When did Freedom End?
Exploring the Origins of Controlled Travel
During my early life, my family didn’t go on many holidays.
My mother is disabled, so travelling far from home was never an option.
We visited caravan parks across the north of England, and sometimes in Wales.
That was the extent of it, and in its modesty, I was thankful.
I didn’t get my first passport until three years ago.
Since then, I’ve travelled to a few countries.
And one thing has always struck me: the effort it takes to simply cross a border.
It is not a simple task.
I am not naive, I understand the safety concerns in the modern world.
But even so, it is a rigidly regulated system.
A system that requires, in essence, the surrender of part of yourself to the state.
I cannot leave England legally without a passport.
I could not sail across the English Channel and step onto a beach in France.
To do so would be a crime, regardless of my intentions.
So, what is freedom?
We may move freely within the country we were born in, but the moment we try to cross a line on a map, we are immediately constrained.
This is freedom conditional on permission, not an innate right.
Over the past few months, I have been searching for historical sources discussing these very concerns.
The voices of people before passports were imposed as a necessity.
And it is not an easy topic.
Modern literature exists in abundance, but this channel is not built on modern interpretations.
We look to the past.
In this article, we will look at the moments when these systems were first conceived, and when objections were still heard.
Beginning with the oldest document I have been able to find concerning passports: a letter from 1864, titled:
“Communication of the Secretary of War relative to the ‘domestic passport system’ enforced upon citizens.”
This letter was written for President Abraham Lincoln and sent by the Secretary of War, James Seddon.
Before we even read it, one detail already stands out: the American passport system originated in the Department of War.
It was created not for convenience, not for diplomacy, not even for general security, but as a tool to control the movement of citizens.
I had assumed, perhaps naively, that such systems were designed for the benefit of humankind.
There are indeed advantages for security and order.
But at its inception, the passport was a mechanism to restrict, monitor, and manage people, not to facilitate their freedom.
And that is where our story begins.
The first page of this document immediately reveals a tension that would shape the passport system for decades to come.
No traveller could enter the United States without official permission.
Citizens required approval from the State Department or a U.S. representative abroad; foreigners needed authorisation from their own government, countersigned by a U.S. diplomat.
Borders were no longer simple lines on a map; they had become instruments of administration, suspicion, and control.
The regulation singled out travellers from neighbouring British provinces, highlighting an acute concern about proximity and movement.
Even peaceful, ordinary travel was framed as something requiring scrutiny.
The very act of moving from one place to another had become contingent upon permission, placing travellers in a position of compliance before freedom.
Enforcement was mandated across military, naval, and civil authorities, and local officials were asked to assist.
For ordinary citizens, this was no abstract policy, it meant every step of travel could be interrupted, inspected, or questioned.
The bureaucracy was layered, complex, and unyielding, yet it claimed to act in the interest of order and security.
Even the allowance made for immigrants already underway illustrates how the state had to reconcile human movement with rigid control, revealing the underlying tension between law and liberty.
What emerges most strikingly is the human implication: freedom of movement, something most take for granted, had become conditional.
The state now determined not only who could travel, but when, where, and under what conditions.
This letter is not merely a historical curiosity; it is a window into a philosophy of control that treats movement itself as a privilege granted by authority, not a right inherent to human existence.
Here, at the origin of the domestic passport system, we witness the roots of a paradox that continues to shape travel, security, and liberty today.
The second page immediately draws attention to the bureaucratic and somewhat opaque origins of the domestic passport system.
The House of Representatives had requested clarity:
Under whose authority did such a system exist, what regulations governed it, and who enforced it?
The response from the Secretary of War reveals a striking reality, no formal orders or regulations could be found establishing the system as it was being applied.
This absence is itself telling.
It suggests that the passport system grew organically within the machinery of the state, rather than being planned or legislated in a clear, public way.
It was a system that existed in practice before it existed on paper.
A framework of control imposed by circumstance, authority, and the need for enforcement rather than by law.
Ordinary citizens had no voice in its creation, yet its reach affected their daily movement and choices.
The report submitted to the President highlights how the system was introduced in Richmond and expanded further, not through public debate or democratic process, but by military logic.
In other towns and cities of the Confederacy, it fell under the control of local military authorities, often entrusted to provost marshals.
What emerges here is a picture of a system that exercises power quietly, yet pervasively.
A structure that can govern people without explicit legal framework, simply because the apparatus of war allows it.
