I am a huge admirer of your work, Sir, and even though I may be a crusty ol' Southerner (and may disagree with you on some issues), please don't take what I say the wrong way. I do hold you in the highest esteem! With that in mind,
I'd say that there's a big difference between would have liking to arrest all of the editors hostile to the war efforts, and actually succeeding in doing so. Would you not agree?
Are there any examples of the Confederate government locking away newspaper editors for the duration of the war? I've done a bit of reading in Mr. Davis' account of the war, and a few other volumes on the topic, and while I've seen him express sorrow at the anti-war sentiments being presented by newspapermen (and even on occasion, Confederate Senators), I am not aware that any effort was ever made to imprison them. Am I mistaken? Have I missed a resource that documents that?
I've run across a handful of examples of the imprisonment of editors by the Union forces, and while some of them were arrested for bringing "anti-war" sentiments to print, many more were arrested for merely suggesting that the Confederates may have a point in their endeavors. Was the North justified in doing so? (Is that a question you plan to explore in your upcoming work? I'll definitely be watching for it on Amazon!)
(Also, while the orders to arrest these Northern editors may have prima facie been issued by a "mere" General, many of them are rooted in orders coming from the War Department (namely, the Sec'y of War) in Washington City. Am I mistaken in reading the historical record that way?)
As always, it is my most humble pleasure to be able to speak directly with such a renowned scholar as yourself. I will continue to consider you,
With warmest regards,
~dT~
Well William Brownlow of the Nashville Whig had his paper shut down and he was jailed by the Davis regime in October 1861. In 1863 he has released from jail and deported to the U.S. Does that count?
But fair is fair. Name a single newspaper editor in the North that was jailed for the duration of the war.
In fact the Davis regime was able to get by for the most part through threats and intimidation to keep the press in line. One possible reason may have been that many southern newspapers didn't survive the arrival of Northern troops and the fact that there wasn't as much disagreement over the war in the south as there was in the North.
Bensel found that the north was overwhelmingly "freer" in terms of fewer instances of violations of personal or property rights; that the south, lacking even a Supreme Court to overrule Davis, had far fewer appeals of bad actions/verdicts/decisions; that private property was outright confiscated at a far higher level in the south than in the north (for one, the south took ALL the private gold in the private banks at the outset of the war---the north did not); that tax rates were higher; and so on. Further, Lee had the advantage of victories early in the war, which tended to generate little editorial criticism---his criticism came largely after Gettysburg, and by that time, he was too busy running from Grant to worry about his own editors.
IMHO, BOTH OF THEM should have shut down papers that were treasonous.
Yes you are. Their were warrents out for several "Unionist" editors (old Whigs) --- who would have been hung after a drum head court martial if they had been caught. Davis suspended habeas corpus just as Lincoln did. Davis personally ordered troops to East Tennessee where Union sentiment was strong and they were very brutal in enforcing martial law. A number of Tennessee Unionists were hung on the slimiest of pretexts. There were dozens of hanging of Unionists in Texas as well, but that was under the state militia, (really mobs) and not the Confederate government. Hell, some of them even wanted to hang Sam Houston because he was opposed to secession.
All the "romantic Rebels" stuff is BS. They could play very rough on the civil liberty side as well.