*Overall differences and history to give an overview of the Civil War before diving into the specific topic of journalism
An individual’s personal views can always be seen affecting
how they interpret an event, and due to this bias, there tend to be multiple understandings
of the same historical situation. When dealing with people who are writing about
something that is extremely controversial there is a great chance for small
differences in their wording and overall details of that event. Due to this, there
are countless interpretations of famous and controversial events such as the Civil
War. Many individuals with varying beliefs have written about this monumental war
which would cause there to be an overflood of divergent information. Historians
have obtained a focus on examining the differences in journalism during the
Civil War between various points of view. People today are analyzing how the
journalist during that time was affected by their own personal views and how
that was transferred into their writing.
Many historians such
as Ford Risley have examined the role of the press during the Civil War and how
your location and your personal beliefs can alter how you decide to write and
interpret. Risley worked to show the disparity between a journalist in the North
compared to the South shown by how press found in the Northern states greatly
supported and exaggerated their own side while of course, the Southern press
would do the same for their side. The Northern publications “supported the
administration’s policies on virtually every issue. They beat the drum for war,
exaggerating Union victories and minimizing Union defeats”. While the Southern
side “praised the heroic efforts of soldiers and civilians, decried apathy and
disloyalty, emphasized Union problems, and explained the consequences of defeat”.
There were Northern Democratic newspapers that were found that
supported the views of the Confederacy though there were very few Southern
editors that opposed the views of the Confederacy. The Northern states had “Copperhead
publications, as they were known, virulently opposed the war. They believed the
southern states had a right to leave the Union. They also viewed slavery as a
state issue and argued that only individual states had a right to eliminate it”.
While in the Southern states “few editors dared not to support the Confederacy
in its fight with the Union. Most had been outspoken supporters of slavery and
they advocated any means of preserving the institution they believed was so
vital to maintaining the South’s economy and way of life”. There were still few in
the Southern states that criticized the Confederacy’s leaders, but it seemed that
there was more Northern support of the Confederacy than there was the opposition of
the Confederacy in Southern areas.
During this war, an immense amount of newspapers was
published though many of these publications tended to include extreme exaggerations
to compete with other competitors. These implications hurt both sides so censorship
measures were taken by both to prevent false or sensitive data from reaching
the public. This war allowed for the advancements of both side's publications to
expand to better cover complex situations such as the Civil War. The two sides
were similar in the fact that they both had the want for more news and
publications though “reporting for Northern newspapers was a logistical
struggle, it was a nightmare for the South. Telegraph and rail connections were
sparse and unreliable. Furthermore, Southern newspapers were cut off from the
Associated Press, the leading news-sharing cooperative, based in New York”. The
Southern states had a disadvantage when it came to publishing their beliefs and
findings due to the restrictions caused by the Northern areas.
It tended to be evident
on which side a newspaper supported which can be shown by “The Chester County
Times in Pennsylvania made no attempt to disguise how it felt about the
election of Abraham Lincoln as the nation’s 16th president. “A Clean Sweep!” it
exclaimed. “Corruption Ended!! The Country Redeemed! Secession is Rebuked!!!
Let the Traitors Rave!.” This is obviously a Northern state showing its
opposition to the Confederacy through the war which was the standard point of view
found in Northern journalism. There were also cases of opposition to the war
found in both sides but mostly the North which can be seen by “Republicans fashioned
the earliest dominant interpretation of Democratic opposition during the war
itself. They charged Peace Democrats with treason and disloyalty, labeled them “Copperheads”
for their scheming venomous attacks, and considered them a “fire in the rear”
materially undermining the war effort”. These Peace Democrats favored ending
the war through an immediate peace agreement with the Confederate states.
Though
there were some who opposed most tended to support the war whether it was
through their own beliefs or through fear. “Union soldiers forcibly arrested Clement
L. Vallandigham, a prominent Democratic politician, and former congressman, for
an anti-war speech which he had given a few days earlier in Mount Vernon, Ohio”.
After his conviction, President Lincoln changed his sentence from imprisonment
to banishment to the Confederacy which showed how seriously the government was
taking any opposition to the war. Most people would end up supporting the war
either due to their own beliefs or the fear instilled through the government yet
some men, especially in the Northern states, would have the strength to oppose and
become a Peace Democrat.
While there seemed to be more opposition to the war found in
the Northern states there was still some resistance in the Southern states
shown by “Wartime hardships intensified the internal divisions of the mountain South.
Many southern grew to resent the intrusion of the Confederate government with
its increased demand for volunteers and seizure of military supplies”. There
were people who were near the southern Appalachians that were divided in their loyalty
to the Confederacy which they developed a resistance to the rebel government. So,
while there were cases of Southern areas opposing the war it was also common to
find strong supporters of the Confederacy and the need for war. “Elements of opposition
to the war” in the North but claimed, without amplification, they were “not as
widespread as in the South”. This
internal division found in the Southern states could be accredited to one of
the reasons why they lost this war. “A cursory glance at the Confederacy
reveals numerous instances of bitter strife, and one who delves deeply into the
literature of the period may easily conclude that Southerners hated each other
more than they did the Yankees”. This fact would help bring evidence towards
how divided the South was and how this could help lead to the fall of the Confederacy.
The main differences in how the two sides journalism was different were that they
both tended to support and empathize with their own side more, yet both sides had
pro-war and anti-war voices with variance on their strength.
No comments:
Post a Comment