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.
I'd start with the New York Times, personally. ;)
See my reply to LS - While just about all "dissent" today is something I would consider to be treasonous, back during (and before, I'd say) the Civil War, there was a clear distinction between the two categories. I don't know if LS will agree with my sentiments or not, but it'll be interesting to see nonetheless. He is still a remarkable scholar, regardless.
As always, it is a pleasure to participate in these threads with you,
Respectfully,
~dt~
If succession was illegal and evil then why didn't Jefferson Davis go to trail and convicted of the crime?
As Non-Sequitur has pointed out in the past, there are a number of Founders that considered Federal power to be superior to States, and these are the ones he will tend to quote.
There was no "unanimity" in the Founding era, just as there is none today. We, of course, can continue to point to a number of prominent Founders ourselves that uphold our argument for secession, and he will continue to quote those that deny it.
(If you look at the debates, and the resolutions passed by the states, in order to accept the Constitution of 1787, there is a clear and undeniable right to seceed from the Federal compact expressed by nearly every State. NS tends to -and please, NS, correct me if I'm misrepresenting you, as that is NOT my intent- suggest that these were merely political ploys, and that the Federal compact, by nature of being an extension of the "eternal" Articles of Confederation, supersedes all State authority, and that no State can claim sovereignty. I could not possibly disagree with these sentiments more strongly, but NS is as entitled to his opinion on the matter as I am.)
Ok, so how many states do you need to secede?
Ya know, it’s obvious how appropriate your screen name is and that you're not actually reading any of my replies.
Personally, I have better things to do than play the FR game of “I’ll just keep asking what’s already been answered.”
Tell you what.
The next time your on a thread bemoaning the fact that (yet) another illegal immigrant has been released by the police for something you or I would have been heavily fined and/or jailed for, TRY to wrap your brain around what’s been said, okay?
In fact, the southern banks were stronger/more stable than the northern banks going into the war (though not nearly as large) because of branch banking in the south; but typically Davis destroyed their note-issuing function by taking their gold and printing Confederate notes, whereas in the north, Lincoln utilized an inferior system of "unit" banks by allowing them to retain their note-issue function, thus the number of "greenbacks" peaked at only $450m, and never constituted any major source of money in the north. More to the point, northern currencty held its value (supported by gold) while Confederate notes plummeted. (See "Graybacks and Gold," by James Morgan).
I would take what Jeff Davis said with a grain of salt. He had his own agenda. All one needs to know about the unpopularity of the war from the get-go in the south was that more southerners fought for the Union than northerners fought for the south---a lot more. In addition to the more than 80,000 black troops from seceded states who fought in blue, 100,000 white southerners (40,000 from Tenn.) fought for the Union, including the 4th Ark. Infantry, the 1st Mississippi Mounted Rifles, the 2nd Florida Cavalry, and the 1st Alabama Infantry.
Stanley Legergott, a well-known economic historian, has written an article in the Journal of Am. History in which he traced the quiet rebellion of the merchant and business classes against the Confed. government over the cotton embargo and high taxation, and found that by 1863, the blockade runners---who were operating under the financial support of these groups---were only bringing in jewelry, fancy clothes, combs, etc., which the merchants could sell at high premiums, NOT guns or ammo that were needed by the army.
Thank you so very much for the information!
:)
NY Times, WaPo (leakage), al-Jazeera (contributing to casualties) and websites like the "Iraq Body Count," DU, and Daily Kos.
I would be perfectly content to live in an independent Virginia, myself. But you're preaching to the choir, in my case. :)
A majority vote in Congress is all that's needed for a state to be admitted to the Union. I see no reason why the same criteria cannot apply to a state wishing to leave.
Actually I am, I'm just making the mistake of assuming you know what you are talking about. You quote two cases that went before the court after Lincoln was long dead and which, near as I can tell, had nothing to do with any of his policies.
The next time your on a thread bemoaning the fact that (yet) another illegal immigrant has been released by the police for something you or I would have been heavily fined and/or jailed for, TRY to wrap your brain around what’s been said, okay?
Tell you what. First I'll check to see if it's one of your threads and if it is I won't bother trying. Can't see as it would be all that possible to begin with. Though I am curious why you wandered away from your illegal alien threads to begin with.
Ah, thank you again for an excellent reference. I will put this one on my Amazon wishlist, as I prefer to own books written by you to borrowing them!
It's interesting that Lincoln destroyed the southern economy largely by yanking the financial basis out from under it...but typically Davis destroyed their note-issuing function by taking their gold and printing Confederate notes...northern currencty held its value (supported by gold) while Confederate notes plummeted. (See "Graybacks and Gold," by James Morgan).
