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.
How the hell did you come up with that? Did you not read the quote?
I keep forgeting, The war was run by Republicans and Republicans do nothing wrong. They are the party of God. Why do I keep forgetting that? Oh because it isn't true. I'm done with this topic. See ya later.
Really? Can you point me to the chapter?
Yeah, I read the quote. I've read the whole speech, in fact. He's talking about the natural Right of Rebellion, not about secession from the Union. Read a little more of the context of the quote you cherry pick. He's talking about Texas and the War with Mexico: "The extent of our teritory in that region depended, not on any treaty-fixed boundary (for no treaty had attempted it) but on revolution Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,-- most sacred right--a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones. s to the country now in question, we bought it of France in 18O3, and sold it to Spain in 1819, according to the President's statements. After this, all Mexico, including Texas, revolutionized against Spain; and still later, Texas revolutionized against Mexico. In my view, just so far as she carried her revolution, by obtaining the actual, willing or unwilling, submission of the people, so far, the country was hers, and no farther."
Clearly what Lincoln is saying isn't that states can unilaterally renounce the Union, but that any people, anywhere, can revolt against an existing government and claim as much territory as they can hold. In this case Texas had revolted against Mexico and succeeded, through force, in holding territory. The question was whether this territory extended to the Rio Grande or only to the Nueces.
It is on chapter 10, page 566. Hitler take on the Federated state. He doesn't say Lincoln's name, but you get the point:
"What is a federated state?
By a federated state we understand a league of sovereign states which band together of their own free will, on the strength of their sovereignty; ceding to the totality that share of their particular sovereign rights which makes possible and guarantees the existence of the common federation.
In practice this theoretical formulation does not apply entirely to any of the federated states existing on earth today. Least of all to the American Union, where, as far as the overwhelming part of the individual states are concerned, there can be no question of any original sovereignty, but, on the contrary, many of them were sketched into the total area of the Union in the course of time, so to speak. Hence in the individual states of the American Union we have mostly to do with smaller and larger territories, formed for technical, administrative reasons, and, often marked out with a ruler, states which previously had not and could not have possessed any state sovereignty of their own. For it was not these states that had formed the Union, on the contrary it was the Union which formed a great part of such so-called states. The very extensive special rights granted, or rather assigned, to the individual territories are not only in keeping with the whole character of this federation of states, but above all with the size of its area, its spatial dimensions which approach the scope of a continent. And so, as far as the states of the American Union are concerned, we cannot speak of their state sovereignty, but only of their constitutionally established and guaranteed rights, or better, perhaps, privileges.
The above formulation is not fully and entirely applicable to Germany either. Although in Germany without doubt the individual states did exist first and in the form of states, and the Reich was formed out of them. But the very formation of the Reich did not take place on the basis of the free will or equal participation of the single states, but through the workings of the hegemony of one state among them, Prussia. The great difference between the German states, from the purely territorial standpoint, permits no comparison with the formation of the American Union, for instance. The difference in size between the smallest of the former federated states and the larger ones. let alone the largest, shows the non-similarity of their achievements, and else the inequality of their share in the founding of the Reich, the forming of the federated state. Actually, in most of these states there could be no question of a real sovereignty, except if state sovereignty was taken only as an official phrase. In reality, not only the past, but the present as well, had put an end to any number of these so-called 'sovereign states' and thus clearly demonstrated the weakness of these 'sovereign' formations."
If he was for rebellion, which he called the South rebels, then why go to war?
"Clearly what Lincoln is saying isn't that states can unilaterally renounce the Union, but that any people, anywhere, can revolt against an existing government and claim as much territory as they can hold. In this case Texas had revolted against Mexico and succeeded, through force, in holding territory. The question was whether this territory extended to the Rio Grande or only to the Nueces."
It that not talking out both sides of your mouth. It's ok for Texas to leave Mexico but the Southern states can't leave the US.
