The Freedom of the Press During the American Civil War

During the American Civil War, the North and the South held opposing views towards both the slavery system and the future of America.  It is common to overgeneralize the terms “South” and “North” to be collective wholes and to neglect the contradictions within the South and the North. David B. Sachsman, an expert on American journalism during the Civil War period, argued several times in both of his books – Words at War and The Civil War and the Press – that there was no freedom of press, since each of the newspapers had to represent its unified stand. According to my research on the newspapers during the 19th century United States, however, I strongly believe that there was actually a large degree of freedom of the press in both the North and South. The freedom of the press was indicated by different views from the South and the North, a sampling of which this paper will analyze. The conflicting ideas even had great impact on President Lincoln’s opinions and the progress, or at least the speed, of the Civil War.

Introduction: A case study of an “Invisible Hand” for Southern and Northern News

Instead of newspapers’ traditional roles of intended agenda-setting, the major subject categories and the leading topics of the Southern and Northern News indicate that there was an “invisible hand” among the press that led to the convergence of topics and indication of the beginning of the Civil War. Similar to the theory of the market-oriented economy, it is the freedom of the press that took us to the equilibrium of approaches to the ultimate ideology of the Civil War. According to Donald Shaw, Randall Patnode and Diana Knott Martinelli’s case study, the topics most pertinent in the years before the Civil War – most historians would argue – were those dealing with territories, sections and slavery.[1] The topic of territories categorizes news about new states, naturally raising questions about whether or not slavery would be allowed within their territories, generating lengthy and heated debates. In addition, sectional news focused on news happening in a specific state or nearby states and tended to presumably represent similar interests because of similar locations.[2] Territories are referred to as new lands, while sectional is referred to as old lands. Finally, news of the slavery system raised most debatable social issues nationally among all three topics above.

One of the graphs in the case study focuses on the percentages of North and South articles by territories, sections, and slavery, so that the relative emphasis of the North and the South is reflected. Northern and Southern newspapers agreed in general in their emphasis on news about territories and sections. However, in the period from 1831-1843, Southern newspapers gave dramatically more attention to slavery than did northern newspapers.[3] During the years of 1844-1850, there was still an enormous difference in the percentage of slavery coverage. The comprehensive data that covered forty years reflects the existing facts that Southern and Northern news have their rights and freedom to emphasize one topic and pay less attention to another. However, most importantly, on the eve of the Civil War in 1860, sampled newspapers from the North and the South not only emphasized all three topics to about the same extent, but there was a clear convergence of emphasis, with about one-third of he emphasis on territories, sections, and slavery in newspapers of North and South.[4] It was the “invisible hand” that drove both South and North to converge on the key issues that set them against each other. As the “invisible hand” only works in the free market, in which every individual makes the choices that benefit himself the most, it is the same mechanism in this case: by conveying topics that each state cared about the most, American newspapers then were able to provide hints of coming social disruption and growing social disunion.

Newspapers on April 13, 1861

To look for immediate reactions to the Fort Sumter battle from both North and South, and to analyze their various approaches and the rationale of freedom behind them, I researched the major newspapers released specifically on April 13, 1861, the day right after the Fort Sumter incident. On the one hand, Northern and Southern newspaper reported from completely different perspectives. One of the Northern newspapers that was published on April 13th, 1861 was the Cleveland Morning Leader from Cleveland, Ohio. The capitalized title was clear - “THE WAR HAS BEGUN!!!” - and the texts reflected the excitement of the North.^[5] “The news by telegraph caused great excitement throughout the city.” Besides excitement, it also explicitly indicated the confidence in winning the War:

“The God of Battles is with us, and will bring confusion upon our enemies. We trust that our next issue may contain the news of a glorious victory under the Stars and Stripes. The war is upon us. Let us not shrink from looking it full. The war should be brought to a close in a single campaign, and for this purpose every Union loving State should take steps to put its militia on a war footing. We trust that our Legislature will follow the example of Pennsylvania and immediately organize our militia, and we doubt not this.”^[6]

Combined with religious belief and confidence in winning the War, the Cleveland Morning Leader showed great passion about the War and its sensitivity of the in-time news.

