Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 4 [Mar. 5, 1860-Oct. 24, 1861].

About this Item

Title
Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 4 [Mar. 5, 1860-Oct. 24, 1861].
Author
Lincoln, Abraham, 1809-1865.
Publication
New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press
1953.
Rights/Permissions

The University of Michigan Library provides access to these materials for educational and research purposes, with permission from their copyright holder. If you decide to use any of these materials, you are responsible for making your own legal assessment and securing any necessary permission.

Cite this Item
"Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 4 [Mar. 5, 1860-Oct. 24, 1861]." In the digital collection Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/lincoln4. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed April 23, 2024.

Pages

To Orville H. Browning1Jump to section

Private & confidential.
Hon. O. H. Browning Executive Mansion Washington
My dear Sir Sept 22d 1861.

Yours of the 17th is just received; and coming from you, I confess it astonishes me. That you should object to my adhering to a law, which you had assisted in making, and presenting to me, less than a month before, is odd enough. But this is a very small part. Genl. Fremont's proclamation, as to confiscation of property, and the liberation of slaves, is purely political, and not within the range of military law, or necessity. If a commanding General finds a necessity to seize the farm of a private owner, for a pasture, an encampment, or a fortification, he has the right to do so, and to so hold it, as long as the necessity lasts; and this is within military law, because within military necessity. But to say the farm shall no longer belong to the owner, or his heirs forever; and this as well when the farm is not needed for military purposes as when it is, is purely political, without the savor of military law about it. And the same is true of slaves. If the General needs them, he can seize them, and use them; but when the need is past, it is not for him to fix their permanent future condition. That must be settled according to laws made by law-makers, and not by military proclamations. The proclamation in the point in question, is simply ``dictatorship.'' It assumes that the general may do anything he pleases---confiscate the lands and free the slaves of loyal people, as well as of disloyal ones. And going the whole figure I have no

Page 532

doubt would be more popular with some thoughtless people, than that which has been done! But I cannot assume this reckless position; nor allow others to assume it on my responsibility. You speak of it as being the only means of saving the government. On the contrary it is itself the surrender of the government. Can it be pretended that it is any longer the government of the U.S.---any government of Constitution and laws,---wherein a General, or a President, may make permanent rules of property by proclamation?

I do not say Congress might not with propriety pass a law, on the point, just such as General Fremont proclaimed. I do not say I might not, as a member of Congress, vote for it. What I object to, is, that I as President, shall expressly or impliedly seize and exercise the permanent legislative functions of the government.

So much as to principle. Now as to policy. No doubt the thing was popular in some quarters, and would have been more so if it had been a general declaration of emancipation. The Kentucky Legislature would not budge till that proclamation was modified; and Gen. Anderson telegraphed me that on the news of Gen. Fremont having actually issued deeds of manumission, a whole company of our Volunteers threw down their arms and disbanded. I was so assured, as to think it probable, that the very arms we had furnished Kentucky would be turned against us. I think to lose Kentucky is nearly the same as to lose the whole game. Kentucky gone, we can not hold Missouri, nor, as I think, Maryland. These all against us, and the job on our hands is too large for us. We would as well consent to separation at once, including the surrender of this capitol. On the contrary, if you will give up your restlessness for new positions, and back me manfully on the grounds upon which you and other kind friends gave me the election, and have approved in my public documents, we shall go through triumphantly.

You must not understand I took my course on the proclamation because of Kentucky. I took the same ground in a private letter to General Fremont before I heard from Kentucky.

You think I am inconsistent because I did not also forbid Gen. Fremont to shoot men under the proclamation. I understand that part to be within military law; but I also think, and so privately wrote Gen. Fremont, that it is impolitic in this, that our adversaries have the power, and will certainly exercise it, to shoot as many of our men as we shoot of theirs. I did not say this in the public letter, because it is a subject I prefer not to discuss in the hearing of our enemies.

Page 533

There has been no thought of removing Gen. Fremont on any ground connected with his proclamation; and if there has been any wish for his removal on any ground, our mutual friend Sam. Glover can probably tell you what it was. I hope no real necessity for it exists on any ground.

Suppose you write to Hurlbut and get him to resign.2Jump to section Your friend as ever A. LINCOLN

Annotation

[1]   LS, IHi; ADfS and LS copy, DLC-RTL. The letter which is in the Illinois State Historical Library is the one received by Browning. It bears further minor emendations in Lincoln's handwriting and provides the final text as reproduced here. Browning to Lincoln, September 17, 1861, is in the Lincoln Papers, but scarcely requires summary in view of Lincoln's explicit references.

[2]   Browning's reply of September 30 is sixteen pages in length and contains an insert in regard to Lincoln's cryptic suggestion concerning Stephen A. Hurlbut as follows: ``I could not tell, for the life of me, whether you were serious, or whether you was poking a little irony at me. If I thought you were in earnest I would certainly do it, as I could with great propriety, having in my possession his written pledge to resign if he drank a drop of liquor after going into the service. He has violated his pledge, and behaved badly, and ought to resign.'' (DLC-RTL). Hurlbut did not resign, of course, but served with distinction throughout the war. One of the charges preferred against General Fremont, however, was that he had permitted Hurlbut to `` . . . remain in command of the forces . . . in Northern Missouri from the tenth-day of August . . . to about the tenth-day of September . . . , knowing him . . . to be a common drunkard and unfit all of said time to command. . . . '' (Charges preferred by Francis P. Blair, Jr., against John C. Fremont, October 2, enclosed in Blair to Lincoln, October 3, 1861 (DLC-RTL).

Do you have questions about this content? Need to report a problem? Please contact us.