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.
the REAL problem that caused the WBTS was that the DAMNyankees just wouldn't stay at home, mind their own patch & leave the southland ALONE & UNmolested.
to quote a Black CSA infantryman, captured by the DYs in '64, "I'm still fighting ya because you're still HERE!"
well said, says i.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
So I guess the founders didn't attempt to create a federal government that was more powerful than individual states? You could have fooled me. We would still have the Articles of Confederation if the founders didn't want a stronger central government. Secession was an illegal act. It violated the Constitution, and Lincoln did what he had to do to keep the Union intact. Are you suggesting that America would be better off if the South had won and the country was divided into multiple nations? Do you think slavery should still exist?
Second, please point out the wording in the Constitution that declares secession illegal. I can't put my finger on it.
Third, the South WAS in favor of the expansion of slavery into the territories but that was only one of the reasons it seceded. The North, however, DID NOT go to war to end slavery. It wasn't even on the list. Lincoln went to war to preserve the union.
Northern debt exceeded Confed. debt in part because the north was successful. That is, one of the reasons the north won was that it bought more weapons, paid more soldiers. But that debt was overwhelmingly BOND SALES, not inflation. Indeed, prices in the north were relatively stable without any "price controls" from government. The same could not be said for the south. Any time you reduce competition in money, as the south did, you have less valuable money. (We could get into an extended discussion of why, on the whole, we haven't seen rampant inflation in modern post-WW II dollars, but it still comes down to competition: we are free to deal in gold, Euros, Yen, whatever, even if we can't pay taxes in it).
As for counterfeiting rings, there is no southern monetary authority I am aware of---and I read Morgan, Ball, and all the "classics"---who ascribed Confederate money problems primarily, or even substantially, to counterfeiting. There is a good reason for this: for a counterfeit to work, it has to be a counterfeit of something valuable and real. Southern currency started to plummet almost immediately.
I should add, remember that in addition to the Confed. government heaping taxes on individuals, businesses, etc., the STATE and LOCAL governments layered on their own taxes, too. All of this has a pretty deleterious effect on money.
Now, as to "centralized" banking policy, realize that prior to 1913, there was simply no such thing. Even the infamous First and Second Banks of the United States have been shown to have very little capability to influence the money supply or prices, let alone the economy. (Peter Temin's "The Jacksonian Economy," 1969, destroyed the notion that Andrew Jackson---someone I don't care for at all---had any negative impact on the banking system when he "killed" the 2nd BUS). The 1863 Bank Act established a series of national banks. These were primarily bond-purchasing units, not central banks of any type. The only connection between them was that they had to get their charters from the Federal Government---but they were each privately, individually owned; there was zero coordination of loans or transfer of information; and the National Bank Notes they printed were highly regulated by GOLD reserves (even though gold payments were temporarily suspended, the absence of price variations suggests that in the north, unlike the south, everyone believed that no matter what happened, the banks would resume paying gold for paper, which they did). Moreover, each bank was limited in how many notes it could issue based on that gold reserve. But in the Confed., those constraints were gone: the gold was stolen by the government, and the only other basis of value was slaves, which was a) immoral and b) not long for this world after the Emancipation Proclamation.
On southern soldiers fighting for the north: this one is easy to figure out---there was NO draft in Alabama or Mississippi or Arkansas or Tennessee by the Union :) These were all volunteers, many of them (obviously, by the names) from state volunteer regiments. I'm sure most either went north at the beginning of the war because they disagreed with the Confed., or moved to Louisiana and Tennessee as the war came closer.
Your questions on the blockade are good ones. First, think of yourself as a blockade runner. If you have an economic agenda, as opposed to a purely "patriotic" agenda, you would bring in those products that you could sell at the highest price. That would be luxury items that were going at a very high premium (as Lebergott shows) in the south. Whether Britain or France would sell weapons is not too difficult to figure out: there were something like 100,000 British rifles in use on BOTH sides of the war; so obviously they didn't hesitate to sell rifles. Cannon were too difficult to get on blockade runners in any number to make profits. And the French didn't have a rifle that was worth buying at the time.
One of the most fascinating aspects of the Civil War economy is that the south, supposedly an agricultural region, committed suicide early by insisting on the stupid "king cotton" strategy. They thought that Br. and Fr. could be brought to their knees by a cotton embargo; so the Confed not only didn't encourage southern farmers and plantation owners to grow food, but actually encouraged them to KEEP PLANTING COTTON! By 1864, this had the perverse effect of starving Confed. armies in the field, while mountains of cotton sat on southern docks. We have lots of diaries and other evidence of southern troops actually exchanging MANUFACTURED GOODS and tobacco with northern pickets for . . . food. So once again, the short-sightedness of the command/control economy in the south was inferior to the largely free market north, where aside from a few tariffs on, say, iron, Lincoln's government allowed people to do what they did best and did not try to direct the economy in any way. Indeed, the north used private boot makers, salt suppliers, beef and wheat farmers, clothing manufacturers, and had dozens of different gun designers (including the famous Shaprs, Spencer, Gatling, Rodman, Dahlgren, Ericcson, and I could go on and on.) The Confederacy didn't produce a single "genius" of this type because of the centrally-planned system. The closest they came was Mr. Hunley's sub, which was . . . privately built! Meanwhile, there is a book called "Rebel Storehouse" that details how the Confed. government owned and ran salt plants, cattle ranches, and virtually all of the arms industry. Once again, whenever a free market is stacked up against a centrally-controlled system, the market wins.
