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.
So now a Supreme Court decision is valid only when you say it is? How does that differ in your belief that something is unconstitutional because you say so?
Bensel found that the north was overwhelmingly "freer" in terms of fewer instances of violations of personal or property rights; that the south, lacking even a Supreme Court to overrule Davis, had far fewer appeals of bad actions/verdicts/decisions; that private property was outright confiscated at a far higher level in the south than in the north (for one, the south took ALL the private gold in the private banks at the outset of the war---the north did not); that tax rates were higher; and so on. Further, Lee had the advantage of victories early in the war, which tended to generate little editorial criticism---his criticism came largely after Gettysburg, and by that time, he was too busy running from Grant to worry about his own editors.
IMHO, BOTH OF THEM should have shut down papers that were treasonous.
That's just about right. I show you legal precedent and reasoning where several courts say Lincoln CHANGED our for of government, and your reply is:
'How does that differ in your belief that something is unconstitutional because you say so?'
My reply doesn't 'differ' one whit, it AFFIRMS my assertion. You totally ignore LEGAL determinations by the US Supreme Court(s) because you don't want to believe Lincoln committed an illegal act, broke his oath of office and caused the deaths of almost a million Americans just because he personally didn't agree with their right to live as they wished.
Guess denial ain't just a river in Egypt, huh?
Here's some more on that wacky logsplitter:
The Reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln
Evidence of reincarnation links two American heroes. Hundreds of historical facts lend proof to a controversial statement by a yoga master, who said that Charles Lindbergh was the reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln.
San Jose, CA (PRWEB) February 1, 2006 — About fifty years ago a great master of yoga, Paramhansa Yogananda, declared that Abraham Lincoln had been a Himalayan yogi in a past life, and that he was reborn as the famous aviator, Charles Lindbergh. But what do the histories show? Is there anything in the lives of these two men that validates Yogananda’s statement?
{InsertImage}
In his new book, Soul Journey from Lincoln to Lindbergh , Richard Salva presents hundreds of similarities in the personalities, characters, and life circumstances of these two American icons. The connections span every aspect of the human condition—from the physical to the mental, emotional, spiritual and interpersonal—and provide convincing evidence that Lincoln reincarnated as Lindbergh.
By drawing parallels to the life and words of Lincoln, the author explains how past-life experiences influenced Lindbergh—thus presenting answers to questions about the aviator that have puzzled historians for decades: such as why Lindbergh fought so hard to prevent America from entering WW II.
More than one out of every five Americans today believes in reincarnation—yet few are aware of how past-life patterns affect them. Soul Journey fills this gap, by offering a vicarious experience of reincarnation. Through clear and persuasive parallels between the lives of Lincoln and Lindbergh, the reader discovers how the hidden laws of karma and reincarnation impact the events of his or her daily life.
Published in time for Lincoln’s Birthday, Soul Journey addresses other important issues, such as the secret spiritual history of America’s greatest president, including his past life as a Himalayan yogi; the hidden clues that reveal past lives; how greatness is achieved; and the spiritual principles behind the yoga postures that millions now practice.
Soul Journey has drawn praise from metaphysical experts. Yoga scholar Dr. David Frawley calls it “a fascinating account.” Reincarnation authority Frank DeMarco describes the book as “highly interesting” and “a thoughtful comparison of Lincoln . . . and Lindbergh.” And Swami Kriyananda, disciple of Yogananda, asserts that “it deserves to become a classic.”
Soul Journey from Lincoln to Lindbergh (ISBN: 0977238105, 344 pages w/photographs and illustrations, 5.5” x 8.5” quality paperback) is available for $16.95 in bookstores, through Amazon.com, or by contacting Crystar Press at www.CrystarPress.com.
About the author:
Richard Salva has studied yoga philosophy and practiced its teachings for thirty years. An author and minister, he has lectured on reincarnation, yoga philosophy, and history in the United States and in Europe.
###
Press Contact: Richard Salva
Company Name: CRYSTAR PRESS
Email: email protected from spam bots
Phone: 408-428-9846
Website: www.CrystarPress.com
So you say. But the Surpeme Court has never ruled that his actions were unconstitutional, and it would have been, in fact, unconstitutional for Lincoln to consult the court prior to his action. The court can only rule on actions taken under the Constitution, not actions proposed. You should know that.
