."
This is precisely our present case-a case of rebellion,
wherein the public safety does require the suspension. Indeed, arrests by process of courts, and arrests in cases of
rebellion, do not proceed altogether upon the same basis.
The former is directed at the small per-centage of ordinary
and continuous perpetration of crime; while the latter is
directed at sudden and extensive uprisings against the
Government, which, at most, will succeed or fail.in no great
length of time. In the latter case, arrests are made, not so
much for what has been done,. as for what probably would
be done. The latter is more for the preventive and less for
the vindictive than the former. In such cases, the pur,
poses of men are much more easily understood than in
cases of ordinary crime. The man who stands by and says
nothing when the peril of his Government is discussed,
cannot be misunderstood. If not hindered, he is sure to
help the enemy; much more, if he talks ambiguously
— talks for his country with " buts" and "ifs" and "ands."
Of how little value the constitutional provisions I have
quoted will be rendered, if arrest shall never be made until
defined crimes shall have been committed, may be illustra;
ted by a few notable examples. Gen. John C. Breckinridge,
Gen. Robert E. Lee, Gen. Joseph E. Johnson, Gen. John B.
Magruder, Gen. William B. Preston, Gen. Simon B. Buckner, and Commodore Franklin Buchanan, now occupying
the very highest places in the Rebel war service, were all
within the power of the Government since the Rebellion
began, and were nearly as well. known to be traitors then
as now. Unquestionably if we had seized, and held them,
the insurgent cause would be much weaker. But no one
of- them had then committed any crime defined in the law.
Every one of them, if arrested, would have been discharged
on habeas corpus were the writ allowed to operate. In
view of these and similar cases, I think the time flot unlikely
to come when I shall be blamed for having made too few
arrests rather than too many.




12
By the third resolution, the meeting indicate their opinion that military arrests may be constitutional in localities
where rebellion actually exists, but that such arrests are
unconstitutional in localities where rebellion or insurrection does not actually exist. They insist that such arrests
shall not be made "outside of the lines of necessary nzilitary occupation, and the scenes of insurrection." Inasmuch,
however, as the Constitution itself makes no such distinction, I am unable to believe that:there is any such constitutional distinction. I concede that the class of arrests
complained of can be constitutional only when, in cases of
rebellion or invasibn, the public safety may require them;
and I insist that in such cases they are constitutional
wherever the public safety may require them; as well in
places to which they may prevent the rebellion extending
as. in those where it may be already prevailing; as well
where they may restrain mischievous interference with the
raising and supplying of armies to suppress'the rebellion,
as where the rebellion may actually be; as well where they
may restrain the enticing men out of the army, as where
they would prevent mutiny in the army; equally constitutional at all places where they will conduce to the public
safety, as against the dangers of rebellion or invasion. Take
-the particular case mentioned by the meeting. It is asserted, in substance, that Mr. Vallandigham was, by a umilitary commander, seized and tried " for no other reason than
words addressed to a public meeting, in criticism of the.
course of the Administration, and in condemnation of the
military orders of the General."  Now, if there be no mistake about this; if this assertion is the truth and the whole
truth; if there was no other reason for the arrest, then I
concede that the arrest was wrong. But the arrest, as I
understand, was made for a very different reason. Mr.
Vallandigham avows his hostility to the war on the part of
the Union; and his arrest was made because he was laboring, with some effect, to prevent the raising of troops; to
encourage desertions from the army; and to leave the rebellion without an adequate military force to suppress it.
He.was not arrested because he was damaging the political




13
prospects of the Administration, or the personal interests
of the commanding general, but because he was damaging
the army, upon the existence and vigor of which the life of
the nation depends. He was warring upon the military,
and this gave the military constitutional jurisdiction to
lay hands upon him. If Mr. Vallandigham was not damaging the military power of the country, then his arrest
was made on mistake of fact, which I would be glad to
correct on reasonably satisfactory evidence.
I understand the meeting, whose resolutions I am considering, to be in favor of suppressing the rebellion by
military force-by armies. Long experience has shown
that armies cannot be maintained unless desertions shall
be punished by the severe penalty of death. The case requires, and the law and the Constuittion sanction, this pun.
ishment. Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier-boy who
deserts, whilA I must not touch a hair of a wily agitator
who induces him to desert?  This is none the less injurious when effected by getting a father, or brother, or
friend, into a public meeting, and there working upon his
feelings till hbe is persuaded to write the soldier-boy that
he is fighting in a bad cause, for a wicked Administration
of a contemptible Government, too weak to arrest and
punish, him if he shall desert. I think that in such a case
to silence the agitator and save the boy is not only consti.
tutional, but withal. a great mercy.
If I be wrong on this question of constitutional power,
my error lies in believing that certain proceedings are constitutional when, in cases -of rebellion or invasion, the
public safety requires them, which would not be constitutional when, in the absence of rebellion or invasion, the
public'safety does not require them'; in other words, that
the Constitution is not, in its application, in' all respects the
same, in cases of rebellion or    inva olving the public
safety; as it is in tinie of profound peace and public security. The Constitution itself makes the distinction; and I
can no more be persuaded that the Government can con,
stitutionally take no strong measures in time of rebellion,
because it can be shown that the, same -could not be law



