The
Civil War is imbedded into our thoughts as a key moment in American history,
arguably the most definitive time in our annals. So important is this moment in our history that we often lose
sight of it being an actual event. We
note important battles and speeches, we note the characters and places, and we
chronicle the stories of the participants. We do not often, however, think of it as being anything other than
history, something outside special books and series. For four years the War Between the States waged. It was a way of life for many, vitally affecting the people of its day. These were real people with real emotions, real opinions, and real
crises. We look back with
hindsight and make conclusions about the truths and falsehoods of the day,
praising the right and condemning the wrong. Opinions on such things as slavery and state's rights were as real in
that day as opinions about abortion and the balanced budget amendment are
today. It was real, and, 130 years ago, a current event.
In this paper I will attempt to explore what citizens of the 1860s saw as
a modern development. To
accomplish this task I will look at contemporary accounts of the war from the New
York Times. Focusing on some
of the major events of the time, I will explore the Civil War in the light of
a non-history, by this I mean I will not look at the event in hindsight but
will rather attempt to see it as the people saw it. I will discuss what I saw, what I read, and what I inferred from this
source. The people and players of
the war were real people, not characters in books or movies. They thought,
they moved, and they felt. They
were people like us, Americans like us, but thrown into a different and
unusual circumstance.
The New York Times is one of the premier daily newspapers in the world
today. As the resident newspaper
of the largest city in the nation it carries a burden of reporting current
events to a very large number of people. It has carried this burden for a long time. A daily newspaper is
required to report news daily. This
means that it does not have the ability to mull over events, but must offer
immediate reaction and coverage. This
sometimes leads to incorrectness or bias, but it does have an air of freshness
that is impossible to find in reading history books. The version of New York Times which I saw was contained on
microfilm. Though it detracts
from the true historical feel of the source, microfilm is very beneficial. It
protects the original from decay and mishandling, as well as making the source
more accessible to researchers.
Though
I did not have the original in my hands, I was able to glean some insights
about what I was looking at. It
was interesting to see the layout and advertisements. Rather than laying out the stories in block form, the reports
were laid out in four columns per page, one story starting when another ended. The ads for cure-all "vegetable pills" were amusing, making
one wonder if they really did relieve everything from headaches to
constipation. In reading this paper one gets a real sense of the era. The stories are a blend of fact and editorial, with news interspersed
with thoughts. The paper is much more British in its style than papers are
today, making one realize America had not yet endured a century of existence
by the time the Civil war had started. The
grammar, the language, and the style all point to a more genteel day. The phrase headings that begin the first column are different than
today's headlines. They are a brief collection of "headlines" rather
than a single one. Finally, one notices that the price is a bit different
one-hundred thirty years ago. Today
it costs much more than the 2 cents it cost in the 1860s.
Saturday,
April 13. "THE WAR
COMMENCED." So begins the
first line of the New York Times. No fanfare, no great proclamation. "The ball has opened." "War
is inaugurated." One can
sense the resignation and acceptance of the war. The people of the day were not at all surprised. The southern states had been discussing secession for twenty years. People had been living with the knowledge of the coming war, and had
for months been inundated with the news. It was like the O.J. trial to them, though far more important to the
recipients of the news than O.J. is to us.
The firing upon Fort Sumter was the culmination of weeks of waiting by
the public. Major Anderson, the
commanding officer of the fort, and his small garrison of sixty-eight men had
been sieged by confederate batteries located on nearby islands. From these islands General Beauregard, of the Confederacy,
led the first attack on union forces. The
front page of the Times is filled with one short telegraph report after
another, dispatches from Charleston and Washington. These are mainly straightforward accounts of eyewitnesses. They discuss the shelling of the fort, and the return of fire, but also
contain odd little facts as well. Spent
shell pieces were being collected as souvenirs and the townspeople of
Charleston rushed to view the commencement of hostilities. The front page is very random in its descriptions, but gives a rather
exciting view of the scene. The
people of the day were probably filled with mixed emotions, some eager for
war, some saddened by coming days. The
war had begun, and the future of the union was unknown.