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.
So you say. Inspite of the fact that there is no solid evidence to support the claim, and no evidence at all other than hearsay.
Lincoln declared war on the South without going through Congress for a Declaration of War.
So you would have us believe. But Lincoln didn't need to go to Congress. You declare war against other countries, not rebellious sections of your own. Lincoln had all the constitutional and legislative authority he needed to take his inital actions against the southern insurrection.
Lincoln suppressed free speech by imprisoning those who disagreed with his war.
So you say. You may not believe his actions were Constitutional, that isn't the issue here. You have yet to show where Lincoln deliberately violated the law as he understood it. He acted, in all cases, within what he saw as his authority as president. His actions were subject to review by the Supreme Court. That wasn't the case in other areas.
Lincoln caused the war by trying to reinforce Fort Sumpter in direct violation of an agreement with the Confederates.
What agreement? Details please.
Those are facts that you just can't skew.
Yet you continue to try.
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.
On the other hand, if Lincoln did not deliberately violate the Constitution, which he did not, then he should be respected for remaining within the bounds of that document at a time when the southern rebellion was placing the very existence of the government at peril. Right?
But the South lost and even though the self-determination they fought for was right, the North writes the history books.
And the losers write the myths, as you and your cohorts demonstrate on a daily basis.
for = form
Ditto from Conroe! :)
Bump for later
I like that old gem, it was nice seeing it again. I love history.
free dixie,sw
Thank you kindly, Sir, for this reference. I'll be sure to check it out the next chance I'm at the library (which should be in a week or so).
completely excluding from the argument slaves and any actions taken toward slaves in the South, which, I think we would agree, would always fall on the "oppression" side of government.
I would tend to put it right up there with the barbarity of instigating a servile war, so yes, I suppose on those terms we could agree. :)
(for one, the south took ALL the private gold in the private banks at the outset of the war---the north did not); that tax rates were higher; and so on.
This is a claim I had not heard before. I'll definitely research that - Thank you for the pointer!
Further, Lee had the advantage of victories early in the war, which tended to generate little editorial criticism---his criticism came largely after Gettysburg, and by that time, he was too busy running from Grant to worry about his own editors.
Jeff Davis leaves the reader with the impression that anti-war sentiments were fairly prevalent throughout the South. To clarify, in terms of the onset of war, that Southerners in general were reluctant to consider that the Northern government would even begin a war, and when the war continued to last longer than the few weeks that Southern intellectuals considered it would last, that Southerners began to criticize the Government for allowing things to stretch on.
He complains of being lambasted by the Confederate Congress and by the newspapermen in Richmond after Lee didn't march on Washington immediately following first Manassas, yet he doesn't recount any efforts to suppress these opinions.
I'll be sure to check out your reference to see what kinds of events the author recounts.
IMHO, BOTH OF THEM should have shut down papers that were treasonous.
Perhaps.. I think the standards of dissent have fallen so far today, that it's very easy to say, as modern observers, that all dissent is treason. However, back in the Civil War, I'd say that dissent could not necessarily be equated with "treason" in all cases. (That's not to say that there weren' cases where it would be considered "treason," but I'd tend to say that those instances are far less numerous than they are today, in the face of a morally bankrupt opposition.)
As always, Sir, it is an utmost honor to be able to seek your input on these issues. I will continue to hold you,
Most respectfully,
~dt~
free dixie,sw
The Civil War is over. Can't you discuss this without calling people names?
free dixie,sw
GOOD POINT!
the "lincoln worshipers" on FR are NOW having a "heart attack".
free dixie,sw
Read what the founding fathers say about succession and then tell me that again.
OK, look at what Madison had to say about the concept of nullification or unilateral secession and get back to me. The idea that a state may secede from the Union may be supported. The idea that a state may do so without the consent of the other states is ridiculous.
Oh my goodness me, I most certainly wouldn't want to be accused of ignoring determinations of the U.S. Supreme court now would I? Ummm, what Supreme Court decisions were you thinking of specifically?
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.