|
This paper was presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication in San Antonio, Texas August 2005.
If you have questions about this paper, please contact the author
directly. If you have questions about the archives, email
rakyat [ at ] eparker.org. For an explanation of the subject line,
send email to
[log in to unmask] with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").
(Feb 2006)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
====================================================================
News "From Yankeedom":
Southern Newspaper Coverage of the Presidential Election of 1864
by
Eric David,
Park Fellow Master's Student
and
Nicole Elise Smith,
Park Fellow Doctoral Student
School of Journalism and Mass Communication
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Campus Box #3365
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
27599-3365
[log in to unmask]
cell: (919) 360-2030
A research paper submitted to:
History Division of AEJMC
March 25, 2005
News "From Yankeedom": Southern Newspaper Coverage of the
Presidential Election of 1864
News "From Yankeedom": Southern Newspaper Coverage of the
Presidential Election of 1864
Abstract
The 1864 presidential election was marked by war, fear, and a country
so bitterly divided that it was nearly impossible to imagine unity.
This study explored how a selection of Southern newspapers covered
the election. In general, the coverage fell into three categories:
election results and "horse race" coverage, the effect of the
election on the end of the war and the status of slavery, and
commentary on the strengths and weaknesses of both candidates.
Abstract
The 1864 presidential election was marked by war, fear, and a country
so bitterly divided that it was nearly impossible to imagine unity.
This study explored how a selection of papers from the South's
biggest cities covered the election. Although the 1864 election was
viewed by many in the South as a foreign election, newspapers weighed
in both in their own words and through reprinted commentary from
Northern and European papers. In general, the coverage fell into
three categories. The first, which mostly came in early November
after the election had taken place, consisted of election results and
coverage of what is today called the "horse race." The second, and
the most prevalent, dealt with what effect the coming election would
have on the end of the war and the status of slavery. The final
category of coverage was commentary on the strengths and weaknesses
of both Lincoln and McClellan.
News "From Yankeedom": Southern Newspaper Coverage of the
Presidential Election of 1864
News "From Yankeedom": Southern Newspaper Coverage of the
Presidential Election of 1864
It was a presidential election marked by war, fear, and a country so
bitterly divided that it was nearly impossible to imagine unity. The
focus of the candidates was almost entirely on the ongoing war that
was draining the country's resources and spirit. Americans knew,
even at the time, that the choices they made would shape the entire
future of the United States. Would the people return the incumbent
to office, validating his uncompromising approach to waging war and
dealing with the country's enemies? Or would they turn to the war
hero challenger who promised to end the war and heal the country's wounds?
---
As momentous as the election of 2004 might have felt for many
Americans, it is hard to imagine any election surpassing the election
of 1864 for sheer consequence. At stake was the very survival of the
United States of America as people had come to know it. With the
Civil War still raging and with 11 Confederate states still seceded
from the Union, historians view it as a miracle that the election
even happened at all (Harris, 1992). As late as the summer of 1864,
it seemed doubtful that the Union would ever be able to break the
Confederate spirit and bring an end to the fighting, a fact that many
Americans blamed on President Lincoln (Harris). In late August of
that year, Lincoln wrote a memo to his cabinet predicting that he
would lose the November election but promising to cooperate with the
new Democratic president-elect (Zornow, 1954). It wasn't until
September 2, when Union General Sherman overran Atlanta, that an end
to war finally seemed possible.
The debate that summer, including at the Democratic and Republican
nominating conventions, centered on how best to negotiate an end to
the war and how to deal with the issue of slavery (Vorenberg,
2001). At the Democratic Convention in Chicago, General George B.
