voting elsewhere, and thus govern the State in China, or Peru, or anywhere except in the State. This was the view taken by Judge Ranney, a very able Judge, in his dissenting opinion in Lehman against McBride in Ohio, and also by Judge Woodward in the opinion of the Court in Chase v. Miller, in Pennsylvania. This objection would prevent voting in the field, even if the State Constitution permitted it. It is, however, a restriction upon the power of the people which is theoretical rather than practical, and has not been accepted as sound. The second question was whether the State Constitution had so fixed the place, time, or manner of voting that the Legislature could not authorize voting at any other place or at any other time, or in any other manner than that fixed by the Constitution. If in any State this was found to be the case, the Constitution must be amended, if the Legislature was to authorize voting in the field. In some States the Constitution had plainly prescribed the place or the time or the manner of voting, and in such States the soldiers could be allowed to vote in the field only by amending the Constitution. This was the case in all the New England States, in most of the Southern States, and in New York, New Jersey, and some other States. In other States, where the Constitution plainly did not prescribe the place, time or manner of voting, the Legislature was free to allow voting in the field under such restrictions as it saw fit to impose. This was the case in Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, and some other States. In still other States the question as to whether the Constitution left the Legislature free to provide the place, time and. manner of voting was doubtful, and fairly debatable. In such States there was nothing to do but amend the Constitution, which took time and might not be necessary, or to pass a soldiers' voting bill and leave the question of its constitutionality to the Courts to be decided in the course of judicial procedure; or in those States where the Legislature had the right to ask the opinion of the Supreme Court, to invoke that opinion as an aid to the Legislature as to the validity of its action, as was done in Connecticut, New Hampshire and Vermont. Or it was possible to pass a soldiers' voting bill, and at the same time to amend the Constitution so as to supply the lack of legislative authority, if it existed. This was done in Kansas, and attempted to be done in Pennsylvania. There was then the objection to this method of taking the ballot box to the soldier in the field, that it could not be done by military officers, even if they were authorized to do it by the State. It was said that voting was a civil matter, which was under the control of civil officers, answerable for the performance of their duties to the civil and not the military power. This view was strenuously urged by Judge Woodward in Chase v. Miller. It was claimed that if there was to be voting in the field at all, it must be under the direction of civil officers appointed by the civil power of the State and controlled by that power, and that officers or soldiers could not be authorized to open a poll or present the box to the soldier for his vote, or canvass, seal up and return the votes to the State to be counted. This was an objection to method rather than to matter, and it was avoided by the appointment in the soldiers' voting acts, of officers or soldiers to act in an election as constables, supervisors, etc., as the laws of the State might designate, would act in elections at home. The method of proxy voting which was adopted in New York, Illinois and to a slight extent in other States, avoided these objections, but it was open to the objection that the soldier's vote was secret and subject to many contingencies before it was actually cast into the box in the home precinct, out of which fraud might arise; that this gave an opportunity for fraud which did not exist under the other method where polls were open, the voters' names called, and the votes cast in the open light of day. But all this was of importance only as to votes for State officers. All the State constitutions were silent as to the place, time or manner of voting for presidential electors and members of Congress, and as Congress did not fix the place of such election, therefore the state Legislatures could fix it. BUT CHAPTER III SMALL UNION MAJORITY UT we must not only understand what the right of suffrage was, under the Constitutions of the States; we must also understand the small popular majority which supported the Lincoln administration in the prosecution of the Civil War. We are apt to think of the war as being waged by a united North. But the opposition was so strong in many of the States as seriously to embarrass the administration. The Democratic party remained powerful as a political organization, especially in 1862 and 1863. It was an old and well-tried party, accustomed to act together. The patriotic enthusiasm with which the North began the war was subdued as time went on, and nothing appeared to be accomplished. The Republican party, which came into power by the election of Lincoln by a minority of the entire popular vote, soon began to lose its hold in the various States. It was a new party not trained and seasoned by political contests. Its members were not held together by the traditions of an old political organization. Its votes were necessarily drawn from the other party, and were inclined to swing back to their old allegiance upon the slightest provocation. For instance, after Fremont had carried Connecticut, Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin and New York by very handsome majorities in 1856, in 1857 Connecticut gave only 546 Republican majority, Ohio, 1,481 majority, Iowa 2,151 majority, and Wis consin 118 majority, while New York gave 18,057 Democratic plurality.1 In 1860, the total vote cast for President was 4,662,170. Of these Douglass received 1,365,976; Breckenridge, 847,953; and Bell, 590,631; leaving 1,857,610 received by Lincoln, which was 946,950 less than were cast for Douglass, Breckenridge and Bell. In 1860, the majorities for and against Lincoln in the different States, which did not secede, were as follows: In Maine, 27,770 in a total vote of 97,918. In New Hampshire, 9,115 in a total vote of 65,923. In New York, 50,136 in a total vote of 675,156. In Ohio, 32,184 in a total vote of 431,036. In Pennsylvania, 59,618 in a total vote of 476,442. In Indiana, 5,923 in a total vote of 272,143. In California, 40,494 against Lincoln in a total vote of 118,840. In Oregon, Lincoln had a plurality of only 260 in a total vote of 14,751. In Delaware, 9,140 against Lincoln in a total vote of 15,339. In Maryland, 87,914 against Lincoln in a total vote of 92,502. 1 Greeley's American Conflict, Vol. 1, p. 300. |