Posted on 02/03/2006 3:38:06 PM PST by churchillbuff
In the opening months of the Civil War, a pro-Southern newspaper editor in the Philadelphia suburb of West Chester was forced to cease publication when an angry mob destroyed his equipment and federal marshals later ordered him to shut down.
Did President Abraham Lincoln ultimately issue the directive to stop the newspaper from operating?
Neil Dahlstrom, an East Moline native, and Jeffrey Manber examine the question in their new book, “Lincoln’s Wrath: Fierce Mobs, Brilliant Scoundrels and a President’s Mission to Destroy the Press” (Sourcebooks Inc., 356 pages).
The book focuses on a little-known figure of the Civil War, John Hodgson, who was the editor of the Jeffersonian in West Chester, Pa. Like some other editors of Northern newspapers, he believed that the South had every right to secede from the Union. He ultimately took the government to court in his fight to express his views that states’ rights were paramount to national government.
The attack on Hodgson’s newspaper came during a wave of violence that took place in the summer of 1861 when a number of Northern newspapers sympathetic to the Southern cause were attacked and vandalized by pro-Union thugs.
The book is Dahlstrom’s second historical non-fiction work published in less than a year. He and his brother, Jeremy Dahlstrom, are the authors of “The John Deere Story: A Biography of Plowmakers John and Charles Deere,” which was released last April by Northern Illinois University Press.
Like “The John Deere Story,” his latest book is the result of extensive research. He and Manber combed archives and libraries in the United States and England in recounting the events surrounding the “Summer of Rage” in 1861 when the Republicans around Lincoln systematically went after editors and writers of antiwar newspapers.
Some were tarred and feathered, they write, while some were thrown into federal prisons and held without trial for months at a time. Others were forced to change their opinions and take pro-Union stands.
Dahlstrom, 29, graduated from United Township High School and earned a bachelor’s degree in history at Monmouth College and a master’s degree in historical administration from Eastern Illinois University. A resident of Moline, he is the reference archivist for Deere & Co.
Manber has written extensively on America’ s role in shaping technology and our relationships with Russia. He was Dahlstrom’s boss when they worked at the Space Business Archives, Alexandria, Va.
Manber became interested in Lincoln’s relationship with the press after listening to a radio report on the subject, his co-author said. After coming across an article on Hodgson written in the 1960s, he began researching Hodgson’s life, eventually inviting Dahlstrom to join him on a book project.
They write that Lincoln was the nation’s first “media politician.”
“Lincoln was a man who understood the press and continually manipulated its chief editors to support his policies. He was the politician who helped create the modern American journalist, which continues to hold incredible influence over public opinion,” they write.
In an interview, Dahlstrom said he gained much respect for Lincoln during the course of his research. The disintegration of the Union was uncharted territory for an American president, he said, and, while Lincoln had advisors, the ultimate decisions rested on his shoulders alone.
“What impressed me most about Lincoln as president was that he really represented the people. He always did what was for the best of the people, who were near and dear to him,” he said.
In the case of Massachussetts, I'd say it's too bad your critera wouldn't apply to a state, regardless of its wishes. ;)
No, the confederate currency plumeted because it was worthless. There was nothing of value to back it up. Dorie Goodwad wrings his hands over the ratio of debt to receipts in the Union ledger, the picture down south was even bleaker. The confederacy had no revenue to speak of. No imports, so no tariffs. No tax receipts in hard currency. The only hard currency it had at all was that U.S. currency that it seized from banks and mints when secession started. It was unable to borrow, other than a small loan in 1861 and an even smaller one in 1863 backed by a future cotton crop. So you have, at best $18 million in hard currency loans the first two years. Against that you issue over $700 million in paper currency. You issue another 700 million or so by the end of the war. So there is no surprise that the confederacy currency was worthless, and it had nothing to do with Yankee manipulation. It was worthless because there was nothing to back it with and there was too much of it out there.
The Federal debt in the war was an order of magnitude larger than the Confederate debt. Could that be a consequence of the Northern (more centralized) banking policy? Or merely a result of having an immensely larger army and war policy?
It depends. If you consider the confederate currency as debt then one could say the confederacy issued about a billion and a half dollars in debt against maybe 18 million in revenues through the course of the war. That's over 90 dollars in debt for every dollar in other reveunue, as opposed to the union ratio of roughly 5 or 6 dollars of debt for each dollar of other revenue. How can that financial picture be better than the one facing the United States?
Are all of these soldiers counted here voluntary? Or were they conscripted by the invading Northern army? (I'm not very intimately familiar with the military side of the Civil War at this point, I admittedly have quite a bit of work left to do to bring my understanding of those affairs up to par. Please forgive me for asking these questions out of such supreme ignorance, but they're the first questions that come to mind in reading the prior statement.)
