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.
To defend stand watie, I would say that, rather than being stuck in Argentina in his mind, he's actually quite earnest in trying to recover and guard our civil liberties. Technically, he is absolutely correct in his supposition that the Federal executive has not the authority to arrest members of the press - A limited construction of the Constitution shows no such right. While the Congress can, in theory, grant additional powers to the President via legislation, they are also restricted from doing so with respect to the Press, via the first amendment.
(I would say, Stand, that defeating our enemies, foreign and domestic, is something that the Government should have the right to do - It sounds like you and LS are disagreeing over the level which defines a domestic entity as "the enemy.")
I still think that treason is a serious crime which OUGHT to be punished by the Federal government [but isn't]. But to arrest editors for merely asking whether the South had a point in seceeding - particularly so soon after the Northeast had threatened to do so - does not rise to the level of "treason."
Regards,
~dt~
As the Federal government never recognized the South to have seceeded, would it not follow that the Federal troops were still on Federal territory? By their own definition?
The denial of the usage of the postal service to these newspapers is certainly a serious matter, but it's not to the same level as the arrest of the editors, which was one of my original queries. I've proposed that, based on my personal research (which, sadly, is not very advanced at this point), the Confederate government did not make a habit of arresting political enemies, whereas the Federal government made a regular practice of it. Not having the documentation to support my position more firmly, I can't really do much more than voice my supposition. If you're aware of any sources that would help me in understanding the issue from the Confederate viewpoint more firmly, I'm absolutely open to them.
I'll be sure to keep an eye out for your work now, as well, and to watch for you on these periodic debates as well. Until I run into you again, I hold you,
Most Respectfully,
~dt~
What about the fact that the Congress (NOT the Executive) is only authorized to bring military force into the states to suppress insurrections at the invitation of the Governor or Legislature of the state? None of the Confederate states requested that either Lincoln or the Congress send in an army to assist them, did they?
Art I, Sec 8: [Congress shall have the power...] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Art IV, Sec 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
(There is an absolute right to repel Invasion, but nobody's seriously suggesting the Confederacy invaded itself, are they?)
Ahem, to edit my prior statement,
I think it's also fairly obvious by the massive inflation incurred towards the end of the war, that nobody thought the currency was worth anything.
Just in case I threw you for a loop with that other remark. :)
With all due respect, neither the Germans nor the Japanese held title to any significant holdings of land in the United States. South Carolina, on the other hand, did hold the original title to every acre of land within its borders, as granted to it by the Northwest Ordinance. Furthermore, none of the rivers in South Carolina provided any maritime access to any other states in the Union (which had not as of yet seceeded). Are you sure that South Carolina was not justified in trying to reclaim land that it already owned? (Particularly with the pending threat of additional troops being sent to said land?)
"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."
How is anything you wrote different from what I posted? Are you responding to the wrong post? It makes no sense.
A civil war is by definition the breakdown of the rule of law. In the middle of a war, in the enemy's territory, the only rule of law that applies is the one determined by whatever General is in command. If you know of exceptions to this, I'd be interested.
Shakes head at idiot.
Ever hear of the black codes? They were worse than the Jim Crow laws of the South, but used in the North. Slavery would have ended in the 1870-1880's due to economic reasons. I get tired of Yankee hoiler-than-thou attitude when they are no better. Go to Boston or LA and tell me about their attitudes on race.
The Militia Acts of 1792 and 1795 gave the president the power. Section two states "That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, the same being notified to the President of the United States, by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session. "
Overlooking for a moment the fact that from the viewpoint of the administration Sumter was a U.S. fort in a U.S. city in a U.S. state, neither South Carolina or any other state holds title over federal property. Sumter was built on property deeded to the United States free and clear by an act of the South Carolina legislature. By transferring ownership the South Carolina government gave up all control over the property because Constitutionally on Congress can exercise authority over federal facilities. And that includes disposing of them.
Are you sure that South Carolina was not justified in trying to reclaim land that it already owned?
I can't speak for the people of South Carolina and what they saw as justification. I can only say that South Carolina had no legal claim to Sumter, and their act of firing on it was an act of armed rebellion against the central government. And they paid the price for their decision.
For 80 years they pretty much WERE the overreaching federal government. Can't be that. Must be slavery.
For every pre-rebellion black code you can show me in the North, there was one as bad or worse in place in the south.
Slavery would have ended in the 1870-1880's due to economic reasons.
Complete and utter nonsense. Absent any external influence slavery could have easily lasted into the 20th century.
A rebellion is defined as "open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government." Can we agree that the southern actions were a rebellion?
Couldn't you say that for all civil wars everywhere?
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.