ence, culture, sterling character, and moral purpose. He repelled indignantly an electioneering statement of the other side, that every vote for Wadsworth was one of loyalty, every vote for Seymour one of treason. "God knows I love my country," he said; "I would count my life as nothing, if I could but save the nation's life." In the speeches which gave the key-note to his campaign, he made but one allusion, a brief one, to the proclamation of emancipation, and did not impart to his words a tone of bitterness. Recognizing "that at this moment the destinies, the honor, and the glory of our country hang poised upon the conflict in the battle-field... we tender to this government no conditional support" to put down "this wicked and mighty rebellion." Speaking always in a respectful manner of the President, he condemned the course of the radical Republicans, the infractions of the Constitution, the mismanagement of affairs, but he was most severe when he denounced corruption in the departments, dishonesty in the award of government contracts. Read the Congressional investigations, he said, and “learn for yourselves if fraud does not reek at the National Capital." We have a right to require that the National affairs "be conducted not only by efficiency, but with honesty, economy, and integrity." Our aim is to preserve the Constitution as it is, to restore the Union as it was.1

Seymour, who was the ablest Democrat to enter the political arena during the civil war, represented the best quality of the opposition, even as Lincoln stood for the highest purpose and most expedient methods in the prosecution of the war. Granted the necessity in a constitutional government of an opposition party even when the life of the nation is at stake, the leadership of it could not in this case have fallen into better hands. At the same time with his fearlessness in criticism Seymour's speeches were marked by patriotism, good temper, reverence for the constitution and the laws, and

1 Speeches at Cooper Institute, New York, Oct. 13, Brooklyn Acad. of Music, Oct. 22, Public Record of H. Seymour (N. Y. 1868).

CH. XVIII.]

PROCLAMATION OF SEPTEMBER 24

169

respect for the constituted authorities. What was still more noteworthy was the moderation he displayed in his victory.1 Sturdy and thoughtful Democrats had been irritated indeed by a proclamation of the President two days after the edict of emancipation (September 24), which gave the authority of an executive decree to Stanton's arbitrary orders, created the new offences 2 of "discouraging enlistments" and "any disloyal practice," ordered that such offenders and those who afforded "aid and comfort to the rebels" should be "subject to martial law and liable to trial and punishment by courts martial or military commissions," and for persons arrested on these charges suspended the writ of habeas corpus.3 This proclamation applied to the whole country, and supplemented with the machinery instituted by the Secretary of War for its enforcement, was the assumption of authority exercised by an absolute monarch. On the part of the President of the United States it was a usurpation of power, for which the military necessity was not as cogent as for the edict of emancipation: indeed it is not surprising that it gave currency to an opinion that he intended "to suppress free discussion of political subjects." As it was not promulgated until after the Democrats had held their conventions, it is difficult to trace the effect it had on the elections, but it was probably not so potent a factor in the success of the opposition as the edict of freedom."

5

1 See his speech of Nov. 6. He was elected governor by a majority of 10,752.

2 In this remark I have followed Benjamin R. Curtis in his pamphlet on Executive Power.

8 This was undoubtedly to set at rest questions which had been raised in different courts whether the Secretary of War had by delegated authority the right to suspend the writ. This proclamation is printed in Lincoln, Complete Works, vol. ii. p. 239.

4 Joel Parker, Professor in the Harvard Law School, asked the people of Massachusetts, "Do you not perceive that the President is not only a monarch, but that his is an absolute, irresponsible, uncontrollable government; a perfect military despotism?"-Boston Courier, Nov. 1.

5 Curtis's pamphlet.

6 My authorities for this account other than those already mentioned are

Benjamin R. Curtis as Supreme Judge had answered with common sense and justice the reasoning of Taney in the Dred Scott decision, which was a juridical manifestation of the arrogance of slavery's advocates. He now published a pamphlet entitled "Executive Power," 2 part of which was a strong argument to show that the President had no constitutional right to issue the edict of freedom. Of the later proclamation (that of September 24) he said in substance: The President has made himself a legislator, he has enacted penal laws governing the citizens of the United States, has erected tribunals and created offices to enforce his penal edicts upon citizens, he has superadded to his rights as commander the powers of a usurper: "and that is military despotism." He can use the authority, which he has assumed, to make himself the absolute master of our lives, our liberties, and our property, with power to delegate his mastership to such satraps as he may select or as may be imposed on his credulity or his fears.3 This pamphlet, owing to the high stand

