Washington, DC,2001.
Preceding element provides place and date of transcription only.
For more information about this text and this American Memory collection, refer to accompanying matter.
The National Digital Library Program at the Library of Congress makes digitized historical materials available for education and scholarship.
This transcription is intended to have an accuracy rate of 99.95 percent or greater and is not intended to reproduce the appearance of the original work. The accompanying images provide a facsimile of this work and represent the appearance of the original.
From Robert Dale Owen to Abraham Lincoln, September 30, 1863
To the President.
Robert Dale Owen
September 30. 1863.
The Pardoning Power,
in its relation to reconstruction.
To the President.
Sir:
I desire, with your permission, to submit a few considerations touching the pardoning power, as an element of re-construction. These may, ere this, have occurred to you. Perhaps you may already have decided to act upon them. But, at the worst, their suggestion can only be superfluous.
No public act of the inhabitants of one or more of the United States, short of a revolution ultimately successful and permanently establishing a separate and independent Power acknowledged as such by other nations, can take out of the Union, or from under the authority of the General Government or of the Constitution, any one of the States comprising the American Union.
But one inhabitant, or all the inhabitants, of a State may, by crime, forfeit their political rights. If all the inhabitants of a State, by some general crime legally imputable to all, forfeit their political rights, there will be no one remaining legally empowered to act under the Constitution of the State or of the United States.
This is the present condition of the inhabitants of the insurgent States. The Supreme Court has recently decided that these inhabitants, without distinction as to individual loyalty or disloyalty, have, in law, the same rights, and the same rights only, as alien enemies invading the land.* [At bottom of page: *“Claimants of Schooner Brilliant, &c versus United States”. March Term 1863. / I have heretofore, in a letter to Mr. Secretary Seward, of which I take the liberty to enclose you a copy, set forth this matter at length.] They have, as an entire body of men inhabiting the territory held in hostility to the United States, forfeited not only the fundamental privilege of a Citizen, the right of suffrage, but all political rights. They have, at present, no constitutional right to perform any public act under the authority of the State, or of the Federal Constitution. No one of them, for example, has a right to exercise the functions of Governor or Judge or State Representative or State Senator. Nor have they the right to elect a Governor, or a member to the State Legislature or to the Congress of the United States.
They are, however, so far in a position differing from that of alien enemies, that, as the disabilities in question are in the nature of a penalty, resulting from crime, to wit the crime of treason, these may, by pardon or amnesty granted under lawful authority, be removed; and when they are thus removed, the penalty ceases and the constitutional rights revive.
I am not here arguing that anything has occurred to make null and void their Constitutions or their statutes. I but say that, practically, these remain, for the present, inoperative so far as regards political rights conferred by them, because no insurgent has legal authority publicly to act under them. As soon as the inhabitants of any State, shall, with or without exceptions, recover, by act of law, their forfeited rights, the State Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof, as they stood previous to Secession, will come again into full operation; designating, as heretofore, the mode in which the right of suffrage and other constitutional rights shall be exercised. This condition of things will occur, in any insurgent State, as soon after its reduction to public order and lawful rule as its inhabitants, or the chief portion thereof, shall have been pardoned, in accordance with the provisions made, under our system of government, for pardon of offenses against the United States.
The pardoning power, whether of individuals or of insurgent portions of a people, for offenses against the State, has, in civilized nations, usually been vested in the highest executive authority. “This power”, says Chief Justice Marshall,Peters Rep. p. 159.
In some countries, as in England, the National Legislature and the Executive have concurrent jurisdiction in this matter.* [At bottom of page: *And, in England a legislative pardon has some advantages over a judicial one. “A pardon by Act of Parliament is more beneficial than by the King's Charter, for a man is not bound to plead it.”— Blackstone, Vol.
“He” (the President) “shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.”
This was a vast power to confer upon an individual, but it was not conferred without forecast as to its possible consequences, nor without due deliberation concerning these; nor, (especially as to pardons for treason,) without numerous objections being made and answered in the debates which preceded the adoption of the Constitution.
Mr. G. Livingston of New YorkElliot's Debates, Vol. II, p. 381.
Mr. McKean of PennsylvaniaElliot's Debates, Vol. II. p. 490.
Mr. G. MasonElliot's Debates, Vol. I. p. 535.
Mr. MadisonElliot's Debates, Vol. I. p. 456.
But the best exposition of the contending arguments and of the motives which finally decided the judgment of our revolutionary fathers in this matter is to be found in the words of Alexander Hamilton, as given in the “Federalist”, No. 74. He says:
“The expediency of vesting the power of pardoning in the President has, if I mistake not, been only contested in relation to the crime of Treason. This, it has been urged, ought to have depended upon the consent of one, or both of the branches of the Legislative body. I shall not deny that there are strong reasons to be assigned for requiring, in this particular, the concurrence of that body or a part of it. As Treason is a crime levelled at the immediate being of the Society, when the laws have once ascertained the guilt of the offender, there seems a fitness in referring the expediency of an act of mercy towards him to the judgment of the Legislature. And this ought rather to be the case as the supposition of the connivance of the Chief Magistrate ought not to be entirely excluded.
But there are also strong objections to such a plan. It is not to be doubted that a single man of prudence and good sense is better fitted, in delicate conjunctures, to balance the motives which may plead for and against the remission of the punishment, than any numerous body whatever.
It deserves particular attention that Treason will often be connected with seditions, which embrace a large proportion of the community. In every such case we might expect to see the representation of the people tainted with the spirit which has given birth to the offense. And when parties were pretty equally poised, the secret sympathy of the friends and favorites of the condemned, availing itself of the good nature and weakness of others, might frequently bestow immunity, where the terror of an example was necessary. On the other hand, when the sedition had proceeded from causes which had inflamed the resentments of the major party, they might often be found obstinate and inexorable when policy demanded measures of forbearance and clemency.
But the principal argument for reposing the power of pardoning, in this case, in the Chief Magistrate, is this: in seasons of insurrection or rebellion there are often critical moments when a well-timed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquillity of the Commonwealth; and which, if suffered to pass unimproved, it may never be possible afterwards to recall.”
It is evident that the opinions of Madison and Hamilton as to the expediency of conferring on the President the sole power of pardoning treason did not become embodied in the Constitution without a careful weighing of all the arguments for and against. It is evident, also, that the power was granted with the express intention that it might be exercised in cases of insurrection “which embrace a large proportion of the community”.
StoryCommentaries Vol. III, ¤1493, 1494. Kent,Commentaries, 7th Ed. Vol. I. p. 303.
Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (3 volumes) in 1833.
Commentaries on American Law, the American counterpart of Blackstone's work on English law, in four volumes from 1826 to 1830.
The last Congress left a record of its wishes on the subject. The thirteenth Section of the Act approved July 17, 1862, “to suppress insurrection &c.” enacts:
“That the President is hereby authorized, at any time hereafter, by Proclamation, to extend to persons who may have participated in the present rebellion, in any State or part thereof, pardon and amnesty, with such exceptions and at such time and on such conditions as he may deem expedient for the public welfare.”
As an enactment, the above would seem nugatory; since a Legislative Body cannot confer a power already vested by the Constitution in another branch of the Government and which is not enumerated among its own powers. But it is not likely that the framers of the Constitution looked forward to an insurrection of magnitude so vast as the present, or to an act of amnesty including millions of insurgents; and in a case so grave the concurrence of the National Legislature, if only as an expression of their views and wishes, is valuable and satisfactory. The Section quoted, if no further valid, is an intimation, not inappropriate, of the desire of Congress, that the President should, at the proper time, exercise his power of pardon in favor of these people; and that he should append to it such conditions “as he may deem necessary for the public welfare.”
It is lawful for the Chief Magistrate in granting pardon, to make it absolute or conditional, at his pleasure, and it rests with him to dictate the conditions.* [At bottom of page: *“There is no doubt that the power of pardon conferred on the President includes the power to pardon absolutely or conditionally. The President may annex a condition to the pardon, as, for instance, that the guilty person should quit the United States, or join the Navy” xx “In England the King has the power, by the Common Law, to grant conditional pardons.”— Kent's Commentaries 7th Ed. Vol I. page 303.
“A pardon may be absolute or conditional.”— Opinion by Chief Justice Marshall, 7 Peters Rep. p. 161.
“I am of opinion that the power of pardoning absolutely includes the power of pardoning conditionally”.— “Official opinions of the Attorneys General of the United States”, Vol. I, p. 250: the opinion being that of William Wirt.]
A pardon, to take effect, must be accepted*; [At bottom of page: * “ A pardon is a deed to the validity of which delivery is essential, and delivery is not complete without acceptance”.— Opinion of Chief Justice Marshall, 7 Peters Rep. page 161.] and a conditional pardon of which the conditions are not carried out, or are afterwards violated, is void.+ [At bottom of page: + “If the guilty person does not comply with the condition or breaks it, the pardon is null and void.”— Kent's Commentaries, 7th Ed. Vol. I, page 303.]
In granting pardon to an individual, it is greatly to be desired, as a general rule, that conviction should precede the pardon; yet the law does not exact this,‐ [At bottom of page: ‐ “I am of the opinion that the President may, if he chooses, grant a pardon to precede condemnation. There is nothing in the terms in which the power of pardon is granted which requires that it should be preceded by a sentence of conviction, or the verdict of a jury”.— “Opinions of Attorneys General,” Vol. I p. 251. Opinion by William Wirt.]
“The President of the United States has undoubtedly the power to grant a pardon as well before condemnation as afterwards”xx “But there must be satisfactory evidence of some kind as to the guilt of the party”.— work cited Vol. VI. pp 20, 21. Opinion of C. Cushing.]
The Heads of Nations have been wont, in contingencies similar to that before us, to exercise the power of pardon, with the approbation of mankind. So Charles II, about to return to England after the death of Cromwell, in 1660. So George II at the close of the Jacobite rebellion of 1745.
In both these noted examples, pardon was granted on conditions to be formally accepted; and it was granted, of course, without reference to sentences of condemnation obtained against individuals for the offense pardoned.
In the case of Charles II it was issued, under date April 16. 1660, from Breda, and was entitled: “An Act of free and general pardon, indemnity and oblivion;” of which the essential portion is in these words:
“We do grant a free and general pardon, which we are ready, upon demand, to pass under our Great Seal of England, to all our subjects, of what degree or quality soever, who, within forty days after the publishing thereof shall lay hold upon this our grace and favor, and shall, by any public act, declare their doing so, and that they return to the loyalty or obedience of good subjects, excepting only such persons as shall hereafter be excepted by Parliament.”— Parliamentary History of England,” Vol. IV, p. 15.
Here the acceptance of the pardon was to be signified, on the part of each individual, by a “public act”, declaring his return to loyalty and obedience; and the pardon was granted on condition of the execution of such public act within forty days, and extended to those only who complied with this condition.
The pardon of George II in favor of the Scottish insurgents who had fought for the Pretender, was issued in 1747, under the title: “An Act for the King's most gracious, general and free pardon.*” [At bottom of page: *Cap. 52 20 Geo. II A. D. 1747. “Statutes at Large” London 1786, Vol. VI p. 392] It was clogged with about eighty exceptions, recited by name; some of whom were condemned to death, but the greater part were pardoned on condition of banishment.* [At bottom of page: *Cap. 46 20 Geo. II, A. D. 1747, is entitled: “An Act to prevent the return of such rebels and traitors concerned in the late Rebellion as have been, or shall be pardoned on condition of transportation, and also to hinder them going into the enemies' country”.— “Statutes at Large”, Vol. VI, p. 385. See also “Mahon's History of England,” Vol. III. p. 479.]
In our own history but a single insurrection or rebellion has occurred, previously to that which is now in progress: namely the insurrection of 1794, in certain western counties comprising the Fourth Survey of Pennsylvania, caused by an attempt to obstruct the execution of the acts for raising a revenue on distilled spirits and stills. Although this outbreak, lasting about four months, created in the minds of the timid doubts of the stability of the Government, yet it is doubtful if the rebels had, at any time, at their disposal, over 15,000 men: and it does not appear that the Union was ever seriously threatened.
On the 10th of July 1795, the President, George Washington, issued a Proclamation “granting pardon to the Western Insurgents”; in which, after reciting that certain Commissioners appointed by him “to confer with the citizens in the Western Counties of Pennsylvania” had promised in his name that if assurances of submission to the laws should be subscribed by the citizens concerned in the insurrection, a general pardon should be granted for all offenses against the United States committed by these persons previous to the 22d of August 1794, he proceeds:
“Therefore be it known that I, George Washington, President of the United States, have granted, and by these presents do grant a full free and entire pardon to all persons (excepting as is hereinafter excepted) of all treasons, misprisions of treason and other indictable offenses against the United States, committed within the Fourth Survey of Pennsylvania before the said 22nd day of August last past, excepting and excluding therefrom, nevertheless, every person who refused or neglected to give and subscribe the said assurances in the manner aforesaid (or, having subscribed, hath violated the same) and now standeth indicted or convicted of any treason, misprision of treason or other offense against the United States, hereby remitting and releasing unto all persons except as before excepted, all penalties incurred, or supposed to be incurred, for or on account of, the premises.”* [At bottom of page: *This insurrection broke out in the Summer of 1794. In July of that year 500 armed men resisted the officers of the law and burned the inspector's house. By the first of August the number of insurgents under arms had swollen to from 5,000 to 7,000 men, who assembled on that day at Braddock's Field, on the Monongahela. At a later period they are said to have had the control of 16,000 men.
The President issued a Proclamation warning the insurgents of the pains and penalties of treason and commanding them to disperse. Afterwards he appointed three Commissioners to confer with the leading rebels, who at first evaded all satisfactory terms, but finally, after the President had called out 15,000 Militia to suppress the insurrection, gave way, and agreed to the signature by the inhabitants of the insurgent district of articles of submission to the laws of the United States: the Commissioners covenanting that on such conditions they should be pardoned. This restored tranquillity, but 2500 troops remained, throughout the winter of 1794-5, encamped in the insurrectionary district.— “History of the United States,” by George Tucker, Vol I, pp. 551 to 558. Also “History of the United States of AmericaRichard Hildreth, Vol. IV, pp. 498 to 516.]
Here, it will be observed, the pardon is granted conditionally; the condition being the signing of certain articles of submission. All indicted or convicted rebels who refused or neglected to subscribe, or, having subscribed, afterwards violated the conditions, are excepted*. [At bottom of page: *It should be borne in mind that this case so far differred from the present that the insurrection never assumed the proportions of civil war; consequently the insurgents, as a body, never came to be regarded, in law, in the light of public enemies invading the land. Therefore, in making exceptions to the pardon granted, it was proper for the President to restrict such exceptions to convicted or indicted insurgents only.]
That you have a right, then, as President of these United States, to grant to the inhabitants of the eleven insurgent States, or to the inhabitants of any one of them, a pardon on such conditions (to employ the words of Congress) as you “may deem expedient for the public welfare,” is as certain as Constitution, law and precedent can make it. If the control over the political destiny of millions thus confided to the discretion of one man exceed the power now wielded by any Sovereign of Europe, it results from the fact that an insurrection so gigantic in its dimensions, so vast in its resources, so persistent in its rage, is unexampled in all modern history.
But it is more than a right. What higher duty than the exercise of that clemency, which is one of the noblest attributes of earthly power? man? For
“For man shows likest God,
“When Mercy tempers Justice.”
“earthly power doth then show likest God's,
When Mercy seasons Justice.”
And the exercise of clemency, in this particular case, is the more imperative duty, because many of those who by imputation of law are guilty and who, because of that legally imputed guilt, have lost their rights, are, in intent and in voluntary act, wholly innocent. They are indeed, inhabitants within that defined boundary which circumscribed the insurrection. Their property, as the Supreme Court expressed it, could “be used to increase the revenues of the hostile Power”; and, without reference to their personal loyalty, they are “liable to be treated as enemies”. The law, in its rigid rule, knows no sympathetic pity — cannot be turned aside by sentiment. These brave men struggled against the rushing torrent. They still revered the ancient flag. Their hearts still clung to the old Union. Many of them proved their loyalty by deeds which are better than words; and suffered forfeiture, imprisonment, torture, death, rather than abjure their political faith. Many of them have far better deserved of their country than thousands among us. Thousands among us, with all their rights intact, are but “summer soldiers, sunshine patriots,” compared to the Union martyrs of the South. But inexorable law admits not the plea of their courage, takes no account of their sufferings. Coldly and dispassionately, it declares the rule set up by international jurisprudence, and sanctioned by precedent “whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary”: leaving to that pardoning power which is expressly incorporated in a system of civilized government in order to correct its incidental harshness, the task of relief and alleviation.
But the overshadowing importance of a Proclamation of General Pardon cannot be realized until we look narrowly at the conditions which the public welfare demands should be attached to it.
