News-Letter" (Wm. David
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOCUMENT RESUME CS 214 332 ED 370 121 American TITLE Proceedings of the Conference of the Journalism Historians Association(Lawrence, Kansas, October 1-3, 1992). Part I:Journatism History before the Twentieth Century. INSTITUTION American Journalism Historians'Association. PUB DATE Oct 92 CS 214 NOTE 488p.; For Part II of this Proceedings, see 333. PUB TYPE Collectod Works Conference Proceedinp (021) Historical Materials (060) EDRS PRICE MF02/PC20 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Civil War (United States); Editors;*Journalism; *Journalism History; Legal Problems; Libel and Slander; Media Research; *United StatesHistory Journalists; IDENTIFIERS Abolitionism; African Americans; Canada; Massachusetts (Boston); Missouri;North Carolina; Penny Press; Texas ABSTRACT This proceedings contain 18 papers onAmerican journalism history before the 20th century.Papers in the proceedings are: "Military and PressDiscord during the Civil War:Foroshadowing of Future Disputes" (Maury M.Breecher); "The Missouri Press Association: A Study of the BeginningMotivations, 1867-1876" (Stephen A. Banning); "The DetroitEvening News: Nonpartisan, Reform Journalism in the 1870s: 1876-1877"(James Bow); "The Blood of Kansas and the New York Penny Press"(Gary L. Whitby); "Selected Texas Newspaper Editorials and Spanish-AmericanWar Sentiment" (Douglas Ferdon and John Tizdale); "A VisibleMinority: Literary Journalism's Story-Telling and Symbolism Spurred theAnti-Chinese Movement by Tacoma Daily Newspapers in 1885"(Myron K. Jordan); "American Crime and Trial Pamphlets after the PennyPress" (James L. Aucoin); "For 'The Prosperity of the Denomination':Understanding the North Carolina Baptist Press, 1845-1861"(David A. Copeland); "The Stamp Act Press: The First True MassMedium" (Julie Hedgepeth Williams); "Covering the Big Story: GeorgeWhitefield's First Preaching TOW:, News Manipulation, and the ColonialPress" (David A. Copeland); "Latest from the Canadija-IFTICThaliti-en:Early-War-Correspondence-in-the 'New York Herald' 1837-1838" (Ulf JonasBjork); "Aboliti(mist, Emigrationist, Feminist: Mary Ann Shadd Cary,First Femalcs Editor of the Black Press" (Bernell E.Tripp); "James Bryce and the Promise of the American Press: 1888-1921"(James D. Startt); "Maria W. Stewart: An African-American WomanJournalist Who Raised a Fiery Voice in the Abolitionist Movement" (RodgerStreitmatter); "A Silence in Massachusetts: John Campbell and the Boston'News-Letter" (Wm. David Sloan); "American Newspaper Ccntempts before1880" (Richard Scheidenhelm); "The Rise of the English-Jewish Pressin America" (Barbara Reed); and "Congress and JournalisticPrivilege: An Historical and Legal Perspective" (Robert L.Spellman). (RS) .0" PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1992 CONFERENCE OF THE AMERICAN JOURNALISM HISTORIANS ASSOCIATION (Lawrence, Kansas, October 1-3, 1992) Part I: Journalism History before the Twentieth Century U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office ol Educahonal Research and improvement "PERMISSION TOREPRODUCE THIS EDU ATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION GRANTED BY CENTER IERICI MATERIAL HAS BEEN Th.s document has been reproduced as received 'rorn the person Or organaafion originafing mt r Mrnor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality Pomts 01 vew or Oplimons stated In thir dotmv rnent do not necessarily represent otlioal RESOURCES OE RI Oosdion or poficy TO THE EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION CENTER(ERIC) MILITARY AND PRESS DISCORD DURING THE CIVILWAR: FORESHADCWING ae FUTURE DISPUTES by Maury M. Breecher Ph.D. Candidate University of Alabama Ccllege of Communication Ttscaloosa, AL 35487 For Presentation at the WHA Annual fleting,October 1-3. Maury M. Breechel, 33 Bellwood Northport, AL 35476 205-752-3705 ABSTRACT MILITARY AND PRESS cascom DURING THE CI= 91MR: FORESHADCWING CP FUTURE DISPUTES The American Civil War marked the birth cf government- versus-media antagonism that has resurfaced in all subsequentU.S. military conflicts, including the most recent Persian Gulfbattles. The Civil War set enduring patterns for the ways the federal government, especially its military arm, would in the future attemptto restrict war reporting. The issues of limitations on thepress during war and haw these limitations are enforced are of justas much concern today as during the Civil War.These issues provide tension between the two fundamental beliefs--the importance of freedomof the press and the necessity for national security. This paper examines haw the federal government attempted to regulate the flaw of informationto newspapers; identifies specific censorship laws, regulations, and other governmental actions designed to inhibit the free flow clnews; and discusses how poorly those measures worked. 