Full Text Archive logoFull Text Archive — Books, poems, drama…

The Entire Writings of Lincoln by Abraham Lincoln

Part 27 out of 36

Adobe PDF icon
Download this document as a .pdf
File size: 3.0 MB
What's this? light bulb idea Many people prefer to read off-line or to print out text and read from the real printed page. Others want to carry documents around with them on their mobile phones and read while they are on the move. We have created .pdf files of all out documents to accommodate all these groups of people. We recommend that you download .pdfs onto your mobile phone when it is connected to a WiFi connection for reading off-line.

Let your military measures be strong enough to repel the invader and
keep the peace, and not so strong as to unnecessarily harass and
persecute the people. It is a difficult role, and so much greater
will be the honor if you perform it well. If both factions, or
neither, shall abuse you, you will probably be about right. Beware
of being assailed by one and praised by the other.

Yours truly,

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL HOOKER.

WASHINGTON, May 27, 1863.11 P.M.

MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:

Have you Richmond papers of this morning? If so, what news?

A. LINCOLN.

TO ERASTUS CORNING.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON,
May 28, 1863.

HON. ERASTUS CORNING, Albany, N.Y.:

The letter of yourself and others dated the 19th and inclosing the
resolutions of a public meeting held at Albany on the 16th, was
received night before last. I shall give the resolutions the
consideration you ask, and shall try to find time and make a
respectful response.

Your obedient servant,

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL W. S. ROSECRANS.

WASHINGTON, May 28, 1863.

MAJOR-GENERAL ROSECRANS, Murfreesborough, Tenn..

I would not push you to any rashness, but I am very anxious that you
do your utmost, short of rashness, to keep Bragg from getting off to
help Johnston against Grant.

A. LINCOLN

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, May 29, 1863.

GOVERNOR ANDREW JOHNSON, Louisville, Ky.:

General Burnside has been frequently informed lately that the
division under General Getty cannot be spared. I am sorry to have to
tell you this, but it is true, and cannot be helped.

A. LINCOLN.

TO J. K. DUBOIS AND OTHERS.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON,
May 29, 1863.

MESSRS. JESSE K. DUBOIS, O. M. HATCH, JOHN WILLIAMS, JACOB BUNN, JOHN
BUNN, GEORGE R. WEBER, WILLIAM YATES, S. M. CULLOM, CHARLES W.
MATHENY, WILLIAM F. ELKIN, FRANCIS SPRINGER, B. A. WATSON, ELIPHALET
HAWLEY, AND JAMES CAMPBELL.

GENTLEMEN:--Agree among yourselves upon any two of your own number--
one of whom to be quartermaster and the other to be commissary to
serve at Springfield, Illinois, and send me their names, and I will
appoint them.

Yours truly,

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL A. E. BURNSIDE.

WASHINGTON, May 29, 1863

MAJOR-GENERAL BURNSIDE, Cincinnati, O.:

Your despatch of to-day received. When I shall wish to supersede you
I will let you know. All the Cabinet regretted the necessity of
arresting, for instance, Vallandigham, some perhaps doubting there
was a real necessity for it; but, being done, all were for seeing you
through with it.

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO COLONEL LUDLOW.
[Cipher.]
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 1, 1863.

COLONEL LUDLOW, Fort Monroe:

Richardson and Brown, correspondents of the Tribune captured at
Vicksburg, are detained at Richmond. Please ascertain why they are
detained, and get them off if you can.

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL HOOKER.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 2, 1863.

MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:

It is said that Philip Margraf, in your army, is under sentence to be
shot on Friday the 5th instant as a deserter. If so please send me
up the record of his case at once.

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL U.S. GRANT.

WAR DEPARTMENT, June 2, 1863.

MAJOR-GENERAL GRANT, Vicksburg, via Memphis:

Are you in communication with General Banks? Is he coming toward you
or going farther off? Is there or has there been anything to hinder
his coming directly to you by water from Alexandria?

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER.
[Cipher.]
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 4,1863.

MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:

Let execution of sentences in the cases of Daily, Margraf, and
Harrington be respited till further orders from me, they remaining in
close custody meanwhile.

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL BUTTERFIELD.

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D.C., June 4, 1863.

MAJOR-GENERAL BUTTERFIELD:

The news you send me from the Richmond Sentinel of the 3d must be
greatly if not wholly incorrect. The Thursday mentioned was the
28th, and we have despatches here directly from Vicksburg of the
28th, 29th, 30th, and 31st; and, while they speak of the siege
progressing, they speak of no assault or general fighting whatever,
and in fact they so speak as to almost exclude the idea that there
can have been any since Monday the 25th, which was not very heavy.
Neither do they mention any demand made by Grant upon Pemberton for a
surrender. They speak of our troops as being in good health,
condition, and spirits. Some of them do say that Banks has Port
Hudson invested.

A. LINCOLN.

TO SECRETARY STANTON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON,
June 4, 1863.

HON. SECRETARY OF WAR.

MY DEAR SIR:--I have received additional despatches, which, with
former ones, induce me to believe we should revoke or suspend the
order suspending the Chicago Times; and if you concur in opinion,
please have it done.

Yours truly,

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL HOOKER.

WASHINGTON, D.C. JUNE 5, 1863

MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:

Yours of to-day was received an hour ago. So much of professional
military skill is requisite to answer it that I have turned the task
over to General Halleck. He promises to perform it with his utmost
care. I have but one idea which I think worth suggesting to you, and
that is, in case you find Lee coming to the north of the
Rappahannock, I would by no means cross to the south of it. If he
should leave a rear force at Fredericksburg, tempting you to fall
upon it, it would fight in entrenchments and have you at advantage,
and so, man for man, worst you at that point, While his main force
would in some way be getting an advantage of you northward. In one
word, I would not take any risk of being entangled up on the river
like an ox jumped half over a fence and liable to be torn by dogs
front and rear without a fair chance to gore one way or to kick the
other.

If Lee would come to my side of the river I would keep on the same
side and fight him, or act on the defensive, according as might be my
estimate of his strength relatively to my own. But these are mere
suggestions, which I desire to be controlled by the judgment of
yourself and General Halleck.

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO MRS. GRIMSLEY.

WASHINGTON, D. C., June 6, 1863.

Mrs. ELIZABETH J. GRIMSLEY, Springfield, Ill.:

Is your John ready to enter the naval school? If he is, telegraph me
his full name.

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL DIX,

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D.C., June 6, 1863.

MAJOR-GENERAL Dix, Fort Monroe, Va.:

By noticing the news you send from the Richmond Dispatch of this
morning you will see one of the very latest despatches says they have
nothing reliable from Vicksburg since Sunday. Now we here have a
despatch from there Sunday and others of almost every day preceding
since the investment, and while they show the siege progressing they
do not show any general fighting since the 21st and 22d. We have
nothing from Port Hudson later than the 29th when things looked
reasonably well for us. I have thought this might be of some
interest to you.

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL DIX.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 8, 1863.

