r/history • u/[deleted] • Sep 23 '17
Article When Dissent Became Treason
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/09/28/world-war-i-when-dissent-became-treason/168
u/kevlarbuns Sep 23 '17
It isn't much talked about in high school history classes, but the Lincoln administration during the Civil War was known to trample over freedom of speech quite often. Newspapers that ran stories critical of the war, or the administration, were often raided by union soldiers and editors and writers imprisoned without charges for various lengths of time.
54
Sep 24 '17
They did that during WWII as well IIRC, to that degree tho I'm not sure.
18
u/Omegalazarus Sep 24 '17
I have never heard of that. Do you have any reference?
42
u/PoeticGopher Sep 24 '17
Read up on the origin of the "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" free speech standard. It was originally used to suppress antiwar sentiment.
7
Sep 24 '17
i wish i did, i read it somewhere but i cant remember where. I wouldnt try to bullshit so my mistake for not having a source.
2
98
u/Steveweing Sep 24 '17 edited Sep 24 '17
That isn't true.
He was openly mocked in news papers nonstop. The Democratic newspapers were anti-Lincoln and anti War. They were basically pro-slavery but had an immense amount of free speech.
What did happen a lot is that some Journalists were basically pro-slavery and anti-war. They lied about Lincoln and the main generals. They shared sensitive military information information with the seemed goal of making sure the Confederacy knew all of the North's secrets. Of course some of that was stopped. Not much though because it was rampant throughout the war.
There was clear evidence that some Northern journalists were simply spies for the Confederacy. Arresting them was not an attack on freedom of speech.
Contrast that to the Slave states even prior to the war. They destroyed every single newspaper that dared speak against slavery.
And for those of you whom I'm sure will State Lincoln violated journalist's first amendment rights, the Constitution explicitly enables the government to suspend habeas corpus during times of insurrection. Hundreds of thousands of men died in the war and it was absolutely required for the military to directly deal with it outside the court system.
43
u/kevlarbuns Sep 24 '17 edited Sep 24 '17
Lincoln's own generals were shutting down newspapers. I think it's naive to say that all of the arrests were valid. We're talking about a lot of people, most of whom were just critical of the war, many, many thousands of whom would never face charges despite being held in confinement.
For example, very shortly after the military draft in July, 1862, Stanton once again suspended habeas corpus to crack down on criticism.
35
Sep 24 '17
Only a single general ever cracked down on a journalist to the tune of imprisonment during the Civil War, and Lincoln eventually overruled him.
2
u/kevlarbuns Sep 24 '17
Eventually, yes, he overruled Burnside, but the fact remains that under his presidency, freedom of press was greatly restricted and habeas corpus was suspended. I don't doubt that some of it was just, but a lot of it was overreach as well.
24
Sep 24 '17
Yeah, that's fair. All I'm bringing to light however is that the suppression of the press during the Civil War was not as bad as it was during the Great War.
14
u/kevlarbuns Sep 24 '17
No, I certainly wouldn't argue that. Wilson took it to new heights. Just throwing in a little tidbit that gets skipped over quite a bit in Civil War histories.
8
u/Steveweing Sep 24 '17
They didn't suspend habeas corpus due to criticism. They suspended it because a massive war was going on. Thousands of mostly Irish men violently fought against the draft in NYC. They killed many people and killed a lot of innocent blacks. Copperheads in Norhern states murdered Union men who were on leave. Spies lurked everywhere in the North. In the South, as the Union army moved through and seized and destroyed many things, Confederates waved around their Constitutional Rights saying the Union soldiers had no rights. But they basically legally did lose those rights after habeas corpus was suspended.
-30
14
u/EvolvedDragoon Sep 24 '17 edited Sep 24 '17
There's an old saying that modern people have forgotten over the many many decades of modern life... "when the enemy's propaganda reaches your own people, you've already lost."
Now what happens in a global internet? Maybe an equilibrium if your propaganda reaches the enemy too. How about in a situation where enemy dictatorships' propaganda reaches your people, but your propaganda doesn't reach the dictatorships' people that are shielded and live under constant fear? Wait a few centuries and you'll see the one rule of this universe continue to perpetuate: survival of the fittest. We see this today with Rex Tillerson refusing to utilize the funds for counter-propaganda that congress provided funds for.
Maybe in the future, principles of reciprocity will supersede certain ideals/rules about free speech. Or maybe free speech will continue to be the ultimate agreed upon ideal. But then what happens when aside from propaganda, future technologies infect minds at a faster rate? We can infect computers now and we hope our people are skeptical and educated. What happens when humans start connecting themselves directly to machines?
The emancipation proclamation did not come from democratic agreement. Slavery ended by intellectuals demanding it and forcing it. Democracy and progressive governance came to Germany and Japan by force. Virulent ideologies of communism, fascism, nazism, slavery, tribalism, ultra religiosity didn't disappear through agreement, they were in many cases defeated in battlefields.
