United States.' As I had held the position of Representative in the state legislature of Tennessee after the so-called act of secession, it has been seriously urged by some, that the terms of the oath were intended to debar all holding state offices in a seceded state as well as those holding confederate offices. Hence desiring to be mustered in as Colonel of my Regiment, I desire a settlement of the question as to my eligibility to that position
``About twenty other union men served in the same legislature with me who have maintained their positions as loyal men to the present time. Some of them in fact like myself are organizing Regiments for our service, and I suppose the same question will be presented in their behalf. The question is one of very great importance to a very large portion of the loyal men of Tennessee, reaching as it does from a constable or justice of a civil district to the Judge of the supreme court. The Union men of East Tennessee, held nearly all the state offices in that section, maintaining as we all do, that the state was not out of the Union; and that only a portion of her citizens were in hostility to the Government. Nearly all those officers were forced by the Rebel authorities to take an oath `to support the confederate constitution, and the constitution of Tennessee,' a very extraordinary oath considering the constitution of Tennessee not changed according to its own provisions, which expressly provides that members of the legislature & other officers shall take an oath to support the constitution of the United States. The two clauses of their oath, being inconsistent were of course void. Further there was no law of Tennessee requiring such an oath we having succeeded in defeating that measure in the legislature. The oath then was not only void on account of inconsistent terms, and in direct conflict with the provisions of our own constitution of Tennessee, but also wanting legal sanction. Yet the so called confederate Government through their military control of the state, required all civil officers as well as military to take said oath; in default of which the offender was forced off to Tuscaloosa, there to lie and sicken and die as numbers from East Tennessee have done, in a prison, the loathsomeness of which was scarce equalled by the famous Blackhole of Calcutta. Having then held a state office, in a state not out of the Union (for if out the doctrine of secession must be true which we can not agree to) and having been forced under military power to take an illegal unconstitutional, void oath, am I as well as all other state officers of Tennessee disqualified for holding a Federal office? Having raised a good Regiment many of whom voted for me for the aforesaid office, & now desire me to lead them I only await a decision of the above question I am Very Respy.''
Charles A. Dana returned the letter to the president on February 19, 1864, with the following communication:
``In regard to the case of R. M. Edwards Colonel of the 4th. Tennessee Cavalry whose letter, objecting to the oath of allegiance was by you submitted to the Secretary of War on the 5th instant. . . . I am directed to say that the oath to which Colonel Edwards objects is verbally the same as that prescribed by Act of Congress approved July 2d 1862 to be taken by `every person elected or appointed to any office of honor or profit under the government of the United States, either in the civil, military or naval departments of the public service excepting the President of the United States.' '' (Ibid.).
Final disposition of the problem has not been learned.