Download The Impact of Media Coverage on the Election of 1864

The Impact of Media Coverage on the Election of 1864:
The Baltimore Convention
Through the Battle of Atlanta
by
Matthew Pavelek
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts in Journalism and Mass Communication
Point Park University
2010
Approved by ______________________________________________
Chairperson of Supervisory Committee
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
Program Authorized
to Offer Degree ____________________________________________
Date _______________________
1
Introduction
The American Civil War
The years of 1861 through 1865 represent the most crucial period in
the history of the United States of America, at least since 1781. Many scholars
also consider the period building up to, and including the Civil War to be the
most pivotal time for the power of the mass media to influence public opinion
and alter the political landscape. During the American Civil War, the nation was
quite literally divided in half. The years of 1861-1865 were the bloodiest
period in American history. More Americans died in one single day of fighting
at the battle of Antietam Creek than in all previous American wars combined
(Luvaas and Nelson, 1987). The Civil War was by far the most costly war in
terms of human life in American history. More Americans died during the Civil
War than in all other wars, from the Revolutionary through the war in Vietnam.
At least 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War, and some experts say the toll
reached 700,000, but most often experts cite a total of 620,000 (Brown et al,
2004).
The Civil War is also the most heavily researched period in American
history. Sifakis (1988) estimates that a book, magazine, or newspaper article
concerning some aspect of the war has been written for each day that has
passed since the Civil War. This was a conflict in which both sides truly
believed they were fighting for freedom (McPherson, 1988). World War II is
the closest competitor to the Civil War in terms of American literature written
2
about the struggle, but American involvement in WWII was only a part of a
much larger global conflict. The Revolutionary War and the War of 1812
provided dreadfully few American successes (with the exception of the
eventual victories) and generally proffered a lack of enthusiasm from both
sides. The Mexican American War never captured the attention of the
American populace to a great extent because many Americans at the time
viewed the enemy combatants as an inferior race (McPherson, 1988). The Civil
War is the only war in which Americans passionately fought Americans with
tremendous successes and crushing defeats for both the North and the South.
The Civil War also radically altered the average Americans’ media
consumption, creating an insatiable demand for news of the latest battles and
campaigns from southerners and northerners alike. In fact, the demand for
coverage was so great that many newspapers, including the New York Times1,
started to publish even on Sunday. It was also the first major American conflict
covered extensively by the press with direct reporting coming from both sides
of the conflict (Andrews, 1985). It is often said that history is written by the
victor. Journalism is often referred to as the first rough draft of history. Taft
(1969) quotes Charles A. Hoyt describing the unique relationship between
history and journalism.
Journalism is a branch of history. There is no use adding ‘journalism at its
best,’ or ‘responsible journalism’; if journalism often strays from the
objective truth, why so do the other branches of history. For every corrupt
1
On April 21, 1861, The New York Times began publishing Sunday editions to meet the demand for Civil
War news.
3
newspaper article there is a history text trying to prove that Hitler was sent
to Germany by God, or the United States of America went to Mexico by
Manifest Destiny. On the other hand, intelligent newspaper reporting is one
of the chief sources for academic history and always will be. (pg. 116)
Sloan (1991) maintains that the unique circumstances and historical time
frame of the American Civil War provided a thorough reporting of the war from
a multitude of newspapers from all over the country. “Probably no war has
been so thoroughly covered by eyewitness reporters as the Civil War. The
conditions of that war allowed for more uncensored, on-the-scene reporting
than did those of later wars” (152).
In addition, the war was covered as extensively by Confederate
newspapers in the South as it was by Northern newspapers. While Southern
newspapers readership numbers were smaller than Northern newspapers,
some scholars suggest that Southern newspapers were of equivalent quality of
those in the North during the years prior to the Civil War. “Whereas in the
eighteen-fifties relatively few southerners read books and magazines published
below the Mason-Dixon Line, Dixieland’s newspapers ranked with the best in
the country” (Andrews, 1985). Moreover, newspapers served specific
purposes and worked for distinct political parties during this period in the
history of American mass media.
Newspapers covering the same event often provided markedly
differing accounts, or printed stories that are pure fiction. One such atrocity
story, titled “The Cold-Blooded Murderer Forrest,” which ran on May 7th, 1864,
4
the New York Daily Tribune explicitly accuses Confederate General Nathan
Bedford Forrest of murder. The account of the events, which took place on
April 21, 1864, in Blue Springs, Tennessee, was reported by Major General D.L.
Stanley. Forrest’s cavalry had defeated a garrison of Union cavalry comprised
of units from Michigan, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania, which had recently
surrendered. A mulatto man who was an aide of a Union officer from
Pennsylvania was brought before Forrest after the fighting. The story states
that Forrest asked why the man was there. “The mulatto answered that he
was a free man and came out as a servant of an officer, naming the officer.
Forrest, who was on horseback, deliberately put his hand to his holster, drew
his pistol, and blew the man’s brains out*.” There was no record of this story in
the other newspapers representing the sample for this thesis.
It wasn’t uncommon for published accounts to be determined untrue
and the newspapers printed a retraction. For instance, on Tuesday, June 7,
1864, the New York Daily Tribune published a story titled “The Salem Ark.,
Guerilla Story Untrue.” The story is quite brief and quotes a dispatch that
stated that the report proved to be “unfounded.” This initial inaccuracy and
subsequent retraction was fairly ordinary in both Northern and Southern
newspapers. On Tuesday, June 14, 1864, the Tribune published a story on the
front-page under the heading “Doubtful.” The story is introduced by a
statement warning the reader that the details contained therein may or may
*
Note on quotations: Original spellings and punctuation have been preserved in direct quotations of
sample data without inserting the intrusive “*sic+.”
5
not be true, insisting that “the reader must make his own estimate of their
value.” On July 7th 1864, the Daily National Intelligencer (Washington, D.C.)
published a story titled “From Harper’s Ferry; The Rebels on the Upper
Potomac – Exaggerated Reports,” which describes how the initial numbers of
Confederate troops reported in the days prior from newspapers all over the
North were wildly inflated. There were some jokes at the time that insisted
that the reason many newspapers published morning editions and evening
editions was so that the evening editions could contradict and retract
inaccuracies that appeared in the morning edition.
Sloan (1991) observed that news was often days or even weeks old by
the time it reached the newspaper despite the technological advancements
and rapid information dissemination capability afforded by the invention of the
telegraph. In addition, much of the coverage of the war was based upon
rumor. Union General William Tecumseh Sherman despised this practice and
even went so far as to compare reporters to Satan. “Those dirty newspaper
scribblers have the impudence of Satan. They come into camp, poke about the
lazy shirks and pick up their camp rumors and publish them as fact.” The
heading “Important-if true” preceded some stories on the pages of Civil War
newspapers. In fact, Wilbur F. Storey2, editor of the Detroit Free Press from
1853-1861 and later the Chicago Times, told his one of his Civil War
correspondents “When there is no news, send rumours.”
2
Wilbur F. Storey, one of the most renowned Copperhead editors, was quoted in 1861 as saying “It is a
newspaper’s duty to print the news and raise hell.”
6
Some scholars assert the influential clout of editors reached its pinnacle
during the Civil War. Andrews (1985) observed that personal journalism was in
its heyday, specifically in the South during this period. “…the editor as a man of
consequence was admitted to the inner councils of his party and often became
a powerful political force. What the Southern editor wrote was more
interesting to his readers than the meager supply of news that appeared in his
paper” (p. 24). Journalism is distinctly similar to history in that any story
written for a newspaper by a journalist is nothing more than a reporting of the
facts of an event as they exist in the mind of a journalist perhaps with one
major exception; journalists usually are present at the events they cover as
opposed to gathering information years or decades after the fact.
According to McKerns (1977), a thorough understanding of the way the
press has fostered and/or conveyed to society the dominant conservative ideas
that run through the nation’s history is missing from journalism scholarship.
“Journalism history must divorce itself from this preoccupation and turn to a
study of the dominant ideas in society and the purveyors and conveyors of
those ideas within the context of the times. Journalism history is not linear, it is
convoluted” (p. 90).
Gray (1981) describes the importance of journalism as a marker of the
evolution of civilization in society and he urges the necessity for journalism
historians to learn more about the past.
In essence, journalism is the analysis and reporting of mankind and
civilization. Indeed, one of the earliest indications that a civilization is
7
forming in a society is the ability of mankind to devise a mode of transmitting
thoughts and information, not only from person to person within the same
time frame, but between persons across different time periods (ibid, p. 86).
Sloan (1991) observes that contrasting accounts of the past arise even
between historians of equal caliber. Like journalists, historians tell their own
versions of the story, therefore leading to numerous derivations of singular
events. Sloan argues that historical interpretation is essential for providing a
new perspective that arises with each generation. Furthermore, each
generation believes it is more capable and sophisticated than the generation
before and therefore able to provide a better explanation of the past.
Moreover, new methods of research may surface as well as additional
materials and documents not available to previous researchers, which
necessitate a re-examination and interpretation of history. Undeniably, there
are immediate pitfalls when approaching any historical endeavor with the
intent of interpretation as opposed to a mere reporting, but Sloan insists
interpretation enables society to look at the past from a contemporary
perspective. “Although serious potential problems exist in the application of
interpretation to history, it still occupies an important and valuable place in
historical study…It is essential to gaining a proper understanding of historical
work and, thus, ultimately an understanding of history” (ibid, 10).
8
Newspapers as Historical Records
Measuring the degree to which newspaper coverage succeeded in shifting
the policy of elected officials in Nineteenth Century America or affected the
outcome of the presidential election of 1864 remains an elusive proposition at
best. Yet, it would be erroneous not to acknowledge the significance of
newspapers as historical records. Hardt (2002) argues that “…newspapers do
not present windows on the world but rather construct and perpetuate
worldviews to direct or affect opinions.” Slebenne, et al (1992) found that
exceptionally little attention is paid to the news media’s role in American
history in college textbooks. “Even if allowance is made for exceptional cases,
this type of omission is a serious matter, for the media have been bound
together with the evolution of democracy and the material development of
much of the nation’s existence” (Starrt and Sloan, 1994 p.1).
Knowlton (1994) argued that the ideas of popular sovereignty and
democracy must go hand-in-hand with a free press in order for citizens to have
access to the information they need to govern themselves. Early American
newspapers represented a textbook of sorts that allowed Americans to
collectively see each other in print form and created and shaped opinions
about society. Hedgepeth Williams (1994) insists that newspapers granted
ordinary people something that was never available before: “an ongoing
snapshot of community and world life, personality portraits, advice, morals,
triumphs abroad, tragedies at home, wars and rumors of wars and more” (ibid,
9
p. 45). Initially, the editor wrote the entirety of the content of his newspaper.
Editorial content was difficult to distinguish from general news content.
A matter of considerable significance when conducting any historical
study is the accuracy of the documents and sources. Newspapers are
traditionally considered relatively accurate, on the whole. However, there are
certainly newspapers that are not accurate, and therefore not credible. Salmon
(1923) discussed the importance of determining which newspapers are, in fact,
accurate, stating that the historian “must know very definitely just what part is
to be accepted and what part is to be rejected” (p. 36).
Taft (1969) insists that “use of newspapers for background material
requires intelligent discrimination and careful scrutiny” (p.3). This offers
considerable difficulty in conducting historical research utilizing period
newspapers as the primary source material. Essentially, if a researcher decides
to include a certain newspaper in the research, that newspaper must be
examined for accuracy prior to being studied.
However, during the early part of the Twentieth Century, many
American historians began realizing the potential of newspapers as a valuable
resource for historical information and newspapers were examined with
increasing frequency. The American Historical Association devoted an entire
session to the use of newspapers in historical research in 1908. “There are
everywhere evidences of an increasing appreciation of the important place the
newspaper occupies in the equipment of the historian” (ibid, p. 56).
10
Weighing the accuracy of the newspapers as a historical record of
events is not the central focus of this study. But, accurately recording the
content of the newspapers under examination is absolutely imperative. The
study’s purpose is not to attempt to reconstruct the past and provide an
accurate portrayal of American life in 1864. Instead, the purpose of this study
is to examine the newspapers themselves to determine if and how coverage
changed during the time period before and immediately after the Battle of
Atlanta, because this is recognized historically as the turning point in the
success of the Union armies in securing victory, culminating in the end of the
Civil War.
Many scholars believe that Party Press period (1733-1833) newspaper
editors were the most influential people in the political landscape. Editors
were often described as serving numerous roles including ideologues, advisors
and mouthpieces of the party platform. Baldasty (1980) argued that the
changing political landscape into a two-party system in America in the later
part of the Nineteenth Century “was a departure form the earlier political
organization and depended upon a new breed of party worker to coordinate
the vast job of awakening and maintaining the voter’s loyalty. This research
demonstrates that the leaders of the new party system, at least in Boston,
Massachusetts, were newspaper editors” (ibid, p. 3).
The end of the party press period ushered a change in the role
newspapers played in society. Salmon (1923) argued that newspapers shifted
11
purpose from a generally passive role of news dissemination before the party
press period to a much more active role of reflecting public opinion and
actively shaping it during the party press period. Frederick Douglass wrote in
1881 that “Slavery had the power at one to make and unmake Presidents” and
many American newspapers were specifically created to abolish slavery. It’s
important to note, however, that many abolition newspapers had relatively
small to very small circulations. Sloan et al (1997) believed that the late
Nineteenth Century represented the “Golden Age” of the American press.
Shaw (1981) argued that the period of 1820-1860 ushered in the
demise of the party press era due to increased efficiency in news gathering and
dissemination through technological advancements like the telegraph. “As
news established its market value, party support for newspapers, which
continued until after the Civil War, began to recede in importance and
publishers found steadier support in advertising and street sales” (p. 26).
However, many newspapers were still owned, subsidized or explicitly identified
with one party, even after the Civil War.
Ward (1994) observed that the news media’s role in setting, as well as
reflecting societal values, is most evident in the political process and more
specifically presidential campaigns. The news media repeatedly address certain
themes and some scholars suggest the news media created its own system of
values. The most prolific case in point of the media’s role in establishing values
in the political process is most evident in the first real quarrel between
12
American political parties in the 1830s and 1840s between the Whigs and the
Democrats. “Established then were symbolic values that persist and shape
political activity today. Particularly out of the image-creating campaign of
1840—with all of its emphasis on posturing candidates in conflict and
bestowing mantles on the anointed—came values asserted in future elections”
(Ward, 1994 p. 129). Measuring the effectiveness of news coverage is
dependent upon contemporary observers. “If we assume that the observers,
lacking sophisticated knowledge about newspaper persuasiveness, drew naïve
conclusions, then we dismiss their faith in editorial power. On the other hand,
it is also possible that their observations were correct” (Sloan et al 1997, p. 6).
Some scholars agree that throughout the history of American elections,
presidential candidates are promoted and packaged as if they were any other
product available for retail sale. McGinnis (1968) stated that “it is not
surprising that advertisers and politicians found one another – not surprising
because ‘the citizen’ does not so much vote for a candidate as make a
psychological purchase of him.” Lincoln said in one of his famous debates with
Stephen Douglas “that he who molds public sentiment goes deeper than he
who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions” (Hynes, 1977).
News Media Coverage of War
Long before the American Civil War, news media coverage of warfare
was rather ubiquitous and its political impact is still a matter of debate in mass
13
communication scholarship. Nischan (1977) examined news media coverage
of the Thirty Years War in Europe. “The news media, limited as they were in
the 17th Century took an avid an interest in this confrontation as our media do
in today’s affairs” (ibid, p. 24). Although the Thirty Years War (1618-1648)
initially began as a religious conflict between Protestantism and Catholicism,
the underlying conflict was purely power politics.
Although daily newspapers and weekly newsmagazines did not exist at
the time in what is now Germany, Neue Zeitungen and Flugschriften served
much the same function. Neue Zeitungen were regularly published newssheets
that contained accurate accounts of events, much like the news section of a
newspaper. The Flugschriften were essentially the editorial pages of the time:
they contained less news and were geared to persuade public opinion.
According to Nischan (1977) they were specifically written “…to shape public
opinion and the thinking of those who occupied positions of political power
and influence” (ibid, p. 25).
The circumstances leading to the American Civil War are similar in that
it may have appeared to be a struggle over slavery, but essentially it was a
matter of the Confederate states fighting against a strong centralized federal
government and for the right to govern themselves. In other words, the
Confederacy was fighting for its right to determine whether or not slavery was
legal, not the maintenance of the institution. Ironically, this inability by many
Southern states to submit to centralized administration made Jefferson Davis’s
14
job as president more intricate and some scholars suggest this was one of the
leading contributors to the ultimate demise of the Confederacy (Foote, 1974).
Throughout American history, the news media played a central role of
disseminating information during wartime. Humphrey (1994) observed that
the media’s role is much more than active than simple reporting. In fact, the
American media have worked to shape public opinion about the justification of
war. “In most cases, these efforts have aimed at increasing support for the war
by boosting the morale of the people and creating national consensus
concerning the outcome of the conflict” (p. 65). Sloan and Williams (1994)
concluded that the press and its readers would fight just as bitterly on the
paper battlefields of newspapers and pamphlets as real combat battlefields
during the Revolutionary War. It was at this time that the role of the press
shifted to more of a persuasive nature. Kilmer (2002) concluded that the press
and the government developed a somewhat symbiotic relationship during the
Civil War years and they shared “a common mission of instilling within the
public a sense of civic responsibility” (p. 41)
Andrews (1985) suggested that Southern newspapers were wellrespected and highly accurate prior to the Civil War. But after the combat
began, Southern newspapers routinely published inaccurate accounts of
battles and casualties or completely fabricated stories in order to magnify the
accomplishments of the Confederate army. Immediately following the first
15
Battle at Manassas Junction3 in July of 1861, some Southern newspapers
claimed that 15,000 Confederate soldiers defeated more than 35,000 Union
soldiers and inflicted losses in excess of 15,000 federal troops. Davis, (2001)
points out the real number of Union casualties, including soldiers killed,
missing, and wounded, was 2,896. Confederate General James Conner of
South Carolina urged his mother not to believe one-tenth of what she reads in
the papers in a letter several weeks after the battle (ibid, p. 89).
Much of the literature concerning press’s role during the Civil War
focuses on two major issues: military censorship and press performance. The
manner in which historians approach these issues has been contingent on
what the historian considered the appropriate function of the press during
wartime. Hypothetically speaking, should the press try to preserve the Union
by persuading its readers, or should the press simply supply a detached
accounting of events? Surprisingly, this debate continues with modern
journalism constantly discussing clashes of objectivity and subjectivity, but
there is clear evidence that the Civil War press collectively performed more of
the former (i.e. persuading its readers) and considerably less of the latter, at
least as evidenced by the documents analyzed in this sample.
Hughes (1991) points out that most Northern editors took up editorial
arms against the South and editors of this period were cognizant of the
extremely high degree of public interest of the war. However, Towne (2005)
3
This battle is most often referred to by Union accounts as “Bull Run.”
16
described how newspaper editors were attacked by groups of soldiers, and
others were "mobbed" by civilian crowds. At least several newspaper editors
were physically assaulted or beaten by individuals, both military and civilian.
Newspapers were shut down and editors were arrested by official order. This
prior restraint and denial of free expression represents a unique period in the
history of the American media for at least one reason. Towne recounts
numerous instances of violence against journalists and editors in Indiana
during 1861-1865. Many violent episodes detailed by Towne were official
orders from the military. Surprisingly, many attacks against newspapers during
this period were considered “quasi-legal” as a matter of common law. “When
confronted with an abolition newspaper, antebellum communities could
credibly draw on established legal principles to limit objectionable expression”
(ibid, p. 139).
These events demonstrate how perceptions and acceptance of radical
or confrontational viewpoints was altered during the Civil War since the First
Amendment should have protected the rights of the newspaper editors to
print what they chose. These established legal principles represent a “from the
bottom up” model in which local governments were afforded the opportunity
from the state to determine how to regulate local newspapers. The fact that
mobs violently shut down newspapers, and in extreme cases, killed newspaper
editors provides considerable evidence about the perception of the power of
the news media to possibly influence people’s behaviors.
17
Official censorship of journalists occurred often during the Civil War.
Many Union commanders viewed journalists as a threat to the success of
military campaigns. At worst, some commanders even considered journalists
spies. Maihafer (1998) quotes an 1863 letter to Union commander General
Ulysses S. Grant, in which General William T. Sherman wrote:
The men have sense and will trust us. As to the reports in newspapers, we
must scorn them, else they will ruin us and our country. They are as much
enemies to good government as the secesh4, and between the two, I like the
secesh best, because they are a brave, open enemy and not a set of sneaking
scoundrels (ibid, p. 153).
The fall of Atlanta in September of 1864 is widely regarded as the
turning point in the Civil War. “Yet no military victory was more timely or
pivotal than Sherman’s capture of Atlanta. Atlanta launched the final phase of
the war, delivered a crushing psychological blow to the Confederacy, and
bolstered, if not ultimately secured, Lincoln’s reelection” (Bunker, 2001, p.
112). Atlanta was a relatively new city in 1864 with a population of roughly
20,000. According to Foote (1974) the city was a lively center of industrial
enterprise and the hub of a railway network that connected Atlanta to
Augusta, Savannah, Macon, and Chattanooga (and thus these cities to each
other), thus making it a valuable target for Sherman from a strategic
standpoint. Union victories at Vicksburg and Chattanooga were precursors to
the advance of Sherman’s army into Georgia. Newspapers in Atlanta made the
4
Secesh was a term used to describe and insult the secessionist soldiers fighting for the Confederacy
during the Civil War.
18
public fully aware that the city was the target of the advancing Union Army a
scant 125 miles away in late November 1863. Following the defeat at
Chattanooga, Confederate General Joseph E. Johnston assumed command of
the Confederate forces in Tennessee. During the next spring and summer,
Johnston orchestrated a surprisingly effective delaying campaign against
Sherman during his advance on Atlanta.
Johnston’s tactic was repeated several times throughout different
campaigns in Chattanooga, to Marietta, Ga., to name a few. Johnston set up a
defensive position, Sherman’s superior force would march to outflank the
Confederate defenses, and Johnston would retreat again. After Johnston's
withdrawal following the battles at Resaca and Kennesaw Mountain,
Johnston’s continued withdrawal after each engagement, even though the
chances of victory were slim at best, irked Jefferson Davis who relieved
Johnston of command and replaced him with John Bell Hood just before the
battle for the city began (McMurry, 1981). “The biggest news story in the
Confederate press on July 18, 1864 was the Associated Press report that
Johnston had been removed from command of the Army of Tennessee”
(Andrews, 1985, p. 212). This event was covered by the Northern newspapers,
but wasn’t generally framed as especially important news.
Although Sherman’s campaign was successful in taking vast swathes
of Confederate territory, federal forces had hidden weaknesses. Sherman’s
major disadvantage lied in that he was forced to leave soldiers along the way
19
to protect supply lines. Nearly as many soldiers were positioned along the 450
miles of lines as were fighting on the front. In addition, the majority of
Sherman’s soldiers had originally signed three-year enlistments and the U.S.
Congress agreed that the original contracts could not be abrogated even
though the Confederacy forced its soldiers to continue fighting. This could
have put untested Federal recruits face-to-face with hardened Confederate
war veterans at a crucial point in the war. Ironically, Sherman seemingly was
undeterred about this possibility in 1861 when he rejoined the Army. “I still
have my saddle, sword, sash and some articles of uniform which will come into
immediate play. But look out – I want the regular Army and not the 3 year
men” (Thorndike, 1894, p. 197). Nevertheless, the majority of the Union
soldiers were persuaded to persevere through use of increased pay rates and
bonuses (McPherson, 1988).
20
Chapter One
President Lincoln and the News Media
Abraham Lincoln, 16th president of the United States, son of Nancy Hanks
Lincoln and Thomas Lincoln was born in Hardin County, Kentucky. Uncertainty
over Thomas Lincoln's land claim forced the Lincolns to leave Kentucky, which
had no slavery and land titles were more secure, in December 1816. Abraham
Lincoln spent the bulk of his time working to clear land for the family farm and
subsequently acquired only a few months of formal education (Anderson,
1970). Lincoln was an autodidact and a voracious reader who passionately
toiled to educate himself. His father, who was not interested in books and
education, thought his son was lazy. The fact that Lincoln truly detested
physical labor only further strained the relationship, and Lincoln left his
father’s home as soon as he possibly could. The two never did mend their
relationship and Lincoln refused to visit his father during Thomas’s final days,
nor did he attend his father’s funeral (Anderson, 1970). In 1831, Lincoln settled
in New Salem, Illinois, to begin his own career. Lincoln held several jobs during
his first few years on his own, including store clerk, postmaster, surveyor, mill
hand, and partner in a general store. He also was elected captain of the
volunteer militia in 1832 but never engaged in combat.
At this time, Lincoln became interested in politics and ran for the
Illinois state legislature. He lost this first election, but he was successful in
campaigning locally by garnering 92 percent of the New Salem vote. This initial
21
defeat proved only to fuel Lincoln’s aspirations and he continued to improve
his oratorical skills by joining the local debating society (Steers, 2007). After
rigorously campaigning throughout the district, Lincoln handily won the seat in
1834. Lincoln, a Whig, subscribed to the "American System," which endorsed
government involvement in economic and social affairs championed by Henry
Clay.
Lincoln earned a law license in 1836 and for the first time used the
newspaper as political tool. Lincoln wrote a letter to the editor of the
Sangamo Journal published on June 18, 1836. Lincoln wrote in response to an
editorial that asked candidates to “show their hands.” He carefully avoided any
reference to slavery but surprisingly advocated women’s suffrage, which was
quite a fresh idea politically. “I go for sharing all the privileges of the
government who assist in bearing its burdens. Consequently, I go for admitting
all whites to the right of suffrage who pay taxes or bear arms (by no means
excluding females).” Lincoln was reelected and the next year started a law
practice in Springfield with fellow Whig legislator John Stuart.
Lincoln left the state legislature in 1841 and established a law
partnership with Stephen Logan. In 1842, Lincoln married Mary Todd, whose
father was an influential and prominent banker from Lexington, Kentucky
(Anderson, 1970). Lincoln was quite successful as a lawyer and made a
considerable sum of money, but the passion for politics never quite went
away. In 1846, Lincoln ran for the U. S. House of Representatives and won a
22
decisive victory. Lincoln served only one term in the House but was rather
vociferous in his opposition to the “expansionist” war with Mexico. He was
mentioned occasionally in the congressional coverage of Niles Weekly Register,
the first recognizable news magazine.
In 1854, the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which repealed the
Missouri Compromise, turned the issue of slavery into a national political
debate. This brought Lincoln back into the political arena and he became a
founder of the Republican Party. The central theme of the party was the
abolition of slavery. In Chicago, on September 1, 1854, Stephen Douglas
attempted to speak before a hostile crowd of thousands, but the grumblings of
the mob drowned out his voice. He said it was the Chicago Tribune’s fault for
creating public discord about him, and the crowd erupted with cheers when
Douglas mentioned its name. The incident became a national story and
focused much political attention on Illinois.
Lincoln’s “Peoria speech,” which he delivered in rebuttal to Douglas in
Peoria on October 16, 1854, established Lincoln as a national figure. The
Illinois Republican Party selected Lincoln to run against Democratic Senator
Stephen Douglas in 1858. The two spoke across the state separately on more
than one hundred occasions. However, the seven instances in which the two
stood on the same stage at the same time are the most widely publicized.
Lincoln’s "House Divided" speech on June 16, 1858, set the tone for the
campaign. Lincoln argued that the country would consist of only free states or
23
slave states. "A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this
government cannot endure; permanently half slave and half free. I do not
expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do
expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other."
Lincoln lost the election to Douglas, but some argue the loss only
helped advance Lincoln’s political career. On November 6, 1858, the Peoria
Daily Message published an editorial praising Lincoln.
Defeat works wonders with some men. It has made a hero of Abraham
Lincoln. Two or three journals in different sections of the Union are
beginning to talk of him for Vice-President…And a Republican meeting in
Mansfield, Ohio raises him a notch higher by announcing him as its candidate
for President (Harper, 1951).