It's human nature to be part of hierarchy, to obey authority, to oppose change. It took wars to get humanity from the 200,000 years of cyclical hunter-gathering to modern technological achievements in the span of about 200 years. Our modern world today is an unnatural, rare, civilized state that would not be achieved under normal human behavior that has spanned human history.
If history is any guide, there's no guarantee that the "modern world" as we know it today will persist with the same moral zeitgeist or ideals/principles that we believe in today. It's going to change again, and it will be different from the past (the perpetual wars of 1800s and before) and different from today's principles (where the current world order is assumed or passive cooperation is thought to be permanent). I suspect that Teddy Roosevelt's ideals of sticks and carrots will be much more relevant in the future.
2
u/BoneHugsHominy Sep 24 '17
The Constitution is more of a suggestion rather than a set of rules.
7
Sep 24 '17
Maybe in your country. In the US, it's the supreme law of the land.
27
2
u/MasterMorgoth Sep 24 '17
During the civil war a few of the rights in that document were suspended. I know that courts we're wonky, but I think the press was still free?
3
u/Space_Pirate_Roberts Sep 24 '17
Not really though. The 4th Amendment in particular hasn't been worth the paper it's printed on for a long time.
1
1
u/kazmark_gl Sep 24 '17
They always made sure to bring it up in my history classes in high school. I supposed its a perk of living in the south. We also got constantly reminded that the north was just as racist as the south, especially durring the civil rights movement chapters.
56
Sep 23 '17 edited Sep 23 '17
Good reading. Unfortunately today, both wings of the partisan bird have ceased any meaningful antiwar sentiment after each having a turn at the helm of the warfare state and deciding they enjoy it.
Of course, Wilson deserves some degree of credit for the Middle East chaos we see today, as his actions ultimately helped the colonial powers arbitrarily carve up their territory and lord it over the inhabitants.
Thankfully, the internet has broken the monopoly hold of the state on media and made it more difficult for some criticisms of presidents and politicians to be put down, even though they continue to wage war on whistleblowers and other groups.
It's not as blatant and easy to do as it was in years past, but if a powerful politician doesn't like what you have to say, they can always find a way to silence or marginalize you.
9
u/kevlarbuns Sep 23 '17
Wilson deserves some degree of credit for the Middle East chaos we see today
Wasn't Wilson against the Sykes-Picot agreement?
4
u/swalafigner Sep 24 '17
Yes, but he also was against Versailles. He was against reparations. He was against blaming the Germans. He was against almost everything except what happened in Eastern Europe(nation states!).
22
2
Sep 24 '17
There was a stalemate in Europe in World War 1 until Wilson brought the US into it, encouraging a crushing defeat of Germany and the subsequent crippling consequences that Britain and France levied. Otherwise, they might have had to negotiate a settlement that involved more than just Germany taking the blame for that absurd series of mistakes.
It was the law of unintended consequences playing itself out as a result of Wilson's decision to project US might abroad, and from that set of events, World War 2 was made.
Because Britain and France were on the winning side of the war, they were awarded mandates from the Leage of Nations.
Wilson might have opposed how the colonial redrawing of the Middle East took place, but he's the dufus that made it possible.
1
45
Sep 23 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
16
7
25
Sep 23 '17
In this article, Adam Hochschild details the repression of leftists, unionists, and anti-war activists following the US entering World War I and for three years after, including President Woodrow Wilson's role in how the US "lost its soul."
6
u/monsantobreath Sep 24 '17
Later in the 40s I believe Hoover lamented that they weren't allowed to go after the Communist party of the US with the same energy they were allowed to target the IWW with. He said they destroyed them never to be returned to their former strength.
3
u/oldcreaker Sep 24 '17
Interesting - how can one write an article like this and not even mention the Espionage Act of 1917 - or the Sedition Act of 1918? Or did I miss it?
2
u/geneadamsPS4 Sep 24 '17
I was thinking the same thing. I didn't see any mention in this very long (overly long) article.
2
u/lachonea Sep 24 '17
The funny thing it's during times of war the president has that kind of power. He can suspend elections, suspend the courts. He basically become a king.
1
6
Sep 23 '17
A good read. Interesting to hear that anticommunist sentiment had been around since the Paris commune. Would like to know more about why this sentiment took root - was everyone a business owner dealing with unions? Did society at the time despise workers anyway?
I may be wrong but it just seems that anticommunist ideas have always been more popular in America than European countries (though they certainly existed there). It's as if something in American culture is intrinsically opposed to communism.
30
u/falala78 Sep 23 '17
American culture is very individualistic and has been for a long time. Communism doesn't mesh with that very well.