For the public, this represents a subtle but profound shift.
The right to move freely within one’s own country becomes conditional upon military oversight and administrative whim.
Citizens were subject to a network of enforcement whose authority was unquestioned, yet whose origin was ambiguous.
Even in the absence of formal regulation, the consequences for those who failed to comply were real, freedom now required permission, and permission was mediated by the instruments of war.
This page, like the first, reveals that the passport system was never neutral.
It was a mechanism of control, introduced gradually, and enforced rigorously.
The ordinary traveler, man or woman, would have little choice but to submit to its dictates, illustrating a profound philosophical tension: the state claims to organise and protect, yet in doing so, it simultaneously conditions the very liberty it purports to safeguard.
The third page reveals the reasoning behind the spread of the domestic passport system.
Its development across the Confederacy was closely tied to wartime necessities: the suspension of habeas corpus*, the need to restrain stragglers and deserters, the prevention of communication with the enemy, and the detection of spies.
*Habeas corpus is a legal principle designed to protect individuals from unlawful detention.
In essence, it guarantees that no one can be held in custody without being brought before a court to determine whether their imprisonment is justified.
Its suspension happened during the Civil War, it allowed the state to detain people without immediate oversight, creating a climate where movement, freedom, and personal liberty could be restricted with minimal legal recourse.
The passport, in this context, emerges not as a tool for convenience or diplomacy, but as a mechanism of surveillance and control, designed to regulate the movements of ordinary citizens under the guise of military necessity.
What is striking is the paradox embedded in the document: while the passport system is acknowledged to cause inconvenience, it is simultaneously described as “productive of beneficial consequences” in achieving these wartime objectives.
Here, the tension between liberty and utility is made explicit.
Citizens, in pursuit of their daily lives or personal travel, are subjected to measures justified by security, yet these measures are invasive, unpredictable, and mediated through military authority.
Freedom, even within one’s own country, becomes conditional, granted only to those who comply.
The administration of the system was decentralised, relying largely on provost marshals in major towns and cities, with offices often established at the request of citizens near hospitals or depots.
Officers were drawn from those disqualified from active service due to wounds or disease, aided by disabled soldiers as needed.
Even civilians or detectives employed in enforcement were paid sparingly, emphasising that the system operated through both necessity and improvisation.
Philosophically, this page underscores a deeper truth: the passport system, even when framed as a temporary wartime measure, asserts the authority of the state over the individual.
Movement becomes contingent upon permission, oversight, and the goodwill of those in command.
The ordinary citizen, regardless of intention or loyalty, is caught in a web of enforcement that is invisible in its origins yet absolute in its effect.
Here, in the practical mechanics of the Confederate passport system, we see a blueprint of control.
Freedom mediated, surveilled, and conditional, that resonates far beyond its historical moment…
This page provides a fascinating glimpse into the organic development of the passport system in Richmond.
Major E. Griswold, the Provost Marshal, reports that when he was assigned in May 1862, he had no personal knowledge of formal orders or regulations establishing the system.
It was already “in full operation” when he arrived.
Here again, we see a system that emerges through practice before law, shaped by the necessities and anxieties of war rather than deliberate legislation.
The origins were rooted in practical requests.
Officers and citizens, often with relatives in the army, sought passports to facilitate travel to the front lines or across the Confederacy.
Passports served multiple purposes: allowing movement past pickets and guards, and acting as certificates of locality in a country deeply sensitive to the presence of strangers.
What began as a series of personal requests soon required formal administration, a clerk was assigned, then another, and the office gradually took shape.
Remarkably, the office itself was created by verbal orders, passed down from one Secretary of War to the next.
There was no law, no debate, no formal framework, just a growing practice justified by circumstance.
Martial law would later formalise aspects of it, but initially, the system operated in a grey zone between necessity and authority, reflecting both the pressures of war and the improvisational nature of governance.
For citizens, this meant that travel was conditioned on navigating an ad hoc bureaucracy, responding to the requests and discretion of those in charge.
Ordinary movement, visiting family, traveling for trade, or simply passing through, now required validation, approval, and documentation.
Freedom, once assumed as a natural aspect of daily life, had become contingent on the machinery of the state, even in its earliest, most rudimentary form.
This page, like the ones before it, underscores a continuing theme: the passport system, from its very inception, is less a tool for facilitation than a mechanism for oversight and control, one that quietly imposes itself on citizens before formal rules catch up.
