- 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.
|
