Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Okay, I guess you have a number? Or the names of the ones who were shut down? And why?
Yes, I do.
Your 'side' always seems to satisfy you with their jargon and is always 'primary' enough for your tastes... always from those whom you trust.
Beowulf, my "side" is history, not distortion, not wistful thinking, not the cheerleading of 21st century views on a 19th century tragic event. It was what it was.
Our 'side', on the other hand, has never been popular with those in charge, has had to many times go underground to survive, and may not have 'primary sources' lined up to
your discriminating taste...
Those who wish to spin tales vs. supporting historical facts have no "primary sources" to line up. Just fact, not taste.
A lot of our 'stuff' got destroyed and done away with by 'your people'. Many of 'us' were silenced, and socially sanctioned into silence, to not offend the majorities...
A emotional response that reflects no truth whatsoever. Frank Conner, Thomas DiLorenzo, Charles Adams, etc., can and do get published. Records and sources exist that show what people thought and said at the time. One merely has to read them in the context of the times. Enough 'stuff' survived in order for it to become part of the historical record. And enough people have already shown their decided lack of fear concerning an almost nonexistent majority out to silence them. Try again.
I believe that if we really knew what happened, we'd all be so speechless that we might never even mention this time period, ever again....
But we do know what happened and that is why I think some do their best to drown it out with fantasy and nonhistorical propaganda.
For any reason.
But, as I have silently been keeping score, here, your 'side' does not seem to have any great denial of anything we supposedly can't prove...
Such as the newspaper count.
You do come back, a lot of times, with PROVE IT.
See below.
Yet, for all your primary sources and documentations,
you don't ever offer to DISPROVE IT. You don't have Lincoln saying, "I'd never bother the press." You don't ever have him defending a dissenting press. You do have a reputation of dictatorship hanging about the man like a
disagreeable scent...
Again, see below.
Something smells, here. But what is it?
You give accounts which seem to argue, here or there, but
you don't ever give a preponderance of the evidence against a thought.
Merely the majority argument for another thought.
It would seem to me that you could simply slam the door upon us, once and for all, if you had in your possession all you say you have.
And yet, you can't.
Or, you don't.
So maybe you are not in the solid position you think you are in...
Someone made those statements...
Why would they make them if there were not some basis in truth to them?
This reminds me of the old "They wouldn't write a book about it if it wasn't true" or the now ever present, "They wouldn't put it on the internet if it wasn't true" etc. One must provide the proof, not merely believe in someone making statements. If all statements were true, the earth would be flat and the earth the center of the universe, would it not?
And from your vast and winning references, why do you not come back with more than a "Naa-ahh!"
Just wondering...
Beowulf
The number 300 is often brought up as the number of newspapers closed by the Lincoln administration during the war.
I had the pleasure of debating Dawna over this number on this very same thread and managed to come up with the following which I replied to her in a post of my own.:
"Dawna, by my count, you have given me a list of 22 newspapers (This was all that Dawna could confirm by her research that had been actually closed during the war in the North) and by the information you have provided:
(Most of the information I provided in this reply to Dawna came from this website:
Scroll down to the part about editors under attack . Unionblue)
9 were shut down by angry Union soldiers by having their presses destroyed or their offices smashed (The Crisis, Mareitta, Ohio Republican, Magoning, Ohio Sentinel, Ohio Eagle, Dayton Empire, Fremont Messenger and the Illionis Picket Guard). These papers were closed by individual soldiers who took matters into their own hands while on furlough or sick leave, NOT at Federal government direction or orders. This practice of soldiers taking it upon themselves to smash up newspapers or destroying their presses if they were precieved 'against the grain,' as it were, also took place in the South as well during the war.
2 papers, the New York World and The Journal of Commerce were shut down for two days for printing false information and trying to manipulate the gold market. See the website below:
3 papers, the Marion Ohio Mirror, Paris Democratic Standard, and the Fairfield Constitution & Union, were shut down and their editors arrested for interfering with enlistments, a crime at that time, especially if they were encouraging men to desert or not report for duty.
1 paper was shut down, the Evening Journal, and the editor arrested for a "few days" but then he wrote an apology. I would like to know what he was arrested for, but there was no information listed nor what he apologized for.
