CHAPTER XIV.

LINCOLN'S EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION. Slavery in the District of Columbia Abolished--Law Goes Into Effect on April 10, 1862--Beginning of the End of Slavery--Military Measures in Congress to Carry on the War--Response to the President's Call --Beneficial Effects of the Confiscation Act--Visits to Soldiers' Camps--Robert S. Granger as a Cook--How I Came to Purchase a Washington Residence--Increase of Compensation to Senators and Members and Its Effect--Excitement in Ohio over Vallandigham's Arrest--News of the Fall of Vicksburg and Defeat of Lee at Gettysburg --John Brough Elected Governor of Ohio--Its Effect on the State.

Another question of grave political significance was presented to the 37th Congress early in this session, that of the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. I had from the beginning declared my opposition to any interference with slavery in the District, but the changed condition of the country demanded a change of public policy in this respect. Slavery was made the pretext for, and, I believe, was, the real cause of the war. It had a foothold in the District of Columbia, but it existed there in its mildest form. By the census of 1860 there were, in the District of Columbia, 11,107 free negroes, 3,181 slaves, and 60,785 white people. It was considered the paradise of free negroes, where they were almost exclusively employed as laborers in household service.

When the war broke out a considerable number of slaves ran away from disloyal masters in Virginia and Maryland, seeking safety within our lines and finding employment in the District of Columbia. As the war approached, most of the slaves in the District were carried away by their owners into Virginia, and other southern states, so that in 1862 it was estimated there were not more than 1,500, and probably not 1,000, slaves in the District, while the number of free negroes increased to 15,000. As a matter of course, when Virginia seceded no attempt was made to recapture runaway slaves from that state, and they became practically free. It was known that there was at that time a strong disposition in Maryland to try the experiment of emancipation, and it was believed that after the war was over Virginia would adopt the same policy. Little doubt was felt as to the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District, should such a course be deemed expedient. By the constitution Congress was invested with express "power to exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States." This power had been recognized by the most eminent statesmen of our country, and also by the Supreme Court of the United States. Until Mr. Calhoun doubted or denied the power it was not questioned by any considerable number. The real question was whether that was the time for emancipation. I endeavored to give to the subject careful consideration, and came to the conclusion that it was expedient then to emancipate the very few slaves in the District, fewer than there had been at any time within forty years, and fewer than would likely be in case the war should end. I believed also that the social influence of Washington, and the wealth and property controlled and owned in a great measure by slaveholding residents there, had been always against the government of the United States and in favor of the Rebellion. While slavery existed it was a constant source of annoyance and irritation. The great mass of our constituents were opposed to slavery, morally, socially and politically. They felt it was wrong and would not change their opinion. As long as slavery existed in the District, where Congress had the power to abolish it, agitation and excitement would be ceaseless. The great body of the people of the northern states were opposed to the institution theoretically, as were very many of the most intelligent people of the southern states. I felt that now was the time when this moral conviction should be heard and heeded by the national legislature. I felt that we were bound to consult the material interest of the people of the District, and that emancipation would add to the value of their property and also add to the population of the city. The abolition of slavery would bring to the city intelligent mechanics and laboring men who would never compete with the labor of slaves, and who, finding none there but freemen, would develop the great advantages of the city. In a speech I made upon the subject I enlarged upon this consideration and said:

"I see no reason why Washington, with a free population and as a free city, situated here at the head of the Potomac, with remarkable facilities of navigation, with great conveniences of communication, reaching to the west by the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, the political capital of the country, might not be a great free city, illustrating by its progress the operation of free institutions. But it can only be done by the active, interested labor of free people. Simply as a municipal regulation it would be wise to abolish slavery in this district, because slavery is opposed to the moral convictions of the great mass of the people of this country, and the existence of slavery here keeps out of this District an active, loyal, true, manly, generous body of laborers, who will never compete in their labor with the labor of slaves."

