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.
According to the writings of the Federalists, I was under the impression that the First Amendment was strictly intended to apply to political speech. I'm not certain of any case history, but I would imagine that treasonous speech (in print or in action) has been prosecuted successfully since the Bill of Rights was integrated into the Constitution, has it not?
Of course, our modern understanding of the "Freedom of Speech" is a result of decades of Leftist brainwashing, so I'm not sure that any of us would be able to grasp the original intent behind that Amendment without significant assistance from contemporary resources...
free dixie,sw
I understand completely, and I would never even begin to suggest that you should not say what you think. I'm merely forwarding the most humble suggestion that Temperance may generate better results than otherwise could be obtained; even in the face of antagonism! As with everything else I say, you are more than welcome to take it with a grain of salt or so.
Far be it from me to suggest that I'm infallible in that regard, though. I'm sure some of my more spectacular explosions are still within memory. :)
Most respectfully, your humble servant,
~dt~
we are talking about the ABILITY to lock people away (OR perhaps do worse things to them, as lincoln's minions did at Point Lookout DEATH CAMP!), with LITTLE or NO cause.
free dixie,sw
As I pointed out in 202, the Northwest Ordinance (which pre-dates the 10th Amendment by almost a decade) clearly states that the Northwestern Territories shall eternally remain in the Confederacy of the United States of America. Since the Northwest Ordinance is, to my knowledge, still under lawful effect in those states, I would imagine that this statement still has force - If my logic is incorrect, one of our in-house historians is more than welcome to correct me. (I am relatively new to this, so please forgive me if I am incorrect.)
Warmest regards,
~dt~
i'm sure someone here will go look them up.
free dixie,sw
Of course I didn't miss that, Stand! Your efforts to advocate the protection of all of us from unjust inprisonment are absolutely unimpeachable (for lack of a better term). This does not excuse Leftist editors from printing military plans and secret operations for our enemies, both foreign and domestic, to read. Such actions are clearly treason, and were we still living in an age in which Logic and Reason were king, these offenses would still be wholeheartedly punished to this day.
I would say that our best defense against a Leftist potus would be to ensure that we never again elect such a foul creature to the Executive's highest office. Other than that, our only defense against injustice would be the same one we use to protect ourselves from intruders - Remain armed, remain vigilant. Of the latter, I think you are doing a most excellent job,
Respectfully,
~dt~
Then I will defer to our in-house Historians to debate that matter, should they choose to do so. :)
NS, did you get a chance to see this post? Do you understand how the Confederate money is worded at this point? I never heard anything further from you on this topic.
They weren't out of the Union. They were in rebellion.
Ah, here's where I came in. So, Watie, tell us how there was a machine that would efficiently harvest cotton available in 1860, even though there wasn't one in use anywhere in the world until 1940. Tell us about how the need to chop cotton by hand would have ended without the development of herbicides in the 1940s. Explain why the mechanization of cotton happened at the same time in both the California cotton fields, with no legacy of the mean ol' yankees burning down Tara, as it did in the South.
as for me & my house, we will serve God & remain vigilant.
free dixie,sw
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Stand Watie, a self-proclaimed historian and expert on Constitutional issues, who has no knowledge of the Northwest Ordinances. I love it.
Then Lincoln was ranting and raving about saving the Union Pacific? No, they were out of the union and Lincoln knew it. Therein begins the war, to preserve the union.
Wow, I didn't realize that this has so much of a response. Certainly it seems that there are alot of Southern and Northern supporters in general.
I would like to bring up a few things that are almost anti-union, although in wide perspective I view the whole 'civil' war as a complete joke. These men had options, and could have built upon comprimise...like previous leaders. Neither side was ideal in MANY respects, but ultimately one side has to dominate the arena.
The reasons for the war in my eyes were [not in order]
1)Cultural difference
2)Undesired economic reforms
3)Long-term political interests
4)Different views on the Constitution
5)Hatred of the leaderships goals
6)The desire to contain slavery's growth from the West
7)The desire for more political power than status-quo
So here's things I passed through, which I found interesting (and a bit anti-union):
note: my perspective is not fully in line with the below.
*'The National Currency Act of 1862 established central banking and fiat currency; massive subsidies were given to railroads, the steamship industry, and hundreds of other rent-seeking businesses; tariffs were increased threefold and remained high for decades; an internal revenue buracracy was created; and the federal government was massively centralized'
*'After the War, the federal government completed its program of ethnic cleansing by killing off most of the Plains Indians and putting the survivors on reservations where" [as Gen. William Sherman said], 'they can be watched'. By 1890 Henry Clay's 'American System' had finally been realized'
*'Federal import tax laws were, in [Sen. John C.] Calhoun's view, class legislation against the South. Heavy taxation on the South raised funds that were spent in the North. This was unfair. Calhoun argued further that high import taxes forced Southerners to pay either excessive prices for Northern goods or excessive taxes... The first rebellion in the South over high import taxes came in 1832. A convention was called in South Carolina to nullify the new federal import duties. The duties were declared unconstitutional, and the governor was authorized to resist any attempt at enforcement by the national government. Andrew Jackson reacted strongly and it looked as if a civil war was in the making. Cool heads prevailed and a compromise was worked out. The tariff (import taxes) was to be reduced over the next few years to levels South Carolina would tolerate. This was the great Compromise of 1833.'
*'Adams claims that slavery was never in danger, pointing out that Lincoln pledged to enforce the fugitive slave law, declared he had no right or intention to interfere with slavery, and supported a new irrevocable constitutional amendment to protect slavery forever'
*'In late March 1861, over a hundred leading commercial importers in New York, and a similar group in Boston, informed the collector of customs that they would not pay duties on imported goods unless these same duties were collected at Southern ports. This was followed by a threat from New York to withdraw from the Union and establish a free-trade zone. Prior to these events, Lincoln's plan was to evacuate Fort Sumter and not precipitate a war, but he now determined to reinforce it rather than suffer prolonged economic disaster in a losing trade war.'