MAJOR-GENERAL Dix, Fort Monroe:

We have despatches from Vicksburg of the 3d. Siege progressing. No
general fighting recently. All well. Nothing new from Port Hudson.

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL DIX.

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D.C. JUNE 8, 1863.

MAJOR-GENERAL Dix, Fort Monroe:

The substance of news sent of the fighting at Port Hudson on the 27th
we have had here three or four days, and I supposed you had it also,
when I said this morning, "No news from Port Hudson." We knew that
General Sherman was wounded, but we hoped not so dangerously as your
despatch represents. We still have nothing of that Richmond
newspaper story of Kirby Smith crossing and of Banks losing an arm.

A. LINCOLN

TELEGRAM TO J. P. HALE.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 9, 1863.

HON. JOHN P. HALE, Dover, N. H.:

I believe that it was upon your recommendation that B. B. Bunker was
appointed attorney for Nevada Territory. I am pressed to remove him
on the ground that he does not attend to the office, nor in fact pass
much time in the Territory. Do you wish to say anything on the
subject?

A. LINCOLN

TELEGRAM TO MRS. LINCOLN.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 9, 1863.

MRS. LINCOLN, Philadelphia, Pa.:

Think you had better put "Tad's" pistol away. I had an ugly dream
about him.

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL HOOKER.

WASHINGTON, D.C. June 9, 1863

MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:

I am told there are 50 incendiary shells here at the arsenal made to
fit the 100 pounder Parrott gun now with you. If this be true would
you like to have the shells sent to you?

A. LINCOLN

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL HOOKER.

WASHINGTON, D. C., June 10, 1863

MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:

Your long despatch of to-day is just received. If left to me, I
would not go south of the Rappahannock upon Lee's moving north of it.
If you had Richmond invested to-day you would not be able to take it
in twenty days; meanwhile your communications, and with them your
army, would be ruined. I think Lee's army, and not Richmond, is your
true objective point. If he comes towards the upper Potomac, follow
on his flank, and on the inside track, shortening your lines while he
lengthens his. Fight him, too, when opportunity offers. If he stay
where he is, fret him and fret him.

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO MRS. LINCOLN.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 11,1863.

MRS. LINCOLN, Philadelphia:

Your three despatches received. I am very well and am glad to know
that you and "Tad" are so.

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL HOOKER.
[Cipher.]
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, JUNE 12, 1863.

MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:

If you can show me a trial of the incendiary shells on Saturday
night, I will try to join you at 5 P.M. that day Answer.

A. LINCOLN.

TO ERASTUS CORNING AND OTHERS.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON,
June 12, 1863.

HON. ERASTUS CORNING AND OTHERS.

GENTLEMEN:--Your letter of May 19, inclosing the resolutions of a
public meeting held at Albany, New York, on the 16th of the same
month, was received several days ago.

The resolutions, as I understand them, are resolvable into two
propositions--first, the expression of a purpose to sustain the cause
of the Union, to secure peace through victory, and to support the
administration in every constitutional and lawful measure to suppress
the rebellion; and, secondly, a declaration of censure upon the
administration for supposed unconstitutional action, such as the
making of military arrests. And from the two propositions a third is
deduced, which is that the gentlemen composing the meeting are
resolved on doing their part to maintain our common government and
country, despite the folly or wickedness, as they may conceive, of
any administration. This position is eminently patriotic, and as
such I thank the meeting, and congratulate the nation for it. My own
purpose is the same; so that the meeting and myself have a common
object, and can have no difference, except in the choice of means or
measures for effecting that object.

And here I ought to close this paper, and would close it, if there
were no apprehension that more injurious consequences than any merely
personal to myself might follow the censures systematically cast upon
me for doing what, in my view of duty, I could not forbear. The
resolutions promise to support me in every constitutional and lawful
measure to suppress the rebellion; and I have not knowingly employed,
nor shall knowingly employ, any other. But the meeting, by their
resolutions, assert and argue that certain military arrests, and
proceedings following them, for which I am ultimately responsible,
are unconstitutional. I think they are not. The resolutions quote
from the Constitution the definition of treason, and also the
limiting safeguards and guarantees therein provided for the citizen
on trial for treason, and on his being held to answer for capital or
otherwise infamous crimes, and in criminal prosecutions his right to
a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury. They proceed to
resolve "that these safeguards of the rights of the citizen against
the pretensions of arbitrary power were intended more especially for
his protection in times of civil commotion." And, apparently to
demonstrate the proposition, the resolutions proceed: "They were
secured substantially to the English people after years of protracted
civil war, and were adopted into our Constitution at the close of the
Revolution." Would not the demonstration have been better if it could
have been truly said that these safeguards had been adopted and
applied during the civil wars and during our Revolution, instead of
after the one and at the close of the other? I too am devotedly for
them after civil war, and before Civil war, and at all times, "except
when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may
require" their suspension. The resolutions proceed to tell us that
these safeguards "have stood the test of seventy-six years of trial
under our republican system, under circumstances which show that,
while they constitute the foundation of all free government, they are
the elements of the enduring stability of the republic." No one
denies that they have so stood the test up to the beginning of the
present rebellion, if we except a certain occurrence at New Orleans
hereafter to be mentioned; nor does any one question that they will
stand the same test much longer after the rebellion closes. But
these provisions of the Constitution have no application to the case
we have in hand, because the arrests complained of were not made for
treason--that is, not for the treason defined in the Constitution,
and upon the conviction of which the punishment is death--nor yet
were they made to hold persons to answer for any capital or otherwise
infamous crimes; nor were the proceedings following, in any
constitutional or legal sense, "criminal prosecutions." The arrests
were made on totally different grounds, and the proceedings following
accorded with the grounds of the arrests. Let us consider the real
case with which we are dealing, and apply to it the parts of the
Constitution plainly made for such cases.