There was another reason why the experiment of emancipation could be best tried in the District of Columbia. Emancipation was evidently the ultimate end of this question. We had the power to try the experiment. It would be an example likely to be followed at the close of the war by many of the border states. I therefore made up my mind in favor of the measure, made a long speech for the bill and voted for it. It became a law on April 10, 1862.

At that early day, I believed that it was the duty of Congress to confiscate the slaves in the seceding states as the natural result of the war. These states had placed themselves in a position by rebellion where they had no constitutional rights which we were bound to observe. The war being open and flagrant to break up the Union, they were not entitled to the benefit of any stipulation made in their favor as states in the Union. I also favored the granting of aid to any policy of emancipation that might be adopted in the border states of Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, but Congress was indisposed to extend the provisions of the then pending measure beyond the District of Columbia.

The President of the United States, on September 22, 1862, issued his proclamation containing the following declaration:

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any state of designated part of a state, the people whereof shall be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever, free; and the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom."

This was carried out in a subsequent proclamation of January 1, 1863, in which the President declared:

"And by virtue of the power and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves, within said designated states and parts of states, are, and henceforward shall be, free; and that the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons."

This was the beginning of the end of slavery.

In following the important financial measures of the 37th Congress, I have purposely passed by, in their order of time, other measures of vital interest that were acted upon in that Congress. The military measures adopted were on the same grand scale as the financial measures I have referred to. In 1861 the United States contained a population of 32,000,000 people, of whom about 10,000,000 were in the seceding states, some of whom were opposed to secession, but a greater number living in states that did not secede were in hearty sympathy with the rebellion. No preparation for war had been made in any of the loyal states, while in the disloyal states preparations had been made by the distribution of arms through the treachery of Secretary Floyd. When the seceding states organized a confederate government, the executive branch of the general government was under the management and control of those who favored the rebellion, or were so feeble or indifferent that they offered no resistance whatever to such organization. The President of the United States declared, in an executive message, that the general government had no power to coerce a state. On the accession of President Lincoln, the confederate government was better organized for resistance than the Union was for coercion. When war actually commenced, the capital at Washington was practically blockaded, and in the power of the Confederates.

The response of the loyal states to the call of Lincoln was perhaps the most remarkable uprising of a great people in the history of mankind. Within a few days the road to Washington was opened, but the men who answered the call were not soldiers, but citizens, badly armed, and without drill or discipline. The history of their rapid conversion into real soldiers, and of the measures adopted by Congress to organize, arm and equip them, does not fall within my province. The battles fought, the victories won, and the defeats suffered, have been recorded in the hundred or more volumes of "The Records of the Rebellion," published by the United States. The principal events of the war have been told in the history of Abraham Lincoln by Nicolay and Hay, and perhaps more graphically by General Grant, General Sherman, General Sheridan, Alexander H. Stephens, Fitz Hugh Lee, and many others who actively participated in the war, and told what they saw and knew of it.

The military committees of the two Houses, under the advice of accomplished officers, formulated the laws passed by Congress for the enlistment, equipment and organization of the Union armies. Henry Wilson, of Massachusetts, was chairman of the committee on military affairs of the Senate, and he is entitled to much of the praise due for the numerous laws required to fit the Union citizen soldiers for military duty. His position was a difficult one, but he filled it with hearty sympathy for the Union soldiers, and with a just regard for both officers and men.

Among the numerous bills relating to the war, that which became the act to suppress insurrection, to punish treason and rebellion, and to seize and confiscate the property of rebels, excited the greatest interest, giving rise to a long debate. It was founded on the faulty idea that a territorial war, existing between two distinct parts of the country, could be treated as an insurrection. The law of nations treats such a war as a contest between two separate powers, to be governed by the laws of war. Confiscation in such a war is not a measure to be applied to individuals in a revolting section, but if the revolt is subdued, the property of revolting citizens is subject to the will of the conqueror and to the law of conquest. The apparent object of the law referred to was to cripple the power of the Confederate States, by emancipating slaves held in them, whenever such states fell within the power of the federal army. This object was accomplished in a better and more comprehensive way by the proclamation of the President. The confiscation act had but little influence upon the result of the war, except that it gathered at the wake of our armies in the south a multitude of negroes called "contrabands," who willingly performed manual labor, but were often an incumbrance and had to be fed and protected.