14
fully taken in time of peace, than I can be persuaded that
a particular drug is not good medicine for a sick man,
because it can be shown not to be good food for a well one.
Nor am I able to appreciate the danger apprehended by
the meeting, that the American people will, by means of
military arrests during the rebellion, lose the right of
public discussion, the liberty of speech and the press, the
law of evidence, trial by jury, and habeas corpus, through.
out the indefinite peaceful future which I trust lies before
them, any more than I am able to believe that a man could
contract so strong anappetite for emetics during temporary
illness as to persist in feeding upon them during the remainder of his healthful life.
In giving the resolutions that earnest consideration which
you request of me, I cannot overlook the fact that the
meeting speak as "Democrats." Nor can I, with full respect for their known intelligence, and the fairly presumed
deliberation with which they prepared their resolutions, be
permitted to suppose that this occurred by accident, or in
any way other than that they preferred to designate themselves as "Democrats" rather than "American citizens."
-In this time of national peril, I would have preferred to
meet you upon X level one step higher than any party
platform; because I am sure that, from such more elevated
position, we could do better battle for the country we all
love than we possibly can from those. lower ones where,
from the force of.habit, the prejudices of the past, and
selfish hopes of the fauure, we are sure to expend much of
our ingenuity and strengtl in finding fault with, and aiming blows at eaoh other. But, since you have denied me
this, I will yet be thankful, for the country's sake, that not
all Democrats have done so. lie on whose discretionary
judgment Mr. Vallaudigham was arrested and tried is a
Democrat, having no old party affinity with me; and the
judge who rejected the constitutional view expressed in
these resolutions, by refusing to discharge Mr. Vallandigham on habeas eorpus, is a Democrat of better days than
these, having received his judicial mantle at the hands of
President Jackson. And still more, of all tho  ID)emo




crats who are nobly exposing their lives and shedding
their blood on the battle-field, I have learned that many
approve the course taken with Mr. Vallandigham, while I
have not heard of a single one condemning it. I cannot
assert that there are none such. And the name of President Jackson recalls an instance of pertinent history:
After the battle of New,.Orleans, and while the fact that
the treaty of peace had been concluded was wcll known in
the city, but before officiai knowledge of it had arrived,
Gen. Jackson still maintained martial or military law.
Now that it could be said the war was over, the clamor
against martial law, which had esistedfrom the first, grew
more furious. Among other things, a Mr. Louiallier published a denunciatory newspaper article.. Gen. Jackson
arrested him. A lawyer by the name. of Morel procured
the United States Judge Hall to issue a writ of habeas
corpus to relieve Mr. Louiallier. Gen. Jackson arrested
both the lawyer and the judge. A Mr. Hollander ventured
to say of some part of the matter that "it was a dirty
trick."  Gen. Jackson arrested him. When the officer
undertook to serve the writ of habeas corpus, Gen. Jackson took it from him, and sent him away with a copy.
Holding thejudge in custody a few days, the General sent
him beyond the limits of his eneampment, and set him at
liberty, with an order to remain till the: ratification of
peace should be regularly announced, or until the British
should have left the Southern coast: A day or two more
elapsed, the ratification of a treaty of peace was regularly
announced, and the judge and others were fully liberated.
A few days more, and the judge called Geu. Jackson into
court and fined him $1,000 for having, arrested.him and
the others named. The General paid the fine, and there
the mater rested for nearly thirty years, when Congress
refunded principal and interest. The late Senator Douglas, then in the House of Representaties, took a leading
part in -the debates in which the cotitutionall question
was much discussed. I am- no prepared to, say whom the
journals would show to have voted for the measure.
~ [ mAy be remarked: First. that we had the same Con



16
stitution then as now; secondly, that we then had a case of
invasion, and now we have a case of rebc!lion; and thirdly,
that the permanent right of the people to public discussion,
the liberty of speech and of the. press, the trial by jury,
the law of evidence, and the habeas corpus, suffered no
detriment whatever by that conduct of Gen. Jackson, or its
subsequent approval by the American Congress.
And yet, let me say that, in my own discretion, I do not
know whether I would have ordered the arrest of Mr. Vallandigham. While I cannot shift the responsibility from
myself, I hold that; as a general rule, the commander in
the field is the better judge of the necessity in any particular case. Of course I must practice a general directory
and revisory power in the matter.
One of the resolutions expresses the opinion of the meeting that arbitrary arrests wilt have the effect to divide and
distract those who should be united in suppressing the
rebellion, and I am specifically called on to discharge Mr.
Vallandigham. I regard this as at least a fair appeal to
me on the expediency of exercising a constitutional power
which I think exists. In response to such appeal, I have
to say it gave me pain when I learned that Mr. Vallandigham had been arrested'; that is, I was pained that there
should have seemed to be a necessity for arresting him, and
that it will afford me great pleasure to discharge him so
soon as I can, by any means, believe the public safety will
not suffer by it..I further say that, as the war progresses,
it appears to me, opinion and action, which were in great
confusion at first, take shape, and fall into more regular.channels, so that the necessity for strong dealing with them
gradually decreases. I have every reason to desire that it
should cease altogether; and far from the least is my regard for the opinions and wishes of those who, like the
meeting at Albany, declare their purpose to sustain tha
Government in every constitutional and lawful measure to
suppress the rebellion. Still, I must continue to do so
*much as may seem to be required.by the public safety.
ABmIIHAx LI.coua1