Customer Reviews

Lincoln's Wrath

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

In Lincoln's Wrath, historians Jeffrey Manber and Neil Dahlstrom have directed the reader's attention to a relatively narrow, but significant, segment of American history. They have probed deeply into the personalities and passions of individuals and groups who were players during much of the four-year period of our great Civil War.

In the early stages of the war, our 16th president, Abraham Lincoln, declared his first priority was the preservation of the Union - at any cost. This man and this determination, for me, became an interesting backdrop for the strife that preceded and ensued. At stake were great issues of the day - slavery, secession, white supremacy, states rights and many civil liberties, i.e. habeas corpus, freedom of speech in the press and on the soapbox. Other items of contention were illegal imprisonment, seizures and confiscation of property and the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States as to primacy vs. elasticity

During these years fierce accusations of passivity, participation in, or even direction of abridgments of civil rights were hurled at Lincoln, especially by an archenemy, publisher John Hodgson of West Chester, Pennsylvania. Was Lincoln guilty of riding roughshod over various civil rights and manipulation of the press? If he did, was there a shred of justification for it? At the end of the book we are left to define for ourselves what civil rights we regard as inviolable and absolute at any cost, vis a vis the powers given or assumed by our nation's chief executive officer in times of extraordinary national peril. Such issues are still relevant and hotly debated today. A provocative book!

Lincoln's Wrath by Jeffrey Manber and Neil Dahlstrom paints our 16th President as being somewhat less saintly than he has been generally depicted after his martyrdom. The book focuses on one particular Copperhead Pennsylvania newspaper publisher whose business property was confiscated by the Federal government. No specific charges were made against him following Lincoln's repeal of the Constitutional guarantee of the right of habeas corpus. Eventually the publisher had his day in court and won damages from the government. Many other publishers of pro-Democratic party newspapers in the North were imprisoned without charges after editorializing that there was no law against a state seceding or other opinions in sympathy with the Southern cause. Congressmen and state legislators were similarly jailed without charges, most notably the secessionist minded members of the Maryland General Assembly. The authors try to convince us that the heavy-handed actions of the administration during the Civil War permanently centralized Federal power, particularly that of the President, in a way unimagined by our founding fathers. Although we are left to judge for ourselves whether the methods of the President, his cabinet, his marshals and fellow party members in Congress were warranted. The book required ten years of research. The result is well worth our attention, since similarly tough decisions could again confront our elected officials.

This is a refreshing, though at times complex, look at Lincoln told from the side of the "loyal opposition." Lincoln's Wrath is a tale of greed and revenge during the Civil War, mixing familiar names from history with the editors and politicians that get overlooked by Lincoln biographies. It tells the story of John Hodgson, the publisher of the Jeffersonian in West Chester, Pennsylvania, whose editorials in opposition of the Lincoln administration offer glimpses into the constitutional debate over civil liberties during the war. Even after his office is mobbed, and then seized by government agents, Hodgson spends years fighting back while many of his colleagues languished in northern prisons. Mixed in are the stories of politicians, attorneys and others who put their lives at risk, as a result of the north/south conflict. As the book jacket says, this is certainly an overdue, untold story of the Civil War.

All comparisons to the Bush Administration and the current political landscape aside, this is a very interesting story. This gives the reader a look at the other Lincoln from the viewpoint of those oppressed by his administration. Even though he is considered a great president today, and deservedly so, to think that he had a hand in obstructing free press in this country is shocking.

This books gives us a look into the lives of a number of interesting figures that otherwise may have been swept under the rug of history never to have had their stories told. Thankfully the authors have done a nice job of bringing this story to light.

This book has many quality elements. It is thoroughly researched ensuring the authenticity of the story. At times, the story is quite fascinating making it difficult to put it down. Finally, it is thought provoking by introducing new Civil War era American heroes while making usually subtle, and sometimes not so subtle connections to current politics.

The bloom is off the rose; this new book dispels the myth of Lincoln as one concerned at all times about the rights of all citizens. It was fascinating for me to learn that there was political dissent in the North regarding the conduct of the Civil War. Lincoln and his White House shut down anti-war newspapers and threw the editors in jail! I never knew this. Made me think more about what is happening today in our current War on Terror. It also reveals the all-too-human grab for power that takes place in the fog of war. At times the information laid out by the authors is dense and forces the reader to stretch mentally, keeping track of all the characters and events. Still, it turns a much needed spotlight on Americans who fight for our rights and become forgotten. John Hodgson the publisher who sued the government and won. Judge Lowrie who presided over the trial; Hodgsons chief lawyer W.B. Reed, and the other anti-war editors and writers thrown into jail without trials, all are overlooked today. Yet, heroes are not just those who win the wars and these characters fought and won for our freedom of the press. I highly recommend the book for anyone interested in freedom of speech and as well as us Lincoln buffs.

The authors explore an interesting case, and if you focus just on the facts, you'll probably learn some things you didn't know. I certainly did. However, the book would have benefited from better editing. 1.) There are a number of sloppy typos. 2.) There are inexcusable errors in fact (I suspect the authors don't REALLY believe that the Battle of Fredericksburg occurred in northern Maryland as they write on p274) 3.) And, as someone else noted, the language sometimes becomes so overwrought that it's difficult to take the book as a serious work of history.

