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

[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.

[Casloy]

If that's one of the authors' opinion, I'm glad I didn't.

I think you missed the sarcasm. "He always did what was for the best of the people, whoe were near and dear to him

Actually, I wouldn't buy the book simply because if that is an example of the writing I doubt I could get through the poor quality.

[Casloy]

Thanks to the Yankee victory the Constitution has become more and more meaningless.

Thanks to the Yankee victory slavery ended. You obviously have no clue what a libertarian is.

[billbears]

"What impressed me most about Lincoln as president was that he really represented the people."

Sorry, don't see it. Anyone idiotic enough to make a statement like that, I'm not going to waste money on their book.

[Casloy]

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???

Of course what is blatantly absent in all your discussions of GOD GIVEN rights of southerners is the GOD GIVEN right of the black man to be free. The fact that your wonderful ancestors enslaved them, beat them, broke up families to sell some of them, and sometimes killed them doesn't seem to ever cross your mind. Whether the South had the right to secede is open to debate. What is not open to debate is that when the war was over the slaves were free. Had the South won the war or been allowed to secede the slaves would have remained enslaved. The war was not to free the slaves, but while you and your southern mythologist friends are crying the glories of the old south you are deathly quiet about one of the great evils in American history. An evil that was at the core of the sectionalism that caused the Civil War. So, excuse me if all the glories of your southern "heritage" fall on deaf ears.

[Casloy]

Read the next sentence. It was an effort to show that lincoln was corrupt and helping only people he had in his pocket.

[Non-Sequitur]

The rights given to us by GOD --they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights--are ours every second of every day.

For about 2/3rds of the population anyway, so far as the confederacy was concerned.

[Non-Sequitur]

I have a transcript of the interview in case you want an answer to your own question.

Oh I'd just love to see it.

[sangrila]

"No, the Founders didn't want a more powerful central government - they had just gotten rid of one"



100% wrong. The Articles of Confederation had a very weak central government in which states could print money and impose tariffs on other states' goods. The Constitution was made to strengthen the then weak central governmnet. This is an undisputable fact that cannot be argued.

[sangrila]

"free dixie,sw"


Free dixie from what? Your posts are paranoid ramblings.

[Non-Sequitur]

At that time, nearly all newspaper deliveries were made by mail, so this action put every one of the papers out of circulation.

So Lincoln put 100 newspapers out of business? How about naming them, what with you being the historian and all.

Second question I would have about this is that free delivery of the U.S. mail to homes and businesses didn't start in the major cities until 1863 and didn't make it to smaller cities and towns until some time after that. So how did your newspapers remain in business prior to that?

Some of them resumed publication after promising not to criticize the Lincoln government. For example, the founder of the Journal of Commerce, Gerard Hallock, ”brought the wrath of government down on his head” with his “peace editorials”--appeals not to treason or even secession, but to peace.

According to the information in this Link Hallock retired in September 1861, long before Lincoln was elected, and sold his interest to David M. Stone. How could Lincoln's wrath have caused that?

[NJ_gent]

"the Surpeme Court has never ruled that his actions were unconstitutional"

Yes they did; see: Ex Parte Milligan.

"it would have been, in fact, unconstitutional for Lincoln to consult the court prior to his action"

No it wouldn't have. In fact, it would have been advisable for him to seek professional counsel prior to engaging in potentially illegal actions. What more professional counsel exists on matters of Constitutional law than the justices of the US Supreme Court?

"The court can only rule on actions taken under the Constitution, not actions proposed."

Indeed, but nothing precludes their offering counsel on what their likely response to given proposed actions might be.

"But Lincoln didn't need to go to Congress. You declare war against other countries"

Are the United States of America a sovereign nation? Or are we colonies of Great Britain? If we're a sovereign nation, why? And at what point did we become a sovereign nation?

"You have yet to show where Lincoln deliberately violated the law as he understood it. He acted, in all cases, within what he saw as his authority as president."

So did President Bill Clinton, yet most here agreed he violated his oath of office a great many times, a great many ways, and deserved impeachment and removal from office. It's not enough for the President to have good intentions and think he's in the right. Every dictator in the history of the world has thought he was in the right for exterminating masses of people. Thinking you're right does not make you right, except in multicultural societies where truth and morality are relative terms.

"at a time when the southern rebellion was placing the very existence of the government at peril"

The Confederate States of America had no problem with the United States of America. There was no threat of the South launching a conquering invasion of the North. The only threat to the Union was of other states breaking away from it. If the Union was operating so poorly that the only way to ensure its members stayed put was to force them to do so militarily, then it should have died out as per the two documents most directly responsible for its existence.

[LS]

I agree. I'm just saying, Lincoln advised Grant, actually, to leave the papers alone. See my forthcoming book, "America's Victories: Why the United States Wins Wars and Will Win the War on Terror," (Sentinel, May).