Prior to my installation here it had been inculcated that any State
had a lawful right to secede from the national Union, and that it
would be expedient to exercise the right whenever the devotees of the
doctrine should fail to elect a president to their own liking. I was
elected contrary to their liking; and accordingly, so far as it was
legally possible, they had taken seven States out of the Union, had
seized many of the United States forts, and had fired upon the United
States flag, all before I was inaugurated, and, of course, before I
had done any official act whatever. The rebellion thus begun soon
ran into the present civil war; and, in certain respects, it began on
very unequal terms between the parties. The insurgents had been
preparing for it more than thirty years, while the government had
taken no steps to resist them. The former had carefully considered
all the means which could be turned to their account. It undoubtedly
was a well-pondered reliance with them that in their own unrestricted
effort to destroy Union, Constitution and law, all together, the
government would, in great degree, be restrained by the same
Constitution and law from arresting their progress. Their
sympathizers invaded all departments of the government and nearly all
communities of the people. From this material, under cover of
"liberty of speech," "liberty of the press," and "habeas corpus,"
they hoped to keep on foot amongst us a most efficient corps of
spies, informers, suppliers, and aiders and abettors of their cause
in a thousand ways. They knew that in times such as they were
inaugurating, by the Constitution itself the "habeas corpus" might be
suspended; but they also knew they had friends who would make a
question as to who was to suspend it; meanwhile their spies and
others might remain at large to help on their cause. Or if, as has
happened, the Executive should suspend the writ without ruinous waste
of time, instances of arresting innocent persons might occur, as are
always likely to occur in such cases; and then a clamor could be
raised in regard to this, which might be at least of some service to
the insurgent cause. It needed no very keen perception to discover
this part of the enemies program, so soon as by open hostilities
their machinery was fairly put in motion. Yet, thoroughly imbued
with a reverence for the guaranteed rights of individuals, I was slow
to adopt the strong measures which by degrees I have been forced to
regard as being within the exceptions of the Constitution, and as
indispensable to the public safety. Nothing is better known to
history than that courts of justice are utterly incompetent to such
cases. Civil courts are organized chiefly for trials of individuals-
-or, at most, a few individuals acting in concert, and this in quiet
times, and on charges of crimes well defined in the law. Even in
times of peace bands of horse-thieves and robbers frequently grow too
numerous and powerful for the ordinary courts of justice. But what
comparison, in numbers have such bands ever borne to the insurgent
sympathizers even in many of the loyal States? Again, a jury too
frequently has at least one member more ready to hang the panel than
to hang the traitor. And yet again, he who dissuades one man from
volunteering, or induces one soldier to desert, weakens the Union
cause as much as he who kills a Union soldier in battle. Yet this
dissuasion or inducement may be so conducted as to be no defined
crime of which any civil court would take cognizance.

Ours is a case of rebellion--so called by the resolutions before me--
in fact, a clear, flagrant, and gigantic case of rebellion; and the
provision of the Constitution that "the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when, in cases of
rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it," is the
provision which specially applies to our present case. This
provision plainly attests the understanding of those who made the
Constitution that ordinary courts of justice are inadequate to "cases
of rebellion"--attests their purpose that, in such cases, men may be
held in custody whom the courts, acting on ordinary rules, would
discharge. Habeas corpus does not discharge men who are proved to be
guilty of defined crime, and its suspension is allowed by the
Constitution on purpose that men may be arrested and held who can not
be proved to be guilty of defined crime, "when, in cases of rebellion
or invasion, the public safety may require it."

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

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

I understand the meeting whose resolutions I am considering to be in
favor of suppressing the rebellion by military force--by armies.
Long experience has shown that armies cannot be maintained unless
desertion shall be punished by the severe penalty of death. The case
requires, and the law and the Constitution sanction, this punishment.
Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier boy who deserts while I must
not touch a hair of a wily agitator who induced him to desert. This
is none the less injurious when effected by getting a father, or
brother, or friend into a public meeting, and there working upon his
feelings till he is persuaded to write the soldier boy that he is
fighting in a bad cause, for a wicked administration of a
contemptible government, too weak to arrest and punish him if he
shall desert. I think that, in such a case, to silence the agitator
and save the boy is not only constitutional, but withal a great
mercy.

If I be wrong on this question of constitutional power, my error lies
in believing that certain proceedings are constitutional when, in
cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety requires them,
which would not be constitutional when, in absence of rebellion or
invasion, the public safety does not require them: in other words,
that the Constitution is not in its application in all respects the
same in cases of rebellion or invasion involving the public safety as
it is in times of profound peace and public security. The
Constitution itself makes the distinction, and I can no more be
persuaded that the government can constitutionally take no strong
measures in time of rebellion, because it can be shown that the same
could not be lawfully taken in times of peace, than I can be
persuaded that a particular drug is not good medicine for a sick man
because it can be shown to not be good food for a well one. Nor am I
able to appreciate the danger apprehended by the meeting, that the
American people will by means of military arrests during the
rebellion lose the right of public discussion, the liberty of speech
and the press, the law of evidence, trial by jury, and habeas corpus
throughout the indefinite peaceful future which I trust lies before
them, any more than I am able to believe that a man could contract so
strong an appetite for emetics during temporary illness as to persist
in feeding upon them during the remainder of his healthful life.

In giving the resolutions that earnest consideration which you
request of me, I cannot overlook the fact that the meeting speak as
"Democrats." Nor can I, with full respect for their known
intelligence, and the fairly presumed deliberation with which they
prepared their resolutions, be permitted to suppose that this
occurred by accident, or in any way other than that they preferred to
designate themselves "Democrats" rather than "American citizens." In
this time of national peril I would have preferred to meet you upon a
level one step higher than any party platform, because I am sure that
from such more elevated position we could do better battle for the
country we all love than we possibly can from those lower ones where,
from the force of habit, the prejudices of the past, and selfish
hopes of the future, we are sure to expend much of our ingenuity and
strength in finding fault with and aiming blows at each other. But
since you have denied me this I will yet be thankful for the
country's sake that not all Democrats have done so. He on whose
discretionary judgment Mr. Vallandigham was arrested and tried is a
Democrat, having no old party affinity with me, and the judge who
rejected the constitutional view expressed in these resolutions, by
refusing to discharge Mr. Vallandigham on habeas corpus is a Democrat
of better days than these, having received his judicial mantle at the
hands of President Jackson. And still more: of all those Democrats
who are nobly exposing their lives and shedding their blood on the
battle-field, I have learned that many approve the course taken with
Mr. Vallandigham, while I have not heard of a single one condemning
it. I cannot assert that there are none such. And the name of
President Jackson recalls an instance of pertinent history. After
the battle of New Orleans, and while the fact that the treaty of
peace had been concluded was well known in the city, but before
official knowledge of it had arrived, General Jackson still
maintained martial or military law. Now that it could be said that
the war was over, the clamor against martial law, which had existed
from the first, grew more furious. Among other things, a Mr.
Louaillier published a denunciatory newspaper article. General
Jackson arrested him. A lawyer by the name of Morel procured the
United States Judge Hall to order a writ of habeas corpus to release
Mr. Louaillier. General Jackson arrested both the lawyer and the
judge. A Mr. Hollander ventured to say of some part of the matter
that "it was a dirty trick." General Jackson arrested him. When the
officer undertook to serve the writ of habeas corpus, General Jackson
took it from him, and sent him away with a copy. Holding the judge
in custody a few days, the general sent him beyond the limits of his
encampment, and set him at liberty with an order to remain till the
ratification of peace should be regularly announced, or until the
British should have left the southern coast. A day or two more
elapsed, the ratification of the treaty of peace was regularly
announced, and the judge and others were fully liberated. A few days
more, and the judge called General Jackson into court and fined him
$1000 for having arrested him and the others named. The General
paid the fine, and then the matter rested for nearly thirty years,
when Congress refunded principal and interest. The late Senator
Douglas, then in the House of Representatives, took a leading part in
the debates, in which the constitutional question was much discussed.
I am not prepared to say whom the journals would show to have voted
for the measure.

It may be remarked--first, that we had the same Constitution then as
now; secondly, that we then had a case of invasion, and now we have a
case of rebellion; and, thirdly, that the permanent right of the
people to public discussion, the liberty of speech and of the press,
the trial by jury, the law of evidence, and the habeas corpus
suffered no detriment whatever by that conduct of General Jackson, or
its subsequent approval by the American Congress.

