he
few who went so far as to desire the victory of the South; more loosely
it was applied to a far larger number who went no further than to say
that the war should be stopped. This demand, it must be observed, was
based upon the change of policy shown in the Proclamation of
Emancipation. "The war for the Union," said Vallandigham in Congress in
January, 1863, "is in your hands a most bloody and costly failure. War
for the Union was abandoned; war for the negro openly begun. With what
success? Let the dead at Fredericksburg answer.--Ought this war to
continue? I answer no--not a day, not an hour. What then? Shall we
separate? Again I answer, no, no, no.--Stop fighting. Make an
armistice. Accept at once friendly foreign mediation." And further:
"The secret but real purpose of the war was to abolish slavery in the
States, and with it the change of our present democratical form of
government into an imperial despotism." This was in no sense treason; it
was merely humbug. The alleged design to establish despotism, chiefly
revealed at that moment by the liberation of slaves, had of course no
existence. Equally false, as will be seen later, was the whole
suggestion that any peace could have been had with the South except on
the terms of separation. Vallandigham, a demagogue of real vigour, had
perhaps so much honesty as is compatible with self-deception; at any
rate, upon his subsequent visit to the South his intercourse with
Southern leaders was conducted on the footing that the Union should be
restored. But his character inspired no respect. Burnside, now
commanding the troops in Ohio, held that violent denunciation of the
Government in a tone that tended to demoralise the troops was treason,
since it certainly was not patriotism, and when in May, 1863,
Vallandigham made a very violent and offensive speech in Ohio he had him
arrested in his house at night, and sent him before a court-martial which
imprisoned him. Loud protest was raised by every Democrat. This worry
came upon Lincoln just after Chancellorsville. He regretted Burnside's
action--later on he had to reverse the rash suppression of a newspaper by
which Burnside provoked violent indignation--but on this occasion he
would only say in public that he "regretted the necessity" of such
action. Evidently he thought it his duty to support a well-intentioned
general against a dangerous agitator. The course which after some
consideration he took was