The freedom of these "contrabands" was the result of the war, and not of the confiscation act. In the later period of the war, they, in common with the free negroes from the north, were organized into regiments commanded by white men, and rendered valuable service to the Union cause.

When the confiscation bill was pending, on the 23rd of April, 1862, I made a speech in support of an amendment offered by me and in substance adopted. A few extracts of my speech will show my opinions on this subject:

"Confiscation is not only justified by the laws of war, by the practice of many nations, but it is practiced by our enemies in the most obnoxious way. They seize all kinds of property of loyal citizens; they destroy contracts; confiscate debts. All the property of citizens of loyal states which is within a disloyal state is seized without exception, and that whether such citizen has aided the government or not. They also seize the property of all citizens in disloyal states who will not commit an act of treason by aiding them. Yet they profess to be governed by a constitution similar to the constitution of the United States, so far as it relates to the rights of person and property. They draw the distinction between the laws of war and the laws of peace. . . .

"Sir, it is time there was an end of this. We are at war. We must destroy our enemies or they will destroy us. We must subdue their armies and we must confiscate their property. The only question with me is as to the best measure of confiscation. That some one should be enacted, and that speedily, is not only my conviction of duty, but it will be demanded by those who will have to bear the burdens of the war. Now, it is the interest of every citizen in a seceding state to be a rebel. If a patriot, his property is destroyed. If a rebel, his property is protected alike by friend and foe. Now, the burdens of war will fall, by heavy taxation, upon loyal citizens, but rebels are beyond our reach. How long can we conduct such a war? Sir, we have been moderate to excess. War is a horrible remedy, but when we are compelled to resort to it, we should make our enemies feel its severity as well as ourselves. . . .

"If too much is attempted in the way of confiscation, nothing will be accomplished. If nothing is confiscated, you array against you all who wish in a civil war merely to preserve their property and to remain quiet. This is always a large class in every community. If rebellion will secure their property from rebels and not endanger it to the government, they are rebels. Those whose position or character have secured them offices among the rebels can only be conquered by force. Is it not, therefore, possible to frame a bill which will punish the prominent actors in the rebellion, proclaim amnesty to the great mass of citizens in the seceding states, and separate them from their leader? This, in my judgment, can be done by confining confiscation to classes of persons. The amendment I propose embraces five classes of persons."

The confiscation act was more useful as a declaration of policy than as an act to be enforced. It was denounced by the Confederates and by timid men in the north, but the beneficial results it aimed at were accomplished, not by law, but by the proclamation of the President and by the armed forces of the United States.

The several acts providing for enrolling and calling out the national forces gave rise to much debate, partly upon sectional lines. The policy of drafting from the militia of the several states, the employment of substitutes and the payment of bounties, were contested and defended. I insisted that if a special fund for hiring substitutes was raised, it ought to be by a tax upon all wealthy citizens, and not confined to the man who was drafted. These and numerous questions of a similar character occupied much time, and created much feeling. It is now hardly worth while, in view of the results of the war, to revive old controversies. It is sufficient to say that all the laws passed to organize the national forces and call out the militia of the several states in case of emergency contributed to the success of the Union armies. I do not recall any example in history where a peaceful nation, ignorant of military discipline, becoming divided into hostile sections, developed such military power, courage and endurance as did the United States and Confederate States in our Civil War. Vast armies were raised by voluntary enlistments, great battles were fought with fearful losses on both sides, and neither yielded until the Confederates had exhausted all their resources and surrendered to the Union armies without conditions, except such as were dictated by General Grant --to go home and be at peace.