Indeed. That is why Richard Bensel's book, which is not light reading, but which I recommend to all ("Yankee Leviathan") is a must. He methodically and systematically compares all forms of government intrusion and oppression, not just a couple of jailed editors (but does EXCLUDE slavery . . . a biggie!) and finds that the south overwhelmingly violated the rights of free men more deeply than the north, and more often.
All other aspects of the Constitution come BEFORE the amendments. The preamble sets the priorities, and "provide for the common defense" is unequaled.
So we keep getting told. But details are sketchy.
"The North, however, DID NOT go to war to end slavery."
It was not the only factor, but it certainly had something to do with the war. I agree that Lincoln went to war to preserve the Union, and the slavery abolition was a sideeffect that could possibly be viewed as a political move to solidify support in the north and to establish a moral highground in the eyes of the world. It worked well.
"The founders did not want an all powerful central government and took great pains to prevent it."
They did not want an all-powerful central government, and I don't recall stating that they did. But they wanted a central government that was more powerful than individual states. Under the Articles of Confederation the federal government was weak. The founders wrote the new Constitution because they felt that we needed to strenghten the federal governmnet in order to survive as a nation. Under the new Constitution states could no longer print their own money or impose state-to-state tariffs.
Secession was secession from the Constitution. That is what it was. The Constitution formed a union. The seceding states broke the union, which in its self was a violation of the constitution.
Other than a handful of New England abolitionists I don't know of any strong anti slavery sentiment in the North. Certainly not enough to take up arms. Lincoln himself said he would preserve slavery if he could preserve the union. When he issued the Emancipation Proclamation there were violent protests in the North.
The U.S. notes were redeemable in gold I believe. The confederate notes were not, or if they were in theory there was no gold to redeem them with.
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 percentage of foreign born in the U.S. army was much higher of course, because the percentage of foreign born people in the North was much higher. The 1870 census, which is available on line, shows that the percentage of the foreign born population in the southern states was miniscule, less than 5 percent I believe. The percentage in 1860 was most likely very low as well. Immigrants were not attracted to the south since they already had their own form of cheap labor - slaves. All in all the percentage of the Union army not born in the U.S. was about 25% with the largest numbers coming from Germany and the second largest from Ireland. By far the largest number of Union soldiers were U.S. born of English extraction (1 million or around 45%} and the second was African American (about 20%).
In short, passage of the 14th Amendment. Chief Justice Chase believed that the provisions of the 14th Amendment punished the southern leadership for their role in the rebellion, and trying and convicting Davis again would violate his 5th Amendment protections against double jeopardy.
Amen to that! ;)
No, the Founders didn't want a more powerful central government - they had just gotten rid of one. They created a central government with LIMITED powers. Limited for liberty. That is what the term "just powers" means - LIMITED! Secession was not, repeat NOT an illegal act as the 9th and 10th Amendments guaranteed that the people had the right to "resume any powers delegated whenever the central government perverted those powers to oppress the people." Go back, study up on your history especially the framing of the Constitution, and the debates surrounding it and then come talk with me.
"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, not longer susceptible of any definition." --Thomas Jefferson
"Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread." --Thomas Jefferson
"The State governments possess inherent advantages, which will ever give them an influence and ascendancy over the National Government, and will for ever preclude the possibility of federal encroachments. That their liberties, indeed, can be subverted by the federal head, is repugnant to every rule of political calculation." --Alexander Hamilton
I'm very interested to see how your continuing research goes. It'll be interesting to see how the "other" class of property behaved in a financial market, as I don't know of any other historian that's really analyzed that data, to date. I'm always partial to primary sources myself, so I'll be sure to dig them out of the materials you've sent to me already and do my own footwork where I can. Your books will continue to hold a treasured place on my bookshelves, of course! :)
It is, as always, a truly humbling experience to be able to speak with such a renowned scholar as yourself in this forum. I will continue to hold you, with
Warmest regards,
~dt~
Fair enough - Though, as I recall, U.S. notes weren't redeemable for gold for the duration of the War. The Confederate notes were only redeemable for gold beyond the successful conclusion of the war. The difference, as LS has pointed out, is that the Southern government did not have enough gold to pay out their promissory notes. (I had thought I read somewhere that Southern notes were also promissory towards cotton, but I can't find it offhand - perhaps it was merely a figment of my imagination.)
The percentage of foreign born in the U.S. army was much higher of course, because the percentage of foreign born people in the North was much higher.
Yes, potentially, but the Federal government was also actively involved in recruiting additional soldiers overseas. (Mercenaries, if you will.) I like to point out that example, to compare it with the way the British waged war against America in 1812 - The tactics used by the British seem to compare very well with the tactics used by the Northern army.
The 1870 census, which is available on line, shows that the percentage of the foreign born population in the southern states was miniscule, less than 5 percent I believe. The percentage in 1860 was most likely very low as well. Immigrants were not attracted to the south since they already had their own form of cheap labor - slaves.
That is a very fine point. For once, I have nothing to argue. I thought I'd just point that out. ;)
All in all the percentage of the Union army not born in the U.S. was about 25% with the largest numbers coming from Germany and the second largest from Ireland. By far the largest number of Union soldiers were U.S. born of English extraction (1 million or around 45%} and the second was African American (about 20%).
Thanks for the info. 25% seems lower than what I'd heard, but I'm probably mistaken. I'll just have to continue doing my research so I can do a better job of debating next time. :)
Regards,
~dt~
Great post. Thanks.
He knew they couldn't win which would make them look, how should I say this, bad.
I think this country is too big to govern well, IMO.
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.