It is a common phrase that, under any system of re-construction, the Union men of the South must have the control of the insurrectionary States. It is certain that if they have not, — if the rebel party leaders of 1860, embittered and exasperated by defeat, are to be received unconditionally into favor, and suffered to exercise the same tyrannical rule in the future as they have exerted in the past — it is certain beyond possible doubt, that, if this shall be the policy, the Southern Union men will be sacrificed to their enraged enemies. Not annoyance and oppression only, persecution even unto bonds and death will be their inevitable portion. To those who have been known throughout the rebellion as staunch friends and supporters of the Government, marked and proscribed as they will then be, no course of safety will be left, but to sacrifice their property and depart from the Slave States. That will be their reward! And, all loyal men being thus weeded out, it is not difficult to conjecture what will be the state of political feeling, and what the chances of maintaining peace with those who remain.
Every consideration of justice and policy demands, then, that the Union men must have the control. But there is nothing practical or definite about such a declaration. Who are the Union men? How are they to be designated? By what shibboleth shall they be separated from the Ephraimites of Secession? By an ordinary oath of allegiance? We know, by experience, what such an oath is worth. Every Southern member of Congress whose chair now stands vacant, took that oath; and every one of them violated it. We must have some test of loyalty more effectual than that.
It would be unavailing to attempt the re-establishment of permanent civil Government, in any insurgent State, until it is so effectually cleared of armed rebels that the Federal Courts can hold their sessions undisturbed, and that polls can be opened and elections held, without interruption from guerillas. Until then, provisional Governments, military or congressionally appointed, are the only practicable form.
But the sooner such temporary expedients, unknown to the Constitution — the offspring of necessities inseparable from a state of war — can be dispensed with, the better for the cause of constitutional liberty. It is a rule of international law that the laws and institutions of a conquered nation, except so far as these are inconsistent with the victor's system of Government, shall still remain unchanged until legally repealed or modified by the conquering Power. This rule is founded on that consideration of humanity and fitness which forbids that there should be suddenly and arbitrarily wrenched even from a nation that lies at the mercy of the conqueror, the laws and usages to which it has long been accustomed. Still more binding is such a rule upon us, if we shall subdue not a foreign nation but a domestic rebellion. We ought to leave to the insurgents their Constitutions and their laws, as far as these conform to the supreme law of the land (materially altered since the commencement of the insurrection) and as far as we can do so with a due regard to the general welfare. And such changes as the public safety requires to be made should be made legally and in strict accordance with the Constitution of the United States.
But in retaining, in each of the insurgent States, its local Government, it behooves us, above all things, to consider who shall administer that government, and who shall be excluded from such administration. As soon as domestic tranquillity is practically restored, then will arise the all-important question: To whom shall be confided the duty of again setting in motion the machinery of State Legislation? Who shall have the privilege of suffrage? who the right of being elected to office?
With you, as President, may rest the vast responsibility of deciding this. Upon the conditions attached to the pardon which by Proclamation, you may grant the insurgents, does the whole question depend.
I suggest, in addition, to the usual pledges to support, protect and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States against all enemies, and to bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty to the same, that the oath required to entitle an inhabitant of any insurgent State to the Executive pardon should contain a further pledge.
I propose that the recipient of such pardon should be required to declare that he assents to, and acknowledges as valid, all the laws passed by the Congress of the United States and all the Proclamations issued by the President of the United States, during the progress of the Rebellion, including the laws providing, under certain conditions, for the enfranchisement of slaves, and including also the Proclamation of January 1. 1863, commonly called the Proclamation of Emancipation; and that he will give faithful support, and true obedience yield, to such laws and proclamations, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding; and, further, that he will not institute nor assist, but, as far as his ability extends, will oppose, all acts or measures in contravention of the said laws and Proclamations.
There is a manifest propriety in exacting of these men, who, for the last two years and a half, have been shut out, (by their own insurgent acts against public law and order,) from participation in the Federal Government, a pledge that they abide by, and will support, what was done by that Government during their absence.
If to any objector the phrase in regard to State Constitutions and laws seem a breach of State rights, let him be reminded that the words selected are those employed in the Constitution of the United States itself; the Sixth Section of that instrument declaring:
“This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding”.
The above oath, when sworn to and subscribed before a federal officer, authorized to administer oaths, and recorded in any federal Court of record (but not without such record) should be deemed evidence, before any Judges of election or before any Court of Justice, that the political rights of the subscriber have, by his acceptance of the Executive pardon, revived. And any inhabitant of an insurgent State refusing or neglecting to subscribe and to cause to be recorded such an oath should have no right of suffrage and should be ineligible to office.
No man's conscience is justly aggrieved by the exaction of such an oath as condition of pardon. No man need subscribe it, unless he sees fit to do so. Whoever refuses to subscribe it is either disloyal, that is, unwilling to support, protect and defend the Constitution and Government of our country against all enemies; or else, he desires to discard, or refuses to obey, a portion of the supreme law of the land; that portion which has come into existence during the rebellion, and in consequence of it. It is neither just, nor safe, that any such unrepenting insurgent, unwilling to swear allegiance to the Government and fidelity to the laws, should be allowed any share in the Legislation of the country. If, in any insurgent State after its reduction to tranquillity, the number of such recusants should be so great that only an insignificant majority minority were found willing to take the oath suggested, it would afford proof that the State was not yet prepared for any other than a provisional Government. But I do not believe that, in practice, this will any where occur.
There will be found many objections to this proposed exercise of clemency and to the prudent and necessary conditions attending it, as an arbitrary exercise of the one-man power. These objections will come from men who are in the habit of lauding, as the only bulwark of liberty, the Constitution of the United States, as often as it suits their purpose of the hour, and condemning the very carrying out of its clearest provisions, whenever these run counter to partisan aims and sordid intrigues.
These men seem to take pleasure in forgetting, what many of us thoughtlessly fail to bear in mind, that when a Government, founded on the popular will, has shown itself to be just, forbearing, free from tyranny or oppression, resorting to force only at the last moment, and up to the time it was assailed, productive to millions of freemen of a security and a prosperity scarcely matched in all history, treason against it is one of the blackest of human crimes. Can any man estimate, can the imagination adequately picture, the misery in countless shapes that has already been the result of that stupendous crime? Far more than this, can any man even imagine what might have been the direful consequences, for generations to come, had Treason succeeded in her parricidal attempt — had Gettysburg and half a dozen more such fields each witnessed the overwhelming defeat of the Union arms? Who can tell, in such a contingency, into how many petty sovereignties this American Union would have dwarfed down; — what endless jealousies, what countless wars, might have sprung up between these rival fragments; — fragments never more, it may be, in our day, or in the days perhaps of our children's children, again to be united into one great nation commanding and deserving the respect of mankind?
Does such a crime as that need no pardon? Its authors once subdued, do they become innocent in virtue of that subjection? Is no purgation required? Offenses should be forgiven. The prodigal son was received again to his paternal home. But not until he had abjured his riotous life; not until his humility and repentance had found words: “Father, I have sinned against Heaven and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.” Unrepented crime cannot, consistently with public order, be passed by unnoticed and unpunished. Why, else, our criminal courts and our penitentiaries?
We are about to establish a great precedent. Let us look to it that it be in accordance with public morals. Treason, on a scale threatening the integrity of our Government, has shown itself among us for the first time. Upon our treatment of it now may depend whether it shall be the last. If, hereafter, unprincipled men, swayed by restless ambition, plot together the overthrow of the Government that protects them, shall they have the opportunity to remind each other, that in the event of defeat they risk nothing, not even the forfeiture of their political rights? If we, by our present action, afford them such a plea, what are we better than abettors, in advance, of all future conspiracies against the national life?
Those who should refuse to take the oath proposed would remain liable to be indicted for treason, and, if convicted, to be punished accordingly. But if they remained quiet, this would not happen. The public opinion of the world refuses to sanction the wholesale punishment, according to the utmost rigor of law, of entire communities of men for the same crime that might bring an individual to the scaffold. The chance of indictment would, indeed, remain hanging over them; and in cases of open-mouthed sedition, the offenders might be brought to justice, by way of example. But, in a general way, those among these stiff-necked insurgents who had still the means of living would probably cross the Atlantic; to our gain at the expense of Europe; and those who had no such means would settle down into sullen acquiescence; dying at last in their sins; probably leaving children who, twenty years hence, will deny, with pious instance indignation, that their fathers ever bore part, by act or sentiment, in the Great Rebellion.
There is the chance that, of those who took shall take the oath, some would may violate it. This risk we cannot avoid. Perhaps it would not be great. Each would remember that his name stood on the record; and it is not very likely that a man who had strained his conscience to take an oath in order to recover his political rights would become forsworn with the certain knowledge, not only that by such an offense he must lose them again, (his pardon becoming void) but also that he would thereby expose himself to an indictment for perjury as well as treason.
The considerations which chiefly present themselves in favor of the course here suggested, may be briefly stated:
It is, beyond controversy, strictly constitutional.
It is such as, in similar circumstances, has been the honored custom of civilization.
It is a measure at once of Christian clemency and of wise precaution
Its effect is to secure domestic tranquillity, to protect from outrage the Union men of the South, and to deliver an oppressed people; which last a high authority declares to be “a noble fruit of victory.”* [At bottom of page: * “To deliver an oppressed people is a noble fruit of victory”..— Vattel's Law of Nations,” Book III ¤201.]
It segregates the disloyal from the loyal, and excludes from the legislation of the country the impenitent insurgent alone.
Finally, the remedy is in your own hands, at your own untrammelled option; and nothing but illegal violence can interrupt or abridge your right.+ [At bottom of page: +“No law can abridge the power of the President, or interrupt its right to interpose by pardon”.— Story's Commentaries on the Constitution,” Vol. III, ¤1498. This is declared to include the power to remit “fines penalties and forfeitures.”— Ibid.]
The strict and undeniable legality of the course here proposed is one of its chief recommendations. It is based, so far as the political condition of the recipients of pardon is concerned, on a rule of international law endorsed and adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States. The form of action selected is that expressly provided in the Constitution for such an emergency.
Let us beware how, under circumstances so momentous, we stray from the Constitutional path: every other is a path of danger. Shall we entrust to a Provisional Governor, whose appointment derives its sanction from the necessities of the case, the task of purging the polls, preparatory to a permanent organization? By what law?— Shall we accept, as legal Executive, a Governor Seeing that the pardoning power is a great trust vested by the Constitution in the President, connected with a personal discretion, and which cannot be transferred. Shall we accept, as a legal Executive, a Governor said to have been elected, in some insurrectionary State, by Union votes? By what authority? — seeing that votes in insurrectionary States, whether offered by loyal or by disloyal men, are, as things now stand, illegal. How can we lawfully treat — how make any legal arrangements whatever — with any insurgent State, in which there is not a man empowered to exercise the right of suffrage until your pardon empowers him? Without such a pardon, as a first step, upon what basis can we erect a plan of permanent re-construction, without inevitably exposing ourselves to assault from the enemies of the Government, on the score of arbitrary and unconstitutional acts? And why adventure into the exposed fields of doubtful controversy, when we can fight, safely protected, behind the impregnable bulwarks of the Constitution?
Thus entrenched, doubts in regard to the policy of the measure proposed are all that can be brought up against it. Such we must be prepared to meet.
It may, for example, be made plausible objection, that it is a thing very undesirable in itself that there should exist, for any serious length of time, in any portion of the Union, a class of men divested of the right of suffrage and other political rights.
So was it very undesirable that there should be an insurrection at all. So is it a very undesirable thing that the insurrection should leave behind it a public debt of fifteen hundred millions. We cannot expect to get out of a war like this without having to encounter, for a time, very undesirable things.
It will, however, not be your Proclamation which creates this unprivileged class. These insurgents were divested of political rights by their own act. Your Proclamation will find them all, for example, shut out, by law, from the right of suffrage. It will relieve from such legal disability a large portion of them, and thus its effect will be greatly to diminish this objectionable class. It will relieve as many as can safely be relieved; as many as can be relieved without compromising the public welfare. For what could so fatally compromise that welfare as to admit to influence and office men who take a public stand against allegiance to the Government and obedience to the laws?
It is a solemn thing to admit once more within the peaceful precincts of the Union, insurgents who, for years, have been aiming deadly blows at its existence. We forgive much, if we receive again to full fellowship all who exhibit a spirit of contrition, and if we respect the lives and property even of the uncontrite and contumacious. If, in the future, the peaceful conduct of these latter should commend their case to favor, it will be time enough to remit, as you will have the right to do, any portion of their disabilities. To go further at present, would be to proclaim immunity to crime, and to hand down to posterity the teaching, that, in these United States, Treason may stalk abroad with impunity, and assault, without fear of punishment, the life of the nation itself.
I am, Sir,
Yr Obt Servt.
Robert Dale Owen.
New York, September 30, 1863.
From Gideon Welles to Abraham Lincoln, September 30, 1863
Navy Department
September 30th 1863.
Sir:
Since the interview with you some weeks since in relation to certain proposed instructions to our Naval Officers, I have, as suggested, given the subject careful and thorough investigation, and am fully satisfied that neither in British law nor British practice is there any authority or precedent for such instructions.
Collected Works, VI, 348-49, 378.
Permit me in this connection to express my surprise and regret that the British Minister should so persistently insist on interfering in matters that belong to the Prize Courts, and on which he should not be heard from diplomatically, as, were Great Britain in our case and we in hers, the American Minister in London would not be heard diplomatically, until judicial remedies have been exhausted. His right to be heard in the Court of Prize, according to its rules of procedure, and in the proper cases, is unquestioned. If the Court, after its appellate jurisdiction is fully exhausted, should fail to do justice in any case, then undoubtedly, and not till then, diplomacy may properly come in. But I do not understand by what authority Her Majesty's Minister intervenes at all, even in the Prize Courts by suggestion, or before you, in cases where the violation of territorial immunities of neutral powers, other than Great Britain, is in question. If our Naval Offiers violate the Sovereignty, or the neutrality, or the municipal regulations of a Neutral State, we are, first in our prize courts, and then diplomatically, amenable for that violation to the Neutral State itself, and not to Great Britain, even though the act of violation has been perpetrated there by us upon a British vessel. There is no principal of international law better settled than this, and I respectfully insist that no one but the Sovereign of the neutral territory which is violated, has the slightest right to allege or suggest such violation even in our prize courts and much less diplomatically.
As regards persons on board of captured neutral vessels, the best rule of law is that they shall be sent in as witnesses; the requirement of law is that some be sent in; and if the Captor fails to send them all in, he so fails at his peril of not sending enough; and if he sends them all in, all being neutral, no one has the right any where to complain of him, provided only that he had probable cause for capturing the ship. But in the war in which we are now engaged, it must be remembered that no inconsiderable portion of the persons captured on some of the vessels claiming to be neutral, are rebels. It is impossible for the captor to decide, who, or how many, are rebels. It certainly is not advisable to go counter to the rule so framed by all the courts nor to release captured rebel prisoners.
I am not unaware of your strong desire to conciliate Great Britain and to make all reasonable concessions to preserve friendly relations with her. In this feeling I cordially participate. But my earnest conviction is that we shall best command the respect, which insures peace by firmly but not offensively maintaining our rights; and in no way can amicable relations with Great Britain, and all others, be so surely maintained as by our claiming only what is right, by surrendering nothing that is clearly and indisputably our own, and by referring always the question of what our just rights are to those tribunals of Prize, which are instituted by the consent of nations to adjudge these points under the law of nations and in the interests of peace, by reason of the acknowledged inability of diplomacy, even in the most skilful hands, to deal satisfactorily before hand with these complicated questions as they arise.
I am, respectfully
Your obedt. servt
Gideon Welles
Sec'y of the Navy.
York Pennsylvania Copperhead Convention, Resolutions, September 1863
Copy of Resolutions, unanimously adopted by the Copperhead County Convention, held at York Penna. September 1863.
“Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, is the supreme law of the land and entitled, of right, to the obedience of all, from the highest to the lowest; that there is no rightful power in the Federal Government, to dispense with, set aside, or supercede, any of its provisions, and that the doctrine of a “higher law,” is an atrocious and abominable political heresy, utterly subversive of all constitutional government, and destructive of the rights and liberties of the people.”
“Resolved: — That Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, has perverted this government, from the constitutional one heretofore established and administered, into a military despotism as absolute and oppressive as that of the Czar of Russia. He has, by military violence, overthrown the government of Sovereign States, of this union and established others in their stead, subservient to himself. He has in those states, unscrupulously arrested and imprisoned men without any charge of crime and without any authority of law, whenever they stood in the way of his designs. He has by similar violence dragged the Judges of State Courts, from the bench, degraded them from their official positions, and subjected them to brutal and barborous treatment, for no cause except, that of a firm and faithful discharge of their duties according to their consciences and oaths of office. He has overthrown the supremacy of the civil laws of the land, and established military power in their place; abolished the right of trial by Jury; instructed his officers and minions to refuse obedience to the civil process of the courts of law, and resisted the enforcement of such process by violence. He has caused, thousands of men, women and children, free citizens of these States, to be illegally seized and transported to public Bastiles, where he has kept them immersed in loathsome dungeons, far from their homes and families, and beyond the limits of their States, and afterwards, at his own caprice turned them out of prison, without accusation, trial or judgement, and without reparation for the injury. He has suppressed newspapers, letters and documents, and denied their transmission, through the government mails, has established an odious censorship, over the telegraph and press, has converted these great means for the circulation of public intelligence into instruments for the accomplishment of unjust and partizan purposes, and has denied to the free citizens of this country, the liberty of speech and of the press. He has ordered illegal searches and seizures of persons and papers, has condemned freemen unheard, & without trial according to law, and has inflicted on them cruel, unusual and illegal punishments. He has transformed the public armed forces of the nation from a means of public warfare, into a partisan police, for the execution of tyrannical and unconstitutional edicts, against those who disapproved his administration. He has destroyed the freedom of elections, by placing whole States under martial law, stationing armed men at the polls, and permitting none to vote except his own political partizans. He has perverted the war, which was originally waged for the purpose of restoring the Supremacy of the constitution over the Seceded States, into an unholy and unconstitutional crusade against Slavery, and for the freedom of the negro; and for this purpose, has armed the Slaves of the Southern people against their masters, incited them to insurrection, and to the perpetration of the most horrible atrocities, has plundered their property, burned their homes, and ravaged and laid waste their country”.
