Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Authors look at Lincoln's efforts to control media (Did Lincoln order trashing of newspaper of
Quad City Times ^ | Feb 3 05 | Quad City Times

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: abelincoln; abethetyrant; americanhistory; americantyrant; civilwar; constitutionkiller; despot; dixie
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 341-357 next last
To: libertarianben
He knew they couldn't win which would make them look, how should I say this, bad.

Do you honestly think that if the trial had continued, the U.S. Attorney couldn't have found 12 Unionist men in all of Virginia to pack a jury with? There would have been no question at all, Davis tried would have been Davis convicted.

141 posted on 02/05/2006 3:43:48 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

Comment #142 Removed by Moderator

To: detsaoT

Thanks for a civil and rewarding discussion.


143 posted on 02/05/2006 7:25:28 AM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: sangrila
SORRY. WRONG ANSWER!

secession is ONE of the powers of the States, which was NOT ceded to the central government.

check out the TENTH Amendment to the BOR.

lincoln, the TYRANT & WAR CRIMINAL, & his coven of cronies cared about just TWO things: POLITICAL POWER & MONEY.

lincoln was NO better person than wee willie klintoon.

free dixie,sw

144 posted on 02/05/2006 9:08:51 AM PST by stand watie (Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to GOD. Thomas Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
NOT "sketchy".

i have been IN the underground "holding facility" (most people would call it a DUNGEON!), where the "treasonous editors & pressmen" were kept by lincoln.

there is a list of the persons "detained" available for public inspection. it is NOT a nice place!

MANY other "members of the 4th estate" were abused/tortured/starved/denied medical attention/murdered at Point Lookout (MD) DEATH CAMP. the list of those UNfortunates is also on display at PLPOWC.

free dixie,sw

145 posted on 02/05/2006 9:15:21 AM PST by stand watie (Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to GOD. Thomas Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: sangrila
and the Constitution says that WHERE???

free dixie,sw

146 posted on 02/05/2006 9:16:22 AM PST by stand watie (Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to GOD. Thomas Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
actually, CSA "currency" was NOT "money", per se, but rather was "notes payable after the conclusion" of the war between the USA & CSA.(in point of fact, each note specifically STATED that fact on the "face".)

the fact that those notes were accepted as money does NOT change what they actually WERE.

free dixie,sw

147 posted on 02/05/2006 9:20:31 AM PST by stand watie (Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to GOD. Thomas Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: LS
in other words you think that the God-given RIGHTS, guaranteed by the Constitution, should be subservient to political expediency OR that those RIGHTS can be "set aside" at the whim of any POTUS???

i think NOT.

IF what you say is true, we are potentially no better off than Argentina, circa 1950.

free dixie,sw

148 posted on 02/05/2006 9:26:46 AM PST by stand watie (Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to GOD. Thomas Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: stand watie; LS
How right you are sir! The rights given to us by GOD --they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights--are ours every second of every day. We have the ability to give them away, but not the right to. That is why TJ wrote "to resist tyrants is to obey GOD". If "for our common defense" gives the government the right to choke off our liberties, it puts us in the position of needful resistance.
All any tyrant would need to do is declare war against an imagined enemy to rule over us forever.
149 posted on 02/05/2006 10:05:02 AM PST by smug (Tanstaafl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

They tried but failed to do so. Most of the attorney quit the case because they knew they could not win.


150 posted on 02/05/2006 10:20:21 AM PST by libertarianben (Looking for sanity and his hard to find cousin common sense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: libertarianben
They tried but failed to do so. Most of the attorney quit the case because they knew they could not win.

I have no idea where you're getting your history from but the prosecution of Davis was handled by the Attorney General, first James Speed and then Henry Stanbury. And if the case against Davis was so weak then why did he not insist on a trial but instead took the out offered by Chase?

151 posted on 02/05/2006 11:42:56 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
actually, CSA "currency" was NOT "money", per se, but rather was "notes payable after the conclusion" of the war between the USA & CSA.(in point of fact, each note specifically STATED that fact on the "face".)

I've seen a lot of pictures of confederate currency and every single one had "Pay to the bearer on demand" on the front, not "notes payable after the conculsion" or some such tripe. I'd ask for some examples of the currency you're talking about but I know better than to believe you would actually produce it.

Regardless of wording we can both agree that the money was worthless, right?

152 posted on 02/05/2006 11:48:28 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
i have been IN the underground "holding facility" (most people would call it a DUNGEON!), where the "treasonous editors & pressmen" were kept by lincoln.

So tell us, what did Lincoln jail you for?

MANY other "members of the 4th estate" were abused/tortured/starved/denied medical attention/murdered at Point Lookout (MD) DEATH CAMP. the list of those UNfortunates is also on display at PLPOWC.

Drowned or shot in the back of the head?

153 posted on 02/05/2006 11:50:22 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: HistorianDorisKearnsGoodwad
Saying that Lincoln went to war to preserve the Union is like saying King George went to war in North America to preserve the British Royal government.

Or that the south rebelled over tariffs?

154 posted on 02/05/2006 11:52:29 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

Comment #155 Removed by Moderator

To: HistorianDorisKearnsGoodwad
I covered that subject extensively in my interview on Fox News. Did you not see it?

I did not.

156 posted on 02/05/2006 12:09:33 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: stand watie

You, sir, are stuck in Argentina in your mind. Thank God, I am not, nor are the majority of freedom loving Americans. That's what obsession with a slave south will do to ya, though.


157 posted on 02/05/2006 12:19:27 PM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: LS
it was GRANT who issued orders to shut down Nashville papers and to arrest any editors who were still printing anti-Union stuff.

And rightly so, there is no such thing as freedom of the press when you are occupying your enemy's territory.

158 posted on 02/05/2006 12:22:23 PM PST by Casloy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: libertarianben
Even though he was so against slavery that he allowed slave states to continue the practice that were loyal to the Union.

As he often said, he would do whatever it took to save the union, including allowing slavery to continue. Lincoln was nothing if not a pragmatist. If you call him a tyrant simply because of what he did to preserve the union, I know of no other way to keep the south in the union short of doing many of the things he had to do. If you think he should have let the south secede then there is probably nothing to discuss since it would follow you would think he was a tyrant.

159 posted on 02/05/2006 12:25:37 PM PST by Casloy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: libertarianben
No, the South was a constitutionally independent nation. He was not the President of it so he could not maker laws in a nation he did not rule.

That is some of the goofiest logic I have ever read. The entire war was about whether the south had the right to secede the Union. The south was not a consititutionally independent nation, they seceded in what they were convinced was a legal way. The Federal government disagreed. That's why we went to war. At that point, like it or not, might makes right.

160 posted on 02/05/2006 12:29:42 PM PST by Casloy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 341-357 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson