Mail-in ballots - a plot to deny Lincoln reelection in 1864

[David Lockmiller]

Mail-in ballots were part of a plot to deny Lincoln reelection in 1864, Washington Post, August 22, 2020

The judge advocate addressed the tribunal, saying that Donahue had engaged in one of the most gigantic frauds ever attempted in America — “a fraud which, if it shall be successful, will, in my opinion, have produced a disruption of our entire country, and our war for the preservation of the Union will be practically at an end and futile.”

In the months following Lincoln’s victory — he won 221 electoral votes to McClellan’s 21 — anti-abolitionist newspapers attacked his legitimacy, calling the trial another aspect of a conspiracy conducted by the president to ensure his reelection.

The commission that oversaw Ferry and Donahue’s trial recommended life in prison for the two men who sought to corrupt the election by mail. The president, who would soon be slain, approved.

[Steve]

Thanks David, for that important reminder from history.

[David Lockmiller]

The following is the text of the letter President Abraham Lincoln wrote and signed, on Executive Mansion letterhead, Washington, February 27, 1865, to Joseph Holt, who was the Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Army. “Please procure the record, and report to me, on the case of Edward Donahue, Jr. about election fraud.” A facsimile of the actual letter is also available on the website.

What action Lincoln was contemplating in asking for this record is unknown.

The letter had been in a private collection for nearly a century. It sold in the 1920s for around $400. It was sold recently for an undisclosed amount.

A more complete history of the fraud may be found at the hyperlink location above and apparently was prepared in support of efforts to sell the Lincoln original document:

Two of the Democratic Party agents, Moses J. Ferry and Edward Donahoe, were arrested in Baltimore by an Army Provost Marshal. They were arraigned by a military commission in October chaired by General Abner Doubleday. Specifically, the two were charged with “conduct prejudicial to the welfare of the service, falsely impersonating and representing officers in the United States service”. They were accused of forging ballots of New York soldiers and changing votes to support Democratic candidates.

Donahoe asked for an attorney while Ferry made a confession and accused Donahoe of affixing the officer’s name to the ballots himself. Donahoe at first denied complicity, but later confessed to having signed blanks with the name of “C.S. Arthur, captain and aid-de-camp;” but [Donahoe, the one who presumably received an attorney’s advice,] claimed that no offense was committed inasmuch as there was no officer by that name in the service of New York or the United States.

In the press dispatches, it was alleged that several dry-goods boxes of forged votes for the Democratic national and state tickets had been forwarded to New York. Both Ferry and Donahoe were convicted of forgery in late October, weeks before the election, and sentenced to prison.

I guess that Donahoe's argument would have been that since he was charged with "falsely impersonating and representing officers in the United States service" and no such real officer actually existed in the United States service, then he could not be convicted of the offense.

I wonder if President Lincoln had heard about this argument and that this was the reason that he wanted to see the case record.This all reminds me of a similar incident that occurred early in Lincoln's own life. See my post #5, dated April 21, 2020, on the thread titled "RE: Ignorance of the law is no defense. How did Abraham Lincoln learn this fact?"

Working backward in time, one learns that in 1827 [Abraham Lincoln] had a foretaste of his future calling when hailed before Squire Samuel Pate, farmer and justice of the peace near Lewisport, Kentucky – charged, on the complaint of two licensed ferrymen, John and Lin Dill, with operating a ferryboat without a license, in violation of the Ohio River ferry ordinance. Unaware of any statutory restriction, Lincoln, having built a small flatboat, was transporting travelers, for hire, from the Indiana shore of the Ohio River to steamers in midstream. The complainants, owners of the duly licensed ferryboat operating from the Kentucky shore, after luring the unsuspecting Lincoln to their bank of the river, induced him to accompany them to the home of Squire Pate, where John Dill sued out a warrant.

Lincoln’s defense was ignorance of the law, which, as every layman now knows, is no defense at all. Squire Pate, doubtless impressed with the forthrightness of the youthful defendant, proceeded to consult the statue book and, after reading the pertinent section, came up with the legally sound observation that the statute was directed against transportation across the river, and not to steamers located in midstream. The proceeding was dismissed, whereupon Lincoln expressed his gratitude to the Squire.