[NJ_gent]

"100% wrong. The Articles of Confederation had a very weak central government in which states could print money and impose tariffs on other states' goods. The Constitution was made to strengthen the then weak central governmnet. This is an undisputable fact that cannot be argued."

That's absurd. The government created under the Articles of Confederation was so insanely weak that it had essentially no authority whatsoever. It existed at the whim of the states and could be punished and controlled by any single state wishing to do so. As such, it was a recipe for disaster, in that you had beurocrats and politicians sitting in it spending all their waking hours doing nothing but appeasing those who would seek to control that government for their own ends. The AoC was a kneejerk reaction to having just left a centralized totalitarian authority. The Constitution was a workable and functional version of the AoC which gave the Federal government limited but independent life while going nowhere near (in theory) the authoritarianist central government of the Crown. To believe that the Founders wanted to trade one authoritatian regime for another is just plain crazy. The same people who created the AoC created the government under the Constitution; they just went about it a bit more realistically the second time around.

[Casloy]

Just linked to your previous two books. Looks like I got some reading to do.

[Non-Sequitur]

Yes they did; see: Ex Parte Milligan.

No they didn't. Ex Parte Milligan was a decision handed down by Chief Justice Taney from the Circuit Court bench in Baltimore. The entire Supreme Court never took up the issue.

No it wouldn't have. In fact, it would have been advisable for him to seek professional counsel prior to engaging in potentially illegal actions.

Yes it would. Constitutionally the court can only rule on matters which appear before them. They cannot issue advisory rulings on matters under consideration by the Executive or the Congress. In other words, they cannot tell Congress or the president than a certain action that they are planning is unconstitutional. That would violate the separation of powers.

Indeed, but nothing precludes their offering counsel on what their likely response to given proposed actions might be.

Separations of powers does. Congress legislates. For the court to say that they had better not pass a law because it might be unconstitutional interferes with their legislative powers.

Are the United States of America a sovereign nation? Or are we colonies of Great Britain? If we're a sovereign nation, why? And at what point did we become a sovereign nation?

We are sovereign nations because the other nations of the world recognize us as such and deal with us as such. We became a sovereign nation when they began to do so. Prior to that we may have considered ourselves sovereign, but Great Britain and the rest of the world considered us a rebellious colony. No other nation recognized confederate sovereignty. In the eyes of France and Great Britain and Russia and all rest of the world the confederacy was nothing more than a collection of U.S. states in rebellion.

Given that Lincoln didn't consider the confederacy another independent nation why in the world would he feel compelled to go to Congress for a declaration of war? Declare war on who? Ourselves?

So did President Bill Clinton, yet most here agreed he violated his oath of office a great many times, a great many ways, and deserved impeachment and removal from office.

What you and I think of the legality of Clinton's actions or Lincoln's actions are meaningless. Our opinions don't count, the Constitution counts. And the Constitution vests in the Supreme Court the awesome responsibility for interpreting that document. Not you. Not me. So point out to me a single instance where the Supreme Court ruled that Lincoln deliberately violated the Constitution or took an action that he knew to be wrong and I'll grant you that Lincoln acted in an unconstitutional and illegal manner.

The Confederate States of America had no problem with the United States of America. There was no threat of the South launching a conquering invasion of the North. The only threat to the Union was of other states breaking away from it.

The confederate states initiated an armed rebellion against the United States when they fired on the U.S. fort at Sumter. They started a bloody and costly war that eventually ended in their own self-destruction. The fact that you might have believed that the confederacy had not interest in conquest is meaningless, I doubt that the Japanese or the Germans seriously contemplated conquering the U.S. in World War II. But they started the hostilities in every bit the same way that the south did 80 years earlier.

[smug]

Yes sir, I agree had the Confederacy taken that to heart and freed the slave's before they fired on Fort Sumter, the Confederacy would have won their Independence.

[Non-Sequitur]

Yes sir, I agree had the Confederacy taken that to heart and freed the slave's before they fired on Fort Sumter, the Confederacy would have won their Independence.

If the confederacy had freed their slaves before firing on Sumter then what would they have had to rebel over?

[detsaoT]

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.

The best source on Confederate currency that I've found on the internet (and it's not very in-depth) is DocSouth, a project of the University of North Carolina.

DocSouth: Confederate Currency

Here is a Confederate $5, from the first issue. (My apologies for the size, but I wanted it to be clear.) While the note at the bottom does say "Pay to the bearer," note the detail at the very top:

"Six months after the ratification of a treaty of peace between the Confederate States and the United States..."

In other words, Six months beyond the successful close of the war, Pay to the bearer. This is entirely different than what you propose.

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

As LS has pointed out, yes the currency was fairly deficient in specie value - i.e., too many notes were printed, and not enough gold was in the reserves to back it. But, as a form of currency, I would be willing to say that it's as well-backed as the current U.S. Dollar. (In other words, the true value of "money" is in the acceptability of that denomination to the market. How much do people think it's worth?)

Hope this helps,
~dt~