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.
Any idea of what evidence they present that Lincoln did?
I've seen the book at the store, but haven't read it.
Huzzah! Is this gonna be the Great North vs South thread for the next week? (I may pick it up again later on this evening. :) )
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.
Excuse me, while I vomit.
I may be one of the few that thinks the Civil War was a sad event in history, that didn't shine nicely on either side. Deep down both sides had their points, but their stubborness led to violence.
“Lincoln was a man who understood the press and continually manipulated its chief editors to support his policies"
He owned a German-language newspaper published in Chicago.
Robert E. Lee would have liked to have arrested all the editors. He commented sarcastically something to the effect that the South was stupid, sending its best genearals to head up papers, and its editors to lead armies. Likewise, Napoleon said a hostile editor was more to be feared than a thousand enemy soldiers.
"Six inches to the right, and Lincoln would have seen the end of the play," Briscoe.
Huzzah? I thought that was used in the 18th century and early 19th century.
Target rich area here.
ping
What's wrong with resurrecting an old gem once in a while? ;)
I am a huge admirer of your work, Sir, and even though I may be a crusty ol' Southerner (and may disagree with you on some issues), please don't take what I say the wrong way. I do hold you in the highest esteem! With that in mind,
I'd say that there's a big difference between would have liking to arrest all of the editors hostile to the war efforts, and actually succeeding in doing so. Would you not agree?
Are there any examples of the Confederate government locking away newspaper editors for the duration of the war? I've done a bit of reading in Mr. Davis' account of the war, and a few other volumes on the topic, and while I've seen him express sorrow at the anti-war sentiments being presented by newspapermen (and even on occasion, Confederate Senators), I am not aware that any effort was ever made to imprison them. Am I mistaken? Have I missed a resource that documents that?
I've run across a handful of examples of the imprisonment of editors by the Union forces, and while some of them were arrested for bringing "anti-war" sentiments to print, many more were arrested for merely suggesting that the Confederates may have a point in their endeavors. Was the North justified in doing so? (Is that a question you plan to explore in your upcoming work? I'll definitely be watching for it on Amazon!)
(Also, while the orders to arrest these Northern editors may have prima facie been issued by a "mere" General, many of them are rooted in orders coming from the War Department (namely, the Sec'y of War) in Washington City. Am I mistaken in reading the historical record that way?)
As always, it is my most humble pleasure to be able to speak directly with such a renowned scholar as yourself. I will continue to consider you,
With warmest regards,
~dT~
You guys crack me up. You say that Lincoln was an evil dictator, then accuse him of not caring about slavery because he didn't use his dictatorial powers to end it. The fact is that Lincoln had no constitutional authority to end slavery by fiat in states loyal to the Union. He did have such authority in the areas in rebellion, hence the Emancipation Proclamation. What he did do was support the passage of the 13th Amendment by congress and the states, even insisting on it being included in the Republican platform. Missouri didn't wait that long. They abolished slavery themselves in January 1865.
Yet, by installing Military (martial) governments even in "loyal" states, that's precisely what he accomplished. Legislators, newspaper editors, and prominent citizens that thought he was overstepping his lawful bounds in his prosecution of the war were thrown in jail and denied the right of trial. Is that the "lawful" way to amend constitutions, enact legislation, and "ensure a Republican form of government to each State?"
As an example, the Federal government orchestrated the overthrow of the lawfully-elected Government of Virginia, stationed troops outside of the polls in our Western counties (which, admittedly, were not in very close agreement with the Eastern ones already) in order to intimidate "non-loyal" voters, and allowed a puppet government to be stationed in Alexandria, under the farce of a notion that the "Government of Virginia has been vacated." (In blatant disregard of the fact that the lawfully elected legislators were still in their Seats, in Richmond.) This puppet government, staffed entirely by people from Western counties, then proceeded to vote to split the Commonwealth in two, essentially stealing a vast portion of land from a sovereign nation. (When the war had closed, Johnson issued a proclamation declaring that the farce of a government in Alexandria was to become the new lawful Government of Virginia, thus completing the takeover that had been begun in 1861.)
"Dictator" may not be the exact word I'd use to describe him, but I wouldn't exactly think of him in the kindest terms... He and the radical Republicans in Congress didn't exactly follow the letter nor the law of the Constitution, by any stretch of the imagination.
Saying it doesn' t make it so. The south had a "Right to Rebellion." Unfortunately for them they didn't have what it took to make it stick. The United States government never recognized them as anything more than rebels. Nor did anyone else in the world, except one minor German principality.
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.