During the entire war Washington was a military camp. Almost every regiment from the north on the way to the army in Virginia stopped for a time in Washington. This was especially the case in 1861. It was usual for every new regiment to march along Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House. Among the early arrivals in the spring of 1861 was a regiment from New Hampshire, much better equipped than our western regiments. My colleague, Ben Wade, and I went to the White House to see this noted regiment pass in review before Mr. Lincoln. As the head of the line turned around the north wing of the treasury department and came in sight, the eyes of Wade fell upon a tall soldier, wearing a gaudy uniform, a very high hat, and a still higher cockade. He carried a baton, which he swung right and left, up and down, with all the authority of a field marshal. Wade, much excited, asked me, pointing to the soldier: "Who is that?" I told him I thought that was the drum major. "Well," he said, "if the people could see him they would make him a general." So little was then known of military array by the wisest among our Senators.

It was quite a habit of Senators and Members, during the war, to call at the camps of soldiers from their respective states. Secretary Chase often did this and several times I accompanied him. The "boys," as they preferred to be called, would gather around their visitors, and very soon some one would cry out "a speech, a speech," and an address would usually be made. I heard very good speeches made in this way, and, in some cases, replied to by a private soldier in a manner fully as effective as that of the visitor.

In the early period of the war the private soldier did not forget that he was as good as any man. One evening Major, afterwards Major-General, Robert S. Granger and I were strolling through "Camp Buckingham," near Mansfield, Ohio, and came to a young soldier boiling beans. He was about to take them off the fire when Granger said: "My good fellow, don't take off those beans; they are not done." The young soldier squared himself and with some insolence said: "Do you think I don't know how to boil beans?" Granger, with great kindness of manner, said: "If you had eaten boiled beans in the army as many years as I have you would know it is better to leave them in the pot all night with a slow fire." The manner of Granger was so kindly that the soldier thanked him and followed his advice. General Granger died at Zanesville, Ohio, April 25, 1894, after having been on the retired list for over twenty-one years. He was a gallant, as well as a skillful, officer. Peace to his memory.

It was my habit, while Congress was in session during the war, to ride on horseback over a region within ten miles of Washington, generally accompanied by some army officer. I became familiar with every lane and road, and especially with camps and hospitals. At that time it could be truly said that Washington and its environs was a great camp and hospital. The roads were generally very muddy or exceedingly dusty. The great army teams cut up and blocked the roads which were either of clay or sand, but the air was generally refreshing and the scenery charming. I do not know of any city that has more beautiful environs, with the broad Potomac at the head of tide water, the picturesque hills and valleys, the woodland interspersed with deciduous and evergreen trees, the wide landscape, extending to the Blue Ridge on the west, the low lands and ridges of Maryland and the hills about Mt. Vernon. The city of Washington, however, was then far from attractive. It was an overgrown village, with wide unpaved avenues and streets, with 61,000 inhabitants badly housed, hotels and boarding houses badly kept, and all depending more or less upon low salaries, and employment by the government. All this has been changed. The streets and avenues have been paved and extended. The old site is now well filled with comfortable mansions and business blocks, and a large portion of the District outside the city is being occupied with villas and market gardens. The mode of living has greatly changed. Before and during the war, Senators and Members lived in boarding houses in messes, formed of families of similar tastes and opinions. Society, if it may be so called, was chiefly official, of which justices of the Supreme Court and cabinet officers were the head, and Senators and Members of Congress were the most numerous guests.

When I entered Congress my pay as a Member was $8 a day during the season, and it was said we had "roast beef;" but we paid for it if we had it. At the close of the 34th Congress the compensation was increased to $3,000 a year. During the latter part of the war and afterwards, prices of food, board and lodging were considerably advanced.

In 1864 I offered the proprietor of Willard's Hotel my monthly pay of $250 for board and lodgings, in very modest quarters, for my wife and myself, but he demanded $300 a month. This led me to purchase a house in which to live, a change which I have never regretted. It was quite the fashion then for the old families, who were in full sympathy with the Confederates, to underrate property (even their own) in Washington, on the ground that when the Confederacy was acknowledged the capital would be removed, and real estate could, therefore, be obtained upon very reasonable terms.

After the war the feverish revival of business growing out of our expanded currency led to such reckless extravagance in improvements by public officials in Washington that for a time it threatened the bankruptcy of the city, but, as this leads me in advance of events, I will recur hereafter to the Washington of to-day.

