Authors look at Lincoln's efforts to control media (Did Lincoln order trashing of newspaper of

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.

“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.

So, if you are powerful you have a right to destroy all others you deem less powerful than you even if the law says differently.

The North did not set out to destroy those less powerful. In simple terms it demanded the Southern States rejoin the union. The issue of whether a State could secede was not something that just came up in 1861, this issue had been debated over since before Jackson. There was no clear answer and there is nothing in the Constitution that permits it. In fact, one can argue that any state seceding from the Union was denying it's citizens the protections afforded them under the constitution. But, the South knew absolutely that if they seceded there was going to be war. The South was also convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that based on their culture and military traditions they were bound to win the war. So, to pretend as if it was the less powerful being destroyed is bogus. In fact, until Gettysburg it didn't look like the North was going to win.

By that logic, because Virginia ceded Alexandria to the Federal District, the Federal government still holds title to the entirety of that city.

I don't see how any logic can come to that conclusion. States and the government exercise complete control over the property that they own. States may deed property to the federal government, as South Carolina did with the land Sumter was built on. The federal government may return control of property to the states, as Congress did with Georgetown in 1846. Nothing in the Constitution prevents that.

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.

OK. I'm not sure I'm following your point here. Are you saying that the states could not sell or deed property to the federal government? That would run counter to Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 wouldn't it?

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.

I'm afraid I would have to disagree with you on that one. South Carolina passed the following piece of legislation in 1836:

COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL RELATIONS
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836

The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor’s message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

Also resolved: That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House: T. W. GLOVER, C. H. R.

IN SENATE, December 21st, 1836

Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order: JACOB WARLY, C. S.

Seems pretty straight forward to me. South Carolina gave up all rights, title, and claims to the property. It was in every and all legal respect the property of the federal government. And as such could be disposed of only through an act of Congress.

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?

Isn't that what rebellion is to begin with? Refusal to recognize the authority of the central government and waging an armed conflict against it? The only way that it could not have been rebellion was if the southern acts of unilateral secession were legal. They were not.

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.

Yes they were in rebellion because they refused to abide by the laws laid out by the federal government.

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?

Because they had not the power to unilaterally secede, regardless of their convention.

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?

I don't understand how you can claim that the federal government did not have jurisdiction over the people in the states.

I don't see how any logic can come to that conclusion.

I was just following the logical outcome of the conclusions you were making.

No, I'm not saying that at all. Rather, I'm saying that, while the Federal government is the final arbiter of land ownership in the Northwest Territories (and if one were to look at the legislation incorporating the Louisiana Purchase through every other westward expansion), and the states created out of these Territories could not claim absolute ownership of their land. The original colonies can and did claim that, though.

I'm afraid I would have to disagree with you on that one. South Carolina passed the following piece of legislation in 1836:

Notice some significant features of your citation:

his state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

Were the "processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of" South Carolina still being executed upon the same? It's not quite as straighforward as you'd make it sound. I agree that an act of Congress certainly would've made the matter much less difficult (and infinitely more honorable), but since that did not happen, I'd venture to say that South Carolina was still entitled to claim the land based on the fact that the Federal government was no longer acting under the civil processes of the State on that land.

In our modern definition of "central government," yes. We have grown up under the results of the Civil War. As a result, I'd say that we have no concept of the original limited government which was intended for us.

The Whiskey Rebellion was what I'd term a true "revolt" or "rebellion." In that case, individuals within the state revolted against Federal authority, and when the State requested that the Federal government assisted them in quelling the unrest, the Federal troops did so. Not without protest, I might add, but the Federal government's actions were lawful in that case.

Another good instance of "rebellion" would be when individual citizens in the State of North Carolina captured Federal forts, while the State was still a participatory member of the United States. The Governor, when he learned of the situation, sent State militia in to recover the forts from these rebellious citizens, and immediately returned control of the forts back over to the Federal government.

In other words, when citizens act without the auspices of civil government, to revolt against the civil government, it's rightfully considered a "Rebellion." A group of citizens, working through the Constitutional means provided to them, cannot be considered as such.

Under the ante bellum Constitution, anyway. All bets are off in modern times.

I believe you are starting to resemble the proverbial Christmas turkey on this argument. Full of crap. Like I said before, go back and study the debates prior to the framing of the constitution. And how conveniently you forget that the states were all recognized, and I quote from article one of the Paris Peace treaty of 1783 - "His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

Now the States didn't give up their sovereignty when they ratified the Constitution, they only ceeded certain enumerated limited powers to the Central Government. Had they wished for a strong central government they would've given up all their sovereignty. But wanting the power to remain in the hands of the people, they decided on limiting the scope and purview of the Federal Government. Go back and read the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, and then come tell me if the Founders wanted a strong central government.

Federal - shared power
Ratify - Agree to.

So your premise that the States were willing to accept a strong Central Government is flawed, and you really need to do more study on the subject.

Yes they were in rebellion because they refused to abide by the laws laid out by the federal government.

Which laws were they in violation of?

See my previous exposition on the Whiskey Rebellion, as I think that's a more clear (and in the terms of the mid-19th century, correct) definition of Rebellion or Insurrection. The politicians of 1863 certainly changed the meanings of both of these concepts, of course, so for us to look at it in terms of modern terminology is to rob it of quite a bit of it's accuracy.

Because they had not the power to unilaterally secede, regardless of their convention.

That was a topic that was hotly under debate back in the day. I refer you to the New York resolution ratifying the Constitution of 1787:

That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several states, or to their respective state governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said Constitution, which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

As you can see, New York authorized itself the option of seceding from the Federal Constitution, should it feel the necessity of doing so.