McClellan tried desperately, but ultimately unsuccessfully, to
distance himself from a party platform that seemed to advocate making
peace with the Confederacy with no preconditions or quid pro quo, a
plank that many in the North saw as almost treasonous
(Zornow). Lincoln, meanwhile, moved to quell the Radical Republicans
and unite his party with the so-called War Democrats at the Baltimore
convention by facilitating the nomination of Tennessee Senator Andrew
Johnson as his vice president (Zornow). Just after the conventions,
the New Orleans Bee reprinted an editorial from the London Times that
summarized the election:
The contest, so far as we understand the latest accounts, is narrowed
to a dual between Lincoln and McClellan, and currently never since
the days of ancient Rome has a question so important been submitted
to a popular decision. The election of Mr. Lincoln would be a solemn
decision on the part of the American people that war must be
continued until one or other of the belligerent parties be destroyed.
(New Orleans Bee, Oct. 9)
Looking on from afar as the Union chose a new commander-in-chief in
the middle of a war were the politicians and journalists of the
Confederacy. Though southerners did not technically have a stake in
the choice between Lincoln and McClellan, they knew that the election
was, in fact, vitally important to them, especially after the fall of
Atlanta signaled the war's end game. For Jefferson Davis and the
Confederacy, a Lincoln victory would spell the end of slavery, as
Lincoln had made clear that ending the institution was a necessary
precondition to peace. A McClellan victory would give the South hope
that peace did not have to mean the abolition of slavery. Throughout
the month of October 1864, this choice was played out on the pages of
southern newspapers, from Richmond to New Orleans.
This study explored how a selection of papers from the South's
biggest cities – Richmond, Charleston, Raleigh, Albany, and New
Orleans – covered this election.[1]
Although the 1864 election was viewed by many in the South as a
foreign election, newspapers weighed in every day both in their own
words and through reprinted commentary from Northern and European
papers. Opinion in the papers ranged from full-throated support for
McClellan and virulent hatred for Lincoln to general despair that
either candidate would take anything less than a hard line in
negotiating with the South. In general, the coverage fell into three
categories. The first, which mostly came in early November after the
election had taken place, consisted of election results and coverage
of what is today called the "horse race." As part of this coverage,
southern newspapers had considerable discussion of alleged voting
irregularities by the Republicans, especially involving soldiers in
active duty. The second category of southern coverage, and the most
prevalent, dealt with what effect the coming election would have on
the end of the war and the status of slavery. The final category of
coverage was commentary on the strengths and weaknesses of both
Lincoln and McClellan. In Lincoln's case, of course, the focus was
almost entirely on his weaknesses.
The most striking aspect of the coverage, taken as a whole, was the
sense that the upcoming election related to the South only insofar as
it related to the end of the war and the existence of slavery. While
there seems to be a general, if unstated, sense that the war is
effectively over, none of the commentary or news discusses the
reality that this election was going to decide, in effect, who would
be leading the South in the coming four years.
The Horse Race
The first category of coverage focused mostly on the factual details
of the election – polls, results, and even allegations of
irregularities. In the modern era of campaigns and elections, there
is great debate as to the necessity or benefit of so called "horse
race" articles. Many scholars argue that the coverage of public
opinion polls harms the democratic process (Graber, 1989; Lavrakas et
al., 1991; Traugott 1992). Other scholars, however, argue that the
coverage of public opinion polls actually increases voters' attention
to issue coverage, which, in turn, leads to a greater understanding
of the democratic process (Zhao and Bleske, 1998). Horse race
articles are not new to modern political campaign coverage. The
election of 1864 contained substantial coverage and discussion
throughout the South of the polls leading to the November election.
In fact, several articles even speculated on the Electoral College
votes necessary for McClellan to win the election. On the first day
of October 1864, the New Orleans Bee reported:
A majority of this Electoral College is necessary to an election, and
that majority is one hundred and fourteen votes. With these figures,
it is asked, in view of recent elections, what States can the
Democrats probably carry and elect their candidate? Their leading
arithmeticians thus enumerate: For Gen. McClellan, New York 33, New
Jersey, 7, Pennsylvania 26, Oregon 3, Indiana 3, Illinois 16,
Kentucky 11, California 5. These several states foot up to 114
electoral votes—just the number necessary to an election, any one of
which lost, defeats their candidate. It is proper, however, to say
that some of the more zealous Democratic politicians claim and equal
chance for Connecticut 6, Wisconsin 8, Delaware 3, and Missouri 11,
swelling the above aggregate, should these sanguine hopes be realized
to 142, or 29 more than necessary to an election.