At the same time, the Southern newspapers paid more attention to the secession and the ratification of the Constitution. The Keowee Courier from Pickens, South Carolina wrote, “five states - Georgia, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana - have already ratified the Constitution. It is now binding on them. Elsewhere here is nothing that can interact with your readers.”[7] The Daily Dispatch from Richmond, Virginia didn’t mention anything about the Fort Sumter battle the night before, but thoroughly recorded the whole process of the Fiftieth Day of the Virginia State Convention, from speeches by committee members to the evening session.[8] In another entirely new approach, The Daily Exchange from Baltimore, Maryland turned its attention to the effects of the War on the financial sector, arguing “the apprehensions entertained in all quarters, that our political difficulties would speedily culminate in civil war, and which the news received this evening proves to have been but too well founded, have had a very depressing effect upon business, and in all branches of trade operations this week have been quite limited.”[9] Clearly, among the Southern States, there were still obvious distinct approaches to the event which had happened the night before. Instead of provoking new political stands, the newspapers' different points reflect the news that the local areas cared about the most and mostly concentrated on. The freedom of the press encouraged the real consideration of local community and political parties and formed a map of the Civil War components from each newspaper's perspective.

The Editors’ Civil War in the North

During the time of the increasingly tense crisis months before the Civil War, practically all observers believed that President Lincoln and the Republicans would begin attacking the South and slavery as soon as they took power. The “Northern Aggression” was highly recognized and blamed. Consequently, historians believe that the Northern press had no freedom in terms of their comments on the Civil War but to follow the President and the mainstream, “to be aggressive.” However, there was an editors’ Civil War – led by the two largest newspapers and joined by other local press – in New York City that even had impact on Lincoln’s actions and the progress of the War.

As William Huntzicker points out, newspaper editors of all political leanings had a stake in the war and invested heavily in covering it: there were constant conflicts among editors and between editors and politicians[10]. If there had not been any freedom of press, it would have been impossible to create the safe debating and discussing environment among newspapers. Republican leader and New York Times editor Henry J. Raymond and the editor of New York Tribune,Horace Greeley, are representatives of editors holding totally different political views. First of all,  Greeley's ideology of abolitionism clashed with pacifism throughout the war. He urged Lincoln to hold firm and not compromise with a series of “Stand Firm” editorials.[11] On February 18, 1861, he published in capital letters at the top of an editorial column: “NO COMPROMISE! /NO CONCESSIONS TO TRAITORS! /THE CONSTITUTION AS IT IS!”[12] This display continued every morning until Lincoln’s inauguration on March 4.[13] Therefore, while Raymond sought to keep the Southern States, and used his considerable influence to try to prevent the secession, Greeley published, “Let them go!”

When Greeley continued the call for action, publishing “The Nation’s War Cry: Forward to Richmond!” saying the army should hold Richmond before the Confederate congress could open there, he received much of the blame for the Union’s humiliating defeat at the first battle of Bull Run on July 21, 1861, near Manassas Junction, Virginia, because of his pressure for action.[14] Raymond at the Times accused Greeley of prompting premature action, saying the battle had not been in the army’s plans. On the one hand, it is reasonable to conclude that Greeley’s urgent call for war accelerated the speed of the war. On the other hand, the blame placed by other editors raised an even further debate about the role and the limitation of the press in the Civil War. Due to the potential large effects that the press may have had on the decision-making, it was very necessary to practice that freedom wisely.