During 1870 Congress passed a law increasing the compensation of Senators and Members from $3,000 to $5,000 a year, and justified this increase by the inflated prices of everything measured by a depreciated currency. There would have been but little complaint of this by the people had not the law been made retroactive. It was made to take effect at the beginning of that Congress, though when the law was passed Congress was nearly ended. This "back pay," amounting to over $3,000, was very unpopular, and led to the defeat of many Members who voted for it. At home they were called "salary grabbers." Several Senators and Members, I among the number, declined to receive the back pay. But it was said that the Congressmen could apply for it at any time in the future when the excitement died away. This led me to write Francis E. Spinner, Treasurer of the United States, to ascertain how I could cover into the treasury my back pay. His answer was characteristic, and is here inserted. Spinner, long since dead, was a peculiar character. He was with me in the House of Representatives, was appointed Treasurer of the United States by President Lincoln, and continued as such until 1875. He was a typical officer, bold, firm and honest. He was also a true friend, a model of fidelity and courage.

"Treasury of the United States,} "Washington, July 3, 1873. } "My Dear Sir:--Your letter of the 28th ultimo has been received.

"I sympathize with you most fully. I too have had my share of lies told on me, by Dana and his 'Sun,' and shall be disappointed if the libels are not continued, especially if I do right. Really you have a white elephant on your hands. You can neither take the back pay, nor leave it where it is, nor draw it and redeposit it, without subjecting yourself to the yelping of the damned curs, that bark at the heels of every honest man.

"If you will turn to the proviso in Section 5, of the General Appropriation Bill, approved July 12, 1870, at page 251, volume 16, of the Statutes at Large, you will, I think, be satisfied that your back pay would never lapse to the treasury. Should you leave it, as it now is, I think it would at all times be subject to your order, and to the order of your heirs afterwards. The department has decided that the appropriations for the pay of Members of Congress is _permanent_. The papers say that the Comptroller has decided that the back pay would lapse in two years. I called on him to-day, and he furnished me with a copy of his opinion, which is herewith inclosed you, and wrote me a note, a copy of which is also inclosed, in which he says--'it could not be carried back until after two years; whether it can be carried back is another question, which I do not intend to decide.' There are two ways that the amount can be carried back into the treasury: First, by drawing out the amount, and redepositing it; and second, by directing the secretary of the senate, by written order, to turn the amount into the treasury. I, of course, can't advise you what to do.

"Very respectfully yours, "F. E. Spinner, Tr., U. S. "Hon. John Sherman, Mansfield, Ohio."

In the spring of 1863, the financial operations of the government were eminently successful. In the fall of 1862, Secretary Chase endeavored to sell the $500,000,000 5-20 six per cent. bonds, authorized by the act of February 25, 1862, through experienced officers in New York, and could not get par for them. He then employed Jay Cooke, of Philadelphia, to take charge of this loan, and within a year it was sold by him, to parties all over the country, at par. The entire cost of placing the loan was less than three-eighths of one per cent. It furnished the greater part of the means necessary to conduct the war during 1863.

The early victories of Grant and Forts Henry and Donelson had rescued Kentucky, and opened up the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers to the heart of the south. The battle of Shiloh, though won at a great sacrifice, inspired the western army with confidence, and gave General Sherman his first opportunity to prove his ability as a soldier. The timid handling of that army by Halleck and its subsequent dispersion by his orders, and the general operations of both the armies in the west and in Virginia, created a feeling of despondency in the loyal states which was manifested in the election in the fall of 1862. The military operations in the early part of 1863 did not tend to restore confidence.

At this period I received the following letter from Secretary Stanton, which evidenced his appreciation of General Sherman:

"Washington, D. C., December 7, 1862. "Hon. John Sherman.

"Dear Sir:--The general's letter is returned herewith, having been read with much interest and great admiration of his wisdom and patriotism. If our armies were commanded by such generals we could not fail to have a speedy restoration of the authority of the government, and an end of the war.