And yet, let me say that, in my own discretion, I do not know whether
I would have ordered the arrest of Mr. Vallandigham. While I cannot
shift the responsibility from myself, I hold that, as a general rule,
the commander in the field is the better judge of the necessity in
any particular case. Of course I must practice a general directory
and revisory power in the matter.

One of the resolutions expresses the opinion of the meeting that
arbitrary arrests will have the effect to divide and distract those
who should be united in suppressing the rebellion, and I am
specifically called on to discharge Mr. Vallandigham. I regard this
as, at least, a fair appeal to me on the expediency of exercising a
constitutional power which I think exists. In response to such
appeal I have to say, it gave me pain when I learned that Mr.
Vallandigham had been arrested (that is, I was pained that there
should have seemed to be a necessity for arresting him), and that it
will afford me great pleasure to discharge him so soon as I can by
any means believe the public safety will not suffer by it.

I further say that, as the war progresses, it appears to me, opinion
and action, which were in great confusion at first, take shape and
fall into more regular channels, so that the necessity for strong
dealing with them gradually decreases. I have every reason to desire
that it should cease altogether, and far from the least is my regard
for the opinions and wishes of those who, like the meeting at Albany,
declare their purpose to sustain the government in every
constitutional and lawful measure to suppress the rebellion. Still,
I must continue to do so much as may seem to be required by the
public safety.

A. LINCOLN.

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.

EXECUTIVE MANSION,
June 14, 1863.

HON. SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.

SIR:--Your note of this morning is received. You will co-operate by
the revenue cutters under your direction with the navy in arresting
rebel depredations on American commerce and transportation and in
capturing rebels engaged therein.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL TYLER.

WAR DEPARTMENT, June 14, 1863.

GENERAL TYLER, Martinsburg:
Is Milroy invested so that he cannot fall back to Harper's Ferry?

A. LINCOLN.

RESPONSE TO A "BESIEGED" GENERAL

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL TYLER.

WAR DEPARTMENT, June 14, 1863.

GENERAL TYLER, Martinsburg:

If you are besieged, how do you despatch me? Why did you not leave
before being besieged?

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL KELLEY.

WASHINGTON, June 14, 1863. 1.27 P.M.

MAJOR-GENERAL KELLEY, Harper's Ferry:

Are the forces at Winchester and Martinsburg making any effort to get
to you?

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL HOOKER.

WASHINGTON, D. C., June 14, 1863.3.50 P.M.,

MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:

So far as we can make out here, the enemy have Muroy surrounded at
Winchester, and Tyler at Martinsburg. If they could hold out a few
days, could you help them? If the head of Lee's army is at
Martinsburg and the tail of it on the plank-road between
Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, the animal must be very slim
somewhere; could you not break him?

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL R. C. SCHENCK.

WAR DEPARTMENT, June 14, 1863.

MAJOR-GENERAL SCHENCK:

Get General Milroy from Winchester to Harper's Ferry, if possible.
He will be "gobbled up" if he remains, if he is not already past
salvation.

A. LINCOLN,
President, United States.

NEEDS NEW TIRES ON HIS CARRIAGE

TELEGRAM TO MRS. LINCOLN.

WAR DEPARTMENT, June 15, 1863.

MRS. LINCOLN, Philadelphia, Pa.:

Tolerably well. Have not rode out much yet, but have at last got new
tires on the carriage wheels and perhaps shall ride out soon.

A. LINCOLN.

CALL FOR 100,000 MILITIA TO SERVE FOR SIX MONTHS,
JUNE 15, 1863.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation

Whereas the armed insurrectionary combinations now existing in
several of the States are threatening to make inroads into the States
of Maryland, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, requiring
immediately an additional military force for the service of the
United States:

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States
and Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy thereof and of the
militia of the several States when called into actual service, do
hereby call into the service of the United States 100,000 militia
from the States following, namely:

>From the State of Maryland, 10,000; from the State of Pennsylvania,
50,000; from the State of Ohio, 30,000; from the State of West
Virginia, 10,000--to be mustered into the service of the United
States forthwith and to serve for a period of six months from the
date of such muster into said service, unless sooner discharged; to
be mustered in as infantry, artillery, and cavalry, in proportions
which will be made known through the War Department, which Department
will also designate the several places of rendezvous. These militia
to be organized according to the rules and regulations of the
volunteer service and such orders as may hereafter be issued. The
States aforesaid will be respectively credited under the enrollment
act for the militia services entered under this proclamation. In
testimony whereof ...............

ABRAHAM LINCOLN

TELEGRAM TO P. KAPP AND OTHERS.

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C.,
June 10, 1863

FREDERICK KAPP AND OTHERS, New York:

The Governor of New York promises to send us troops, and if he wishes
the assistance of General Fremont and General Sigel, one or both, he
can have it. If he does not wish them it would but breed confusion
for us to set them to work independently of him.

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL MEAGHER.

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C., June 16, 1863.

GENERAL T. FRANCIS MEAGHER, New York:

Your despatch received. Shall be very glad for you to raise 3000
Irish troops if done by the consent of and in concert with Governor
Seymour.

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO MRS. LINCOLN.

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C., June 16, 1863.

MRS. LINCOLN, Philadelphia:

It is a matter of choice with yourself whether you come home. There
is no reason why you should not, that did not exist when you went
away. As bearing on the question of your coming home, I do not think
the raid into Pennsylvania amounts to anything at all.

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO COLONEL BLISS.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 16, 1863.

COL. WILLIAM S. BLISS, New York Hotel:

Your despatch asking whether I will accept "the Loyal Brigade of the
North" is received. I never heard of that brigade by name and do not
know where it is; yet, presuming it is in New York, I say I will
gladly accept it, if tendered by and with the consent and approbation
of the Governor of that State. Otherwise not.

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL HOOKER.

WASHINGTON, June 16, 1863.10 P.M.

MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:

To remove all misunderstanding, I now place you in the strict
military relation to General Halleck of a commander of one of the
armies to the general-in-chief of all the armies. I have not
intended differently, but as it seems to be differently understood I
shall direct him to give you orders and you to obey them.

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL HOOKER.

WAR DEPARTMENT WASHINGTON D. C., June 17, 1863.

MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:

Mr. Eckert, superintendent in the telegraph office, assures me that
he has sent and will send you everything that comes to the office.

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO JOSHUA TEVIS.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 17, 1863.

JOSHUA TEVIS, Esq., U. S. Attorney, Frankfort, Ky.:

A Mr. Burkner is here shoving a record and asking to be discharged
from a suit in San Francisco, as bail for one Thompson. Unless the
record shown me is defectively made out I think it can be
successfully defended against. Please examine the case carefully
and, if you shall be of opinion it cannot be sustained, dismiss it
and relieve me from all trouble about it. Please answer.

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR TOD.
[Cipher.]
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON,

June 18, 1863.

