The reader must have noticed, in all these proceedings which resulted in the subjugation of the State governments, the cautious and stealthy manner in which the Government of the United States proceeded at the outset in each instance until it got a strong foothold, that then the mask was thrown off, and both Governor and people were made the unresisting victims of its unscrupulous and lawless outrages.
In the State of Kentucky, the first open and direct measures taken by the Government of the United States for the subjugation of the State government and people, thereby to effect the emancipation of the slaves, consisted in an interference with the voters at the State election in August, 1863. This interference was by means of a military force stationed at the polls to sustain and enforce the action of some of the servants of the Government of the United States, the object being to overawe the judges of election, secure the administration of a rigid oath of allegiance, and thereby the rejection of as many antagonistic votes as possible. Indeed, it was intended that none but so-called "Union" men should vote—that is, men who were willing to approve of every measure which the Government of the United States might adopt to carry on the war and revolutionize the State. At the same time, no man was allowed to be a candidate or to receive any votes unless he was a well-known advocate of the Government of the United States. It will be seen that these measures excluded the largest portion of the former Democratic party, although they might be practically "Union" men, and placed everything in the hands of the Administration party, where, by the use of similar machinery, it remained a great many years after the war closed.
Meantime, on July 31, 1863, the commanding General of the Department of the Ohio issued an order declaring the State under martial law, and said, "It is for the purpose, only, of protecting, if necessary, the rights of loyal citizens and the freedom of elections." He would have more correctly said, "It is for the purpose of enforcing and securing a majority for the candidates of my views." The General in command in the western part of the State issued an order to regulate the election in that quarter, and the colonels at every post did likewise. In Louisville, on the day of election, there were ten soldiers with muskets at each voting-place who, with crossed bayonets, stood in the doors, preventing all access of voters to the polls but by their permission, and who arrested and carried to the military prison all whom they were told to arrest. Out of some eight thousand voters in the city, less than five thousand votes were taken. How many of the missing three thousand were deterred from attempting to vote could not be ascertained, nor was it necessary, for the intimidation of three thousand voters is no greater outrage than the intimidation of only three hundred. The interpretation generally put on the order of the commanding officer by the opposition party was, that no man was to have the privilege of having his right to vote tested by the judges of election if he was pointed out to the guard by any one of the detectives as a proper person to be arrested. As the commanding officer had not the semblance of legal or rightful power to interfere with the election, the most sinister suspicions were naturally aroused, and very many were said to have been deterred from going to the polls through fear that they would be made the victims to personal or party malice. Similar intimidation was practiced in other parts of the State. The result was, that there was not only direct military interference with the election, but it was conducted in most of the State under the intimidation of the bayonets of the Government of the United States. The total vote was 85,695. In 1860 the vote of the State was 146,216. The Governor-elect in his message spoke, of such an unjust election, as follows:
"The recent elections clearly and unmistakably define the popular will and public judgment of Kentucky. It is settled that Kentucky will, with unwavering faith and unswerving purpose, stand by and support the Government in every effort to suppress the rebellion and maintain the Union."
The true sense of this language is, that the Government of the United States had so far subverted the State government and destroyed the sovereignty of the people that they could not withstand its further aggressions.
The Government of the United States was now ready to move forward in its design to destroy one of the most valuable institutions of the State. Steps were taken by its officers to enroll all able-bodied male negroes in the State between the ages of twenty and forty-five years, that they might form a part of its forces. The effect of this measure was to break up the labor system of the State, and meanwhile the pseudo-philanthropists furnished food for powder, and indulged their ideas of freedom at their neighbors' expense. The excitement produced caused the Governor to visit Washington and effect agreements by which all recruiting should cease when a county's quota was full, all recruits should be removed from the State, and other similar provisions. A year later, he said to the Legislature: "Had these agreements been carried out, a very different state of feeling would have existed in Kentucky. But, instead of carrying them out, the most offensive and injurious modes were adopted to violate them."
The next step taken by the Government of the United States in the subversion of the government of Kentucky was the destruction of the unalienable right of personal liberty of the citizens, which the State was in duty bound to protect. The Union Governor of the State, whose election was aided by the United States military officers, as above stated, is the witness for the facts. In his message to the Legislature of January, 1865, he says:
"The gravest matter of military outrage has been, and yet is, the arrest, imprisonment, and banishment of loyal citizens without a hearing, and without even a knowledge of the charges against them. There have been a number of this class of arrests, merely for partisan political vengeance, and to force them to pay heavy sums to purchase their liberation. How the spoils so infamously extorted are divided, has not transpired to the public information. For partisan political ends, General John B. Huston was arrested at midnight preceding the election, and hurried off under circumstances of shameful aggravation. He was, however, released in a few days; but that does not atone for the criminality of his malicious arrest and false imprisonment. The battle-scarred veteran, Colonel Frank Wolford, whose name and loyal fame are part of his country's proudest memories, and whose arrest for political vengeance should put a nation's cheek to blush, is yet held in durance vile, without a hearing and without an accusation, so far as he or his friends can ascertain.
"Lieutenant-Governor Jacobs, whose yet unclosed wounds were received in battle for his country, was made a victim to partisan and personal enmity, and hurried without a hearing and without any known accusation through the rebel lines into Virginia. The action in this case is in defiance of Federal and State Constitutions and laws, in defiance of the laws of humanity and liberty, dishonors the cause of our country, and degrades the military rank to the infamous uses of partisan and personal vengeance. Other cases might be mentioned, but these are selected because they are known to the whole country; the acts of these men are part of the glorious history of loyal heroism."
The next step in the progress of the subjugation of the State government was taken by President Lincoln on July 5, 1864, when he issued a proclamation establishing martial law throughout the State, and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Civil proceedings were allowed to be continued, "which did not affect the military operations or the constituted authorities of the Government of the United States." Arrests of individuals by military force soon commenced, and a large number of eminent Kentuckians of all professions and pursuits were imprisoned. A group of persons, consisting of judges, magistrates, wealthy merchants, and young women, without having been allowed a hearing, or trial, or any opportunity to vindicate themselves, were banished from the State. In this destruction of the unalienable right of personal liberty, the State government was passive; indeed, it was powerless to resist.