In speculating on campaign poll data, journalists considered the
election returns from the 1860 election. On October 25, the Richmond
Enquirer reported the 1860 election returns for the state of
Maryland. Their data showed that Lincoln received 2,294 votes,
Douglas received 5,966 votes, Bell received 41,760 votes, and
Breckenridge received 42,482 votes. The article also reported that
65,973 persons did not vote. Using this data, the newspaper
concludes, "This shows that there are in Maryland 66,000 voters who
refused to recognize the legality of the late Convention, and only
27,000 that acknowledged its legality." Additionally, the newspaper
concludes that "there are therefore 78,793 voters in Maryland opposed
to Lincoln and his free negro Constitution. This is more encouraging
to our hopes of Maryland than 'an army with banners.'" The Charleston
Daily Courier printed an article from the Louisville Journal that was
also based on the 1860 election. The article states, "Congress having
refused to admit the vote of those States which have passed the
Ordinances of Secession, the number of electoral votes to be cast in
November will be 231, and it will require 116 for election. Were
these states to vote as they did in 1860, Lincoln would receive 188
and McClellan 35" (Charleston Daily Courier, October 24)
Southern newspapers also reported on the progress of the campaign and
the possible vote totals in particular states. On October 18, the
Richmond Enquirer reported,
In Ohio the soldier's vote will not be needed to swell her triumphant
majority to fifty or sixty thousand, though it may serve to sweep the
last vestige of Peace Democracy from her Congressional delegation.
The city of Cincinnati, the home of George H. Pendleton, the peace
colleague of General McClellan on the Democratic ticket, has done nobly.
The North Carolina Standard on October 12 contained the following,
which speculated on possible election returns as well as the uphill
battle that McClellan supporters were facing:
A vote for the Presidency was taken at the convalescent and
recruiting camp in Augusta, Maine a few days since. There were
present 1,500 soldiers and the result of the vote was 1,450 for
Lincoln and 50 for McClellan. The Lincoln men were no doubt promised
furloughs, and the McClellan men were told if they voted for the man
of their choice they would have no furloughs. The McClellan men were
also no doubt called traitors and enemies to the Union of the
States. When the election takes place in the army the McClellan men
will have their tickets taken from them and torn up, and they will be
threatened with heavy punishment if they vote as they wish to do… A
man who votes with the party in power is perfectly free to do so, but
if he has a mind or opinion of his own he is deprived of the right of
suffrage, and is compelled to occupy the situation of a white slave.
Southern newspapers also discussed what candidates and parties would
need to do in order to obtain the desired votes. The Richmond
Enquirer carried an article from a St. Louis paper saying, "Abraham
Lincoln, through his tools, causes electoral tickets to be put up in
the so-called reconstructed States, in order to obtain by a cheat
those votes which he cannot get in the free States" (October 18).
Not surprisingly, after the 1864 election southern newspapers
reported on the final outcome of the election. The Richmond Enquirer
on November 11 concluded, "The re-election of Lincoln is no longer
doubtful" and provided the following results:
Maine and Vermont each gave Lincoln thirty thousand majority. All the
New England States went for Lincoln. New York State gave Lincoln
seven thousand majority. New York City gave McClellan thirty-seven
thousand majority. Maryland supposed to have given Lincoln eighteen
thousand majority. Baltimore gave him fifteen thousand majority.
Pennsylvania and Michigan have given majorities for Lincoln. New
Jersey and Missouri are reported to have gone for McClellan, but
doubtful. No other States heard from.
The Daily Conservative of Raleigh, North Carolina reported the
election results as printed in northern newspapers. On November 14,
the Daily Conservative stated:
The New York and Baltimore papers of Wednesday have been received.
The Herald editorially announces the re-election of Lincoln. The
Baltimore American, evening edition, contains the latest returns. A
New York telegram says the Tribune claims for Lincoln all the New
England States, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New York, Maryland, Ohio,
Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and Kansas
making a total of one hundred and ninety electoral votes.
