Annotation
[1] ADf, DLC-RTL. Following the delegation's arrival in Washington on the evening of June 24, Secretary Chase wrote LINCOLN the next day, ``to suggest that what is said to them or replied to them should be only in writing.'' (DLC-RTL). They were given an interview on the 25th, at which LINCOLN suggested that they present their request in writing. The letter from the delegation on June 26, presenting resolutions adopted by the Democratic state convention at Columbus on June 11, considerably abridged, is as follows:
``Resolved
``1st. That the will of the people is the foundation of all free government. That to give effect to this will, free thought, free speech and a free press are absolutely indispensable. . . .
``2d. That it is an inherent and constitutional right of the people to discuss all measures of their government, and to approve or disapprove. . . .
``3d. That these and all other rights, guaranteed to them by their constitutions, are their rights in time of war as well as in time of peace. . . .
``4th. That we now say . . . calmly, and firmly, that we will not surrender these rights, nor submit to their forcible violation. We will obey the laws ourselves and all others must obey them.
``5th. That Ohio will adhere to the Constitution and the Union as the best, it may be the last hope of popular freedom. . . .
``6th. That we will earnestly support every constitutional measure tending to preserve the Union. . . .
``7. That the arrest, imprisonment, pretended trial, and actual banishment of Clement L. Vallandigham . . . we regard as a palpable violation of the . . . Constitution. . . .
``8th. That Clement L Vallandigham was at the time of his arrest, a prominent candidate for nomination by the Democratic party of Ohio for the office of Governor of the State; that the Democratic party was fully competent to decide whether he was a fit man for that nomination; and that the attempt to deprive them of that right by his arrest and banishment was an unmerited imputation upon their intelligence and loyalty, as well as a violation of the Constitution.
``9th. That we respectfully and most earnestly call upon the President of the United States to restore Clement L. Vallandigham to his home in Ohio. . . .
``The undersigned. . . . do not call upon your Excellency as Suppliants praying the revocation of the order . . . as a favor, but by the authority of a Convention representing a majority of the Citizens of . . . Ohio. They respectfully ask it as a right due to an American Citizen in whose personal injury, the Sovereignty and dignity of the people of Ohio as a free State have been offended. . . .
``You are reported to have used in a public communication on this subject, the following language '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.[']
``The undersigned assure your Excellency . . . that the public safety will be far more endangered by continuing Mr. Vallandigham in exile than by releasing him. . . .
``If a man . . . believes that from the inherent nature of the federal compact, the war . . . cannot be used as a means of restoring the Union . . . but would inevitably result in the final destruction of both the constitution and the Union, is he not to be allowed the right . . . to appeal to the judgment of the people, for a change of policy, by the constitutional remedy of the ballot box?
``During the war with Mexico many of the political opponents of the Administration . . . thought it their duty to denounce and oppose the war . . . with equal reason it might have been said of them, that their discussions before the people were calculated to discourage enlistments, 'to prevent the raising of troops' & to induce desertions. . . .
``When gentlemen of high standing . . . including your Excellency opposed in discussions before the people, the policy of the Mexican War, were they 'warring upon the Military' & did this 'give the Military constitutional jurisdiction to lay hands upon them?' . . .
``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 & public security. The constitution provides for no limitations upon . . . the guaranties of personal liberty, except as to the writ of habeas corpus. . . . Expunge from the constitution this limitation upon the power of Congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and yet the other guaranties of personal liberty would remain unchanged. . . . Does your Excellency wish to have it understood that you hold, that the rights of every man throughout this vast country are subject to be annulled whenever you may say that you consider the public safety requires it, in time of insurrection or invasion? . . .
``The people of Ohio, are willing to co---operate zealously with you in every effort warranted by the Constitution to restore the Union . . . but they cannot consent to abandon those fundamental principles of civil liberty, which are essential to their existence as a free people. In their name we ask, that by a revocation of the order of his banishment, Mr. Vallandigham, may be restored to the enjoyment of those rights of which they believe, he has been unconstitutionally deprived.'' (Ibid.).
[2] LINCOLN's date ``28'' changed by Nicolay to ``29.''
[3] This paragraph is an autograph insertion in the draft.
[4] ``At the time of his arrest,'' inserted in Nicolay's autograph.
[5] ``To the armies of the Union'' inserted in Nicolay's hand, and the following phrase deleted: ``and very especially for giving birth to Generals Rosecrans and Grant.''
[6] On July 1 the delegation replied, `` . . . In the conclusion of your communication, you propose, that, if a majority of the Committee shall affix their signatures to a duplicate copy of it, which you have furnished, they shall stand committed to three propositions, therein at length set forth; that he will publish the names thus signed, and that this publication shall operate as a revocation of the order of banishment. The Committee cannot refrain from the expression of their surprise, that the President should make the fate of Mr. Vallandigham depend upon the opinion of this Committee, upon these propositions. If the arrest and banishment were legal and were deserved,---if the President exercised a power clearly delegated, under circumstances which warranted its exercise, the order ought not to be revoked, merely because the Committee hold or express opinions accordant with those of the President. . . . The opinion of the undersigned, touching the questions involved in these propositions, are well known, have been many times publicly expressed, and are sufficiently manifested in the resolution of the Convention, which they represent, and they cannot suppose that the President expects, that they will seek the discharge of Mr. Vallandigham, by a pledge, implying not only an imputation upon their own sincerity and fidelity as Citizens of the United States, but also carrying with it by implication a concession of the legality of his arrest, trial and banishment,---against which, they . . . have solemnly protested. And while they have asked the revocation of the order . . . not as a favor, but as a right due to the people of Ohio, . . . they do not do this, nor does Mr. Vallandigham desire it, at any sacrifice of their dignity and self respect. The idea, that such a pledge, as that asked . . . would secure the public safety sufficiently to compensate for any mistake of the President in discharging Mr. Vallandigham, is, in their opinion, a mere evasion of the grave questions involved in this discussion, and of a direct answer to their demand. And this is made especially apparent by the fact, that this pledge is asked in [a] communication which concludes with an intimation of a disposition on the part of the President to repeat the acts complained of.
``The undersigned, therefore, having fully discharged the duty enjoined upon them, leave the responsibility with the President.'' (Ibid.)
[7] The concluding sentence and signature are not in the draft, but appear in the New York Tribune, July 9, 1863, and other contemporary printed sources. Neither of the two original copies of this letter, which Lincoln specifies that he sent the delegation, has been located.