“Resolved: That throughout all these unparalleled outrages upon the people, Andrew G. Curtin, the present Executive of Pennsylvania, has been the pliant and dependant tool of the despotism at Washington, and has seen the Sovereign Rights of the States and the undoubted rights of the citizens trampled in the dust, without once raising his voice in their favour; that he has permitted the swindling officials of the Federal and State Governments to rob and plunder alike, the public treasury of the State, and our patriotic soldiers in the feild; and that he has failed in any single instance to bring the offenders to the condign punishment they deserved.”
The two remaining resolutions endorses the nominations of George W. Woodward for Governor — and Walter M. Lowrie for Supreme Judge, and the county ticket made by the aforesaid convention. The subordinates of Capt Chas Garrettson
This is a correct copy of the resolutions passed & published by the Copperhead party of this County & the comrades and bondsmen of Capt. Garretson
By order of Council 84 U. S. A
H. H. Jacobs
R. Secty.
York Feby 9, 1864
From Charles Wilson et al. to Abraham Lincoln [With Endorsement by Lincoln] 1, [September 1863]
Collected Works, VI, 361 and VII, 257.
Sir:
We, the undersigned loyal citizens of Washington, respectfully represent that Wm T. Smithson a Banker of this City was arrested about the 14th of May last, by Col Baker,
His residence on 6th street near the corner of E, with the furniture therein, after he had made a deed of conveyance thereto, to Trustees for the benefit of his creditors, was taken possession of by the Provost Marshal of the War Department, and his wife with two little children of tender years, was ordered, was ordered to leave the house, which is now occupied by the subordinates of Col Baker and Mrs. Smithson and her children are living upon the charity of their friends.
We are well acquainted with Mr. Smithson personally, and some of us have known him intimately for years; we know him to be a most estimable citizen, kind, charitable, honest and upright, we have known him to give liberally to supply the wants and relieve the sufferings of the soldiers of the Federal Army, and to perform, as far as we could perceive all the duties of a good and loyal citizen, if he has committed acts for which he is amenable to the laws of his country, we believe it was an error of the head and not of the heart, and Public sentiment, as far as we have been able to ascertain it, is not general but universal, that he has been most harshly treated by the Government.
We understand that the Grand Jury for this District, has indicted him for Treason, that is the charge — the specification is, buying and selling and giving circulation to Confederate money, after this indictment was found, a motion was made in the Criminal Court, (Judge Fisher presiding) to issue an order directing him to be turned over to the civil authorities, Judge Fisher entertained the motion, but before he would decide it said he must have and interview with the Secretary of War, and left the Court room, and after an absence of about two hours returned and said the Secretary of War, refused to surrender Mr. Smithson, as he had other charges against him, and he would not bring his Court in conflict with the mliitary authorities, and adjourned it without taking any action in the matter.
Jas. G. Hamilton of Chicago Illinois brother-in-law of Wm T. Smithson, who came to this City for the purpose of procuring his release if possible, or tried under the law without longer delay, sought an interview with you on the subject, as he informed us, and presented you a letter from Judge Goodrich
Under these circumstances, having full confidence in your disposition to do justice in the matter and desiring no more ourselves, we appeal to you the Chief Executive of the Nation, to interpose and see that Mr. Smithson is no longer confined in Prison, without a fair trial which the laws guarantee to every American Citizen.
Very Respectfully Yours
Chas. Wilson
J Van Riswick
T. E. Lloyd
A Lloyd.
Ulysses Ward
[Endorsed on Envelope by Lincoln:]
Smithson
From Abraham Lincoln to John M. Schofield [Draft] 1, October 1, 1863
1 This letter to General Schofield was occasioned by Lincoln's interview on September 30 with a delegation of radical Unionists from Missouri who called for the removal of General Schofield from command in Missouri, the disbanding of Missouri's Enrolled State Militia, over which Governor Hamilton R. Gamble had a large degree of control, and the provision that only those registered to vote in Missouri be allowed to do so. Lincoln refused to accede to the group's demand for Schofield's ouster or for the breaking up of the Enrolled State Militia. As the endorsement indicates, a copy of this letter went to Charles D. Drake, the leader of the Missouri group.
A version of Lincoln's immediate response to the Missourians is John Hay, Memorandum, September 30, 1863, in Michael Burlingame, ed., At Lincoln's Side: John Hay's Civil War Correspondence and Selected Writings, (Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 2000), 57-64. For Lincoln's formal reply to the delegation, see Lincoln to Charles D. Drake et al., October 5, 1863.
Executive Mansion
Washington, D. C. Oct 1. 1863
Gen. John M. Schofield
There is no organized military force in avowed opposition to the general government, now in Missouri; and if any such shall reappear, your duty in regard to it will be too plain to require any special instruction. Still the condition of things, both there and elsewhere, is such as to render it indispensable to maintain for a time, the United States military establishment in that State, as well as to rely upon it for a fair contribution of support to that establishment generally.
Your immediate duty, in regard to Missouri, now is to advance the efficiency of that establishment, and to so use it, as far as practicable, to compel the excited people there to leave one another alone.
Under your recent order, which I have approved,palpable mischief injury to the military in your charge; and, in no other case will you interfere with the expression of opinion in any form, or allow it to be interfered with violently by others. In this, you have a discretion to exercise with great caution, calmness, and forbearance.
habeas corpus for members of the Missouri militia. He explained the necessity for that order in Schofield to Henry W. Halleck, September 20, 1863. For the text of the orders, see Official Records, Series I, Volume 22, Part II, 546-47.
With the matter of removing the inhabitants of certain counties en masse;
Nor am I interfering with what may still seem to you to be necessary restrictions upon trade and intercourse.
I think proper, however, to enjoin upon you the following:
Allow no part of the military under your command, to be engaged in either returning fugitive slaves, or in forcing, or enticing slaves from their homes; and, so far as practicable, enforce the same forbearance upon the people.
Report to me the status and action, of the enrolled militia. It must be either under United States orders, or be without United States support, and without the proclamation in regard to Habeas Corpus. your opinion upon the availability for good, of the enrolled militia of the State.
Allow no one to enlist colored troops, except upon orders from you, or from here through you.
Allow no one to assume the functions of confiscating property, under the law of congress, or other wise, except upon orders from here.
At elections, see that those, and only those are allowed to vote, who are entitled to do so, by the laws of Missouri, including as of those laws, the restriction laid by the Missouri Convention upon those who may have participated in the rebellion.
So far as practicable you will, by means of your military force, expel guerrillas, marauders, and murderers, and all who are known to harbor, aid, or abet them. But, in like manner, you will repress assumptions of unauthorized individuals to perform the same service; because under pretence of doing this, they become marauders and murderers themselves. To now restore peace, let the military obey orders; and those not of the military, leave one another each other alone; thus not breaking the peace themselves.
The points I have above mentioned In giving the above directions, it is not intended to restrain you in other expedient and necessary matters not falling within their range.
Your Obt. Servt.
A Lincoln
[Endorsed on Envelope by Lincoln:]
To Gen. Schofield & Hon. C. D. Drake—
From Augustus W. Bradford to Abraham Lincoln, October 1, 1863
The following Telegram received at Washington, 244 PM. Oct 1. 1863.
From Baltimore 240 PM.
Collected Works, VI, 491.
Dated, Oct 1. 1863.
I will wait on your Excellency Saturday at 12.
A. W. Bradford
From Thomas J. Durant to Abraham Lincoln [With Endorsement by Lincoln] 1, October 1, 1863
Neworleans. 1. October. 1863.
Sir,
During the month of August I had the honor of receiving a copy of a letter addressed by you to General Banks dated on the 5th of that month. A severe inflammation of the eyes prevented me from writing for some weeks after its receipt.
In the last fifteen months the march of events has been rapid and far, carrying us to a point where newer and more accurate views can be had of the effect of the rebellion upon the country, and of the policy best suited to the changes which the operations of war have brought about.
In July 1862 the slave owners who have always possessed the entire political power and social influence of the state, would, possibly, have been willing to reestablish a loyal state Government, under a guarantee of the permanent safety of the slave system: such security was not, and, no doubt could not have been proposed to them: and the opportunity, at any rate, has passed away for ever. We stand in the presence of new events demanding that old ideas should be discarded, and old institutions reformed.
According to the census of 1860, there were in Louisiana 331,726 Slaves; of these there were in the then first and Second Congressional Districts 93,761; and in the then third and fourth Congressional Districts there were 237,963, who by the language of the Proclamation of the 1st. January 1863, it is said “are and hence forward shall be free”.
By the State Auditor's Report in 1860, the total value of all property in Louisiana, assessed for taxation was $469,365,130 including the assessed value of slaves which was, by the same report $169,124,619, giving an average value of a fraction over $509.— to each slave. The value of the slaves in the two districts covered by the Proclamation was therefore (about) $121,124,185.—
Believing that Agriculture cannot be carried on without the labor of Slaves, the slaveholders consider the Proclamation as effecting the ruin of the state, as well as their own. Such of them as profess to be enemies of our Government will submit only to force; those who profess loyalty look for the withdrawal of the Proclamation, as it is styled, a form of expression inadequately representing the idea of those who employ it, and who really mean that the persons freed by the Proclamation shall be made slaves again.
The Proclamation of September 1862, as one of warning, might have been withdrawn, and the effect would have been, to postpone forever or for a time the act of am emancipation which was promised.
But to retract the Proclamation of 1st January 1863, would produce no effect, as that instrument declared a legal change of condition in certain persons, and the right thus vested cannot be destroyed.
The necessities of war required that the slaves in the third and fourth Districts should be set free, and the law of nations justifies the act, but no conceiveable necessity of war can call for the reduction of free persons to the condition of slaves, nor would the law of nations, or reason, or humanity justify any act of the kind. Suppose it were attempted: to whose ownership would the slaves be consigned? They are now free and belong to no one; to whom will you give any particular person should you attempt to make him a slave?
Freed by the Proclamation of 1st January, these persons cannot be again made slaves, in accordance with a principle frequently recognized by the Supreme Court of Louisiana. For example, Marie Louise, once a slave in Louisiann was taken by her master to France, where they remained some time. On their return Marie Louise sued her master, Marot, for her freedom, on the ground, that having been taken by him voluntarily to France, where slavery was forbidden by law, she became free. The Supreme Court of Louisiana sustained her claim, and Matthews J. in delivering the opinion of the Court said, in concluding the Judgment, “being free for one moment in France, it was not in the power of her former owner to reduce her again to Slavery”. See the case of Marie Louise vs. Marot, 9th Louisiana Reports (by Thomas Curry) pp 475-6. This decision was in harmony with the principles of universal law.
The Proclamation of 1st January 1863 is purely a military measure. It emancipates certain slaves. It does not abolish Slavery. Slaveholding is a custom of Louisiana; and its exemption in the third First and fourth Second Congressional Districts from the terms of the Proclamation, inspires its friends with the hope, that it may be reestablished throughout our bounds.
We, in Louisiann, are now so situated that we must choose between the systems of Slavery and freedom: I do not hesitate to choose the latter, for, after the Proclamation it would be a great crime and a great error to establish slavery again. To put the matter at rest we must abolish the principle of property in man by a constitutional enactment, and to secure that result the public mind must be educated. Much progress has been made in Neworleans: and, it is believed that a great change is going on in the minds of the non-slaveholding class in the country. This change might be hastened and confirmed by the efforts of officers, military and civil, directly and indirectly in the Service of the United States, could they be induced to perceive the great benefits they would confer upon Louisiana by exercising their influence in favor of freedom: a direction in which no very great effort on the part of many is now made.
By your letter to General Banks, you appear to think that a Registration of voters is going on under my superintendence, with the view of bringing on the election of delegates to a constitutional convention; but such is not the case. The means of communicating with a large portion of the state, are not in our power, and before the commencement of a Registration we ought to have undisturbed control of a considerable territory, at least the two congressional districts proclaimed as not being in rebellion.
It is understood that General Shepley
I think if the officers and all in authority, in the Country parishes, as well as in the city would lend their cordial aid, a registration of voters could be had very soon in all the parishes of the former first and second Congressional Districts, which by the terms of the proclamation, are declared not to be in rebellion, and that a registration might, in addition, be had in some of the Parishes of the two other Districts, for instance, such as front on the Mississippi river. I do not think it necessary to wait until every parish of the state is in a condition to undergo the registration, for that would only be to permit the rebellious parishes to retard the loyal.
After the registration an election of delegates to a convention should be ordered, and this convention should frame a constitution abolishing slavery, by express enactment, throughout the state, and ordering an election for state officers. The state Government so constituted should be recognized by the Government of the United States, and supported by its military power.
But to effect this, all public officers, the local provost marshals and others in authority, should be urged and required to exert themselves to the full extent of their ability to promote the formation of a free state Government. How long it will take to effect our object, it is difficult to say. It will be much retarded by hostility, should any exist, or by indifference on the part of those in office. It is not possible to have the work completed by the next Session of Congress.
In the mean time there can be no election of members of Congress in Louisiana. In the preliminary report on the eighth census, dated May 20, 1862, it is stated, on page 20, that “in pursuance with law the apportionment” (of representation) “was made and proclaimed on the 5th day of July 1861, distributing the representation in the thirty eighth Congress among the several states according to their federal population”; and by this, five representatives were awarded to Louisiana, which had under the former Census but four, and the state was accordingly heretofore divided into four Congressional districts.
It is provided by the act of July 14. 1862, see 12th Statutes at Large p. 572 “that in each state entitled in the next and any succeeding Congress to more than one Representatives, the number to which said state is nor may be entitled hereafter entitled, shall be elected by districts composed of contiguous territory, equal in number to the number of representatives to which said state may be entitled in the Congress for which said election is held, no one district electing more than one representative”.
There are now nor districts laid off in Louisiana, and, therefore, no congressional election can be held until the state shall have been divided into Districts. This may be done, under paragraph 1, sec 4, Art I of the Constitution, either by the State Legislature, or by the Congress. No State Legislature exists in Louisiana, and none can exist, in my opinion, until a new constitution shall have been adopted for the state, and a Legislature elected under it. Congress, though attention was turned to the subject, in the House of Representatives has not acted.
It is not likely that any serious evil may result from the absence, for a time, from the House of Representatives, of members from Louisiana. In the mean time all can devote their energies to a more important object, that of reorganizing a state Government on the basis of freedom.
I avail myself, Sir, of the occasion to express a grateful sense of the honor you have done me, and the confidence you have displayed in my loyalty, by sending me a copy of the communication to which I now take the liberty of replying.
I have the Honor to be,
With great respect
Your obedient servant
Thomas J. Durant
[Endorsed by Lincoln:]
Thomas J Durant
To
The President.
Oct. 1. 1863
From Hamilton R. Gamble to Abraham Lincoln, October 1, 1863
Saint Louis October 1st 1863
Sir
The present condition of affairs in Missouri renders it necessary that there should be a perfect understanding between the Federal and State authorities
Since I have undertaken the administration of the State Government there has been an unhesitating compliance with every call of the Federal authorities, and I have exhausted the resources of the State in maintaining the supremacy of the Federal Government
There has been no attempt to evade or violate any law of the United States. Notwithstanding such has been the course of the State Government a party has sprung up in Missouri, which openly and loudly proclaims the purpose to overturn the Provisional State Government by violence: and this party has secret organizations in many portions of the state, and embraces a large number of men who at the time the Provisional Government was established were either known as secessionists or were too timid to take any position for the defence of the Union
While it is the duty of the Federal Government under the Constitution of the United States to protect each state from domestic violence, it is clearly the duty of the administration of the Federal Government to discountenance every combination of men who conspire to overthrow the State Government by violence
If these Anarchists are allowed to initiate their measures of violence in this State, their revolutionary spirit will probably extend to other states and produce a conflagration which it will be impossible for the Federal Government to extinguish
I therefore demand of you Mr President that you shall order the General commanding this department to maintain by all the force under his control the integrity of the State Government, and to suppress in its incipiency every combination designed to subvert its authority and to take such measures as may be necessary to this end
I have the honor to be
Your Obt Servt
H. R. Gamble
Gov of Missouri
From Joseph W. McClurg to Abraham Lincoln 1, October 1, 1863
Washington City D. C. 1st Oct / 63
Dr. Sir
I have the honor, by request of the members of the Missouri delegation to submit for your consideration the following facts:
1st That, let the cause be what it may, the state of insecurity as to person and property is as great as, and in parts of the 5th Congressional District that I have the honor to represent, greater than, at any time during 1862— The entire delegation from 5th Congl District will so testify.