Forgive me for abbreviating your quote, but I didn't want to sandwich a brief reply between overly large paragraphs. I've noted the reference, and will add it to my library list.
Didn't the Confederate currency plummet largely as a result of quasi-official counterfeiting rings, which printed large quantities of fake Confederate notes in New York City and supplied these notes to Sherman's Army, who spread them all over the south? That's one of the claims made by Mr. Davis, though I can see it as being a potential usage of war (I believe the British did something similar in the War of 1812) between Christian belligerents.
...whereas in the north, Lincoln utilized an inferior system of "unit" banks by allowing them to retain their note-issue function, thus the number of "greenbacks" peaked at only $450m, and never constituted any major source of money in the north. More to the point...
The Federal debt in the war was an order of magnitude larger than the Confederate debt. Could that be a consequence of the Northern (more centralized) banking policy? Or merely a result of having an immensely larger army and war policy?
I would take what Jeff Davis said with a grain of salt. He had his own agenda.
I actually enjoy "Rise and Fall" to a great degree. I understand that he had his own agenda in writing what he did, but I'd argue that, as humans, we all have our own agendas. In its final form (and I'm not saying I accept everything in it at face value, merely commenting on its form), it comes across to me, the reader, as a very beautiful argument for the sovereignty of the people, versus the military might of a conquerer.
All one needs to know about the unpopularity of the war from the get-go in the south was that more southerners fought for the Union than northerners fought for the south---a lot more. In addition to the more than 80,000 black troops from seceded states who fought in blue, 100,000 white southerners (40,000 from Tenn.) fought for the Union, including the 4th Ark. Infantry, the 1st Mississippi Mounted Rifles, the 2nd Florida Cavalry, and the 1st Alabama Infantry.
Are all of these soldiers counted here voluntary? Or were they conscripted by the invading Northern army? (I'm not very intimately familiar with the military side of the Civil War at this point, I admittedly have quite a bit of work left to do to bring my understanding of those affairs up to par. Please forgive me for asking these questions out of such supreme ignorance, but they're the first questions that come to mind in reading the prior statement.)
Stanley Legergott, a well-known economic historian, has written an article in the Journal of Am. History in which he traced the quiet rebellion of the merchant and business classes against the Confed. government over the cotton embargo and high taxation, and found that by 1863, the blockade runners---who were operating under the financial support of these groups---were only bringing in jewelry, fancy clothes, combs, etc., which the merchants could sell at high premiums, NOT guns or ammo that were needed by the army.
I will see if I can find that article - It sounds rather interesting. I was under the impression that blockade running was fairly subdued after 1862, as most of the nations which would have been there to trade with the Confederacy were blocking military orders from being sent to any Southern destination, as a result of a "neutral policy." Is that a correct reading of the historical record?
In light of that, what do you think about the fact that these same nations, who were refusing trade with the CSA [which, in my opinion, was too interested in behaving honorably to be able to succeed in this type of affair], were on the other hand openly dealing in arms and soldiers to the United States. Was this considered fair treatment, in light of the usages of Christian war up until 1860?
(I tend to compare the Civil War with the War of 1812, wherein the British and the Northern armies were merely interested in conquest and domination of the Americans and Southerners; respectively. Do you think that's a fair allegory to use?)
As always, I am humbled and honored to hold you in the highest regard,
Most respectfully,
~dt~
The courts said the 14th Amendment changed the Constitution. Why was the Amendment written?
Lincoln!
Lincoln's actions changed our government. Changing our government is not something he had the authority to do. It was a direct violation of his oath of office.
The length of time between his death and the court decisions is immaterial. His Amendment DID do what they said it did.
------------
Though I am curious why you wandered away from your illegal alien threads to begin with.
I was trying to show how Lincoln's actions still affect us today. The illegals have special right precisely BECAUSE they are illegal. Citizens NO LONGER have 'rights', but privileges BECAUSE OF their citizenship.
This legal fact, is again, directly a result of Lincoln's actions.
---------------
(sigh)
Look. I'm not trying to be difficult, and I do know of the facts of which I speak.
I don't like knowing how the birthright of Freedom was stolen from Americans.
I don't like knowing OUR OWN GOVERNMENT continues to financially rape the American public with no legal authority to do so.
I don't like watching politicians continually beating Americans over the head with the *law* while they themselves freely ignore it.
But the fact is, I DO know...and Lincoln was the Great Instigator.
The facts I have put down are facts, your purported facts are nothing more than spin designed to bolster your weak-assed stand.
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.