I don't understand how you can claim that the federal government did not have jurisdiction over the people in the states.

Because the Federal government did not have absolute jurisdiction over every citizen in the nation, at the time. Citizens owed their allegiance first to their State, and second to the Federal government. (Obviously, this is not universal, as many examples of Southerners supporting the Union, and Northerners supporting the Confederacy have been found, but what I have described was the majority at the time.)

One of the Federalist papers touches on the relationship between the Federal government and the citizens of a State, and the State governments and its citizens. I can't recall which one it is offhand, but if I can find it later, I'll link to it and cite it. (In class right now. :) )

The original colonies can and did claim that, though.

I don't understand what this has to do with Sumter. The land it was built on was the property of South Carolina until it was deeded free and clear to the federal government.

...That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law...

Not uncommon clauses. All that means is that a person could not hide in the fort from civil or criminal procedures. If sued, he could be served. If indicted, he could be arrested. Neither has anything to do with exercising any control, legislative or other, over the property. It was deeded to the U.S. without any rights, titles, or claims remaining with South Carolina.

I agree that an act of Congress certainly would've made the matter much less difficult (and infinitely more honorable), but since that did not happen, I'd venture to say that South Carolina was still entitled to claim the land based on the fact that the Federal government was no longer acting under the civil processes of the State on that land.

Even if you had some evidence that the processes were denied, that does not automatically revoke title. It would be up for a court to decide, wouldn't it?

In other words, when citizens act without the auspices of civil government, to revolt against the civil government, it's rightfully considered a "Rebellion." A group of citizens, working through the Constitutional means provided to them, cannot be considered as such.

Except when the people and the states are not working through constitutional means. Which was the case with the southern acts of unilateral secession.

I refer you to the New York resolution ratifying the Constitution of 1787...

The New York resolution was full of declarations. No standing army. No suits against states. But in the end they ratified the Constitution as passed by the convention. And I would also point out that the ratification documents are not the law of the land, the Constitution is. If the ratification document reserves a power not granted to the states by the Constitution then the Constitution prevails.

Because the Federal government did not have absolute jurisdiction over every citizen in the nation, at the time. Citizens owed their allegiance first to their State, and second to the Federal government. (Obviously, this is not universal, as many examples of Southerners supporting the Union, and Northerners supporting the Confederacy have been found, but what I have described was the majority at the time.)

Obviously people like George Washington disagreed with you. And regardless of where people thought their loyalty laid, the fact of the matter is that the supremecy clause of the Constitution made it clear that the U.S. Constitution, and the laws made under it, trumped all local laws and state Constitutions where those laws and constitutions conflicted with it.

I don't understand what this has to do with Sumter. The land it was built on was the property of South Carolina until it was deeded free and clear to the federal government. Not uncommon clauses. All that means is that a person could not hide in the fort from civil or criminal procedures. If sued, he could be served. If indicted, he could be arrested. Neither has anything to do with exercising any control, legislative or other, over the property. It was deeded to the U.S. without any rights, titles, or claims remaining with South Carolina. Even if you had some evidence that the processes were denied, that does not automatically revoke title. It would be up for a court to decide, wouldn't it?

I suppose I can't argue that with you. You've made some excellent points on this matter, and I'll have to do some more research before I'd even come close to addressing it in more detail. For now, I'll just have to say with the utmost humility that you are correct, and that I am in error. I will condition my response by saying that the Federal government behaved in a completely dishonorable manner by pointing the guns of Fort Sumter, which was intended to defend South Carolina from foreign invaders, inwards towards South Carolina.

Except when the people and the states are not working through constitutional means. Which was the case with the southern acts of unilateral secession.

To that, I must ask: Whom is the sovereign? Whom is the subject?

Whom the Creator? Whom the Creature?

The New York resolution was full of declarations. No standing army. No suits against states. But in the end they ratified the Constitution as passed by the convention. And I would also point out that the ratification documents are not the law of the land, the Constitution is. If the ratification document reserves a power not granted to the states by the Constitution then the Constitution prevails.

The bolded text shows the absolute fallacy of your argument.

Rights are not granted from the Federal Government to the states. The Constitution (and the Articles of Confederation which preceeded it) clearly established that the states were granting rights and powers to the federal Government, NOT the other way around. Furthermore, the Constitution was amended (Amendment X) in such a way to EXCLUDE the Federal government from exercising ANY powers which were NOT granted to it by the States.

PLEASE, please, please - Your view of early American history is a completely foreign concept. I would propose to you right now that you would not find a single founding father, whether Federalist, Whig, or miscellaneous that expresses the views you have expressed. NONE. Every last one of them, with the possible exception of Alexander Hamilton, absolutely understood that the States were the source of the authority under which the Federal government operated, and they all would have been horrified at the thought that anyone would read their carefully-crafted System to assume the opposite.

I beg you, please spend some time studying contemporary writing from the 18th century. Start with the Federalist Papers. Try to understand the framework which our founders attempted to leave to us. It'll help make sense of some of our earlier history, if you were to do so.

(Of course, as modern citizens, the Federal government has asserted that IT is our Sovereign. Your view of American governance would definitely apply to the way things are today. I cannot emphasize enough how ALIEN this construction is to the people who designed our government!)

Then how do you explain that the State of New Hampshire had an established Anglican Church, supported by tax dollars, until sometime after 1810 - More than 20 years after the Federal Government was created, well past the passage of the First Amendment?

None of the Founders thought that there was any conflict there, as New Hampshire was clearly regulating an intra-State matter.

I think, if you were to look at law commentaries of the day, you'd find that the laws made under the Constitution were far more limited in scope than your position would suggest they were.

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.