2d — In Cedar County, on or about 10th Augt. a Union man was shot down in his own yard— Witnesses T. S. Morgan and Alexr McWilliams, delegates—
3d — On 4th Sept a band of bushwhackers made a raid into Quincy, Hickory County and killed four union men and wounded another— Two of the killed were officers of the 18th Iowa regiment— Store and Post office were robbed and four stage horses taken— Witnesses as last
4th. Recently, about 15th Augt. three or four bushwhackers visited and were harbored by a man named Kounts, professing to be a Union man— Lieut. Ware and seven or eight privates sought them out and were shot at and Lieut Ware wounded severely— The bushwhackers escaped— Kounts' property was taken possession of, but Genl. Schofield
5th — Recently, say latter days of August, on Missouri river, in Lafayette County, a Steam Boat was boarded by guerrillas & robbed and three furloughed Union soldiers shot—
6th — About 10th September a store, eleven & a half miles S. W. of Jefferson City, on a public road, was plundered by eighteen guerrillas and four shots were fired into the residence of the owner of store— Witness A. Peabody of Jefferson City—
7th — About 15th September, near Iberia, Miller County, say fifty miles S. W. from Jefferson City, a store house was robbed and a Union man named Jackson was killed in his own house— Witness T. J. Babcocke of Miller County—
8th. Thos. J. Babcocke, of Miller County, will testify “that in vicinity of Cole and Miller Counties the guerrillas remain, robbing &c”, that “in Morgan County, recently, Union men's houses have been burned and union men have to band together to protect themselves, that “in Miller County bands of five to fifteen are passing about almost daily”
9th. Hon. L. C. Marvin of Clinton, Henry County, will testify “that thefts, murders and robbery are as common as the ordinary incidents of life in former years” — that “men are robbed and shot within two or three miles of military Posts and officers seems to be more ambitious in catching runaway negroes and returning them”—
10th. Mr B. Hornsby of Johnson County will testify that “robbery and murder were going on in his neighborhood to a fearful extent and hundreds of families made destitute” — that “the officers in command are in sympathy with the rebels”—
11th. D. A. Peabody will testify “that while Genl. Curtiscontrabands—” Now such slaves are captured and returned to most disloyal owners” — that “in organizing the Provisional regiments, officers of equivocal loyalty have been selected, while the most loyal and efficient have been avoided” — that “much dissatisfaction exists and that now Genl. Schofield could do nothing to reinstate himself in the estimation of loyal men” — that “he has so identified himself with the “Conservative” party, composed of the disloyal, headed by a few professedly loyal, but pro-slavery, like Govr. Gamble,now all confidence in him is destroyed”— That “under loyal men, recruiting for both white and colored regiments might be rapidly going on” — that “loyalty, now encouraged, will bring strength to the Government and Administration” that, “neglected, the result cannot be imagined.”—
12th — We would respectfully remind you that the contest is between loyalty and disloyalty— Loyalty and freedom should not receive a blow from their friend.
I have, President, the honor to be, for members of Mo.
delegation, from 5th Congl District
Very Respectfully
Your Obedient Servant
J. W. McClurg
From Charles Maltby to Abraham Lincoln 1, October 1, 1863
Napa City, Cal. Oct 1st 1863
Kind and Respected friend
Mrs. Maltby after a no of years abscense “with our only Child Charlie” is about to visit our friends in Illinois. She is anxious to go by Washington, as she is desirous to call and see your Excellency and Family
I am gratified that she can do so, and am anxious that Mrs Maltby should have an interview with you, as there are some matters of personal interest to me, and others of more public interest which she can more readily communicate to your Excellency thain I could in a written communication.
It would have given me much pleasure could I have accompanyed Mrs Maltby on her trip to visit our friends. I trust she will have a happy meeting and return please'd and gratified with her visit.
She will communicate the thanks and gratitude I feel for the kindness and consideration I have received at your hands.
I desire to say of Mr Cheesman
Mr Clark,
Our Senator Elect Conness
Your Freind in California are expecting that when the proper time shall arrive Your Excellency will permit your name to be used with refferance to renomination for the Presidency, and expect and desire an opertunity to work and vote for your reelection.
Mrs. Maltby will represent to Your Excellency the difficulties I labour under in the discharge of my official duties as Collector of Internal Revinue.
My District is large— Some four hundred miles in leangth a large portion sparsely populated. My Commissions for the year, will not exceed five thousand dollars, out of this amount, I am required to pay Seven Deputies and all the expences of office rent, office furnature Safes — &c. The Assessor of my district, will receive for his services upwards of three thousand Dollars, for his services, aside from the pay of his Deputies, he is also allowed five hundred dollars per year for office rent, and pay for clerk hire— he has no responsibilities or bonds to give. mine are heavy— I trust that Congress will grant the Collectors out-side of San Francisco some relief. Accept the assurances of sincere respect
Very Truly and Respectfully as Ever
Charles Maltby
From John M. Schofield to Abraham Lincoln, October 1, 1863
Recd 445 P.M.
In Cipher
Saint Louis Mo
Oct 1st 1. P.M 1863
I will send the papers in Gen Blunts case and defer action until I know your pleasure regarding it.
Official Records, Series I, Volume 23, Part II, 589; and Collected Works, VI, 495.
J. M. Schofield
Maj Genl
From Cuthbert Bullitt to Abraham Lincoln, October 2, 1863
New Orleans, Octr 2d 1863
My Dear Mr Lincoln
Dr Cottman
Every body in Louisiana knows that I was driven from this city, as an unconditional Union man, & that I returned as such, & with the help of God, I intend to live as Such— It gives me pleasure to state that the various departments of the customs are now in harmony, The hatchet is burried, & so far as I am concerned, every energy turned towards the advancement of the interests of our glorious Union—
With kind regards to your good Lady—
I am your sincere friend
Cuthbert Bullitt
From John McConnell to Abraham Lincoln 1, October 2, 1863
Washington D. C.
Oct 2d 1863
Sir
I presented Gov, Yates
Mr Stanton thinks he cannot grant the Order but sent the letter to Maj T. M. Vincent
Collected Works, VI, 400.
I am Sir
Very respectfully
Your obdt, Servant
John McConnell
From Robert H. Milroy to Abraham Lincoln [With Endorsement by Lincoln] 1, October 2, 1863
Collected Works, VI, 541-42. Milroy had been placed under arrest after he lost over 4,000 men in battle against Confederate General Richard S. Ewell on June 15. A court of inquiry later cleared Milroy of any wrongdoing in the engagement.
Private
Washington City D. C.
Oct. 2nd 1863.
My Dear Sir,
Please read the following when you have leisure.
Knowing the overwhelming importance of your time, as the helmsman of our Goverment, in the mighty tempest through which she is now passing, it pains me to trespass upon your notice, but having been snubed, insulted & treated as a despised menial by those in authority below you, I know not where else to go than to the great, good, pure & just head of the nation.
There is one word in Judge Holtsconclusion, that Gen. Schenckextravigant” representations of my ability to hold Winchester. I admit I felt & expressed strong confidence in my ability to hold Winchester, but refference to my evidence & report will show that this confidence was in reference to the known Reb. forces in the Valley whom I had confronted & held in check for six months, & not to Lees army, which I felt “confident” Hooker
I feel sure, that your keen sense of Justice will discover that I have been unjustly exiled from service, & have suffered great wrong, I feel that there is no adequate reparation for the wrong I have sustained. I was deprived of command at the most important crises of the war. The brand of a felon was placed on me, as far as the same could be done by an arrest, & a black, blighting, blot placed on my reccord for life, — I was deprived of the privalege of participating in the glorious battle of Gettysburg & expulsion of Lees army from Pa. & Md — over three months of my time has been lost to the service & to myself, lost forever! — and evry day that I am kept out of command adds to this wrong. It is in your power to do me justice as far as it can now be done. And I appeal to you—
I would respectfully ask that you give me something to publish as your decision upon the evidence of before the Court of Inquiry, and that you give me permission to publish my official report, & printed letter to you on the evidence.
Permit me to call your attention to the application made to you for the restoration of Capt. A. Hartmann of the 12th Pa. Cav, Since the action of the court on his case (which was in the early part of last spring) I have learned that the greatest injustice was done him by the decision, actuated by jealousy of his superior merits. Feeling confident of his innocence he made but little effort to disprove the charges against him. He was a distinguished officer in the German Revolution of /48.— Much the best qualified cavalry officer in his Regiment, and justice & best interest of the service requires that the sentenence against him should be set aside. With Great Respect
Your Most Obt. Svt.
R. H. Milroy
Maj. Gnl.
U. S. V.
[Endorsed on Envelope by Lincoln:]
Gen. Milroy.
From John M. Schofield to Abraham Lincoln, October 2, 1863
The following Telegram received at Washington, 1015 PM. October 2d 1863.
From Head Qrs St Louis
Dated, October 2 1863.
President
I find upon full inquiry that the report from Leavenworth to the effect that Union families have been driven out of Missouri is a gross misrepresentation & exageration A few men who claim to be loyal but who have been engaged in murder, robbery & arson have been driven out Their leader is Jos. Barnes whom you pardoned at the request of Gov Gamble
Jas. Schofield
Maj Genl
From Thomas A. Scott to Abraham Lincoln, October 2, 1863
Recd in cipher
2 AM Oct 2nd
Louisville Ky
Oct 1st 1863
9 PM
In reply to your inquiry,
Collected Works, VI, 493.
Ten trains had passed Nashville up to nine thirty (9.30) AM this morning, and all of them are at Bridgeport before this hour Everything that has reached this point has gone forward We are hoping to get another battery and about sixteen hundred men by midnight Will ship them before daylight Could handle them more rapidly if Eastern roads could let us have them—
Genl Hooker
Thomas A Scott
From R. D. Spalding to Katherine Todd 1, October 2, 1863
Morganfield Ky.
Oct 2d 1863
Miss Todd
I have a particular friend under condemnation for violation of general order No 38.
Official Records, Series II, Volume 5, 480.
Collected Works, VI, 529 and 531.
The check came by due course of mail.
Very truly
& respectfully
R D Spalding
[Endorsed by Katherine Todd:]
—Mr. Lincoln,
I have received the inclosed letter, and ask if you will reprieve the unfortunate man if consistent with your sense of justice.
I donot know any of the circumstances or the man except what is contained in this letter, but I could not refuse to make one effort to try to save the life of an unfortunate man—
Will you favor me with an immediate answer and oblige
Kathie Todd.
Lexington Oct. 15th.
From Nathaniel P. Banks to Francis P. Blair Jr. [With Endorsement by Lincoln] 1, October 3, 1863
New Orleans, 3d October, 1863.
My Dear Sir
I have read your letter to the President with pleasure.— There are many very important considerations embodied in it. There must be some misunderstanding however. I think, but am not certain, in regard to the refusal to allow steamers from the west to take cargoes of Sugar or other Products to St Louis. We understand that trade is unrestricted between New Orleans and the Upper cities It is possible that it may refer to some proposition to take cargo at some irregular landing on the River, which we have not been able to permit, as since the fall of Port Hudson, the enemy has occupied positions in the rear of both banks of the River
I agree with you that the freedom of the Missisppi is the great fact of the war, and hope all restrictions may be removed at the earliest possible moment. The military orders impose no conditions upon trade between St Louis & New Orleans. Captain Hoyt whom you know, is the same man as at St Louis, and will explain to you the condition of affairs here. I was sorry not to meet you at Vicksburg.
Very Truly Yours
N. P Banks
M G C
[Endorsed on Envelope by Lincoln:]
Gen. Banks.
From William Birney to Abraham Lincoln 1, October 3, 1863
Rec'd 8.20 P. M.
In Cipher
Baltimore Md.
Oct 3rd 8. P.M 1863
Yours just received— Between 1250 and 1300 as near as I can judge
Collected Works, VI, 495.
Wm Birney
Colonel
From Charles D. Drake to Abraham Lincoln [With Endorsement by Lincoln] 1, October 3, 1863
Washington, Oct 3. 1863
Sir,
In the course of the conference which you were so kind as to hold, on the 30th ult., with the Delegations from Missouri and Kansas, it appeared that you were not fully advised in regard to the organization of the Enrolled Missouri Militia; and it was then signified, on the part of the Missouri Delegation, that further information would be laid before you. In pursuance of that intimation, the Executive Committee of the Delegation have the honor now to present you this communication.
There are in Missouri two bodies of soldiery known as Missouri Militia — the “Missouri State Militia”, and the “Enrolled Missouri Militia.”
The former are volunteer troops, enlisted into the service of the United States, and supported by the National Government. They are the “peculiar military force” referred to in Special Order No 416 of the War Department, issued December 28. 1862. Its peculiarity consists in the fact that it is intended exclusively for the protection of Missouri, and in the further fact that, under said Order No 416, “Governor Gamble
The “Enrolled Missouri Militia” are an entirely different force, organized by order of the Governor, controlled by him, and at no time subject to the order of any U. S. officer, except as the Governor sees proper to make them so. The creation of this force was unauthorized by any law of our State. As it was called into existence by the Governor's order, so its existence may be terminated, at any moment, by his command.
This force was enrolled in the summer of 1862. For some time it was entirely a State force, and kept up at the expense of the State, when in active service.
On the 30th of December, 1862, Gov. Gamble issued his General Order No 50, in the following words:
“The Enrolled Militia are under the exclusive command of their own officers, except when they are by express orders placed under the command of United States officers, and they will be governed only by such orders as may be issued from these Head Quarters. If, therefore, any officers of the Enrolled Militia are engaged in making assessments, in pursuance of orders from United States commanders, they will immediately suspend all action under said orders.”
This Order indicates with precision the character of the force which Gov. Gamble, by his own mere will, without authority of law, embodied in Missouri. It was not only independent of the United States military commander there, but was ordered not to co-operate with him in the measure therein designated, and which had been adopted by him against disloyal persons.
In consequence of this order, Col. F. A. Dick,
On the 23d of April, 1863, Gov. Gamble issued his General Order No 14, in the following words:
“Hereafter no enlistments will be allowed from any organization of Enrolled Missouri Militia into the volunteer service of the United States, when such Militia shall have been detailed for active service, and shall have been embodied as a force in the field.”
This order, it need hardly be remarked, is a direct assertion of the right of the Governor of Missouri to debar the United States from enlisting citizens of Missouri into the National volunteer service. Though in terms applicable only to the Enrolled Militia, only when they “shall have been detailed for active service, and shall have been embodied as a force in the field”, yet the power assumed is, in principle, fatal to the National supremacy there; for the Governor need only detail the whole Enrolled Militia for active service, and embody them as a force in the field, to shut the door effectually, so far as his orders could do so, against any enlistments under the authority of the general Government in the State of Missouri.
We respectfully submit, that such a proceeding on the part of a Governor of a State is, in intent, utterly subersive of the National authority, however ineffectual it might be in fact, in the event of a complete conflict between the State and the National Government. That order was subsequently modified; but no modification could obliterate the animus there exhibited; and to that, Mr President, we beg to call your attention. In our opinion, no Governor would issue such an order, without an intention to embarrass the military authorities of the United States.
Be pleased to remark, Mr President, that both of those orders were issued during Gen. Curtis's
During that administration, we believe we are correct in saying that no order was issued by Gov. Gamble placing the Enrolled Militia under the command of the Department Commander.
Not so, however, when Gen. Schofield
“The command of the Enrolled Militia now in active service within the State, including the provisional regiments, is conferred upon Major General John M. Schofield, commanding the Department of the Missouri.”
The inquiry here arises, why, during Gen. Curtis's command, Gov. Gamble should not only fail to place the Enrolled Militia under his control, but order them not to co-operate with his officers in certain important matters, and then, within four days after Gen. Schofield's accession, place the whole Enrolled Militia then in active service under Gen. Schofield's control, without limitation upon his power over them? No explanation of this striking change in Gov. Gamble's policy has, to our knowledge, transpired; but we think there is no difficulty in discovering it, in the existence of a community of views between him and Gen. Scholfield in regard to Slavery, which did not exist between him and Gen. Curtis. We regard it as going far toward establishing the allegation in the Address of our Delegation, that Gen. Schofield's policy as Department Commander has been shaped to conform to Gov. Gamble's pro-Slavery and conservative views.
We referred to a modification of the above recited order of Gov. Gamble prohibiting enlistments in the Volunteer service of the United States from the ranks of the Enrolled Missouri Militia. The nature of that modification is shown in Gen. Schofield's General Order No 89, dated August 27. 1863, which is in the following words:
“Men belonging to the Enrolled Militia of Missouri, in active service, are permitted by the order of the Governor of Missouri to enlist in the United States Volunteer Regiments. But to prevent abuse, it is ordered that when such men are duly enlisted, their names, with the company to which they belong, and a certificate of their enlistment, shall be sent by the recruiting officer to the Colonel of their regiment, with the request for their discharge. The Colonel will order their discharge from his regiment, provided there be no charges against them. But if they are charged with any offense, they will not be discharged, but will be held for trial & punishment.