The press played a pivotal role in manufacturing presidents in the
Nineteenth Century. Andrew Jackson presented the image of a tough,
common man unaffiliated with politics, which proved to be the standard for
the next few presidencies. William Henry Harrison’s “Log Cabin” campaign in
1840 explicitly presented the candidate as a common man. Lincoln’s “Rail
Splitter” campaign was no different. Ward (1994) suggests that press
fascination with the underdogs and outsiders was evident in colonial times
with the Franklins as well as other Revolutionary period editors who advocated
independence from England. In order to win an election after Andrew Jackson
— a war hero who personified the frontier values of strength and vigor – Ward
argues, the candidate had to be bigger than life. “The media had found two
important themes they could ‘value’ and turn to in the ensuing years: The
24
preoccupation with (1) the humble-origin theme, the underdog and (2) the
outsider, in conflict with the rich and privileged” (Ward, 1993, p. 89). Bunker
(2005) argues that Lincoln’s “Rail Splitter” campaign was an attempt by his
supporters to personify the American Dream. The frontier image was
associated with innocence, work ethic and rugged individualism. “The
nicknames ‘Old Abe’ and ‘Father Abraham’ with their homey ring of familiarity,
dovetailed nicely with the ‘Rail Splitter’ imagery” (p. 111).
In the book “Anti-Intellectualism in American Life,” Hofstadter (1963)
argued that the endearing qualities associated with rugged individualism of the
common working class man were buttressed by an equal, but opposite disdain
for intellectuals as politicians. Indeed, Hofstadter insists that American voters
have favored working class candidates and harbored contempt for those
perceived as intellectuals throughout the nation’s history. Hofstadter defines
anti-intellectual as a “resentment and suspicion of the life of the mind and of
those who are considered to represent it; and a disposition to constantly
minimize the value of that life.” (p. 7). This attitude, Hofstadter argues,
persuaded Americans to vote for candidates that seemed more pragmatic and
less intellectual.
During the nineteenth century, when business criteria dominated American
culture almost without challenge, and when most business and professional
men attained eminence without much formal education, academic schooling
was often said to be useless. It was assumed that schooling existed not to
cultivate certain distinctive qualities of mind but to make personal
advancement possible. For this purpose, an immediate engagement with
practical tasks of life was held to be more usefully educative, whereas
25
intellectual and cultural pursuits were called unworldly, unmasculine, and
impractical (ibid, 33-34).
Hage (1956) found similar evidence to suggest news media outlets
provided favorable coverage and comment to more ‘practical’ candidates. This
study focused on the elections of 1828 and 1952. “One hundred and twentyfour years before politicians began dismissing the ‘egghead vote,’ The New
Brunswick Times (New Jersey) expressed a widely held viewpoint in observing
of President John Quincy Adams that ‘too much learning may make a man mad
5
(p. 3).” Hage cites an article from the August 1, 1828 issue of the Richmond
Enquirer that demonstrates the perceived impracticality of intellectuals.
They [the yeomanry] will vote for Old Hickory — and why? Because they ‘can
put their fingers upon what he has done.’ Because he has always put corn in
the crib, and shown no false talley stick, as I heard one of them say. Whereas
you have to go to a lawyer, or a politician, to hunt over folios, and draw
deductions, and spin out theories to ascertain what Mr. Adams has ever
done to benefit this country (p. 103).
Hofstadter, however, challenges the seemingly implicit
‘impracticality’ of intellectuals.
“ … I can think of some intellectuals like Thomas Jefferson and Robert Owen
and John Maynard Keynes who have been eminently practical, and I consider
the notion that intellectual is inherently impractical to be one of the most
contemptible of the delusions with which the anti-intellectual quiets his envy
(p. 283).”
Hage cites “Horse Sense in American Humor” (Blair, 1942) which
describes a man with good horse sense as one who has not let book learning
“muddy his thinking.” “Such a man would have a way of saying things that
5
Editorial reprinted on page three of the United States Telegraph of August 9, 1828.
26
would make people agree with him – the great mass of men of gumption, at
any rate. Most Americans would point to Lincoln as a fine example of a great
man of this sort (Ibid, 127).”
News media coverage demonstrated that Lincoln personified the best
practical qualities admired by both editors and voters alike. A prime example
came in an editorial from the November 3, 1854, issue of the Chicago Journal
(reprinted from the Illinois Journal). “Mr. Lincoln has seen something of life –
not in common acceptation of phrase but in reality. Born of parents who could
only give him faith in rectitude and virtue, he has become what he is through
the trial of poverty and the sweat of his brow (Harper, 1951, p. 15).
Leading to the election of 1860, Republican Party officials, namely The
Chicago Tribune’s Joseph Medill, felt it prudent to keep Lincoln sheltered from
public scrutiny until the right time. Some say the decision was based on an
editorial published in the Chicago Press and Tribune on March 29, 1859, which
read, in part, “The day of the nomination of the republican candidate has not
yet arrived. There is no harm in premature discussion. The man and the hour
will come together.”
Harper (1951) observed that press coverage of Lincoln during the
1860 campaign was generally favorable. Before traveling to New York to
campaign in early 1860, Lincoln met with his friends Joseph Medill and Dr.
Charles H. Ray at the office of the Chicago Press and Tribune to get some
feedback on a speech he planned to deliver to the Young Men’s Association in
27
Brooklyn on February 25, 1860. Upon arriving in New York, Lincoln learned that
he would instead speak at the Cooper Institute. The New York Tribune covered
the speech in advance and called Lincoln a “man of the people, a champion of
free labor, of diversified and prosperous industry.” (Ibid, p. 45). On the day of
the speech, the Tribune encouraged readers to attend and hinted at the
scarcity of opportunities to hear Lincoln speak. “Remember Abraham Lincoln’s
address at the Cooper Institute tonight and ask your friends who are not
republicans to accompany you to hear it. It is not probable that Mr. Lincoln will
be heard again in our city this year, if ever. Let us improve the present
opportunity.”
Harper described the brilliance of positioning Lincoln’s rugged
practicality on the forefront and nearly eliminating the fact that he was, in fact,
an intellectual. “The designation of Lincoln as ‘the rail splitter,’ at exactly the
right time, caught the immediate fancy of the country. The very mention of the
name caused people to forget that he was a lifelong politician and lately a
corporation lawyer. It put Lincoln back among the common people (ibid, p. 49).
Newspapers across the North celebrated Lincoln’s practicality. The
following list provides just a few examples:
“In his hands the executive office will be disgraced by no chicanery or
corruption.” --The Syracuse Standard (New York).
“Mr. Lincoln is a representative western man; one who owes what he
is to his own exertions, and who comes fresh from the ranks of the people.” --
28
The Troy Daily Tribune (New York).
“…the intellectual power of a giant with the simple habits of a
backwoods farmer.” – The Hartford Courant (Connecticut).
On March 4, 1861, the day Abraham Lincoln was sworn in, seven
states had already seceded from the Union, and the election of Lincoln was
exceptionally unpopular among many Southerners. The Richmond Whig, in
Virginia, published an editorial the same day predicting the storm of war
looming on the horizon. “The election of Mr. Lincoln is undoubtedly the
greatest evil that has ever befallen this country. But the mischief is done and
the only relief for the American people is to shorten sail, send down the top
mast and prepare for a hurricane.”
In his inaugural address, Lincoln assured the American people, “There
needs to be no bloodshed or violence.” Lincoln also vowed not "to interfere
with slavery where it exists," although he declared secession unconstitutional.
29
Abraham Lincoln, February, 27, 1860. Carte-de-visite photograph. James
Wadsworth Family Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress (046)
Digital ID # al0046
30
After the surrender of Fort Sumter to the Confederates, Lincoln took
unprecedented, unilateral action as president: activating state militias; calling
for federal military volunteers; guaranteeing the government’s credit at $250
million; proclaiming a blockade of Confederate ports; suspending the writ of
habeas corpus; and using military detention of at least 15,000 civilians
throughout the course of the war. Although there was sharp debate over the
constitutionality of these policies, Congress or the Supreme Court acquiesced
or ratified them after the fact.
Lincoln pitched his plans for emancipation to his cabinet in July 1862,
but Secretary of State William Seward urged Lincoln to wait for a significant
Union victory to publicly present it. The Battle of Antietam in September
provided Lincoln with the victory he needed and he declared that the slaves in
Confederate-held territory would all be freed if the South failed to surrender
by January 1, 1863. On that day the Emancipation Proclamation went into
effect, and thousands of slaves were subsequently freed as Union forces
marched across the South.
Lincoln was an unpopular president for much of his administration.
Lincoln passed the Revenue Act of 1861 to help defer some of the
extraordinary cost of the war. Lincoln also introduced the first federal income
tax,6 and the Revenue Act of 1862 imposed excise taxes on numerous goods
(alcohol, tobacco, yachts, jewelry, etc.), license taxes on all professions except
6 The first income tax was a 3 percent tax on annual incomes over $800, equivalent to approximately
$125,000 in 2006. The tax was repealed in 1872.
31
the clergy, an inheritance tax, a corporation tax, and other forms of taxation.
The act also established the Bureau of Internal Revenue in order to manage
the taxation. Lincoln worked diligently to try to improve public sentiment
about the administration. For example, the Lincoln declared Thanksgiving a
national holiday at the behest of Sarah Josepha Hale, editor of the popular
Nineteenth Century magazine Godey’s Lady’s Book. In 1862, Hale wrote a
letter to Lincoln stating that she believed the somber, war weary nation should
have a national day of celebration. Lincoln agreed and declared the first
Thanksgiving in 1863. Lincoln saw Thanksgiving as a way to heighten national
morale at a time when the Union was discouraged by its losses in a terrible
war. He renewed the declaration in 1864 as a way to get Northerners to
donate food for the Union soldiers.
Lincoln was opposed by two main divergent factions: the
"Copperheads," the peace wing of the Democratic Party, and the Confederate
sympathizers in the Border States and lower Midwest. Clement L. Valladigham
of Ohio was the leader of the Sons of Liberty, a radical faction of the
Copperhead movement. Valladigham convinced the Peace Democrats to adopt
the peace platform abandoning the war as a failure. Since McClellan favored
continued prosecution of the war, this contradiction further contributed to
Lincoln’s reelection in 1864.
In 1863, Lincoln was being pressured by Major General Ambrose
Burnside, who twice ordered the Chicago Times be suppressed for printing
32
what he called “the repeated expression of disloyal and incendiary statements”
(Tenney, 1981). Tenney states that Lincoln’s decision to suppress the
newspaper is indicative of the fact that “he was much more ready to
accommodate political cronies than opposition editors.” The full-scale
offensive launched by Grant and Sherman in the spring of 1864 went hand-inhand with Lincoln’s chances for reelection. Even conventional wisdom would
argue against “changing horses midstream,” Lincoln’s re-nomination and
reelection were by no means guaranteed. No president had been renominated in two decades and the last president to be reelected was Andrew
Jackson in 1832 (McPherson, 1988).
Understanding that an outright victory over the Union was impractical
by 1864, the Confederacy hoped to negotiate a peaceful surrender with the
Union that would allow them to return to a situation more similar to the way
things were prior to the war. In fact, it was the strategy of the Confederacy to
draw out the war until after the election was over in hopes of establishing
some sort of satisfactory peace agreement with the newly elected president.
Former Union General George B. McClellan was running against President
Lincoln on a peace platform in the 1864 election. Part of the Democratic
platform called for an immediate end to fighting. Cronin (2009) points out that
this peaceful resolution proved a major contributing factor to George
McClellan’s refusal to accept the platform.
33
This outcome was unacceptable to Lincoln, who believed that
sustaining emancipation was contingent with success in the war as well as the
election (McPherson, 2008). The newspapers in the South were well aware of
the inimitable situation. One Georgia newspaper wrote, “Whether Lincoln
shall be elected or not depends upon … the battlefields of 1864. If the tyrant
at Washington be defeated, his infamous policy will be defeated with him”
(McPherson, 1988). It was Confederate supreme commander General Robert
E. Lee’s intent to “resist manfully” knowing that anything short of victory
would spell the end for Lincoln’s reelection. General James Longstreet
described Lee’s sentiments as described in his orders for the continued
struggle. “If we can break up the enemy’s arrangements early, and throw him
back, he will not be able to recover his position or his morale until the
Presidential election is over, and then we shall have a new President to treat
with.”
Lincoln fared no better in some Northern newspapers. Ever since
McClellan was removed from command in 1862, many Republicans feared him.
Harper (1951) stated McClellan was the “darling of the War Democrats and the
secret hope of the Copperheads.” Sherman detested the Copperheads and
described how they would be treated by Jefferson Davis if the Confederacy
won the war. Schuylar Colfax, a judge running for reelection in South Bend,
Indiana asked Sherman to send nine regiments of soldiers home so they could
vote in the election. Sherman responded in an August 12, 1864, letter that it
34
would be impossible to send any soldiers home from Atlanta. He said to send
one home would be an injustice to the others.
I hope you will be elected; but I do think the conscript-law is the only one
that is wanted for the next few years, and if the President uses it freely, he
can checkmate the Copperheads, who are not in favor of being governed by
Jeff Davis, but are afraid to go to the war. Their motives are transparent. Jeff
Davis despises them more than you do, and if he prevails in this war he will
deal with Copperheads with infinitely more severity than he will with men
who fight for their country and for principle (Thorndike, 1894, p. 196).
Traditionally, Lincoln had been widely accepted in German language
newspapers, but the nomination of General Fremont for the Radical
Republicans nominee swayed the German-American press. One newspaper,
Springfield-based Illinois Staats-Anzeiger had been loyal to Lincoln7 in his first
campaign, but deserted him in 1864. “Reviewing the past four years, nothing
is left to but to cut loose decidedly and forever of Lincoln and his policy and to
protest against his reelection under all circumstances and at any price. No
reasons of expediency can influence us to ever accept Lincoln as our President
again.” The New York World published vituperative criticism of Lincoln.
The American people are in no mood to re-elect a man to the highest office
whose daily language is indecent, and who, riding over the field of Antietam,
when thirty-thousand of his fellow citizens were yet warm in their freshly
made graves, could slap Marshal Lamon on the knee, and call for the negro
song of ‘Picayune Butler.’ The war is serious business to men whose sons
have bitten the dust … They cannot tread on fresh grave and grin and roar
over a ribald nigger song.
7
Lincoln secretly owned this newspaper which explains its initial favorable coverage.
35
The next day a story called “Lincoln on the Battlefield” was published
in the World and was labeled as a reprint from the Essex Statesman. Once
again, Lincoln was the victim of libelous newspaper coverage, and there is no
evidence to suggest anything the World reported about the incident was
accurate. In fact, the New York Daily Tribune editors suggested that the story
was a complete fabrication because no mention of the newspaper called the
Essex Statesman has been traced anywhere outside the office of the New York
World.8 The World had a national circulation at the time, and the story was
picked up by Copperhead papers all over the country. The story claimed that
the commanding general was trying to explain what had happened during the
battle by showing Lincoln where men had fallen and died. The article
concludes by stating that the account seems impossible to believe but assures
readers that “the story is every whit true of Abraham Lincoln, incredible and
impossible as it may seem” (Harper, 1951). One newspaper that did advocate
Lincoln was The New York Times, which was arguably one of, if not, the most
influential newspapers in the country even at that time. Henry J. Raymond,
founder and editor of the Times, was the chairman of the Republican Party
Platform Committee and criticized the Fremont convention. The Times
accurately predicted that “Abraham Lincoln will be re-nominated by
acclamation.”
8
The term Essex has been used in the names of several newspapers at different times in the Eastern
United States including; the Essex Reporter, Essex Advertiser, Essex Times and the Essex Republican.
36
Chapter Two
General William Tecumseh Sherman
Sherman was born in Lancaster, Ohio, to Mary Hoyt Sherman and
Charles R. Sherman. Sherman’s family was actively involved in politics with his
father serving as a state judge and his brother holding a seat in the U.S. Senate.
Sherman entered the U.S. Military Academy at West Point at the age of 16 and
graduated sixth in his class. Sherman’s early military career was mainly
confined to the South. He served in the Second Seminole War (1840-1842) in
Florida before being transferred to California at the start of the Mexican War.
Sherman played no active role in the war and served thereafter in the
commissary service before resigning from the Army in 1853 (Sifakis, 1988).
From 1853 to 1857, Sherman worked as a bank manager for two separate
banks, both of which folded, in San Francisco and New York. He tried his hand
at real-estate and law working for his brothers’ firm in Leavenworth, Kansas
before returning to military service.
Sherman was appointed as superintendent of the new Louisiana
Military Seminary (today, Louisiana State University) in 1859. Sherman was
successful in his new position and enjoyed his work. But, in 1861, Louisiana
seceded from the Union, Sherman decided to remain loyal to the Union and he
resigned his post. Sherman rejoined the Union Army in May 1861 and was
commissioned as a colonel. By June 30, he was promoted to brigade
commander and by August he was second in command of the Department of
37
the Cumberland (Kentucky and Tennessee). The commander at the time,
Robert Anderson, suffered a nervous breakdown and Sherman took over
command briefly before requesting a transfer to the Missouri Theater
(Thorndike, 1894).
Sherman consistently voiced his concerns about the effectiveness of
the Union Army and frequently proclaimed that the North could not defeat the
South. His commanding officer, General Henry Halleck, forced Sherman to take
leave and the press issued reports that Sherman was insane. Sherman returned
to the Army in March 1862 and had great success at the battle of Shiloh in April
1862. Ulysses S. Grant took notice of Sherman and praised his
accomplishments. Sherman was appointed military governor of Memphis in
June and gained valuable experience in guerilla warfare combating the
Confederates. Sherman suffered a number of losses in the fall and the negative
press led to the only court-martial of an American reporter, Thomas Knox of
the New York Herald 9 (Thorndike, 1894).
Sherman earned a reputation as a ruthless murderer for his
destructive tactics during his march to the sea in the summer and fall of 1864.
Sherman made it policy to be as destructive as possible in order to make the
war so costly for the South that it would end in less time with fewer casualties.
In fact Sherman said “I propose to demonstrate the vulnerability of the South
9
th
Sherman arrested Knox for violating the 57 Article of War which states “who shall be convicted of
holding correspondence with, or giving intelligence to the enemy, either directly or indirectly, shall suffer
death.” Sherman had no intentions of executing Knox, but he wanted to “establish the principle that
citizens shall not, against the orders of the competent military superior, attend a military expedition,
report its proceedings, and comment on its officers … ”
38
and make its inhabitants feel that war and individual ruin are synonymous
terms.” The Southern press portrayed Sherman as an absolute monster, and
even Grant and Lincoln had opposed his tactics. He was incredibly effective at
decimating Confederate ranks. Not in the sense that they no longer wanted to
fight. On the contrary, many soldiers deserted to go and protect their homes
from Sherman’s men. Realistically, the true scope of the damage inflicted was
highly embellished. “Yet Sherman’s success in terrorizing the white
Southerners led them to exaggerate the extent of the actual damage of the
march. It seemed as if every building had been put to the torch” (Howe, 1995,
p. 16).
But, there are some claims of brutality from some of Sherman’s own
men. Private Theodore F. Upson, a seventeen-year-old Indiana farm boy,
served with Grant at Vicksburg and Sherman in Atlanta. Upson kept a diary of
his experiences during the war and wrote an account of how Grant ordered
civilians hanged after some Union soldiers foraging for rations were killed.
“While moving out this morning we saw the lifeless bodies of several citizens
swinging from trees with a placard upon each which read: ‘This is done in
retaliation for the unwarranted attack made upon my foragers yesterday. Any
repetition of this offense will be summarily punished; and in addition, all
buildings upon ten square miles of adjacent territory will be destroyed10,’” –
signed W T Sherman, General Commanding (Winther, 1958).
Surprisingly, Sherman was lenient with his terms of surrender for the
vanquished Confederate combatants. He was once again vilified by the press,
10
This account was not verified by any other reputable historians. However, the information about where
th
Upton traveled with the 100 Indiana Regiment in the Fifteenth Army Corps is historically accurate.
39
this time from the North, for his charitable terms to surrendering Confederate
General Johnston, so much so he changed his mind and offered harsher terms.
Sherman truly desired life to go back to the way it was prior to the war in the
South, with the exception of slavery, of course. Sherman opposed slavery and
knew that it could only end through war. In March of 1856, Sherman wrote,
“Slavery being a fact is chargeable on the past; it cannot, by our system, be
abolished except by force and consequent breakup of our present
government.” But he made it clear that he felt national integrity should be the
main theme of the war. “The question of national integrity and slavery should
be kept distinct, for otherwise it will gradually become a war of extermination”
(Thorndike, 1894 p. 12).
Sherman’s Campaign of 1864
In 1864, General William Tecumseh Sherman led a force of 60,000
Union Army soldiers that marched more than 650 miles in less than 100 days.
These 100 days comprised what is considered by many to be the most pivotal
campaign in the Civil War. The outcome of Sherman’s march, as it would be
called later, would ultimately determine the fate of the country and
immortalize its architect, Sherman. The brutal tactics of bringing the war to the
southern civilian populace increased the burden on the South, forcing many
southern soldiers to consider desertion to defend their homes.
40
Sherman’s men destroyed and pillaged everything in their path
earning Sherman the reputation as a terrorist and the moniker “the Father of
Total War.” In developing his strategy, Sherman produced special maps with
population, tax revenue and crop yields from census data to make sure he
marched through areas that would have enough food to feed his massive
army. Sherman issued the controversial Special Field Order #120, authorizing
the army to organize foraging parties and essentially steal anything they
wanted from the local communities.
41
Gen. William T. Sherman, ca. 1864-65. Mathew Brady Collection. (Army) Exact
Date Shot Unknown NARA FILE #: 111-B-1769 WAR & CONFLICT BOOK #: 125
42
The Battle of Atlanta
The Battle for Atlanta began on July 20, 1864, at Peach Tree Creek,
just north of the city (Davis, 2001). The Union army positioned itself in a semicircle around the north and east of Atlanta. Brigadier General Francis Preston
Blair, one of Sherman’s corps commanders and ordered Mortimer Leggett,
commander of the Third Division of the VII Corps to occupy a small knoll called
Bald Hill (Warner, 1964). Confederate General Patrick Cleburne's division held
firm and thwarted Leggett’s advance. However, Union forces successfully
occupied the hill the following day and immediately fortified the hill with
entrenched positions as well as an artillery battery. Bald Hill was renamed
Leggett's Hill, by the Union soldiers who took the hill, after their commander,
and the name is still used today (Sifakis, 1988). This strategic position provided
Sherman’s army the ability to bombard the center of the city. Sherman and
many of his staff felt the battle would be over in a few days (Foote, 1974).
Forward federal observers witnessed large-scale troop and civilian
movements within the city, further fueling Sherman’s assertion that the city
would fall as the Confederate troops were preparing to withdraw like Johnston
had done so many times over the last six months. The movements were not
part of a withdrawal, however. In fact, Confederate General William "Old
Reliable" Hardee ordered a wide march around the Union flank to attack
rapidly entrenching Federal army from the south (Sifakis, 1988). Confederate
General W. H. T. Walker was killed by a Union sniper before the start of
43
fighting after he positioned himself too closely to the Federal lines in order to
observe the field.
Early Confederate advances pushed Union soldiers back and Union
corps commander General James “Birdseye” McPherson, one of Sherman’s
most respected generals, stumbled into a group of Confederate soldiers.
McPherson quickly realized his folly, doffed his hat and rode off at a gallop. A
Confederate infantryman shot McPherson in the back, mortally wounding him.
Sherman was deeply disturbed by McPherson’s death. Four days later (July 26),
Sherman wrote a letter to his wife and stated "I lost my right bower in
McPherson." Three days later, he sent another letter stating, "McPherson's
death was a great loss to me. I depended much on him." Ironically,
McPherson’s roommate at West Point with whom he graduated at the top of
his class in 1853 was none other than the recently appointed General Hood, on
the other side of the line (McPherson, 1988).
The left flank of the Federal line faltered after Hardee's attack and it
appeared that the Confederates may take the field. However, Union troops
reformed and held the line. Hood, who still believed the Union line had
dissolved, ordered a secondary assault to the north later that afternoon. The
Confederate troops captured two Parrott rifled cannon and immediately
turned the cannon on the retreating Federal soldiers. Sherman personally
directed artillery fire to thwart the Confederate advance and successfully in
repulsed the attack. Once Hood realized that the federal line had stabilized, he
44
called off the attack due to increasingly high numbers of causalities. However,
Sherman would not occupy the city for another six weeks. The Union Army
captured the railroad track from Macon on August 31 at Jonesborough, Ga.,
pushing the Confederates to Lovejoy Station.
Union soldiers heard the explosions of powder kegs and artillery
shells from within the city that night as Hood ordered his soldiers to destroy all
supplies in the city lest they fall into federal hands. On September 2, Mayor
James Calhoun surrendered the city. Sherman immediately wired news of the
victory to Washington in a telegram that read, "Atlanta is ours, and fairly won."
Sherman set up headquarters in Atlanta on September 7, and remained for
two months (Hitchcock, 1995). During this time, Sherman ordered the entire
city evacuated and ordered his men to raze the whole city to rubble and ashes.
Theodore Upson described the condition of the city upon the departure of
Federal troops. “We have utterly destroyed Atlanta. I don’t think any people
will want to try and live there now. It is pretty tough to rout people out of
there homes this way, but it is war, and General Sherman is credited with
saying ‘War is Hell.11’ I think that it is” (Winther, 1958 p. 81).
The fall of Atlanta was particularly important for its political
implications. Lincoln was heavily criticized by war-weary political factions in
the North for not aggressively pursuing peace with the South. Indeed, the
11
Sherman was officially given credit for the remark “War is Hell” on August 11, 1880 at a gathering of
5,000 Civil War veterans in Columbus Ohio. This is most likely an interpolation, according to Winther
(1958).
45
single most important issue in the election of 1864 was bringing an end to the
Civil War. “Had Sherman not conquered Atlanta, the matter might have
evolved into an epic struggle. But General Sherman’s victory defused the
potentially explosive issue and magazines throughout the country mounted an
impressive assault on the peace proponents’ platform” (Bunker, 2001 p. 112).
The capture of Atlanta and Hood's burning of many military facilities as he
evacuated were extensively covered by Northern newspapers, and significantly
boosted Northern morale (Andrews, 1956).
Sherman’s brother discussed how closely the war was followed by
citizens in the North. In fact, many Northerners consulted the Southern
newspapers for information. From his matter-of-fact tone, General Sherman
was probably aware of the magnitude of his success. On December 18, 1864,
Senator John Sherman wrote to his brother “I need hardly congratulate you on
your magnificent campaign through Georgia. This has been and will be done so
often that you will not need anything from me the subject. We have watched
with the deepest interest every step of your march that we could trace through
the Rebel papers” (Thorndike, 1894 p. 218). In a tragic but pivotal indication of
the role of the media during this time, while resting in Savannah after
completing his historic march, Sherman learned through a newspaper article
that his youngest son, whom he’d never even seen, had died.
46
Chapter Three
1864
“This war is eating my life out.” Abraham Lincoln, February 6, 1864.
By 1864, The Civil War had captivated Americans’ attentions, both
north and south. None was more concerned with its outcomes than Abraham
Lincoln. The Union army headquarters was housed in a three-story brick
building on the corner of Pennsylvania Avenue and 17th Street in Washington
D.C., on the White House grounds. Because the White House was not
connected to the telegraph system, Lincoln had to go to this building to receive
news. A Union soldier stationed in the telegraph office said Lincoln was
obsessed with news of the war and would come “morning, afternoon, and
evening, to receive the latest news from the armies on the front. He seldom
failed to come over before retiring, and sometimes he would stay all night.”
(Flood, 2009 pg. 3). Lincoln could have easily sent aides to swiftly bring him any
messages, but he preferred to attend to the matter personally.
The war had only been fought for five weeks when Lincoln was
inaugurated as president. By 1864, there were nearly 700,000 Confederate
soldiers battling more than a million Union soldiers from Pennsylvania, to
Texas, to Florida and only a few miles from the White House. Republican
political leader Thurlow Weed described how the situation had changed from
the early days of the war. “At the beginning of the year 1864 a large
Democratic element began to clamor for peace…with an army terribly
47
decimated and discouraged…with less apparent strength and less hope than
when the first gun was fired, the North now knew what it is to suffer.”
