Even the Sources Say "Consider the Source"

Newspapers are a common source for information or ideas about past events, such as the Civil War, even though they made no pretense of the sort of objectivity that audiences expect (or hope for) from modern papers. Scholars, students, and others who read period newspapers know this, of course, so it is no surprise when they question the validity of a report or look for other sources.

The story I post today, however, shows that even the various papers of the Civil War era were not above questioning each other's credibility. That is no surprise given that many of these publications served as mouthpieces of political parties, and that different entrants in the same business may develop negative feelings toward rivals, but I still found this article interesting as one Southern newspaper criticized the reliability of another, and this article was reprinted in a border state newspaper that favored the Southern viewpoint.

It also is interesting that this occurred early in Confederate history when images of "unity" and "harmony of spirit" (see a previous story that mentioned such traits) were among those Confederate supporters tried to portray.


This is from the Covington Journal of March 9, 1861.


The Charleston Mercury is frequently quoted in the North as a representative of Southern opinion. The following, from the Mobile Register, will remove this false impression.
 
No man who has more than the merest superficial knowledge of current politics, or who does not deliberately intend to misled will quote the Charleston Mercury as the leader or even the organ of the prevailing sentiment of South Carolina, much less the Cotton States at large.


Always discontented and grumbling, arrogant in tone, flippant in judgment, intolerant in any opinion but its own, intensely self-sufficient and supercilious, I should, indeed, regret to be compelled to accept it as the exponent or type of South Carolina character. So far from the Mercury representing the policy of its State, the South Carolina deputation here has taken an active and prominent part in the very action of the Congress with which it finds fault. It may be added that at no steps which this Congress has taken has the influence of South Carolina failed to the side of moderation, prudence and wise statesmanship.

2 different accounts of Lincoln's inaugural journey

The Covington Journal, this time from February 16, 2011, published this pair of very different reports from a couple of Cincinnati newspapers that covered President-elect Lincoln's trip to Washington D.C.

Not the Man for the Times
The Columbus correspondent of the Cincinnati Enquirer , speaking of Lincoln's reception at that place says: 
Mr. Kirk, President of the Senate, welcomed him in a short but pretty speech, though the delivery was a little too much on class-meeting order.  The reply of Mr. Lincoln was an exceedingly commonplace concern. Many Lincoln men muttered, "We are sold; he is not the man for the times."

The other article was untitled.

The following from the Cincinnati Gazette, the leading Republican organ of the West, is suggestive: 
 "THE NATIONAL OVATION - The progress of Mr. Lincoln from Springfield to this point has been a continued ovation. The demonstrations of the people have been enthusiastic beyond description. The concourse of the masses, wherever he goes, has been altogether unparalleled. Words and numbers avail little in the way of describing such scenes. Tens of thousands came out to greet him at Indianapolis, and it is hardly an exaggeration to say that hundreds of thousands have thronged about him. If it were ever doubtful that the hopes of the country repose upon him - that he is looked to with confidence as the chosen instrument for resuscitating the Government, and saving the Union, no many can any longer doubt the fact. The people believe that the man who is to be a second "savior of his country" is now on his way to the national capitol. It is a time of general jubilation and rejoicing, such as was never before witnessed."

--
I read a few sports message boards and sometimes see posters complaining about "biased" media coverage; this often leads to someone making comments like "What has happened to journalism, when real reporters just reported the facts and did not add their opinions to it?"

Whenever I see that, I have to chuckle and wonder what they would think of journalism of 150 years ago. With the two very different reports from Lincoln's journey (though, of course, both could be true - masses could be happy while a few men may have made disparaging remarks), it appears that maybe the "good old days" of press coverage were not always so good.