From Wiki

Abraham Lincoln was responsible for shutting down more than 300 newspapers during the course of the Civil War (1). This raises some interesting questions regarding Presidential power and constitutional authority. In a telegram sent to Major General Dix on May 18th, 1864, Lincoln orders military occupation of the New York World newspaper for something that was "wickedly and traitorously printed and published," (1). In another telegram sent on May 18th, 1864, it is discovered that a forged document of some kind was printed in the newspaper (2). This document was a fake proclamation by Lincoln to add 400,00 troops to the Northern army (2). The Department of State quickly released a statement claiming the document was false, and Lincoln ordered an immediate shut down of the newspaper (2). It was later discovered that a man named Joseph Howard, a known prankster, was behind the forged document (2).

Was this the appropriate action for Lincoln to take? Instead of simply having the document removed from all newspapers or having the printed document destroyed, Lincoln chose to take extreme military action against the newspaper. This signifies that Lincoln had a serious distaste for any media outlet printing something that could weaken his appearance or strengthen the Confederacy. In the telegrams sent on May 18th, 1864, it is clear that the newspaper printed a forged document that contained both Lincoln and his Secretary of War's signatures (2). An actual forged document could have raised some legal questions in regards to forgery on part of the newspaper, and though executive action may have been excessive, most would agree that legal action should be taken in the event of forged documents. However, it was not always a forged document that caused Lincoln to shut down newspapers or detain editors without hearings. Newspapers like the New York World often heavily disagreed with Lincoln's policies and the war in general, which seem like a healthy, political disagreements within the bounds of democracy. The Emancipation Proclamation drew considerable criticism in particular, and many who sympathized with a state's right to allow slavery called the proclamation "bloody and barbarous," and "adrift on a current of racial fanaticism," (3). In these instances, though understandable through our modern lens, it was inappropriate for Lincoln to shut down newspapers for disagreements or statements against him. Chief Justice Roger Tanney even ruled Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeus corpus unconstitutional, citing that only Congress had the power to do so, and Lincoln promptly ignored him (3). The complicating factor was a lack of precedent for these circumstances. The U.S. Constitution, and the powers granted to the Executive, were not yet 75 years old at the start of the war, and they had never been challenged in this manner. Professor Geoffrey R. Stone of the NYU Law Review put it well when he said, "moreover, although opposition to a war was not new to the United States, the limits of permissible dissent were as yet undefined, thus posing added difficulties both for the administration and its critics (5).

It is important to note that much of the suppression was carried out on the ground by Lincoln's subordinates, though still under his supervision (3). An example of this can be seen by the actions of General Ambrose Burnside. Following his removal from command of the Army of the Potomac, after his loss to Lee at Fredericksburg, Burnside had been appointed Union Commander of the Department of Ohio (5). Upon his arrival to his new command, Burnside was, "appalled to discover that "newspapers were full of treasonable expressions" and that "large public meetings were held, at which our Government authorities and our gallant soldiers in the field were openly and loudly denounced for their efforts to suppress the rebellion" (5). In response, Burnside issued General Order #38 which declared, "[t]he habit of declaring sympathies for the enemy will not be allowed in this Department" (5). General Order #38 was enforced, and would be the foundation for the sensational arrest and prosecution of Congressman Clement Vallandigham of Ohio for its violation (5).

It must be noted that many newspapers were, in fact, able to print criticisms of Lincoln and the war without arrest or suppression (3). But the fact remains that Lincoln felt compelled to suspend the rights of free press and free speech during the Civil War. Lincoln is quoted to have said, "public sentiment is everything," and he clearly took that very seriously in formulating his policies (4). Lincoln faced difficult challenges and arduous decisions during the CIvil War, one cannot deny. The reasons behind Lincoln's decision to suppress anti-Union material may have been morally just, but from a strict constitutionalist standpoint, Lincoln overstepped his boundaries by shutting down or arresting those who disagreed with his policies.

References

1. "The Lincoln Telegrams Project." http://wiki.lincolntelegrams.com/index.php?title=May_18,_1864_(2)

2. "The Lincoln Telegrams Project." http://wiki.lincolntelegrams.com/index.php?title=May_18,_1864_(3)

3. "Civil War tested Lincoln's tolerance for free speech, press." First Amendment Center. 2009. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/civil-war-tested-lincolns-tolerance-for-free-speech-press

4. "'Lincoln and the Power of the Press,' by Harold Holzer." Reynolds, David. S. 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/02/books/review/lincoln-and-the-power-of-the-press-by-harold-holzer.html?_r=0

5. Stone, Geoffrey R., "Abraham Lincoln's First Amendment," 78 New York University Law Review 1 (2003), http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2953&context=journal_articles