It is a vivid illustration of liberty measured, permission granted, and movement surveilled.
This page illustrates a crucial moment in the evolution of the passport system: the transition from voluntary compliance to compulsory enforcement.
Initially, as Mr. Jones reports, passports were not mandatory.
Citizens applied for them voluntarily, recognising the convenience or necessity of official documentation, but they were not yet compelled by law.
This voluntary adoption reflects a subtle internalisation of control, where the public participates willingly before formal structures are imposed.
The declaration of martial law in Richmond and its vicinity marked a turning point.
With Brigadier General Winder as commandant and Mr. Jones overseeing the passport office, orders were issued to maintain oversight: provost guards were stationed throughout the city, at railroad depots, and at every exit.
Subsequent orders prohibited travel beyond the corporate limits of the city without a passport, gradually making compliance not a matter of choice but of law.
Even as these measures were published for citizens’ awareness, much of the system still relied on verbal orders, temporary directives, and situational rules.
Passports could be suspended on certain roads when transportation was needed for troop movements, illustrating the flexible yet pervasive reach of military authority.
What had begun as a voluntary mechanism now operated as a tool of martial law, blending practicality with control, and subtly reshaping the public’s understanding of their own freedom.
In practical terms, enforcement was precise but limited: guards, never more than five at a time per train and supervised by a commissioned officer, were stationed to inspect passports and prevent unauthorised travel.
The ordinary citizen, who might have moved freely in peacetime, now found every journey contingent upon military oversight.
The page makes clear that freedom of movement, even within one’s own city, had become conditional, mediated through documentation, and enforced with a quiet rigour that would become the blueprint for broader systems in later years.
The final page illustrates the extent to which the passport system was used to enforce compliance and prevent evasion.
After the passage of new conscription laws, the department faced a practical challenge: citizens seeking to avoid military service were using fraudulent passports or traveling without any documentation at all.
Many attempted to cross the Rappahannock River, taking ferries to escape to the United States.
In response, the Secretary of War ordered additional officers to be stationed at these ferries, and Major General Elzey was directed to have the roads and crossings carefully picketed.
All passports in that direction were to be approved at headquarters, creating a tight network of oversight and control.
The system was no longer just about regulating travel or facilitating movement; it had become a tool for ensuring compliance with the law and monitoring the population.
For the ordinary citizen, this page underscores the stark reality of conditional freedom.
Even as travel might appear possible in theory, in practice it was bound by military authority, surveillance, and bureaucratic approval.
The passport system, intended initially to manage movement and maintain order, became inseparable from control and enforcement.
In philosophical terms, the document reveals a consistent theme throughout the evolution of the system: freedom is never absolute when it is mediated by authority.
What began as voluntary compliance, grew into mandatory regulation, and eventually became a tightly enforced framework.
A system that both facilitates movement and constrains it.
Here, in the practical mechanics of Richmond’s passport administration, we witness a clear blueprint for how liberty can be measured, monitored, and made conditional.
Another letter from 1864, issued by the War Department and transmitted via the Department of State.
It illustrates how the oversight of movement was beginning to reach across borders, shaping the international world.
Except for immigrant passengers arriving directly by sea, no one could enter the United States without a passport.
Citizens required authorisation from the State Department or a U.S. representative abroad, while foreigners needed approval from their own government, countersigned by a U.S. diplomat.
This regulation, particularly aimed at travelers from the neighboring British provinces, reflects the emerging mindset that movement across borders must be managed and monitored.
Enforcement was comprehensive, involving civil, military, and naval authorities, with local officials asked to assist.
Even accommodations for those already en route highlight that travel was no longer an assumed freedom, but a privilege granted and regulated by the state.
Viewed in historical perspective, this letter represents an early step toward the global system of controlled movement we recognise today.
Borders became instruments of oversight, passports became the key to permission, and liberty of travel was transformed into a regulated exercise.
In this sense, this letter is more than a policy note, it is a marker in the emergence of worldwide travel restrictions.
A system whose principles continue to shape human mobility and the very concept of freedom.
Another key source for understanding the early passport system is this book.
Prepared under the U.S. Department of State and associated with Gaillard Hunt, a historian and government official.
This work offers a rare, contemporary glimpse into how passports were understood and regulated at the turn of the century.
