The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government Volume II Part 39

The severity of the Executive of the United States now began to be felt by the citizens of the State. All disaffected persons were silenced or arrested, prisoners of war were treated as criminals, and every obstacle to complete subjugation to the will of the conqueror sought to be removed. The State government was represented by a provisional Governor; and a State Convention, that adjourned its sessions from year to year, after dallying periodically with the subject of the emanc.i.p.ation of the slaves, finally pa.s.sed an ordinance for that purpose, to take effect in 1870. This was not immediate emanc.i.p.ation, so the disturbances were kept up in the State until, at a session of the Legislature in February, 1864, a bill was pa.s.sed for a so-called State Convention to revise the State Const.i.tution, and the election of delegates in November. It is remarkable how much the orders of the commanding General now contained relative to disorderly persons. This was preparatory to the occupation of the polls by the military force, and the exclusion of all opposition voters. The delegates were elected, and the so-called Convention a.s.sembled on January 6, 1865. An immediate emanc.i.p.ation ordinance was pa.s.sed, and the State organization was subjugated to do the will of the usurper and to disregard the will of the sovereign people.

[Footnote 81: Article V, amendment.]

[Footnote 82: Article IV, amendment.]

[Footnote 83: Article VIII, amendment.]

[Footnote 84: Article I, amendment.]

[Footnote 85: Article II, amendment.]

CHAPTER XLIV.

Subjugation of the Northern States.--Humiliating Spectacle of New York.--"Ringing of a Little Bell."--Seizure and Imprisonment of Citizens.--Number seized.--Paper Safeguards of Liberty.--Other Safeguards.--Suspension of the Writ of _Habeas Corpus_ absolutely forbidden with One Exception.--How done.--Not able to authorize another.--Abundant Protective Provisions in New York, but all failed.--Case of Pierce Butler.--Arrest of Secretary Cameron.--The President a.s.sumes the Responsibility of the Crime.--No Heed given to the Writ of _Habeas Corpus_ issued by the Court.--The Governor pa.s.sive.--Words of Justice Nelson.--Prison overflowing.--How relieved.--Oath required of Applicants for Relief.--Oath declined by some.--Reasons.--Order forbidding the Employment of Counsel by Prisoners.--Victims in almost Every Northern State.--Defeat at the Elections.--Result.--Suit for Damages commenced.--Congress interferes to protect the Guilty.--State Courts subjugated.--How suspend _Habeas Corpus_.--Congress violates the Const.i.tution.--What was New York?--Writ suspended throughout the United States.-What is "Loyalty"?--Military Domination.--Correspondence between General Dix and Governor Seymour.--Seizure of Newspapers.--Governor orders Arrest of Offenders.--Interference with the State Election.--Vote of the Soldiers.--State Agents arrested.--Provost-Marshals appointed in Every Northern State.--Their Duties.--Sustained by Force.--Trials by Military Commission.--Trials at Washington.-- a.s.sa.s.sination of the President.--Trial of Henry Wirz.--Efforts to implicate the Author.--Investigation of a Committee of Congress as to Complicity in the a.s.sa.s.sination.--Arrest, Trial, and Banishment of Clement C. Vallandigham.--a.s.sertions of Governor Seymour on the Case.

Now follows the humiliating spectacle of the subjugation of the State government of New York--the "Empire" State, as she calls herself-- where, with all her men and treasures, it might have been supposed that some stanch defenders of const.i.tutional liberty would have sprung up. On the contrary, under the pretext of "preserving the Union," her deluded children aided to destroy the Const.i.tution on which the Union was founded, and put forth all their strength to exalt the Government of the United States to supremacy. Thus the States were brought to a condition of subjugation, and their governments subverted from the protection of the rights for which they were inst.i.tuted. These unalienable rights of the people were left without a protector or a shield before the crushing hand of the usurper; the sovereignty of the people was set aside, and in its place arose the sovereignty of the Government of the United States.

With the foundation undermined, the superstructure subverted, the ends for which the Great Republic was organized entirely lost to sight, and the true balance of the system destroyed, unless the dormant virtue and love for their inherited rights shall arouse the citizens to a vigorous effort to restore the republican inst.i.tutions and powers of the States, the emperors and kings of the earth have only to await calmly the lapse of time to behold a fulfillment of their evil prophecies in regard to the "Great Republic" of the world.

To show how the laws were disregarded, and how despotically the personal liberty of the citizen was invaded, let this example bear witness: The Secretary of State at Washington, William H. Seward, a favored son of the State of New York, would "ring a little bell,"

which brought to him a messenger, to whom was given a secret order to arrest and confine in Fort Lafayette a person designated. This order was sent by telegraph to the United States Marshal of the district in which would be found the person who was to be arrested. The arrest being forcibly made by the marshal with armed attendants without even the form of a warrant, the prisoner without the knowledge of any charge against him was conveyed to Fort Hamilton and turned over to the commandant. An aid with a guard of soldiers then conveyed him in a boat to Fort Lafayette and delivered him to the keeper in charge, who gave a receipt for the prisoner. He was then divested of any weapons, money, valuables, or papers in his possession. His baggage was opened and searched. A soldier then took him in charge to the designated quarter, which was a portion of one of the casemates for guns, lighted only from the port-hole, and occupied by seven or eight other prisoners. All were subjected to prison fare. Some were citizens of New York, and the others of different States. This manner of imprisonment was subsequently put under the direction of the Secretary of War, and continued at intervals until the close of the war.