Lincoln agonized over the public’s frustration with the war. He was in
a constant struggle since so many war-weary Americans wanted to end the war
at all costs. Lincoln believed that the Constitution did not permit secession and
refused to end the war prior to victory and returning the secessionist states to
the Union. The presidential election in November “would be a referendum on
an unpopular war.” (ibid, 8). In June 1864, Lincoln was re-nominated by the
Baltimore Convention. His running mate, however, was not his Vice President
Hannibal Hamlin. According to “The Life and Times of Hannibal Hamlin,”
written by Hamlin’s grandson Charles Eugene Hamlin in 1899, Hannibal Hamlin
made sense as Vice President in 1861, since Maine was the first state in the
Northeast to embrace the Republican Party and Hamlin served to represent
the state in the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate and as the
state’s governor. However, Hamlin had little authority in the Lincoln
Administration and blundered in supporting Joseph Hooker's appointment as
commander of the Army of the Potomac, which was a dismal failure and
Lincoln looked to Andrew Johnson in 1864.
The Baltimore Convention nominated War Democrat Andrew Johnson
of Tennessee to replace Hamlin. Lincoln planned ahead for the aftermath of
the war and the Reconstruction of the South and believed Johnson to be better
48
suited to the task given his performance as war governor of occupied
Tennessee. Hamlin's term expired on March 4, 1865.
To add to Lincoln’s aggravation in 1864, he was faced with the
conundrum of which general should command the Union forces. Even though
General George Gordon Meade had won a decisive victory in Gettysburg,
General Ulysses S. Grant had a much more favorable track record and clearly
deserved the post. To accomplish this, Lincoln would have to revive the rank of
lieutenant general (last held by George Washington) and promote Grant to
outrank Meade and all other Union commanders. This was risky business
because Grant was wildly popular in the North and many political leaders in
both parties believed he would easily win the presidency if he chose to run.
Lincoln was concerned about this and in January he sent Republican
Congressman Elihu Washburne, who represented Grant’s district in Illinois, to
learn if Grant was considering the presidency. Washburne enlisted one of
Grant’s friends, J. Russell Jones, to find out. In early February, Jones handed
Lincoln a letter in which Grant wrote, “Nothing would induce me to become a
political candidate, particularly if there is a possibility or having Mr. Lincoln reelected.” Ironically, Lincoln’s suspicion of Grant’s popularity couldn’t have
been too far off as Grant did run and subsequently won the presidency in
1869, serving until 1877. With Lincoln fear’s now assuaged, he had the bill
introduced in Congress to reinstate the rank of lieutenant general and on
49
March 8th, Grant accepted the post as the supreme commander of the Union
armies.
The spring campaign began rather disastrously for Lincoln as Grant
was surprised by Lee’s forces and suffered a crushing defeat that the Battle of
the Wilderness. Lincoln was frantic for news while the fighting raged on for
two days on May 5th and 6th. There was little to no news reports coming in to
the telegraph office, adding to Lincoln’s frustrations. One evening after 9:00
PM Lincoln went into the telegraph office and a young operator told him of a
report of an incident that had occurred at a Union telegraph office in Union
Mills, Virginia – just 20 miles from Washington, D.C. A man claiming to have
just left the Army, wanted to send a telegram to the New York Tribune.
Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton refused to allow journalists to use the
telegraph for newspaper transmissions. The man refused to give his message
until he was assured he could send hi dispatch to the newspaper. Stanton
refused and accused the man of being a spy and ordered him shot.
Lincoln was dismayed and asked the operator to send a message
asking if the reporter would be willing to correspond directly with the
president. The man, a young Tribune reporter named Henry E. Wing, agreed.
He shared with Lincoln that despite General Grant’s ban on sending out stories,
he agreed to try by any means necessary to get the story to his editors. He had
spoke with Grant and asked the general if he had any news to share with the
readers of the Tribune, to which Grant replied “Well yes. You may tell the
50
people that things are going swimmingly down here.” Wing walked away and
Grant caught up with him when he was out of earshot of his staff and asked if
he would take back a message to President Lincoln insisting that no matter
what happened, he would not turn back.
In the telegraph office, Lincoln knew nothing and urged Wing to share
any news. Henry agreed, but only if he could send 100 words to the Tribune
first. Lincoln allowed his request, read his short account and ordered that Wing
not be shot. Lincoln knew nothing of Grant’s message but still offered to send a
train to bring Wing to Washington. Wing arrived at the White House and was
brought immediately brought in to meet with the entire Cabinet. After some
hours, the members of the Cabinet had retired and Lincoln was alone with
Wing, who finally shared Grant’s message. Lincoln was overjoyed and
remained to meet with Wing routinely at the White House throughout the rest
of the war.
The Cleveland Convention
Near the end of May, the Radical Democratic Party organized its own
convention with one main objective; to prevent Lincoln’s re-election. The
convention’s candidate was Union General John Fremont. According to Flood,
the press was “fascinated by the sudden appearance of an independent party
that could change the political landscape.” Manton Marble, editor of the
Copperhead paper the New York World, and James Gordon Bennett, the
51
politically-powerful editor of the New York Herald, openly endorsed the
convention, but Bennett wanted to nominate Grant with Fremont as his vice
presidential candidate. The convention was largely unimpressive, but the
message was rather clear that there was a significant portion of the population
that didn’t want Lincoln or McClellan as the next president.
A Dark and Dismal Summer for Lincoln
The promise of a successful military campaign was quickly dashed
after Grant’s defeat at the Battle of the Wilderness and again in June at Cold
Harbor. The casualties were astounding and Grant’s popularity began to wane
as people began to call him a “butcher” for his seemingly wanton disregard for
the lives of the Union soldiers. Sherman’s progress was slow as he was
constantly out-maneuvered by Confederate General Joseph Johnston in
Tennessee. In early July, Confederate General Jubal Early led a force of roughly
20,000 men to attack the capital. On July 11, the fighting was so close that
Lincoln went to see the scene for himself at Fort Stevens. Lincoln climbed atop
the masonry parapet to catch a better glimpse as bullets cracked the walls
around him. A young officer, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., shouted at the tall
civilian to “Get down you fool!” Lincoln climbed down and coolly said goodbye
to Holmes as he was leaving the fort and said “I’m glad you know how to talk
to a civilian.” (ibid, 198). Early made a costly decision to hesitate, allowing
52
federal troops to reinforce the garrison. The raid was eventually repelled with
little success save damage to civilians’ homes.
On July 30th, The Battle of the Crater proved another federal debacle,
further diminishing public opinion of the war. A group of coal miners from the
48th Pennsylvania regiment tunneled under the confederate position and
placed thousands of pounds of dynamite in the tunnel and detonated the
charge creating a massive crater.
The explosion had its desired effect and created a massive breach in
the Confederate trenches. However, the crater was so deep that when Union
soldiers stormed into the crater they were trapped. The Confederate soldiers
easily poured volley after volley into the entrapped soldiers killing thousands in
a matter of hours. The author described a “heterogeneous mass of loose
earth, guns and gun-cartridges, dead and wounded gunners…some of the
gunners were buried alive at the depth of perhaps twenty feet.” The
disastrous outcome ultimately led to the dismissal of Union General Ambrose
Burnside who decided to change the plan of having black soldiers lead the
attack and instead allowing three commanders choose straws to determine
whose regiment would lead the charge.
By late August, Lincoln firmly believed that he would not win the
election. In a meeting in his office in the White House on August 23 rd, Lincoln
had each member of his cabinet sign the back of a document, the content on
the font side of which they did not read. The message stated:
53
This morning, as for some days past, it seems exceedingly probable that this
Administration will not be re-elected. Then it will be my duty to so co-operate
with the President elect, as to save the Union between the election and the
inauguration; as he will have secured his election on such ground that he
cannot possibly save it afterwards. (Flood, 2009p. 145.)
On August 28th the Chicago Convention officially nominated George B.
McClellan for the presidency and things never looked worse for Lincoln.
54
President Abraham Lincoln, 1864. Mathew Brady Collection. (Army) Exact Date
Shot Unknown NARA FILE #: 111-B-3656 WAR & CONFLICT BOOK #: 117 VIRIN:
HD-SN-99-01776
55
President Abraham Lincoln, 1864. Mathew Brady Collection. (Army) Exact Date Shot Unknown
NARA FILE #: 111-B-3656 WAR & CONFLICT BOOK #: 117 VIRIN: HD-SN-99-01776
56
Chapter Four
Horace Greeley and the New York Daily Tribune
Horace Greeley, founder and longtime editor of the New York Daily
Tribune is historically recognized as one of the greatest editorialists of the
American press. He is most widely recognized for his phrase “Go West! young
man. Go West.” Greeley didn’t write the famous phrase. In fact, it was written
by an Indiana editor, but the fact that Greeley is given credit for it certainly
speaks to his ability to influence public opinion (Sloan, et al 1997). Greeley was
born to Mary Woodburn Greeley and Zaccheus Greeley in Amherst, New
Hampshire. The family struggled to make ends meet at farming, which forced
the family to relocate numerous times during Greeley’s childhood. Like
Lincoln, Greeley was a voracious reader and had an inquisitive mind. Unlike
Lincoln, Greeley had more formal education, but this was often sporadic due to
the frequent moves.
In 1826, when Greeley was 14 years old, he began his publishingjournalistic career in East Poultney, Vermont, as an apprentice with the
Northern Spectator (Fahrney, 1936). His moved family to Erie, Pennsylvania, in
1831, and Greeley was hired by the Erie Gazette. Greeley only worked for a
few months before heading out on his own moving to New York City. Greeley
worked for several newspapers in the city including the Commercial Advertiser,
the Spirit of the Times, the Morning Post and the Evening Post.
57
Greeley joined forces with Jonas Winchester in 1834 to set up the
New Yorker. From 1838-1839, Greeley published the Albany Jeffersonian with
the backing of prominent Whigs Thurlow Weed and William Henry Seward. In
1840, Greeley published the Log Cabin, a mouthpiece paper for Whig
presidential nominee William Henry Harrison (Sloan, et al, 1997).
Greeley founded the New York Tribune in 1841, and it reached a
circulation nearing 300,000 by 1860. His position as the editor of an influential
and widely read newspaper turned Greeley into a well-known and powerful
political figure. Greeley also was an ardent abolitionist and kept sustained
strain on Lincoln to emancipate the slaves. Bunker (2005) referred to Greeley
as a frequent irritation but insisted that the Copperheads and Peace
Democrats did more than pester Lincoln. Bunker suggests that they launched a
major pacification program. On August 20, 1862, Greeley published his most
famous editorial on the subject of slavery, "The Prayer of Twenty Millions,"
which urged the president to use the second Confiscation Act to allow Union
commanders to free the slaves of rebel masters. Although Lincoln had already
decided privately to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, he responded
publicly to Greeley that as president his first task was to preserve the Union,
whether that meant keeping or abolishing slavery.
58
The Tribune’s Coverage of the Baltimore Convention
The first mention of the Baltimore Convention in the New York Daily
Tribune appears on page four of the Tuesday June 7, 1864, issue, the first day
of the convention. The story is halfway down the page in the fourth column
and is titled “The Union National Convention.” The story describes the lively
scene of the city and how the Eutaw House and the Barnum’s Hotel are
bustling with delegates. The story also describes a large canvas banner
endorsing Lincoln suspended on the front of the Eutaw House. The story
concludes by describing how the American Telegraph Company has placed
“several instruments in the theater to facilitate the transmission of the
proceedings of the Convention to the press throughout the country.” No other
coverage appears in this issue.
The next story concerning the convention appears the next day on
Wednesday, June 8, 1864. The story appears on page four in the second
column near the top of the page and is tiled “The Baltimore Convention.” The
story begins with: “Presidential Convention met yesterday in
Baltimore…perfected its preliminary organization and adjourned today.” The
journalist then describes how the overall mood of the delegates is enthusiastic.
So far there is much display of strong enthusiasm and little evidence of
anything else but entire harmony. The enthusiasm will increase to the end,
no doubt; and it is not yet time for any discordant element to show itself,
even if any exists, which s not apprehended…all have one tone – of patriotic
devotion to the Union, of a fixed determination to crush the Rebellion, and
the absolute necessity of destroying its cause, that liberty may be established
all over the land and peace be permanent.
59
The story then continues on how Lincoln’s re-nomination is a foregone
conclusion, and the only matter that seems unresolved is the nomination of
the vice-presidential candidate. Immediately following the convention story, in
the same column, an editorial appears that criticizes the Journal of Commerce
and seemingly defends Lincoln. The editorial states, “We hold firmly and at all
times the right of citizen to dissent pointedly and emphatically from the policy
of those charged with the administration of the Government.” The article
continues to defend the rights of citizens as well as the press to voice and
publish critical opinions of government performance. However, the writers
express their disdain for “certain contemporaries” who are “daily parading and
blazoning every stockjobbing rumor…” The authors then reprint the excerpt in
question from the previous day’s Journal, which concludes by criticizing the
“party in power.”
Although the editorial never explicitly defends Lincoln and expresses
only the need for newspapers to be truthful in their coverage, it certainly
doesn’t concur with the criticism of Lincoln. Greeley secretly believed that
Lincoln would not win the election. Greeley wrote an August 18, 1864, letter
stating that “Mr. Lincoln is already beaten. He cannot be elected. And we
must have another ticket to save us from utter overthrow” (Harper, 1951 p.
84).
The last two columns of page and the first two and a half columns on
page five are entirely devoted to coverage of the convention. The coverage is
60
very detailed and includes a timeline detailing exactly what was said by which
delegates and the times that each speech took place. The first outright defense
by the Tribune of Lincoln’s nomination appears on Friday June 10, 1864. An
editorial originally published by what is described only as “a Copperhead
Oracle12, whose malignity usually outweighs its folly,” is reprinted at the
bottom of the third column on page four. The editorial insults Lincoln and Vice
Presidential nominee Andrew Johnson;
The only merit we can discover in this Baltimore ticket is the merit of
consistency; it is all f a piece; the tail does not shame the head, nor the head
shame the tail. A rail-splitting buffoon and a boorish tailor, both from the
backwoods, both growing up in uncouth ignorance, they would afford a
grotesque subject for a satiric poet.
Also, the editors criticize the “Copperhead” author who obviously
thinks that Americans from meager and rural upbringings have no business in
political power at the federal level. The Tribune editorial describes how even
rail-splitting buffoons and boorish tailors have the right to vote and those
votes are on par with the votes of millionaires and scholars. The Tribune
editors praise both Lincoln and Johnson and laud their accomplishments and
political success.
The facts that Abraham Lincoln rose from rail-splitting to the Presidency, and
that Andrew Johnson, an illiterate and penniless nobody, one of the ‘poor
white trash’ so generally kept under in the South, fought his way up, through
the Legislature, House, and the Governorship of his adopted state, to the U.
S. Senate, are eloquent tributes alike to the character of our institutions and
the personal worth of these men.
12
This “Copperhead Oracle” was the New York World. The editorial in question appeared two days prior
th
on June 8 , 1864
61
The official news of Lincoln’s re-nomination seems rather incongruent
with the praise of Lincoln by the Tribune editors. The story announcing the
convention’s results doesn’t appear until the second column of page five under
the heading “The Union Nominations.” A story on the front page, titled “Union
Ratification,” appears halfway down the page in column five. The story
describes how the presidential campaign was inaugurated the previous
evening by a meeting at Central Union Club in Brooklyn. The story describes
speeches delivered by Stephen M. Griswold, President of the Union Club, and
Judge Pettis of Pennsylvania, among others.
The story illustrates a large and enthusiastic gathering outside of the
club and how the men in attendance resolved to “do their full share toward
electing Abraham Lincoln.” The fact that this story is the only mention of the
nomination on the front-page, and the fact that it appears with no prominent
heading, may be indicative of the attitudes of the editors. Perhaps they
thought the story wasn’t exceedingly important news because Lincoln’s renomination was considered by many to be a forgone conclusion; or, perhaps
the news of the nomination was determined to be of much less significance
than war news.
The nomination story didn’t have a large headline either, but the type
of the first inch of the story was printed in bold typeface and served as a subheadline of sorts. It read: “President Lincoln Officially Notified – Addresses of
Governor Dennison, Chairman of the Baltimore Convention – Reply of
62
President Lincoln – The National League’s Address and the Reply.” Governor
Dennison’s initial remarks were somewhat generic as he told Lincoln it was his
honor to inform him of his unanimous nomination by the convention.
Dennison also lauded the loyalty of the people and declared that “To doubt
your triumphant election would be little short of abandoning the hope of a
final suppression of the Rebellion and restoration of the Government over the
insurgent states.” It would seem that the delegates at the convention agreed
that it would be precarious to the success of the war effort to have another
executive try to complete the task. Perhaps this attitude was also true of many
newspaper editors at the time because newspaper coverage was generally
favorable and at some points overly optimistic.
Governor Dennison also insisted that neither he, nor any other
members of the convention, nor any loyal people, had entertained any doubts
to the success of Lincoln’s Administration in suppressing this “most wicked and
unprovoked Rebellion.” Lincoln responded by expressing his gratitude for the
Union people to support him in his “continued effort to save an advance the
nation,” as well as the people’s consensus that he is “not unworthy to remain
in his present position.” The article includes remarks from the Chairman of the
National League and Lincoln’s response to the League in which he reiterates his
satisfaction with the nomination.
Lincoln rather humbly insists that he will not take the nomination or the
remarks of confidence from the speakers as personal compliments. “I am not
63
insensible at all to the personal compliment there is in this; yet I do not allow
myself to believe that any but a small portion of it is to be appropriated as a
personal compliment to me…(the people) are animated by a higher view of the
interests of the country.” Lincoln concludes his remarks by introducing the
“changing one’s horse mid-stream” analogy. “I have not permitted myself,
gentlemen, to conclude that I am the best man in the country; but I am
reminded in this connection of a story of an old Dutch farmer who remarked to
a companion once that ‘it was not best to swop horses when crossing
streams.’” The author concludes the story by stating that the prolonged
laughter that followed this characteristic Lincoln remark was “tumultuous.”
Radical Republicans criticized Andrew Johnson’s nomination for the
vice presidency. They believed that he wouldn’t be willing to endure the stress
of the war if it continued on for several more years. A story titled “What Andy
Johnson Will Write” appeared at the top of column three on page five. The
article describes how Lincoln responded to an “officious suggestion” that he
appraise Johnson of the policy of writing a radical letter of acceptance. Lincoln
insisted that his was unnecessary since Johnson’s reply would be radical
enough to satisfy the most radical. Lincoln was quoted as saying “Don’t be
concerned sir, when Andy Johnson was last here he said, if it was necessary to
carry on the war for thirty years, he was carrying it on.” This story offers an
interesting perspective on the myriad different viewpoints in the country
concerning the success of the war. Tribune editors are generally quite
64
favorable in war coverage and suggest the end of the war is drawing nearer
after each battle. However, this viewpoint suggests a significant portion of the
populace believed the war would continue for many more years.
One unique tidbit of Tribune coverage is excerpts of reports from the
Richmond Examiner, which published a table that lists 51,000 killed Union
soldiers to merely 19,000 lost by the Confederacy. The report also states that
“Joe Johnston is still whipping Sherman, and still retreating toward Atlanta.”
Johnston was removed from command by Jefferson Davis three months after
this article was published for his lack of progress. Johnston was very successful
in delaying Sherman’s advance, but his inferior force was incapable of
challenging Sherman’s army in a full-scale battle. It’s not difficult to speculate
why a Confederate newspaper would print a false account such as Johnston
“whipping” Sherman. Nevertheless, it seems out of place in a Yankee
newspaper, especially because it wasn’t true.
The Tribune’s Coverage of the Battle of Atlanta
Nearly every day since at least May of 1864, the Tribune ran a series
of headlines down either edge of the front-page of the newspaper under the
large type heading “The Great Contest.” A staple of these headlines was the
progress of the Union forces under the command of Generals Sherman and
Grant, so realistically Sherman’s entire campaign had been front-page news for
months prior to the Battle for Atlanta. For example, on the front page of the
65
Saturday, July 2, 1864, issue, the top of the second column is headed with
“From Sherman’s Army,” which appears in bold faced font larger than the
dateline on the newspaper’s masthead. The main items of coverage include
the success of the Union forces at Kenesaw Mountain, General Joseph
Johnston’s possible succession by General Ewell, and the Union advance
through Georgia.
The first time that the Tribune mentioned Atlanta on the front page
was on July 8th. In the third column, at the top of the page, just under the
masthead, the recurring section “From Sherman’s Army,” reports that no
further fighting has occurred. It also suggests that Johnston is “probably”
crossing the Chattahoochee River and Sherman is near the river and Atlanta is
almost in sight. The story states there has been no fighting since June 27th and
Atlanta is only 12-15 miles from the river. The story concludes by insisting that
there is no assurance that either army had crossed the river and the
confirmation of the crossing will most likely come from Sherman himself.
Another example of how a considerable segment of people in the
nation assumed the war would be over relatively soon was the issuance of a
proclamation concerning Reconstruction on Friday July 10 th. Reconstruction
had been an important issue in Congress and a bill was passed (which Lincoln
did not sign) the same day. The Tribune published the proclamation on page
four, halfway down the fifth column. Lincoln insists that he is not “inflexibly”
committed to any single plan, but is “fully satisfied with the system for
66
restoration contained in the bill as one very proper plan for the loyal people of
any state choosing to adopt it…”
Another recurring section of coverage in the Tribune is called “The
Great Rebel Raid.” This section describes the efforts of the Confederate army
operating in Maryland in an effort to distract from the siege at Richmond and
the advancing Union armies in Georgia. The Tribune ran a headline stating that
Baltimore is expected to fall, numerous telegraph lines had been cut, and the
Philadelphia road was interrupted. This section ran along the left side of the
page at the top of page one in bold, large typeface. Yet, in the fourth column
near the center of the page, a story titled “All Quiet In Baltimore” describes the
lack of fighting in the city. This story is only twenty-seven words in length and
the text is body type text. The story describing the state of fighting in Baltimore
is nearly hidden in the center of the page, yet the speculation that the city may
fall receives top billing.
Ironically, on page four in the second column in a story titled “War In
Earnest,” the editors dismiss the Rebel effort in short order:
The Rebels are now on their third annual raid across the Potomac --apparently in far less force than at either of their former incursions; but then,
the Army of the Potomac confronted them, while now it is mainly in front of
Petersburg and Richmond, and likely to remain there. The objects of this
present raid appear to be …to compel Gen. Grant to let go his hold on the
throat of the Rebellion on the James. We trust this latter end will not be
attained.
The Tribune seems rather confident in the failure of the raid, so it
seems somewhat inaccurate to label the news of it as “The Great Rebel Raid.”
67
Yet, the front page of the Tribune still places news from this section at the very
top of the first column on the front page for several more weeks. On
Wednesday, July 13th the Great Rebel Raid section describes the "Progress of
the Rebel Destruction” and prints a rumor that Washington, D.C., may have
been captured by the Rebels. The reprint from the Evening Telegraph states
the fighting near Washington has continued since morning. The story appears
in small, body style typeface and is obviously not a focal point of the coverage
due to its brevity and placement. Conversely, the sensational, unsubstantiated
rumor is printed in large, bold type at the top of the first column.
The news about the raid trumped the news from the Union forces in
Georgia. The heading for the section “From Sherman’s Army” appears at
roughly one fourth the size font, in which it appeared only three days prior.
The section appears on page five and not on the first page. Obviously, the
possibility of Washington, D.C., falling to the Confederacy was drastically more
significant than the potential fall of Atlanta. In addition, little to no activity for
more than two weeks means the Washington raid is reportable news. Either
way, the simple act of framing the story through font size and placement
shows the editors’ lack of interest in Sherman’s activities and the increased
interest in the potential fall of Washington.
An editorial in the section on the second column of page five that is
somewhat sycophantic of General Sherman, or more specifically of the
admiration of Sherman and his officers. The story is written by a special
68
correspondent to the Tribune and describes how the reporter was unable to
find Sherman’s headquarters. He asked a group of soldiers where he may find
the headquarters and the soldiers said they did not know, but perhaps three
officers who had just “bunked” on the ground for the evening might know. It
turns out one of the men sleeping on the ground was General Sherman.
If you seek General Sherman’s headquarters, look – yes hunt – for the most
uninviting locality…you may be sure it is the headquarters of the
commanding general. The staff of General Sherman are true soldiers, and
gentlemen in every sense of the word, and the[i]r modest deportment with
gallantry has won them universal esteem wherever known.
The next day, Thursday July 14, 1864, news that the threat on
Washington had been repulsed dominated the “Great Rebel Raid” section. The
headings read that “They are Driven from Washington,” and “Recrossing the
Potomac with Their Plunder.” The next day, the same section describes how
the capture of Washington was the intent of the rebel forces. The coverage of
the “Great Raid” is highly critical of how the “Golden Opportunity” to capture
such a large Confederate force was lost. Just two days prior, the Tribune would
have its readers believe that the city of Washington was all but lost, but now
the Union forces are being criticized because they didn’t obliterate the Rebel
army before it could flee back into Virginia.
The section “From Sherman’s Army” is now back on the front page, it is
also headed in the same large bold font that was used prior to the coverage of
the fighting around Washington. The important news covered in this section is
the final confirmation the Sherman did, in fact, get at least a portion of his
69
army across the Chattahoochee River. The reporter states that the work goes
“bravely” on and Johnston is drawing Sherman into Atlanta. By Monday, July
18, the “Great Rebel Raid” has been renamed the “Late Rebel Raid” and
describes how all is serene in Washington. By Wednesday, July 20 the “Late
Rebel Raid” section has been displaced and the “From Sherman’s Army”
section has taken the top spot in column one of the front page. The story
reports that Johnston has been driven into his defenses within the city and
speculates that an “Early Capture of the Place Seems Assured.” Similar to the
errant assumptions made by the Tribune about the Washington raid, the
editors once again assume too much as the city of Atlanta will not surrender
for nearly two months.
However, reports that Atlanta may have already fallen appear as early
as July 20, but the Tribune does not confirm them. The Tribune reprints an
excerpt from the Evening Star that states: “No intelligence has been received
here by the Government confirmatory of the Norfolk report of the capture of
Atlanta.” Another excerpt is printed, this time from the Bulletin (Philadelphia),
which states that it has received glorious news from General Sherman.
“General Sherman announces that on yesterday, having previously crossed the
Chattahoochee, his whole army advanced five miles of the river and crossed
Peach Tree Creek… This movement necessarily forces Johnston into the
defenses of Atlanta and places the city within range of Sherman’s guns.”
70
By July 21, the Tribune once again places “The Great Contest” section at
the top of the first column on the front page. The battle for Atlanta has now
begun, and the Tribune recognizes the significance of the outcome of this
particular fight and evidence of this is seen in the placement of the news. The
very first story at the top of the column is a reprint from the Nashville Union
stating, “The reports of the capture of Atlanta, Ga., by our forces are all
premature, though the whole city is in motion, and we expect to hear of is
capture in a few days.” The next story is an excerpt from the Commercial
(Cincinnati) that reports only that Sherman has in fact crossed the
Chattahoochee with his entire army. Two other reports in the column, one a
dispatch from General Sherman himself, relaying that the Army had crossed
the river and the other from the special correspondent to the Tribune who
basically reiterates the news of the crossing in greater detail.
The news of the Army marching across the river and advancing toward
Atlanta is now two days old. Yet, dispatches from as early as July 9 are printed
on the front page. The stories are very detailed coverage of exactly how the
Army advanced and which corps and brigades were involved. For example, a
story titled “Moving Forward,” presents a dispatch from July 9. The reporter
describes the situation from “…the top of a hill, near the railroad, Capt. Poe,
Chief Engineer on General Sherman’s staff observed yesterday, by the aid of a
powerful telescope, much that was passing in Atlanta.” The story continues to
71
describe the state of the civilians within the city who are “intently eyeing” the
movements of the armies surrounding as well as occupying the city.
