[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
History See other History Articles Title: Authors say Lincoln Was No. 1 Enemy Of The Press Authors say Lincoln Was No. 1 Enemy Of The Press By Jeffrey Manber and Neil Dahlstrom 2-12-6 By Geoffrey R. Stone, the Harry Kalven professor of law at the University of Chicago and the author of "Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime From the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism" Published February 12, 2006 Lincoln's Wrath By Jeffrey Manber and Neil Dahlstrom Sourcebooks, 356 pages, $22.95 One might think "Lincoln's Wrath," the jacket of which includes the subtitle "Fierce Mobs, Brilliant Scoundrels and a President's Mission to Destroy the Press," would be about Abraham Lincoln's wrathful attempt to destroy the press, but it isn't. In fact, it tells us surprisingly little about either Lincoln's wrath or his supposed campaign to destroy the press. During the Civil War, the president implemented several constitutionally questionable measures to preserve the Union. Most dramatically, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus on eight occasions, thus empowering military commanders to imprison thousands of civilians without any recourse to the courts. Moreover, some 300 allegedly disloyal newspapers were shut down, at least temporarily, by military and civilian authorities, and mobs often attacked anti-administration presses for what was considered their disloyal expression. The conventional wisdom is that although Lincoln ordered the suspensions of habeas corpus, he had no personal involvement in the actions against the opposition press. Rather, these efforts to suppress seditious speech were either spontaneous actions by private citizens or rogue actions by lower-level government officials. According to the conventional wisdom, Lincoln disapproved of these actions but failed either to condemn them publicly or to take decisive steps to prevent them from recurring. In this sense, at least, he can be fairly faulted for not protecting his critics from private and public repression. The thesis of "Lincoln's Wrath" is that this conventional wisdom is wrong. Jeffrey Manber and Neil Dahlstrom maintain that Lincoln was a skilled manipulator of the press whose Machiavellian machinations secretly encouraged and even directed the dismantling of the opposition press. This is an original thesis. Unfortunately, at least for the authors, if not for Lincoln, "Lincoln's Wrath" offers no evidence to support it. Rather, it resorts to innuendo, loaded rhetorical questions, dubious inferences and spurious conspiracy theories in lieu of proof. Although what Manber and Dahlstrom have to say about Lincoln's purportedly wrathful effort to destroy the press is unconvincing, what they have to say about civil liberties in wartime is significant and timely. At least three issues addressed in "Lincoln's Wrath" are worth highlighting, not only for our understanding of the Civil War but to guide us in our own time as well. First, when may the government suppress allegedly disloyal speech? The very idea of disloyal speech is elusive. Sometimes, though, disloyalty is obvious. For example, public officials who intentionally disclose the identity of a covert government operative for partisan political gain are by anyone's definition disloyal. But that's the easy case. More difficult is the critic who accuses the president of being deceitful and manipulative, and of misleading the nation into an unnecessary and destructive war--all accusations lodged against Lincoln. Are such critics disloyal? In this situation, disloyalty would seem to turn on the speaker's motives. These same accusations might be made by someone attempting legitimately to contribute to public debate and by someone attempting illegitimately to incite draft evasion and desertion because of his sympathy with the enemy. Manber and Dahlstrom rightly conclude that government inquiries into whether such actions are disloyal are inherently impossible in the heated atmosphere of wartime and, in any event, no proper business for government censors. Second, "Lincoln's Wrath" explores the often-corrupt relationship between journalists and politicians during the Civil War. Publishers snuggled up to powerful politicians to gain access to information and patronage, and politicians sidled up to publishers to get positive news coverage and editorial support. Manber and Dahlstrom demonstrate that such coziness destroys the independence of the press. At present, we face a similar danger. With the government imbedding and thereby co-opting journalists, subverting the independence of public broadcasting, restricting press access to information and promoting the corporatization of the media, it is no wonder that we see the proliferation of such "journalists" as Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh and that, unlike the situation in the Civil War, World War I, World War II and the Vietnam War, we see no images in the mainstream media of flag-draped coffins or American battlefield casualties in Iraq. The third fundamental question posed by "Lincoln's Wrath" is whether the president is above the Constitution. To what extent, if any, may a president, as commander in chief of the Army and Navy, take otherwise unconstitutional measures to protect the nation's security? Lincoln's actions during the Civil War certainly presented this issue, and Lincoln addressed it directly and forthrightly. George Bush's actions during the war on terrorism, such as his authorization of torture, his detention of American citizens without judicial process and his electronic surveillance of Americans without a warrant or probable cause, present the same question. Unlike Lincoln, though, Bush prefers to deny or hide his actions, rather than discuss them openly with the American people. All of which reminds me of an exchange I had recently with my friend and colleague, U.S. Appeals Judge Richard Posner, during a debate over the Patriot Act. After I questioned some of the Bush administration's policies, Posner observed that Lincoln had been guilty of even worse violations of civil liberties than Bush. I quipped, in response, "Yes. But I knew Abraham Lincoln, and George Bush is no Abraham Lincoln." To which the good judge brilliantly replied, "When Lincoln did these things, he was no Lincoln either." As Manber and Dahlstrom make clear, Posner was right. The Abraham Lincoln we revere did not become our Abraham Lincoln until long after the dark days when he was accused of being a tyrant, a dictator and a widowmaker. But, alas, I remain confident of my initial comment: Bush is no Lincoln. We must be careful not to learn the wrong lessons of history.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||