4 MILITARY AND PRESS DISCORD DURING THE CIVIL WAR: FCRESBADCWING CF FUTURE DISPUTES The American Civil War was the first time that U.S. military had to deal with the fact that events that occurred at dawn could circulate as a front-page story in a newspaper that evening. The years befcre the Civil War saw the development of the telegraph, a technology that enabled newspapers to reach a mass audience with timely news (Shaw, 1981).Yet rates were so high that newspapers used the new technology sparingly. At the beginning of the Civil War, reports by wire were so rare that when the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter on the morning of April 12, 1861, to impress readers newspaper reports later that day were headlined "By Telegraph." ---The-urgeney-of-the-war-news -soon forced-newspapers to-make extensive use of the new technology. This practice soon became a matter cf vital interest to federal authorities. A prime concern of military officers throughout history has been that no useful information get to the enemy. Haw did the federal government and its military attempt to regulate the flow of telegraphic and other information to newspapers during the Civil War?What specifically were the censorship regulations? Who policed them? Haw well did they work? 5 ttalivrY -144-$cowrii c. r 4.) As early as July 8, 1861, Winfield Scott, commander of the Army, had issued an order: "Henceforward the telegraph will convey no dispatches concerning the operations of the Army not permitted by the Commanding General" (Government Printing Office, 1882, Series 3, Vol. 1, p. 324). Within a few days, General Scott had made arrangements with various newspapermen, allowing them to send without censorship the "progress and results of all battles actually occurring."The reporters, in turn, agreed not to report anything having to do with troop movements, actual or predicted, or news of "mutinies or riots among the troops" (New York Wbrld; July 13 Cincinnati Daily Gazette, July 17, 1861).A Mr. Burns of the American Telegraph Office was to act as an informal censor to supervise the implementation of the short-lived agreement. It was short-lived because General Scott did not fulfill his part of the bargain. On Sunday, July 21, the Confederates won the first Battle of Bull Run, which was fought near Manassas, Virginia.Early reports from correspondents had the Union winning the battle. When it became evident the fortunes of war had turned, General Scott instituted strict censorship of reports by wire.Not a word about the momentous defeat was carried in Monday morning newspapers outside of Washington D.C. In fact, in New York City, newspaper headlines boasted of a "glorious Union victory." Since the defeated Union army retreated to the outskirts of Washington, D.C., the only newspapers with the correct story on Monday morning were those in the Capital city. When the magnitude of the defeat was finally learned by the rest of the country, a firestorm of criticism arose against the Union government. Northern newspapers berated the federal government both for the Bull Run disaster and for deceit in Military-press conflict during Civil War 3 withholding news of the defeat. The New Ycck Times wrote: "We desire it to be distinctly understood that we are not in the slightest degree responsible for what, if done deliberately by us, would be branded as a wanton and reckless trifling with the feelings of the public. It was an agent cf the government--and not...the Times--who suppressed the facts .3suly 24, 1861). Nbtwithstanding press criticism, the federal government attempted to go further. On August 7, 1861, Secretary of War Simon Cameron issued the following proclamation: All correspondence and carmunication, verbally, or by writing, printing, cc telegraphing, respecting operations of the Army or military movements on land or water... are abscautely prohibited, and from and after the date of this order persons violating the same will be proceeded against under the Fifty-seventh Article of %hr. (Government Printing Office, 1882, Series 3, Vol. 1, p. 391) Haw successful was Cameron's order in preventing the press from covering the Civil War? Not very. Union newspapers made arrangements to forward news through special dispatches sent by couriers, trains, and telegraph whenever possible.The 57th Article of War was a high-explosive weapon the press did not think the government would use. Entitled "An Act for Establishing Rules and Articles for the Government of the Armies of the United States," the law, originally approved by Congresson April 10, 1806, stated that "holding correspondence with, or giving intelligence to, the enemy, either directly or indirectly, is made punishable by death or such other punishment as shall be ordered by the sentence ofa court-martial" (Government Printing Office, 1882, Series 3, Vol. 1p. 391). B. S. Osbon, a New York Herald reporter, was threatened with that law in October of 1861, after he discovered that the Navywas preparing Military-press conflict during Civil War 4 to send the largest war fleet the United States had ever assembled to blockade Port Royal Herbor, South Carolina. Osbon had no hard evidence that the ships were about to sail, so he bluffed Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles by asking Welles for a letter to the commanding officer of the expedition that would allow the reporter to go along. Welles was astounded: "Haw did you knomT we are sending a fleet to Port Royal? Nobody but the President, Captain DuPont, General Sherman and myself know that." "And me," Osbon replied. "Who told you?" repeated Welles.