GOVERNOR D. TOD, Columbus, O.:

Yours received. I deeply regret that you were not renominated, not
that I have aught against Mr. Brough. On the contrary, like
yourself, I say hurrah for him.

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL DINGMAN.

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C., June 18, 1863.

GENERAL A. DINGMAN, Belleville, C. W.:

Thanks for your offer of the Fifteenth Battalion. I do not think
Washington is in danger.

A. LINCOLN

TO B. B. MALHIOT AND OTHERS.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON,
June 19, 1863.

MESSRS. B. B. MALHIOT, BRADISH JOHNSON, AND THOMAS COTTMAN.

GENTLEMEN:--Your letter, which follows, has been received and
Considered.

"The undersigned, a committee appointed by the planters of the State
of Louisiana, respectfully represent that they have been delegated to
seek of the General Government a full recognition of all the rights
of the State as they existed previous to the passage of an act of
secession, upon the principle of the existence of the State
constitution unimpaired, and no legal act having transpired that
could in any way deprive them of the advantages conferred by that
constitution. Under this constitution the State wishes to return to
its full allegiance, in the enjoyment of all rights and privileges
exercised by the other States under the Federal Constitution. With
the view of accomplishing the desired object, we further request that
your Excellency will, as commander-in-chief of the army of the United
States, direct the Military Governor of Louisiana to order an
election, in conformity with the constitution and laws of the State,
on the first Monday of November next, for all State and Federal
officers.
"With high consideration and resect, we have the honor to subscribe
ourselves,
"Your obedient servants,
E. E. MALHIOT.
BRADISH JOHNSON.
THOMAS COTTMAN."

Since receiving the letter, reliable information has reached me that
a respectable portion of the Louisiana people desire to amend their
State constitution, and contemplate holding a State convention for
that object. This fact alone, as it seems to me, is a sufficient
reason why the General Government should not give the committal you
seek to the existing State constitution. I may add that, while I do
not perceive how such committal could facilitate our military
operations in Louisiana, I really apprehend it might be so used as to
embarrass them.

As to an election to be held next November, there is abundant time
without any order or proclamation from me just now. The people of
Louisiana shall not lack an opportunity for a fair election for both
Federal and State officers by want of anything within my power to
give them.

Your obedient servant,

A. LINCOLN.

TO GENERAL J. M. SCHOFIELD.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON
June 22, 1863.

GENERAL JOHN M. SCHOFIELD.
MY DEAR SIR:--Your despatch, asking in substance whether, in case
Missouri shall adopt gradual emancipation, the General Government
will protect slave owners in that species of property during the
short time it shall be permitted by the State to exist within it, has
been received. Desirous as I am that emancipation shall be adopted
by Missouri, and believing as I do that gradual can be made better
than immediate for both black and white, except when military
necessity changes the case, my impulse is to say that such protection
would be given. I cannot know exactly what shape an act of
emancipation may take. If the period from the initiation to the
final end should be comparatively short, and the act should prevent
persons being sold during that period into more lasting slavery, the
whole would be easier. I do not wish to pledge the General
Government to the affirmative support of even temporary slavery
beyond what can be fairly claimed under the Constitution. I suppose,
however, this is not desired, but that it is desired for the military
force of the United States, while in Missouri, to not be used in
subverting the temporarily reserved legal rights in slaves during the
progress of emancipation. This I would desire also. I have very
earnestly urged the slave States to adopt emancipation; and it ought
to be, and is, an object with me not to overthrow or thwart what any
of them may in good faith do to that end. You are therefore
authorized to act in the spirit of this letter in conjunction with
what may appear to be the military necessities of your department.
Although this letter will become public at some time, it is not
intended to be made so now.

Yours truly,

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL J. HOOKER.

WASHINGTON, June 22, 1863

MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:

Operator at Leesburg just now says: "I heard very little firing this
A.M. about daylight, but it seems to have stopped now. It was in
about the same direction as yesterday, but farther off."

A. LINCOLN.

TO SECRETARY OF WAR.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON,
June 23, 1863.

HON. SECRETARY OF WAR:

You remember that Hon. W. D. Kelly and others are engaged in raising
or trying to raise some colored regiments in Philadelphia. The
bearer of this, Wilton M. Huput, is a friend of Judge Kelly, as
appears by the letter of the latter. He is a private in the 112th
Penn. and has been disappointed in a reasonable expectation of one
of the smaller offices. He now wants to be a lieutenant in one of
the colored regiments. If Judge Kelly will say in writing he wishes
to so have him, I am willing for him to be discharged from his
present position, and be so appointed. If you approve, so indorse
and let him carry the letter to Kelly

Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO MAJOR VAN VLIET.
[Cipher.]
WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C., June 23, 1863.

MAJOR VAN VLIET, New York:

Have you any idea what the news is in the despatch of General Banks
to General Halleck?

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL COUCH.

WAR DEPARTMENT, June 24, 1863.

MAJOR-GENERAL COUCH, Harrisburg, Pa.:

Have you any reports of the enemy moving into Pennsylvania? And if
any, what?

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL DIX.

WASHINGTON, June 24, 1863

MAJOR-GENERAL Dix, Yorktown, Va.:

We have a despatch from General Grant of the 19th. Don't think Kirby
Smith took Milliken's Bend since, allowing time to get the news to
Joe Johnston and from him to Richmond. But it is not absolutely
impossible. Also have news from Banks to the 16th, I think. He had
not run away then, nor thought of it.

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL PECK.

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C., June 25, 1863.

GENERAL PECK, Suffolk, Va.:

Colonel Derrom, of the Twenty-fifth New Jersey Volunteers, now
mustered out, says there is a man in your hands under conviction for
desertion, who formerly belonged to the above named regiment, and
whose name is Templeton--Isaac F. Templeton, I believe. The Colonel
and others appeal to me for him. Please telegraph to me what is the
condition of the case, and if he has not been executed send me the
record of the trial and conviction.

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL SLOCUM.

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C., June 25,1863.

MAJOR-GENERAL SLOCUM, Leesburg, Va.:

Was William Gruvier, Company A, Forty-sixth, Pennsylvania, one of the
men executed as a deserter last Friday?

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL HOOKER.

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C., June 27, 1863. 8A.M.

MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:

It did not come from the newspapers, nor did I believe it, but I
wished to be entirely sure it was a falsehood.

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL BURNSIDE.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 28, 1863.

MAJOR-GENERAL BURNSIDE, Cincinnati, O.:

There is nothing going on in Kentucky on the subject of which you
telegraph, except an enrolment. Before anything is done beyond this,
I will take care to understand the case better than I now do.

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR BOYLE.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C., June 28, 1863.

GOVERNOR J. T. BOYLE, Cincinnati, O.:

There is nothing going on in Kentucky on the subject of which you
telegraph, except an enrolment. Before anything is done beyond this,
I will take care to understand the case better than I now do.

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL SCHENCK.

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C.,
June 28, 1863.

MAJOR GENERAL SCHENCK, Baltimore, Md.:

Every place in the Naval school subject to my appointment is full,
and I have one unredeemed promise of more than half a year's
standing.

