As we mentioned, Lincoln immediately came under criticism for what had happened to Vallandigham, as well as the shuttering of anti-war newspaper and the arrests of others who spoke out against the war. Erastus Corning, a Democratic Congressman from New York, wrote to Lincoln protesting the arrest and military trial of Vallandigham. Lincoln wrote back, and his "Letter to Erastus Corning and Others" provides an excellent example of Lincoln 's opinions on what powers he actually had and could reasonably use as President during a time of war. For the full text of Lincoln's Letter to Corning, click here. Lincoln begins the letter by charging that at the beginning of the war, there were many spies who used the cover of civil liberties for their nefarious purposes:
"Their sympathizers pervaded 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, supplyers, and aiders and abettors of their cause in a thousand ways."
Lincoln argues that he was placed in a situation where if he didn't suspend habeas corpus:
"Their spies and others might remain at large to help on their cause."
But, conversely, he would also be criticized if he did suspend habeas corpus:
"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."
Erastus Corning
According to the President, he was slow to suspend civil liberties, because he reveres their importance for Americans:
"Yet, thoroughly imbued with a reverence for the guarranteed 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. "
Nevertheless, Lincoln views those who speak publicly against the Union cause in the war as essentially traitors hurting the war effort:
"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."
Next Lincoln lays out his legal argument, using the Constitution to defend military trials of civilians during times of rebellion:
"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."
Lincoln then makes a curious statement:
" The man who stands by and says nothing, when the peril of his government is discussed, can not be misunderstood. If not hindered, he is sure to help the enemy."
Is Lincoln saying that there is no middle ground when it comes to patriotism, that you are either for the Union or against it? That you either defend your country, or you will aid in its destruction? Lincoln then names as traitors the Confederate military leadership, and writes that he wished they had been arrested before the war:
" Gen. John C. Breckienridge, Gen. Robert E. Lee, Gen. Joseph E. Johnston, Gen. John B. Magruder, Gen. William B. Preston, Gen. Simon B. Buckner, and Comodore [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 held 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."
Lincoln then counters Corning's argument that military arrests of civilians should only occur in areas where rebellion is openly taking place by proclaiming that these arrests know no boundaries as long as they defend the public safety, and the Union:
"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'' In asmuch, 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."
The President defends the arrest of Vallandigham on the grounds he was a known traitor who was harming the Union's ability to win the war.
"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 this gave the military constitutional jurisdiction to lay hands upon him"
Finally, Lincoln voices his firm belief that the civil liberties of Americans are not lost, but that it is only the war that requires the loss of some of these rights. Once the war is over, these rights shall be fully restored:
"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."
Before we continue with the final look at Lincoln and Civil Liberties in the news, let's have a final word on the topic from Lincoln expert Mark Neely.