In additional to strict poll data, southern newspapers also provided
more introspective conclusions. In an effort to summarize the results
of the election and the overall feelings of the South, the Richmond
Enquirer printed an article from another newspaper under the headline
"After the Battle." The article reported, "We need not at present
recite the causes which have culminated in the defeat of Gen.
McClellan. It will suffice to say that he has fallen a victim to the
copperhead managers of the Chicago Convention and the Democratic
Party" (Richmond Enquirer, November 11).
The End of the War: Conciliation or Resistance?
Alongside so-called horse-race coverage, southern newspapers also
understandably focused on what effect the outcome of the northern
elections would have on the prosecution of the war. In particular,
both Lincoln and McClellan were viewed through the prism of whether
they would continue the war or make peace with the South even if it
meant the continuation of slavery. These, of course, were the key
issues for southerners, accounting for the prevalence that this sort
of coverage had in southern papers. Within this broad category of
stories, coverage focused on one of two themes – fighting the North
to the bitter end no matter what the outcome of the election or
acknowledging that the war is coming to an end and hoping for the
best from whoever is president.
With the fall of Atlanta and Sherman's march to the sea less than
two months old, it seems clear in retrospect that the fiercest part
of the war was coming to an end and that the Confederacy was going to
lose. In southern newspapers, even in October and November 1864,
there remained a strong undercurrent of continued resistance, no
matter whether Lincoln or McClellan won the election. This was
predicated on the belief that both Lincoln and McClellan planned to
fight the war until the bitter end. The Richmond Enquirer of October
18 typified this coverage, pointing out that the results of the
election would not change Union strategy regarding the end of hostilities:
The result of the late election is still in doubt, and whether
Lincoln or McClellan will be elected, is yet impossible to determine,
but there is no uncertainty as to the question of carrying on the
war. Whether Lincoln or McClellan be the next President, the voice,
and the almost unanimous voice, of that people is for a vigorous
prosecution of the war.
The Albany (Georgia) Patriot on November 3, just five days before
the Electoral College would vote, echoed the Enquirer's sentiment:
The present indications are that Lincoln will be elected. But should
he be defeated and McClellan elected, we have but little to expect
from him, or his administration. As the public mind of the United
States is inclined, so will his administration take shape and
direction. Lincoln himself has bent like a reed to the popular
clamor for war. So will McClellan, if the people still cry
"Havoc! And let slip the dogs of war!"
In response many newspapers and commentators called on the South to
continue to resist without compromise. These calls occasionally came
in the form of the traditional call to arms, as in this example from
the Daily Conservative of Raleigh, North Carolina on November 3:
Let all the people therefore, rally to the cause. Let derisions and
strifes and complainings cease. Peace and independence must be
inscribed on the banners of the South every where, and let all our
people, everywhere, resolve that these shall be planted upon the
ramparts of the foe and shall float triumphantly, wherever the foe
confronts us, until the great object is obtained.
Even after Lincoln had been elected, the Daily Conservative
continued to beat the drums of war. On November 16, it said:
The re-election of Lincoln fixes definitely the issue of war upon us
for the next four years, unless we can convince him, by the most
united and powerful efforts, that the subjugation of the South is a
hopeless task.
The calls for continued resistance also came from Confederate
generals commenting on the war. The Charleston Daily Courier on the
day of the election, November 8, ran a story which consolidated what
it said were the views of various generals and politicians in the
South. It said:
As between Lincoln and McClellan our public men and Generals are
about equally divided in opinion as to which result would most
promote peace on the basis of our liberties, but none of them are
fools enough to suppose that our ability or purpose to continue the
war until the North is sick of it will be effected one iota by the
election of Lincoln, McClellan or, if they please, Fred. Douglas. We
have kept Lincoln at bay for four years, and if they want to change
matters, we will do the same by McClellan.