* 'As early as 1862, Confederate diplomats in England were indicating to British authorities that the Confederacy would be willing to abolish slavery in exchange for diplomatic recognition. In late 1864, Jefferson Davis and other Confederate leaders were ready and willing to abolish slavery in order to save the Confederacy, and Confederate diplomats in Europe made an offer to this effect (see Cooper, Jefferson Davis, American, pp. 552-553; see also, Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation, p. 113). This shows that Confederate leaders viewed independence as being more important than the continuation of slavery.'Note: They lost this option after losing a major battle early on in the war.
*'95 percent of the south didn't own slaves. They had more free black men, and the black men that were free had more property in the South.'
*Just two weeks before the first shot was fired at Fort Sumter, Secretary of State Seward warned Lincoln in a memorandum that any effort to resupply the fort would provoke a hostile response, and he advised Lincoln to evacuate the facility:
The dispatch of an expedition to supply or reinforce Sumter would provoke an attack and so involve a war at that point. . . . I would instruct Maj. Anderson [the commander of the federal troops at the fort] to retire from Sumter, forthwith. (Memorandum from Seward to Lincoln, "Opinion on Fort Sumter," March 29, 1861)
*Although Lincoln did not confess his part in provoking the Civil War with the cynical honesty of a Bismarck, he did speak certain revealing words. He consoled the commander of the Fort Sumter relief expedition for that officer's failure: "You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail, and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result." Shortly after the fall of the fort he was quoted by a close personal friend: "The plan succeeded. They attacked Sumter--it fell, and thus, did more service than it otherwise could." Note: It's been suggested that his personal secretaries have acknowledged his intentions on starting a war, but I've yet to read the exact quotes.
*In fact, according to accounts of one of Lincoln's cabinet meetings in which the resupply of Fort Sumter was discussed, Lincoln told his cabinet that if South Carolina's artillery opened fire on the fort or on the resupply ship, "he could blame the Confederacy for starting a war" (Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation, p. 45).
*So, yes, the Confederacy did fire on Fort Sumter. But, the Confederacy did this (1) only after Lincoln's Secretary of State had broken his promise to evacuate the fort, (2) only after the Confederacy had tried for weeks to arrange for the peaceful evacuation of the fort, (3) only after Lincoln had refused to meet with the peace delegation that Jefferson Davis had sent to Washington, (4) only after Lincoln had threatened an invasion if the Confederacy didn't allow the federal government to occupy and maintain federal buildings in Confederate territory (even though the South had offered to pay compensation for them), and (5) only after it became known that Lincoln had sent a ship to resupply the federal troops garrisoned at the fort. It should be mentioned that Lincoln didn't merely send a supply ship to Fort Sumter--he also sent warships. It should also be mentioned that not a single Union soldier was killed in the attack on Fort Sumter, and that the soldiers were permitted to return in peace to the North after they surrendered.
Lincoln stoked a fire in his young soldiers by telling them the South was in illegal rebellion and the union must be saved.
Davis stoked a fire in his young soldiers by telling him the Union soldiers were illegal invaders and must be driven out.
Hmmm...
Here's something for you.
The general whom advised Davis on Fort Sumter overemphasized the problem facing them. He implied there was more war ships then there was. He was considered a person that really wanted to enter the war; so you put him and Lincoln together...you got a civil war.
Proof positive you are a damned idiot. You can call it whatever you want, but by any definition it was a civil war. Typical Dixie type, you think you can change history by altering language. It won't work. But, cool the way you figured out how to deflect the subject away from the issue of slavery. My entire post was about how you guys never want to discuss slavery. You carefully avoided addressing that. It's a losing topic, isn't it? Best to find some other little detail in the argument and hope you can use it to change the subject. Nice try, it doesn't work.
Point of fact, I didn't say anything about race relations in contemporary American, and I never have. I don't believe the modern south is any more racist than the modern north. In fact, I think it is quite likely there is less racism in many parts of the south than in the north. But, in any case, you don't know what you are talking about. The black codes in the north were nothing compared to the black codes developed after reconstruction faltered, and they eventually led to the Jim Crow laws. Please don't play that moral equivelancy game that things were just as bad in the north as in the south because it is total bull. We can go down a litanny of what the Jim crow laws did to black people and you can't find anything even close in the north.
it's because you have BLINDERS ON and cannot talk RATIONALLY about that subject, as you seem to have swallowed the DY LIES, hook, line & sinker.
face it, the war for dixie LIBERTY was NOT about "preserving slavery" no matter how much you WISH it had been, as only 5-6% of BOTH northerners & southerners EVER owned a single slave & would NOT have fought a war to protect some rich guy's "right to trade in human flesh".
the VAST MAJORITY of people in both regions couldn't have cared less about slavery. it a BOGUS issue that was intended to FOOL ignorant & mean-spirited 1/2-wits & SELF-righteous DUMB-bunnies.(the KNOWING LIE seems to have fooled YOU!)
lincoln, himself, said that the war was ONLY about "preserving the union" UNTIL it appeared that France & GB might enter the war on the CSA's side. THEN lincoln decided to say that the war was a crusade against slavery. NOBODY in dixie was surprised, as lincoln was ANYTHING but honest.
no less a person than GEN US Grant said that IF the war had been to preserve slavery that he would have fought FOR the south. that too is FACT!
face it, casloy,the war was ONLY about freedom for dixie & getting the DY elite's boots off our necks.
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.