Conscription in the North was limited to white soldiers and was a dismal failure. Somewhat less than 10% of all Union soldiers in the last year of the war were conscripts. Contrast that with the confederacy where somewhere between one third and one quarter of all troops were conscripts, and most of the rest had had their enlistments involuntarily extended for the duration of the war in April 1862.
Well why can't it, if your position is correct? If a state can unilaterally leave at will from the Union, then why can't the other states unilaterally kick another state out? The claim is made by the southeron contingent that nothing in the Constitution forbids unilateral secession, what prevents unilateral expulsion?
See that's where I have the advantage. I read you stuff and I'm laughing so hard that sleep is impossible.
But once more you have proven how narrow minded your views on subjects pertaining to the Great Emasculator are.
Yeah, your's is nothing but a "same sh*t different day" scenario, too.
The facts I have put down are facts, your purported facts are nothing more than spin designed to bolster your weak-assed stand.
The 'facts' you have put down are nothing more or less than the product of your backside. The source of all things confederate.
All amendments do change the Constitution, as you would realize if you stopped and thought about it.
His Amendment DID do what they said it did.
"His Amendment" wasn't passed out of Congress and sent to the states until 14 months after Lincoln had died. How was it his?
But the fact is, I DO know...and Lincoln was the Great Instigator.
You know I've heard you southron types blame Lincoln for everything from international Communism to a rainy day. But blaming Lincoln for illegal immigration is definitely a new one.
Oh, believe me, I have thought about it. Unlike the 14th Amendment, the others do not change our government from a Republic to a democracy.
----
"His Amendment" wasn't passed out of Congress and sent to the states until 14 months after Lincoln had died. How was it his?
Because it was his war that resulted in the Amendment.
----
But blaming Lincoln for illegal immigration is definitely a new one.
Obviously you are so busy defending him you have not heard what I said.
I did not 'blame' him for illegal immigration. I was showing you how and why (thanks to Lincoln) illegal immigrants are now SUPERIOR in the eyes of the *law* to a citizen of the United States.
----
I'm sorry to have wasted your time trying to explain to you where your Freedoms went.
Good day to you, sir.
A lot of the discussion of secession assumes that somehow these were harmless or laudable rebels. People would come to different conclusions about the Constitution if it were another group with a different philosophy that tried to break away.
I'm sorry that you felt the need to reply seriously to my tongue-in-cheek comment. As I was not seriously proposing that, I won't bother to respond to your question. :)
Perhaps so, though I'll check the references sent by LS to confirm the numbers. You definitely put forth a very worthy argument, NS. Thank you for that consideration!
It depends. If you consider the confederate currency as debt then one could say the confederacy issued about a billion and a half dollars in debt against maybe 18 million in revenues through the course of the war.
Is that a fair comparison? Was the United States currency considered a debt? I was merely alluding to the national debt, in numeric dollars, listed at the end of the war.
That's over 90 dollars in debt for every dollar in other reveunue, as opposed to the union ratio of roughly 5 or 6 dollars of debt for each dollar of other revenue. How can that financial picture be better than the one facing the United States?
A good question, and I'll be sure to consider it when I weigh the evidence. Thank you again!
Conscription in the North was limited to white soldiers and was a dismal failure. Somewhat less than 10% of all Union soldiers in the last year of the war were conscripts. Contrast that with the confederacy where somewhere between one third and one quarter of all troops were conscripts, and most of the rest had had their enlistments involuntarily extended for the duration of the war in April 1862.
1/3 to 1/4 of the Confederate army being conscripts is significant, yes, though I'd be curious to see what percentage of each army was made up of non-Americans (i.e., foreigners). The Federal army was something like double the size of the Confederate by the close of the war, but from the accounts I've seen, this was largely made up of Europeans, not Americans.
Thank you for your addition to this argument, good sir,
Regards,
~dt~
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
offhand, i can't think of a SINGLE thing that he/she & i agree on.
free dixie,sw
nonetheless, N-S is the ONLY member of the DAMNyankee coven that has BOTH a sound education AND a functioning brain.
free dixie,sw
It is well-known he shut down newspapers and threatened the free press.
But, whether he did so to this newspaper, I do not know and I am not interested enough to read the book.
that's why the founders of this FREE Republic placed freedom of speech/press/assembly/religion FIRST in the BOR. it is NOT a coincidence!
free dixie,sw
Yes, (to answer your question) along with his twin, justshutupandtakeit.
I keep hoping against hope that someday, a ray of logic will find it's way inside.
Guess my pure 'ole Texas stubbornness forces me to keep trying.
LOL!
KNOWINGLY false PROPAGANDA is the JOB of a propagandist! expect NOTHING else from N-S!
free dixie,sw
I would too if we give Northern VA back to DC!
Exactly. And to paraphrase Mel Gibson: The union sympathizers on this thread shower praise on their ancestors who fought a tyrant 3,000 miles away but want to shame my ancestors who, a few years later, fought a hundred tyrants 500 miles away. Go figure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.