In contrast to this "fight until the end" view of the war, many in
the South, often on the pages of the same newspapers, seemed more
resigned to the Confederacy's fate. Given the fervor that had been
seen throughout the South for most of the war, this attitude of
resignation was notable, and quite surprising. For some, resignation
meant accepting that the war was over and that the focus should be on
rebuilding the United States with the South as an equal partner,
preferably with slavery still intact. The Richmond Enquirer
reprinted an excerpt from a speech given by J.A. Rezier in New
Orleans expressing his support for McClellan. Rezier said:
There is no doubt the Confederate resistance is on the wane…This will
be a slow process, unless a new administration come into power, which
will hold out a conciliatory course, avoiding the wounding of their
Southern pride too deeply, and bringing them back with all the
dignity and equality and rights of the several States unimpaired,
banishing all feelings of mere resentment or passion. (October 18)
Even more remarkable, however, was an article by regular columnists
Tyler and Allegre 11 days earlier in the same paper which argued that
the future of the Union was out of southern hands and that the only
hope was to recognize that fact and end hostilities. It must have
been a controversial view at the time, and so it is worth quoting at
some length:
It is not to be hoped, of course, that the success of either of the
contending parties at the North will bring us peace; but that one or
the other will bring us nearer to peace than we now are may be safely
assumed. What then are we to expect from the two rival candidates? In
their appeal to the people, both speak of war as a political
necessity; but McClellan is evidently more inclined to peace than he
dares yet avow. Should he be elected he will have to prove to the
North that a Democratic Administration can carry on the war as
successfully, if not better, than the party so long in power.
If Lincoln should be elected, the process will be very different.
First of all, he will in all probability not content himself with
using all legitimate means to influence the election, but coercive
measures also, wherever the issue may seem doubtful.
There is no alternative for us but recognition of subjugation; and
the more fully our people understand this, the more decidedly they
turn all hopes based upon other grounds, the surer is our success.
(Richmond Enquirer, October 7)
It should be noted again that Tyler and Allegre, who were writing
for the flagship paper in the capital of the South, called on their
fellow southerners to accept their eventual "subjugation," a call
that could not have been readily accepted by a Confederacy still
putting out Sherman's fires in Georgia. Though it also had most of
the prevalent southern political views of the time, namely that
McClellan might be more inclined to peace and that Lincoln would stop
at nothing to win the election, Tyler and Allegre's column went much
farther than anybody else in calling for an end to the fight.
It is clear from southern newspapers that as the presidential
election in the North was exposing divisions among northerners about
how the war should end, the same debate was occurring across the
South. Southern newspaper editors knew that the fate of the South
rested in large part on how the war ended, as it inevitably
would. While some argued that the Confederacy should not give up the
fight, even after Sherman took Atlanta, others seemed to advocate
conciliation in the name of peace.
Assessing the Candidates
Overarching both horse race coverage and coverage of the end of the
war were southern newspapers' assessments of the two
candidates. Whether positive or negative, the southern newspapers
took strong positions on their opinions of both Lincoln and McClellan.
As a whole, the southern newspapers were not supportive of Lincoln
or his presidency. The North Carolina Standard printed a letter about
the election that read, "I consider that his [Lincoln's]
administration had been politically, militarily and financially, a
failure and that its necessary continuance is a cause of regret for
the country" (October 5). The sentiment expressed in this letter
exemplifies the attitude of other southern newspapers toward Lincoln.
Many articles in the southern newspapers addressed Lincoln in regard
to the war. The Charleston Daily Courier said:
The power of the Government – the power, not the influence – is now
actively employed, without any check or fear of punishment – to
secure its existence in the army, military regulations secure the
vote of Lincoln. Officers have already been cashiered by orders over
the signature of the Secretary of War, for distributing McClellan's
tickets to their soldiers. Lincoln has the upper hand in the matter,
because he has the ARMED HAND. Perhaps the Ruler of events,
intending to create and save the Southern Confederacy, so wills. If
McClellan were elected, there were doubtless many, very many, person
in the South who would believe the restoration of the Union to be
possible (October 15).