"I beg you to give him my warmest regards, and no effort of mine will be spared to secure to the government the fullest exercise of his abilities. With thanks for the favor, I am,

"Yours truly, "Edwin M. Stanton."

The attack by General Sherman upon the defenses of Vicksburg had been repulsed, but the effect of this had been counteracted by the capture of Arkansas post with over 5,000 prisoners. General Grant had failed in his operations in Mississippi. General Hooker had been defeated at Chancellorsville, and Lee was preparing to make an advance into Maryland and Pennsylvania.

On May 1, 1863, Clement L. Vallandigham, for several years a Member of Congress from Ohio, in a speech made at Mount Vernon, denounced the government with great violence, and, especially, an order issued by General Ambrose E. Burnside, commanding the department of the Ohio, announcing that "all persons, found within our lines, who commit acts for the benefit of the enemies of our country, will be tried as spies or traitors, and if convicted will suffer death." Burnside enumerated among the things which came within his order, the writing or carrying of secret letters, passing the lines for treasonable purposes, recruiting for the Confederate service. He said: "The habit of declaring sympathy for the enemy will not be allowed in this department; persons committing such offenses will be at once arrested, with a view to being tried or sent beyond our lines into the lines of their friends."

Vallandigham denounced this order as a base usurpation of arbitrary power; said that he despised it, and spat upon it, and trampled it under his foot. He denounced the President, and advised the people to come up together at the ballot box and hurl the tyrant from his throne. Many of his hearers wore the distinctive badges of "copperheads" and "butternuts," and, amid cheers which Vallandigham's speech elicited, was heard a shout that Jeff. Davis was a gentleman, which was more than Lincoln was.

This speech was reported to General Burnside. Early on the 4th of May a company of soldiers was sent to arrest Vallandigham, and the arrest was made. Arriving at Cincinnati, he was consigned to the military prison and kept in close confinement. This event caused great excitement, not only in Cincinnati, but throughout the State of Ohio. On the evening of that day a great crowd assembled at Dayton, and several hundred men moved, hooting and yelling, to the office of the Republican newspaper, and sacked and then destroyed it by fire. Vallandigham was tried by a military commission, which promptly sentenced him to be placed in close confinement in some fortress of the United States, to be designated by the commanding officer of the department, there to be kept during the continuance of the war. Such an order was made by General Burnside, but it was subsequently modified by Mr. Lincoln, who commuted the sentence of Vallandigham, and directed that he be sent within the Confederate lines. This was done within a fortnight after the court-martial. Vallandigham was sent to Tennessee, and, on the 25th of May, was escorted by a small cavalry force to the Confederate lines near Murfreesboro, and delivered to an Alabama regiment.

Vallandigham made a formal protest that he was within the Confederate lines by force, and against his will, and that he surrendered as a prisoner of war. His arrest for words spoken, and not for acts done, created great excitement throughout Ohio and the country. A public meeting was held in New York on May 16, which denounced this action as illegal--as a step towards revolution. The Democratic leaders of Ohio assumed the same attitude, and made a vigorous protest to the President. It is not necessary to state this incident more fully. Nicolay and Hay, in their history of Lincoln, narrate fully the incidents connected with this arrest, and the disposition of Vallandigham. The letters of the President in reply to Governor Seymour, and to the meeting in Ohio, are among the most interesting productions of Mr. Lincoln. He doubted the legality of the arrest. He quoted the provision of the constitution that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus "should not be suspended unless, in cases of invasion or rebellion, the public safety may require it." He had suspended the privileges of that writ upon the happening of contingencies stated in the constitution and, therefore, the commanding officer was justified in making the arrest, and he did not deem it proper to interfere with the order of the commanding officer.

This incident was made more important when, on the 11th of June, the Democratic convention of the State of Ohio met at Columbus and there formally nominated Vallandigham as the candidate of that party for Governor of Ohio. This presented directly to the people of that state the question of the legality and propriety of the arrest of Vallandigham. The Republican party subsequently met and nominated for governor John Brough, a lifelong Democrat, but in through sympathy with the Union cause.