Mildly. Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is supposed to have recognized the confederate when they supposedly requested an exequatur from the confederate government for Ernst Raven, their counsel in Texas. I've also seen accounts that the government of Prince Ernst II requested the exequatur from the state of Texas rather than Richmond, which I suppose meant that they recognized Texas sovereignty if not confederate. The confederate secretary of state was also complaining about the same time that counsels of foreign countries residing in the south were till communicating with their home country through their embassy's in Washington, and if Raven was doing the same then it hardly conveys recognition on Richmond now does it? If that's the best you can do in the form of recognition then have at it.
You guys are a complete hoot.
First you say this:
Then tell me why do dictators around the world quote Lincoln when suppressing "rebellion." In Mein Kampf, Hitler praises Lincoln for what he did.
282 posted on 02/07/2006 1:59:25 PM PST by libertarianben
When I ask you where, you come back with...
It is on chapter 10, page 566. Hitler take on the Federated state. He doesn't say Lincoln's name, but you get the point:
Not only does he not mention Lincoln, he didn't praise anyone, and in fact said absolutely noting remotely associated with Lincoln. I can't possibly see your point because you don't have a point. All you have is idiot drivil and no knowledge of American history.
I'm telling you. Low Rockwell has more Loonie Toons running around than Warner Brothers.
Huh?
It's ok for Texas to leave Mexico but the Southern states can't leave the US.
I'm not up on the Mexican Constitution of the time, but I'm willing to bet that there was no mechanism outlined in it for Texas to unilaterally secede. Their right was a natural right in the Lockean sense. Similarly, the 13 colonies had a natural right to rebel against England, but their action was utterly illegal under British law. The founding fathers fully recognized this and got busy fighting for their independence rather than making a legalistic argument.
Southern states had a natural right to revolt against the United States, not a constitutional one. They aren't the same thing.
No, actually the list is only a dozen or so, most in the confederacy or border states, and nobody has given the reason why the papers were suspended. We are to assume that Lincoln closed them all down in a fit of pique, I guess. But nothing close to 100 has ever been presented.
The relevant point is not the number 100, but the fact that Lincoln was shutting down newspapers. The original site of the quote regarding the newspapers that people quote so frequently is probably here--.
I would have guessed a different, anatomical source for your 100 papers closed, but you do show the great southron myth machine at work. You take a quote stating that 100 papers were opposed to the war and then transform that into the claim that 100 papers were put out of circulation. All the while providing not a single bit of proof for your claim. And when challenged the suddenly the number 100 isn't important. Your mentor Tommy DiLorenzo would be so proud of you.
Among the newspapers subjected for a time to military "suppression" were the Chicago Times, the New York World, the New York Journal of Commerce, the Dayton (O.) Empire, the Louisville (Ky.) Courier, the South of Baltimore, the Maryland News Sheet of Baltimore, the Baltimore Gazette, the Daily Baltimore Republican, the Baltimore Bulletin, the Philadelphia Evening Journal, the New Orleans Advocate, the Baltimore Transcript, the Cambridge (Md.) Democrat, the Wheeling Register, the Memphis News, the Baltimore Loyalist
Only 83 to go. I would point out that 3 of those newspapers where in confederate cities, and the fact that they may have been closed down upon the arrival of Union troops can hardly be considered surprising. The World and the Journal were suspended because they were suspected of being part of a financial fraud, hardly political.
Regarding the orders sent to and executed by General John A. Dix to "arrest and imprison ... the editors, proprietors and publishers of" the New York World and the New York Journal of Commerce, there is the case of The People vs. John A. Dix and Others, as related by James G. Randall.
The World and the Journal of Commerce were suspected of being parties in a financial fraud. Once their innocence was established they resumed publication. As you would know if you did any research at all.
On August 21 the federal government ordered that copies of the New York newspapers that had been suppressed should not be carried by the mails. Suppressions continued August 22 in New York, New York; Canton, Ohio; and Philadelphia. On September 18 the Louisville, Kentucky "Courier" was banned from the mails, and its offices were seized the next day by federal authorities.
