Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
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.
"Yankee"
Welcome to 2006.
Are you saying the Constitution in America is destroyed and our country has been an evil dictatorship since 1861?
LOL! That is what northerners are. I f you don't like it, I don't really care.
Not exactly. What I said was that since the Civil War, the country that was founded by our founding fathers has been slowly but surely chipped away. When today we are getting very close to a socialist/communist government. Why do you think liberals love Lincoln so much, ever thought of that? It's because of him that they are allowed to do what they want to do to this country.
I agree about the nation heading in a socialist direction. I disagree about everything else. If you want to blame someone for the socialist element in the government, you might want to start with FDR. I think FDR did do what he had to in many ways, and the subsequent democrats just failed to modify or discontinue the programs that were no longer relevant. LBJ is the president I would point to for creating the worst of these socialist programs. He has plenty of company though in all branches of government. Lincoln would probably be considered more conservative than any politician is, or would at least ever admit to being in modern American politics.
Well William Brownlow of the Nashville Whig had his paper shut down and he was jailed by the Davis regime in October 1861. In 1863 he has released from jail and deported to the U.S. Does that count?
But fair is fair. Name a single newspaper editor in the North that was jailed for the duration of the war.
In fact the Davis regime was able to get by for the most part through threats and intimidation to keep the press in line. One possible reason may have been that many southern newspapers didn't survive the arrival of Northern troops and the fact that there wasn't as much disagreement over the war in the south as there was in the North.
The south was a section of the U.S. engaged in a rebellion, and remained so in the eyes of the Lincoln administration and in the eyes of the world. As such the Emancipation Proclamation was a valid order, regardless of whether you agree with it or not.
Which laws were those?
Yessireebob, Lincoln's actions were unconstitutional because GOPCapitalist said so. Glad we cleared that little matter up.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
As a consequence, the People are no longer under the laws of Nature and natures God, but the mandates of government.
And a good morning from the Texas Hill Country!
Ahhh. Montgomery county! My ole stompin' ground. Had some great times in my youth there......what I remember of 'em anyway.
LOL!
Some specifics please. Something is not unconstitutional just because you say it is.
We don't have to. Several courts (including the US Supreme Court) have said as much:
______________________________________________________________________
14 CJS section 4 quotes State v. Manuel 20 NC 122:
"... the term `citizen' in the United States, is analogous to the term `subject' in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government."
______________________________________________________________________
U.S. v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases 785, 794:
"The amendment [fourteenth] reversed and annulled the original policy of the constitution"
______________________________________________________________________
In 1887 the Supreme Court in Baldwin v. Franks 7 SCt 656, 662; 120 US 678, 690 found that:
"In the constitution and laws of the United States the word `citizen' is generally, if not always, used in a political sense ... It is so used in section 1 of article 14 of the amendments of the constitution ..."
______________________________________________________________________
What most people today fail to understand is that, in law, there is more than one type of 'person'
A 'natural *person*' is a HUMAN BEING while an 'artificial *person*' is a LEGAL construct, referred to as a 'citizen' *legal entity*, or 'political *person*'.
By creating a nation of US citizens, Lincoln unleashed the Beast from its enumerated '10 miles square' and turned a FEDERAL government into a NATIONAL one.
Being a lawyer, he new exactly what he was doing. It's also why the phrase 'any person born in' was changed from 'any NATURAL person born in' before the 14th Amendment was ratified.
------------
The Founders constructed our government with 2 separate types of law.
Natural law (or the horizontal laws of the Decalogue) were for the people.
Positive law (or man-made law) was for the government.
These 2 types of law is what is meant by a 'Republican form of government' and separation of church (The People) and State (the government).
-----------
Gee. Am I the ONLY one whos figured out how/why illegals have MORE rights than US citizens???
And you Yankees are such blind boneheads. The Emancipation Proclimation was only a political ploy to gain popular support for a war that the North was losing by getting whipped in the field up to that point. Now I know there are the usual Holy Temple of Lincoln crowd on here who will try to skew the facts (taking their clues from him no doubt), but up until that point, the North had failed to win any major battle, and Lincoln had sacked McClelland and Burnside for their failures.
Yes, Lincoln was a dictator, he suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus in direct violation of the Constitution (he didn't consult Congess, who had the Constitutional authority to do so nor the Supreme Court). When called on it by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the "Highest Court in the Land" who settles all disputes on Constitutionality of issues, laws and etc, Lincoln issued an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice.
Lincoln declared war on the South without going through Congress for a Declaration of War.
Lincoln suppressed free speech by imprisoning those who disagreed with his war.
Lincoln caused the war by trying to reinforce Fort Sumpter in direct violation of an agreement with the Confederates. Those are facts that you just can't skew. There was no proviso that gave Lincoln the unlimited power to do what he wished. And either the Constitution stands as the LAW of the Land, or its not even worth the paper its written on. If Lincoln violated the Constitution, which he did on a regular basis, he should have been arrested as a domestic enemy of it, or at the very least sacked for failure to uphold his oath of office. Lincoln waged an illegal war to forcibly suppress a sovereign nation, the South who had peacably broken away and formed their own government using the same ideals that the Founders' laid down in the Declaration of Independence "the cornerstone of American Beliefs".
But the South lost and even though the self-determination they fought for was right, the North writes the history books. But then all Southerner's know that with Yankee hammerheads the status quo is always "Do as I say, not as I do" and "our Laws are written in pencil for quick changes when its expedient to do so."
Fair enough.
Please see post #54.
You are wrong, and by believing that you undermined everything the Founders' fought for.
No, I believe it was Chief Justice Roger Taney who said that Lincoln's actions were unconstitutional, and the law Lincoln violated was the U.S. Constitution.
But then we all know your Constitution is written in pencil for ease of alteration.
Ah yes, Lincoln AND Taney and, I assume, you as well. We're working towards a quorum here I suppose.
But then we all know your Constitution is written in pencil for ease of alteration.
And we know that your constitution is whatever you say it is. Funny how that works out to your advantage time after time.
(Thundering applause)
:)
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.