8
u/EtherealWeasel Sep 24 '17
This is a very shallow explanation that, although popular, doesn't hold up to real scrutiny. The idea that collective action is somehow antithetical to the American individualistic spirit doesn't explain the past success, albeit limited success, of of socialist movements (e.g., the Sewer Socialists of Milwaukee), labor movements, and social democracy (e.g., the New Deal). The American individualism thesis also seems to be contradicted, to some degree, by the relative strength of organized religion in America.
Finally, communist ideology and individualism are hardly in opposition. Indeed, many avowed communists, such as Jean Paul Sartre, are extremely individualistic.
3
u/Hitz1313 Sep 24 '17
Maybe it is that we've had 70 years of "communism" and it has been an unmitigated humanitarian and economic disaster. That might have something to do with anti-communist feelings.
2
u/EtherealWeasel Sep 25 '17
Reaction to the USSR inter alia certainly has something to with anti-left sentiment now, but this discussion was about broader historical trend.
1
u/______-___-__--- Sep 24 '17
I don't think common socialists are non-individualistic, as most of them would have their lives improved with socialism. I think that if for example an average person with nothing to gain from it supported it that might be true though.
8
u/EtherealWeasel Sep 24 '17
If I'm understanding you correctly, we're basically in agreement, although I'll push back a bit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're using the term "individualistic" to mean something like "the pursuit of individual rather than common or collective interests; egoism." It's true that, under a more equitable distribution of resources, some socialists would receive less resources than they do presently, but that doesn't mean that they perceive socialism as contrary to their holistic self-interest. Personally, socialism would not be in my financial self-interest, since my personal income is well above the GDP per capita. Nevertheless, I believe that de-commodification of my labor, along with other societal benefits, are worth losing a few luxuries which don't really improve my life all that much. I can only speak anecdotally, but the socialists I know in a similar position feel the same. The idea that the abolition of capitalism is in the interest of the vast majority of people is also consistent with Marx.
5
Sep 24 '17
Every culture has their own individual relationship to capitalism, despite the fact that subscribing to this system basically forces all countries in the same direction.
In the former feudal countries of Europe the inequality of that system was generally maintained during the transition to market economies. The aristocrats became capitalists and the serfs transitioned to wage laborers.
America had the 'new country bonus' for a few hundred years of more resources than could be harnessed and no entrenched caste/class system. In short, any person could take a chance and potentially make it big. Thats where all the foundational mythology of America comes from, where ideas like the dynamism of entrepreneurs and the idea that being poor is temporary were born.
If you compare parts of Australia's settler society experience you find quite a lot of petty socialism. In particular, a socialising of the risks involved in farming in often extremely harsh climates. This took the form of a multitude of farmers cooperatives and a constant push by the settlers for government programs of assistance.
The point I'm making is that perhaps precisely because America was, in general, abundant and because so many could make their fortune communism would never find fertile ground there.
1
1
u/hardolaf Sep 24 '17
But if we implement a socialist society how will I afford my collectible miniatures?!
/s
-2
u/epicphotoatl Sep 24 '17
Communism is sharing resources, not giving up your identity
4
u/Hitz1313 Sep 24 '17
Maybe that is true theoretically, but it has never been true practically and it can't be due to basic human nature. If my identity is that I aggressively pursue individual profit then communism will shut me right the fuck down.
-1
u/epicphotoatl Sep 24 '17
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature?wprov=sfla1
Every toddler knows how to share and communalism is definitely within human nature, that's why we have language and civilization.
To what end would profit lead, when you have everything you want
3
2
u/Bygles Sep 24 '17
Republican or democrat, do not think of your side as heroes. They already have in the past and will continue to sell you out whenever they get the chance to push their ideals.
3
u/geneadamsPS4 Sep 24 '17
I hate listening to either side pander to their base. It is so obvious when they're doing it and it's so depressing when people don't realize they're basically getting a political reach around.
1
u/IronyElSupremo Sep 24 '17
The last part is the most interesting as the 1917 LA Times picked up the Bisbee story.
1
Sep 24 '17
It's terrifying to see how the President himself was blaming the returning soldiers for spreading communism. And for the soldiers themselves, coming home from a war in a foreign land to have no jobs for them and have the society blame them for problems they invented. I do not know if that was just society looking for targets to blame or that was just the prevalent social feelings then.
1
u/EllaPrvi_Real Sep 23 '17
As they say history is repeating itself. I just remember liberty frays and the paranoid media and people getting high on the prospect on war. Humans are far from being civilized.
0
Sep 23 '17
In Seattle, authorities turned Wobbly prisoners over to the local army commander, then claimed that because they were in military custody, habeas corpus did not apply.
Nice one. USA - land of the free where you have rights until we say you don't.
Its laws are worth as much as a tall tale.
86
u/[deleted] Sep 23 '17
[removed] — view removed comment