By July 23, the Tribune reports that official information from General
Sherman “represents everything to be progressing in a manner highly
satisfactory…The city is in plain view of the troops, and our shells reach it. Our
army is in excellent condition.” Another main story in the front page’s first
column is the replacement of Confederate General Joe Johnston by General
John Bell Hood of Texas. The Tribune doesn’t examine the impact of this
change of command on the probable outcome of the battle. Rather, it merely
reports the change. This issue offers an editorial that is slightly critical of
Lincoln, or more specifically his policy of protecting African- American soldiers
from being executed by Confederate soldiers. The journalist begins by
describing the recruitment system and the effort to place more black troops
within the ranks of the Union Armies.
...it certainly is essential to the honor of this nation that the states should be
able to offer the negro some guaranty of his position in the army and under
the flag…The black soldier now has no rights which the Government thinks it
worth while to compel the Rebels to respect…Death or Slavery is his only
hope, and therefore it is well known that the colored troops to-day neither
grant nor receive quarter. They know that the ferocious thereat of Jefferson
Davis in December, 1862, has been relentlessly executed ever since.13 They
know that the retaliatory order of Abraham Lincoln in July, 1863,14 has never
been – not in a single instance. How then can we ask negroes to enlist?
13
Confederate President Jefferson Davis promised to turn over captured officers leading black troops to
state governments as "criminals engaged in inciting servile insurrection,” a crime punishable by death.
14
More than 180,000 black soldiers served in the Union Army despite the threats.
72
Although this editorial doesn’t overtly accuse Lincoln of ineptitude, it
criticizes his lackadaisical efforts in enforcing his own orders. The editorial
concludes by stating that Lincoln needs to get as many men as possible to
enlist, and this is an opportunity to “accomplish a long-delayed act of justice
and at the same time fill the ranks of his armies. In a word, let him enforce the
order which he issued a year ago.” It would seem that the editorial isn’t
demanding a different man for the office of president; it simply wants Lincoln
to back up his policies through action.
By July 25, the top of the first column on the front page is headed
“Sherman’s Progress,” and the death of General McPherson is the second most
important headline after the fierce fighting that took place the previous Friday.
In fact, General McPherson’s obituary is printed on the bottom of the first
column of the front page. By July 29, the fighting has ground to a halt in
Atlanta, and Sherman’s Army is preparing for a siege. “The Great Contest”
heading has returned to the front page of the Tribune and the movement of
General Lee’s army around Richmond has now become more important news.
The main headline in the section simply reads “Atlanta Not Taken.” An
unusually lengthy editorial in this issue criticizes the coverage from the New
York World and defends Lincoln and Grant. The writer describes how the World
published a story criticizing Grants and referring to his decisions as inhuman.
The World was cautious to ensure that the truly insulting statements are made
by a Rebel officer who is not named but described as “gentlemanly and
73
courteous.” The editorialist insists that this was done to damage the efforts
from Lincoln, who was then attempting to enlist some 500,000 more troops
into the Union armies.
The words are placed in the mouth of a Rebel, thus the editor may excuse
himself with the flimsy apology that they are the language of a Rebel and do
not purport to be his own statements, but he vouches as strongly for their
truth as if they had been made in direct terms by himself...A bolder effort to
prevent men from joining the army has not been made since the war
began…Yet, the editors of the World claim to be War Democrats, and they
claim for their paper that it patriotically sustains the war.
No mention of Sherman’s army or the Atlanta campaign appears in the
leading headlines for the remainder of the month of July. On August 2, the
infamous “Battle of the Crater”15 in which 4,000 Union soldiers were killed as
they tried to breach the Confederate trenches at Petersburg, dominated the
coverage. The Tribune covered it extensively and the main story filled two and
a half columns, or roughly half of the front page. This story dominated the
front page for the next three days, and on Friday, August 5, the Tribune
reported the scene from its special correspondent. The reporter described a
“heterogeneous mass of loose earth, guns and gun-cartridges, dead and
wounded gunners…some of the gunners were buried alive at the depth of
perhaps twenty feet.” A number of stories criticized Grant’s approval of the
plan. Although the coverage was mostly negative about this event, it doesn’t
seem the Tribune’s editors use it as an excuse to disparage Lincoln. When the
15
Maj. Gen. Ambrose E. Burnside approved the idea which was conceived by Lt. Col. Henry Pleasants,
commander of the 48th Pennsylvania Infantry in Burnside’s IX Corps, in hopes of restoring his reputation
of failure after his defeat at the Battle of Fredericksburg in 1862 and his poor performance earlier that
year at Spotsylvania. This debacle ultimately led to Burnside’s dismissal.
74
Army makes such a colossal error, a newspaper cannot cover it favorably and
still retain some shred of objectivity.
Sherman’s efforts in Atlanta were back at the top of the front page on
August 8. The Tribune reported that the Rebels were being constantly
repulsed with great slaughter and listed the Confederate casualties at “about
10,000” with only 2,000 losses for the Union. By Thursday, August 18, the
Tribune reported that Sherman was calling for the surrender of Atlanta, and
the Confederates had refused. The Chicago Convention was the most
important news of the day on Thursday, September 1. At the top of the first
column on the front page under the heading “Democratic National
Convention,” the Tribune reports the vote for McClellan was 165 for and 55
against.
The next day, the long-awaited news that Atlanta had surrendered
finally arrived and replaced coverage of the Chicago Convention as the day’s
most important news. At the top of the first column on the front page, the
headline reads “Glorious News; Capture of Atlanta.” The story appears roughly
five inches below in the same column under the headline “Great and Glorious
News – Atlanta is Certainly Ours.” On page four, in an editorial titled simply
“Atlanta,” the Tribune’s editors describe the impact of the battle on the
remainder of the war. The author begins by praising the magnificent campaign
that Sherman conducted with genius and indomitable resolution. Next, the
75
author insists that Atlanta is a territorial key that is more important than
Richmond and symbolizes the final “dismemberment of the Rebellion.”
By common consent, Atlanta has been deemed the Gibraltar of the Rebellion;
its value understood and admitted on both sides; its conquest now the final
confession of the utter weakness, the vanishing resources, the exhausted
strength of this accursed Rebellion…It destroys beyond all hope the recovery of
the unity of the Confederacy, and all probability of its retaining a permanent
hold on the continent.
Nearly the entire front page on Monday September 5 is devoted to
coverage of the victory in Atlanta or the celebrations taking place all over the
Union as a result. For instance, near the center of the second column is an
account from Burlington, New Jersey, which states that “Our citizens are wild
with joy over the capture of Atlanta. Flags are displayed and a salute of one
hundred guns has just been fired.” The lengthy account from the Tribune’s
own special correspondent details the battle over two and half columns. On
page four, the Tribune’s editors acknowledge the political implications of the
victory. “Why were the McClellan men so downtrodden Saturday? They knew
that their hopes of success were diminished by the victory at Atlanta. Their
best chance of party triumph is defeat of national arms and they know it.”
President Lincoln was keenly aware of the impact of the victory and
took advantage of the opportunity. The Tribune offered Lincoln the platform
of the first half of the first column on the front page. In four separate stories,
Lincoln uses the newspaper to campaign for re-election. The first story is
Lincoln’s request for a day of national Thanksgiving in all places that worship in
order to thank God for his assistance in preserving the Union. The language
76
Lincoln used is somewhat interesting in that he is now describing the
preservation of the Union as something that has already happened even
though the war will not end for a full nine months. The next story is Lincoln’s
issuance of gratitude to the soldiers and commanders for their sacrifice and
service. Next, Lincoln thanks General Sherman and his men for their victory.
Last, Lincoln issues a two-part proclamation that consists of two one-hundred
gun salutes. The first to be fired on Monday September 5 at noon in the Navy
Yard in Washington D.C. (as well as five other locations) and the second to be
fired two days later at the arsenals in Washington, New York, Pittsburgh,
Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore and many more cities across the country to
honor the “brilliant victory.”
The Tribune follows Lincoln’s proclamations with a story about the
salute at the arsenal in New York and another story about the 31-gun salute
ordered by Governor Parker the next day at noon. On the fourth page of the
same issue, the Tribune endorses Lincoln for the presidency. In an editorial
titled “Where We Are,” which begins near the top of the second column and
continues to the bottom of the third column, the Tribune states that the
victory in Atlanta justifies Lincoln’s nomination which was thought by some
critics premature in June. “Henceforth we fly the banner of Abraham Lincoln
for the next presidency…We must re-elect him, and, God helping us, we will.”
77
Gen. Ulysses S. Grant at Cold Harbor, Va. 1864. Mathew Brady Collection.
(Army) Exact Date Shot Unknown NARA FILE #: 111-B-36 WAR & CONFLICT
BOOK #: 122
78
Chapter Five
Coverage of Lincoln in the Daily National Intelligencer (Washington, D.C.)
The Daily National Intelligencer, widely recognized as the nation’s
dominant newspaper, was published in Washington, D.C., from 1800 until
1869. The National Intelligencer was founded in 1800 by Samuel Harrison
Smith. It was edited by Joseph Gales, Jr. and William Winston Seaton, in
addition to Smith. “For sixty-two years three men who headed the publication
were associated intimately with workings of the United States government. At
times they were almost part of it, (Ames, 1972 pg. vii-viii). The National
Intelligencer is unique compared to the other publications in this study in
terms of the way stories are framed and placed in the newspaper. For
example, in contrast to the New York Daily Tribune, or Harper’s Weekly, the
seemingly most important stories of the day were not on the Intelligencer’s
front page. In fact, the front page was filled with advertisements, and
announcements and the same news events that were covered by the other
newspapers in this study on page one appeared on page three in the
Intelligencer.
The Intelligencer generally kept a relatively neutral view in terms of its
coverage of Lincoln. Intelligencer editors criticized Lincoln on emancipation. In
an editorial titled “Narrowness of View” on Tuesday, May 31, 1864, the author
describes a meeting of the “Emancipation League” that took place the week
before. The meeting was held to ensure that the promises of liberty contained
79
in the Emancipation Proclamation were being honored by the President. The
league had determined that there was “yet no policy of emancipation – no act
coming from the authorities at Washington which justified the belief that the
salve shall be as free as white men are free…the great work of emancipation in
this country is yet to be accomplished.”
The writer describes the speech delivered by Wendell Phillips in which
he insists that this type of gross crimination of the President’s motives and
official integrity would have been considered treasonable by General Ambrose
Burnside’s military administration in Ohio. The editorialist also states that
Phillips “habitually utters with impunity,” but the Intelligencer doesn’t concur
with the majority of what Phillips said save his comments on emancipation.
It is not our purpose to reproduce any of the injurious imputations on the
official conduct of Mr. Lincoln, except the one to which the speaker gives
expression in the following paragraphs: I am willing to accord to Abraham
Lincoln all the credit that belongs to him for the proclamation ... but I want all
of you … here to-day to understand me when I say that, in my opinion, no
negro owes anything to Abraham Lincoln.
The writer continues to defend Lincoln and criticize Phillips by
describing the remainder of the speech as “rude and criminative.” It is curious,
however, that Phillips’ comments are granted nearly as much space for this
story as the remainder of the editorial. In addition, this editorial is placed at
the top of the first column on the third page, which is apparently always
reserved for the most important stories of the day.
The Intelligencer began mentioning Sherman’s advance on Atlanta on
Thursday, June 2, 1864. The story appears in column five on the third page and
80
the headline reads “News By Telegraph. Latest Dispatches. Gen Sherman’s
Advance in Georgia.” The story is a reprint from a dispatch published in the
Evening Telegraph (Philadelphia) the previous day. The story reports that news
has been received by telegraph that Sherman had arrived at Dallas, Georgia,
and “pushed on reinforcements to General McPherson who was to reach
Atlanta by next Saturday unless a heavy force of the rebels was met on the
way.” The Intelligencer was just as inaccurate and optimistic in its assumptions
as the Tribune, because it asserted that “It is believed that Atlanta will be in
our possession by next Monday.”
Similarly to the Tribune, the most important news of the day is
routinely placed in the same position in the newspaper. Unlike the Tribune,
however, the Intelligencer places these stories in the first column at the top of
the third page always under the heading “Liberty and Union, Now and Forever,
One and Inseparable.” These tend to be editorials in the Intelligencer, whereas
the Tribune most often printed news stories. The Intelligencer editors continue
to place considerable emphasis on the issues of emancipation and equality. In
an editorial titled “Political Equality” published on Monday, June 6, 1864, the
writers ardently question the intentions of the Cleveland Convention’s
platform of “The absolute equality of all men before the law.”
If by this maxim they mean that every human being is entitled to equal
protection in the enjoyment of civil rights secured by the laws of the land, they
undoubtedly utter nothing more than a truism…When the ‘absolute equality of
all men’ is affirmed to be a good and true doctrine, is it meant to signify that
‘the absolute equality’ of all women and children is equally a matter of right
under this head? If not, why not?
81
Intelligencer Coverage of the Baltimore Convention
The most important story of the day on Tuesday, June 7, 1864, was the
news of the Baltimore Convention. Similar to the New York Times and Harper’s
Weekly, the Intelligencer also accurately predicted that Lincoln would be renominated by the Convention, but it assumed that either John A. Dix or Daniel
Dickinson, both of New York, would be nominated to run as vice president.
The Intelligencer reprints a passage from the New York Evening Post that states
the reasons why Lincoln will be re-nominated. First, according to the Post,
Lincoln is popular with the “plain people” who perceive Lincoln as honest, the
“rich people” who feel that Lincoln is “safe,” the soldiers who believe that
Lincoln is their friend, and religious people who believe that Lincoln was sent
by God to guide the nation through the war. The second reason why the Post
believes that Lincoln will be re-nominated is the fact that “many of the thieving
and corrupt scoundrels of the political mews, who know the fact of his political
popularity, have eagerly attached themselves to the car of his success.” The
writer concludes the editorial by insisting that if Lincoln’s honest friends are
wise, they will take one side while the “scoundrels” take another. This would
afford the Post the opportunity to announce “which of these two parties has
the preponderance in the representative body of the Republican organization.”
A news brief about Sherman states he is still advancing. Two
dispatches from Sherman himself state that heavy rains have made the roads
82
muddy, but all is well otherwise. Coverage of the Cleveland Convention and
the Democrats’ nomination of General Fremont marks the most significant
difference between the Intelligencer and the Tribune. The Tribune’s coverage
is minimal, but the Intelligencer had been covering the convention extensively
for at least three days by June 7. In the third column of page three under the
heading “The Presidency,” the Intelligencer printed the story of General
Fremont’s acceptance of the nomination by the Cleveland Convention. The
story simply reprints the letter General Fremont wrote to the committee
accepting the nomination.
The Intelligencer reprints the entire letter, which takes up nearly an
entire column. It must be noted that an entire column is a significant
percentage (1 of 24) of a broadsheet newspaper of only four pages. Fremont is
obviously highly critical of Lincoln’s effectiveness as president and argues that
had Lincoln remained faithful to the principles he was elected to defend, “no
schism could be created and no contest could have been possible.” Fremont
states that the question of constitutional liberty is being raised for the first
time since 1776 by this election, and ordinary people’s rights had been violated
by the administration:
But if Mr. Lincoln should be re-nominated, as I believe it would be fatal to the
country to endorse a policy and renew a power which has cost the lives
thousands of men, and needlessly out the country on the road to bankruptcy,
there will remain no alternative but to organize against him every element of
conscientious opposition, with the view to prevent the misfortune of his
reelection.
83
Intelligencer editors provided nearly double the amount of space for
the coverage of the Cleveland Convention as it does the Baltimore Convention.
However, the Baltimore Convention is placed at the top of the page in the first
column of page three, so it would seem that placement would make it more
important news. Also, the Baltimore Convention had begun only that day and
there was no real news to report at the time, only speculations about the
outcome.
Another unique aspect to Intelligencer coverage is the recurring
segment on page two called “Rebel View of the Situation.” This section
generally appears near the top of the second column and reprints reports from
Southern newspapers. Reprinting extracts of stories or editorials from
Southern newspapers is by no means inimitable, as the other newspapers in
the sample routinely ran small pieces. However, the Intelligencer is the only
newspaper from the sample that devoted a recurring section to the “Rebel
View.” The section was long, filling nearly three-quarters of a column. For
example, on Wednesday, June 8, 1864, the “Rebel View” section took up more
than half of the second column on page two.
The section begins by describing the state of caution and concern from
editors in the Confederacy, which was very careful about permitting any
newspapers to cross enemy lines and reach the Union. The reporter states that
the crux of their concern is the fact that “information may be conveyed to the
Yankees of the real situation of affairs.” The editorialist continues by stating
84
that the arrival of deserters or the capture of prisoners with Southern
newspapers on their person affords an occasional insight into the Confederacy.
The latest shipment of Confederate newspapers was received on Tuesday, May
31. The Richmond Sentinel published an editorial that refers to General Grant
as an enigma. “Now Grant has been retreating on Fredericksburg and anon he
is at Spotsylvania Court-House. Now again, he meets with disaster that would
have sent a reasonable man back to Lincoln, but quickly he is flank marching
toward Richmond.”
Grant may or may not have been an enigma, but it is rather simple to
understand the nature of his continued aggression, despite heavy casualties,
being perceived by editors in Richmond as enigmatic. By this point in the war,
there had been eight changes of command in the Army of the Potomac (Sifakis,
1988 page 32), and General McClellan (who was at this time running for
President against Lincoln) moved excruciatingly slowly compared to Grant.
85
Gen George B. McClellan, ca. 1863. Mathew Brady Collection. (Army) Exact Date Shot
Unknown NARA FILE #: 111-B-4624 WAR & CONFLICT BOOK #: 127
86
In addition, McClellan was reluctant to enter battle, and withdrew
repeatedly when he deemed the numbers of casualties too high. Grant, on the
other hand, just kept on going while bodies piled up. The editorial concludes
by insisting that Grant is resolved to fight to the last man:
It is time for us to cease speculations as to Grant’s movements and attend to
the facts. He has been offering fight when we thought he was retreating,
and retreating when we thought he was offering fight. He has been
advancing when he was whipped and heading up stream when he had every
reason to hurry down…We suppose he has come to fight the final fight at
last, though, warned by experience, we express the opinion with becoming
doubt.
The remainder of the section describes reports from General Mosby,
who states that Grant’s current army is demoralized after losing more men at
Spotsylvania than Napoleon Bonaparte lost at Waterloo. The Intelligencer
reprints a report from the Petersburg Express that insists that “light is breaking,
and that peace is not far distant.”
Yet, the next excerpt from the Express is much more somber and
insists that “If ever there were a time for solemn, earnest prayer it is now.”
Intelligencer editors ask the hypothetical question “…why should the Express,
when everything wears such a cheering prospect, call on the people in such
lugubrious tones to watch and pray?” Although it is never stated explicitly in
this issue, it seems that the Intelligencer editors understand that much of the
information in the Express is exaggerated, or flat out wrong.
The most important story the next day on Thursday, June 9, is on the
battle of Chickshominy the Friday prior, for which the Intelligencer reprints the
87
story from the New York Tribune correspondent. The story announcing
Lincoln’s nomination and the Baltimore Convention doesn’t appear until the
sixth column on page three at the top of the page. The story is headed, “The
Republican Convention” in large bold typeface, with a slightly smaller subheading that reads, “Nomination of Mr. Lincoln for President, and Andrew
Johnson for Vice President.” The story is very similar to the account which was
published in the New York Tribune. The story describes the schedule of events
and speakers and briefly reports what was said. The story, however, is much
shorter in length and consumes only half of the column. The other half is filled
with advertisements for real estate and Strawberry Festivals at the First
Presbyterian Church and the Capitol Hill Presbyterian Church, respectively.
The most important story of the day on Friday, June 10, is once again
coverage of the “Republican Nominations.” The article’s tone is by no means
celebratory of the decision to nominate Lincoln for a second term. The writer
begins by stating that the “result had been so long foreseen, and was so clearly
rendered a foregone conclusion by the instructions under which the great
majority of the delegates met, that the announcement has failed to elicit any
surprise...” The editorialist insists that the considerations that have dictated
Lincoln’s re-nomination were “apparent to all.” The editorial then cites a
“leading Republican journal of New York,” that stated the convention consisted
largely of men holding office under the present Administration” who were
88
bound by partisanship “which more disinterested persons would deprecate
and avoid.”
The story continues by describing how the Intelligencer cannot report
how weight should be given to the story from New York. The editorialist deftly
positions the Intelligencer on the outside of the issue by stating that the
nomination makes perfect sense because Lincoln then held the office and has
the support of the majority of the people who comprise the Republican Party.
The author also doesn’t endorse or criticize Lincoln; he simply states that even
Lincoln’s opponents “who dissent from the wisdom of some of his executive
proceedings” still recognize the personal qualities of Lincoln that have made
him so popular with “different classes of men.” The author skillfully avoids the
issue of whether the Intelligencer believes Lincoln to be the right man for the
job by insisting that enough time hasn’t passed to accurately form an opinion.
As our own views of public duty compel us to hold, with many among the
President’s supporters, that his re-nomination at the present time is
premature, we have only to await the progress of present events which shall
enable us more clearly to appreciate the value and force of his comparative
claims to a renewal of the power he has wielded during the last four years.
(Lincoln’s) …merits and capabilities at the present moment are undergoing
tests which may alter the estimates alike of political friends and adversaries.
The story concludes by citing a passage from the New York Independent
that insists that a nomination in June is entirely too early and will not be the
final say in the matter. The writer is talented at voicing his opinion through the
words of other people while insisting he is not voicing an opinion. It’s rather
apparent that the Intelligencer at the very least has its doubts about Lincoln’s
89
effectiveness as president. Contrary to the optimistic praise and enthusiastic
endorsement of Lincoln by Harper’s Weekly and the New York Times, the
Intelligencer seems to try to take the middle of the road. The statement made
by the editorialist about the present tests that Lincoln has yet to pass (or fail)
may be an insinuation that the writer is unsure of the Civil War’s outcome.
Harper’s Weekly and the New York Times both assumed the war would be in
hand soon. Perhaps Intelligencer’s editors weren’t so optimistic and the idea
of Lincoln’s reelection was contingent upon success in the war.
Although the Intelligencer hasn’t yet explicitly criticized or endorsed
Lincoln’s nomination, it continually prints stories and excerpts and letters from
others who do. Thurlow Weed, recognized by Intelligencer editors as being
“more skilled to discover the signs of the times or more patriotic in his councils
to meet the impending emergencies” than any other man in the country,
wrote a letter to the editor of the Albany Evening Journal reprinted in the
Intelligencer on Friday, June 17. Weed criticizes the Journal and states that it is
not far behind the World, and the Argus in its “bitterness and rancor.” The
editorial in question states that Lincoln is slow and lets the best opportunities
pass by and also criticized Lincoln for “clinging to useless instruments like
(General) McClellan long after their uselessness had been shown.” It also
states that Lincoln lacks definitive policy, listening to mere “schemesm,”
implies that Lincoln accidentally drifts into the right course occasionally, and
90
concludes by emphasizing there is “nothing high, generous, or heroic in the
tone of his Administration.”
Weed defends the president and attacks the Northern abolitionists,
stating that more “reliable and intelligent loyalty to the Union” can be found in
the South. He describes how Lincoln’s opponents who originally shaped the
administration have now “become its accuser and enemy.” He states that he
expected this outcome and even warned the president that it was going to
happen. “This would be of less consequence, however, if they had not in the
interim, by intensifying the rebellion they invited, cost the country added
millions of treasure and rivers of blood.” Once again, the Intelligencer uses
someone else to speak for it. It is still unclear whether the coverage is more
favorable or more negative of Lincoln. The Intelligencer simply keeps a steady
position on neither side of the proverbial fence.
On Monday, June 27, the Intelligencer reprints story from the June 22
New York Herald, which appeared on the top of page two in the second
column with a large bold headline “The President’s Visit to the Front.” The
story begins by describing only a “long, gaunt, bony man, with a queer
admixture of the comical and doleful in his countenance that reminded one of
a professional undertaker cracking a dry joke,” who attempted to enter
General Grant’s headquarters outside of Petersburg. The story continues to
describe how this man approached the general’s tent from the rear through a
hedgerow and was stopped by a soldier who told the man “keep out of here.”
91
The man said he thought General Grant would allow him to enter and
continued without stopping. The soldier shouted “You’ll damned soon find
out,” and told the man that “no sanitary folks are allowed inside.” After some
discussion, the guard insisted the man identify himself, and the man
announced that he was indeed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United
States, and desired to speak with General Grant. The guard saluted and
allowed Lincoln to enter Grant’s tent. Grant instantly recognized him and
cordially shook his hand and introduced Lincoln to the officers who were
present at the time.
The article describes how Lincoln wanted to ride out to the front and
examine the conditions of the battlefield. Lincoln rode on General Grant’s
horse named “Cincinatus,” General Grant rode a horse named “Egypt” and
Lincoln’s son Tad who had accompanied his father, rode another of Grant’s
horses, a black pony named “Jeff Davis.” After riding for a few hours, the party
passed a brigade of black soldiers and the story describes how the men
“seemed to know by instinct who was approaching.” The men came rushing to
Lincoln and started shouting “Hurrah for the Liberator!” and Hurrah for the
President!” The story describes how Lincoln removed his hat and “bowed on
every hand to his sable admirers.” The story consumes nearly half of the
column and although isn’t outwardly endorsing the President or his policies, it
does portray him in a rather favorable fashion by the mention of the black
soldiers’ admiration and adulation.
92
On Tuesday, June 28, the Intelligencer reports the situation in Atlanta
in a brief section titled “Reports From Georgia.” Included in the reports is
news of five freight trains being captured and burned by the Confederates
under the command of General Wharton16 on June 18. Next, the section
reports the account of how three companies of the 54th Virginia regiment
defected and were put to work as laborers. The section concludes by
describing how Rebel soldiers broke the Federal lines six miles from Atlanta on
the Hendersonville Road. The section appeared roughly one-third of the way
down the fifth column on the third page, between the story about Sheridan on
the James River and news about Port Royal, South Carolina.
The next day, a brief story appears in the center of the third column
on page three that describes how the papers tomorrow will publish Lincoln’s
letter of acceptance for the nomination. The announcement consists of only
twenty-nine words. The reprint of Lincoln’s letter the next day, however,
consumes roughly one-quarter of the third column at the top of page three
(published in its entirety). Later, in the same column, a brief story is printed
about how General Sherman reduced the number of casualties he reported in
a telegram to the War Department the day before to 2,000 from 2,500. Next, a
story from the Louisville Journal (Kentucky) describes the continued success of
General Wharton’s raids to the rear of Sherman’s forces.
16
John Austin Wharton was born in Nashville, Tennessee and moved to Texas where he became a power
figure politically during the secession in 1860. Wharton began the Civil War as a captain and earned the
rank of brigadier general in 1862. He was wounded twice during the war and was killed in 1865 by
another Confederate cavalry officer following an argument.
93
On July 2, in an editorial titled “Effects of War,” Intelligencer
editors discuss the negative impact the nation has experienced as a result of
the war. The writer discusses how the effects that the war has had on the
country in terms of industry and education would make an interesting and
valuable study for a scholar or statesman. Next, the reporter lists facts from
the 1863 school report of the state of Connecticut, which show that more than
sixty percent of the state’s educators are female and male students are leaving
school at a much earlier age and at a considerably higher rate that at any other
time. The editorialist concludes by stating that it would be “indeed a pity” to
let an opportunity pass by for the nation to conduct a national census for 1865
to ascertain the true effects that the war has had on the population as a whole.
This editorial isn’t directly critical of Lincoln, but it certainly is critical of the
war. It is unclear whether the editors blame Lincoln for the negative impacts
the war has had on the country or not. Once again, the editorial is neutral in
terms of addressing the chief executive.
Like most Northern newspapers during the end of June and early part
of July, 1864, the majority of the Intelligencer’s war coverage was devoted to
the Confederate raid, which pushed into Union territory near Washington D.C.
and Baltimore. The Intelligencer was more skeptical about many of the reports
it received. For example, on Tuesday, July 12, the Intelligencer reprints a story
from the New York World but prefaces the story by stating the “World’s
Baltimore correspondent seems to know more about the Rebels intentions
94
than they do themselves.” All reports the Intelligencer could not confirm were
always attributed to another source and not as absolute fact. Perhaps this is
because for roughly a four-day period, the telegraph lines had been cut and
the Intelligencer received no dispatches to confirm the reports coming out of
Baltimore from other newspapers.
