CHAPTER FOURTEEN:
The Effects of the Emancipation Proclamation
Northern Soldiers Begin to Desert
It had been predicted that the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation would swell the ranks of the Northern army with fresh recruits. However, the opposite proved to be the result. In a private letter to Vice President Hannibal Hamlin, Lincoln expressed his disappointment with the effects of the edict:
While I hope something from this proclamation, my expectations are not so sanguine as are those of some friends. The time for its effect southward has not come; but northward the effect should be instantaneous. It is six days old and while commendation in newspapers and by distinguished individuals is all that a vain man could wish, the stocks have declined and troops come forward more slowly than ever. This looked squarely in the face is not very satisfactory. We have fewer troops in the field at the end of six days than we had at the beginning — the attrition among the old, outnumbering the addition by the new. The North responds to the proclamation sufficiently in breath; but breath alone kills no rebels. I wish I could write more cheerfully.(1)
Instead of raising the level of morale among the troops, Lincoln found himself faced with an increase of discontent in his armies as a direct result of the Emancipation Proclamation. According to Alexander K. McClure, "[B]latant disloyalty... was heard in many places throughout the North."(2) General Joseph Hooker had said in October of 1862, "Let it be understood that if this is a war for emancipation of the Negro, instead of a war in defense of the Constitution, three quarters of the army would lay down their arms."(3) This is exactly what began to occur when the proclamation was issued. Again the words of Hooker: "At that time, perhaps, a majority of the officers, especially those high in rank, were hostile to the policy of the Government in the conduct of the war. The Emancipation Proclamation had been published a short time before, and a large element of the army had taken sides against it, declaring that they would never have embarked in the war had they anticipated this action of the Government."(4) Likewise, Ida Tarbell stated, "Many and many a man deserted in the winter of 1862-63 because of the Emancipation Proclamation. The soldiers did not believe that the President had the right to issue it and they refused to fight. Lincoln knew, too, that the Copperhead agitation had reached the army, and that hundreds of them were being urged by parents and friends hostile to the Administration to desert."(5)
The Official Records substantiate these statements. General George McClellan wrote that "the States of the North are flooded with deserters and absentees. One corps of this army has 13,000 men present and 15,000 absent."(6) On 23 September 1862, General George Meade reported that over 8,000 men, including 250 officers, had deserted, noting that "this terrible and serious evil seems to pervade the whole body."(7) When General Hooker assumed command of the Army of the Potomac from General Ambrose Burnside, he found the number of deserters to be 2,922 commissioned officers and 81,964 non-commissioned officers and privates.(8) In his report to the Congressional Committee on the Conduct of the War, Hooker stated, "At the time the army was turned over to me, desertions were at the rate of about two hundred a day. So anxious were parents, wives, brothers and sisters, to relieve their kindred, that they filled the express trains with packages of citizens' clothing to assist them in escaping from service."(9) In all, an estimated 200,000 soldiers deserted from the Northern armies.(10) Those who did not desert often proved to be a hindrance in the field. Writing from his headquarters at Hilton Head, South Carolina, Major-General David Hunter complained of being "saddled with pro-slavery generals in whom I have not the least confidence...."(11)
Enlistments had also fallen to such a low rate following the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation that Lincoln was compelled to resort to conscription in July of 1863 in order to continue the war. In his book, Crimes of the Civil War, Henry Clay Dean wrote:
When drafted, men were driven from home at the point of the bayonet, black and white chained together like felons.... The pitiful cries of children, clinging to their father, whose face they were looking upon for the last time; the plaintive appeal of the poor woman frantically begging the release of her husband, never moved a muscle in the brazen faces of the hardened wretches engaged in this nefarious business....
The conscription bill was the finishing stroke of the bloody crime of usurpation, and wrought an entire change in our institutions. It was the first attempt in our history to work a complete despotism....
