the writings-6-第47部分

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



reading　of　your　remarks；　I　only　discovered　one　inaccuracy　in　matter；

which　I　suppose　you　took　from　that　paper。　　It　is　where　you　say：　〃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　and　public　security。〃



A　recurrence　to　the　paper　will　show　you　that　I　have　not　expressed　the

opinion　you　suppose。　　I　expressed　the　opinion　that　the　Constitution

is　different　in　its　application　in　cases　of　rebellion　or　invasion；

involving　the　public　safety；　from　what　it　is　in　times　of　profound

peace　and　public　security；　and　this　opinion　I　adhere　to；　simply

because；　by　the　Constitution　itself；　things　may　be　done　in　the　one

case　which　may　not　be　done　in　the　other。



I　dislike　to　waste　a　word　on　a　merely　personal　point；　but　I　must

respectfully　assure　you　that　you　will　find　yourselves　at　fault　should

you　ever　seek　for　evidence　to　prove　your　assumption　that　I　〃opposed

in　discussions　before　the　people　the　policy　of　the　Mexican　war。〃





You　say：　〃Expunge　from　the　Constitution　this　limitation　upon　the

power　of　Congress　to　suspend　the　writ　of　habeas　corpus；　and　yet　the

other　guarantees　of　personal　liberty　would　remain　unchanged。〃

Doubtless；　if　this　clause　of　the　Constitution；　improperly　called；　as

I　think；　a　limitation　upon　the　power　of　Congress；　were　expunged；　the

other　guarantees　would　remain　the　same；　but　the　question　is　not　how

those　guarantees　would　stand　with　that　clause　out　of　the

Constitution；　but　how　they　stand　with　that　clause　remaining　in　it；　in

case　of　rebellion　or　invasion　involving　the　public　safety。　　If　the

liberty　could　be　indulged　of　expunging　that　clause；　letter　and

spirit；　I　really　think　the　constitutional　argument　would　be　with　you。



My　general　view　on　this　question　was　stated　in　the　Albany　response；

and　hence　I　do　not　state　it　now。　　I　only　add　that；　as　seems　to　me；

the　benefit　of　the　writ　of　habeas　corpus　is　the　great　means　through

which　the　guarantees　of　personal　liberty　are　conserved　and　made

available　in　the　last　resort；　and　corroborative　of　this　view　is　the

fact　that　Mr。　Vallandigham；　in　the　very　case　in　question；　under　the

advice　of　able　lawyers；　saw　not　where　else　to　go　but　to　the　habeas

corpus。　　But　by　the　Constitution　the　benefit　of　the　writ　of　habeas

corpus　itself　may　be　suspended　when；　in　case　of　rebellion　or

invasion；　the　public　safety　may　require　it。



You　ask；　in　substance；　whether　I　really　claim　that　I　may　override　all

the　guaranteed　rights　of　individuals；　on　the　plea　of　conserving　the

public　safety　when　I　may　choose　to　say　the　public　safety　requires　it。

This　question；　divested　of　the　phraseology　calculated　to　represent　me

as　struggling　for　an　arbitrary　personal　prerogative；　is　either　simply

a　question　who　shall　decide；　or　an　affirmation　that　nobody　shall

decide；　what　the　public　safety　does　require　in　cases　of　rebellion　or

invasion。



The　Constitution　contemplates　the　question　as　likely　to　occur　for

decision；　but　it　does　not　expressly　declare　who　is　to　decide　it。　　By

necessary　implication；　when　rebellion　or　invasion　comes；　the　decision

is　to　be　made　from　time　to　time；　and　I　think　the　man　whom；　for　the

time；　the　people　have；　under　the　Constitution；　made　the

commander…in…chief　of　their　army　and　navy；　is　the　man　who　holds　the

power　and　bears　the　responsibility　of　making　it。　　If　he　uses　the

power　justly；　the　same　people　will　probably　justify　him；　if　he　abuses

it；　he　is　in　their　hands　to　be　dealt　with　by　all　the　modes　they　have

reserved　to　themselves　in　the　Constitution。



The　earnestness　with　which　you　insist　that　persons　can　only；　in　times

of　rebellion；　be　lawfully　dealt　with　in　accordance　with　the　rules　for

criminal　trials　and　punishments　in　times　of　peace；　induces　me　to　add

a　word　to　what　I　said　on　that　point　in　the　Albany　response。



You　claim　that　men　may；　if　they　choose；　embarrass　those　whose　duty　it

is　to　combat　a　giant　rebellion；　and　then　be　dealt　with　in　turn　only

as　if　there　were　no　rebellion。　　　The　Constitution　itself　rejects　this

view。　　The　military　arrests　and　detentions　which　have　been　made；

including　those　of　Mr。　Vallandigham；　which　are　not　different　in

principle　from　the　others；　have　been　for　prevention；　and　not　for

punishmentas　injunctions　to　stay　injury；　as　proceedings　to　keep　the

peace；　and　hence；　like　proceedings　in　such　cases　and　for　like

reasons；　they　have　not　been　accompanied　with　indictments；　or　trials

by　juries；　nor　in　a　single　case　by　any　punishment　whatever；　beyond

what　is　purely　incidental　to　the　prevention。　　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。