A. LINCOLN.

FURTHER DEMOCRATIC PARTY CRITICISM

TO M. BIRCHARD AND OTHERS.

WASHINGTON, D. C.,
June 29,1863.

MESSRS. M. BIRCHARD, DAVID A. HOUK, et al:

GENTLEMEN:--The resolutions of the Ohio Democratic State convention,
which you present me, together with your introductory and closing
remarks, being in position and argument mainly the same as the
resolutions of the Democratic meeting at Albany, New York, I refer
you to my response to the latter as meeting most of the points in the
former.

This response you evidently used in preparing your remarks, and I
desire no more than that it be used with accuracy. In a single
reading of your remarks, I only discovered one inaccuracy in matter,
which I suppose you took from that paper. It is where you say: "The
undersigned are unable to agree with you in the opinion you have
expressed that the Constitution is different in time of insurrection
or invasion from what it is in time of peace and public security."

A recurrence to the paper will show you that I have not expressed the
opinion you suppose. I expressed the opinion that the Constitution
is different in its application in cases of rebellion or invasion,
involving the public safety, from what it is in times of profound
peace and public security; and this opinion I adhere to, simply
because, by the Constitution itself, things may be done in the one
case which may not be done in the other.

I dislike to waste a word on a merely personal point, but I must
respectfully assure you that you will find yourselves at fault should
you ever seek for evidence to prove your assumption that I "opposed
in discussions before the people the policy of the Mexican war."

You say: "Expunge from the Constitution this limitation upon the
power of Congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, and yet the
other guarantees of personal liberty would remain unchanged."
Doubtless, if this clause of the Constitution, improperly called, as
I think, a limitation upon the power of Congress, were expunged, the
other guarantees would remain the same; but the question is not how
those guarantees would stand with that clause out of the
Constitution, but how they stand with that clause remaining in it, in
case of rebellion or invasion involving the public safety. If the
liberty could be indulged of expunging that clause, letter and
spirit, I really think the constitutional argument would be with you.

My general view on this question was stated in the Albany response,
and hence I do not state it now. I only add that, as seems to me,
the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus is the great means through
which the guarantees of personal liberty are conserved and made
available in the last resort; and corroborative of this view is the
fact that Mr. Vallandigham, in the very case in question, under the
advice of able lawyers, saw not where else to go but to the habeas
corpus. But by the Constitution the benefit of the writ of habeas
corpus itself may be suspended when, in case of rebellion or
invasion, the public safety may require it.

You ask, in substance, whether I really claim that I may override all
the guaranteed rights of individuals, on the plea of conserving the
public safety when I may choose to say the public safety requires it.
This question, divested of the phraseology calculated to represent me
as struggling for an arbitrary personal prerogative, is either simply
a question who shall decide, or an affirmation that nobody shall
decide, what the public safety does require in cases of rebellion or
invasion.

The Constitution contemplates the question as likely to occur for
decision, but it does not expressly declare who is to decide it. By
necessary implication, when rebellion or invasion comes, the decision
is to be made from time to time; and I think the man whom, for the
time, the people have, under the Constitution, made the
commander-in-chief of their army and navy, is the man who holds the
power and bears the responsibility of making it. If he uses the
power justly, the same people will probably justify him; if he abuses
it, he is in their hands to be dealt with by all the modes they have
reserved to themselves in the Constitution.

The earnestness with which you insist that persons can only, in times
of rebellion, be lawfully dealt with in accordance with the rules for
criminal trials and punishments in times of peace, induces me to add
a word to what I said on that point in the Albany response.

You claim that men may, if they choose, embarrass those whose duty it
is to combat a giant rebellion, and then be dealt with in turn only
as if there were no rebellion. The Constitution itself rejects this
view. The military arrests and detentions which have been made,
including those of Mr. Vallandigham, which are not different in
principle from the others, have been for prevention, and not for
punishment--as injunctions to stay injury, as proceedings to keep the
peace; and hence, like proceedings in such cases and for like
reasons, they have not been accompanied with indictments, or trials
by juries, nor in a single case by any punishment whatever, beyond
what is purely incidental to the prevention. The original sentence
of imprisonment in Mr. Vallandigham's case was to prevent injury to
the military service only, and the modification of it was made as a
less disagreeable mode to him of securing the same prevention.

I am unable to perceive an insult to Ohio in the case of Mr.
Vallandigham. Quite surely nothing of the sort was or is intended.
I was wholly unaware that Mr. Vallandigham was, at the time of his
arrest, a candidate for the Democratic nomination for governor until
so informed by your reading to me the resolutions of the convention.
I am grateful to the State of Ohio for many things, especially for
the brave soldiers and officers she has given in the present national
trial to the armies of the Union.

You claim, as I understand, that according to my own position in the
Albany response, Mr. Vallandigham should be released; and this
because, as you claim, he has not damaged the military service by
discouraging enlistments, encouraging desertions, or otherwise; and
that if he had, he should have been turned over to the civil
authorities under the recent acts of Congress. I certainly do not
know that Mr. Vallandigham has specifically and by direct language
advised against enlistments and in favor of desertion and resistance
to drafting.

We all know that combinations, armed in some instances, to resist the
arrest of deserters began several months ago; that more recently the
like has appeared in resistance to the enrolment preparatory to a
draft; and that quite a number of assassinations have occurred from
the same animus. These had to be met by military force, and this
again has led to bloodshed and death. And now, under a sense of
responsibility more weighty and enduring than any which is merely
official, I solemnly declare my belief that this hindrance of the
military, including maiming and murder, is due to the course in which
Mr. Vallindigham has been engaged in a greater degree than to any
other cause; and it is due to him personally in a greater degree than
to any other one man.

These things have been notorious, known to all, and of course known
to Mr. Vallandigham. Perhaps I would not be wrong to say they
originated with his special friends and adherents. With perfect
knowledge of them, he has frequently if not constantly made speeches
in Congress and before popular assemblies; and if it can be shown
that, with these things staring him in the face he has ever uttered a
word of rebuke or counsel against them, it will be a fact greatly in
his favor with me, and one of which as yet I am totally ignorant.
When it is known that the whole burden of his speeches has been to
stir up men against the prosecution of the war, and that in the midst
of resistance to it he has not been known in any instance to counsel
against such resistance, it is next to impossible to repel the
inference that he has counseled directly in favor of it.

With all this before their eyes, the convention you represent have
nominated Mr. Vallandigham for governor of Ohio, and both they and
you have declared the purpose to sustain the national Union by all
constitutional means. But of course they and you in common reserve
to yourselves to decide what are constitutional means; and, unlike
the Albany meeting, you omit to state or intimate that in your
opinion an army is a constitutional means of saving the Union against
a rebellion, or even to intimate that you are conscious of an
existing rebellion being in progress with the avowed object of
destroying that very Union. At the same time your nominee for
governor, in whose behalf you appeal, is known to you and to the
world to declare against the use of an army to suppress the
rebellion. Your own attitude, therefore, encourages desertion,
resistance to the draft, and the like, because it teaches those who
incline to desert and to escape the draft to believe it is your
purpose to protect them, and to hope that you will become strong
enough to do so.

