Lincoln and Civil Liberties: Essential, or Abuse of Power?

Another example of document analysis is a so-called 'close reading' or a detailed breakdown of a given document.  While not necessarily an easy task for some students, it nevertheless can serve as good way for a student to go over the text, context, and subtext of a primary source.  While the first two terms in that last sentence can be easily explained to almost any student, the idea of subtext is a bit more challenging.  For lack of a better term, subtext entails 'reading between the lines' as you try to figure out just what the author of the document is trying to get across.  Given that the Common Core as well as the revised AP US History test stress this sort of thinking, a close reading could be a yet another valuable tool in getting students engaged with document analysis.  

 

Out of the documents below, the Amasa Converse letter would be well suited to a close reading because it involves an example of someone who personally faced the government's media suppression.  Not only that, but after a little research, Converse's fascinating story both before and after the incident would make it quite easy to understand the context of the letter as well as his point of view.  If you're bold, you could even have your students make a video presentation of their close reading, and it could be as based on something simple like a word cloud of the document.  The Understanding Lincoln blog at Quora has several examples, and although made by graduate level students, the purpose of the particular assignment was to make it as readily understandable as possible.  In addition, Quora provides a perfect 21st Century platform for students to engage in a multimedia approach to writing.

 

 

 

 

Sources:

 

 

Document A: excerpt of the letter from Amasa Converse to Abraham Lincoln, August 21, 1861 retrieved from The House Divided Project at Dickinson College

 

 

...I have believed and taught that under the protection of the Government of which you are now the chief officer, every American citizen wherever he might be, and however humble, was more secure than in any other part of the Globe, in his rights of speech person and property; that above all things no one need ever fear any wrong or oppression from the Government itself; -- that if a man was charged with crime or offence he could look with unwavering confidence to its strong arm to insure his fair, just and speedy trial by his peers and according to the law of the land. The freedom of the press I have always believed was one of the great bulwarks of our national safety and would be sedulously guarded and protected by those upon whom the duty devolved.

But I submit to you whether the rights I have referred to, have been respected or observed. Without notice or warning and without an intimation that the course of the paper was in any respect regarded as inimical to the Government, -- without the commission of any offence whatever against the laws of the land, without process of law or authority of any kind whatever, an officer seizes upon and retains property worth several thousand Dollars alleging that he is so acting under your orders.

 

...I cannot believe that you would justify the proceeding if you knew the facts. This action must have been induced by misrepresentation. I have some reason to believe that I know the persons who have poisoned the mind of the Government upon this subject, and to understand their motives. I can forgive them and I sincerely trust that they may repent and obtain forgiveness for it where it will avail them in a future world.

 

...If I have been guilty of an offense against the law, I shall submit with resignation to its decrees; but if not, then I claim to be exempt from and protected against that most cruel of all forms of oppression, -- wrongs inflicted by officers of government without even the semblance of right or justification.

 

 

 

Document B: excerpt from "Grand Jury for the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York", August 16, 1861 as cited in Lincoln and the Press by Robert S. Harper

 

...There are certain newspapers within this district which are in the frequent practice of encouraging the rebels now in arms against the Federal government by expressing sympathy and agreement with them, the duty of acceding to their demands, and dissatisfaction with the employment of force to overcome them... 

 

...The conduct of these disloyal presses is, of course condemned and abhorred by all loyal men; but the District Judge will be glad to learn from the Court this is also subject to indictment and condign punishment.

 

 

Document C: excerpt from "Lincoln and Journalists" retrieved from Abraham Lincoln's Classroom

 

...More drastic measures were sometimes taken. During the Civil War, there were repeated civil and military actions to shut down newspapers for supposedly seditious behavior. This was particularly true early in the war in the border states of Maryland and Missouri. But occasionally, actions were taken in big northern cities like Chicago and New York. Historian Mark E. Neely, Jr. wrote: “Freedom of the press survived the Civil War, as the two-party system survived it — more or less in spite of itself. Vigilante mobs, unthinking generals, and politicians threatened press freedom in the North here and there and from time to time, but their actions were often egged on and in the end usually excused and artfully explained by influential newspapermen. The government did not systematically and as a matter of policy threaten to stop the presses except in border states, and the judiciary almost never did so. But the press itself was a constant threat. Its partisan nature made journalists themselves serious enemies of freedom of the press in wartime.” 

 

...Such shutdowns were headaches for President Lincoln. He acted to reverse such suppression on occasion. One such incident was the suppression of the Chicago Times by General Ambrose Burnside on June 2, 1863 — after the paper. The Times, under editor Roger Storey, had become progressively more anti-war and harshly criticized Burnside’s arrest of former Congressman Clement Vallandigham the previous month. Popular opinion in Chicago was inflamed – both for and against Burnside’s action. Fearing street violence, a group of Chicago civic leaders sent a petition to the White House. Congressman Isaac Arnold alienated much of his German-American constituency by joining Senator Lyman Trumbull in asking that President Lincoln to reverse Burnside’s action — which the President did on June 4. Roger Waite wrote that President “Lincoln swiftly decided to act in the situation. Having received the petition from Chicago, being endorsed by two prominent politicians, Lincoln telegraphed orders suggesting that the order be lifted, to which Burnside followed with an order to revoke General Order 84 on June 4, 1863. However, soon, Lincoln also wrote stating: ‘I have received additional dispatches which…induce me to believe we should revoke or suspend the order suspending the Chicago Times. However, as Burnside had already issued the revocation, he let it stand.” 

 

 

Document D: excerpt of editorial from The Newark Evening Journal, July 21, 1864 in the book Lincoln and the Press by Robert S. Harper

 

...It will be seen that Mr. Lincoln has called for another half million men.  Those who wish to be butchered will please step forward... we hope that the people of New Jersey will at once put their feet down and insist that not a man shall be forced out of the state to engage in Abolition butchery..let the people rise as one man.

 

 

Document E: "Running the Machine" circa 1864 retrieved from the House Divided Project at Dickinson College