The Charleston Daily Courier later printed a harsh attack under the
headline, "Lincoln's Attempt to Buy McClellan" on Lincoln's character
and his actions leading to the election. The article said:
We publish today from the Northern Intelligencer, a letter from F.P.
Blair, Sr., to the editor; also an editorial commentary on the letter
and the matter to which it refers… "Honest Abe" must henceforth be a
term of derision, a bitter sarcasm, in lieu of the familiar
compliment formerly intended. It appears from the letter of the
paternal Blair and from the speech of his son to which the
Intelligencer alludes, that Lincoln made a distinct attempt to buy
McClellan out of his way for the Presidency, and to make the country
pay the price. He has dismissed McClellan from the field, consigning
him to much inactivity and heaping upon him such disgraces, as were
wholly indefensible, except upon a full conviction of the gross
military incompetency and untrustworthiness which he alleges against
him. It is almost an article in the political creed of a Lincolnite
to denounce McClellan, both as a soldier and as an honest man. The
Presidential election began to draw near. Lincoln was a candidate
for re-election, McClellan was feared as a competitor, and lo! A
sudden change is seen. McClellan is honored with a special embassy…
President Lincoln all of a sudden had discovered that he was a
patriot, and betook himself to swift arrangements with General Grant
for restoring McClellan to the field (October 20).
As a whole, the southern newspapers were sympathetic of McClellan in
his bid for the presidency. The New Orleans Bee printed a lengthy
excerpt from the Richmond Enquirer in regard to McClellan's letter of
acceptance. The Bee printed:
Having prudently placed ourselves in the category of those who expect
nothing at the hands of Yankee politicians, we have been blessed in
meeting with no disappointment in the letter of General McClellan,
accepting the Democratic nomination for the Presidency. The sooner
the public mind is disabused of all vain expectations the better. One
by one our delusions have vanished, and left us none the worse or
weaker. For months we were looking across the waters for recognition,
like so many famished colonists for a corn ship. When we found two
trifling obstacles in the way—first, that foreign powers could not,
and next, that they would not aid us—we descended from our signal
station by the seaside, from which we need to see the wonderful
mirage of steam fleets coming to raise the blockade and bean to plow
and read our own account. It is better we should be undeceived, and
we tender our thanks to those counselors of General McClellan who put
words of coercion into his mouth (October 3).
The Bee also ran an article from the New York Tribune about McClellan
and his positions, which stated:
As for his principles, it is difficult to say what they are.
Avowedly, McClellan is a Unionist. Openly he professes to be willing
to give the South every necessary guarantee, provided the Southern
states consent to return into the Union; privately he assures those
friends who discourage the prosecution of war, that he desires peace,
and that he will advocate an armistice and a Convention of the States
should he receive the nomination at Chicago (October 9).
The Richmond Enquirer printed a series of positive quotes about
McClellan that were taken from the Chicago convention. One
convention attendee was quoted as saying, "By God, we must have
McClellan nominated. We must put a stop to this damned war" (October
7). Other convention attendees, however, were not as supportive of
McClellan. When asked if he would support him, Henry Clay Dean
replied, "Before God, fellow citizens, we have one idiot in the
presidential chair; don't let us put another in it" (October 7).
Other conventions and meetings around the country also yielded
opinions on the presidential candidates that surfaced in southern
newspapers. An article in the Albany Patriot described McClellan's
speech at one convention as "frank" and "without affection" (November
10). The article added that McClellan "did not speak to evade any of
the questions which were presented" and that he very often repeated,
"that there could be nothing; no remedy, but the Union. The Union for
all" (Albany Patriot, November 10). The Richmond Enquirer printed an
excerpt from the Cincinnati Peace Convention, which read:
If either of the Presidential candidates, Lincoln or McClellan,
subscribes to a platform these nominations will be withdrawn and
peace men will support him. The delegates are very bitter on
McClellan. They complain that they were unhandsomely treated at
Chicago and very scurvily by McClellan. No delegate is admitted to
the convention who does not sign a pledge that he will not support
McClellan. They think his dawdling politics, like his shilly shally
in military policy, will only serve to prolong the war, and between
the two prefer the sharp and vigorous policy of the administration as
likely soonest to bring peace (October 18).