It is difficult, now, to describe the intense excitement in Ohio over the issue thus made--at times breaking into violence. Vallandigham was received with great favor in the different cities of the south, and finally, embarking on board of a vessel which ran the blockade at Wilmington, he arrived at Bermuda on the 22nd of June, from which place he took passage to Canada, arriving at Niagara Falls about the middle of July.

The feeling of anger and excitement among the loyal people of Ohio increased, so that it was manifest that if Vallandigham entered the state he would be in great danger, and a quasi civil war might have arisen. I heard men of character and influence say distinctly that if Vallandigham came into the state he would be killed, and they, if necessary, would kill him. It was then understood that Mr. Lincoln was disposed to allow him to enter the state. Senator Wade and I met at Washington and had a conversation with Mr. Lincoln. We told him the condition of feeling in Ohio, and of our confident belief that if his order of banishment was revoked, it would result in riots and violence, in which Vallandigham would be the first victim. He gave us no positive assurance, but turned the conversation by saying that he thought Vallandigham was safer under British dominion, where he would have plenty of friends.

In June, 1863, my health was somewhat impaired, and Mrs. Sherman and I concluded to visit New England for a change of scene, and for the benefit of the ocean air. We visited Newport in advance of the season and found it deserted. We went to Boston, and there heard of the advance of Lee in Pennsylvania, and the fierce contest going on in the rear of Vicksburg. I became uneasy and started for home with the intention of proceeding to Vicksburg, but at Cleveland we heard the glad tidings of great joy, the fall of Vicksburg and the defeat of Lee at Gettysburg.

These victories, occurring on the same day, aroused the enthusiasm and confidence of the loyal people of the United States, especially the people of Ohio. Instead of a trip to Vicksburg I was soon enlisted in the political canvass, and this for three months occupied my attention. Meetings were held in every county and in almost every township of the state. All on either side who were accustomed to speak were actively engaged. My opening speech was made at Delaware on the 29th of July. I was intensely interested in the canvass, and therefore insert a few paragraphs from that speech, as an indication of the state of feeling existing at that time:

"The political campaign in Ohio this season presents some singular features. We are in the midst of a great civil war, in which it is safe to say that one million of men are now arrayed in arms against each other. There are, perhaps, now, from Ohio, one hundred thousand of her best and bravest citizens in the field, in hospitals or camps, sharing the burdens of war. The immediate stake involved is nothing less than national existence; while the ultimate stake involves nothing less than civil liberty for generations yet to come. In the midst of this contest the Democratic party, through its most eloquent orators, endeavor to make a personal issue. They propose to withdraw our armies, to abandon the war, and to try the question whether their candidate for governor has been legally convicted as a traitor to his country.

"We are assured by Mr. Pugh, the Democratic candidate for lieutenant governor, who is one of the most eloquent and able young men in the state, that here in Ohio we have been subjected to a tyranny as intolerable as that of King Bomba of Naples. When we ask for evidence of this tyranny, we are told that Clement L. Vallandigham has been illegally convicted and illegally banished; and that if we are fit to be free we must stop and examine the record in his case, and not be turned from it by clamors about prosecuting the war, or of concluding peace. And we are told that if we don't do all this we are helpless slaves and deserve no better fate. Now, as I do not desire to be a slave, and do not wish the people of my native state to be slaves, I will so far depart from my usual course in political discussion as to examine the personal issue thus made.

"I had supposed, fellow-citizens, that nowhere in the wide world did people live as free from oppression as in the State of Ohio. But the Democratic party has sounded the alarm that our liberties were jeopardized in that Mr. Vallandigham has been, as they assert, illegally convicted and banished. Before alluding to matters of more general interest I propose to consider that question.