“No militia man so enlisted will leave his militia company until he shall receive his discharge from the Colonel of his regiment. Without such discharge his enlistment in a Volunteer Regiment will be regarded null and void.”
Mr President, in the Address of our Delegation it was alleged that Gen. Schofield had “subordinated Federal authority in Missouri to State rule.” In our judgment, the first sentence of this Order proves the allegation, viz: “Men belonging to the Enrolled Militia of Missouri, in active service, are permitted by the order of the Governor of Missouri to enlist in the United States Volunteer regiments.” For three months and four days after Gen. Schofield assumed command, Gov. Gamble's prohibition of enlistments stood unmoved; but at the end of that time he so far gave way as to permit enlistments, and Gen. Schofield announces that permission in a General Order; which we hold to be tantamount to acknowledging the necessity for obtaining it. This, we conceive, was a clear case of subordinating Federal authority in Missouri to State rule. In principle, how does this differ from Gov. Jackson's
You will have noticed that Gov. Gamble's General Order No 17, of May 29. 1863, conferred upon Gen. Schofield the command of the Enrolled Militia then in active service. On the 26th of September, 1863, Gov. Gamble issued his General Order No 24, in p as follows:
“The Militia of the State, whether in active service or not, are hereby placed under the command of Major General John M. Schofield, until further orders.”
Two things in this order arrest attention: 1. That, unlike Order No 17, it does not speak of the Enrolled Militia, but of the Militia. Whether this change of terms was accidental or designed, we cannot say. If designed, we can see no reason for it, except an intent on the part of the Governor to assert his right as Commander in Chief of the “Missouri State Militia”, as well as the “Enrolled Missouri Militia.” You are aware, Mr President, that he has made earnest efforts to have you recognize the former as State troops; but you have declined to do so. May it not be that this order No 24 is the beginning of a claim of his right of supreme command over them? 2. The Militia are placed under Gen. Schofield's command “until further orders.” That is, Gen. Schofield is to hold a position of dependence upon Gov Gamble for that Militia; which may be withdrawn from him at any moment by Gov. Gamble's order.
In connection with this position of things, we call to your recollection the steady effort which Gov. Gamble has made to have the U. S. troops withdrawn entirely from Missouri, & the military control of that State left to a force wholly subject to his will. We have no doubt, nor have the loyal people of Missouri, that such has been his object from the opening of his administration. He desired a force of forty thousand “Missouri State Militia”, sustained by the National Government, but subject to his command, and was much disappointed when only ten thousand could be obtained, and they not absolutely subject to his single will. That object we charge to have been at the root of his enrollment of the entire Militia force of the State. Since that force was embodied, he has pretermitted no effort to get the U. S. troops out of the State, (except the “Missouri State Militia”), and to strengthen his hold upon the Department Commander, by making him dependent on the Enrolled Militia for troops. Gen. Curtis refused to leave himself in that way at Gov. Gamble's mercy; but Gen. Schofield has evidently consented to it. It rests with you, Mr President, to say whether an arrangement so derogatory to the rightful authority of the National Government shall continue.
We again respectfully call your attention to the fact that the Enrolled Missouri Militia, when called into active service under the Department Commander, are armed, subsisted, & transported, at the expense of the United States. But for this, Gov. Gamble could not keep that force in the field a week. We have reason to believe that the Secretary of War does not know that this is done; and we claim that there is no law of the United States authorizing it. We pray you to cause an investigation to be made on this point through the proper Department; and, if it shall be found that there is no lawful authority for such expenditure from the National Treasury, that the same may be at once stopped, and Gov. Gamble thereby compelled to disband a force, which he holds created without law.
We earnestly assure you, Mr President, that as long as Gov. Gamble can, through his military organizations, dictate his policy to the Commanding General of the Department of the Missouri, our State will be, as it has been, a source of anxiety to you. In times like these, no such autocratic power as he has wielded for the last eighteen months, should be entrusted to any State Governor; and least of all to one who has pledged himself to use his Executive power, to the utmost extent, to protect the institution of Slavery.
It is in your power to settle the whole difficulty. Only three things are necessary to this end: 1. The cessation of all support from the Treasury of the United States to the Enrolled Missouri Militia; 2. The occupation of Missouri by U. S. troops; and 3. The appointment of a Department Commander in Missouri, who will not make himself a party to Gov. Gamble's pro-Slavery policy. This is the sum of our requests in regard to military affairs. If they are granted, we can assure you of permanent peace in Missouri.
One other subject demands attention, in connection with Missouri affairs. On the 3d of next month an election is to be held in that State for Judges of the Supreme and Circuit Courts. We have good reason to believe, and so assert, that a strenuous effort will be made to carry that election against the Radical party by the votes of returned rebels, guerrillas, bushwhackers, and others who have given aid & comfort to the rebellion. By an Ordinance of our State Convention, passed June 10. 1862, every voter is required, in order to vote, to take a prescribed oath. Unless the military authorities interpose, we believe that thousands of the above named classes of persons will be permitted to vote, without taking that oath. We ask that you will be pleased to direct the Department Commander to issue such an order as Gen. Burnside
We transmit herewith certain statements concerning the condition of things in Missouri, prepared by members of our Delegation, which we earnestly commend to your attentive perusal.
By order of the Executive Committee.
Chas: D. Drake,
Chairman
[Endorsed by Lincoln:]
Main thing
From James H. Hackett to Abraham Lincoln, October 3, 1863
Carlyle. Clinton Co. Ill.
Oct. 3. 1863
My dear Sir!
Referring to yr. complimentary letter dated 17 Aug. ult.December next; when, according to its former custom, Congress may be expected to “have adjourned for the Hollidays.”
I would propose to represent upon those evenings, — first, the Falstaff of King Henry IV; next, Sir Pertinax MacSycophant, in the comedy called — The Man of the World; & immediately after it, Monsieur Mallet, an exiled general of Napoleon 1st., in my popular interlude of “The Post Office Mistake”; & upon my last night, the Falstaff of the comedy of The Merry Wives of Windsor; if it may happen to be convenient & Your Excellency to attend upon each or either one of those three evenings named—
I did some three years but have ceased to reside in this region since 1860, — having then purchased a Villa at Yonkers N.Y; but, owning, as I do, a tract of over 600 acres of choice prairie, undergoing gradual improvements & located near this Town, I am required here occasionally, & probably, this visit, will be detained in the West, until about the Middle of Novr. next; therefore, let me respectfully suggest the expediency, whenever you may be able to reply, of my being addressed to the care of my son John K Hackett Esqr., Associate Counsel to the Corporation, office, 82 Nassau St. New York; where, if letters are recd. in my absence they are sure to be promptly & regularly forwarded to my whereabouts—
I have the honor to remain,
Your Excellency's obliged & obedient Servant ever—
Jas. H. Hackett
P. S For the reason that “The Man of the World” is now out of print in America & scarce in England I ask your acceptance of a copy sent herewith by mail for your Library & perusal when inclined—
J. H. H
From George G. Meade to Abraham Lincoln, October 3, 1863
The following Telegram received at Washington, 245 PM. Oct. 3d 1863.
From Hd Qrs A of P.
Dated, Oct 3d 1863.
Private Wm T. Evers Brooklyn 14th State militia 84th New York Vols. is being tried, by a Division Court martial proceedings not yet recd here.
Collected Works, VI, 496. Evers was dishonorably discharged on May 25, 1864.
Geo. G Meade
Maj. Genl Comdg
From Joseph Medill to Abraham Lincoln, October 3, 1863
Private
Chicago, Oct 3d 1863
President Lincoln
The Telegraph says that you are likely to deny the earnest petition of the loyal people of Missouri asking for a change of commanders. If you do, it will be the worst mistake of your life. This thing is taking on vast proportions. Very soon you will find the intire loyal sentiment arrayed actively against Schofield.
None but the Copperheads support Schofield & Gamble. The Frank Blair faction in Mo. are more contemptible in numbers than the Buchanan Ike Cook faction
Let me say in all seriousness, that if you permit old BatesMcClellanite, and will support him in preference to you for the next Presidency. He will cut your throat if he can. Old Bates is a timid, cowardly, conservative — of little account at best
Gov. Gamble who is Bates' brother-in-law has “nigger on the brain”, and like the Bourbons, is dreaming of a “restoration” of the slave power to office and authority. Schofield is their pet. Blair goes for him in order to exasperate the Radicals who are a growing party 60,000 strong, to day in Missouri.
Send Ben Butlerreal friends If he does well your administration will receive the benefit of it. If he does ill, the blame will fall on the Radicals and they will have to shoulder the responsibility. The glory if there any accrue, will finally belong chiefly to you. It is always right to listen to the public will in these matters. The very fact that the unconditional Loyal men of Mo. have no faith or confidence in Schofield is enough cause for his removal to some other field of labor. “Want of confidence” must always be respected by the Chief-Magistrate He will surely be a second time rejected by the Senate. His odor in the nostrils of the loyal men of the West, is less fragrant than that of a polecat.
The Union League which is 600,000 strong in the West want him removed. Can you afford for the sake of peasing Bates Blair and the Copperheads, to displease and enrage this vast body of sworn loyal Radical men? At the National Convention of the Union League held in Cleveland May 20, 63 in which eighteen states were fully represented the following resolutions were introduced, and would have passed unanimously but out of respect for your feelings. It was argued that you had been imposed upon by bad advisers and would soon relieve Schofield. Ths consideration prevented their passage.
[Newspaper Clipping Inserted]
The resolutions were finally withdrawn for the reasons named. If the convention was now in session much stronger ones would pass unanimously
I am confident that you do not realize the true state of facts. You have been woefully deceived by the false and malign influence of Blair, Bates, Gamble and the Copperheads. The seventy Missouri delegates who called on you have the sympathy and backing of the whole Republican and War Democratic parties of the intire West He who tells you differently tells you falsely
Most sincerely
Your friend
J. Medill
From A. Jackson et al. to Abraham Lincoln [With Endorsement by Lincoln] 1, October 3, 1863
The members of the Delegation from the 3d Congressional District, ask to make the following statement of facts, as having occured with in the limits of that district, and which, though specific in character, tend to establish a general want of fitness, and ability in Genl Schofield
First he is now, and has been for the last two years, a zealous partisan if of the political faction in Missouri, of which Govr Gamble
In 1862, while in command of the District of Missouri, Genl Schofield had ample means to restore the authority of the United States in this distracted section of country, and protect the union population, but he would not do it—
There was, in the early part of the spring of 1862 a regiment of Mo. State militia, raised, at the instance, too, of General Schofield, made up, in great part, of men who had to flee from these counties, for the express purpose of quelling the rebelion there, yet he never would permit that regiment to defend their own homes and families from the outrages of the rebel bands that infected this particular district—
The anomalous state of the country, and the perilous condition the union men there, were brought specially to the notice of General Schofield as commander of the District of Missouri; he answered in writing, “that he felt for the dangerous situation of the union men in South East Missouri, but that they must bear with their hardships, as best they could until the United States troops got out of the state, and then he would afford them protection— Well, this contingency transpired— Genl Steeland anxious to for the purpose, from affording that protection; that he knowingly, and wilfully permitted the secessionists, and rebels to band together and organize for the purpose of resisting the authority of the United States in South East Missouri; that he had a body of the Mo. State Militia in that vicinity sufficient to prevent this banding together and organizing, but he purposely, at the instance of Govr Gamble, made such disposition of these troops as to encourage and facilitate the rebels in organizing and arming for the purpose above stated— As commander of the District of Missouri Genl Schofield encouraged and approved of the policy of Govr Gamble of appointing to important military offices known rebels, and rebel sympathisers— He lent his influence and intrigued to have dismissed from office persons of acknowledged and tried ability and activity for no cause except their fidelity to the union and freedom— Capt Lindsey Murdock, Company A, 12th Regt Cav M. S. M was by a court martial, packed by Genl Schofield, found guilty of an inconsiderable charge, and dismissed the service— Genl Schofield maliciously approved the sentence, knowing the charge again was a frivolous one, made maliciously prefered, and knowing too the fact that Capt Murdock had, at the beginning of the rebelion been driven from his home, and, at his own expense raised a Rgt and commanded a Battalion of home guards for six months and been disbanded without pay, and then has raised, and been elected the captain, a company in the Mo State Militia, and assisted in raising several others in the same service, and no charges were ever brought against him his competency fidelity or patriotism—
He fostered and sustained the policy of Gov Gamble of non coercion and leniency to rebels— This is what has fostered and kept up to this day the marauding bands and Gurrillas in South East Mo — which, for the last two years, have laid waste that portion of the state whose outrages w he would not interrupt while in command of the District, and still permits since he comands the Department of Missouri—
As proof of these outrages being still perpetrated, about eight weeks ago twelve soldiers, unarmed, returning from hospital to their companies at Bloomfield were every one murdered at hound Pond in Stoddard county— Within the last five weeks a band of Gurrillas from Stoddard, robbed the town of Charleston, in Mississippi county, of money and goods to the amount of several thousand dollars— The same band within a few days of the same time sacked the county seat of Wayne county, and burned every record and paper belonging to the county, and courts, carried off to the woods, and murdered, Capt John Whybark the United States enrolling officer for that county, for no other reason than that he was a United States officer
Washington Oct
the 3d 1863
A Jackson
P W A McPike
J T Robinson
W A Delano
Delegates from
3d Congrl District Mo
[Endorsed on Envelope by Lincoln:]
Drake — Gamble — Schofield — Missouri—
From Benjamin F. Loan to Abraham Lincoln 1, October 3, 1863
Additional statement made on behalf of the Delegates representing the counties composing the 7th Congressional District in Missouri in relation to the condition of affairs in that State
Mr. President
In pursuance of your suggestion made at the first audience given to the Missouri Delegates
It is beleived that the Provisional Governor of Missouriof and the direction of military affairs in Missouri— In the summer of 1862 He permitted the state to be over-run by guerrillas— Porter in the north east was allowed to raise more than 5.000 armed men who ravaged that part of the state for a long time killing great numbers of union men and stealing large quantities of property— Poindexter in the central part of the state north of the Missouri river with more than 1500 men was committing like depredations there— Coffee and others from north west Arkansas was permitted to march a large force to within a few miles of the Mo. river and after defeating the Federal troops at “Lone Jack”so conditional union man of the school of Gov Gamble up or down to the worst guerrilla or assassin in the state opposed it — a fierce controversy ensued which ended in the removal of Genl. Curtis and for which it is not known that any other reason has been assigned than that in Missouri Gov. Gamble was at the head of one faction and Genl. Curtis was at the head of another and that as Gov Gamble could not be removed Genl. Curtis was — and his place was supplied by the only officer in the service concerning whom there were conclusive reasons why he should not have been assigned to duty there — for instance he had not the rank necessary to command there having failed in the senate to be confirmed as Maj Genl. His administration as District commander in Mo in 1862 as before stated proved a signal failure which the loyal people beleive was chiefly occasioned by his disposition to “harmonize” with the Gov.s views and to conform his action to the Gov.s will His want of sympathy with the loyal people and for their cause — and because his assignment to duty there was construed to be a concession to the disloyal element of the state— Whilst Genl. Curtis was in command Gov Gamble issued orders to the militia prohibiting them from assisting in enforcing certain orders emenating from Federal authority nor would he permit Federal officers any control over them— But finding in Genl. Schofield an officer whose views of policy “harmonize” with his own He by Genl. order transferred to Genl. Schofield full power and authority to command the enrolled militia which he has assumed to do. With the approbation of Gov Gamble Genl. Schofield appointed as a staff officer and assigned to duty as Provost Marshal Genl. one James O Broadhead who it is said declared recently in St Louis that every damned abolitionist in the country ought to be hung with Chase & Stanton at their head
Official Records, Series I, Volume 13, 235-39.
Under this new administration faithful diligent and competent Asst Pro. Marshals were arbitrarily removed without any cause being assigned and their places supplied by those whose sympathies were with the conservatives — within the last four weeks Mr. Armstrong Beattie of St Joseph Mo has been appointed Asst. Provost Marshal His general reputation is that of a disloyal citizen — sustained by the Federal and State authorities the cause of the disloyalists in Missouri has prospered beyond their most sanguine expectations— Those active rebels who under the vigorous rule of Genl. Curtis were banished have been in many instances permitted to return others who had fled the country have in general orders been invited to return and have been promised protection on condition that they would formally renew their allegiance — the consequence of this policy is that the state is again over run with guerrillas they are to be found in almost every county in the state — sympathisers with the rebellion no longer fear to feed and harbor bushwhackers— About the 1st of June last disloyalists in Lafayette county publicly declared that it was their duty to harbor and protect the guerrillas as they were the only protection the slave holders had for their slave property against the action of the citizens of Kansas and other abolitionists James Hicklin near Lexington was one of the persons who made such declarations.
