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.
Thank you for that information, I was not aware of the Militia Acts. I'll dig the legislation up and check it out.
By that logic, because Virginia ceded Alexandria to the Federal District, the Federal government still holds title to the entirety of that city. Yet, that's not the case. (Yes, I know, the Federal government sold Alexandria back to Virginia due to multiple reasons, so of course it's not as cut and dry as I describe it.) According to the Northwest Ordinance, the original colonies are granted exclusive title to the land within their borders, in exchange for their cession of claims against western land, and their transfer of primary jurisdiction of said western lands to the Confederacy, followed by the reorganized Federal government.
Under common law at the time, when you hold original title to the land, and you no longer recognize the authority of the Federal government to sit on that land, the title to that land would indeed transfer back to the state.
Ironically, it would appear that according to the Northwest Ordinance, no state created from these original Western lands [Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota] have any right of secession, as Congress (a) declares that the Western lands are forever to remain in the Confederacy of the United States, and (b) that Congress shall hold primary disposal of Western lands.
Art. 4. The said territory, and the States which may be formed therein, shall forever remain a part of this Confederacy of the United States of America, subject to the Articles of Confederation, and to such alterations therein as shall be constitutionally made; and to all the acts and ordinances of the United States in Congress assembled, conformable thereto. The inhabitants and settlers...The legislatures of those districts or new States, shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil by the United States in Congress assembled, nor with any regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title in such soil to the bona fide purchasers.
(I'm looking at finding the reference where the original colonies were granted full title to land within their borders, but it doesn't seem to be in here. Perhaps I am thinking of another Act, which I'll promptly go and find!)
On another side of the issue, is it appropriate for the Federal government to turn the guns of the forts, which were built to defend South Carolina from foreign invaders, inland towards Charleston?
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.
How was it an act of armed rebellion against the central government, if the State government no longer recognized the authority of the central government? Under the American Federal system, the authority of government orginally began at the local/individual level, and via grants made first to the State government, and then via grants from the State to the Federal government*. And seeing how (a), South Carolina was not threatening to invade the District of Columbia, and (b) there were no threats to the other States in the nation by the independence of South Carolina, where was the rebellion?
(* Of course, with the changes made to our government beyond the end of the Civil War, this is no longer the case. The Federal Government has proven to us that it is our Sovereign, and that we should serve it with our entire servitude.)
NO! The Southerners were not in rebellion, as their State governments remained completely intact, and the legislatures thereof continued to seat the same lawfully-elected representatives which were in-seat before the secession.
Prior to the Civil War, the Federal government would call troops in when residents of the state rebelled against the State government, or when residents of the state rioted against Federal tax-collection efforts. How can either situation be compared to the open vote for secession, carried out by a long and Constitutional process?
Furthermore, the lawful citizens of each state, who had absolute authority over their sovereignty, voted in large proportion to allow the secession. Is this vote not the highest form of the representation of individuals?
After all, is not the lawful representation of the People, embodied in their republican-in-form State governments, the absolute height of the ideals of American government?
The same could not be said of the West Virginians which came up with the ridiculous notion that somehow, the lawfully-elected Legislature of Virginia was suddenly completely unstaffed, and then proceeded, with the collusion of the Federal government, to elect a small minority of the residents of that region to fill (and thus, jury-pack) the supposed legislature of the Commonwealth, which then began to pass laws which supposedly affected regions of the state completely unrepresented in such Legislature?
The question is, if the citizens of the South remained loyal to their States -in the terms of the day, the only government which had full jurisdiction over them- how was it that they were "threatening" the Federal government with rebellion?
(Of course, the entire form of American government changed as a result of the Civil War, so none of my statements could even remotely be construed to apply to our situation today. In order to understand what I'm asking you, it is critically important that you go back and consider primary sources from before 1865 in the matter.)
From http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/FAQ.asp,
Q. Why are there no public lands in the thirteen colonies and other states in the east?A. In the very early years of the United States, the Congress of the Confederation declared it would sell or grant the unclaimed lands in "the West" (given up by the States to the United States) for the common benefit of the United States. The States gave up their claims to what is now Alabama, Michigan, part of Minnesota, Mississippi, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The United States could then sell this unclaimed land to raise money for the Treasury. In turn, the United States gave up its claims to any land within the boundaries of the Colonies.
I'll continue looking through the Journals of the Confederation Congress to see if I can find the Act that brought this about.
free dixie,sw
go look at some.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
slavery by 1860 was DYING an UNlamented natural death due to improvements in agriculture. given the fact that a MILLION people (MANY THOUSANDS of them slaves!) died in that NEEDLESS & UNJUSTIFIED war, it seems a REALLY HIGH PRICE to pay to free the slaves a few years early.
BUT the point actually is that the lincoln administration went to war for POWER & $$$$$$ and NOT at all to free the slaves. even lincoln admitted that the war was ONLY to "preserve the Union"!
i might have SOME respect for lincoln & his band of merry thieves IF they had been interested in freeing the slaves, rather than capturing more POLITICAL POWER & chasing "the almighty dollar."
sorry, but (as usual) you have NO point.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
as you are WELL AWARE, the WBTS was ONLY about FREEDOM for dixie.
lincoln could have cared less about the slaves. he, himself, said so in his letter to President Davis.
that letter has been posted on FR before on another thread.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
secession was LAWFUL. lincoln started an UNJUST war to compel the FREE southern nation back into the union. as a result of the UNJUST war, a MILLION people died NEEDLESSLY.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
With all due respect, Stand, arguments are not usually won by such wanton remarks. While we may disagree with some of LS' assertions, can we not at least admit that he has reached his conclusions after a lifetime of calmly-considered research? After all, that's exactly how we've reached the conclusions we have reached, is it not?
Warmest regards,
~dt~
fwiw, the 1st Amendment was to protect UNPOPULAR speech. popular speech needs NO protection!
free dixie,sw
See my post 204 outlining my reasoning behind the legality of secession, with regards to the original 13 colonies. I'm not sure if my logic would apply to all of the Western states, as the terms of their inclusion in the Union could potentially have been limited as the original Northwest Territory was.
i say what i think.
free dixie,sw
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.