However, the history of the Jeffersonian newspaper poses some difficult questions about the role of freedom-of-the-press in a country embroiled in a bloody civil war.

Lincoln has always been heralded as a hero - and rightly so. And yet we learn from this book that even he has some secrets in the shadows! A very compelling read that will give you a better understanding of the Civil War and how it was fought.

Imagine if Woodward and Bernstein couldn't agree about whether Richard Nixon had commited impeachable offenses. Authors Jeffrey Manber and Neil Dahlstrom introduce their interesting book by conceding that after ten years of research and the publication of "Lincoln's Wrath," they remain in disagreement about whether The Great Emancipator was justified in shutting down opposition newspapers at the height of the Civil War.

The book's protagonist is John Hodgson, whose West Chester, PA. newspaper "The Jeffersonian," a harsh critic of Lincoln's cabinet though sympathetic to Lincoln personally, was the victim of a mob attack in 1861. His printing office and equipment were destroyed; then after the stubborn Hodgson started over again, he was shut down by federals claiming jurisdiction under the new Confiscation Act, which gave the government the power to seize any property deemed to have been used in behalf of the rebellion. Hodgson's fate was hardly unique, but only he had the temerity to sue for the return of his newspaper while his rivals accepted the loss of their businesses.

The authors began their research over 10 years ago, surely without intuiting how timely their subject would become. As with the present controversy surrounding Iraq, an incumbent administration claims extraordinary war powers in apparent violation of the Constitution. Another common thread is the alliance between government and friendly businesses...as Halliburton has profited from Iraq, so did Republican newspapers profit handsomely by the shutdown of Democratic papers in 1861.

The Bush administration's challenge to the Constitution will seem like history repeating itself to readers, albeit the circumstances cannot be compared to the dilemma that faced Lincoln. Washington was surrounded by a Confederate state (Virginia) and a Union state that threatened to secede (Maryland). If the nation's capital were seized by the Confederacy, the war would be lost; thus Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and even his approval of seizing opposition newspapers must be considered in the context of an immediate threat to the nation's survival. Bush can claim no such justification for illegally spying on American citizens.

The authors have produced a compelling book. It's a shame they didn't hire a competent editor. Throughout, the text confuses the words "principal" and "principle," "whoever" and "whomever," "reign" and "rein," and "rout" and "route." Readers who look beyond these flaws will find much to appreciate in "Lincoln's Wrath."

The two authors disagree. One, despite ten years of primary evidence, still wants to cling to the sanitized view of Lincoln. It's hard to let our idols go. To his credit, Manber has done the difficult thing. At first I thought, what a pity this book couldn't have gone all the way, but then it would have most certainly been pilloried in the press, at best, and at worst ignored. As it is, it's been featured on national television. The co-authors have been wise. The Lincoln apologist of the two is the one that gets trotted out to make the appearances and make the statements ---even here on amazon.com. Wise marketting! The book that does go all the way, however, is already published. It is Thomas DiLorenzo's THE REAL LINCOLN, now available in paperback, and is a must read for anyone who is buying LINCOLN'S WRATH. In fact, I'd read it first, then follow with this one. This said, LINCOLN'S WRATH does some things THE REAL LINCOLN does not. It focusses on the 12,000 political prisoners Lincoln took in the North, and the 120 editors of newspapers in the North that Lincoln silenced. There is no doubt in my mind that he had a hand in it, just as he had in the horrors of the prison camp Camp Douglas in Chicago, a camp that makes Andersonville look good. The Reign of Terror which Lincoln fomented and kept up relentlessly seems to me to be a part of sado-masochistic psychological problems displayed clearly in his private and public lives. We always say that he did all these "hard" things like making war on civilians, arresting dissidents, overthrowing habeas corpus, etc. etc. because he had the nation in mind. Rather, I say that from the beginning of his career; his overweening ambition (which even the Lincoln apologists admit) combined with self-esteem problems; a frightening maliciousness grown out of personal slights; sexual irregularities; the demons of depression leading to constant thoughts of suicide (before and during his presidency) all were volatile elements of his personality that perhaps help explain the roots of his actions. Even his virulent racism may be seen as an expression of his knowing that most in Springfield, Illinois, looked down on the ambitious lawyer as being slyly dishonest, crude, ugly, and essentially "white trash". Poor Mary Todd. She always takes the blame doesn't she? But she had money and status, and her ambitious husband-to-be needed them. Further, she apparently let Lincoln have his sexual irregularities. (Might this explain her temper tantrums in the White House? All those soldiers in the Lincoln bedroom raised lots of eyebrows. Poor woman. She had a lot to bear.) And unfortunately, we today also share in that burden. When will the myth-makers of American history honestly face facts and desanitize our history? As long as we keep up the charades based on Lincoln's centralization of power for robber barons in the making, we will keep on repeating the same mistakes over and over again. Those who think it is patriotic to praise Lincoln, ironically, are being just the opposite. They keep entrenching the lie that could lead to the destruction of all the values Old America has stood for. LINCOLN'S WRATH is a good step in the direction of de-mythologizing American history and thus of setting us on a sound basis for the future. Here is true patriotism, as it would seem to me. I hope we'll hear more from Manber, especially.