I'm not denying that newspapers were suppressed or shut down, just your claim that they were shut down on the orders of Lincoln for opposing his administration. It is one thing to oppose policy, which dozens of newspapers in the North did openly. It is another to advocate arming oneself and joining an open rebellion against the government, which is why the Louisville paper was shut down. I don't totally defend the action, but I don't want to stand by and have you lie about the numbers and the reasons, either.
He was talking about state rights. Which is part of the discussion of the Civil War.
So do you think we should have stayed a colony to the UK?
No he's not. He's talking about "any people, any time" Have you read the speech, or did you just cherry pick that quote from some Rockwell/DiLorenzo crap? Lincoln is talking about Texas' natural right to revolt against Mexico. As Texas was not a state at the time, it could hardly be a discussion of states' rights under the constitution.
No, but nor do I claim that it was legal under British law for the colonies to revolt. They won their freedom by force of arms, not legal argument.
You really seem to be having a hard time with this concept. Let me ask you this: If "any people, any time" have a constitutional right to revolt at any time, why is there a clause in the constitution talking about putting down insurrections? Surely, by your thinking, any rebellion or insurrection would be permissible under the Constitution.
One has to be careful accepting non-sequitur's pronouncements about things like this. Here is one version of what happened to Brownlow:
Remaining, for awhile, unmolested at Knoxville, he [Brownlow] was finally taken away by his friends, and remained in concealment for some time in the mountains of Tennessee, until he was induced, by the offer of a safe escort out of the State to the North, to appear at the rebel military headquarters at Knoxville. Upon his arrival there, December 6th, 1861, he was arrested, on a civil process, for treason, and thrown into jail. After a month's confinement, he was released, only to be immediately re-arrested by military authority, and was kept under guard in his own house, expecting death, and suffering from severe illness, till March 3d, 1862. He was then sent, under escort, toward the Union lines at Nashville, which he finally entered on the 15th, having been detained ten days by the guerrilla force c e Colonel Morgan. Subsequently he made an extensive and successful tour of the Northern States, addressing large audiences in all the principal cities, and wrote an auto-biographical work, entitled, " Sketches of the Rise, Progress, and Decline of Secession, with a Narrative of Personal Adventure among the Rebels," which was published in Philadelphia. [Source: Brownlow]
That works out to a month in jail and three months of house arrest. Not what non-seq said.
Here are two links to other versions of Brownlow history. Link to Brownlow history and Another Brownlow history
For your information, the book Yankee Leviathan notes on page 144 that "only one paper (in Knoxville, Tennessee) seems to have been closed by national authorities [Confederate]; only one other (in Raleigh, North Carolina) was destroyed by mob action." The Tennessee paper was Brownlow's. However, some claim Brownlow's paper was shut down by state authorities, not national authorities (see Link).
Contrast that with what happened to newspapers and editors in the North during Lincoln's reign.
Funny, because I am getting a lot of email from people who are telling me not to waste my time with you. You are considered kind of a nitwit around here.
I find it beyond absurd that you use the Constitution to justify doing away with the Constitution. Essentially, any state which seceded was robbing each and every citizen of that state the protection of the constitution. The Bill of Rights is not about what the majority wants, the Bill of Rights is about the rights of the individual protected against any government be it local or federal. A State can't censor a newspaper nor close down a church even if everyone in the State votes to do so. The states which seceded were essentially removing their citizens from the protection of the Constitution. As to the Lincoln quote, it's getting very tired and you probably ought to read something other than anti-Lincoln books to get your history. That sentiment was a common one, expressed most distinctly by Jefferson and meant to apply to unelected governments which ruled without the consent of the governed. The fact the South lost the election of 1861 was not exactly what Jefferson or Lincoln had in mind.
Now you can have your a** back.
Oh, grow up! This isn't a playground, you infantile nitwit.
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.