This leaves 6 newspapers, the Brooklyn Eagle, Chrisian Observer, Cincinnati Enquier, Chicago Times, New York Daily News, and the Davenport Daily Gazetta, that you state were shut down, but I have been given no reasons as to why they were shut down or for how long."
In all of our research, Dawna could only find 22 newspapers shut down out of the 300 constantly alluded to. I did my research and found why some of them had been closed.
I did find some other newspapers that were shut down in addition to those I list here, but I think it came to around 30-35 in total. No evidence has ever been provided to me on the other 270 newpapers that were supposed to have been closed by the Lincoln administration.
At the time of the Civil War, there were about 2,500 newspapers in the US. About 1,700 newspapers were in the North, 830 in the South. Of those 2,500 newspapers, 373 of them were published daily, with about 80 daily newspapers in the South. There were 17 daily newspapers in New York City alone, not counting all the other newspapers and publications printed there.
IF 300 newspapers were shut down in the North for various reasons, ranging from encouraging desertion, defying enlistments, evading the draft, or even for out and out political reasons, this would leave about 1,400 Northern newspapers untouched by political or military actions.
As an aside, Beowulf, I am certain the 300 newspapers might be true, although I have NEVER seen anyone provide a complete list nor source for such. Doing my own research along with Dawna was a refreshing exercise and gave us both a chance to find supporting evidence for each others views.
But as that research has shown, one can never be sure until one is willing to expend the time and effort to dig out the facts.
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
First, to call it a "manifesto" is to use a loaded term for what the actual title is, the Republican Party Platform of 1860.
Second, what it actually says is:
3. That to the Union of the States this nation owes its unprecedented increase in population; its surprising development of material resources; its rapid augmentation of wealth; its happiness at home and its honor abroad; and we hold in abhorrence all schemes for disunion, come from whatever source they may; and we congratulate the country that no republican member of congress has uttered or countenanced the threats of disunion so often made by democratic members, without rebuke and with applause from their political associates; and we denounce those threats of disunion, in case of a popular overthrow of their ascendancy, as denying the vital principles of a free government, and as an avowal of contemplated treason, which it is the imperative duty of an indignant people sternly to rebuke and forever silence.
Yes thats the part that calls secesion treason, and that itv will not be toelerated and treated as treason.http://facweb.furman.edu/~benson/docs/repplat6.htm
7. That the new dogma, that the Constitution, of its own force, carries Slavery into any or all of the Territories of the United States, is a dangerous political heresy, at variance with the explicit provisions of that instrument itself, with contemporaneous exposition, and with legislative and judicial precedent; is revolutionary in its tendency, and subversive of the peace and harmony of the country.
since it as a party refuses to acept the SC rulling on the constition, which had been clear form the document was written, ist clear who is the revoluntray party.
8.
That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; That as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our national territory, ordained that "no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to Slavery in any Territory of the United States
Congress has not the power to create the highest laws, and no terr can either, all again very unusual and very revolutary.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Anything not posted that has anything to do with the point being put, is a ramble.
Quote:
Presidents do not borrow money. That power is vested with Congress. Where did you get the idea that Lincoln borrowed money?
Cedarstripper
From Lincolns own actions which he described as being for the general good and ytrusted congress would ratify his actions, or as should have happened , he should have been impeached. Just he would later do to fund Ill when it went bankrupt and he orderd 2 Miilion from the War Dept to the sttste legislature to avoid the posiible secesion of Ill when there wasa strong antio war feeling, and an increase in taxation could have reulted in an anti war democrate winning in Ill asa result, or when he agin diverted funds to the individulas of border states to recompense them for the use of slaves when those states refused federal offers of compenstated emanicpation, all high crimes and misdomeners.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
If we restrict ourselves to your numbers -- which we know do not match with the terms of the Presidents -- the Federal debt increased from some 28 million on July 1, 1757 to some 90 million on July 1, 1861. This is an increase of some 62 million, or about 220%, meaning the debt more than tripled during the Buchanan administration. If it makes you happy to see it this way, that's fine.
In addition to this, as of July 1, 1757 the US Tresury had $17,710,114.27 cash on hand (see Buchanan's first State of the Union address). But if you look at Secretary of the Tresury Howell Cobb's December 1860 report to Congress (which shows the end of Fiscal year 1860, the first quarter of FY 1861 results, and the projection for June 30, 1861 end-of-year status), you'll find that Cobb is projecting a cash on hand amount of roughly 250 thousand dollars. Somewhere along the way, the Buchanan administration drained about 17.5 million out of the Federal Treasury.
