"Did the Southern Press Have a Negative Effect" Topic

…on the Confederate War Effort?

"Two incidents stand out in my mind. Both of these had a truly negative impact, and are prime examples of why newsmen are treated so dimissively by modern high commands.

The first is the effect that the Southern Press had on the mind of one of it's foremost soldiers, General Albert Sidney Johnston.

Many have noted that Johnston's reputation existed as only a rumour outside of collegues like Jefferson Davis. But, his undoubted sucess in rallying William O. Butler's division of volunteers at Monteray in 1846 certainly impressed a certain Captain Joseph Hooker, so Johnston certainly had admirers outside of Davis's circle, on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line. A.S. Johnston's appointment as Commander of "Confederate Department No. 2", (i.e. Parts of Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, Kansas and Indian Territory) seemed to Davis that Johnston was "the only man who seemed equal to it." The press agreed…at first. They called him "The Lion of the West"…"

More here

link

Armand

No effect on soldier morale since most of them could not read. Nor could their family back home. Newspaper articles were meant to affect politics.

You may want to rethink the belief that most confederate soldiers were unable to read. Civil War armies were the most literate in history to that time. More than 90 percent of white Union soldiers and more than 80 percent of Confederate soldiers were literate, and most of them wrote frequent letters to families and friends.

archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/m/mcpherson-comrades.html#:~:text=Civil%20War%20armies%20were%20the,letters%20to%20families%20and%20friends.

The AWI soldiers were also quite literate.

A truly dedicated individual has been reproducing the war news from the NY Times starting in 1860 on a news site that I visit. The news for November 21, 1864 will be posted on November 21, 2024. I will not identify the site as it may likely annoy some of our more left-leaning Members.

The purpose of this post is that the Times would regularly print articles from Southern newspapers that were traded through the picket line. I have been surprised at how negative some of the Southern press was with regard to the war and with regard to Jefferson Davis. Granted, the very pro-war and pro-Lincoln Times would pick and choose articles that would support the Union war effort. I expected that the Southern press would have been more uniform in its support of the war and the government or at least more censored. Upon reflection, I don't know why I had that impression, there were certainly a lot of Southerners who opposed the war. The current hot topics include the whereabouts of Sherman's army, Southern peace proposals and the idea of arming the slave population.

Even with the "negative" editorial content, the Southern press appears to have printed war news that was very pro-South and pro-war effort. In other words, "Early really didn't lose to Sheridan in the Valley, Davis is an idiot but we can still win this war because our armies and our generals are superior to the dreaded Yankees."

My family members could certainly read and write and they came from Alabama. Just sayin'.

I doubt soldiers then would be swayed by some rag any more than a modern soldier is swayed by MS…uh, the media.

My impression is that the papers on both sides were quick to criticize and quick to praise, as few of the reporters or editors knew much about military matters but were biased politically. Papers in those days were often openly linked to one party or the other. (In the North, at least, where there were still two parties, or more.)

Newspapers and other printed materials were used by all to express their opinions and news, spin things, drum up support, create disinformation and more – sometimes aligned by political party and cause and sometimes not.

Examples are easy to find in both the Southern and Northern Press

In the Southern Press – an interesting study on newspapers at the time of succession link

"During the secession crisis in 1860–61, the American South was far from unified. Contrary to the idea that the South constituted a single distinct region, this analysis of secession news in Southern newspapers demonstrates the slave states consisted of a constellation of Souths rather than one unified South. Through their decisions about what to print, Southern editors serving unique localities contributed to the social construction of sectionally distinct visions of nationhood. Their decisions about which news and opinion they would reprint and how news was framed made them integral agents in the news ecosystem."

One example where the Northern Press tried to influence things – Chicago Tribune editorial coming out against the Emancipation Proclamation then later supporting it link Three days later the sub headline in the Tribune referred to the Proclamation as Humanity's New Years Gift

Other examples from both the Southern and Northern press are easily found online.

Also found this quote I loved

"The late civil rights leader, U.S. Rep. John Lewis, once exhorted journalists to be "a headlight and not a taillight."

"You have a moral obligation to pick up your pens and your pencils, use your cameras to tell the story, to make it plain, to make it real,"

From a story on Southern Newspapers as vocal supporters of the Confederacy and its impacts link

Thanks

Armand

Let's not forget that during slow times, pickets would often swap coffee, tobacco and newspapers.
"Hey Johnnie? Got any bacon? I've got coffee and the Chicago Tribune!"
"No bacon but I got tobacco and the Richmond Gazette, Billy!"