The whole military strength subject to draft was duly recorded and examined, either before or after the conscription.... The names of men were cast into the lottery of death, which dealt out its unwelcome tickets to nearly every household. The reigning spirit of fraud forced itself into the Provost Marshal's office, and took entire possession of the draft. Provost Marshals amassed immense fortunes, through agencies of exemption, which contracted to free the citizens from the fatal draft of the conscript wheel. This, like all other villainies of the Departments, was reduced to a clearly-defined system. Tickets intended for political enemies, or military victims, or those who had not been able to buy themselves off, were written and dried with ordinary blotting paper, whilst the tickets intended for political friends were heavily sanded on a full, heavy hand of ink. The sand remaining on the paper, made them readily distinguishable from the other tickets on the slightest touch.... Such was the villainy and revenge that ruled the chances of death in the horrible conscription which forced unwilling men to perpetrate the awful crime of murder against brave men who were defending their homes from conflagration, their beds from violation, and their hearths from the stain of innocent blood.(12)
The unconstitutional and despotic Conscription Act resulted in a surge of discontent among the Northern people, including a massive anti-draft riot in New York city. The details in brief of this horrific event are as follows:
Many citizens in New York woke up on Sunday morning to find their names in Lincoln's army list, for every man was declared a soldier from the moment his name was drawn, and liable to be shot as a deserter if he got out of the way.
The pent-up wrath of the people now broke out. The war had always been unpopular in New York city, and when the first announcement was made, that the people were resisting the draft, the greatest excitement occurred. The abolitionists were terribly frightened. A good many ran away from the city. Others hid themselves. The drafted men first destroyed the enrolling offices, burning them to the ground, and came very near killing Kennedy, the police superintendent.
Like all popular outbreaks of this kind, it ran into every form of riot and outrage. The popular feeling seemed to regard with peculiar hatred the negro, as if he were the cause of the war and all the trouble resulting from it, while in fact it was the abolitionists and not the negro who were responsible.
The rioters burnt down the Negro Orphan Asylum, hung negroes to the lamp posts, and sometimes threw them into the docks. Boys particularly seemed to be engaged in the rioting. The writer of this was all through the city at all times of the day and night, during the continuance of the trouble. On one occasion he saw a crowd, and asked a little boy what it meant. "Oh, it is nothing but a dead nigger," was the reply. This shows how callous to human suffering even children may become in times of war and bloodshed.(13)
Such was an example of the true effects of Lincoln's supposedly humanitarian proclamation. Although the lawless actions of these rioters cannot be condoned, the Lincoln Administration nevertheless bore the main burden of guilt for having provided the example to be followed in throwing off all restraint of law and order.
How Lincoln Secured His Re-Election
In addition to its negative effect on the troops, and on the people of the North in general, there were also political repercussions for Lincoln as a result of his proclamation. Lincoln's biographers, Nicolay and Hay, added that "there were great losses in the elections in consequence of the Emancipation Proclamation,"(14) and Albert Bushnell Hart said that "one of the effects... was an increase of the Democratic vote in Ohio and in Indiana, and the consequent election of many Democratic members of Congress."(15) In his History of the United States, James Ford Rhodes stated:
In October and November elections took place in the principal States, with the results that New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin, all of which except New Jersey had cast their electoral votes for Lincoln, declared against the party in power. A new House of Representatives was chosen, the Democrats making conspicuous gains in the States mentioned. The same ratio of gain extended to the other States would have given them the control of the next House — a disaster from which the Administration was saved by New England, Michigan, Iowa, and the Border Slave States. The elections came near being what the steadfast Republican journal, the New York Times, declared them to be, "A vote of want of confidence in the President." Since the elections followed so closely upon the Proclamation of Emancipation, it is little wonder that the Democrats declared that the people protested against Lincoln's surrender to the radicals, which was their construction of the change of policy from a war for the Union to a war for the Negro. Many writers have since agreed with them in this interpretation of the result. No one can doubt that it was a contributing force operating with these other influences: the corruption in the War Department before Stanton became Secretary, the suppression of free speech and freedom of the press, arbitrary arrests which had continued to be made by military orders of the Secretary of War.(16)
With the presidential election drawing near, Lincoln knew his political career was in serious jeopardy. In a memorandum delivered to his Cabinet on 23 August 1864, he expressed his despondency over an expected defeat at the polls by Democratic candidate, George McClellan: "This morning... it seems exceedingly probable that this Administration will not be reelected."(17) It has been noted that "there was no period from January, 1864, until 3d of September, when McClellan would not have defeated Lincoln for President."(18) Even the most ardent worshippers of Lincoln have been forced to admit that "only a few conservatives supported Lincoln in his desire for a second term," while "at the same time a strong and open opposition to his re-election had developed" throughout the Northern States.(19) How Lincoln overcame these immense obstacles to secure a second term is indicative of how far removed from a constitutional foundation his Administration had become by late 1864.