After a short personal intercourse with you, gentlemen of the
committee, I cannot say I think you desire this effect to follow your
attitude; but I assure your that both friends and enemies of the
Union look upon it in this light. It is a substantial hope, and by
consequence a real strength to the enemy. If it is a false hope, and
one which you would willingly dispel, I will make the way exceedingly
easy.

I send you duplicates of this letter in order that you, or a majority
of you, may, if you choose, indorse your names upon one of them and
return it thus indorsed to me with the understanding that those
signing are thereby committed to the following propositions and to
nothing else:

1. That there is now a rebellion in the United States, the object
and tendency of which is to destroy the National Union; and that, in
your opinion, an army and navy are constitutional means for
suppressing that rebellion;

2. That no one of you will do anything which, in his own judgment,
will tend to hinder the increase, or favor the decrease, or lessen
the efficiency of the army or navy while engaged in the effort to
suppress that rebellion; and

3. That each of you will, in his sphere, do all he can to have the
officers, soldiers, and seamen of the army and navy, while engaged in
the effort to suppress the rebellion, paid, fed, clad, and otherwise
well provided for and supported.

And with the further understanding that upon receiving the letter and
names thus indorsed, I will cause them to be published, which
publication shall be, within itself, a revocation of the order in
relation to Mr. Vallandigham. It will not escape observation that I
consent to the release of Mr. Vallandigham upon terms not embracing
any pledge from him or from others as to what he will or will not do.
I do this because he is not present to speak for himself, or to
authorize others to speak for him; and because I should expect that
on his returning he would not put himself practically in antagonism
with the position of his friends. But I do it chiefly because I
thereby prevail on other influential gentlemen of Ohio to so define
their position as to be of immense value to the army--thus more than
compensating for the consequences of any mistake in allowing Mr.
Vallandigham to return; so that, on the whole, the public safety will
not have suffered by it. Still, in regard to Mr. Vallandigham and
all others, I must hereafter, as heretofore, do so much as the public
safety may seem to require.

I have the honor to be respectfully yours, etc.,

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR PARKER.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 30, 1863. 10.55

GOVERNOR PARKER, Trenton, N.J.:

Your despatch of yesterday received. I really think the attitude of
the enemy's army in Pennsylvania presents us the best opportunity we
have had since the war began. I think you will not see the foe in
New Jersey. I beg you to be assured that no one out of my position
can know so well as if he were in it the difficulties and
involvements of replacing General McClellan in command, and this
aside from any imputations upon him.

Please accept my sincere thanks for what you have done and are doing
to get troops forward.

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO A. K. McCLURE.

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, June 30, 1863.

A. K. McCLURE, Philadelphia:

Do we gain anything by opening one leak to stop another? Do we gain
anything by quieting one merely to open another, and probably a
larger one?

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL COUCH.
[Cipher]
WASHINGTON CITY, June 30, 1863. 3.23 P.M.

MAJOR-GENERAL COUCH, Harrisburg, Pa.:

I judge by absence of news that the enemy is not crossing or pressing
up to the Susquehanna. Please tell me what you know of his
movements.

A. LINCOLN

TO GENERAL D. HUNTER.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON,
June 30, 1863.

MAJOR-GENERAL HUNTER.

MY DEAR GENERAL: -I have just received your letter of the 25th of
June.

I assure you, and you may feel authorized in stating, that the recent
change of commanders in the Department of the South was made for no
reasons which convey any imputation upon your known energy,
efficiency, and patriotism; but for causes which seemed sufficient,
while they were in no degree incompatible with the respect and esteem
in which I have always held you as a man and an officer.

I cannot, by giving my consent to a publication of whose details I
know nothing, assume the responsibility of whatever you may write.
In this matter your own sense of military propriety must be your
guide, and the regulations of the service your rule of conduct.

I am very truly your friend,
A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL BURNSIDE.

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C., July 3, 1863

MAJOR-GENERAL BURNSIDE, Cincinnati, Ohio:

Private Downey, of the Twentieth or Twenty-sixth Kentucky Infantry,
is said to have been sentenced to be shot for desertion to-day. If
so, respite the execution until I can see the record.

A. LINCOLN.

REASSURING SON IN COLLEGE

TELEGRAM TO ROBERT T, LINCOLN.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, July 3,1863.

ROBERT T. LINCOLN, Esq., Cambridge, Mass.:
Don't he uneasy. Your mother very slightly hurt by her fall.

A.L.
Please send at once.

ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEWS FROM GETTYSBURG.

WASHINGTON,

July 4, 10.30 A.M.

The President announces to the country that news from the Army of the
Potomac, up to 10 P.M. of the 3d, is such as to cover that army with
the highest honor, to promise a great success to the cause of the
Union, and to claim the condolence of all for the many gallant
fallen; and that for this he especially desires that on this day He
whose will, not ours, should ever be done be everywhere remembered
and reverenced with profoundest gratitude.

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL FRENCH.
[Cipher]
WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C., July 5, 1863.

MAJOR-GENERAL FRENCH, Fredericktown, Md.:

I see your despatch about destruction of pontoons. Cannot the enemy
ford the river?

A. LINCOLN.

CONTINUED FAILURE TO PURSUE ENEMY

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL H. W. HALLECK.

SOLDIERS' HOME, WASHINGTON, JULY 6 1863.7 P.M.,

MAJOR-GENERAL HALLECK:

I left the telegraph office a good deal dissatisfied. You know I did
not like the phrase--in Orders, No. 68, I believe--"Drive the
invaders from our soil." Since that, I see a despatch from General
French, saying the enemy is crossing his wounded over the river in
flats, without saying why he does not stop it, or even intimating a
thought that it ought to be stopped. Still later, another despatch
from General Pleasonton, by direction of General Meade, to General
French, stating that the main army is halted because it is believed
the rebels are concentrating "on the road towards Hagerstown, beyond
Fairfield," and is not to move until it is ascertained that the
rebels intend to evacuate Cumberland Valley.

These things appear to me to be connected with a purpose to cover
Baltimore and Washington and to get the enemy across the river again
without a further collision, and they do not appear connected with a
purpose to prevent his crossing and to destroy him. I do fear the
former purpose is acted upon and the latter rejected.

If you are satisfied the latter purpose is entertained, and is
judiciously pursued, I am content. If you are not so satisfied,
please look to it.

Yours truly,

A. LINCOLN.

RESPONSE TO A SERENADE,

JULY 7, 1863.