Far from being a mundane bureaucratic manual, the book traces the origins of the American passport, showing how it evolved from an occasional travel document into a formal credential.
It details the legal authority, administrative procedures, and rules surrounding passports, revealing a system carefully designed to control movement, monitor travellers, and enforce state oversight.
What makes this source particularly compelling is that it captures a moment when passports were not yet taken for granted.
Citizens and travelers were still negotiating their meaning, their necessity, and their impact on personal freedom.
In reading it, one sees clearly that the passport system, even in 1898, was more than a convenience, it was an instrument of authority, marking the beginning of a world where freedom of movement would always come with conditions.
The word “passport” comes from the French passe, to pass, and port, a port or harbour.
Originally, it simply meant permission to leave or enter a harbor, but over time its meaning broadened to include permission for passage more generally.
In the strict language of international law, passports were classed alongside “safe conducts” or “letters of protection”, documents that could render an enemy safe and inviolable, sometimes to facilitate the commerce of war, sometimes for entirely unrelated reasons.
A broader definition sees a passport as “a document issued by competent civil authority, granting permission to the person specified to travel, or authenticating their right to protection”.
Yet, as the 1898 text stresses, none of these definitions accurately captures the American passport, as it developed under the Constitution.
In peacetime, law-abiding American citizens were free to leave the country without government permission, and foreigners were allowed to travel or reside within the United States without a passport.
It was in extraordinary circumstances that the passport became a tool of control.
During the Civil War, for example, no one could legally leave or enter the United States without a passport.
These wartime measures were exceptional, temporary, and reflect the origins of the passport as a mechanism born of war and security concerns, rather than a routine civil instrument.
Outside these periods, the American passport became a regularised document, sanctioned by statute, whose form and purpose remained remarkably consistent over time.
The book defines the American passport as a document issued by the Secretary of State, or under their authority by a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer abroad, certifying citizenship and requesting free passage, lawful aid, and protection for the holder while traveling in foreign lands.
Except during brief wartime exceptions, passports have always been issued only to U.S. citizens and are intended solely for use abroad; they have no statutory use within the United States in peacetime.
The text also highlights the international dimension: foreign countries may require a visa or visé on the passport, certifying its authenticity and granting permission to proceed.
In strict international practice, a foreigner might need a new passport, or visa examination, at each national boundary, but a standardised passport system allows a citizen leaving their own country to carry a single certificate of citizenship, recognised as a right to leave their homeland and as a statement to foreign authorities.
In short, these early pages reveal the dual nature of passports: they are both a facilitation of movement and an instrument of control.
They carry the authority of the issuing state, establish the identity and protection of the traveler, and, especially in times of war, can act as a tool to monitor, restrict, and manage human mobility.
In this sense, the American passport, even in its earliest forms, reflects the tension between freedom and regulation, a theme that would shape the modern world of controlled international travel.
And so, dear reader, as we get to our final reflections, we can see how the passport, born of extraordinary circumstances and wartime necessity, gradually became a normalised instrument in the United States.
What began as a tool to monitor, control, and secure the movement of people during the Civil War transformed into a routine credential, quietly shaping expectations around travel, identity, and citizenship.
From these origins, the system spread across the world, gradually adopted by other nations as international travel expanded.
Today, passports are taken for granted, a prerequisite to leave or enter nearly any country.
They carry undeniable benefits: they protect citizens abroad, facilitate international commerce, and support diplomatic relations.
They ensure that governments can identify travelers, verify status, and provide assistance when needed.
Yet even as they serve these functions, passports remain instruments of control and oversight.
They mark the boundary between liberty and permission, remind us that movement across borders is never absolute, and embed the state in the most personal of human activities: the decision to go, or to go freely.
The tension is subtle but persistent: passports allow travel, but only on terms dictated by authority.
Looking back, it is remarkable to consider that what is now a universal part of life had its roots in war, suspicion, and regulation.
By understanding their origin, we see that passports are not merely convenient documents, they are historical artifact’s, shaped by questions of freedom, safety, and the balance between individual rights and state power.
In reflecting on them, we are reminded that even the most ordinary tools of modern life carry a story, one that stretches from conflict and control to the global systems we navigate today.
This work is shared freely, not for profit.
Every page, every insight, is here for anyone curious enough to explore history with care.
If you feel inspired and would like to support this work, your tips are warmly appreciated.
was there ever, this freedom?
Really a great thing to question. What is freedom and are we truly free?