I　am　unable　to　perceive　an　insult　to　Ohio　in　the　case　of　Mr。

Vallandigham。　　Quite　surely　nothing　of　the　sort　was　or　is　intended。

I　was　wholly　unaware　that　Mr。　Vallandigham　was；　at　the　time　of　his

arrest；　a　candidate　for　the　Democratic　nomination　for　governor　until

so　informed　by　your　reading　to　me　the　resolutions　of　the　convention。

I　am　grateful　to　the　State　of　Ohio　for　many　things；　especially　for

the　brave　soldiers　and　officers　she　has　given　in　the　present　national

trial　to　the　armies　of　the　Union。



You　claim；　as　I　understand；　that　according　to　my　own　position　in　the

Albany　response；　Mr。　Vallandigham　should　be　released；　and　this

because；　as　you　claim；　he　has　not　damaged　the　military　service　by

discouraging　enlistments；　encouraging　desertions；　or　otherwise；　and

that　if　he　had；　he　should　have　been　turned　over　to　the　civil

authorities　under　the　recent　acts　of　Congress。　　I　certainly　do　not

know　that　Mr。　Vallandigham　has　specifically　and　by　direct　language

advised　against　enlistments　and　in　favor　of　desertion　and　resistance

to　drafting。



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　enrolment　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

again　has　led　to　bloodshed　and　death。　　And　now；　under　a　sense　of

responsibility　more　weighty　and　enduring　than　any　which　is　merely

official；　I　solemnly　declare　my　belief　that　this　hindrance　of　the

military；　including　maiming　and　murder；　is　due　to　the　course　in　which

Mr。　Vallindigham　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　one　man。



These　things　have　been　notorious；　known　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　perfect

knowledge　of　them；　he　has　frequently　if　not　constantly　made　speeches

in　Congress　and　before　popular　assemblies；　and　if　it　can　be　shown

that；　with　these　things　staring　him　in　the　face　he　has　ever　uttered　a

word　of　rebuke　or　counsel　against　them；　it　will　be　a　fact　greatly　in

his　favor　with　me；　and　one　of　which　as　yet　I　am　totally　ignorant。

When　it　is　known　that　the　whole　burden　of　his　speeches　has　been　to

stir　up　men　against　the　prosecution　of　the　war；　and　that　in　the　midst

of　resistance　to　it　he　has　not　been　known　in　any　instance　to　counsel

against　such　resistance；　it　is　next　to　impossible　to　repel　the

inference　that　he　has　counseled　directly　in　favor　of　it。



With　all　this　before　their　eyes；　the　convention　you　represent　have

nominated　Mr。　Vallandigham　for　governor　of　Ohio；　and　both　they　and

you　have　declared　the　purpose　to　sustain　the　national　Union　by　all

constitutional　means。　　But　of　course　they　and　you　in　common　reserve

to　yourselves　to　decide　what　are　constitutional　means；　and；　unlike

the　Albany　meeting；　you　omit　to　state　or　intimate　that　in　your

opinion　an　army　is　a　constitutional　means　of　saving　the　Union　against

a　rebellion；　or　even　to　intimate　that　you　are　conscious　of　an

existing　rebellion　being　in　progress　with　the　avowed　object　of

destroying　that　very　Union。　　At　the　same　time　your　nominee　for

governor；　in　whose　behalf　you　appeal；　is　known　to　you　and　to　the

world　to　declare　against　the　use　of　an　army　to　suppress　the

rebellion。　　Your　own　attitude；　therefore；　encourages　desertion；

resistance　to　the　draft；　and　the　like；　because　it　teaches　those　who

incline　to　desert　and　to　escape　the　draft　to　believe　it　is　your

purpose　to　protect　them；　and　to　hope　that　you　will　become　strong

enough　to　do　so。



After　a　short　personal　intercourse　with　you；　gentlemen　of　the

committee；　I　cannot　say　I　think　you　desire　this　effect　to　follow　your

attitude；　but　I　assure　your　that　both　friends　and　enemies　of　the

Union　look　upon　it　in　this　light。　　It　is　a　substantial　hope；　and　by

consequence　a　real　strength　to　the　enemy。　　If　it　is　a　false　hope；　and

one　which　you　would　willingly　dispel；　I　will　make　the　way　exceedingly

easy。



I　send　you　duplicates　of　this　letter　in　order　that　you；　or　a　majority

of　you；　may；　if　you　choose；　indorse　your　names　upon　one　of　them　and

return　it　thus　indorsed　to　me　with　the　understanding　that　those

signing　are　thereby　committed　to　the　following　propositions　and　to

nothing　else：



1。　　That　there　is　now　a　rebellion　in　the　United　States；　the　object

and　tendency　of　which　is　to　destroy　the　National　Union；　and　that；　in

your　opinion；　an　army　and　navy　are　constitutional　means　for

suppressing　that　rebellion；



2。　　That　no　one　of　you　will　do　anything　which；　in　his　own　judgment；

will　tend　to　hinder　the　increase；　or　favor　the　decrease；　or　lessen

the　efficiency　of　the　army　or　navy　while　engaged　in　the　effort　to

suppress　that　rebellion；　and



3。　　That　each　of　you　will；　in　his　sphere；　do　all　he　can　to　have　the

officers；　soldiers；　and　seamen　of　the　army　and　navy；　while　engaged　in

the　effort　to　suppres