Greeley wrote an open letter to President Lincoln calling for abolition of slavery in the states that had seceded. The letter asked him not to compromise with the traitors:

“On the face of this wide earth, Mr. President, there is not one disinterested, determined, intelligent champion of the Union cause who does not feel that all attempts to putdown the Rebellion and at the same time uphold its inciting cause are preposterous and futile – that the rebellion, if crushed out tomorrow, would be renewed within a year if slavery were left in full vigor.”[15]

Greeley was attacked from all quarters for having published this public appeal to Lincoln. James Gordon Bennett’s Herald complained about Greeley’s call for emancipation, saying emancipation would not help “the slaves, who are too contented and too much attached to their masters to revolt against them.” The National Intelligencer called him “arrogant, dictatorial and acrimonious” and said that Greeley “needed a lesson in etiquette.” The open letter, by itself, can already be seen as a heavy influence upon President Lincoln. In addition to the debate it raised, it indeed put lots of pressure on the President to make a timely decision. President Lincoln’s secretaries kept him informed about what appeared in the major newspapers and he would have certainly been aware of Greeley’s article. More specifically, Francis B. Carpenter, one of his secretaries, told Greeley that the President had a copy of the New York Tribune in his scene of the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation because of Greeley’s influence on the subject.[16]

When the Union was close to success, there arose a new debate on how to deal with the relations with the South. Greeley asked for magnanimity on behalf of the many suffering families: “ What we ask is that the President say, in the South unite to bury its carcass and then clasp hands across the grave.”[17] However, Raymond’s New York Times led an attack on Greeley: The New York Times challenged him directly, saying if Jefferson Davis is caught, he should be hanged, “If we let him go unhung, we must in decency abolish hanging altogether.”[18] However, Raymond believed that the leader should receive the worst penalties. It is not our responsibility to evaluate whose proposal is better, nor should the final policy depend upon their ideas. However, the different approaches did provide multiple ideas for policy makers. Their ideas reflected the interests of all parties that the policy makers should have taken into account. The freedom of press helped the government systematize the pros and cons with various perspectives. In conclusion, we can clearly see that the “Northern Aggression” is an overgeneralization and oversimplification.  There was indeed a great degree of freedom for the press, even to the point of suggesting the President’s moves.  This freedom put pressure on the Union government and might have stimulated the President’s military moves, release of the Emancipation Proclamation, and policy during the Reconstruction Era.

Conclusion: The Control of Freedom and Prevention from the Distortion of History

From the above analysis, we can see that freedom of speech was conveyed through the media of newspapers during the Civil War. The newspapers published on April 13^th, 1861 illustrate the North and South’s different focuses on the Civil War, as well as the various standpoints in terms of secession within the South. Moreover, the editors’ Civil War in New York City disproved the over-generalization of the Northern view as “Northern Aggression.” The freedom of press even had great influence on President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and the progress of the War. However, it is not always good to have a large degree of freedom, acknowledging the possibilities that journalists operating outside the realm of objectivity can promulgate falsehoods and half-truths.[19] To find the balance between the freedom of speech and the accuracy and truthfulness was and will still remain as an essential and a big challenge for the press.

 

 

Bibliography

 

Gale Research Staff, African American History in the Press 1851-1899, Detroit: Gale Research, 1996.

Huntzicker, William E. The Popular Press, West Port: Greenwood Press, 1999.

Library of Congress, “Newspapers published on April 13, 1861”, Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers, http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/search/pages/results/?state=&date1=1836&date2=1922&proxtext=the+new+york+times&x=0&y=0&dateFilterType=yearRange&rows=20&searchType=basic

Sachesman, David B., Rushing, Kittrell S., and Tuyll, Debra Reddin van, “Wanted Dead or Alive: How Nineteenth Century Missouri Journalists Framed Jesse James.” The Civil Wars and the Press, 566, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2000. 

Sachesman, David B., Rushing, Kittrell S., and Morris, Roy. “Southern vs. Northern News: A Case Study of Historical Agenda-Setting.” Words At Wars, 13-24. Purdue University Press, 2008.

Washburn, Patrick S. The African American Newspaper: Voice of Freedom, Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 2006.