According to Lincoln biographer Norman Hapgood, "It was undoubtedly true that all the resources of the administration, including the War Department... were used to secure the President's renomination and reelection. But these things did not bother the people. The only thing that counted much with them was military success...."(20) An order from Secretary of War Stanton, which declared criticism of the Administration to be a treasonous offense, made a Democratic canvass for the Presidency very difficult, if not impossible. In his book, Our Presidents and How We Make Them, Alexander McClure recalled how he had, two weeks before the election, proposed to Lincoln that 5,000 Pennsylvania soldiers be granted a twenty-day furlough if they would agree to vote the Republican ticket. The order was subsequently issued and then returned and concealed.(21)
In his autobiography, General Benjamin F. Butler described how he was detailed by the War Department, along with 5,000 troops, in New York city with orders to intimidate, and even to shoot, those who dared to cast a vote in favor of McClellan.(22) George Edmonds summarized the conversation which occurred between Butler and Stanton:
The election day was November 8, 1864. Lincoln had sent agents to New York City to spy out and report how the election would go. The report boded ill for Lincoln's success; in fact, indicated that New York would give a large majority for General McClellan. Lincoln, Seward, and Stanton were alarmed. The latter instantly telegraphed General Butler to report to him at once. Butler rushed to Washington, and Stanton explained the situation at New York.
"What do you want me to do?" asked Butler.
"Start at once for New York, take command of the Department of the East, relieving General Dix. I will send you all the troops you need."
"But," returned Butler, "it will not be good politics to relieve General Dix just on the eve of election."
"Dix is a brave man," said Stanton, "but he won't do anything; he is very timid about some matters."
This meant that General Dix was too honorable to use the United States Army to control and direct elections.
"Send me," suggested the shrewd Butler, "to New York with President Lincoln's order for me to relieve Dix in my pocket, but I will not use the order until such time as I think safe. I will report to Dix and be his obedient servant, and coddle him up until I see proper to spring on him my order, and take supreme command myself."
"Very well," assented Stanton, "I will send you Massachusetts troops."
"Oh, no!" objected the shrewder Butler, "it won't do for Massachusetts men to shoot down New Yorkers."
Stanton saw this also would be bad politics, so Grant was ordered to send Western troops — 5,000 good troops and two batteries of Napoleon guns — for the purpose of shooting down New Yorkers should New Yorkers persist in the evil intention of voting for McClellan [emphasis in original].(23)
On the seventh of November, the day before the election, Butler reported to Stanton, "I have done all I could to prevent secessionists [Democrats] from voting, and think it will have some effect."(24)
In his book entitled Civil Government and Self Government, Francis Lieber described the farcical nature of elections held under such circumstances:
If the imperatorial sovereignty is founded upon an actual process of election, whether this consist in a mere form or not, it bears down all opposition, nay all dissent, however lawful it may be....
The Caesar always exists before the imperatorial government is acknowledged and openly established. Whether the praetorians or legions actually proclaim the Caesar or not, it is always the army that makes him. A succeeding ballot is nothing more than a trimming belonging to more polished or more timid periods, or it may be a tribute to that civilization which does not allow armies to occupy the place they hold in barbarous or relapsing times, at least not openly so.
First to assume the power and then to direct the people to vote, whether they are satisfied with the act or not, leads psychologically to a process similar to that often pursued by Henry VIII., and according to which it became a common saying: First clap a man into prison for treason, and you will soon have abundance of testimony. It was the same in the witch-trials.