"The candidate of the Democratic party was convicted by a military tribunal for aiding the enemy with whom we are at war. For this he was expelled beyond our lines, and was within the lines of the enemy when nominated for governor of Ohio. By the judgment of a military tribunal, composed mainly of his political friends, approved by General Burnside, the chief military officer within the state, sanctioned by Judge Leavitt--a judge selected by Vallandigham himself--of the United States court, he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment during the war. By the mercy of the President he was released from imprisonment and sent beyond our lines. While thus banished as a convicted traitor, by military authority, the Democratic party of the State of Ohio nominated this man as a candidate for governor, and you are called upon to ratify and confirm that nomination, to intrust this man, convicted as a traitor, with the chief command of our militia, the appointment of all its officers, and the management of the executive authority of the state; and that, too, in the midst of a war with the rebels he was convicted of aiding. . . .

"And here is the marked distinction between the two parties. The Union party strikes only at the rebels. The Democratic party strikes only at the administration. The Union party insists upon the use of every means to put down the rebels. The Democratic party uses every means to put down the administration. I read what is called the Democratic Platform, and I find nothing against the rebels who are in arms against the best government in the world; but I find numerous accusations against the authorities of the government, who are struggling to put down the rebels. I find no kindly mention of the progress of our arms, no mention of victories achieved and difficulties overcome; no mention of financial measures without a parallel in their success; no promise of support, no word of encouragement to the constituted authorities; no allowance made for human error; not a single patriotic hope. It is a long string of whining, scolding accusations. It is dictated by the spirit of rebellion, and, before God, I believe it originated in the same malignant hate of the constituted authorities as has armed the public enemies. I appeal to you if that is the proper way to support your government in the time of war. Is this the example set by Webster and Clay, and the great leaders of the Whig party when General Jackson throttled nullification; or is it the example of the tories of the Revolution?"

Brough visited, I think, every county in the state. Everywhere his meetings were large and enthusiastic, but it must be said also that the Democratic meetings, which were equally numerous, were very largely attended. The people were evidently anxious to hear both sides.

Towards the close of the campaign I accompanied Mr. Brough through the populous central counties of the state. We spoke, among other places, in Newark, Zanesville and Lancaster. The meetings were not merely mass meetings, but they were so large that no human voice could reach all those present, and speeches were made from several stands in the open air, each surrounded by as many as could hear. This indication of public feeling was somewhat weakened by the fact that the Democratic meetings were also very large, and the ablest members of that party were actively engaged in the canvass. The "martyr" in Canada was the hero of these meetings, and his compulsory arrest and absence from the state, but near its border, was the constant theme of complaint. It was observed that the rival meetings were attended by men of both parties in nearly equal numbers, so that it was difficult to form an opinion of the result. Mr. Brough kept a memorandum book containing the names of the counties in the state and the estimated majorities for or against him in each county. At night, when the crowds dispersed, he would take out his book, and, upon the information received that day, would change the estimate of his majorities. In view of the enormous attendance at, and interest in, the Democratic meetings, he was constantly lowering his estimated majority on the home vote, until finally it declined to 5,000, with the army vote known to be very largely in his favor. At Lancaster, where he had lived and published a strong Democratic paper for many years, and where I was born, he carefully analyzed his list, and, throwing his book upon the table, emphatically said that he would not reduce his majority of the home vote one vote below 5,000. The Democratic party, however, seemed confident of Vallandigham's election. The result was that Brough was elected by the unprecedented majority of 101,000, of which 62,000 was on the home vote and 39,000 on the vote of the soldiers in the field, they having the privilege of voting.

This settled once for all the position of Ohio, not only on the question of the war, but on the determination of its people to support Mr. Lincoln in the use of all the powers granted by the constitution as construed by him, and to prosecute the war to final success. Vallandigham remained in Canada until June, 1864, when he returned quietly to Ohio, where he was permitted to remain. His presence injured his party. His appearance in the national convention at Chicago in 1864, and active participation in its proceedings, and his support of General McClellan, greatly, I think, diminished the chances of the Democratic ticket. He died seven years later by an accidental wound inflicted by himself.

I have always regarded Brough's election in Ohio upon the issue distinctly made, not only as to the prosecution of the war, but in support of the most vigorous measures to conduct it, as having an important influence in favor of the Union cause equal to that of any battle of the war. The results of all the elections in the several states in 1863 were decidedly victories for the Union cause, and especially in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Maryland.