The
same issue covers the story later, a few pages in. Here it mixes editorial comment and fact. "The Disunion conspiracy... has at last culminated in open war
upon its glittering and resplendent flag." Not exactly unbiased reporting. We begin to sense in the article the mood of the time. The news of war "was met as if a heavy burden of anxiety had been
suddenly lifted." People,
though not particularly eager for bloodshed, were eager for some movement in
the crises, and this was a big movement indeed. The paper is full of patriotism. The
writer supports the union cause and declares the paper's support for a return of hostility. The
people of this day were rather unified in their disdain for the "rebel
states", and hopeful for a quick, though probably painful, return to
order. It had been a long time
since war had raged in this country and citizens were ready to "sacrifice
everything in obedience to the demands of patriotism and duty."
"There
has been no more important and far reaching document ever issued since the
foundation of this Government than the proclamation of President Lincoln
concerning Slavery and slaves, published this morning." So states the New York on September 23, 1862. This document was, of course, the Emancipation Proclamation which gave
new vitalization to the war effort. The
article quotes the main passages and lends its support to its precepts. The Emancipation Proclamation was issued following the Battle
of Antietam. President Lincoln
had written the statement a while earlier, but was waiting until a more
effective time to present it. He
was advised that to issue it during a time of setbacks would give it a sense
of desperation, but if he waited until a victory the proclamation would be
much more forceful.
New York was
the home of many of the well-known abolitionists of the time, and the article
probably reflects the general opinion of the city in its support. But it is interesting to note that does not decry slavery as a moral
wrong, and Lincoln's proclamation as a moral stand. The Times, instead, looks at slavery as an element of
strength in the South. Lincoln
had stated early on that he would do
whatever was needed to preserve the union, whether that included saving
slavery or abolishing it. The
paper reminds the reader of Lincoln's stance and points out that this is an
appliance for ending the war. "Slavery
is an element of strength to the rebels if left untouched; it will assuredly
prove an element of weakness--it may be of total destruction--to them and
their cause, when we make such use of it and its victims as lies in our
power." Slavery was not
condemned by the majority of people in that day. Many saw it as a "right" for others. This Emancipation Proclamation was a tactical move in many of their
eyes, not a moral victory.
A
year later the war still raged. General
Lee, in his last hope for a decisive Southern victory, had brought his army
north into Pennsylvania. The
battlefield was located at Gettysburg and waged for three days. It was a great victory for the union army and sent Lee back south in
defeat. Later, in November, a
national cemetery was dedicated here
with several noted speakers, including President Lincoln, who added a short
message which was received with heavy applause. The speech by Lincoln was printed in its entirety, but there was not
much attention given to it. On
Sunday, July 12, 1863 New York reported that President had called for
draft to be instituted. The news was, as Times states, at first accepted peacefully.
We, of this era, look at the Vietnam war and think of the many riots
and protests that accompanied it. We
think of this being an anomaly in our history, the result of an unjust war and
bad policy. On July 13, 1863 New York city erupted in a three day
explosion of dissatisfied, angry rioters. The war had become unpopular, and the draft incited people to riot in
the streets, burning conscription offices and private dwellings, as well as
attacking numerous people.
Because
of the initial reaction to the news authorities were unprepared for the
"riotous demonstrations which from 10 in the morning until late at night,
prevailed almost unchecked in our streets." The rioters were not to be stopped. Among their numerous atrocities was the "causeless and inhuman
treatment of the negroes of the city." An orphanage was burned down, and "it seemed to be an understood
thing throughout the city that the negroes should be attacked wherever
found." Dozens were hung,
and many more savagely beaten for no other reason than the color of their
skin. It was similar to the L.A.
riots of a few years ago. The
draft was unpopular far before the Vietnam war, and it seems that the Civil
War was not as universally supported in its day as is now commonly believed.
