I had an ugly dream about him.
A. LINCOLN.
TELEGRAM TO GENERAL HOOKER.
WASHINGTON, D.C. June 9, 1863
MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:
I am told there are 50 incendiary shells here at the arsenal made to fit the 100 pounder Parrott gun now with you. If this be true would you like to have the shells sent to you?
A. LINCOLN
TELEGRAM TO GENERAL HOOKER.
WASHINGTON, D. C., June 10, 1863
MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:
Your long despatch of to-day is just received. If left to me, I would not go south of the Rappahannock upon Lee's moving north of it. If you had Richmond invested to-day you would not be able to take it in twenty days; meanwhile your communications, and with them your army, would be ruined. I think Lee's army, and not Richmond, is your true objective point. If he comes towards the upper Potomac, follow on his flank, and on the inside track, shortening your lines while he lengthens his. Fight him, too, when opportunity offers. If he stay where he is, fret him and fret him.
A. LINCOLN.
TELEGRAM TO MRS. LINCOLN.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 11,1863.
MRS. LINCOLN, Philadelphia:
Your three despatches received. I am very well and am glad to know that you and "Tad" are so.
A. LINCOLN.
TELEGRAM TO GENERAL HOOKER. [Cipher.] EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, JUNE 12, 1863.
MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:
If you can show me a trial of the incendiary shells on Saturday night, I will try to join you at 5 P.M. that day Answer.
A. LINCOLN.
TO ERASTUS CORNING AND OTHERS.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 12, 1863.
HON. ERASTUS CORNING AND OTHERS.
GENTLEMEN:--Your letter of May 19, inclosing the resolutions of a public meeting held at Albany, New York, on the 16th of the same month, was received several days ago.
The resolutions, as I understand them, are resolvable into two propositions--first, the expression of a purpose to sustain the cause of the Union, to secure peace through victory, and to support the administration in every constitutional and lawful measure to suppress the rebellion; and, secondly, a declaration of censure upon the administration for supposed unconstitutional action, such as the making of military arrests. And from the two propositions a third is deduced, which is that the gentlemen composing the meeting are resolved on doing their part to maintain our common government and country, despite the folly or wickedness, as they may conceive, of any administration. This position is eminently patriotic, and as such I thank the meeting, and congratulate the nation for it. My own purpose is the same; so that the meeting and myself have a common object, and can have no difference, except in the choice of means or measures for effecting that object.
And here I ought to close this paper, and would close it, if there were no apprehension that more injurious consequences than any merely personal to myself might follow the censures systematically cast upon me for doing what, in my view of duty, I could not forbear. The resolutions promise to support me in every constitutional and lawful measure to suppress the rebellion; and I have not knowingly employed, nor shall knowingly employ, any other. But the meeting, by their resolutions, assert and argue that certain military arrests, and proceedings following them, for which I am ultimately responsible, are unconstitutional. I think they are not. The resolutions quote from the Constitution the definition of treason, and also the limiting safeguards and guarantees therein provided for the citizen on trial for treason, and on his being held to answer for capital or otherwise infamous crimes, and in criminal prosecutions his right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury. They proceed to resolve "that these safeguards of the rights of the citizen against the pretensions of arbitrary power were intended more especially for his protection in times of civil commotion." And, apparently to demonstrate the proposition, the resolutions proceed: "They were secured substantially to the English people after years of protracted civil war, and were adopted into our Constitution at the close of the Revolution." Would not the demonstration have been better if it could have been truly said that these safeguards had been adopted and applied during the civil wars and during our Revolution, instead of after the one and at the close of the other? I too am devotedly for them after civil war, and before Civil war, and at all times, "except when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require" their suspension.