On Thursday, July 14, the Intelligencer reported that the military
demonstration on the capitol’s outskirts had ended. The writer of an editorial
at the top of column two, page three, titled “The Late Siege of Washington,”
seemingly mocks the sensational and inaccurate coverage that had been
reported by other newspapers. The editorialist states that the
“…demonstration did not take the form of any thing like an ‘attack on the
city.’” Placing the quotation marks around the phrase “attack on the city” is
indicative of the author’s attitude that there was, in fact, no such thing as was
erroneously reported elsewhere. In a July 15 editorial, the Intelligencer
criticizes the administration for allowing the Confederate forces to travel
through the Shenandoah Valley en route to recent military engagements near
the capitol. The lengthy editorial appears at the top of the first column on
page three, traditionally where the Intelligencer placed its more important
editorials. It consumes nearly three columns and the writer describes the
present situation as the “Late National Humiliation.” The story describes how
the Shenandoah Valley has been the “valley of our national humiliation” on
several occasions:
95
After three years of gigantic war, our military administration has not yet
learned to apprehend the relation of this valley to the defense of
Washington, and the enemy, safely presuming on the ignorance and
shiftlessness of that administration, has learned to practice in this quarter a
wearisome monotony of movement which only serves to show that he
deems it safe at any time to hope for success by counting on our official
stolidity as a standing substitute for his poverty of invention.
For the first time during the sample period, the Intelligencer editors
overtly criticize Lincoln and his administration for allowing the siege of
Washington to occur. “And now we ask, the whole nation will ask, who is
responsible for such humiliation?” The editor answers his own hypothetical
question by stating, “It is the President, the Secretary of War and the Chief of
Staff.” The writer continues to address the president’s ineptitude in rectifying
the ills of the country in the states still loyal to the Union. The editorialist
insists that if things remain the way they are at this time, there is no hope of
returning to peace. “If the President does not apply a corrective, at once
timely and radical, the evils of which the loyal states complain with just reason,
they will not hesitate to apply the only corrective which lies within their reach,
through the ballot-box.”
On Friday, July 22, the Intelligencer preprinted an editorial originally
published in the Philadelphia Age, criticizing the Intelligencer for its lack of
denigration concerning Lincoln and his presidency. The editorial appears at the
top of column one on the third page under the heading “Theory of
Journalism.” The writer begins by introducing the Age article, which reads in
part; “The Intelligencer can hardly be called an opposition paper…[it] has had
96
no word of condemnation for the long category of wrongs that have been
perpetrated.” The editorialist defends the Intelligencer’s position by stating
that the Intelligencer is critical when it needs to be, insisting that they are “…
content to find in the conflicting grounds of their dissent some reason to hope
that we have not fallen entirely below the standard of impartiality which we
erect for our guidance.”
Unlike Harper’s and The New York Times, the Intelligencer places
advertisements and entertainment news on the front page. The day’s most
important news and official government news appears on page two, and the
key editorials generally appear on page three. By Tuesday, August 2, the
situation near Atlanta has become important news because, for the first time,
the top column of the second page begins with coverage from Atlanta. The
heading reads “The Army Before Atlanta” in large bold typeface. The subhead
reads “Battle of the 22 July.” The coverage of the Atlanta Campaign consumes
nearly the entire first two columns. Roughly one-third of the way down the
first column, the report of General McPherson’s death is listed. Unlike the
account in the Dispatch, the Intelligencer story is brief – only 161 words. The
story reads much like an obituary and describes how well-liked and respected
General McPherson was by his men and his superiors. The writer praises his
gallantry and condemns the cowardice of the Rebel soldiers who shot him.
“Too cowardly to respect the bravery of such an officer, the rebels fired a
volley at the General.” The writer concludes by asking “…why is the fate of war
97
so cruel? Why was he, the pride of the army and the nation cut down?” The
remainder of the coverage consists of reports from various correspondents
and dispatches from General Sherman.
On Thursday, August 4, the news from Atlanta has seemingly lost
some of its significance. The coverage of the Battle of Atlanta appears on the
third page of the Intelligencer halfway down the third column under the small
heading “More Fighting in Atlanta,” It is three dispatches from the
correspondent in Nashville. The first two dispatches are matter-of-fact reports
describing the numbers of Union and Confederate losses. The third dispatch
describes how three Confederate generals were severely wounded and
concludes by stating that “Every thing is progressing favorably.” The coverage
the next day is meager because all is generally quiet from Atlanta, the
Intelligencer reports. On August 10, the only mention of Atlanta appears
halfway down the fifth column on the third page under the heading “Reports
From Georgia.” The story is a report from the Commercial Advertiser (New
York) that states that both Generals Sherman and Thomas have sent telegrams
to the War Department stating that Atlanta will be in Union possession by the
week’s end. The story is only 32 words.
On Saturday, August 13 the Intelligencer once again devotes a
considerable portion of news space to coverage of the Battle for Atlanta. At
the top of the third column on page two under the heading “Letters From the
Army in Georgia,” the Intelligencer reprints “the material parts” of what it
98
describes as elaborate letters from General Sherman’s men, which originally
appeared in the Cincinnati Commercial. Coverage consumes nearly two full
columns and encompasses all movements that occurred between July 20 and
August 3. On Monday, August 15, the Intelligencer prints the correspondence
from the Cincinnati Commercial under the heading “The Situation in Front of
Atlanta.” The story appears at the bottom of the third column on page two
and consumes roughly one fourth of the column. The story describes how the
enemy has not yet evacuated the city, but that outcome has been expected for
the past ten days. The reporter states that the Union forces are within two
miles of the city at this point, but it appears that the Confederate soldiers
“seems very much disposed to fight for Atlanta a while longer.”
Intelligencer Coverage of the Chicago Convention
The Chicago Convention dominates the top position on page three in
the same issue. The Intelligencer addresses the divisions in the Democratic
Party and warns that President Lincoln could be re-elected not by virtue, but
by political bickering among the opposition. “The re-election of Mr. Lincoln, as
the result of not his own strength, but of the divisions of his opponents, is not
the endorsement he should wish to receive at the hands of the people…” The
editorial continues by insisting that if Lincoln were re-elected, there will be at
least four more years of war due to his policies. The editorial then discusses
the hope that a candidate will emerge from the Chicago Convention who will
99
strive to seek a “swift and peaceful resolution to the war.” The editorial
concludes by urging for peace. “It can never be too soon to exchange the logic
of the sword for the resorts of reason if the later promise sooner than the
former … we may safely say that any war becomes execrable when the end for
which it is righteously waged may be attained by the resorts of peace.”
The next day, August 16, 1864, the Intelligencer reprints a letter to
the editor of the Boston Journal in which John A. Spooner Esq., agent for the
Commonwealth of Tennessee, discusses a letter written by General Sherman
expressing his sentiments on the recruitment of black soldiers. Spooner insists
that no recruiting will take place for Sherman’s army in front of Atlanta so long
as Sherman is in charge. Sherman, in his own letter, challenges the wisdom of
the Recruitment Act of Congress approved on July 4, 1864. “My opinions are
usually very positive and there is no reason why you should not know them,”
Sherman wrote. “Though entertaining profound reverence for our Congress, I
do doubt their wisdom in the passage of this law.” Sherman lists seven reasons
for why he believes the law is a mistake including, but not limited to:
1. Because civilian agents about an army are a nuisance.
2. The duty of citizens to fight for their country is too sacred an one to be
peddled off by buying up the refuse of other states.
3. The negro is in a transition state, and is not the equal of the white man.
100
Sherman concludes his letter by insisting that no other general officer
in the U.S. Army has freed more slaves than he and no one will infer that he “is
not a friend of the negro.” He simply prefers “negroes for pioneers, teamsters,
cooks, and servants; others gradually to experiment in the art of the soldier,
beginning with the duties of local garrisons such as we had at Memphis,...”
Immediately following Sherman’s letter, in the second column on page
2, the story of the fight for the city of Atlanta appears. The story is titled “The
Situation In Front of Atlanta,” and it is a reprint from the August 5 issue of the
Cincinnati Commercial. The story details the position of the federal Army
surrounding the city just two miles from the center of Atlanta. The story takes
up nearly half of the column and concludes by reporting that it appears that
the Confederate Army plans to continue to fight for the city for “a while
longer.”
The next day, a story titled “Atlanta Reinforced” appears at the top of
the second column on the second page. The story is a reprint from the
Richmond Whig that lauds the efforts of both the press and the citizenry in the
defense of Atlanta. In addition, the article questions whether Sherman could
ever take Atlanta.
The war scarcely furnishes an instance in which the press and the people of a
State have displayed more patriotic devotion to the cause than both are
doing now in Georgia. The militia are responding to Gen. Hood’s call for
reinforcements en masse, and with an alacrity that shows that they are
terribly in earnest, while the papers in every shade of opinion are calling
upon absentees and skulkers from the regular army to return at once to their
posts. We thus behold the energy and of the persevering and gallant
101
commander backed by the practical patriotism of a unconquerable people.
Can Sherman by strategy or brute force ever overcome such a combination?
The upbeat, pro-Confederacy tone of the article is consistent with many
of the stories published at the same time in the Daily Dispatch from the same
city. The editorial decision to run the story in the National Intelligencer may
seem somewhat peculiar in comparison to the New York Times, but the
Intelligencer routinely presented reports from Southern newspapers which
were contrary to reports of Northern newspapers. On Friday, August 19, the
Intelligencer reprinted a report from the Cincinnati Times from August 6 that
described how the fighting outside Atlanta had intensified. The story is simply
titled “From Atlanta,” and the secondary headline reads “Battle of Utoy
Creek—Desperate Fighting—Severe Loss.” The bulk of the story describes how
the Union Army suffered considerable losses, and how first brigade alone lost
five hundred men, but the enemy’s left flank had been discovered. The story
concludes by stating that it is presumed that the flank will be overrun leaving
the Union Army with “very important advantages.” Perhaps the editors meant
that the severe loss was in terms of human casualties, but the tone could lead
a reader to believe that the battle resulted in a crushing defeat for the Union,
which is in diametric opposition to the outcome of the battle.
On Monday, August 22, 1864, the Intelligencer endorses George B.
McClellan as the best candidate for bringing a peaceful resolution to the war.
In an editorial titled “The Chicago Convention,” which appears at the top of the
102
first column on page three, Intelligencer describe how McClellan is best suited
for the nomination.
The people are every where looking for a leader who will offer them, under
his guidance, an escape from the terrible evils by which the country is
environed. The people, we say, want a leader, (italics in original) a man,
with ‘heart head and hand…’ we think that the choice will rest on Major
General McClellan—a man who more fully than any of his comrades in arms
has envinced from the first a clear perception not only of the magnitude of
the contest in which we are engaged, but also an insight into the principles
on which it should be conducted and the ends to which it should be
directed…we may readily infer that he has in his character as many elements
of strength as of enthusiasm.
The editorial also describes the other potential nominees from the
convention but recommends none with the same vigor as with McClellan.
There is little description of any of the abilities or attributes that McClellan
displays except his perceived ability to bring a swift resolution to the war. It
would seem that the only issue of significance, according to the author of the
editorial, is the peaceful and immediate end to the war, regardless of the
terms—and McClellan is the best candidate to achieve that end.
The Intelligencer also devotes considerable coverage to the “growing
dissatisfaction” in the Republican Party with the results of the Baltimore
Convention and the re-nomination of President Lincoln. On Saturday, August
2, in a story titled “The Presidential Question,” the Intelligencer discusses how
several “prominent abolitionists” are calling for a new Convention to be held.
On Monday, August 29, the issue is raised again, this time near the top of the
first column on the third page. In a story titled “Presidential Correspondence,”
the Intelligencer reprints letters from prominent members of the Republican
103
Party opposed to Lincoln’s nomination and amenable General Fremont. The
letter urges Fremont to seek a new convention to nominate him. Fremont’s
response letter is reprinted in its entirety and consumes nearly half of a
column. Fremont insists that the parties responsible for the Cleveland
Convention as well as those responsible for the Baltimore Convention must
both be in agreement to hold another national convention. The coverage of
the battle for Atlanta in this issue consumes less than three inches of one
column.
The Intelligencer’s coverage of the Chicago Convention far exceeds its
Atlanta coverage in terms of space and number of articles. On Thursday,
September 1, the first three columns and half of the fourth column on the
second page exhaustively describe every detail of the convention. On page
three, in an editorial titled “Nomination of General McClellan” the Intelligencer
praises the selection of McClellan.
The expression of the popular preference for this distinguished soldier has
been so marked during the last few months that the decision of the
Convention can be said to have done hardly more than give organic shape
and form to a sentiment pervading that great mass of people in the Loyal
States who have become dissatisfied with the conduct of the present
Administration.
The editorial continues to praise the decision and criticize Lincoln for
another two full columns. Surprisingly, there is no mention of the situation in
Atlanta in the entire issue.
104
The official news that Atlanta had fallen appeared at the top of the
third column on the third page of the September 5th issue. In a story titled
“Brilliant Success In Georgia” the editors of the Intelligencer describe how the
War Department reports that the city is officially surrendered. The secondary
headline reads “The Capture of Atlanta,” and the story recounts how Sherman
finally forced the city to surrender and rather matter-of-factly reports that the
enemy casualties were heavy. The official dispatches from the War
Department are printed after the story and two stories, one from the Chicago
Journal and another from the Chicago Tribune, are reprinted which described
what Sherman had planned to do three days prior. The coverage consumes
roughly three quarters of one column.
In a peculiar story the next day, the Intelligencer reprints a story from
the Richmond Examiner that reports that the defenses in front of Atlanta are
strong and the soldiers defending the city are in high spirits. Unlike the other
Northern newspapers in the sample that treated the victory like a national
reason for celebration, the Intelligencer reported that the city fell, but it
continues to publish propaganda from Southern newspapers that it knows to
be inaccurate. Also, unlike the other newspapers in the sample, there is no
editorial explaining the significance of the victory in terms of the end of the
war or its impact on the election. The third and possibly most significant
difference in the coverage in the Intelligencer versus that of the other northern
newspapers in the sample is the absence of any of Lincoln’s speeches, public
105
appearances or proclamations concerning the victory. Lincoln had deliberately
waited for this major victory for an opportunity to elevate his campaign for reelection. The national celebration of the victory was big news in the other
newspapers, but there was no positive coverage of Lincoln or the victory in
Atlanta save that of the reprint from the Auburn (New York) Advertiser of
Secretary William Seward’s speech in Auburn on September 5.
106
Chapter Six
Coverage of Lincoln in Harper’s Weekly
Harper's Weekly, a Journal of Civilization, was America’s first national, political
magazine based in New York City. Published by Harper & Brothers from 1857
until 1916, it covered foreign and domestic news, fiction, essays on many
subjects, and humor. By 1860, it reached a national circulation exceeding
200,000.
Coverage of the Baltimore Convention
Harper’s Weekly generally presented favorable coverage of Lincoln from his
original nomination in 1860 as well as the subsequent nomination in 1864. The
Saturday, June 11, 1864, Harper’s Weekly (Vol. VIII—No. 389) was the first
issue published after the Lincoln’s re-nomination. Although the election was a
major national news story at the time, it wasn’t front page news for Harper’s
Weekly. Instead, a massive illustration of the Great Central Fair in Philadelphia
graced the front page of the issue. The convention is covered on the first
column of the second page numbered (370) which is essentially page two,
under the heading “The Baltimore Convention.” The editorial begins by
asserting:
It seems to be understood that the Baltimore convention will nominate Mr.
Lincoln for re-election. The views which we have hitherto expressed of the
wisdom of this course have not been changed by any of the events of the
summer. The charges made against him, of the exercises of arbitrary power
by the Copperheads, and of indifference to the Slavery question by Mr.
107
Wendell Phillips, seems to us to be a mere party clamor, and, in the second, a
profound misapprehension.
The article continues by describing that unpopular decisions are made
during war and defending Lincoln’s judicious use of the powers of the
presidency. The editorial is also highly critical of the Copperheads who oppose
Lincoln:
Of course we do not gravely combat the assertion that the President has
menaced our liberties and, meant to menace them… The President’s policy, if
an English precedent must be found, is to be sought rather in that to William
the Third who established the British Constitution. Nor will the student forget
that, while James was the advocate for the divine right of kings, against
political power of the people, so are the Copperhead gentlemen who decry
the President are the champions of rebellious slaveholders against the
natural rights of man.
The article’s tone becomes more insistent that the nation cannot
survive with slavery and how the government cannot reach an end to the war
by merely doing what it “thinks to be abstractly correct.” The article concludes
by earnestly praising Lincoln’s abilities and capacity to lead the nation: “…Mr.
Lincoln, with marvelous sagacity, with incorruptible honesty and with
conspicuous ability represents this movement of the popular mind, that we
hope to see him president for another term.”
The next article concerning Lincoln is located in the third column on the
same page, “The Latest Portrait of the President.” The article discusses the
progression of Lincoln’s presidency, the difficulties he experienced, and his
ultimate triumph. It seems that Harper’s Weekly editors believe that the end of
the war is relatively near, despite the fact that Sherman is still fighting in
108
Northern Georgia near Kennesaw Mountain at this time and won’t even reach
Atlanta for another five weeks. Moreover, the Battle of Atlanta, which is
generally accepted to be the watershed moment in deciding a Union victory,
will take an additional six weeks of fighting before the Confederates surrender
the city. In fact, the writer seems almost dismissive about the fact that the war
is still being fought and lauds Lincoln’s dexterity in unifying the army and the
nation.
And now in the beginning of his last year in office, his policy fully declared,
and the Army of the Union, freed from baffling jealousies, united and
resolved, under a military chief, whom even the enemy fears and respects,
the President commands a more universal respect, a more thorough
confidence among all faithful citizens at home and trusty friends abroad than
any President since Washington.
The article describes the portrait of Lincoln (located on page 373) and
asks the reader to look thoughtfully at his “rugged face” and describes its
candor and sagacity as well as how the hardy and simple traits of “the best
American character are there.” The article even mentions General Grant and
describes him rather favorably as well in comparison with Lincoln. “Then turn
to the portrait of General Grant in our paper three weeks ago and there you
see another purely American face. There are the same homely honesty,
capacity and tenacity, the same utter freedom from every kind of cant and
affectation in each.” This is by no means the first time Harper’s featured a
Union general. In fact, a full-page portrait of General Sherman dominates the
front page of the issue (Vol. VII—No. 388) just one week earlier on June 4. The
109
caption for the portrait, located on the next page describes Sherman as “one of
the ablest officers in the service.”
Coverage of the Baltimore Convention appears in the Saturday June 11,
1864, issue at the top of the first column on the far left of the page. The story
describes how it seems to be understood that the convention on the 7 th of
June will nominate Mr. Lincoln for re-election. The article explicitly endorses
Lincoln’s nomination by stating “the views hitherto which we have expressed
of the wisdom of the wisdom of this course have not changed by any of the
events of the summer.” The article downplays the allegations made by the
Copperheads of Lincoln’s abuse of his presidential powers and the accusations
of Lincoln’s “indifference” toward slavery made by Wendell Phillips.
The article takes a slightly less favorable turn by describing how the
“President has menaced our liberties, and meant to menace them.” However,
the author justifies Lincoln’s actions by comparing them to the English
precedent established by William the Third.
“So the Copperhead gentlemen who decry the President are the champions
of rebellious slaveholders against the natural rights of men. It is enough to
know that these indignant vindicators of civil rights against executive
usurpation are the zealous politicians who repudiate the principles of the
Declaration of Independence…The President, in the extreme peril of the
country, takes summary steps which the Constitution expressly authorizes, or
even, in his zeal to maintain the Government and the national welfare, takes
a step which is debatable, and the same gentlemen explode in columns of
horror at the wanton invasion of our liberties. It is a party cry, and perfectly
understood.”
110
The June 18 issue features an editorial titled “The Cleveland
Convention” that leads by describing how the Cleveland Convention “has
gratified every Copperhead and rebel in the country and every foreign enemy.”
The story continues to describe how the men who organized the Cleveland
Convention did so out of despair of the controlling Baltimore Convention.
When they saw that the overpowering popular preference was for Mr. Lincoln,
they simply called another convention to nominate a different candidate. The
editorial challenges the validity of the convention insisting that it did not
effectively represent the Union. It closes by denouncing Fremont and
endorsing Lincoln, once again.
The Presidential question, like every other question in politics is a matter of
expediency, not abstract, absolute right. In the conduct of human affairs we
must do what we can upon a fair estimate of the facts. And will any
sagacious, unbiased man deliberately say that he thinks it more practicable
to elect General Fremont than Mr. Lincoln?
The lead story in the June 25 issue titled “The Union Nominations,”
the editors of Harper’s Weekly passionately defend the legitimacy of the
Baltimore Convention and its nomination of Lincoln and Johnson. It describes
how there had never before been a convention that truly represented the
people and praised the success of the convention in defining and executing its
purpose of an “unflinching prosecution of the war by every efficient method.”
The text once again reiterates that the editors’ position of sustained support
for Lincoln had remained unchanged. In fact, the editorial states that no
111
American president has been more effective and even compares Lincoln to
George Washington and all but guarantees his victory in the election.
That he unites perfect patriotism and great sagacity to profound conviction
and patient tenacity, and that his conduct of our affairs has been, on the
whole, most admirable and wise, we are more than ever convinced ; and that
no public man in our history since Washington has inspired a deeper popular
confidence we have no doubt whatever the result of the election will
establish.
The next story on the same page, simply titled “Fremont.” addresses
General Fremont’s resignation from the Army and subsequent acceptance of
the nomination of the Cleveland Convention. The editors deliberately attempt
to avoid disparaging Fremont by “using his words” and quoting directly from
his letter to Lincoln resigning his commission. In the letter, Fremont insists that
the point of the Cleveland Convention was to bring the people “to realize that
while we are saturating southern soil with the best blood of the country, in the
name of Liberty, we have really parted with it at home.” The editorial
continues by describing Fremont’s accusations of Lincoln and his policy and
comparing them directly to what the Army should do against Lincoln. In other
words, if Lincoln were as treacherous as Fremont and his cronies from the
Cleveland Convention claim, isn’t the entire war an unjust war and shouldn’t
General Grant “turn his guns on the traitor in Washington?”
The editorial then describes Fremont and his career rather favorably
until the point of his resignation, stating that if Fremont had died before the
war began, he would have “shone in our history with a lovely luster.” It
continues to ask hypothetical questions attempting to rationalize Fremont’s
112
motivations to join the Copperheads and accept the nomination. “Is it because
they have come to him or because he has come to them? When the New York
World loudly applauds him, is it because he is helping or hurting the cause of
human liberty?” The mention of the New York World’s supportive coverage of
Fremont reaffirms the editors’ opinion that the World is a Copperhead paper
and, whether intentionally or not, simultaneously criticizes its editorial
judgment.
A full-body portrait of Robert E. Lee, the Commander-in-Chief of the
Confederate Army, graces Harper’s Weekly’s front page on July 2, 1864. The
story, titled “Robert Edmund Lee” begins by stating that Lee is “unquestionably
a consummate master at the art of war.” Similar to the aforementioned article
concerning General Fremont, this editorial praises Lee’s accomplishments in
the Mexican War prior to the Civil War.
113
Gen. Robert E. Lee, C.S.A., 1865. Mathew Brady Collection. (Army) Exact Date
Shot Unknown NARA FILE #: 111-B-1564 WAR & CONFLICT BOOK #: 132
114
The front-page article featuring Confederate General Robert E. Lee,
describes how Lee is well-liked and respected among his men, but insists that
this high opinion is dwindling amongst the Confederate ranks as Lee has met
his match in General Grant. “In the present campaign he haws displayed great
tenacity and skill in the management of his army, but in all the elements of
strategy, Grant has proved more than his equal.” This last statement is untrue,
of course, because Grant repeatedly made costly tactical errors and was often
outwitted by Lee. In fact, the Battle of the Wilderness provides an excellent
example.
Lee was a brilliant military strategist who possessed the unique ability
to think like his opponent would think and devise plans accordingly. For
example, on May 2, in preparation for the spring campaign of 1864, Lee rode
his horse “Traveller” to a point overlooking the Germanna Ford on the Rapidan
River. He knew this was the location where Grant would want to move his
columns through quickly and move to more open territory. Understanding the
difficulties associated with fighting in this terrain, Lee decided to attack Grant’s
forces here, obviating the Union’s superior artillery and numbers. On May 5,
Grant’s force of 101,895 soldiers was surprised by Lee’s army of an estimated
61,000. The fighting raged for two days in what was eventually a terrible loss
for Grant and the Union.
In the next story on the front page of the same issue titled
“Sherman’s Campaign,” the editors insist that Sherman’s campaign is “only
115
second in importance to that of General Grant in Virginia.” This is the first time
in the sample that news of Sherman’s efforts in the south has made the front
page. The story is rather brief and only recounts numerous battles with few
details of each.
Coverage of the Chicago Convention in Harper’s Weekly
The first story on the next page titled “The Chicago Convention”
addresses General McClellan’s speech he delivered at West Point in which he
laid out the platform on which he was to be nominated. The editorial affronts
the Chicago Convention, describing it participants and those who would
achieve power with McClellan, if he were to win the election. “They are the
men in whose ranks are the apologists of the rebellion, and the steady
opponents for all the measures of its overthrow; who declare the rebels
invincible; who prophesy only woe and ruin for the country from a continued
prosecution of the war.”
The article continues to explain how the “peace men” are not the
shrewdest part of the opposition to Lincoln, but they are the most numerous
and organized. The editors insist that McClellan isn’t the peace Democrats’ first
choice of candidates, indeed the editors state Democratic Congressman
Clement Vallandigham would be better suited, but McClellan is more popular
with the voters. “...but they will yield to the nomination, knowing that a
candidate like McClellan will increase the chances of success at the polls.” The
116
article continues to describe how the Convention’s candidate must adopt a
platform of peace in order to oppose Lincoln. The article concludes by
reiterating the magnitude of the war and the necessity of its sustained
prosecution and hypothetically asking the American people if McClellan is
really the right man for the job.
The lead article in the July 9 issue titled “The President’s Letter”
addresses Lincoln’s unanimous nomination by the Baltimore Convention.
Lincoln’s letter of acceptance is printed in its entirety after the editors
introduce the letters contents. The introduction describes Lincoln’s letter as
short, simple and dignified. It describes how Lincoln does not defend his policy
as it’s unnecessary since his policy has been open to the country throughout
the war and the country is content. “Having seen him faithful and wise in the
past, and understanding the infinitely difficult circumstances of his position,
loyal men do not fear to trust him in the future.” It’s noteworthy to highlight
the previous sentence in which the editors describe “loyal” men. The editors
didn’t overtly state that opposing Lincoln’s nomination is treasonous, but it
subtly hints at the notion that the true loyal Americans should support Lincoln.
The front page of the July 16, issue features an artist depiction of the
famous photograph taken by Matthew Brady of General Grant leaning against
a tree outside his headquarters in Virginia. The lead story on the next page
(450) titled “The Flag and the Army” lauds the success of General Sherman’s
campaign in Tennessee. “The good news from General Sherman, whose
117
campaign is one of the most daring, and thus far, triumphant upon record, and
the masterly skill and tenacity of General Grant, keep the mind of the country
firmly fixed upon the army and the progress of the war.” This statement
illustrates the editors understanding of the insatiable demand Americans
displayed for news of the war. It also packaged the news as if the end of the
war was right around the corner and could happen any day – further fueling
the eagerness for war news.
The article continues by encouraging readers to enlist in the Army to
replenish its ranks. Once again, the editors package the situation like the war is
almost over and citizens may miss their chance to serve and be part of the
victory. “Now then is the time, before the formal order is issued, for every
citizen to use every effort to send a substitute if he cannot go himself, and
replenish the army by the spontaneous act of the people … Let every loyal man
in the in the land make himself a recruiting committee, that he may have the
ennobling consciousness forever, and say to his children he too did his active
part …” Once again, the notion that this is what loyal men do almost insults
those who do not enlist, or at the very least support the recruitment efforts,
and those who do not are not loyal. It also insults the men who desire to end
war shy of a total Union victory equating compromise with disgrace.
