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 driving 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 who arrested Mr. Vallandigham 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 battlefield, I have learned that many approve the course taken with Mr. Vallandigham. While I have not heard of a single one condemning it, I do not assert that there are none such. And still further, speaking of Jackson reminds me of another incident in point. At New Orleans, General Jackson declared martial law, which he still maintained after it was known that peace had been concluded, but before official knowledge had arrived. Now that it could be said that the war was over, the clamor against martial law, which had existed from the first, became more furious. A Mr. Louiallia published a denunciatory article. General Jackson arrested him. A lawyer by the name of Morel procured the United States Judge, Hall, to issue a writ of habeas corpus to relieve Mr. Louiallia. General Jackson arrested both lawyer and Judge. A Mr. Hollinder 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 until the ratification of peace should be regularly announced. A day or two elapsed; the ratification of a treaty of peace was announced, and the Judge and others were fully liberated. A few days more, and the Judge called General Jackson into Court and fined him one thousand dollars for having arrested him and the others named. The General paid the fine, and there the matter rested for nearly thirty years, when a Democratic Congress refunded the fine, principal and interest. And I may here remark that Senator Douglas, then a member of the House, was a prominent advocate of this Democratic measure. Then we had the same Constitution as now; then we had an invasion, and now we have a case of rebellion; and third, 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 the conduct of General Jackson or its subsequent approval by the American Congress.'

A State Convention of the Democratic party was held at the State capital, Ohio, June 11th, for the purpose of nominating State officers. Mr. Vallandig

ham, who had been sent away by the President, was nominated for Governor, and Senator Pugh, who argued his case before Judge Leavitt, as their candidate for Lieutenant-Governor. This Convention adopted resolutions protesting against the President's emancipation proclamation; condemning martial law in the loyal States; denouncing the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus; protesting strongly against the banishment of Vallandigham, and calling on the President to restore him to his rights; and a committee was appointed to wait on the President with the resolutions of the Convention, and to urge the immediate recall and restoration of Vallindigham, their candidate for Governor. To their request and resolutions, the President gave them a lengthy, plain, written reply, from which only a short extract can be given. The President said: "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 enrollment, 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 has led to bloodshed and death. And now, under a sense of responsi bility, more weighty and enduring than any which is merely official, I solemnly declare my belief that this hinderance of the military, including maiming and murder, is due to the cause in which Mr. Vallandigham 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 man. These things have been notoriousknown 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 all this before their eyes, the Convention you represent has nominated him for Governor of Ohio. At the same time your nominee for Governor, in whose behalf you appeal, is known to you and the world, to declare against the use of the army to suppress the rebellion. Your own attitude, therefore, encourages desertion, resistance to the draft and the like, because it teaches those inclined to desert and to escape the draft to believe it is your purpose to protect them, and to hope you will become strong enough to do so. 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."

The recall from banishment desired was not made, and in the meantime the canvass for State officers went on, and at the election the people of Ohio decided against Mr. Vallandigham by a majority of over one hundred thousand votes. When he afterward clandestinely returned without leave, he was permitted to say and do as he pleased, as he had lost all power of doing harm, except where he might choose to bestow his friendship, which was exemplified afterward in a notable degree at the Chicago Convention which nominated General McClellan.

THE

CHAPTER XXXV.

MISSOURI IMBROGLIO-CHARACTERISTIC LETTERS-ELECTION RESULTS.

One of the most unpleasant and vexatious difficulties among the many which the President had to meet, was that division of sentiment and policy which divided the friends of the Union in Missouri, dating back as far as the removal of General Fremont. An order issued by General Halleck, excluding fugitive slaves from his lines, though issued only for military purposes, aided the discord. The sharp, bitter, personal discussions to which this incident gave rise, were followed by action and discussions relative to emancipation, the parties dividing on the issue of gradual or immediate emancipation; and this was followed by a disagreement between General Curtis, who was in command of the department, and Governor Gamble, who controlled the State troops. General Curtis was removed, and General Schofield was appointed in his place. This offended Governor Gamble's enemies, and they remonstrated with the President.