FELLOW-CITIZENS:--I am very glad indeed to see you to-night, and yet
I will not say I thank you for this call; but I do most sincerely
thank Almighty God for the occasion on which you have called. How
long ago is it Eighty-odd years since, on the Fourth of July, for the
first time in the history of the world, a nation, by its
representatives, assembled and declared as a self-evident truth that
all men are created equal." That was the birthday of the United
States of America. Since then the Fourth of July has had several
very peculiar recognitions. The two men most distinguished in the
framing and support of the Declaration were Thomas Jefferson and John
Adams, the one having penned it, and the other sustained it the most
forcibly in debate--the only two of the fifty-five who signed it and
were elected Presidents of the United States. Precisely fifty years
after they put their hands to the paper, it pleased Almighty God to
take both from this stage of action. This was indeed an
extraordinary and remarkable event in our history. Another
President, five years after, was called from this stage of existence
on the same day and month of the year; and now on this last Fourth of
July just passed, when we have a gigantic rebellion, at the bottom of
which is an effort to overthrow the principle that all men were
created equal, we have the surrender of a most powerful position and
army on that very day. And not only so, but in the succession of
battles in Pennsylvania, near to us, through three days, so rapidly
fought that they might be called one great battle, on the first,
second, and third of the month of July; and on the fourth the cohorts
of those who opposed the Declaration that all men are created equal,
"turned tail" and run.

Gentlemen, this is a glorious theme, and the occasion for a speech,
but I am not prepared to make one worthy of the occasion. I would
like to speak in terms of praise due to the many brave officers and
soldiers who have fought in the cause of the Union and liberties of
their country from the beginning of the war. These are trying
occasions, not only in success, but for the want of success. I
dislike to mention the name of one single officer, lest I might do
wrong to those I might forget. Recent events bring up glorious
names, and particularly prominent ones; but these I will not mention.
Having said this much, I will now take the music.

SURRENDER OF VICKSBURG TO GENERAL GRANT

TELEGRAM FROM GENERAL HALLECK
TO GENERAL G. C. MEADE.

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 7, 1863.

MAJOR-GENERAL MEADE, Army of the Potomac:

I have received from the President the following note, which I
respectfully communicate:

"We have certain information that Vicksburg surrendered to General
Grant on the Fourth of July. Now if General Meade can complete his
work, so gloriously prosecuted this far, by the literal or
substantial destruction of Lee's army, the rebellion will be over.

"Yours truly,
"A. LINCOLN."

H. W. HALLECK.
General-in-Chief.

TELEGRAM FROM GENERAL HALLECK
TO GENERAL G. C. MEADE.

WASHINGTON, D. C., July 8, 1863.

MAJOR-GENERAL MEADE, Frederick, Md.:

There is reliable information that the enemy is crossing at
Williamsport. The opportunity to attack his divided forces should
not be lost. The President is urgent and anxious that your army
should move against him by forced marches.

H. W. HALLECK,
Genera1-in-Chief

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL THOMAS.

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, July 8, 1863.12.30 P.M.

GENERAL LORENZO THOMAS, Harrisburg, Pa.:

Your despatch of this morning to the Secretary of War is before me.
The forces you speak of will be of no imaginable service if they
cannot go forward with a little more expedition. Lee is now passing
the Potomac faster than the forces you mention are passing Carlisle.
Forces now beyond Carlisle to be joined by regiments still at
Harrisburg, and the united force again to join Pierce somewhere, and
the whole to move down the Cumberland Valley, will in my
unprofessional opinion be quite as likely to capture the "man in the
moon" as any part of Lee's army.

A. LINCOLN.

NEWS OF GRANT'S CAPTURE OF VICKSBURG

TELEGRAM TO E. D. SMITH.

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D.C., July 8, 1863.

E. DELAFIELD SMITH, New York:

Your kind despatch in behalf of self and friends is gratefully
received. Capture of Vicksburg confirmed by despatch from General
Grant himself.

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO F. F. LOWE.

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D.C., July 8, 1863.

HON. F. F. LOWE, San Francisco, Cal.:

There is no doubt that General Meade, now commanding the Army of the
Potomac, beat Lee at Gettysburg, Pa., at the end of a three days'
battle, and that the latter is now crossing the Potomac at
Williamsport over the swollen stream and with poor means of
crossing, and closely pressed by Meade. We also have despatches
rendering it entirely certain that Vicksburg surrendered to General
Grant on the glorious old 4th.

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO L. SWETT AND P. F. LOWE.
[Cipher.]
WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, D.C.,July 9, 1863.

HON. LEONARD SWETT, HON. F. F. LOWE, San Francisco, Cal.:

Consult together and do not have a riot, or great difficulty about
delivering possession.

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO J. K. DUBOIS.

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 11,1863. 9 A.M.

HON. J. K. DUBOIS, Springfield, Ill.:

It is certain that, after three days' fighting at Gettysburg, Lee
withdrew and made for the Potomac, that he found the river so swollen
as to prevent his crossing; that he is still this side, near
Hagerstown and Williamsport, preparing to defend himself; and that
Meade is close upon him, and preparing to attack him, heavy
skirmishing having occurred nearly all day yesterday.

I am more than satisfied with what has happened north of the Potomac
so far, and am anxious and hopeful for what is to come.

A. LINCOLN.

[Nothing came! Lee was allowed to escape again and the war went on
for another two years. D.W.]

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL SCHENCK.
[Cipher.]
WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, July 11, 1863.

MAJOR-GENERAL SCHENCK, Baltimore, Md.:

How many rebel prisoners captured within Maryland and Pennsylvania
have reached Baltimore within this month of July?

A. LINCOLN.

TO GENERAL GRANT.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON,
July 13, 1863.

MAJOR-GENERAL GRANT:

MY DEAR GENERAL:--I do not remember that you and I ever met
personally. I write this now as a grateful acknowledgment of the
almost inestimable service you have done the Country. I write to say
a word further. When you first reached the vicinity of Vicksburg, I
thought you should do what you finally did--march the troops across
the neck, run the batteries with the transports, and thus go below;
and I never had any faith except a general hope that you knew better
than I, that the Yazoo Pass expedition and the like could succeed.
When you dropped below, and took Port Gibson, Grand Gulf, and
vicinity, I thought you should go down the river and join General
Banks; and when you turned northward, east of the Big Black, I feared
it was a mistake. I now wish to make the personal acknowledgment
that you were right and I was wrong.

Yours very truly,

A. LINCOLN.

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL J. M. SCHOFIELD.

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, July 13, 1863.

GENERAL SCHOFIELD. St. Louis, Mo.:

I regret to learn of the arrest of the Democrat editor. I fear this
loses you the middle position I desired you to occupy. I have not
learned which of the two letters I wrote you it was that the Democrat
published, but I care very little for the publication of any letter I
have written. Please spare me the trouble this is likely to bring.

A. LINCOLN.

SON IN COLLEGE DOES NOT WRITE HIS PARENTS

TELEGRAM TO R. T. LINCOLN.

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON D.C., July 14, 1863.

ROBERT T. LINCOLN: New York, Fifth Avenue Hotel:

Why do I hear no more of you?

A. LINCOLN.

INTIMATION OF ARMISTICE PROPOSALS

FROM JAMES R. GILMORE
TO GOVERNOR VANCE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
WITH THE PRESIDENT'S INDORSEMENT.

PRESIDENT'S ROOM, WHITE HOUSE, WASHINGTON,

Book of the day: