The Crime of Disloyalty: Curbing Dissent in the Civil War North

Often overlooked in the shadow of the Emancipation Proclamation (September 1862) was a measure curbing dissent in the name of military necessity. Abraham Lincoln’s proclamation on martial law and habeas corpus quietly set in place an important and controversial mechanism of enforcing obedience to federal war measures. The proclamation authorized the military arrest of civilians and suspension of habeas corpus rights. Subduing the rebellion now required a new states militia draft to counter lackluster enlistment. “Disloyal persons,” wrote Lincoln, “are not adequately restrained by the ordinary processes of the law from hindering this measure and from giving aid and comfort in various ways to the insurrection.”

Democratic critics would later seize on this action as evidence of Lincoln’s growing “despotism.” One of the most disconcerting aspects of the proclamation was the broad latitude it granted to federal officials to arrest and detain people under military control. Beyond rebels and “their agents” the measure targeted “all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice, affording aid and comfort to rebels against the authority of the United States.” While discouraging enlistment and resisting the draft were more well-defined crimes, the commission of “any disloyal practice” that might “aid or comfort” the enemy was open to vague interpretation. Detractors argued that definitions of “disloyalty” were defined narrowly by the administration as all criticism of Lincoln or his war measures.

This paper examines the context for Lincoln’s controversial measure and the manner in which it criminalized dissent. It pays particular attention to the rhetoric of “loyalty” and a campaign by Republican ideologues to define loyal behavior as unquestioned obedience to the administration in times of war.