The process of election becomes peculiarly unmeaning, because the power already assumed allows no discussion. There is no free press.(25)
Lincoln garnered even more votes by creating bogus States with the cooperation of a minimum of ten percent of the "loyal" populations of Louisiana and Tennessee.(26) He went further to install Michael Hahn as Military Governor of the former and his future Vice-President Andrew Johnson as Military Governor of the latter. Showing his gratitude for the appointment, Johnson pledged the votes of "the real Union men" in occupied Tennessee "for Lincoln for President."(27)
The Creation of the "State of West Virginia"
Lincoln, in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution, also sanctioned the carving out of an entire section of Virginia to form the so-called "State of West Virginia." According to the Constitution, "...[N]o new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."(28) In order to circumvent this obstacle, a specious government of "Virginia" was established in Wheeling under Lincoln's guidance with Francis H. Pierpont acting as "Governor," over against the true State government which already existed at Richmond. The new government then proceeded to give its "consent" to the division of the State, to which Congress assented. Thus, "by assuming the consent of Virginia, which could only be asserted as a technical fact, the makers of the new state offered a kind of sophistry to excuse the non-fulfillment of a constitutional obligation...."(29) The congressional debates on this matter, especially the comments made by Republicans, are most revealing of the prevailing mindset which justified this unconstitutional action. Speaking on the proposed Act of Congress to admit the new "State" to the Union, Thaddeus Stevens stated in the House of Representatives:
I do not wish to be understood as sharing the delusion that we are admitting West Virginia in pursuance of any provision of the Constitution. I can find no provision justifying it, and the argument in favor of it originates with those who either honestly entertain an erroneous opinion, or who desire to justify by a forced construction an act which they have predetermined to do. By the Constitution, a State may be divided by the consent of the Legislature thereof and by the consent of Congress admitting the new State into the Union.
Now, sir, it is but mockery to say that the Legislature of Virginia has ever consented to the division. Only two hundred thousand out of a million and a quarter of people have participated in this proceeding....
But, sir, I understand that these proceedings all take place, not under the pretense of any legal or constitutional right, but in virtue of the laws of war.... I say then, that we may admit West Virginia as a new State, not by virtue of any provision of the Constitution, but under our absolute power which the laws of war give us in the circumstances in which we are placed. I shall vote for this bill upon that theory, and upon that alone; for I will not stultify myself by supposing that we have any warrant in the Constitution for this proceeding.(30)
The views of Abram Baldwin Olin of New York were similar:
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am rather disposed to vote for this bill; but I confess I shall do it with great reluctance.... I confess I do not fully understand upon what principles of constitutional law this measure can be justified. It cannot be done, I fear, at all. It can be justified only as a measure of policy, or of necessity.... This proceeding is sanctioned by the rules and practices of war, which have been sanctioned by all nations through all time. The Constitution gives no authority for it. It does not grow out of any constitutional provision, nor of any right guarantied by it.(31)
Thomas E. Noell of Missouri heartily endorsed the bill with the following words:
We are living in revolutionary times, and he who would undertake to apply measures of relief, such as are expedient in ordinary times of peace, is no statesman. We must apply a medicine suited to the disease, apply a remedy suited to the times; and we cannot afford, while the nation is trembling on the brink of destruction, to split hairs on technical constitutional points. If I had power, I would save the nation's life by the exercise of all powers necessary to the result; for such powers, whether expressed in the Constitution or not, are from necessity implied. I would save the nation, and would march with relentless step towards accomplishing its high and proud destiny.... I am for the exercise of those powers which will accomplish the purpose.... I believe that these people of Western Virginia are entitled to come into the Union as a State. I admit that I have grave constitutional doubts upon this question....(32)
Martin Conway of Kansas, one of the few Republicans who opposed the bill, described the "constitutional convention" of "West Virginia" as a "mob," and then voiced his suspicion that "it is the intention of the President to encourage the formation of State organizations in all the seceded States, and that a few individuals are to assume State powers wherever a military encampment can be effected in any of the rebellious districts." He denounced the proceeding as "utterly and flagrantly unconstitutional, as radically revolutionary in character and deserving the reprobation of every loyal citizen," and added, "It aims at an utter subversion of our constitutional system and will consolidate all power in the hands of the Executive.... I insist that the President of the United States has wrongfully exercised his discretion in this case; and that, if this instance is brought in as a precedent for future action, it will involve the entire subversion of our constitutional system."(33) According to Henry Dawes of Massachusetts, "...[N]obody has given his consent to the division of the State of Virginia and the erection of a new State who does not reside within the new State itself.... This bill does not comply with the spirit of the Constitution. If the remaining portions of Virginia are under duress while this consent is given, it is a mere mockery of the Constitution."(34)