In many localities these guerrillas are in very considerable numbers for instance Col Jackman C. S. A had a force of some 400 or 500 men in the rich and populous counties of Howard and Boone in the central part of the state this band has been in those counties for several months — are known to have been there recently and are supposed to be still there They have killed Federal soldiers murdered union citizens and stolen large quantities of their property those counties are intensely disloyal and the guerrillas remain with their friends in in perfect security— recently a band of guerrillas belonging it is beleived to Cobbs command attacked Wright City on the North Missouri Rail Road killed one or two men and burned part of the town they were repulsed by the citizens The trains on that road have been stopped by the guerrillas on several occasions More recently the Steam Boat Marcella was stopped near Dover Landing just below Lexington on the Missouri river by guerrillas the passengers robbed Federal soldiers — several being on board — were taken prisoners and were afterwards deliberately murdered— It was under this conservative policy that the guerilla chieftain Quantrellbarbarity atrocity — the sacking and buring of Lawrence and the murder of its inhabitants.— and the most remarkable incident relating to that sad tragedy is the protection afforded by Federal soldiers to the guerrillas on their retreat being closely pursued by the indignant and outraged citizens of Kansas who were threatening them with annihilation They fled to the border with all possible speed and on crossing the state line found themselves fully protected and sheltered from pursuit by a column of troops which Genl Schofield who had just reached the disturbed district had thrown along the state line to check the Kansans in their advance into Missouri.
About this time there was sent to Clay County which did not have in it as citizens 200 loyal men but which did have a regiment of enrolled militia who it is beleived were fully armed — some three hundred additional guns with which to arm the citizens— The arms were sent from St Joseph by military authority and are beleived to be guns belonging to the United States— In pursuance of orders issued by the officer commanding the District of North Missouri requiring the citizens to be disarmed it is beleived that many loyal citizens were disarmed and yet remain so
Under this rule fugitive slaves have been taken out of the lines of Federal Troops by rebel masters guards have been stationed to prevent negroes crossing escaping from their masters—
—A recent instance is where the guards on the bank of the river at St Joseph compelled persons who were crossing the river in a skiff to Kansas — to return— the persons were three white men and some negroes— All were taken in charge by the guard the white men were turned over to the civil authorities to be dealt with for the crime of decoying slaves out of the state— It is supposed the masters obtained possession of the slaves as they resided in the city
But it is useless to enumerate further there is no time to read let alone to write the history of all the wrongs and injuries inflicted upon the loyal people of the state by the conservatives— The present unhappy condition of the country speaks in trumpet tones of the misrule and inefficiency of the administration of military affairs in Missouri — from a state of comparitive peace quiet and prosperity produced by consequent upon the vigorous policy of Genl. Curtis the blighting influence of a conservative policy has in four months has produced a perfect state of confusion discord and anarchy — in nine counties out of every ten in the state there is no longer safety for the traveller by day or the citizen by night— Affairs are rapidly approaching a crisis in Missouri when union men will have to decide as they did in the days of Governor Jacksons treachery between voluntary exile and an independent but united armed defence of their homes— And for what is this alternative forced upon them? It is that you Mr. President persistently and without any different especial reason that is known to us continue there as Department commander one whose policy has only brought discord and anarchy upon our state and ruin to our people and this you know has been the result of his policy for it has been told you by the largest delegation that has ever travelleded the same distance to ask a redress of grievances of the Chief Magistrate of the nation— The removal of such commander is to you a very small matter it involves no question of principle— it occasions no wrong or injury to any one— Genl. Schofield may can be assigned to a command where there is no complaint against him and where his services may be valuable to his country on and to do so would bring releif to our suffering and desponding people and would at once would fill their hearts with joy and gladness.
Ben Loan
Chairman
From John M. Schofield to Abraham Lincoln, October 3, 1863
in cipher
The following Telegram received at Washington, 1115 PM. Oct 3 1863.
From St Louis Mo 730 PM.
Dated, Oct 3d 1863.
I have just read the address presented to you by the Radical Delegation from Missouri So far as it refers to me, it is not only untrue in spirit but most of it is literally false. If an answer or explanation from me is on any account desirable I shall be glad to make it,
Collected Works, VI, 498, and also Lincoln to Charles D. Drake, et al., October 5, 1863.
J. M. Schofield
Maj Genl
From Jesse K. Dubois to Abraham Lincoln, October 4, 1863
Springfield Ill
4th Oct 1863
My Dear Sir
William
Yours truly
Jesse K Dubois
From John Hay to Abraham Lincoln, October 4, 1863
Columbus, Ohio,
October 4, 1863.
Dear President:
An accident detained me in Columbus today and gave me an opportunity of seeing Brough.
He requests me to apologize for his seeming rudeness in not answering your letter,
He says they will carry Ohio by at least 25,000 votes, independent of the soldiers who will indefinitely increase it.
Brough is much more anxious about Curtin
Brough thinks that as yet in the Keystone State
The prospect is rather uncertain;
The fifth act is near, and we only can wait,
Impatient, the rise of the Curtin.
A hazy joke, with which I close.
Yours respectfully,
John Hay.
From William S. Rosecrans to Abraham Lincoln, October 3, 1863
In cipher
The following Telegram received at Washington, 105 AM. Oct 4 1863.
From Chattanooga Tenn 1 PM.
Dated, Oct 3 1863
If we can maintain this position in such strength that the enemy are obliged to abandon their position, and the Elections in the Great States go favorably, would it not be well to offer a general amnesty to all officers and soldiers in the Rebellion? It would give us moral strength and weaken them very much.
Collected Works, VI, 498.
W S Rosecrans
Maj Genl
From Abraham Lincoln to Charles D. Drake et al. [Draft] 1, October 5, 1863
1 This document was occasioned by Lincoln's interview on September 30 with a delegation of radical Unionists from Missouri who called for the removal of General John M. Schofield from command in Missouri, the disbanding of Missouri's Enrolled State Militia, over which Governor Hamilton R. Gamble had a large degree of control, and the restriction of the vote in Missouri to those who were properly registered. Lincoln refused to accede to the group's demand for Schofield's ouster, or for the breakup of the Enrolled State Militia.
A version of Lincoln's immediate response to the Missourians is John Hay, Memorandum, September 30, 1863, in Michael Burlingame, ed., At Lincoln's Side: John Hay's Civil War Correspondence and Selected Writings, (Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 2000), 57-64.
Executive Mansion
Washington D. C. Oct. 5. 1863
Gentlemen
Your original address, presented on the 30th ultimo, and the four supplementary ones, rd inst. have been carefully considered.
I hope you will regard the other duties claiming my attention, together with the great length and importance of these documents as constituting sufficient apology for my not having responded sooner.
These papers, framed for a common object, consist of the things demanded, and the reasons for demanding them. The things demanded are:
First: That General Schofield shall be relieved, and General Butler be appointed, as commander of the Military Department of Missouri.
Second: That the system of Enrolled Militia in Missouri may be broken up, and national forces be substituted for it. and
Third: That at elections, persons may not be allowed to vote who are not entitled by law to do so.
Among the reasons given, enough of suffering and wrong to Union men is certainly, and I suppose truly stated. Yet the whole case, as presented, fails to convince me, that Gen. Schofield, or the Enrolled Militia, is responsible for that suffering and wrong. The whole case can be explained on a more charitable, and, as I think, a more rational hypothesis. We are in civil war. In such cases there always is a main question; but in this case that question is a perplexing compound — Union and Slavery. It thus becomes a question not of two sides merely, but of at least four sides, even among those who are for the Union, and excluding saying nothing of those who are against it. Thus, those who are for the Union with, but not without slavery — those for it without, but not with — those for it with or without, but prefer it with — and those for it with or without, but prefer it without. Among these again, is a subdivision of those who are for gradual but not for immediate, and those who are for immediate, but not for gradual extinction of slavery— It is easy to conceive that all these shades of opinion, and even more, may be sincerely entertained by honest and truthful men. Yet, all being for the Union, by reason of these differences, each will prefer a different way of sustaining the Union— At once sincerity is questioned, and motives are assailed. Actual war coming, blood grows hot, and blood is spilled— Thought is forced from old channels into confusion— Deception breeds and thrives. Confidence dies, and universal suspicion reigns. Each man feels an impulse to kill his neighbor, lest he be first killed by him. Revenge and retaliation follow— And all this, as before said, may be among none but honest men only. But this is not all. Every foul bird comes abroad, and every dirty reptile rises up. These add crime to confusion. Strong measures, deemed indispensable and but harsh at best, they such men make worse by mal-administration. Murders for old grudges, and murders for pelf, proceed under any cloak that will best cover for the ocasion. These causes amply account for what has occurred in Missouri, without ascribing it to the weakness, or wickedness of any general. The newspaper files, those chroniclers of current events, will show that the evils now complained of were quite as prevalent under Fremont, Hunter, Halleck, and Curtis,
The first specific charge against Gen. Schofield is that the Enrolled Militia was placed under his command, whereas it had not been placed under the command of Gen. Curtis. The fact I believe is true; but you do not point out, nor can I conceive, how that did, or could injure loyal men, or the Union cause.
You charge that upon Gen. Curtis being superseded by Gen. Schofield, Franklin A. Dick was superseded by James O Brodhed,the Union cause. It recalls, however, the condition of things, as presented to me, which led to a change of Commander for that Department. To restrain contraband intelligence and trade, a system of searches, seizures, permits, and passes, had been introduced, I think, by Gen. Fremont— When Gen. Halleck came, he found and continued this system, and added an order applicable to some parts of the State, to levy and collect contributions from noted rebels, to compensate losses, and relieve destitution caused by the rebellion. The action of Gen. Fremont and Gen. Halleck, as stated, constituted a sort of system, which Gen. Curtis found in full operation when he took command of the Department. That there was a necessity for something of the sort was clear; but that it could only be justified by stern necessity, was equally clear and that it was liable to great abuse in administration, was equally clear. Agents to execute it, contrary to the great Prayer, were led into temptation. Some might, while others would not resist that temptation. It was not possible to hold any to a very strict accountability; and those yielding to the temptation, would sell permits and passes to those who would pay most, and most readily for them; and would seize property, and collect levies in the aptest way to fill their own pockets. Money being the object, the man having money, whether loyal or disloyal, would be a victim. This practice doubtless existed to some extent, and it was a real additional evil, that it could be and was, plausably charged to exist in greater extent that than it did.
When Gen. Curtis took command of the Department, Franklin A. Mr Dick, against whom I never knew anything to allege, had general charge of this system. A controversy in regard to it rapidly grew into almost unmanageable proportions. One side ignored the necessity, and magnified the evils of the system; while the other ignored the evils, and magnified the necessity; and each bitterly assailed the motives of the other. I could not fail to see that the controversy enlarged in the same proportion as the professed Union-men there distinctly took sides in two opposing political parties. I exhausted my wits, and very nearly my patience also, in efforts to convince both that the evils they charged on each other, were inherent in the case, and could not be cured by giving either party a victory over the other.
Plainly the irritating system was not to be perpetual; and it was plausably urged that it could be modified at once with advantage. The case could scarcely be worse, and whether it could be made better, could only be determined by a trial. In this view, and not to ban, or brand, Gen. Curtis, or to give a victory to any party, I made the change of commander for the Department. I now learn that soon after this change, Mr. Dick was removed, and that Mr. Brodhead, a gentleman of no less good character, was put in the place. The mere fact of this change is more distinctly complained of, than is any conduct of the new officer, or other consequence, of the change.
I gave the new commander no instructions as to the administration of the system mentioned, beyond what is contained in the private letter, afterwards surreptitiously published, in which I directed him to act solely for the public good, and independently of both parties. Neither anything you have presented me, nor anything I have otherwise learned, has convinced me that he has been unfaithful to this charge.
Imbecility is urged as one cause for removing Gen. Schofield; and the late massacre at Lawrence, Kansas, is pressed as evidence of that imbecility. To my mind that fact scarcely tends to prove the proposition. That massacre is only an example, of what Grierson, John Morgan,zard, and possessed the fiendish hearts to do it.
The charge is made that Gen. Schofield, on purpose to protect the Lawrence murderers, would not allow them to be pursued into Missouri.retaliatory remedial raid into Missouri, was the only safe way to avoid an indiscriminate massacre there, including probably more innocent than guilty. Instead of condemning, I therefore approve what I understand Gen. Schofield did in that respect.
The charges that Gen. Schofield has purposely withheld protection from loyal people, and purposely facilitated the objects of the disloyal, are altogether beyond my power of belief. I do not arraign the veracity of gentlemen as to the facts complained of; but I do more than question the judgment which would infer that those facts occurred in accordance with the purposes of Gen. Schofield.
With my present views I must decline to remove Gen. Schofield— In this I decide nothing against Gen. Butler.
In order to meet some existing evils I have addressed a letter of instructions to Gen. Schofield,
As to the “Enrolled Militia” I shall endeavor to ascertain, better than I now know, what is its exact value.
Let me say now, however, that your proposal to substitute national force for the “Enrolled Militia” implies that in your judgment that the latter is doing something which needs to be done; and if so, the proposition to throw that force away, and to supply its place by bringing other forces from the field where they are urgently needed in the field, seems to me very extraordinary. Whence shall they come? Shall they be withdrawn from Banks, or Grant, or Steele, or Rosecrans? Few things have been so grateful to my anxious feeling as when, in June last, the local forces in Missouri aided Gen. Schofield to so promptly send a large general force to the relief of Gen. Grant, then investing Vicksburg, and menaced from without by Gen. Johnston. Was this all wrong? Should the Enrolled Militia then have been broken up, and Gen. HerronHabeas Corpus.
I concur in the propriety of your request in regard to elections, and have, as you see, directed Gen. Schofield accordingly.
I do not feel justified to enter upon the broad field you present in regard to the political differences between radicals and conservatives. From time to time I have done and said what appeared to me proper to do and say— The public knows it all. It obliges nobody to follow me, and I trust it obliges me to follow nobody. The radicals and conservatives, each agree with me in somethings, and disagree in others. I could wish both to agree with me in all things; for then they would agree with each other, and would be too strong for any enemy foe from any quarter. They, however, choose to do other wise, and I do not question their right. I too shall do what seems to be my duty. I hold whoever commands in Missouri, or elsewhere, responsible to me, and not to either radicals or conservatives— It is my duty to hear all; but after all at last, I must, within my sphere, judge what to do, and what to forbear.
Your Obt. Servt.
A. Lincoln.
From Abraham Lincoln to Whom It May Concern [Copy in a Secretarial Hand] 1, October 5, 1863
Collected Works, VI, 497, 545.
Executive Mansion,
Washington, Octr 5th, 1863.
Whom it may concern,
Unless something now unknown, and unexpected, shall come to my knowledge, tending to change my purpose, I shall, at the proper time, appoint Timothy J. Carter, one of the two directors, to be appointed by the President, according to a provision in the first Section of the Act of Congress, Entitled “An Act to Aid in the Construction of a Railroad and Telegraph Line from the Missouri River to the Pacific Ocean, and to Secure to the Government the use of the same for Postal, Military and other purposes.” Approved July 1, 1862.
Abraham Lincoln
[Endorsed on Envelope by Lincoln:]
T. J. Carter.
From Salmon P. Chase to Abraham Lincoln, October 5, 1863
Oct. 5— 1863
My dear Sir,
Enclosed you will find a number of the Central Christian Advocate an influential organ of the Methodist Church and commend to your attention to the article headed “Civil Affairs in Missouri”.
It was written, I hear by D. Elliott who has great weight.
General Blair's unprovoked attack on me will injure its author more than its object.
Yours very truly
S P Chase
From George P. Marsh to Abraham Lincoln, October 5, 1863
Legation of the United States
Turin Oct 5. 1863
Sir
I have the honor to enclose herewith a letter from General Garibaldi
with profound respect
your obedient servant
George P. Marsh
From E. M. Bruce to Abraham Lincoln, October 6, 1863
Madison Ga Oct. 6. 1863
Sir:
At the instance of Mrs E T HelmW And although opposed, as he was, to your forces, it will no doubt be a satisfaction to you to know that he fell at the head of his Brigade — honorably battling for the cause he thought Just, and righteous— he was leading his “Kentucky Brigade” to a charge, which was successful, and for daring and results is unprecedent in ancient or modern warfare — even in this terrible war — as the result, and fruits of that charge was the capture of not only a Battery, but a mass of artillery, at least 30 pieces, with very many prisoners — and I know you can but admire him for his deeds, and will regret that he could not have survived the conflict, and shared in the glories of the victory—
Mrs Helm is crushed by the blow — almost broken hearted — and desires to return to her Mother and friends in Kentucky— indeed, this is a necessity, as you must be aware that her means are very small and expences of living in the South much more than in the United States— she is now at my home in this place — and it will afford me pleasure to minister to her wants, and comfort so long as it may be agreeable for her to remain under my roof, mean time she asks that you order the war department to send her a pass to enter the Federal truce Boat at City Point — and would suggest that you send triplicates, say, one to me here, one to care Col Wm Preston Johnston
Would also be obliged if you would send at the same time a pass for Mrs Bruce and her sister —, Mrs Hutchinson — a pass to accompany Mrs Helm, to Kentucky, their father having recently died leaving their Mother in a very desolate condition — and thereby relieve the war of much of its stern rigor—
Collected Works, VI, 517; Lincoln to Whom It May Concern, December 14, 1863; and Lincoln, Amnesty to Emily Todd Helm, December 14, 1863.