In the brief period between July 1 and October 19, 1861, the Secretary of State, William H, Seward, made such diligent use of his "little bell," that one hundred and seventy-five of the most respectable citizens of the country were consigned to imprisonment in this Fort Lafayette, a strong fortress in the lower part of the harbor of New York. A decent regard for the memory of the friend of Washington, and for the services rendered to the colonies in their struggle for independence, might have led Mr. Seward to select for such base uses some other place than that which bore the honored name of Lafayette.

The American citizen has always, like the ancient Roman, felt that his personal liberty was secure. He supposed himself to be surrounded with numerous paper safeguards, which, together with the love of justice and respect for law, common to his fellow-citizens, would be sufficient for his protection against any usurper. These now proved to be as weak as the paper upon which they were written. What were these supposed safeguards? There was the Const.i.tution of the State of New York, an instrument for the protection and government of the people. It had received the consent of the people of the State who were governed by it, and therefore its powers were "just powers." Its first object was to protect the unalienable rights of its citizens, relative to which it contains various provisions in its Bill of Rights: its declarations respecting personal liberty; its regulations to secure and enforce the great writ of freemen, the _habeas corpus_; the powers granted to the courts which it created; the Legislature; the Executive, in whose hands was placed the richest purse and the strongest sword of the sovereign States to protect the rights of its citizens.

Further safeguards were placed in the Const.i.tution of the United States. These were designed to restrain that Government from any invasion of the citizen's personal liberty. They are as follows:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons ... shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath, or affirmation, and particularly describing ...

the persons to be seized." [86]

Again:

"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." [87]

Again:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury." [88]

Again:

"In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the a.s.sistance of counsel for his defense." [89]

Among the enumerated powers of Congress is the following clause:

"The privilege of the writ of _habeas corpus_ shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require." [90]

This clause first forbids the suspension of the writ absolutely. A single exception is then made by the words "unless the public safety may require." A condition is attached to this exception which still farther limits it, by the words "in cases of rebellion or invasion."

There is still another and far more sweeping limitation attached to this clause. The writ must be suspended by an act of Congress, which can be pa.s.sed only when Congress is in session. This suspension must be positive and absolute by Congress, not indefinite and dependent on any future contingency. For the acts of Congress are not absolute powers, if between enactment and enforcement they can be set aside by a contingency, unless such contingency was attached in the clause of the grant creating the power. But in these words, of the Const.i.tution there is no contingency expressed. Congress alone by positive enactment can suspend the writ of _habeas corpus_. It can not authorize the President to suspend its force, nor has he any authority under the Const.i.tution to do it. Neither can Congress make an intermittent suspension of the force of the writ; but it must be absolute under the specific condition.

It is evident that the citizen of New York was abundantly provided with the safeguards of personal liberty; yet they all proved to be of no avail to secure and enforce his right in the hour of trial. A few instances will afford an ill.u.s.tration of the facts. Mr. Pierce Butler was suspected of corresponding with persons in the Confederate States. He was arrested in Philadelphia on August 19, 1861, by order of Simon Cameron, then Secretary of War, without process of law and without any a.s.signed cause. His trunks and drawers, wardrobe, and entire apartments were searched, and his private papers taken by the marshal and his four a.s.sistants. His office was also examined, and his books and papers taken, and within an hour he was on his way to Fort Lafayette with an armed guard. After five weeks of detention he was liberated. No reason was given for his discharge any more than for his arrest. As Mr. Cameron was about to sail as Minister to Russia, in January ensuing, he was arrested for a.s.sault and battery and false imprisonment, at the suit of Mr. Butler. The case was brought to the knowledge of the President of the United States, and on April 18, 1862, the Secretary of State, Seward, replied as follows:

"The communication has been submitted to the President, and I am directed by him to say in reply that he avows the proceeding of Mr.

Cameron referred to as one taken by him when Secretary of War, under the President's directions, and deemed necessary for the prompt suppression of the existing rebellion."

The writ of _habeas corpus_ was issued by some of the State courts, directing the officer in command at the fort to bring some one or other of the prisoners into court for an investigation of the cause and authority for his detention. But no attention was given to these writs by the officer. Neither did the Governor of the State make any effort to enforce the processes of the courts. He, perhaps, expected that his efforts might be resisted by an overpowering force. But expectations, of whatsoever nature, do not justify or excuse the neglect of a positive duty. It is through such weaknesses that the liberties of mankind have been too often lost.

Thus the Const.i.tution, the laws, the courts, the Executive of the State of New York, were subverted, turned aside from the end for which they were inst.i.tuted, and all the specific arrangements were of no avail to secure this guaranteed right of its citizens. Probably every one of the prisoners was entirely innocent of any act whatever that was criminal under the laws, either of the State or of the United States.