Lincoln arrived to find no cash available and a much larger debt than Buchanan -- whether you want to call it tripled or quadrupled matters not to me. Have fun with your quibbles.
Tim
the coffers were empty because the federal government had not collected its debts, because noone extpected the Union to last so few were paying what was owed, look again at the last 6 moths recipts of Bucks term in office, thats where the answer is.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
the coffers were empty because the federal government had not collected its debts, because noone extpected the Union to last so few were paying what was owed, look again at the last 6 moths recipts of Bucks term in office, thats where the answer is.
No, Hanny. As already noted, Secretary of the Treasury Cobb is presenting a report to the Congress that includes only the first quarter of FY 1861, ending in September of 1860, and projecting the results of the next nine months to what will be on hand July 1, 1861. When he does so, no state has seceded from the Union (Cobb himself resigned in December of 1860). At this point, the amount of cash on hand is ALREADY some $14,000,000 below what it was on July 1, 1857, and Secretary Cobb is ALREADY projecting it will fall more than $3,000,000 in the next nine months to be virtually empty.
This type of financial disaster is one of the reasons Secretary Cobb, a Georgia man, had been asking for an increase in the Tariff in the late 1850s. He knew that this was not sustainable fiscal policy.
In addition, Federal income came to the Department of the Treasury through Federal hands. Import Tariffs were collected by Federal Customs agents. Funds for Federal land sales came to the Federal government through Federal agents as well. Those are virtually 100% of Federal income in those days, so please tell us who is holding the cash back.
Now it is certainly true that Southern secessionists conspired to hold back funds and seized Federal funds illegally from December of 1860 on. If you think Cobb was counting that in his projections before a single state had seceded, you would seem to be implying he was knowledgeable of their plans and perhaps conspiring to be a part of them -- which would seem to qualify as Treason under the Constitution. Is that what you are trying to say here?
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
You don't have Lincoln saying, "I'd never bother the press." You don't ever have him defending a dissenting press.
Not in so many words, but Lincoln did issue an order to the commanders in all military districts to be very careful when closing newspapers. They were not to be harassed for dissent -- only for encouraging desertion, draft-evasion, not volunteering, etc. Such publications clearly were toying with "aiding and comforting."
With Unionblue, I've not seen 300 papers closed. It's possible that 300 were shut down for a few days throughout the four wartime years, but I've not seen where any were shut down permanently. Also, several of the "closings" cannot be laid at Lincoln's feet. Soldiers home on leave somewhat spontaneously shut down a local paper that honked them off. And I'm not going to ask how many papers Jeff Davis shut down.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
From Lincolns own actions which he described as being for the general good and ytrusted congress would ratify his actions...
Is this referring to a specific event of Lincoln borrowing money (more than during Buchanan's administration) you'd like to share? Details, please. Most of the post just seems to be slanderous "ramble."
... This leaves 6 newspapers, the Brooklyn Eagle, Chrisian Observer, Cincinnati Enquier, Chicago Times, New York Daily News, and the Davenport Daily Gazetta, that you state were shut down, but I have been given no reasons as to why they were shut down or for how long."
...
I am not sure how long the Brooklyn Eagle was shut down or if it actually was, but my Dad was delivering it in the Bronx during the Depression, so it certainly survived. The paper was published from 1841 to 1955, then again from 1960-63.
I didn't check for gaps, but there are issues throughout the period from 1861-65.
LATER: on further research, it appears the Brooklyn Eagle lost its mailing privleges briefly as part of the gold hoax you mentioned. One of their reporters was arrested for his part in it, confessed to being an accomplice, and implicated the Brooklyn Eagle city editor as the man behind the crime. See http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/gold.html.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
... Soldiers home on leave somewhat spontaneously shut down a local paper that honked them off. And I'm not going to ask how many papers Jeff Davis shut down.
IIRR, some of Longstreet's men took the opportunity of a stop on the RR trip to Chickamauga to break up the offices of a North Carolina newspaper. They apparently took exception to the opinions printed there.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