Mr. Lincoln, in a letter written at this time, said: "It is very painful to me that you in Missouri cannot or will not settle your factional quarrel among yourselves. I have been tormented with it beyond endurance for a month by both sides. Neither side pays the least respect to my appeals to your reason. The friends of General Fremont were anxious that he should be recalled and appointed Military Governor, setting aside Governor Gamble. Partisans, committees and deputations visited Washington to harass and torment the President, still more, each returned, carrying back a report, and made the most of it to keep up the quarrel. In the Summer of 1863 the public feeling became intense. Gradual emancipationists were denounced as traitors by the radical emancipation party, which claimed to represent the only loyal element of the State, and, of course, gradual emancipationists retorted the charge, and asserted their claims to loyalty. Soon after General Schofield's appointment, the President addressed him a letter referring to the troubles in Missouri, in which he said: "Now that you are in the position, I wish you to undo nothing merely because General Curtis or

Governor Gamble did it, but to exercise your own judgment, and to do right for the public interest. Let your military measures be strong enough to repel the invaders 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."

On the 1st of July a State Convention in session passed an amendment to the Constitution, declaring that slavery should cease to exist in Missouri from the 4th of July, 1870. This, however, was by no means accepted as a final disposition of the matter. The demand was made for immediate emancipation, and Governor Gamble, and the members of the provisional Government who favored the policy adopted by the State Convention, were denounced as advocates of slavery and allies of the rebellion. A mass meeting was held at Jefferson City on the 2d of September, at which resolutions were adopted denouncing the military policy pursued by the State. A committee of one from each county was appointed to visit Washington and lay their grievances before the President. The last of September the committee arrived at Washington and had an interview with the President, in which they represented Governor Gamble and General Schofield as being in virtual alliance with the rebels, and demanded the removal of the latter as an act of justice to the loyal anti-slavery men of the State. This committee demanded, first, the removal of General Schofield, and in his place the appointment of General Butler; second, that the system of enrolled militia in Missouri may be broken up, and that National forces be substituted for it, and, third, that at all elections persons may be allowed to vote who are by law entitled to do so.

On the 5th of October the President made to the representations and requests of the committee a lengthy and elaborate reply. To the first request, after giving his reasons, he said: "I must decline to remove General Schofield. In this I decide nothing against General Butler. I sincerely wish it were convenient to assign him a suitable command. And as at present advised, I cannot attempt the destruction of the enrolled militia of Missouri. I may add that the force being under the National military control, it is also within the proclamation in regard to the habeas corpus. I concur in the propriety of your request in regard to elections, and have, as you see, directed General Schofield accordingly. I do not feel justified in entering 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 it seemed to be proper to do and say. The public knows it full well. It obliges nobody to follow me, and I trust it obliges me to follow nobody. The Radicals and Conservatives each agree with me in some things

and disagree in others. I could wish that they could agree with me in all things, for then they would agree with each other, and would be too strong for any foe from any quarter. They chose to do otherwise, and I do not question their right. I, too, shall do what seems to be my duty. I hold, however, commanders in Missouri or elsewhere responsible to me, and not to either Radicals or Conservatives. It is my duty to hear all; but at least I must, within my sphere, judge what to do and what to forbear."

Accompanying this letter to the committee, was also a letter of instructions to General Schofield, in which he directed him so to use his authority as "to compel the excited people to let one another alone." But all had no effect in quieting the political agitation or to ameliorate the personal feelings engendered by it. Subsequently General Rosecrans was placed in command, and the quarrel died out, or ceased to attract public attention. An anecdote of the President here may be in point, being applicable to the state of affairs in Missouri:

The President was once speaking about an attack made on him by the committee on the conduct of the war, for a blunder, or something worse, in the Southwest-the matter involved being one which had fallen directly under the observance of the officer to whom he was talking, he possessing official evidence entirely different from the conclusions of the committee. The officer said to the President:

Might it not be well for me to set this matter right in a letter to some paper, stating the facts as they actually transpired?"

Oh, no; " replied the President; Iat least not now. If I were to try to read, much less to answer, all the attacks made on me, this shop might as well be closed to any other business. I do the very best I know how-the very best I can, and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what is said against me will not amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference."

The President had been invited by the Republican State Committee of Illinois to attend the State Convention to be held in Springfield, September 3d. Being unable to attend, he wrote, in reply, a letter to the Convention, defining his policy, from which we give an extract, which is characteristic:

"The signs look better. The father of waters again goes unvexed to the sea. Thanks to the great Northwest, nor yet wholly to them. For three hundred miles up they met New England, Empire, Keystone and Jersey hewing their way, right and left. The sunny South, too, in more colors than one, also lent a helping hand; on the spot, their part of the history was jotted down in black and white. The job was a great National one, and let