Mrs Helm desires to be affectionately remembered to her sister—
I have the honor to be, Sir—
Very Respectfully
Yr obt servt
E M Bruce
I once knew you personally — refer to Mr Wm P. Dole and Mr Usher
From William P. Dole to Abraham Lincoln, October 6, 1863
New York 6th Oct 1863
Dear Sir
The inclosed letter reachd me here last night—
yours very truly
W. P. Dole
From Christopher C. Andrews to Abraham Lincoln, October 7, 1863
(Private)
Head Quarters, Post of Little Rock, Arkansas.
Oct 7 1863.
Dear Sir:
I again write with the belief that a few lines from this remote place will be acceptable to you.
The weather being favorable and the locality healthy the number of our forces has got to be now between 12.000 and 15.000 men.
The loyal sentiment of the people seems on the increase.
Upwards of one hundred loyal white men have come in from the country wishing to be armed as home guards. Gen. Steele
It is extremely doubtful if the rebels make any stand this side of Red River A deserter from Arkadelphia reports that a thousand men lately moved towards Missouri.
A few guerrillas are brought in now and then. The more extensive our warfare on them, the better, as it is necessary to suppress them before loyal men can be expected to act their sentiments. Mounted infantry will help in this matter much.
It is the policy of the confederate gov't to encourage what they call partisan warfare; as it subjects us to the trouble of retaining a large force to operate against them. In the Dist. of Columbus, Ky. for instance we need to employ 5000 men to repel the menaces of 500 of these “partisans” or guerrillas. This I have learned while acting as President of a military commission in that district. If we don't hang these fellows they should be shut up till the war is over. Down here they go about in federal uniforms and hang and murder like demons.
We have been here nearly a month, during which time the Commissary of Subsistence has issued gratuitously to citizens in this vicinity 1.354 rations of bread and meat. This is generally to people who complain of depredations on their property by soldiers, and who are not entirely destitute.
Mr. President I read your Springfield letter with great delight.
We have no right to relinquish any part of our empire or liberties to enemies domestic or foreign. The country is not ours to dispose of. It is ours to preserve and enjoy. Our revolutionary fathers fought not for themselves alone nor the age in which they lived. They fought for the future. So we are struggling to uphold popular government and a country not for ourselves nor this generation alone but for the future to whom it belongs as much as to us.
It would do great good to the cause if a copy of your letter could be read by every soldier in the service. Not one in a hundred sees it. Most officers think their duty is done if they attend to common matters of drill and tactics without and neglect what contributes to the morale of their men. Soldiers are constantly growing bitter or growing worse. They often need their spirits aroused and minds elevated by great truths. I would therefore urge that the War Department send out such numbers of your letter (unofficially) that every man in the army can read it. Since I have been in the service I have seen common men made as brave and heroic as Spartans by attending to the proper means of promoting their morale.
I am with great respect
Your friend
C. C. Andrews. Col 3d Minn.
Com'g Post Little Rock.
From James Dixon to Montgomery Blair, October 7, 1863
Private
Hartford. Oct, 7. 1863
My dear Mr Blair
I have seen a report of your recent speech, in the Herald, and am truly grateful to you for such words of truth & wisdom. Sumner's heresies are doing immense harm in a variety of ways.most you & Mr Seward
In the House of Representatives you will also have much strength— I am happy to be able to assure you that our the member from this District Col. Deming,
I write in haste — merely to assure you of my gratitude for the stand you are taking
With great respect
Truly your friend
James Dixon
From Andrew Johnson to Abraham Lincoln, October 7, 1863
The following Telegram received at Washington, 8.45 PM. Oct 7th 1863.
From Nashville
Dated, Oct 7th 1863.
Nothing definite from the front. Our hopes are strong that all will come out right. the damage on the R. R. is being rapidly repaired. Telegraph wire will be up tonight. Chattanooga must be held.
Collected Works, VI, 505.
Andw. Johnson
Mil Gov
From Samuel C. Pomeroy to William O. Stoddard 1, October 7, 1863
Parker House
Boston, Ms
Oct. 7th
My dear Sir
Your kind letter of Sept 12th has at last, reached me here— And I was very glad to get it—
I am here, only for a few days — shall be at St. Nicholas Hotel N. Y. next week—
I have not desired to be in Washington — during the visit of my colleague & the Missouri Delegation.
I am entirely willing that you should tell the President in whose policy I entirely coinside. That it is as well for him to go slow, in Missouri — as to go fast— And if he desires a more vigorous policy — in that Department, Schofieldhis man to execute. They will now stand from Schofield, what they would resist — from a new man! Schofield is both able and willing to carry out fully all the views of the President. And the “conservatives” will not object to Schofields measures, and we, “radicals,” aught to be satisfied with measures — of policy — well executed — and not quarrel about men—
I have seen much of Mo— And know that the President can inaugerate any Emancipation Policy he choses — and Schofield will come cheerfully up to the work, and the people will take from him — what could not be forced down them, by a man — against whom they were prejadiced—
Mr. Dolesoon as he returns to Washington— Of course — I do not wish any one, save the President — to know my opinions. And dont care to have him influencd by them— But time must be given Missouri to work herself out— Measures can be adopted next month or next year — that cant be made to go this month or this year— I think that Mr. Lincoln fully understands the case — and I am with him — and shall stand by him—
I am always glad to hear from you— Shall see you upon my first arrival in Washington
Upon my pathway — has fallen the shadow of a great sorrow,
And I am compelled to subscribe myself—
Sadley & Truly
From Ada Bailhache to Abraham Lincoln 1, October 8, 1863
Illinois State Journal.
Camp Dennison
Oct. 8th 1863.
Dear Sir. Presuming upon former acquaintance I take the liberty of thus calling your attention to a matter in which I am deeply interested. You will remember that Mr Bailhache
But at the suggestion of parties whose motive it is not necessary to question, he was without notice superceded and suddenly ordered to the field.
He had no time given him to adjust his business properly, and the vast amount of military stores which it took him months to receive from the Q. M. Gen'l of the State, he was obliged to turn over to his successor in less than ten days. Leaving his papers nescessarily in an incomplete state; Which with a Q. M. who is responsible for everything not correctly accounted for, is a very serious matter.
It is not that he was ordered to the field but the manner in which it was done, implying a censure from you or the Q. M. G'enl, that has distressed his friends and especially — himself—.
I understand through Mr Baker
Illinois State Journal.
This knowledge prompts me to send you a copy of a portion of a letter I received to day from my husband. He of course, has heard nothing of your intending to assist him, for he does not receive any letters in a less time than three weeks — and it is only a few days since I recieved the information.
When he left home he was ordered to report to the Q. M. of the 23d Army Corps — then in the field. He overtook the command near Danville and was ordered on duty in the 2nd Div, he made the march with Gen'l Burnsides
My last letter, recieved to day is written from Knoxville he says, “I was summoned here by a dispatch ordering me to come and act temporarily in the place of Lt. Col. C. A. Goulding chief Q. M. of the 23d Army Corps, who is obliged to go to Ohio. He is a candidate for the Legislature in Licking Co. Ohio — and if elected may conclude not to come back, which might result in my being made in reality the chief Q. M. of this Army Corps. This app't — is made by the Q. M. Gen'l and if Goulding gives it up I shall try for it, and he would assist me. I would not do so or desire any thing done about it while he is in the position He is friendly and I wish to keep him so”.
As this election takes place next Tuesday and the result will probably be known next week, and if Col G. decides not to return, there will probably be many applicants for the position, and my husband is too far distant to do anything for himself in time— I have taken the responsibility to ask you to have him promoted, and give him the position he desires — provided it is made vacant in the manner anticipated.
I am now enjoying my first visit in camp — being with my Father Gen'l BraymanFirst begging you will excuse the liberty I have taken in writing, it not being customary for ladies to do such things
If I have committed any offense pray overlook it; as in War times ladies have to do many things they generally leave to their husbands. With best wishes I remain with great respect.
Collected Works, VI, 516.
Your friend, Ada Bailhache.
From James S. Rollins to Abraham Lincoln [With Endorsement by Lincoln] 1, October 8, 1863
1 On September 30, 1863, Lincoln interviewed a delegation of radical Unionists from Missouri who called for the removal of General John M. Schofield from command in that state, the disbanding of Missouri's Enrolled State Militia, over which Governor Hamilton R. Gamble had a large degree of control, and the restriction of the vote in Missouri to those who were properly registered. Lincoln refused to accede to the group's demand for Schofield's ouster, or for the breakup of the Enrolled State Militia (see Lincoln to Charles D. Drake, et al., October 5, 1863).
The following letter, from a congressman from Missouri, presents a rebuttal to the radical Missouri Unionist position.
Hon James S. Rollins most respectfully submits the following statement:
The radicals urge as evidence of Genl. Schofield's misrule that Missouri is in a worse condition than at any time since the rebellion. That he has failed to use the troops at his disposal to put down the rebellion. This charge is false unless it be admitted that the radicals are rebels. It is true that the State is in a bad condition, and it is equally true that this condition is brought about by professed Union men — radicals. There has been no time, since the beginning of the war when there was so few armed rebels or guerrillas in Missouri as at the present time. The only trouble at all worthy of mention, in comparison with what the state has suffered heretofore, is the lawless acts of radicals in their effort to exterminate, or drive out, all who differ from them in political sentiment. This lawlessness is instigated, encouraged and applauded by the radical press and leaders. Every effort to put down this lawlessness is denounced by the radicals as persecution of loyal men.
When Genl. Curtis43.000 men. Genl. Schofield retained in those states only 23.000 men. Of the remaining 20.000 he sent some reinforcements to Genl. Rosecrans,
The radicals denounce Genl Schofield because of his relations to the State Government. It is true that these relations have been most cordial, but it is not true that his policy has been controlled, or ever materially influenced by Gov. Gamble.
It is a fact that cannot be denied that Genl. Schofield's whole influence has been in favor of emancipation. He did all in his power to secure the passage of an ordinance of emancipation by the late State convention.
Many of The leaders of the present charcoalthe most as loyal as any — State in the Union. This in fact is the cause of the present fierce action of the radicals. They know they must get the power at once or there will soon be an overwhelming loyal party opposed to them. The Claybank
This Statement might be enlarged greatly and amplified — but it is deemed wholy unimportant to extend — it—
The whole effort being made to displace Gen'l Schofield is based upon a misconception or misrepresentation of facts.—
There are no confederate soldiers in Missouri— They have long since been driven out— There are a few hundred lawless men, who live by plunder, — and who always follow a Revolution such as that through which the country is now most unfortunately passing. And these would be in a short time driven out, if instead of opposing the Federal administration — the administration of the Provisional Government of the State of Missouri — and the efforts of Gen'l Schofield to suppress the last vestage of the Rebellion in Missouri — they would unite with the truly loyal men of the State — in endeavouring to preserve the peace, and to uphold the laws of the Federal and State Governments and the general policy of the administration—
All of which is most respectfully submitted.
Washington City
Oct. 8th 1863.
[Endorsed on Envelope by Lincoln:]
Gen. Schofield
From Charles B. Stuart to Abraham Lincoln 1, October 8, 1863
Willards Hotel
Washington Oct 8. 1863
Sir
I have the honor to offer the accompanying letter of the Govenor of New York & copies of letters from Hon Millard Fillmore. The original of the letter of 1861, was presented by me at the time your Excellency gave the order to raise a Regiment of Engineers in July 1861.
Governor Morganlimited time allowed for making the surveys & report for the action of Congress.
May I hope for your early & favorable decision
With Respect, Your Obt Sert—
Charles B. Stuart.
From Abraham Lincoln to Whom It May Concern [Draft] 1, October 9, 1863
Executive Mansion,
Washington, October 9, 1863.
To whom it may concern
In pursuance of a Resolution of the Senate and Assembly of the State of New-York, in the words following, towit:
Resolved, That the Governor be and hereby is empowered and requested to invite the President of the United States to select and detail a competent engineer in behalf and at the expense of the General Government, to consult with the engineers so to be appointed by the Canal Board; in respect to the surveys mentioned in the preceding resolution, and as to the mode of constructing the work so as most effectually to promote the national interests.
and in response to the invitation of the Governor of said State of New-York, made in virtue of said Resolution, I do hereby select and detail Charles B. Stuart, of Geneva, in said State, to perform the duties contemplated by in and by said resolution, it being understood by said Stuart that he is to rely upon an appropriation hereafter to be made by Congress, for any compensation he may receive.
Abraham Lincoln
From Abraham Lincoln to William H. Seward [Copy in Frederick Seward's Hand] 1, October 9, 1863
Collected Works, VI, 507.
[Marginal note: Copy from F. W. S.]
Executive Mansion.
Washington. Oct 9. 1863.
My dear Sir,
Today Mrs Gales calls to make interest for Mr Frederick Wippermann — now Consul at Galatz in Moldavia. She wishes him to be transferred to Hamburg as a matter of preference; but at all events wishes him sent to some more agreeable place than that where he now is— If you can conveniently find a way to oblige Mrs Gales, I shall be glad—
Yours truly.
A. Lincoln—
From Edward Bates to Abraham Lincoln [With Endorsement by Lincoln] 1, October 9, 1863
Attorney General's Office,
October 9th 1863.
Sir;
I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 3d instant referring certain documents in the case of Lewis Bollman, who has appealed to you to correct an alleged error of the Secretary of the Interior, in refusing to allow a claim for $130, for services on the Agricultural Report.
Without discussing the much mooted question of the power of the President or Head of a Department to direct the payment of an account against the Government, irrespective of the action of the accounting officers, and, conceeding all that has been claimed for the Heads of the Departments in the premises, I think it may be safely affirmed that there is no law which imposes on the President the duty of adjusting and settling claims upon the Treasury. And if any such law existed, its observance would be simply impossible, since, as will be conceded by most persons, the President has enough to occupy his time and attention, without devoting them to the work of auditing private claims. I do not deny his power to control the action of the Secretary of the Interior, in a case like this, but I would seriously question the expediency of its exercise. And as, to entertain this appeal would be a precedent of doubtful propriety, I respectfully advise that you refer the claim to the Secretary of the Interior and the regular accounting officers
I am, Sir, very respectfully
Your Obedient Servant
Edwd. Bates
Attorney General,
[Endorsed on Envelope by Lincoln:]
Attorney General.
From A. Burwell to Abraham Lincoln, October 10, 1863
(Private)
Washington City Oct: 10th 1863
Sir:
As a citizen of the United States residing in Missouri, I beg your permission to say a few words to you, in regard to the address of C. D. Drake and others.
They in effect demand the overthrow of the Government of Missouri, and the establishment of a new system. Their reason is, that Missouri is in great trouble and your commanders find it difficult to keep the peace.
If General Schofieldincompetent, he can be removed without excitement. The Department of Missouri is not the only one, in which peace is not maintained, as you are painfully aware. I well remember when it was regarded as most doubtful, whether the State of Missouri, could be restrained from following her absconded Governor & Legislature to “H-ll” which in secession dialect is the synonyme of “The Southern Confederacy”. To whom more than to all others is the country indebted, for their patriotic exertions, at a time when patriotism seemed to have a better chance to be rewarded with a hatter, than with fat fur, fat contracts, and high offices? My memory serves me well, and points to the names of Gamble, Blair, Hall, Henderson
The state of Missouri is sick and Mr Drake & his co-workers would fain make her sicker, on the approved plan of the Quack, who was great on fits. I regard the proposition of Mr Drake & his confederates, as factious, selfish and treasonable. The men do not intend to commit treason, but their conduct has all the effects which could follow such intention. The division of the country; the exacerbation of parties, “aid and comfort” the public enemy. You are sadly embarrassed by these distractions: your army is weakened by them, and these men must know it. Missouri is but a small part of the country, and you as President must take a more enlarged view of the duties and demands of the crisis, than can be taken by the excited & violent partisans of a faction which seems to have but one idea, and to be willing to stake the whole country on that. You must remember a letter private and confidential, which you wrote to General Schofield.
q. v.), in which the President discussed his reasons for removing Gen. Samuel R. Curtis from command in Missouri and his appointment of Schofield to the position, had appeared in the Missouri Democrat during Schofield's absence from St. Louis. See Collected Works, VI, 326 and Schofield to Lincoln, July 14, 1863.
As to the question of emancipation, these men care but little, and their conduct and expressions prove it. If the State government and the Convention which organised it and which also passed the ordinance of emancipation, be usurpatious, then it would follow that slavery in Missouri is intact, and the whole of the work must be done again. I ask is the country in such a condition that you as President may like a lady in a glass-shop “move and remove till you have broken all”. Let some things, even even if not done as well as Mr Drake could do them, stand for firm and effectual.