In opinion they were opposed to the military proceedings of the Government of the United States; and these opinions they had expressed, which liberty is a part of the birthright of freemen.

Indeed, Judge Nelson, of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the Circuit of New York, in an opinion delivered about this time, thus expressed himself:

"Words, oral, written, or printed, however treasonable, seditious, or criminal of themselves, do not const.i.tute an overt act of treason within the definition of the crime. When spoken, written, or printed, in relation to an act or acts which, if committed with a treasonable design, might const.i.tute such overt act, they are admissible as evidence, tending to characterize it and show the intent with which the act was committed."

Finally, the prison in New York Harbor became so full that many prisoners were sent to Fort Warren in the harbor of Boston. At this time the Government of the United States used the Old Capitol at Washington, Fort McHenry of Baltimore, Fort Lafayette at New York, and Fort Warren at Boston, for the confinement of those whom the usurper designated as "state prisoners." Still further to relieve the fullness of the prisons, two men, John A. Dix, of the army, and Edwards Pierrepont, of civil life, were sent to investigate the cases of the prisoners, and release some who were willing to take an "oath of allegiance." Next it was made a condition precedent to an investigation that the said oath should be taken by the prisoner. As an instance, this proposal was made to two persons named Flanders, citizens of the interior of New York. The oath was as follows:

"I do solemnly swear that I will support, protect, and defend the Const.i.tution and Government of the United States against all enemies, whether domestic or foreign, and that I will bear true faith, allegiance, and loyalty to the same, any ordinance, resolution, or law of any State Convention, or Legislature, to the contrary notwithstanding; and, farther, that I do this with a full determination, pledge, and purpose, without any mental reservation or evasion whatsoever; and, further, that I will well and faithfully perform all the duties which may be required of me by law."

These persons declined to take the prescribed oath. The reasons which they gave for this refusal furnish painful evidence of the extreme subjugation of the government of the State of New York, and its silent submission to the arbitrary and unconst.i.tutional acts of the Government of the United States, even at the sacrifice of the most sacred rights of freemen. They said:

"We have been guilty of no offense against the laws of our country, but have simply exercised our const.i.tutional rights as free citizens in the open and manly expression of our opinions upon public affairs.

We have been placed here without legal charges, or, indeed, any charges whatsoever being made against us, and upon no legal process, but upon an arbitrary and illegal order of the Hon. William H.

Seward, Secretary of State of the United States. Every moment of our detention here is a denial of our most sacred rights. We are ent.i.tled to and hereby demand an unconditional discharge; and, while we could cheerfully take the oath prescribed by the Const.i.tution of the United States, because we are, always have been, and ever intend to be loyal to that instrument (though at the same time protesting against the right of the Government to impose even such oath upon us as the condition of our discharge), we can not consent to take the oath now required of us, because we hold no office of any kind under the Government of the United States, and it is an oath unknown to and unauthorized by the Const.i.tution, and commits us to the support of the Government though it may be acting in direct conflict with the Const.i.tution, and deprives us of the right of freely discussing, and by peaceful and const.i.tutional methods opposing its measures--a right which is sacred to freedom, and which no American citizen should voluntarily surrender. That such is the interpretation put upon this oath by the Government, and such its intended effect is plainly demonstrated by the fact that it is dictated to this as a condition of our release from an imprisonment inflicted upon us for do other cause than that we have exercised the above-specified const.i.tutional rights."

One important fact which ill.u.s.trates the flagrant outrage committed on all these prisoners should not be omitted. The Const.i.tution of the United States declares as follows:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ...

to have the a.s.sistance of counsel for his defense."

On December 3, 1861, the commanding officer at Fort Lafayette came to the prisoners' quarters, and read a doc.u.ment, of which the following is a copy:

"_To the political prisoners in Fort Lafayette:_

"I am instructed by the Secretary of State to inform you that the Department of State of the United States will not recognize any one as an attorney for political prisoners, and will look with distrust upon all applications for release through such channels; and that such applications will be regarded as additional reasons for declining to release the prisoners.

"And, further, that if such prisoners wish to make any communication to the Government, they are at liberty to make it directly to the State Department.

"SETH C. HAWLEY."

s.p.a.ce will not permit me further to notice the instances of this immense cla.s.s of cases. In almost every Northern State the victims of this violence were to be found. That there was no just cause for these invasions of the rights of the States, and of the citizens, was demonstrated in the most decisive manner. At this time (November 4, 1862) the friends of the Administration of the United States Government were decisively defeated at the elections. On November 22d ensuing, the War Department issued an order releasing all except prisoners of war. The order was m.u.f.fled up in a phraseology suited to hide from the observation of the people that the result of the elections had stricken home to the sensibilities of the usurpers. It said:

"_Ordered_--1. That all persons now in military custody, who have been arrested for discouraging volunteer enlistments, opposing the draft,[91] or for otherwise giving aid and comfort to the enemy, in States where the draft has been made or the quota of volunteers and militia has been furnished, shall be discharged from further military restraint."

Thus these arrests were for a short period suspended, and then vigorously renewed.