John Crittenden, a Democrat from Kentucky said that the so-called "government of Virginia" set up at Wheeling could be regarded as the true State government "only by a mere fiction. We know the fact to be otherwise...." [emphasis in original] He went on to argue, "If you can do this, can you not also, without the consent on the part of the people of North Carolina, divide that State and make up new States just as your armies progress, setting aside the necessity of consent on the part of the Legislature? If you can dispense with that, you can make States at pleasure.... [T]he Constitution gives us no power to do what we are asked to do."(35)
Over in the Senate, the arguments against the bill were not much different. Garrett Davis, a Democrat Senator from Kentucky, said:
I hold that there is, legally and constitutionally no such state in existence as the state of West Virginia and consequently no senators from such a state. My object is simply to raise a question to be put upon the record, and to have my name as a Senator recorded against the recognition of West Virginia as a state of the United States. I do not believe that the Old Dominion, like a polypus, can be separated into different segments, and each segment become a living constitutional organism in this node. The present state of West Virginia as it has been organized, and as it is seeking representation on the floor of the Senate, is a flagrant violation of the Constitution.(36)
Lincoln's Attorney General, Edward Bates, described the formation of "a new State out of Western Virginia" as "an original, independent act of revolution." He went on to write, "Any attempt to carry it out involves a plain breach of both the constitutions — of Virginia and the nation."(37) Writing twenty years later, Radical Republican James G. Blaine admitted, "As a punitive measure, for the chastening of Virginia, it cannot be defended. Assuredly there was no ground for distressing Virginia by penal enactments that did not apply equally to every other State of the Confederacy. Common justice revolts at the selection of one man for punishment from eleven who have all been guilty of the same offense."(38)
Finally, in affixing his signature to the bill for the admission of "West Virginia," Lincoln himself admitted that it stood on the same dubious legal foundation as his Emancipation Proclamation:
We can scarcely dispense with the aid of West Virginia in this struggle, much less can we afford to have her against us, in Congress and in the field. Her brave and good men regard her admission into the union as a matter of life and death. They have been true to the union under many severe trials. The division of a state is dreaded as a precedent but a measure expedient by a war is no precedent for times of peace.
It is said that the admission of West Virginia is secession, and tolerated only because it is our secession. Well, if we call it by that name, there is still difference enough between secession against the Constitution and secession in favor of the Constitution. I believe the admission of West Virginia into the union is expedient.(39)
It is perhaps one of the greatest absurdities to arise from the War of 1861-1865 that Lincoln, who believed that "the slaveholder has a legal and moral right to his slaves" and who spoke of the "natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races,"(40) who believed that "there is a physical difference between the white and black races which... will forbid the two races living together in social and political equality," and was "in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race,"(41) and who, after the war, had formulated a plan with General Butler to "get rid of the negroes" by sending them to Panama to dig the canal(42) and finally, who used the military power of the Government and fictitious "States" to secure his re-election, should have been immortalized after his assassination as "the greatest, wisest, godliest man that has appeared on earth since Christ,"(43) and "as gentle and as unoffending a man who died for men,"(44) and memorialized in the hearts of nearly all Americans since as "the Great Emancipator," the champion of racial equality, and the greatest President this country has ever had. Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, Lincoln is indicted and condemned by his own words:
If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be its author and its finisher. As a nation of free men, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
That will be the time when the usurper will put down his heel on the neck of the people, and batter down the fair fabric of free institutions. Many great and good men may be found whose ambition aspires no higher than a seat in Congress, or a Presidential chair, but such belong not to the family of the Lion, or the tribe of the Eagle. What! Think you such places would satisfy an Alexander? a Caesar? or a Napoleon? Never! Towering ambition disdains a beaten path. It seeks regions unexplored. It sees no grandeur in adding story to story upon the monuments already erected to the memory of others. It scorns to tread in the footsteps of any predecessor, however illustrious. It thirsts, it burns, for distinction, and, if possible, it will have it, whether at the expense of emancipating slaves or enslaving freemen. Is it unreasonable then to expect, that some man possessed of the loftiest genius, coupled with ambition sufficient to push it to its utmost stretch, will at some time, spring up among us? And when such a one does, it will require the people to be united with each other, attached to the government and laws, and generally intelligent, to successfully frustrate his designs [emphasis in original].(45)
Endnotes
1. Lincoln, letter to Hannibal Hamlin, 28 September 1862; in Basler, Collected Works of Lincoln, Volume V, pages 439-440.