The truth is that slavery in Missouri is of small consequence. It is rapidly disappearing. I know this to be so by personal experience. So does every candid man in Missouri. But these over-zealous factionists say, war on slavery and to that end overthrow state Government, dis band state troops, of course disarm them, annul the ordinances of the state Convention, and in fine bring in utter chaos & confusion, and in the course of time (When?) the “perfect sun of Liberty will shine &c”. If the traitors in arms had the planning of operations, they could devise no more effectual means of ruin, than these schemers propose to you. In effect they ask you navigating the ship of state on a stormy sea, to throw the compass overboard and to “let the vessel rip”. The rock of secession, and the whirlpool of revolution are just ahead, and it requires firmness and calmness to steer clear of them.
But Mr President I forbear to trespass longer on you. I am sincere in my conviction, that the most fatal and ruinous step which could be taken, you are urged to take by Messr: Drake & Co. Do these men propose to fill up the thinned ranks of your armies? No. They talk & write, cavil and criticise, but are not soldiers, and do not even promise to be. Any man can do the writing & talking, especially for “a consideration”. One of the first necessities imposed on you will be, to have a heavy draft in Missouri. Judge Clover one of the faction, & a nominated candidate for high office, no doubt stands prepared to protect his friends from the draft, by writs of Habeas Corpus. He has manifested the spirit that is in him. The convention is an ursurpation, says Drake with Clover to back him. Yet Clover will accept an office, the election appointed by this convention!
Mr President, I pray you to consider, what effect at home and abroad, your denunciation of Gamble Blair & others to whom the country is under so much obligation, will have? Richmond will be illuminated upon the occasion. Union men every where will be discouraged, and will soon come to regard those of their own house, as their worst enemies.
I am very respectfully
Your obt servantA. Burwell
From Simon Cameron to Abraham Lincoln, October 10, 1863
Private.
Post Office, Philada.
Penna.
Oct. 10, 1863—
My dear Sir
I wrote Chambers from Washington — and when I came here, found the enclosed letter.taxed him, for party purposes $250. which he has paid — and he is, besides giving other money, for the party — but the truth is, they want his office, and they wish the administration to begin a quarrel with me by removing my friends. They would like to make you and me separate, now that we have made their election sure.
Truly yrs
Simon Cameron.
One of the largest meetings of the campaign was held last evening in Spring Garden. My friend Hazelhurst, was the principle speaker, and closed thus,
“You have renominated Gov— Curtin! Why! because he has been faithful to the Union & the constitution. It foreshadows another renomination in 1864! You write upon your banner now And Curtin, the Union & the constitution. You will write upon your banner in 1864 Abraham Lincoln. The Liberator of the Slaves of the republic of America.
This was received with tremendous applause, although a few of the immediate friends of Curtin seemed disappointed, for it is understood that he now aspires to have your place, in the White House
S. C.
From Charles D. Drake to Abraham Lincoln , October 10, 1863
Washington, Oct. 10. 1863.
Sir,
As Chairman of the Delegation from Missouri, I have remained in Washington, hoping, from day to day, to receive your answer to their Address and the letter of their Executive Committee.
Permit me, Mr President, to address to you an earnest entreaty for the favorable consideration of the requests of your friends in Missouri. Interests of great magnitude depend upon your decision in regard to our affairs; no less than the supremacy of Loyalty or Disloyalty there.
Your action will bear immediately upon the Judicial Election to be held in our State on the 3d of November. If you yield to the wishes of the Conservatives, you will discourage the loyal men of Missouri, and give such an impulse to their opponents as may result in our defeat; while a contrary decision on your part will probably lead to a triumphant result in our favor.
Upon the issue of that election, in my opinion, depends the character of the two U. S. Senators to be elected at the ensuing session of the Legislature. That body is divided in such a way, that it must be decidedly affected by the vote of the people for Judges. If the Radicals elect their candidates, showing, as they claim, that they are in a majority in the State, we have good ground for believing that the “Clay banks”
I pray you, Mr President, to consider the magnitude of the interests thus involved, not only in reference to your Administration, but to the good of the country; and I entreat you to remember that no man ever yet gained by complaisance toward his adversaries, at the expense of his friends.
I have the honor to be
Very Respectfully
Your Ob't Servt
C. D. Drake
From Thomas C. Durant to Abraham Lincoln 1, October 10, 1863
Collected Works, VI, 518.
New York Oct. 10th 1863
Sir
A party of Engineers under the direction of P. A. Dey Esq have been sent to run a level through Cheyenne and Bridgers Passes. Mr Dey now asks for an order from the War Department on the commander of the Post at La Porte or the mouth of the Caché a Pondre and the commander of the Post at the fort of Medicine Bow Mountains “I think Fort Miller”, for a Military escort, supplies and transportation if necessary as it may be impossible to get all they require forwarded over the plains. The party will not be detained in these passes for more than a month and it is of great importance to the Union Pacific Railroad Company that they should be possessed of the information the party were sent to obtain this fall otherwise there will be much delay.
The party are provided for to a certain extent but a contingency may arise which cannot be foreseen. They may find Indians troublesome, may loose their teams, or from various causes may, thus late in the season be unable to accomplish the survey if dependent entirely upon their own resources.
Can the necessary order be obtained? If so it should be done immediately that it may reach the party in time
Yours respectfully
Thos. C. Durant
From Joseph Gillespie to Abraham Lincoln, October 10, 1863
Edwardsville Oct 10th 1863
Dr Sir I arrived home in due time and found things about as they were when I left with the exception that copperheadism had subsided materially in this vicinity in consequence of the disasters of the Vandalia Campaign The leaders say that the men disobeyed every order given to them except the order to retreat which was observed with wonderful alacrity I found on my journey that the sentiment was very strongly in favour of your re-election There is but one subject upon which doubts seem to be entertained as to your policy and that is the Missouri question The majority of your friends incline to the belief that Schofieldsuse them whatever it may be to those who produce them; for hired labour will always be found to be cheaper than slave labour & men will soon learn this In the slave breedingused for they will have no equivalent for the loss of their sales while the others will have the privilege of hiringowning In this point of view the chief difficulty wold would be found to exist in the border states but then this is counterballanced by the fact that the feeling in favour of slavery is not so intense in the border as in the cotton states for the reason that there are fewer slaves to more non-slaveholders in the former than in the latter so that all things considered it would be best in my judgement to adopt the same rules for all the states as far as is consistent with the principles of your emancipation proclation My meaning is this that whenever a state wishes to rid itself of slavery as I think Missouri does, aid it This would be in harmony with the current of events and the enlightened sentiment of the age
The opposition to this line of policy can never attain as great proportions as it had at the time of the issuance of the proclamation of emancipation It has been growing weaker & getting more divided every day There is something wonderfully facinating in boldness I shuddered when your proclamation
Collected Works, VI, 463.
I would be pleased to hear from you when leisure permits My respects to Mrs Lincoln
your friend
J. Gillespie
From William H. Seward to Abraham Lincoln, October 10, 1863
Washington, Oct 10 1863
My dear President,
Will it be convenient for you to receive Lord Lyons
Very truly yours
William H Seward
From Mary A. Livermore to Abraham Lincoln 1, October 11, 1863
Chicago, Oct. 11th. 1863.
Dear Sir,
The patriotic women of the Northwestern States will hold a grand Fair in Chicago, on the last week of Oct., and the first of Nov., to raise funds for the Sanitary Commission of the Northwest, whose head-quarters are in Chicago.
The greatest enthusiasm prevails in reference to this Fair which is now only two weeks distant. There are very few women in Northern Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Iowa that are not laboring for it, more or less. Artists, east and West are painting pictures for it, manufacturers are making elegant specimens of their handiwork for the occasion, dealers and traders tradesmen are donating the choicest of their wares, while women are surpassing their ordinary ingenuity and taste in devising beautiful articles for sale, or decorations for the walls of the four spacious halls we are to occupy.
The Executive Committee have been urgently requested to solicit from Mrs. Lincoln and yourself some donation to this great Fair — not so much for the value of the gift, as for the eclat which this circumstance would give to the Fair. It has been suggested to us from various quarters that the most acceptable donation you could possibly make, would be the original manuscript of the Proclamation of emancipation, and I have been instructed to ask for this, if it is at all consistent with what is proper, for you to donate it.
There would seem great appropriateness in this gift to Chicago, or Illinois, for the benefit of our Western soldiers, coming as it would from a Western President. We hope it may be possible for you to donate it to us.
But if it be not possible, then allow us to ask for some other simple gift, from Mrs. Lincoln and yourself — sufficient to show that you are cognizant of our efforts and are interested in them. Our Fair opens on Wed Tuesday, Oct. 27th, in little more than two weeks.
Yrs. very respectfully,
Mrs. D. P. Livermore
From George G. Meade to Abraham Lincoln, October 11, 1863
Rec'd 8.50 A. M
In Cipher
Head Q'rs A of P.
Oct 11th 1863 8.30 A.M.
I am falling back to the Rappahannock.
Official Records, Series I, Volume 29, Part II, 278; and Collected Works, VI, 509.
Geo G. Meade
Maj Genl
From Charles Gibson and James S. Rollins to Abraham Lincoln 1, October 11, 1863
Washington October 11. 1863
Mr President,
We deem it a duty incumbent upon us as Missourians at present in Washington to make a statement to you in reply to the requests contained in the letter of Mr C. D. Drake Chairman &c dated Oct. 3. 1863.
1st. As to his proposed “cessation of all support from the Treasury of the United States to the Enrolled Missouri Militia”
The enrollment of the Missouri Militia met with your hearty approval, & it was deemed by you, & the high officers of state around you, as of great consequence, not only to set on foot an organization of men, whose acquaintance with localities & individuals would enable them to be most effectual in quelling guerrilla warfare, but as the Government earnestly desired to restore public affairs to a condition where military power would be no longer needed to maintain its authority, it was believed a step would be made in this direction by placing the union men of the state in a condition to defend themselves. The measure was also highly recommended as a matter of economy.
The fidelity & gallantry of this militia has been proved on many occasions — especially under General BrownThey were officially complimented by General Curtis in reports to you. They consist, we believe, of about seventy five thousand men They are called into service when & as needed. They are supplied by the United States while in service, but receive no pay from it.
For several months passed they, & the “State Militia”, so called have been the only federal force in Missouri worth naming. In the last expeditions of Genl. Davidson
They have all been placed under the command of your Major General. Gov. Gamble
The proposition to disband our armies has frequently been alluded to in certain quarters, but, we believe, this is the first practical attempt to obtain the disbandment of any of the forces now under the control of the federal commanders.
“The granting of Mr Drake's first proposition necessarily causes the adoptions of his second request, viz: “The occupation of Missouri by United States troops”
The number of troops required for this purpose would be not less than thirty thousand men. Where are they to come from? Can they be spared from our armies in the south?
Of the troops kept in Missouri by General Curtis General Schofield
He also organized two expeditions, one under General Davidson from South East Missouri; & the other under General Blunt
Mr Drakes request is virtually to withdraw these, (or other,) troops from the south, & again garrison the State of Missouri with them.
When such requests are accompanied by threats of open violence, if refused, on the part of those in whose behalf they are made, is it not time for you to inquire into the motives of those who make them
These two requests, with the appointment of a commander “to suit”, Mr Drake says “is the sum of our (the Radicals') requests in regard to military affairs.”
On the other hand Gov. Gamble, in view of the fact, that these reckless men, threaten to overthrow the State Government; have formed secret organizations: join with the Secessionists in loudly proclaiming the Provisional State Government an “usurpation & a tyrany”: have broken open jails; have mobed union meetings intended solely to strengthen the state & national Governments: have maltreated civil officers & good citizens: and have generally established a reign of terror wherever they could; has exercised his right under the Constitution to call upon you to protect the State Government from “domestic violence”
The question is not whether his administration of local affairs is good or bad, wise or unwise, He does not ask you to approve or disapprove it. The people of the State are the only legitimate judges thereof.
He has placed the whole military power of the State under the command of your Major General. What other Governor has done likewise?
He has obeyed unhesitatingly every requisition made by you, or any of your officers,
He has violated no law of the United States. The officers of more than forty regiments in the Union armies hold their commissions from him. The United States, (even by act of Congress,) has recognized the Provisional State Government, in many ways.
We therefore believe his demand imposes on you an unavoidable constitutional duty to protect the State Government from violence & this can only be done by military power.
Deeply impressed with the importance of this vital question to our own, & perhaps to other states — & confiding in your wisdom & patriotism, we ask a careful consideration & an early decission by you upon these antagonistic & irreconciable demands — the one constitutional — the other illegitimate
We have the honor to be
Your Obt. Servants
James S Rollins
From James M. Scovel to Abraham Lincoln, October 11, 1863
The following Telegram received at Washington, 245, PM. Oct 11 1863.
From Pittsburg.
Dated, Oct 11 1863.
Curtin
Jas M. Scovall
From Montgomery Blair to Abraham Lincoln, October 12, 1863
Dear Sir
I gave the order to suppress the Republican
Baltimore Republican and two other papers published in that city were suppressed by the military authorities in Maryland. Three men involved in the publication of the paper (Beale H. Richardson, Francis A. Richardson, and Stephen J. Joyce) were sent south and ordered not to return during the war. See Official Records, Series II, Volume 6, 919-20.
Yrs truly
M Blair
Oct 12. 1863
From James Hunt to Abraham Lincoln, October 12, 1863
Philadelphia
Oct. 12th 1863.
Sir,
From the enclosed letters of introduction you will gather that I am an Englishman and that I have been anxious to have had the honor and privalege of a short interview with you while in this country, — circumstances however have arisen, that prevent my so doing and I therefore take the liberty of addressing to you a few lines per mail, trusting you will not consider me presuming, for so doing.
I have been spending the past few weeks in going over some of your Western States and am now about to return to my native country again well pleased and instructed with what I have seen of your large extent of country and also of the immense resources that you have available for the future development of your countries bright and prosperous destiny. I would have liked, Sir, and would have considered it a high privalege, to have been introduced to one, whom not only myself, but also very many of my true hearted countrymen look upon as an instrument in the hands of the Great Ruler of mankind, raised up for the especial and trying duties and work that you are now called upon to perform. My heart has many times been heavy while passing through this country, at the sight of many a crippled soldier, and also at seeing so very many of your people in the garb of deep mourning for those who have been lost to them for ever on this earth, through the present sad and fearful struggle that is now going on in this hitherto prosperous and fine country.— I fervently trust that the time may not now be far distant when your country will again be permitted to enjoy the blessing of a secure and lasting peace, and that the Great Ruler may see fit to bring forth great good and lasting benefits out of all this trouble and tribulation.
You, Sir, I feel sure will pardon my writing freely, — our paths and circumstances are very widely different and apart, on this earth, but I sincerely trust that hereafter we may meet in that far off and better country where all these trials and bitter strivings are unknown. May you be kept, and preserved, and guided, by Him who “does all things well” and may you be a humble but at the same time a willing instrument in the Almightie's Hands as your countries protector and preserver. I feel a deep sympathy and regard for you, Sir, placed as you are amid so much that is harrowing and painful, and yet I sincerely believe that you are looking above to One who will direct and lead you aright and presently bring you out of all these troubled waters, to a land where there is for ever rest, and peace.
I am rejoiced to see that the better feelings of many of my countrymen are leading them to look favorably upon the cause that you are so struggling to support, and earnestly do I desire that this feeling may grow and increase and that the future may find us good friends and allies, instead of enemies, watching each other with dislike and distrust.
I sometimes fear that the whole political horizon looks dark and cloudy, and that there seems a prospect of our having great European troubles and difficulties soon to pass through — and yet I sincerely trust that Almighty God may see fit in his longsuffering kindness and mercy, to withhold the terrible calamity of further war and bloodshed.
Yourself, Sir, and your country, have the true and heartfelt sympathy of very many of our most thoughtful and sincere men — our people are as true as ever to the cause of liberty, freedom, and right, but we have been to a very large extent befooled and led away by Southern intrigue and influence — we have erred through ignorance, and I am grieved to say that many of our public papers have, instead of trying to correct this state of things — only been the more diligent and persevering in wilfully mistating facts and doing their best to get up a feeling hostile to the Union Cause, — this state of things I firmly believe is not to last long, but that my countrymen will soon see through the wrong they have done and will be only too willing to do what is right for the future.
A. Cossham Esq, whose letter you will find enclosed, is a gentleman who has laboured hard and dilligently for your cause in our country, and has, by both lecturing and printing at his own sole cost, been the means of diffusing very much information and instruction on this unhappy and sad struggle, — he is also intimately acquainted with Mr. Eastman,true light, correctly before Englishmen.
I am glad to see your excellency has issued a procalamation to the effect that the last Thursday in November be kept as a day of public thanksgiving and prayer,
Collected Works, VI, 496-97.
In conclusion I would respectfully ask your excellency to pardon any remarks I may have made amiss in these few lines and to believe that I have been actuated by pure motives in thus addressing you— Should you see fit to acknowledge the receipt of this letter and enclosures, a few lines addressed to either Mr Cossham or myself at Shortwood Lodge, Pucklechurch, nr Bristol, England would be received with very great pleasure and satisfaction.
Again desiring that we may all be kept and preserved by Him who holds each of us responsible for the duties committed to our care, I am, with great respect for your excellency
Yours very truly and sincerely
James Hunt