Almost
four years after the commencement of this terrible war, the main southern army
admitted defeat. General Sherman
had completed his March to the Sea, leaving a wake of desolation behind him. Grant had doggedly pursued General Robert E. Lee until little remained
of the once proud Army of Northern Virginia. In Appomattox Court House Lee decided that nothing more could be done
that would further his cause and decided to surrender to General Grant. "UNION VICTORY!" "PEACE!" The New York Times proudly declared the exciting event, which
all but ended the war. "The evening of Palm Sunday, sacred to the PRINCE of
PEACE, was made ever memorable and glorious in the history of this nation, by
the announcement of the SURRENDER OF GEN. LEE AND HIS WHOLE ARMY."
It is interesting to note the religious tie-in that would be anathema
to today's papers. The article praises the new found peace, and is quite
eloquent concerning this propitious event. It declares Lee's surrender at
Appomattox "the greatest and most important event for this country since
the imperishable Declaration of July 4, 1776, the most momentous act of the
century as affecting the stability of democratic government."
Needless to say, the people of the day realized the historical import
of the occasion. The Times continues on by saying that "it will be
hailed, not only in our own land, but wherever mankind aspires to freedom and
progress, as a turning point in the history of man." Though tired and weary of the war a couple of years earlier, the
confidence of the people had been restored and all were exuberant at the news. People realized that this was a true historical event happening in
their midst. Brother could now
stop killing brother, and the country was once again a Union.
The
north was exuberant, celebration followed celebration. President Lincoln decided that he could now afford to spend some time
being entertained rather than be constantly vigilant. It was good Friday, and it was the fourth anniversary of the fall of
Fort Sumter. He decided he would
see production of "Our American Cousin" at nearby Ford's Theatre. Though General and Mrs. Grant were invited, they decided at the last
minute that they would not be able to attend. The Times reported the evenings events the next day, Saturday,
April 15. "AWFUL
EVENT." "President
Lincoln shot by an assassin." Though
the president had not yet died by the time the Saturday edition went to press,
the paper conveyed that the wound was mortal. The news shattered the emotions of the people. "A stroke from Heaven laying the whole of the city in instant
ruins could not have startled us as did the word that broke from Ford's
Theatre" wrote one correspondent. The
emotions ranged from "expressions of indignation" to "the
profoundest sorrow."
Like
all of the editions this issue opens with official statements by the
government and is followed by independent correspondents, who add their own
views and emotions to the story. This
assassination killed a man who was dearly loved by the north, though it took
time for him to gain their affections. It
was the end of an era, and the nation dearly mourned its beloved leader
The New York Times is a significant part of our history. It has covered the major events of our nation, and continues to do so. In the study of the Civil War it offers a fresh perspective on a well
known subject. It contains
valuable quotes and published government notices that can be found no other
place. This source is also
valuable as a part of a social history. We
can often see the values, the prevailing thought, and the opinions of a people
in its press. It is our
eyes and ears today, just as it was 130 years ago. Through it we can experience the war as the general populace did, eager
for the new information and hopeful for a soon conclusion. Upon reading this we begin to see that the people of that day were not
different than we are today, merely dealing with slightly different
circumstances. Slavery was the
issue of that day, abortion is the issue of our day. The similarities between how the two interacted with society are
striking indeed, but that is not our present concern. In the Times we gain a valuable resource which show us how Americans of
that day thought, felt, and understood. The
Civil War was a great and a terrible time in our country. It defined us to an extent never before known, but in doing so cost an
almost unbearable price. The Times brought people the news, and did so in an effective way. It was obviously biased towards the union, so conclusions about the
thoughts of all people could not be drawn from it, but we do begin to see a
glimpse of the day. It would be
interesting to see the newspapers from various locales, such as Chicago and
Richmond, in order to gain a much fuller understanding of what went on during
those turbulent four years. The
press is the voice of the people. And
to understand the people, one must read what they read and hear what they
said. The New York Times brought effective coverage of the
war, one of the first wars to be extensively covered by correspondents in the
field and other locations of vital significance. Through the study of the newspapers we begin to realize how much in
common we have with our forebears. May
God continue to protect us and remind us of our past faults so that we may not
again endure such a struggle as the Civil War.