On page 451 of the same issue, in the “Domestic Intelligence” section, a
detailed report of Sherman’s campaign describes his success against
Confederate General Joseph Johnston at Kennesaw Mountain and Marietta,
118
Georgia on July 9. The article provides reprint of a dispatch Sherman sent
briefly describing the outcomes of the engagements and prospects for
upcoming battles. “We occupied Kenesaw at daylight, and Marietta at 8:30
A.M. Thomas17 is moving down the main road, toward the Chattanooga, and
McPherson18 toward the mouth of the Nickajack on the Sandtown
Road…Marietta is almost entirely abandoned by its inhabitants.”
The bulk of the lead coverage and the front-page illustration in the July
23 issue focuses on the sinking of the Alabama.19 The first mention of the war
appears at the bottom of the first column on page 467 in a story titled “The
Military Situation.” The article describes Grant’s success at besieging Lee at
Petersburg and stifling Lee’s support and communication with Johnston, who is
battling Sherman in Georgia. The article then praises Sherman’s
accomplishments against Johnston and alludes to the impending fall of Atlanta.
Meanwhile the stupendous campaign of General Sherman triumphantly
proceeds. He has yet to cross the Chattahoochee River, which is a difficult
feat in the face of the enemy. But that achieved, when Johnston has him
once more exactly where he wants him, Atlanta can hardly long hold out, for
it is by no means so susceptible of defense as many of the points which
Sherman has already occupied; and once in Atlanta, the whole railroad
system of the Southwest is in his hands.
The next article on the same page titled “Lesson of the Raid” offers an
interesting comparison to the other newspapers in the sample. The only other
17
General George Henry Thomas was one of the principal commanders in the Western Theater. He
earned the nickname “the Rock of Chickamauga” for rallying fleeing Union troops and preventing a total
routing during that battle earlier in the war.
18
General James B. McPherson was later killed during the Battle of Atlanta and proved to be the highestranking Union officer killed during the entire war.
19 The CSS Alabama was a Confederate raiding ship that was sunk by the USS Kearsarge off the coast of
Cherbourg, France on June 19, 1864.
119
coverage of Confederate General Jubal Early’s raid to the outskirts of
Washington, D.C., appeared a week earlier in the July 16th issue on page 451 in
a story in the “Domestic Intelligence” section titled “General Early’s Raid.” This
story is very brief and only addresses the basic facts of when and where early
attacked and the fact that his army was ultimately repulsed. In the “Lesson of
the Raid” article, the editors refer to the raid rather dismissively as the “late
interruption.” The article continues to describe how the raid is seemingly
insignificant to the outcome of the war. “Any company of mounted men may
steal over the Potomac in the night and scour over a space of twenty miles and
return unmolested, just as a dozen armed men could ride through the State of
New York.” The article by insisting that when we are prepared to repel raids
there will be very few raids to repel.”
The meager attention in terms of space devoted to the raid and the
dismissive nature of the articles themselves differs considerably from the
coverage in the Daily National Intelligencer. Obviously, the fact that the
Intelligencer is published in Washington, D.C., just miles from where
Confederate soldiers were fighting Union troops at Fort Stevens, makes the
news much more important than it is in New York City, where Harper’s Weekly
was published. But the fact remains that Confederate soldiers were less than
15 miles from the White House and fighting a very weak defensive force and
Union soldiers had to be called in rapidly from Petersburg to defend the
120
capitol. Whether it’s intentional or not, the dismissive tone of the coverage is
certainly favorable to Lincoln and the administration of the war.
The raid is front-page news on the July 30 issue, but once again the
coverage minimizes the significance of the event. In a story titled “The Rebel
Invasion of Maryland,” the editors insist that the invasion was nothing more
than an exciting theme of conversation has vanished. The article describes the
only tangible outcomes of the raid were damaged homes to private citizens. In
the same issue, General Sherman’s Campaign also graces the front page. In a
story titled “General Sherman’s Campaign,” the details of the Union army’s
endeavors against the Confederate forces protecting Atlanta are detailed. The
main story, however, focuses on the need for more troops to replenish the
decimated Union ranks. In a story on page 482 titled “More Men,” the editors
explain the expected and wise nature of Lincoln’s decision to call for more
men. The editors describe the convictions of the people of the south to fight to
the very end as justification for more troops to do whatever it takes to achieve
absolute victory. “It is very clear that we will not put down such a Rebellion by
swinging our heels and grumbling at the Government.”
The lead story of the August 6 issue addresses the efforts for a peaceful
surrender to the war in Niagara Falls. The story on page 498, titled “The Peace
Blondins at Niagara,” describes how the negotiations were not all that
mysterious and it was simply a movement for the rebels to help out their
friends, the Copperheads. It also insists that the act symbolizes the desperation
121
of the Confederates as the war’s end is ever-approaching. The editorial also
praises Lincoln’s conduct in the matter. “The conduct of the President was
simple and proper.” The editorial correctly points out that agents representing
the Confederacy had no authority, and the move was purely a political ploy to
make Lincoln appear to have refused to discuss a peaceful resolution to the
war.
The same issue is addressed again in the August 13 issue in a story
titled “Cunning Outwitted” on page 515. This article directly attacks Horace
Greeley for his criticism of Lincoln’s conduct concerning the matter.
In alluding to the peace performance in Niagara Falls Mr. Greeley has said,
and it has been repeated by others, that it would have been wiser for the
President ‘to have asked the Confederates to perfect and verify their
credentials and then make their proposition.’ The object of his doing so
would have allowed the rebels to show they wished nothing short of
recognition, or some equally inadmissible condition.
The article continues to describe how Greeley must have been aware of the
inevitable outcome. It also argues that the notion of allowing anyone who is
“authorized” with the proper credentials to discuss peace is unreasonable.
Lincoln had made his terms very clear from the start that all secessionist states
shall rejoin the Union and slavery will be abolished. Discussing a resolution
short of either of these terms was a waste of time, or at least according to
Harper’s Weekly’s editors.
The front page of the August 27 issue features an artists rendering of
the massive explosion that rocked the Confederate lines surrounding
Petersburg after Union soldiers from Pennsylvania tunneled under the
122
trenches and packed the mine with thousands of pounds of explosives.
Surprisingly, there is no article accompanying the illustration. The plan for the
attack was sound, but poor execution, namely by one Union commander20,
resulted in one of the most humiliating defeats for the union Army. The story
was covered extensively by other newspapers in this sample. But the coverage
in Harper’s Weekly is almost non-existent, save for the image on the front
page.
The main story in this issue appears in the first column at the bottom of
page 546 and is simply titled “The Situation.” This editorial is very lengthy and
serves as a rallying cry for the readers to continue to persevere as the end of
the war is in sight. Strangely, the editorial is also somewhat prophetic as it
states that even with victories in Petersburg and Atlanta, the war will not
immediately end. Indeed, the editors address the notion that the war may
continue for some time because the people of the South have been so firmly
indoctrinated that they are fighting for their own freedoms and to defend their
homes, and not fighting to preserve slavery, surrender will only come after
total Union victory. “Be of good cheer, O ye of little faith! The soul of the
American people is marching on!”
20
The original plan called for Brigadier General Edward Ferrero to lead the assault with his division of
black soldiers. General Grant, however worried that leading the attack with back troops would be
perceived poorly and ordered General Burnside to select a different commander and division to lead the
assault. General James H. Ledlie's 1st Division was selected after the three eligible commanders drew lots.
Ledlie inadequately prepared his soldiers was drunk during the battle. He provided no leadership and was
later dismissed for his poor execution and drunkenness during the battle.
123
The front page of the September 3 issue features an illustration of
General Sherman with his staff at his headquarters just south of Atlanta. The
lead story titled “The Chicago Convention” in the first column on page 562,
however, focuses solely on the irrelevance of the outcome of the Chicago
Convention, insisting that it’s a “foregone conclusion.”
It matters little whether it sits a long or short time; whether Mr. Dean
Richmond or Mr. Vallandigham be its master spirit; whether there be
brotherly peace in its deliberations which the latter gentleman prophesies, or
whether the ardent delegates break each other’s shins, heads and noses…It
matters little who is nominated there, because the Convention represents
opposition to the war, and its candidate can not escape the fate of his
position.
The editorial concludes by addressing the election and the
acknowledgement that the leadership of the Confederacy understands that the
outcome of the war will have a significant impact on the presidential election.
The author states that the “rebels are waiting to learn” if the war has degraded
the Union people enough to “grant them their will.”
Surprisingly, the September 10 issue of Harper’s Weekly features no
coverage of Sherman’s victory in Atlanta, a full week after the fact. Obviously,
as evidenced by the other newspapers and Harper’s Weekly issues examined in
this sample, the publication cycle is much longer than that of the other
newspapers in the sample, and coverage is generally much more analytical of
events that have already been covered by other newspapers. Still, there is no
mention of it anywhere in the issue. In fact, in the “Domestic Intelligence”
section features a story reporting information from General Grant from August
124
24 that insists there are no reports from Sherman. The remainder of the issue
urges more citizens to enlist and calls the Copperheads “friends of the enemy.”
Even more surprising is the front page of the September 17 issue, which
features an illustration of a victorious Union soldier standing over a vanquished
Confederate foe at the battle of Ezra Church. The editors are obviously aware
of the news that Atlanta has fallen as the next page (596) features a story in
the first column titled “General Sherman.” The lead story titled “The Simple
Issue,” however, addresses the presidential election. Its placement ahead of
the news of the victory in Atlanta would suggest that the election is more
important and the victory is merely a factor in that larger issue, or at least to
Harper’s Weekly’s editors.
The “Simple Issue” article boils the election down to the simple
hypothetical question “Is the country willing to give up on the war?” In other
words, electing anyone else besides Lincoln will nullify the sacrifice of the
hundreds of thousands of men who died during the past four years of war. The
article even draws the comparison to Benedict Arnold, who told a war-weary
nation it was his intent to bring them to a peaceful resolution. To this day, the
name Benedict Arnold is synonymous with high treason, so it’s not difficult to
ascertain the editors’ opinion of the Copperheads and other opposition
factions.
The next article simply titled “General Sherman” praises the success
of the battle, calling it the crowning achievement of “one of the most daring
125
and extraordinary campaigns in military history.” The article details the
progression of Sherman’s forces through Tennessee and Georgia. It also quotes
General Grant attributing the success at Vicksburg to Sherman. The next
article, however, proffers a much more insightful analysis of the impact this
victory should have on the election of 1864. The article, titled “The Effect of
the News From Sherman,” maintains that every person in the country
recognizes what a boon this victory was for Lincoln’s re-election campaign.
There is not a man who did not feel that McClellan’s chances were
diminished by the glad tidings from Atlanta; nor anyone who does not know
that if Sherman had been defeated, the friends of the Chicago candidate
would have felt surer of his success…Sherman has done more, in his capture
of Atlanta, for a cessation of hostilities than Vallandigham and his convention
could do in twelve months of abuse of the Administration and of the war.
The article concludes by insisting that abandoning the war effort shy of
total victory obviates the sacrifice of the entire nation.
126
Chapter Seven
Coverage of Lincoln in the New York Times
Although founded only in 1851 by Henry J. Raymond, the New York
Times is regarded by many scholars and historians to as one of the most
respected and influential newspapers in the country during the Civil War. It
appears that the New York Times also had a record of favorable coverage of
Lincoln and was in diametric opposition to the Copperheads. In the Sunday,
May 8, 1864, issue at the top of page five in the first column under the heading
“Growth of the American Nation,” the Times reprints an editorial attributed
only to “The Beeches” from Saturday, April 23, 1864; it is signed “a veteran
observer” at its end. The writer vituperatively criticizes the Copperheads and
their negative impact on the Republican Party.
The other day I saw one of the worst Copperhead sheets in this country, an
extract from the N. Y. Tribune, gloated over as a most precious confession.
I(t) think it was precious for the Copperheads and disreputable to the
Republicans. It was in substance this: That there was a time when Mr.
Lincoln, Gov. Morgan and ‘most of us’ were willing the South should separate
peaceably if they would go into convention and have the thing done orderly!
I don’t know who ‘most of us’ are; but I know something of the people, and I
know—that on the hypothesis that such a thing was possible—the result
would have been, that the Republican party would have been utterly
dissolved, the Democratic party become a war party and the country
involved in a worse war than it is now.
The editorialist then describes how the general consensus of the American
people at this time is agreeable to war until the entire nation is once again
unified under one flag. In fact, the writer insists that the people are in favor of
war until the “National Flag flies over every fort in our territory — and they
127
would have denounced every leader.” The writer agrees that men are entitled
to their opinions but states that he has “never happened to agree with the sort
of people who thought this world is to be governed by conventions.” The
remainder of the editorial describes the homogenous nature of the blending of
races in the United States and insists that unity is the only way for continued
growth and prosperity.
Contrary to the general hypothesis of this thesis, the New York Times
editors of believed the war to be nearing completion prior to the victory of
Atlanta. In fact, editorial comments suggesting this confidence were published
as early as May 1864 (and perhaps earlier, but the sample of this thesis is
coverage from Lincoln’s nomination through the Battle of Atlanta.) In the
Monday, May 9, 1864, issue in the first column at he top of page four under
the section heading “News of the Day” in a story titled “The Rebellion,” the
reporter states that the news from the armies is very gratifying. “Success
seems realized and promised from all quarters.” The editorialist describes how
General Grant has been successful against General Lee and how General Butler
is having success in the Peninsula campaign as well as Sherman’s success in the
West.
Although the writer never explicitly insists that the unconditional
surrender of the South is inevitable, the language used alludes to the overall
success of the Union forces and suggests victory may be close at hand. In a
separate editorial under the heading the “Louisiana Campaign,” the writer
128
overtly states that he believes the Union will be victorious. The editorialist
criticizes the Union forces efforts in Louisiana, describing it as a “wild waste of
blood” and suggests that Grant is too busy with Lee to carefully oversee the
efforts in Louisiana. “He knows better than anyone else, that if the
Confederacy falls on this side of the Mississippi, as we hope and believe, it will
fall under his blows, Western Louisiana and Texas will come into the Union
again just as a ripe apple falls to the ground.”
The upper-left hand corner of the front page of each issue of the New
York Times analyzed in this sample period provides a rundown of “news briefs”
or headlines of stories about the war that will appear in that issue. For
example, the June 6 cover features a list of stories that very succinctly update
the reader on the progress of the war. The list reads as follows: The Army.
Steady Progress. Grant Moving on the Enemy’s Works. Lee Narrowing His Line.
Heavy Losses. Large Reinforcements. Sherman Pushing Southward.
Coverage of the Baltimore Convention in the New York Times
The upper-right hand corner offers a similar rundown for stories of
national interest that are unrelated to the war. For example, the June 8 issue
announces the news of the Baltimore Convention. The headlines read as
follows: National Union Convention. The Assembling at Baltimore Yesterday.
Six Hundred Delegates in Attendance. Dr. Breckenridge, of Kentucky,
Temporary President. Governor Denison, of Ohio, Permanent President. Entire
129
Harmony and Enthusiasm. Speeches of Rev. Dr. Breckenridge, Senator Morgan,
Governor Denison and Parson Brownlow.
The Baltimore Convention story immediately follows the introductory
headlines. It describes the event, sparing no details. For example, the author
describes the Front Street Theater, where the convention was held, as
“tastefully decorated and fitted up for the occasion.” The article chronicles the
entire event, beginning with the opening remarks by Edwin D. Morgan, of New
York, Chairman of the National Union Executive Committee. The speech entire
was printed, and the editor inserted [applause] notes to provide the reader
with a better sense of the atmosphere and crowd reaction. The article
continues on page 8 and consumes yet another one and three quarters
columns and continues to describe every last detail and word spoken. The
article concludes by stating that the convention is adjourned until the following
Wednesday morning.
There is another story concerning the Baltimore Convention under the
“General News” section. This story briefly provides an executive summary of
the convention, consuming only two column inches. All told, the Baltimore
Convention coverage consumes nearly half of a page, including prime
positioning above the fold on the front page.
The same issue includes an editorial on page four in the center of the
page in the third column titled “The Fall of Richmond.” The writer recounts an
opinion from multiple authorities that the “fall of Richmond will never bring
130
the Northern army one step nearer the conquest of the South.” The thrust of
this editorial challenges that opinion by demonstrating the Richmond has been
the key source of all offensive actions by the Confederate army in addition to
the fact that it’s the capital city of the Confederacy. “And, again, it is surely
worth considering, if Davis and Lee have sacrificed so much for the retention of
one spot of Southern ground of so little military value, how long can their
prodigality last without involving a general collapse?”
The front page of the July 9 issue features continued coverage of the
Baltimore Convention, but in this issue, it supplants war news and appears at
the top of the page in the far-left column. The introductory headlines read as
follows: “Presidential. Lincoln & Johnson. Proceedings of the National Union
Convention Yesterday. Unanimous Renomination of President Lincoln. Gov.
Andy Johnson, of Tennessee, for Vice-President. The Loyal Platform. Slavery
Must Perish by the Constitution. Emancipation, The Monroe Doctrine,
Economy and the Pacific Railroad. Enthusiastic Scenes at the Nomination. The
Final Adjournment.”
The idea that the platform is referred to as “loyal” is interesting. This
was not the official name of the platform, so the New York Times editors
developed their own word to describe it for this headline. Like the editors of
Harper’s Weekly, they make the case that supporting the Lincoln
Administration and the platform makes one loyal to the country. The
accompanying article covering the final day of the convention recounts, once
131
again, every word that was spoken and by whom, and consumes nearly five full
columns on the front page.
Another story concerning the convention appears on page 4 under the
News From Washington Heading.” The story is listed as a special dispatch to
the New York Times and details the favorable reception of the news of
Lincoln’s re-nomination by the delegates in Baltimore. The story states that the
result of the convention “was received here with the utmost satisfaction by
every class of citizen.” The story depicts how Lincoln’s re-nomination was
anticipated and “is fully concurred by all the men of real weight in the political
world.” This statement overtly belittles all opposition to Lincoln, suggesting
that they have no “political weight.” Indeed, the article also insists that this renomination represents the choice of the American public at large. “The
Presidency was a foregone conclusion, and the choice of the convention is
regarded here as a ratification of the choice of the people.”
On page 2 of the same issue, Sherman’s advance in Georgia is reported
in a reprinted correspondence from the Cincinnati Times under the heading
“Gen. Sherman’s Army.” The story briefly describes the events of the battle
near Pumpkin-vine Creek on the 25th of May. The author describes a fairly
detailed account of the battle led by Union General Hooker. “On reaching their
works the rebels opened a tremendous fire of grape and canister from their
artillery, and a withering musketry fire, against our assaulting columns, who
continued to advance through a perfect storm of lead and iron.” The story
132
concludes by describing how everything is “favorable to the complete success
of Gen. Sherman.”
The Baltimore Convention was once again front-page news on July 10.
There are no large introductory headlines and the story appears under a typical
heading reading “The Baltimore Nomination” halfway down the far right
column. The story consumes half of the column and details Gov. Denison’s
official offer of the nomination to Lincoln and Lincoln’s subsequent
acceptance. In his acceptance, Lincoln concluded his remarks by sharing the
anecdote about the old Dutch farmer who “remarked to a companion once
that ‘it was best to not swap horses when crossing streams.’” The article
concludes by stating that the room erupted with laughter at Lincoln’s story and
described it as “tumultuous.”
An interesting item concerning Atlanta appears of the front page on
June 14. The story, which appears halfway down the fourth column under the
section heading “Southern News” is titled “From Atlanta.” The article is a
reprint of a piece that appeared in the Atlanta Intelligencer on May 29 and
describes the futility of the Union forces to continue to fight the Confederate
forces in Georgia. “That the Yankees have the temerity to insist on assaults on
our lines, after the terrible repulses they have sustained, is surprising. They
surely must be infatuated with the supposed idea of their overwhelming
strength and numbers, or are incited to it under the influence of mean
whiskey.”
133
In the same column, the Atlanta Intelligencer directly addresses the
women of Atlanta, detailing the horrors that await them should the Union
army succeed. “Look at the desolated, ruined homes and insulted women of
those sections where the enemy has passed, and learn what your fate will be if
we are defeated. Can you, in his hour of peril, hesitate to come forward and
render what assistance you can to your brave defenders?” The appeal
concludes by insisting that these women will be able to share in the rewards of
the liberty they helped secure by assisting in this “noble work.” The editors of
the Times provide no response or qualifying statements concerning this article,
save the introduction stating its origins from the Atlanta Intelligencer. This
starkly contrasts the style of Harper’s Weekly.
Coverage of the Cleveland Convention in the New York Times
The first coverage of the Cleveland Convention emerges June 19 on
page 8 under the heading “From Chicago,” halfway down the second column.
The headline reads “The Cleveland Convention – The Radicals and the National
Convention – The Democratic ‘Wigwam’ a Failure.” The dateline reads Chicago,
Monday June 6, 1864 and the tone of the editorial is dismissive of the
Cleveland Convention. “The Cleveland Convention and its results do not create
any sensations here, nor indeed, scarcely attract any attention.” The writer
describes how the delegates themselves are the only members of their party
and comprise their own constituency. The author also insists that General
134
Fremont will most likely decline the nomination from such an “incongruous
and motley assemblage.”
Updates of the war’s progress continues to be front-page news
throughout the month of June in the New York Times, although there are rarely
any major events to report during the latter half of the month. The headlines
stating the situation is “quiet” are common. The front page on June 27 features
an update on Sherman’s campaign in Georgia. At the top of the third column
under the heading “From Georgia” the Times reports the events of General
Hooker’s Corps from June 12. The report comes from the Times’ “own
correspondent” near the battlefield in Dallas, Georgia. The report consumes
one and a half columns and offers rich details and description of all the
engagements in the battle for Georgia. The writer describes the sentiments
and rumors amongst Union soldiers concerning Atlanta.
The speculations and many others are rife in camp. In the history of wars
remarkable and unforeseen occurrences frequently take place, but more
strange than any would be the voluntary abandonment of Atlanta with its
workshops and arsenals of such vital importance to the impoverished
adherents of the rebellion.
The author concludes by describing how the fall of Atlanta will spell the end
for the Confederacy. “Accounts given in by spies, escaped prisoners and
deserters, agree in one particular that every preparation is being made to hold
Atlanta as the last rallying point of all the rebel strength in Georgia.” The
author argues that with the fall of Atlanta comes the capture of Alabama and
135
Mississippi and the Confederacy would only be comprised of Virginia and the
Carolinas.
Lincoln’s re-nomination is once again front-page news on July 29
issue. A story titled “The Presidency” at the top of the fifth column reports that
Lincoln has accepted the Baltimore Convention’s Nomination. The article
reprints the committee’s letter to Lincoln and also Lincoln’s response letter.
The story consumes the entire length of the fifth column.
Coverage of the Sinking of the Alabama in the New York Times
The sinking of the Alabama dominated the front page on July 6. The large
introductory headlines read as follows: “The Alabama. The Pirate Sunk off
Cherbourg by the Kearsarge. Details of the Engagment. Eight Killed and
Seventeen Wounded on Board the Alabama. Sixty-Eight of Her Crew Captured.
Only Three of the Crew of the Kearsarge Wounded. The Injuries to the Vessel
Unimportant.” The accompanying story, written by the Times’ Paris
correspondent, details the significance of the event.
This time we have a bit of exciting war news to send you from this side of the
water. The sinking of the Alabama by the Kearsarge, off the port of
Cherbourg, occupies, for the moment, the thoughts and the conversation of
everybody, for it is rare that so many circumstances combine to give interest
to any one event. The joy of our loyal people here is, as might be expected,
something beyond description. I need hardly tell you for the secessionists
and their European sympathizers, the blow was terrible.
The article continues to describe the details of the battle. The story is
immediately followed by stories providing European accounts of the battle. All
136
told, stories concerning the Alabama consume the entire front page and an
additional two and a half columns on the eighth page as well, making it the
most heavily covered story thus far in the sample period in terms of space
devoted to the event.
Coverage of the “Rebel Raid” in the New York Times
Unlike Harper’s Weekly, the Times extensively covered the attacks
launched against the northern cities by Confederate General Jubal Early and his
forces; however, it did not appear on the front page immediately. The July 8
issue features an in-depth look at the fighting, but the story doesn’t appear
until page 5. The introductory headlines at the top of the page in the far right
column read as follows: “The Rebel Raid. The Invaders in Considerable Force. A
Fight Within Five Miles of Frederick. The Rebels Close Upon the Town. Plunder
the Order of the Day.” The accompanying article, under the heading “From
Baltimore,” describes the events from the previous day on July 7, insisting that
the raid was repulsed by Union forces under the command of General
Wallace.21 The remainder of the coverage however includes reports of
speculation and rumors of other Confederate forces. There are reprinted
reports from Baltimore, Wsahington, D.C., Harrisburg, Philadelphia, and
21
General Lew Wallace served as the governor of Indiana prior to the Civil War. He is given credit for
saving Washington, D.C., by slowing the advancing Confederate force commanded by Confederate
General Jubal Early, even though Wallace’s forces were defeated at the Battle of Monocacy. Wallace went
on to publish the novel “Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ” in 1880.
137
Frederick. It’s apparent that the facts of the matter are not yet available to the
Times editors.
The story continues the next day, July 9, but this time makes it on the
front page. The top of the second column on the first page features the
headlines: “The Raid. Evacuation of Harper’s Ferry by the Rebels. Sigel’s Report
of the Rebel Strength. He Estimates it at 25,000 to 30,000. Plundering on an
Immense Scale. Baltimore Still Said to Be Threatened.” Similar to the previous
day’s coverage, the Times prints numerous reports from multiple sources. One
report from Frederick from 1 p.m. the day before reads “The rebels have
retreated fully four miles from their position of yesterday, on the road to
Boonsboro and Hagerstown. General Wallace and Staff are actively engaged.
Everything looks well. Frederick is no danger.”
The story continues the next day as the main headlines at the top of
the front page of the July 10th issue read: “The Invasion. Highly Important. A
Battle at Monocacy. Our Forces Defeated with Severe Loss. General Wallace
Retreating on Baltimore. The Enemy Twenty Thousand Strong.” Unlike the
coverage in Harper’s Weekly, the story is obviously of serious concern to the
editors of the New York Times. The coverage follows a similar pattern to the
two days’ prior and consists of a series of reports from numerous sources from
different regions of the affected area.
The story proceeds to lead all others the following day, but the tone is
much more relaxed. The headlines at the top of the far left column of the front
138
page read: “The Rebel Raid. A More Satisfactory View of the Situation. The
Fight at Monocacy – Further Details. Flying Rebel Cavalry on Various Railroads.
Much Noise and Shabby Results. The Baltimore and Washington Road Safe.”
Obviously, The accompanying coverage includes a report of General Grant’s
view on the affair in which Grant reassures the country that the “capital is
safe.” Obviously this coverage differed from Harper’s Weekly in that the Times
in no way downplayed the significance of the event while it was happening. It
was similar, however, in the coverage thereafter as the Times reports that
“General Grant did not attach much importance to the rebel raid in Maryland.
Coverage of the Battle of the Crater in the New York Times
The battle following the massive explosion of the Confederate lines in
Petersburg dominated the front page on August 1. The headlines at the top of
the page read: “Petersburgh. Great and Active Operations. Springing of a Mine
Under the Rebel Works. Simultaneous Opening of a Hundred Pieces of
Artillery. Our Troops Charge the Rebel Works and Carry the First Line. The
Battle in Progress.” The ensuing coverage is speculative, and the Times
correspondent writes “We shall have to wait yet a few hours ere we know the
results of the contest.”
The coverage continues the next day and the Times accurately reports
the failed Union attempt. The front-page headlines on August 2 in the upper
right hand corner read: “The Petersburg Lines. The Assault by Our Troops on
139
Saturday. Desperate Attempt to Carry the Enemy’s Position. Failure of the
Attempt. The Colored Troops Charged with the Failure.”