Appleton's Annual Cyclopædia, 1862; Pierce's Sumner, vol. iv.; War Department Archives, MS.; Report of Secretary of War, Dec. 2; Debate in Senate and House, 3d sess., 37th Cong., 1862-63; Tribune Almanac; O. R., vol. xix. part ii. pp. 473, 489; Columbus (Ohio) Crisis, July 9, Aug. 20, Sept. 24, Oct. 22, 29, Nov. 12, 19; Boston Advertiser of Nov. 6, 7; Boston Courier, Nov. 6; N. Y. World, Oct. 17, Nov. 5, 6, 24, 25, 29; N. Y. Times, Nov. 7, Tribune, Nov. 6, 7, Eve. Post, Nov. 5, Herald, Oct. 16, Nov. 6; Chicago Tribune, Nov. 6; Blaine, Twenty Years of Congress, vol. i.; S. S. Cox, Three Decades; Marshall, American Bastile; Life and Writings of B. R. Curtis, vols. i., ii.; Nicolay and Hay, vol. vii. chap. i. Sumner to Bright, Oct. 28: "The old Democracy are rallying against the proclamation." — Pierce, vol. iv. p. 106. John Sherman to Gen. Sherman, Nov. 16: "The people were dissatisfied at the conduct and results of the war. No doubt the wanton and unnecessary use of power to arrest without trial and the ill-timed proclamation contributed to the general result."— Sherman Letters, p. 167. On the arrest of Olds, see Columbus despatch to Cincinnati Commercial, Aug. 13, Lancaster (Ohio) Eagle, cited in Columbus Crisis, Aug. 20.

1 See vol. ii. p. 257.

2 It appeared Oct. 18. Little, Brown & Co. were the publishers.

3 Pp. 23, 30. See, also, p. 16. This pamphlet is printed in the Life and Writings of B. R. Curtis, vol. ii. p. 306.

CH. XVIII.]

CONFIDENCE IN LINCOLN

171

ing of its author, attracted the attention of the President, the Secretary of War, of jurists from Massachusetts to Wisconsin, and of thinking men in this country and England,1 but it did not apparently have a profound and enduring effect on public opinion. That the country finally sustained the antislavery policy of the President, when enforced by military success, is a fact in accord with the natural development of Northern sentiment. That the protests against the arbitrary arrests lacked energy and persistence, that the infringements upon the bill of rights of the Constitution were not actively resisted, is explicable only by the confidence the people had in Abraham Lincoln; for, while there was at this time much distrust of his ability and firmness, his honesty was unquestioned. That he had assumed unwarranted powers might be true; but that he had done this with regret, that he was no Cæsar or Napoleon and sought no self-aggrandizement, that he had in his own loyal and unselfish nature a check to the excessive use of absolute power, was then almost as clear to his friends and opponents as it is now to the student of his character and acts. The Democrats might protest that we were no longer a free people, that we could not with safety criticise the acts of the President, yet criticism went on; and while some of the arrests were undoubted outrages, Democratic citizens submitted, not so much because they were overawed by force as because they knew that the ruler whom they called a despot was really "Honest old Abe." Indeed, there was a real majority of the people who were impatient too of the law's delay, and gave the President in the exercise of these extraordinary powers their faithful and earnest though unexpressed support. Men may have held the faith that the tyrant desired by Plato had appeared, a tyrant who was tem

1 Life and Writings of B. R.Curtis, vol. i. p. 350 et seq.; Theophilus Parsons, Professor in Harvard Law School, in Boston Advertiser, Oct. 24; Chief Justice Dixon in giving the unanimous opinion of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Appleton's Annual Cyclopædia, 1862, p. 514.

perate, quick at learning, and of a courageous and noble nature; like the Athenian, they may have said, if some happy chance brings to our President a great general, God has done all that he can ever do for our State.1

1 If "some happy chance brings them [the tyrant and a great legislator] together... God has done all," etc. - Laws, book iv.