After the results of the election were known, the southern newspapers
took a variety of positions on Lincoln's victory. Although the
Richmond Enquirer had not been overly supportive of Lincoln
throughout the election, they ran a positive article about Lincoln's
re-election. The Enquirer said:
Lincoln has been reelected President of the United States. His first
election could not surprise anyone, for he was wholly unknown; but
his re-election, after four years experience of his character and
capacity, will not fall to impress the world with a very low opinion
of popular government. So far as the people of these States are
interested, the re-election of Lincoln is entirely satisfactory. For
us, he is 'the right man in the right place.' We prefer an ignorant,
brutal fool as commander-in-chief of the enemy to any other man, He
suits us entirely. Gen. McClellan might have given us more trouble,
but we have taken the measure of Lincoln, and know exactly his entire
worthlessness. The re-election of Lincoln binds our people still
firmer together, and prevents the division and discord which the
election on McClellan might have introduced.
Conclusion
Southern coverage of the 1864 presidential election in many ways
reflects the cognitive dissonance that southerners must have been
feeling that fall as they read about the race between Lincoln and
McClellan. To admit that it mattered to them was also to admit that
the winner would soon be their president and that the war would be
over. To insist that it didn't matter was to deny reality. As a
result, the coverage tended to split the difference. Papers argued
that the outcome didn't matter insofar as both candidates planned to
continue to prosecute the war, but even still, to re-elect Lincoln
would be a colossal mistake. Coverage of the outcome of the election
makes clear that southerners did not see Lincoln as their leader, now
or in the future.
One hundred and forty years later, the country was again bitterly
divided by war as it chose a president. Clearly the war in Iraq did
not bring with it the peril to the future of the Union that the Civil
War did, but the media coverage of the recent election certainly
echoes from 1864. Then as now, people throughout the country judged
the candidates on how they looked at the war, even though most
acknowledged that both of them would keep fighting. Then as now,
coverage focused on the horse race and charges of election
fraud. Then as now, half the country could barely accept the winner
as its president.
References
Albany Patriot. Albany, GA (1864, October 13, November 3, 10)
Brownlow's Knoxville Whig. Knoxville, TN (1864, October 5, 12, 26)
Charleston Daily Courier. Charleston, SC (1864, October 15, 17, 18,
20, 24, 27, November 8, 9)
Daily Conservative. Raleigh, NC (1864, November 3, 11, 14, 16).
Graber, D. A. (1989). Mass Media and American Politics. 3rd Edition.
Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
Harris, W. (1992). Conservative Unionists and the Presidential
Election of 1864. Civil War History, 38(4), 298-318.
Lavrakas, P. J., Holley, J. K., & Miller, P. V. (1991). Public
reactions to polling news during the 1988 presidential election
campaign. In Polling and Presidential Election Coverage, ed. Paul J.
Lavrakas and Jack K. Holley. Newbury Park: Sage.
New Orleans Bee. New Orleans, LA (1864, October 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 13).
North Carolina Standard. Raleigh, NC (1864, October 5, 12, November 2, 16)
Richmond Enquirer. Richmond, VA (1864, October 7, 11, 18, 21, 25,
November 3, 11)
Traugott, M. W. (1992). The impact of media polls on the public. In
Media Polls in American Politics, ed. T. E. Mann and G. R. Orren.
Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
Tyler and Allegre (1864, October 7). Richmond Enquirer, p. 1.
Vorenberg, M. (2001). "The Deformed Child": Slavery and the Election
of 1864. Civil War History, 47(3), 240-257.
Zhao, X. & Bleske, G. L. (1998). Horse race polls and audience issue
learning. Press/Politics, 3(4), 13-34.
Zornow, W. (1954). Lincoln and the Party Divided. Norman: University
of Oklahoma Press.
[1]
|