The ensuing coverage provides rich details of the battle from the Times’
special correspondent. In a story at the top of the second column on the front
page, the unfortunate loss is recounted. However, the coverage is a positive as
it can be while attempting to somewhat accurately describe such a dismal
failure.
I am called to fulfillment of an ungracious task to-night. Instead of success
and victory which the morning fairly promised, I have to write of disaster and
defeat. To-day’s brief history affords another striking proof of the uncertain
issues of battle, showing how the shrewdest and most elaborate strategic
planning may be thwarted by an error or accident in tactics…But the result
does not dishearten the Army of the Potomac and should not depress the
people.
The coverage of the Battle of the Crater continues to dominate the
front page for another four days until it is supplanted by News from Sherman’s
progress in Atlanta.
Coverage of the Chicago Convention in the New York Times
On August 28 issue, the Times reports the expectations of the Chicago
Convention. The headlines at the top of the fifth column on the front page
read: “The Chicago Convention. Large Gathering of Delegates. The Contest for
the Nomination. McClellan and Seymour Principal Candidates.” The convention
coverage consumes the entire fifth column and half of the sixth. The bulk of
the front-page coverage consists of reprints from other newspapers as
140
opposed to the Times own correspondent. However, an editorial concerning
the convention appears at the top of the second column on page 4 under the
heading “The Chicago Convention.” The author proceeds to describe how the
meeting will concentrate the attentions of all parts of the country, “rebel as
well as loyal.” The author spells out the motivations behind the postponement
of the convention and demonstrates the full understanding of how the success,
or subsequent failures, of the ongoing military campaigns will impact the
election.
Its postponement from early July, the first time designated for it, was
designed to settle its discords. A hope existed that within the eight weeks
thus gained to non-committalism, some change would take place in the
military situation…Should such a disaster overtake Grant and Sherman as the
rebels promised, it was calculated that the peace feeling would set in at the
North like a flood.
The editorial proceeds to belittle the Democratic Party describing the
“infinitely superior” position of the “great National party of the Union.” While
not nearly as overtly sycophantic as the editors of Harper’s Weekly, it’s evident
that the editorial position of the New York Times supports of Lincoln and the
continued prosecution of the war. It’s important to note, however, that
coverage of the Chicago Convention equaled that of the Baltimore Convention
in terms of total coverage and appeared on the front page of each subsequent
issue until September 3rd when it was supplanted by the news of the fall of
Atlanta.
141
Coverage of the Battle of Atlanta in the New York Times
Coverage concerning Sherman’s progress toward Atlanta is a staple
on the front page of nearly every issue, beginning in mid July. The major
exceptions include the sinking of the Alabama, Jubal Early’s raid and the Battle
of the Crater. The front page on August 7 leads with an update on Sherman’s
progress in the upper-right hand corner. The top headlines read: “Gen
Sherman’s Army. Conflagration in Atlanta. Full Details of the Battle of July 28.
The Enemy’s Losses 3,000 to 4,000.” The trend continues on August 10. The
top of the third column on the front page features the following headlines:
“The army Before Atlanta. The Heavy Battle of the 28 th of July. A Furious
Assault --- Rebel Repulse. Movements of Gen. Sherman’s Army. Interesting
Notes on Affairs at the Front.”
The coverage of the ultimate victory doesn’t appear on the front page
until September 3 issue. The headlines in the upper right hand corner read:
“Atlanta (in massive, bold typeface). The Fall of the Rebel Stronghold. A Great
Battle on the Macon Railroad. Hood’s Army Cut in Twain. Sherman Enters the
City. A Thunderbolt for Copperheads.” The coverage consists primarily of
dispatches from various sources including Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton.
Many of the reports state similar reports, confirming the fact that Sherman’s
forces had occupied the city. The next day, however, there is no ambiguity. The
upper-right hand corner headlines read: “The Situation. Official Bulletin From
Secretary Stanton. No Doubt of the Fall of Atlanta.”
142
Immediately following the Stanton’s announcement confirming the
victory, the Times runs stories from Boston and New York cities, including
Rochester, Oswago, Troy, Saratoga and Albany, as well as stories from Norwalk
Conn., Newark, New Jersey and several other New England cities describing the
“jubilant” celebrations and 100 gun salutes honoring the victory. The story
once again takes top billing on the front page on September 5. This issue
provides the full reports from General Sherman and the Times correspondents
in addition to a collection of reports from other newspapers around the
country. The overall tone of the coverage celebrates the occasion, and lauds
General Sherman, referring to his “masterful” strategy and the
“deliberateness” of his efforts.
On page 4, the editors provide a rich editorial explaining the impact of
the victory.
Such, then, are the immediate military results which will flow from this
crowning success of the Georgia campaign. But its effects on our arms in
Virginia cannot fail to be most fortunate. The news has already spread
throughout the camps along the Appomattox, and the enthusiasm of our
cities upon its reception is tame and commonplace to that of the Army of the
Potomac. That confidence in the future, based on past triumphs which we
call prestige, will surely spread its infection to the gallant armies on the
James, and ere long Virginia will echo the note of victory back to Georgia.
The next day, September 6, the Times editors address the political
significance of the victory in Atlanta in an editorial on page 4 titled “Military
Successes and Copperhead Grief. “There is no denying the fact, everywhere
patent, that the Copperheads, as a party, take the capture of Atlanta as a party
143
misfortune.” The editorial draws the parallel that the only way the victory can
simultaneously strike a blow to both the rebels and the Copperheads is if they
are, in fact, one in the same. “It is morally impossible that such a party should
have the confidence and support of a loyal people.”
144
Chapter Eight
Coverage of Lincoln in the Richmond Daily Dispatch
Unlike the National Intelligencer, the Daily Dispatch seems to have
placed the most important news of the day on the front page. The newspaper
was printing only two pages per day during the summer of 1864, so needless to
say news space was severely limited. (However, the first column of the front
side of the sheet was filled with announcements for lost or strayed cattle, or
found cattle and various other advertisements.) The second column seems to
have been reserved for the important news stories of the day. For instance, on
Saturday, April 30, 1864, the recurring column “News of the Day” lists reports
from the Army of Northern Virginia that “all is quiet.” Immediately following
the brief intelligence about the Army’s position, the Dispatch lists information
from Northern newspapers in a section called “Later From The North.”
It’s notable that both Southern as well as Northern newspapers reprint
information from newspapers from the opposing side; it makes sense that the
Southern newspapers would want to know what is going on in the North and
vice versa. The Dispatch editors state that they have received, “through the
politeness of the Exchange Bureau22, files of Northern papers from the 13th to
the 26th…” Oddly, no Northern papers mentioned anything about receiving
Southern newspapers from the Exchange Bureau. In fact, the Tribune editors
22
No Record of the Exchange Bureau was found during this research. The Union government was so
adamant about not recognizing the Confederate government, prisoner exchanges were handled by
military officers and it’s unclear if this type of bureaucracy even existed in the North.
145
insisted that they received newspapers from captured Confederate soldiers
who had the newspapers on their persons. Another prime example of the
discrepancies in coverage between Northern and Southern newspapers
appears in this same issue three-quarters of the way down the same column.
In a story titled the “Fall of Plymouth” the Dispatch reports that this story
represents yet another “Specimen of Yankee Lying.” The story reprints an
account from the Inquirer (Philadelphia) that contains the official reports from
the fall of Plymouth and the alleged execution by Confederate General Hoke 23
of several black Union soldiers who had tried to surrender. The Dispatch
editors insist that “The butchery of the Negro troops is news here, though if
Gen. Hoke had butchered the whole garrison in the assault after a refusal to
surrender, it would have been perfectly proper under the laws of war.”
The Dispatch admits that much of the information it obtains is
primarily rumors, but the editors think that the rumors are newsworthy
enough to place in the first column at the top of the page. In a section simply
titled “The News,” the editors discredit their own “news.”
We have very little news of a definite character from any quarter. Sunday
was a day of rumors, as usual. Some had Washington, D. C. captured and
Newbern, closely besieged... Seven deserters came into our lines in the
vicinity of the White House and gave themselves up, and were brought in to
the city yesterday evening. They all tell the same stereotyped tale about
being ‘dragged into service.’
23
Confederate General Robert F. Hoke was best-known for his success in the Battle of Cold Harbor in
1864. In the battle of Plymouth, Hoke’s men captured a garrison of 2,834 Union soldiers.
146
On Thursday, May 12, the Dispatch editors criticize the Union army
policy that frees captured slaves and refuses to return them to their masters by
declaring these people contraband. In an editorial titled “Contrabands – Their
Sad Fate,” editors point out the irony that slaves should be free yet are treated
equally to any other piece of military equipment captured during warfare, such
as a horse or a rifle. The editors even seem magnanimous to the plight of the
disenfranchised freed slaves. “The poor negro, however, has a different fate.
He is still doomed a ‘contraband.’ The name sticks to him as a term of derision
… He is not allowed his promised equality. His Yankee master denies him the
privileges of freedom.” The editorial continues by stating that if the freed
slaves decide to join the Union army, they will be used only as shields from
Confederate soldiers’ bullets for the white Union troops. The editor continues
to describe how Northerners are much worse in their treatment of freed slaves
than Southerners. “We have seen enough in this war to know what a cruel,
selfish and malignant spirit it is that controls the people of the North, in their
measure to the negro. They care nothing for him. They only use him to injure
us …”
Another stark contrast between Northern and Southern newspapers
was the coverage of alleged murders of white soldiers by black troops. On
Thursday, May 26, 1864, the Dispatch ran a story titled “Murder of
Confederate soldiers by negro troops.” The story begins by the authors stating
“We have the particulars of the atrocious murders of two Confederate soldiers
147
by the Yankee negro troops in Middlesex county, Va., on the 12th.” The story
describes how a Union regiment under the command of Colonel Draper was
alerted to the location of hiding Confederate soldiers and attempted to
capture them. Three men instantly surrendered, but the Confederate
commander, Captain John Maxwell, attempted to “cut his way out” of the
situation and heavy fighting ensued. The Confederates eventually
surrendered, and the black soldiers forced them to march roughly one half
mile to a farm where they stopped briefly. During the stop, “some other negro
soldiers came up, and after cursing them, deliberately murdered the two in
cold blood … The murder … was witnessed by several persons who saw them
slain without the slightest resistance which could give the negro devils an
excuse for firing on them.”
This story is noticeably comparable to the story about General Forrest’s
supposed murder of a black aide that appeared in the New York Daily Tribune.
Both stories are very detailed in terms of when the events took place as well as
who was involved. In addition, both stories describe exactly what happened,
but there is no way to prove the accuracy of either story. There is no
appearance of this account in any of the other Northern newspapers in the
sample, just like there was no record of General Forrest’s alleged crime in this
Southern newspaper. The story does, however, portray a valuable insight into
the disparity between newspapers in the North and South at this period.
148
Many commanders, both Union and Confederate, viewed the press as a
detriment to the war effort. Some correspondents fervently attempted to
curry favor with commanders in order to be granted additional access to
information, but unfortunately many became press agents for the generals
(Hughes,1991). Major General William Tecumseh Sherman felt that war
correspondents were nothing more than spies for the Confederacy. In a
February, 1863, letter Sherman describes his feelings toward war
correspondents. “Of course newspaper correspondents regard me as the
enemy of their class. I announce that all such accompanying the expedition
were and should be treated as spies. They are spies because their publications
reach the enemy, give them direct and minute information of the composition
of our forces, and wile invariably they puff up their patrons, they pull down all
others” (Thorndike, 1894 p. 146). When Sherman learned that three reporters
had been killed by an enemy artillery attack he proclaimed “Good! Now we
shall have news from hell before breakfast” (Andrews, 1985).
Coverage of the Baltimore Convention in the Richmond Daily Dispatch
Lincoln’s possible re-nomination was front page news in the Dispatch at least
ten days prior to the Baltimore Convention as the first mention emerges on
page one in the Tuesday, May 31, issue. The story appears in the third column
and starts at the very top of the page under the heading “Additional from the
North.” The author states that “A meeting in favor of Lincoln for the next
149
Yankee Presidency, was held at the Cooper Institute, New York on the 16th…”
The story continues to describe the different speakers and lists a sizeable
excerpt, if not the entirety of the speech delivered by the chairman, Charles S.
Spence. In the speech, Spence is highly laudatory of Lincoln’s effectiveness in
the office during his first term and praises the decision to appoint the “heroic
military chieftain” (Grant) and even goes so far as to state that the “end is
near” in terms of the “present revolution.”
This story is peculiar for a number of reasons. First, this type of
propagandistic style coverage would be expected in a Northern newspaper,
but seems increasingly out of place on the front page of a major newspaper in
the capital of the Confederacy. Second is the timing. Perhaps if this story ran a
few years earlier, it may have seemed more neutral on the part of the Dispatch
and its editors, but with Grant’s Army just miles from Richmond at this time
and Sherman cutting a swath through the South and pressing on Atlanta, it
seems odd to devote news space to “Yankee” speeches praising the president.
Third, the Dispatch was printing only two pages (one sheet front and back) at
this time. This story consumed nearly three-quarters of a column on the front
page. The decision to devote this much space to a story in which two sources
are directly quoted praising Lincoln and insisting that the war is all but lost by
the Confederacy is perplexing. Last, the hopes of many Confederate leaders at
this time, including Robert E. Lee, are to prolong the war until after the
election, hoping for a different president.
150
Interestingly, the next column of he same page lists a story that is
more consistent with what should be expected on the front page of the
Dispatch. The story is titled “An Anniversary Editorial – The Results of a Year”
and is a reprint of an editorial from the New York News. The Dispatch editors
state only that the “following editorial… is very readable.” The News editors
are writing to celebrate the one-year anniversary of the date it resumed
operations after being suppressed by the Lincoln Administration. The writers
insist that the News censored for the same reasons as Galileo was persecuted:
“for deprecating error and preaching truth.”
The editorialists also praise the public because the decision to lift the
suppression and allow the News to resume publication was largely due to
growing public discontent. “…its publication was resumed not because its
persecutors relented or repented, but because public opinion had, to a certain
degree, recovered its independence and cried shame upon this cowardly and
unprecedented assault upon the Liberty of the press…”
Later in the editorial, the writer insists that the News had foretold of
this “waste of life” ever since the war began, and not a day had passed that it
did not advocate an immediate peaceful resolution. The editorial concludes by
hoping that the principles the News strives for “will triumph over fanaticism
and lust for power… and the end of the year shall witness the pure
manifestation of peace healing the wounds of our war stricken country.” Once
again, this story consumes nearly three-quarters of the column, but the overall
151
theme of the story is highly negative and critical of Lincoln. This criticism and
hope for peace on the part of the North is understandable coverage for the
Dispatch at this time.
On Thursday, June 9, the Dispatch editors address the issue of
inaccurate coverage of Grant’s success in the Northern newspapers. In an
editorial simply titled “Grant’s Tactics,” the writer begins by viciously criticizing
Grant’s ability as a commander. “We think it may be safely asserted that, since
war first became known to mankind, no general ever sacrificed his men so
recklessly, so remorselessly, and to so little purpose as General Grant.” The
editorialist continues to criticize Grant’s lack of compassion for his men and
describes how he has lost more than one hundred thousand men for nothing.
Next, the writer insists that the Confederacy is grateful to Lincoln for
appointing Grant and had the distance between Richmond and Spotsylvania
been one hundred miles greater, Grant would no longer have an Army at his
command. The editorialist then insists that the true outcome of the battles is
insignificant in comparison to what Grant reports about the incident as well as
how the Northern newspapers cover the battles.
If Grant is whipped on land, however, he is always victorious on paper. We
wonder sometimes why he takes the trouble to fight at all. He can demolish
armies with the single stroke of his pen and capture cities by the flash of the
telegraph. Why not confine his exertions entirely to the composition of
telegraphic dispatches…He inflicts very little loss on Lee with his army, but he
slaughters his men by the thousands with the telegraph. Where then is the
use of fighting with any other weapon than the wires?
152
The first mention of Lincoln’s official re-nomination in the Dispatch
appears on Saturday, June 11, on page one. The story about General
Fremont’s letter and the Cleveland Convention takes precedent in terms of
placement, and the editors reprint a sizeable portion of Fremont’s comments
concerning the poor decision to nominate Lincoln for a second term. The entire
third column of the page is devoted to coverage of the Cleveland Convention
and an editorial originally published in the Spirit of the Times (New York) that is
highly critical of any continued effort to the war short of a peaceful settlement,
with the exception of the very bottom of the page. The news of the Baltimore
Convention from three days prior receives less than one column inch. The
entirety of the coverage of the actual news of Lincoln’s re-nomination by the
Baltimore Convention captures only 44 words of text that basically describe
that the assumed outcome of Lincoln’ selection by the committee was realized.
On Monday June 13, Dispatch editors address the issue and offer their
opinions about Lincoln’s re-nomination. Although they are highly critical of
Lincoln, they are ironically in favor of his re-nomination. At the top of the
second page in the first column under the heading “Things in General,” the
writer begins by addressing the effectiveness of the late “Yankee Raids” and
states that the only true effect was not the intended distress of the Southern
people to make them more desirous of peace. On the contrary, the editorialist
insists that the true outcome has been to canonize he will of the southern
153
people to continue to fight and further embellished the hatred of the
“Yankees.” Next, the writer addresses the Baltimore Convention’s results:
For our own part, we are glad to hear that Lincoln received the
nomination…Let him stay, for fear of a successor who might not be quite
such an imbecile. So we say of old Abe. It would be impossible to find
another such ass in the United States, and therefore we say let him stay…No
service ever had so many blundering officers and no campaigns were ever
conducted with greater stupidity. For these reasons we are decidedly in
favor of Old Abe, and we could command a million of votes in Yankeedom,
he should have them all.
The Dispatch routinely prints editorials and articles critical of Grant’s
maneuvers and Lincoln’s administration throughout the remainder of the
month of June. On Thursday, June 23, the editors discuss the efforts of
Lincoln’s administration to fix the price of gold. On the second page in the first
column under the heading “Gold in New York,” the editors insist that there is
nothing more remarkable “than the pertinacity with which the Government of
Lincoln strives to keep the price of Gold below 20024.” The story then cites
information only identified as a gentleman just through the lines who insists
that “… he just gave 215 for gold, six weeks ago, and he feels assured hat one
hundred dollars worth of it cannot be bought for a cent under 250.”
The price of gold was a continuing aspect of coverage in the Dispatch,
and the latest price routinely appeared immediately under the section heading
for the recurring section titled “Later from the North.” For instance, on the
front page at the top of the third column on Monday, July 11 the Dispatch
24
The price of gold fluctuated wildly at this time from a low of $175 an ounce in April 1864 to a high of
$285 an ounce in July 1864.
154
states that “Northern papers of the 7th have been received. Gold was quoted
on the 6th at 250a2581/2.” The remainder of the article deals specifically with
Grant’s efforts for the unconditional surrender of Petersburg and has little, if
any relevance to the gold price.
Coverage of the Battle of Atlanta in the Richmond Daily Dispatch
The Dispatch covered the advancements made by General Sherman as
he marched through Tennessee and into northern Georgia during this time as
well, but not with the same frequency as it covered the movements of Grant’s
army outside of Richmond. The battle of Atlanta proved to be a big story for
the Dispatch editors and the coverage received news space accordingly. On
Wednesday, July 27, the Dispatch printed an Atlanta dispatch by telegraph at
the top of the page by the masthead in the seventh column which describes
the present situation in the city. The dateline lists July 25 and states that
Union forces tried to break through the lines the previous night but was
repulsed after only one hour of fighting. The author then describes how Union
artillery has been shelling the city for some time and did so on this day for
longer than an hour “with some vigor.” The reporter criticizes Union
commanders for not properly sending notice of the intention to shell the city
to give women and children a chance to flee to safety. The writer called this
lack of notice a “barbarous violation of the usages of modern warfare,” and all
155
it truly accomplished was providing Sherman with the opportunity to murder a
few non-combatants.
On the front page on July 28, Dispatch editors demonstrate how
important the death of Major General James McPherson was to the southern
press. The story appears one-fourth of the way down in the third column and
appears under the heading “The Armies in Georgia.” The first striking feature
about the story is the fact that the text is at least twice the size of the normal
body copy of the other stories in the newspaper. The Dispatch is unique
among newspapers in the sample in that it printed with a seven-column layout,
not the standard six columns used by most Northern newspapers. The fact that
this story receives this type of treatment in terms of news space attests to the
importance placed on its significance by the editors.
The coverage isn’t necessarily openly celebrating the death of
McPherson, but it does frame the story as a positive occurrence for the
Confederacy:
The death of Major General McPherson (who won all the victories ever won by
the Yankee army under Grant) is confirmed and will prove a serious blow to
the enemy’s operations in Georgia. McPherson was the ruling adviser with
Sherman, as he had been with Grant, and was possessed of great caution and
much ability…There is no man in Sherman’s army who approaches him as a
commander except Thomas, who though successful as a fighting general, has
no reputation as a strategist.
Later in the same issue, the Dispatch publishes an editorial claiming
that peace with Lincoln will be unacceptable. In the top of the first column, on
the second page, under the heading “Lincoln’s Peace,” the editors insist that
156
the terms of peace with Lincoln will be more than Southerners can afford. The
editorial begins with its writers supposing that anyone in North Carolina who
had dreamed of peace upon reasonable terms should now be satisfied with
what they have to expect. “‘To whom it may concern’25 is an address
comprehensive enough to embrace the interests of every man who has a
dollar’s worth of property in a slave.” The editorialist insists that the
abandonment of slavery will have potentially more negative consequences on
those who do not own slaves because they will be forced to quarter an
“immense population of paupers and thieves.” Then the writer criticizes any
North Carolinian who may be considering peace by asking the rhetorical
question “Do they not know that even a few negroes are a pest to any
community?” The editorialist concludes the editorial by insisting that Lincoln’s
terms of the abandonment of slavery will reduce the condition of the
Confederacy to that of Mexico “…to the social and political equality of whites
and negroes and all the atrocities and debasement of miscegenation.”
On Monday, August 8, 1864, the Dispatch editors once again seemingly
endorse Lincoln’s re-nomination. Although the editors do not favor of Lincoln,
they state that they believe that the fanatical supporters of General Fremont
25
This refers to a letter issued by the White House on July 18, 1864. The letter read: “To Whom it may
concern: Any proposition which embraces the restoration of peace, the integrity of the whole Union, and
the abandonment of slavery, and which comes by and with an authority that can control the armies now
at war against the United States will be received and considered by the Executive government of the
United States, and will be met by liberal terms on other substantial and collateral points; and the bearer,
or bearers thereof shall have safe-conduct both ways. Abraham Lincoln
157
and Fremont’s policies will be worse for the South and any hopes of peace
than Lincoln’s re-election. In an editorial in the first column at the top of the
front page titled “The Northern Presidential Campaign – The War” the editors
state that there is no clear indication of the defeat of Lincoln and his “beastly
Administration.” The editorial criticizes the ultra-abolitionists whose staunch
fanaticism has distanced them so far from any other political parties in the
North that they have essentially ruined all hopes for any form of alliances
against Lincoln. In other words, the Dispatch editors believe that if there were
a concerted effort by multiple political groups in the North, Lincoln may not
win the election of 1864. However, the editorial expresses the opinion that
Lincoln’s defeat is impossible a full month before the Battle of Atlanta’s
conclusion:
The Peace Party, which has not yet made its nomination, cannot coalesce
with this monstrous organism [Fremont]; and the prospect is that here will
be two parties running against Lincoln. This will so far repress the hope of the
triumph of either that neither will, in the race, have the advantage of the
support of the large body of tide-waders who cast their votes for the winning
side. The opposition thus divided, this class would more than likely go to
Lincoln, satisfied that the joker could more easily defeat two than one
competitor in the political field.
In this same issue, coverage of the Battle of Atlanta is surprisingly
positive. In fact, the Dispatch editors believe that Sherman and the Union
armies are in greater danger than the besieged Confederate troops in the city
of Atlanta. In a story titled “More Successes in Georgia,” the Dispatch reports
that Sherman has been defeated every time Union forces assault the
Confederate positions. General John Bell Hood reports in a dispatch dated
158
August 6 that, “The enemy made two assaults to-day on Finley and Lewis’s
Brigades…both of which were handsomely repulsed with loss to them.” The
story states that this news is exhilarating and reports that Sherman has
apparently abandoned his efforts to flank the Confederate positions. The
editors believe that this is excellent news because the prospect of a full frontal
assault is very costly and nearly impossible to dislodge entrenched troops.
The editors compare Sherman’s situation in Atlanta to that of Grant in
Richmond. The editors state that they believe the only time a Confederate
army was defeated through a full-frontal assault took place at Lookout
Mountain and they trust it will never happen again. They also insist that if this
is Sherman’s only hope, he had better begin planning a retreat strategy. Next,
the writers compare the retreat that will take place to that of Napoleon’s
retreat from Russia. Cut off from his supplies and harassed by an Army to his
rear, Sherman has created a dangerous situation for himself. The editors insist
that the danger of the situation is exacerbated by the fact that Sherman has
destroyed thousands of homes along his caustic route through the South, and
the displaced owners of the homes he has destroyed are seeking vengeance.
During the next week, the Dispatch states that there is very little
news to report from the war in general and specifically from Atlanta. In fact,
the editors are rather poetic in their description of the paucity of news to
report. “Like the impatient mariner, who is in a dead calm, looks aloft and
whistles for a breeze, we might have whistled in vain for news – it would not
159
have come. The mails are barren of anything of interest and the telegraph is at
a standstill.” One brief story mentions the situation in Atlanta in the third
column at the top of the front page on Monday, August 15. In a story titled
simply “From Georgia,” the Dispatch reports that the Union bombardment of
the city continues with sustained vigor. It also reports that Sherman will not
continue with an all- out assault on the Rebel front, but seems to be planning
some sort of flanking maneuver around the left of the Confederate position in
attempts to attack from the rear. In its usual fashion, the Dispatch insists that
General Hood is well aware of Sherman’s plans and will no doubt repulse any
advance. Next the editors discuss how Sherman telegraphed Washington that
he planned on capturing the city by the end of the week. “… but as the city still
stands, hurling defiance at the foe, they will have to telegraph again that they
were slightly mistaken in their calculations.”
On Wednesday, August 17, the Dispatch reprints the report form
“Personne” a correspondent for the Carolinian (Columbia, South Carolina),
who details the current state of the city. Unlike the bulk of the coverage of
Atlanta up to this point, which has been largely comprised of upbeat
conjecture and speculation, this account chronicles the dire state of affairs for
the citizens of Atlanta. In fact, the story appears under the heading “The
‘Siege’ of Atlanta.” The quotation marks around the word siege in the headline
may be indicative of the fact that the editors of the Dispatch may not agree
160
with the report, but this is the first time that a segment of coverage about
Atlanta appeared under a heading other than “From Georgia.”
“Personne” reports that the majority of the citizens have fled the city
and it “reminds one very much of Goldsmith’s ‘Deserted Village.’” Personne
describes the Federal shelling of the city as barbaric and describes the
collateral damage that occurs in terms of dead women and children. The story
chronicles the death of the “bright little daughter” of J.H. Hammer, the
superintendent of the gas company, who was mangled in her bed as she slept
by an exploding shell. The story concludes by stating that the eventual assault
is still weeks away because the federal troops seemed to have resolved to “dig
the Confederate soldiers out.” Last, Personne states that the medical director
informed him that the Rebel army is in perfect health. Although the story
concludes in a somewhat positive outlook, this is the first instance in which the
Dispatch reports that the city is in danger.
The next story in the same column is a reprint from the Augusta
Chronicle that states that the Confederate army has been steadily receiving
considerable reinforcements from the Georgia State militia. “How many
thousands I cannot mention, but this much I can say: General Smith is at the
head of a large and splendid body of men, and they are daily increasing in
numbers.” The story continues to describe the increase of supplies and guns.
The conclusion of the story describes how the arduous task of digging the
trenches to further fortify the city is being done by black men. The article
161
refers to these men only as “negroes” and doesn’t specify whether they are
slaves, prisoners of war, or hired servants.