2. Alexander K. McClure, Abraham Lincoln and Men of War Times (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Times Publishing, 1892), page 228.
3. Joseph Hooker, quoted in North American Review, October 1862, page 529.
4. Hooker, quoted by G.F.R. Henderson, Stonewall Jackson and the American Civil War (New York: Longmans, Green and Company, 1902), Volume II, page 411.
5. Ida M. Tarbell, McClure's Magazine, January 1893, page 165.
6. George McClellan, Official Records: Armies, Volume XIX, part II, page 365.
7. George Meade, op. cit., page 348.
8. Henderson, Stonewall Jackson, Volume II, page 411.
9. Hooker, quoted by Henderson, ibid.
10. Gary Gallagher, The Confederate War (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1997), page 67.
11. David Hunter to Henry Halleck, 23 March 1863; in Official Records: Armies, Series I, Volume XIV, page 431.
12. Dean, Crimes of the Civil War, pages 99, 100, 101.
13. Horton, History of the Great Civil War, pages 317-318.
14. Nicolay and Hay, Abraham Lincoln: A History, Volume II, page 261.
15. Albert Bushnell Hart, Salmon P. Chase (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1899), page 309.
16. Rhodes, History of the United States, Volume IV, page 163.
17. Lincoln, quoted by Nicolay and Hay, Lincoln: Complete Works, Volume IX, page 251.
18. McClure, Lincoln and Men of War Times, page 112.
19. Tarbell, McClure's Magazine, July 1899, page 268.
20. Norman Hapgood, Abraham Lincoln: The Man of the People (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1913), page 348.
21. Alexander K. McClure, Our Presidents and How We Make Them (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1900), page 195.
22. Butler, Butler's Book, Volume II, pages 753ff.
23. Edmonds, Facts and Falsehoods, pages 204-205.
24. Butler, letter to Edwin Stanton, 7 November 1864; quoted by Edmonds, op. cit., page 206.
25. Lieber, Civil Liberty and Self Government, pages 390, 393.
26. Morse, Jr., Abraham Lincoln, Volume I, pages 295-298., pages 295-298.
27. Andrew Johnson, letter to Horace Maynard, 14 January 1864; quoted by Minor, Real Lincoln, page 221.
28. U.S. Constitution, Article IV: Section 3, Clause 1.
29. Randall, Civil War and Reconstruction, page 336.
30. Stevens, Congressional Globe (Thirty-Seventh Congress, Third Session), 9 December 1862, pages 50-51.
31. Abram Baldwin Olin, op. cit., page 45.
32. Thomas E. Noell, op. cit., page 53.
33. Martin Conway, op. cit., page 44.
34. Henry Dawes, op. cit., page 48.
35. John Crittendon, op. cit., page 47.
36. Garrett Davis, ibid.
37. Edward Bates, letter to A.F. Ritchie of the so-called Virginia Convention at Wheeling, 12 August 1861; quoted by McHenry, Cotton States, pages xlv-xlvi.
38. Blaine, Twenty Years of Congress, Volume I, page 466.
39. Lincoln, quoted by Nicolay and Hay, Abraham Lincoln: A History, Volume II, page 286.
40. Lincoln, speech delivered in Springfield, Illinois on 26 June 1857; in Roy B. Basler, editor, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1953), Volume II, 403-407.
41. Lincoln, speech delivered at Charleston, Illinois on 18 September 1858; in Johannsen, Lincoln-Douglas Debates, page 162.
42. Butler, Butler's Book, Volume II, pages 903-907.
43. John Hay, quoted by Rutherford, Truths of History, page 85.
44. Henry Watterson, quoted by Rutherford, op. cit., page 73.
45. Lincoln, "The Perpetuation of Our Free Institutions," lecture delivered before the Young Men's Lyceum at Springfield, Illinois on 27 January 1838; in Basler, Collected Works of Lincoln, Volume I, page 114.
|