The next story concerning the battle of Atlanta appears on Tuesday,
August 23 at the bottom of the front page in the third column under the
heading “From Georgia.” The story continues into the top of the fourth
column but is rather brief. The story describes how the Union Cavalry struck
the Macon railroad on August 19, and were met by Confederate cavalry the
next day. The story concludes with the Rebels routing the Union forces and
capturing “two strands of colors and a piece of artillery.” The next day, the
Dispatch reports that there is little news to report once again and the little
action to speak of in Atlanta is generally raids and small skirmishes. The
specific outcome of these raids is rather unclear and the Dispatch reports that
the Yankee papers state “they are all in a muddle.”
Typical of much newspaper coverage during this time and specifically in
the Dispatch, editors take a rather optimistic tone in interpreting what they
believe is happening. “Wheeler is undoubtedly operating successfully in the
enemy’s rear, though the accounts of his movements are vague and uncertain
… We hope however, soon to have a clear and concise statement of his doings,
such as will make Sherman wish he had never sat himself down in front of
Atlanta.”
Interestingly, as the siege in Atlanta progresses and the actual state of
affairs becomes worse, the coverage in the Dispatch becomes increasingly
162
optimistic. In fact, the worse the situation becomes for the Rebel soldiers
inside the city, the Dispatch coverage describes the situation as increasingly
dangerous for Sherman’s army. On Tuesday, August 30, in a section titled “The
Position of Affairs in Georgia,” the editors describe how much trouble Sherman
has gotten himself into.
The latest advices from Georgia show that Sherman’s situation is becoming
hourly more perilous. No army, in the history of this war has occupied so
dangerous a position… Two weeks (if he can stay so long) will settle the
question of the enemy’s remaining on this side of the Chattahoochee, and
then the question as to whether or not his army will ever get home again
becomes open to discussion.
The statement about the question being decided in just two weeks was
quite wrong as the surrender of Atlanta would come just three days later on
September 2, 1864. The next story in this same column notes a lack of official
reports that Sherman is preparing his army for retreat, but he is moving his
army around which prompts the Dispatch editors to speculate that he is, in
fact, preparing for retreat. That the Dispatch reports that there are even
rumors of a possible retreat from Atlanta is evident in the position of the
editors in terms of what they hope is happening. The story concludes stating
no federal troops are any closer than four miles to Atlanta.
Coverage of the Chicago Convention in the Richmond Daily Dispatch
On Thursday, September 1, the Dispatch reports the results of the
Chicago Convention and the probable nomination of George McClellan. The
story appears right about center of the front page. In the fourth column under
163
the heading “The Chicago Convention,” the Dispatch reports that although
there is no confirmation, the tone of the Northern papers makes the logical
assumption that McClellan and Guthrie26 “will certainly be the nominees.” This
story is much more thorough than that of Lincoln’s nomination by the
Baltimore Convention. Indeed, Lincoln’s story was less than fifty words, yet the
story about McClellan consumes nearly half of one column. No evidence
supports speculation that editors wanted McClellan to win the election, but it
is possible given the amount of news space devoted to the convention.
On September 2, the Dispatch published a story critical of Lincoln and
the decision to draft an additional 500,000 troops into the Union Army. The
story appears in the center of the front page under the heading, “The Armed
Resistance to the Draft in the Northwest – The Indiana Conspiracy.” The story
describes how “Yankee officials” have recently become aware of a secret
“formidable” organization present in all Union states, and its sole purpose is to
resist the enforcement of the draft and “defeat its purposes.” The story also
describes how Governor Oliver P. Morton of Indiana delivered a speech on
August 22, in Indianapolis detailing the discovery of ammunition and weapons
in Indiana. Governor Morton had long been a staunch supporter of the war,
and Indiana had raised considerable funds and men for the war effort 27. It’s
26
James Guthrie represented Kentucky as a delegate in the Democratic National Convention in 1864.
Guthrie served as the Secretary of the Treasury under President Franklin Pierce.
27
More than three times the number of men required to fill Indiana's quota of the original call for
volunteers requested by President Lincoln at the onset of the war in 1861. During the war, Governor
Morton counseled the president, organized regiments, hurried troops to the field, and was given the
moniker, "the Great War Governor."
164
ironic that the Dispatch editors would quote Morton as the majority of his
speech condemns the actions as treasonous and supports the war and
President Lincoln.
On the same page, a story concerning the state of affairs in Atlanta
appears in the second column near the bottom of the page under the heading
“The Railroad Raid in Sherman’s Rear.” The story describes how General
Wheeler’s Confederate cavalry destroyed a tunnel at Tunnel Hill and also
destroyed the railroads tracks. The effect of this sabotage has made
transportation for civilians and Sherman’s troops and supplies exceedingly
difficult according to the sources cited in the story including a “clergyman from
Rome Georgia” and two Federal troops who deserted because they did not
agree with the war. The story concludes by describing how General Hood has
ordered that any Confederate soldier caught dealing with Union soldiers is to
be “instantly executed.” On the second page, in an untitled editorial, the
Dispatch discusses how it is plain that the Chicago Convention is a matter of
serious concern for Lincoln.
It is certain that Lincoln looks with intense anxiety to the decisions of the
Chicago Convention. Otherwise, he would not have put his machinery of
lying into operation so extensively at this precise moment. The fact that
there is such a convention at all indicates that there is a deep dissatisfaction
with his measures.
This editorial may offer some insight into the state of mind of the Dispatch
editors at this time. The jovial tone of criticism of Lincoln as an idiot that was
prevalent just a few months prior after the Baltimore Convention has been
165
replaced with this much more vituperative and serious tone of criticism.
Perhaps the editors are more concerned about the state of affairs in Atlanta
than they are willing to report in the newspaper. The news reports in the
Dispatch still optimistic in tone, but the editorials concerning Lincoln now seem
much more deliberate and insidious.
By Saturday, September 3, it’s apparent that the editors knew that
Atlanta had fallen. The news report, however, presented a quite different
scenario. In the second column on the front page, under the heading “From
Georgia,” the Dispatch reports that it has news of the fighting near Atlanta, but
the “accounts thus far received are confused and unsatisfactory.” Perhaps the
accounts are unsatisfactory because the real news is unsatisfactory; it is the
antithesis of what the Dispatch reported and predicted over the summer of
1864.
166
Chapter Nine
Conclusions
New York Daily Tribune
Horace Greeley was pivotal in securing Lincoln’s nomination in 1860
(Maihafer, 1998). The New York Daily Tribune provided a thorough and
accurate account of the battles and significant happenings of the summer of
1864. It’s important to note that the Tribune was a pro-Republican Party
newspaper. From an editorial perspective, it’s apparent that the editorial
thrust of the coverage and opinionated columns favored and advocated
Lincoln’s reelection. This is consistent with the hypothesis that the favorable
coverage and advocacy may have influenced the outcome of the 1864
presidential election.
The Daily National Intelligencer
The Intelligencer provided more negative coverage of Lincoln than
any of the northern publications in the sample (the Richmond Daily Dispatch
was obviously more critical). It’s important to also note that the Intelligencer
was a pro-Democratic Party newspaper. The Cleveland Convention wasn’t a
prominent story in The New York Times and Harper’s Weekly. The fact that the
convention took place during a particularly slow period during the war may
have increased the amount of coverage it received. Indeed, when the news
about Atlanta surfaced, the Cleveland Convention was all but forgotten in the
167
Times. Conversely, the Intelligencer continued to cover it extensively and
followed up its reporting with laudatory editorials praising Lincoln’s
competition – McClellan.
The assumption that the coverage would prove more favorable
immediately following the victory in Atlanta was wrong. The Intelligencer
shared the victory as good news to its readers, but it did not use the news to
praise Lincoln or the administration. Indeed, the Tribune covered celebrations
from around the country and heavily promoted the implications the victory
had on ending the war. No such coverage appeared in the Intelligencer. It’s
obvious that the Intelligencer’s editorial position preferred McClellan, or at
least did not prefer Lincoln, and its less-than-favorable editorials, meager
coverage of good news, magnification of bad news and promotion of McClellan
proved that.
Harper’s Weekly
Throughout all the issues examined in this sample, the editorial
position of Harper’s Weekly remained incredibly pro-Lincoln. Everything that
went well for Lincoln was magnified and disparaging news for the war was
curtailed. In addition, the editors attacked all of Lincoln’s challengers and their
positions. The tone seemed to grow increasingly aggressive as the election
drew nearer. It’s obviously impossible to determine what, if any, impact the
168
nature of this coverage had on the election. But, the outcome of Lincoln’s
reelection that the editors advocated for so passionately came to fruition.
The New York Times
It’s obvious the New York Times favored Lincoln’s re-election. The
Times was a pro-Republican Party newspaper and its editor, Henry J. Raymond,
was the chief author of the party platform for the Baltimore Convention and
was the incoming party chairman. The favorable coverage of significant battles,
laudatory editorials, and disparaging articles concerning Lincoln’s opposition
provide significant evidence affirm this fact. It’s important to note that the
amount of coverage for many events, both positive and negative for Lincoln,
was generally given equal space. The Chicago Convention coverage is a prime
example. The total amount of coverage in terms of space devoted was nearly
identical to that of the Baltimore Convention. The key difference is the tone of
the editorials that vilified Lincoln’s opposition.
The Richmond Daily Dispatch
The Dispatch never referred to the battle of Atlanta as a loss for the
Confederate forces. In fact, in an editorial on Monday, September 5, the
editors describe the situation as an “evacuation” of the Confederate troops.
The editors do acknowledge the significance of the battle from a political
standpoint however. “We regard the evacuation of Atlanta by our troops as a
169
misfortune only in so far as it will have the effect of consolidating all parties in
the North of a continued prosecution of the war.” The editorial concludes by
describing how the Confederate forces still present a grave danger to
Sherman’s army and the victory was of no significance militarily.
The Dispatch provided disparate coverage of Lincoln. It obviously
published editorials criticizing Lincoln. In addition, it routinely inflated the
success of Confederate forces, especially during the fight for Atlanta.
Moreover, it minimized Union successes. Interestingly, the Dispatch editors
favored Lincoln over Fremont, causing a slightly more favorable approach to
Lincoln in coverage of the Cleveland Convention.
Implications
Starrt and Sloan (2003) argue that studying history can help us
understand the present. “Its value, however, is not simply in helping discover
the paths by which the present emerged, but in revealing particulars from the
past that may serve as comparisons with the present, as lenses through which
to consider our own times (x). Ironically, the New York Times still covers the
Civil War for its readers to this day as it houses a blog called “Disunion,”
written by Adam Goodheart. Goodheart, a historian and professor at
Washington College who also wrote “1861: The Civil War Awakening,” argues
that reading daily newspaper accounts allows readers “to experience it *the
Civil War] almost like contemporaries.”
170
In an interview on National Public Radio on November 20, 2010,
Goodheart argued that journalism changed the Civil War before the Civil War
changed journalism. “By 1860, by the time of Lincoln’s election, every major
newspaper in the country carried reports by telegraph. The telegraph, and just
the proliferation of the media in general, really created sort of a national echo
chamber that might be a little bit familiar to some people today,” Goodheart
said.
Compare the American Revolution to the Civil War. In 1775 there were 37
newspapers, and most of them were weekly newspapers. In 1860 there
were 3700 newspapers, and very many of them were daily newspapers.
And, much as in today’s media environment, it rewarded the people who
could be the most outrageous … my favorite bit of invective that I came
across in researching my book is an editor saying: ‘Lincoln is a cross
between a sand-hill crane and an Andalusian jackass.
The original assumption of this thesis was based on the premise that
Abraham Lincoln was an unpopular president, and newspaper editorial and
news coverage would reflect this unpopularity. This was expected to be
especially true by the summer of 1864 as the war was nearing its fourth year
and many people in the country were weary of war and anxious for peace. The
coverage was expected to be somewhat critical of Lincoln and generally
negative about the success of the Union war effort. The Battle of Atlanta
represented the final nail in the coffin of the Confederacy, so to speak from a
strategic military standpoint, and the researcher assumed that this historically
momentous news event would have been the catalyst for shifting the opinions
171
of newspaper editors and ultimately led to more favorable coverage.
The sample data provided much evidence to the contrary. The
coverage was generally favorable in most of the sample publications and
became even more so after the Union Army victory in Atlanta. Evidence
suggests that not only was Lincoln aware of the impact the news media had on
elections, he was equally adept at manipulating it to his favor. He formed
strategic partnerships and affiliations with influential editors and leaders
across the country. Although he was truly brilliant and no doubt qualified as an
intellectual, he was able to convince editors, who then convinced the masses,
that he was a hard-working common man of the people who earned
everything he had in life, including the U.S. presidency, purely through hard
work and old-fashioned American grit and determination. Indeed, none can
argue he worked hard for his accomplishments, but he was much more than a
“rail splitter.” He was a savvy politician who knew how to get the common man
to see things his way. This led to the news media coverage he desired to
influence public opinion.
Goodheart also points out that the rich and vivid detail of Civil War
reporting “influenced public opinion perhaps even more than the rhetoric and
the bombast.” Goodheart shared an example of coverage of John Brown’s
hanging in 1859 for his failed attempt to rouse an insurgency of slaves in the
South to revolt. A young correspondent named Ned House managed to get
himself onto the scaffold standing right next to John Brown after he pretended
172
he was a medic. House was literally close enough that he heard Brown’s neck
snap as he fell through the trapdoor.
And he wrote an incredibly vivid description for Northern readers describing
this body there, kicking and struggling at the end of the rope. And this just
brought the news home to Northerners in a way that they wouldn't have felt if
they had just simply read a dispatch that said, John Brown was executed
yesterday at Harper’s Ferry, which was the way the news would have been
reported 20 or 30 years before.
The powerful reporting and favorable news media and editorial
coverage Lincoln garnered may or may not have had an impact on the election
of 1864. It is impossible to determine if voters were swayed to reelect Lincoln
because of favorable newspaper coverage more than 150 years after the fact.
However, it is possible to state that since much of the coverage was favorable,
it may have been influential to some voters, since Lincoln was in fact reelected
to the presidency.
Not only was Lincoln able to get editors on his side, this study proves
that he was able to remain in their good graces even during the darkest days of
the Civil War (at least in the related coverage in the aforementioned
publications). The newspaper coverage, however, was strikingly favorable and
optimistic of Lincoln, on the whole, for the entirety of the sample period from
his re-nomination by the Baltimore Convention in June of 1864, a full three
months prior to the Battle of Atlanta, when the war-weariness of the nation
was seemingly at its worst, through the actual reports of the successful capture
of Atlanta by General William Tecumseh Sherman. It’s also important to note
173
that not every newspaper in the North was pro-Lincoln. In fact, there were
numerous influential Copperhead editors and newspapers that made it an
editorial mission to see Lincoln replaced as the president. But, Weber (2006)
points out that Sherman’s victory in Atlanta made a mockery of all the rhetoric
and dismal projections of the inevitability of the indefinite prosecution of the
war. “When the news arrived, the mood in the North made a 180-degree turn.
Despair gave way to cheerful – almost giddy – confidence” (p. 176.)
Initially, it would seem that the fact that the newspaper coverage in this
sample was consistently favorable would make the original assumption that
the Battle of Atlanta would have represented a major shift from negative to
positive, incorrect. This is true. However, the real crux of this thesis is
predicated on the assumption that favorable newspaper coverage by the major
influential newspapers in the country at the time may have contributed to
Lincoln’s re-election. With that in mind, this assumption seems even more
plausible because there was consistently positive coverage for a much longer
period of time than originally expected. Many theories on the effects of mass
media exposure have agreed that the most prolific effects are developed
through continued and consistent contact to mass media messages over
extended periods of time. Because newspapers were the only true mass
medium at this time, and the American population was, on the whole,
voracious consumers of news, it is justifiable to assume that newspaper
174
coverage may have had, at an absolute minimum, some impact on the election
of 1864.
Limitations
The most profound limitation to this study is the small sample size.
Analyzing five publications, regardless of how influential they may have been
or the size of their circulations, is woefully inadequate. Newspapers were the
only mass medium at the time and Americans devoured news of the Civil War.
There were so many newspapers across the country, many with a national
presence, that no sample of five could ever be adequate to thoroughly explore
the range of coverage of the events leading up to the election of 1864.
However, the publications chosen for this sample offer a strategic glimpse of
the period’s coverage from a national level. The Richmond Daily Dispatch and
the National Intelligencer were the most influential newspapers in the
respective “national” capitals at the time (if the Confederate States of America
counted as a nation). In addition, Ames (1972) argues that Washington, D.C.,
was the journalistic capital in the first half of the nineteenth century and the
Intelligencer was the “aristocrat of Washington journalism” (ibid, viii).
Harper’s Weekly is considered by many historians and scholars alike
to be the most influential publication of the period and was one of only a
handful of national “magazines.” Niles Weekly Register was a national news
magazine but ceased publication in 1849. Plus, Harper’s Weekly published
highly-analytical editorials of major news events and their significance on
175
society as opposed to a mere reporting of the events. The New York Daily
Tribune and The New York Times were two of the leading newspapers in New
York both in terms of influence and circulation. New York was incredibly
significant to the election because of the state’s 33 electoral votes were the
largest of any state in the election. In addition, Lincoln only won New York by
less than 1 percent of the popular vote. An analysis of five newspapers from
New York City alone could provide a more complete sample of a more specific
region and/or audience, but that would do little to address the implications of
the newspaper coverage on a national election.
The other major limitation is the short time period. The purpose of
this study was to examine if and how coverage concerning Lincoln’s re-election
efforts changed after his nomination by the Baltimore Convention in early
June, 1864 to the period immediately following General Sherman’s victory in
the Battle of Atlanta on September 2, 1864. That period of less than 100 days is
probably not enough time to shift readers’ opinions of Lincoln and influence
their votes. Indeed, much scholarship suggests that media influence is much
more gradual and occurs over repeated exposure over longer periods of time.
However, the victory in Atlanta was such a significant milestone signaling the
end of such a bloody period in America, that one story confirming that news
may be all it took to convince a reader to vote for Lincoln. Sadly, we will never
know for sure.
176
References
Ames, W., Anderson, D.D. (1972) A History of the National Intelligencer. Chapel
Hill, North Carolina, The University of North Carolina Press.
Andrews, J. Cutler (1985) “The South Reports the Civil War.” Pittsburgh, Pa.
University of Pittsburgh Press.
Andrews, J. Cutler (1956) “The North Reports the Civil War.” Pittsburgh, Pa.
University of Pittsburgh Press.
Baldasty, Gerald J. “The Boston Press and Politics in Jacksonian America.”
Journalism History. 7:3-4 Autumn-Winter 1980.
Brown, R.H, Moore, G. “The American Civil War.” The Columbia Encyclopedia,
6th ed. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001–04. www.bartleby.com/65/
Bunker, G. L. (2001) From Rail-Splitter to Icon: Lincoln’s image in illustrated
periodicals, 1860-1865. Kent, Kent State University Press.
Carey, James W. “The Problem of Journalism History.” Journalism History;
Summer 1985, Vol.12, Issue 2, p51-53, 3p.
Caudill, Edward; Caudill, Susan L. “Nation and Section: Key symbols in the
Antebellum Press.” Journalism History, Spring 1988, Vol. 15, Issue 1, p16-25,
10p
Copeland, David A., Fee Jr., Frank E., Feldstein, Mark, Lumsden, Linda J. “How
to Write Journalism History” Journalism Studies; Jun 2006, Vol. 7 Issue 3, p463481, 19p.
Cronin, M. M. “Fiend, Coward, monster, or King: Southern Press Views of
Abraham Lincoln.” American Journalism; Fall 2009, Vol. 26 Issue 4 p35-61.
Dann, Martin E., Ed. “The Black Press, 1827-1890.” New York: G.P. Putnam,
1971.
Davis, W. C. (2001) The Battlefields of the Civil War. London, United Kingdom:
Salamander Books Limited.
Davis, W. C. (2001) The Commanders of the Civil War. London, United
Kingdom: Salamander Books Limited.
177
Davis, W. C. (2001) The Fighting Men of the Civil War. London, United
Kingdom: Salamander Books Limited.
DeFleur, M., Lowery, S. (1983). Milestones in Mass Communication Research.
New York, New York: Longman.
Eason, David. L. “The New Social History of the Newspaper,” Communication
Review 11 (January, 1984): 141-151.
Emery, E. (1954) The press and America: An interpretive history. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Fahrney, R. R. (1936) Horace Greeley and the Tribune During the Civil War.
Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The Torch Press.
Fee Jr., Frank E. "Intelligent Union of Black With White" Journalism History,
Spring 2005, Vol. 31 Issue 1, p32-45, 12p.
Foote, Shelby, “The Civil War, A Narrative: Red River to Appomattox,” Random
House, 1974
Freeman, D.S. ed., (1915) Lee’s Dispatches: Unpublished letters of General
Robert E. Lee, C.S.A. to Jefferson Davis and the War Department of the
Confederate States of America. Louisiana State University Press, 1994.
Gallagher, G. "American Civil War," Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia
2007
http://encarta.msn.com © 1997-2007 Microsoft Corporation
Gallagher, G. ed (1989) Fighting for the Confederacy: The Personal recollections
of General Edward Porter Alexander, Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina
Press.
Gates, H. L. (2007) Black Reconstruction in America: W.E.B DuBois. New, York,
New York. Oxford University Press.
Gray, Richard. “The Uses of Journalism History.” Journalism History. 83-4
Autumn-Winter 1981.
Hage, G. S. (1956). Anti-intellectualism in newspaper comment of the elections
of 1828 and 1952. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota
Hallock, S. (2007). Editorial and opinion: The dwindling marketplace of ideas in
today's news. Westport, Connecticut: Preager Publishers.
178
Hamlin, C. (1899). The Life and Times of Hannibal Hamlin. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Riverside Press.
Harper, R. S. (1951). Lincoln and the Press. New York, New York. McGraw-Hill
Book Company, Inc.
Hedgepeth Williams, J. (1994) The Media and Personification of Society. In
Starrt, J. D. and Sloan, W. D. (Ed.). The Significance of the Media in American
History (pp. 44-64). Northport, Alabama: Vision Press.
Hester, A. “Newspapers and newspaper prototypes in Spanish America 15411750.” Journalism History Autumn 1979 73-82.
Howe, M.A. (1995). Marching with Sherman. Lincoln, Connecticut. University of
Nebraska Press.
Hughes, (1991). In Sloan, W. D. Perspectives on Mass Communication History.
Hillsdale New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Humphrey, C. (1994) The Media and Wartime Morale. In Starrt, J. D. and Sloan,
W. D. (Ed.). The Significance of the Media in American History (pp. 65-77).
Northport, Alabama: Vision Press.
Hynes, T. (1994). “Media Manipulation and Political Campaigns: Bruce Barton
and the Presidential Elections of the Jazz Age.” Journalism History. pp 93-100.
Kilmer, P. (2002). The Press and Government. In Sloan, D, Parcell, L. (Ed.).
American Journalism, History Principles, Practices (pp. 23-33). Jefferson, North
Carolina: McFarland & Company.
Knowlton, S. (1994) The Media and Popular Sovereignty. In Starrt, J. D. and
Sloan, W. D. (Ed.). The Significance of the Media in American History (pp. 1644). Northport, Alabama: Vision Press.
Kobre, Sidney, “The Sociological Approach in Research in Newspaper History,”
Journalism Quarterly 22 (1945): 12-22.
Logan, Kevin J. “The Bee-Hive newspaper and the British Working Class
Attitudes Toward the American Civil War,” Civil War History 22 (December
1976). 337-48.
179
Luvaas, J., & Nelson, H. W. (1987). The U.S. Army War College Guide to the
Battle of Antietam: The Maryland Campaign of 1862.Carlisle, Pa.: South
Mountain Press, Inc.
Luxon, N. (1947) “Niles Weekly Register: News Magazine of the Nineteenth
Century” Baton Rouge, La., Louisiana State University Press.
McGinniss, Joseph. “The Selling of the President 1968.” (New York) Pocket
Books 1969.
McKerns, Joseph P. “The Limits of Progressive Journalism History.” Journalism
History. Autumn 1977. pp 89-92.
McMurry, R.M. “The Enemy at Richmond: Joseph E. Johnston and the
Confederate Government.” Civil War History, 1981, Vol. 27 15-16.
McPherson, J.M. (1988) The Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. New
York, Oxford University Press.
Miller, Karen. “The Information-Literate Historian: A Guide to Research for
History Students.” Journalism History, Winter 2007, Vol. 32, Issue 4.
Mott, F (1941). American Journalism. New York, New York: The Macmillan
Company.
Nevins, Allan, “American Journalism and its Historical Treatment,” Journalism
Quarterly 36 (1959): 411-422.
Nischan, B. “Propaganda in an age of Ideological Division: The Case of Saxony
in the Thirty Years War.” Journalism History. Spring 1977. pp 23-29.
Rhodes, R. H. ed, (1985) All for the Union: The Civil War diary and letters of
Elisha Hunt Rhodes, New York, Orion Books, a division of Crown Publishers, Inc.
Risley, Ford "Dear Courier." Journalism History. Fall 2005, Vol. 31 Issue 3, p162170, 9p.
Salmon, L. M. (1923) The Newspaper and the Historian Oxford, The Oxford
University Press.
Selbenne, D. Rachlin, S. and Fitzsimon, M. Coverage of the media in college
textbooks (New York: Freedom forum media Studies center at Columbia
University, 1992), 3-4.
180
Shaw, Donald Lewis. “At the Crossroads. Change and Continuity in American
Press News 1820-1860.” Journalism History. 8:2 Summer 1981.
Sifakis, S., (1988) Who was who in the Civil War. New York, New York: Facts on
File, Inc.
Sloan, D, Parcell, L. (Ed.). (2002). American Journalism, History Principles,
Practices. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company.
Sloan, W. D. (1991). Perspectives on Mass Communication History. Hillsdale
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sloan, W. and Williams, J. H. (1994) The Early American Press: 1690-1783.
Westport, Connecticut. Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.
Sloan, W. D., Wray, C. S., and Sloan, C. J., (1997) Great Editorials. Northport,
Alabama. Vision Press.
Starrt, J. D. and Sloan, W. D. ed. (1994). The Significance of the Media in
American History, Northport, Alabama: Vision Press.
Steers, E. (2007) Lincoln legends: Myths, hoaxes and confabulations associated
with our greatest president. Lexington, Kentucky. University Press of Kentucky.
Stewart Dyer, C. (1980) “Census Manuscripts and Circulation Data for Mid-19th
Century newspapers.” Journalism History. 7:2 Summer. 47-48, 67.
Striner, R. (2006) Father Abraham: Lincoln’s relentless struggle to end slavery.
New York, New York. Oxford university Press.
Taylor, Sally. “Marx and Greely on Slavery and Labor” Journalism History. 6:4
Winter 1979-80. 103-106, 122.
Tenney, Craig D. “To Suppress or Not to Suppress: Abraham Lincoln and the
Chicago Times.” Civil War History. (September 1981): 248-59.
Thorndike, R. S. (1894). The Sherman Letters: Correspondence between General
and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891. New York, New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons.
Tripp, C.A. (2005). The intimate world of Abraham Lincoln. New York, New
York. Free Press.
181
Towne, Stephen E. “Works of Indiscretion.” Journalism History, Fall 2005, Vol.
31 Issue 3, p138-149, 12p, 1bw.
Ward, H. (1994) The Media and Political Values. In Starrt, J. D. and Sloan, W. D.
(Ed.). The Significance of the Media in American History (pp. 129-146).
Northport, Alabama: Vision Press.
Warner, Ezra J., Generals in Blue: Lives of the Union Commanders. Baton
Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1964
Weber, J. L. (2006) Copperheads: The rise and fall of Lincoln’s opponents in the
North. Oxford; New York. Oxford University Press.
Wert, Jeffrey D. “The Great Civil War Gold Hoax” American History Illustrated.
April 1980: 20-24
Winther, W. O. (1958) With Sherman to the Sea: The Civil War letters, diaries
and reminisces of Theodore F. Upson. Bloomington, Indiana. Indiana University
Press.
182