Editors Make War: Southern Newspapers in the Secession Crisis. By Donald E. Reynolds. (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1970. Pp. vii, 304.)

In Editor’s Make War: Southern Newspapers in the Secession Crisis (1970), historian Donald E. Reynolds explores the influences of Southern newspaper editors on their readers from 1860 to 1861.  Reynolds reveals that newspaper editors shifted their viewpoint of the secession crisis from a “generally unionist position in early 1860 to a predominately secessionist viewpoint a year later” (ix).  He focuses primarily on the editorial sections of newspapers and asserts that “Southern newspapers were particularly influential in altering Southern attitudes toward the Union.  Newspapers unquestionably provide one of the most important sources for a clear understanding of why the South seceded” (vii-viii). Reynolds reviewed broad national issues by analyzing the Southern newspapers responses to various events including the split in the Democratic Party, the Texas fires of 1860, the presidential campaign, the election of President Lincoln, and South Carolina’s secession from the Union.  He utilized over two hundred newspapers housed at various universities including Louisiana State University, the University of Texas, Tulane University, and Duke University.  Additionally, state archives and newspaper records in courthouses and municipal libraries broadened Reynolds’s research. 

            The author divides the newspapers into four main categories: Secessionist newspapers, radical Southern-rights newspapers, moderate Southern-rights newspapers, and Unionist newspapers.  The Secessionist newspapers actively called for Southern states to leave the Union while Unionist newspapers down played the issues that caused tension between the North and the South and praised the Union.  However, the radial and moderate Southern-rights newspapers differed less in their ideology and more in their approach to solving the issues.  The radical Southern-rights papers expressed the need to leave the Union upon the election of a Republican president.  The moderate Southern-rights newspapers encouraged its readers to be patient if a Republican president was elected and see if his actions justified dissolving the Union.  Mainly, the Southern-rights newspapers squabbled over “what constituted just cause for such a dissolution” (27). 

            Reynolds’s approach to studying and researching the secession crisis is refreshing and enlightening because he gives his readers a new perspective by using valuable primary sources.  By reviewing Southern newspapers historians can gauge cultural and social standards of Southerners without reviewing popular political, governmental, or military sources. 

However, Reynolds states that his intent is to review Southern newspapers and their influences on their readers but his narrative would benefit by broadening his approach and juxtaposing Southern newspapers to Northern newspapers.  By comparing Northern and Southern newspapers to each other then readers could gain an extensive understanding of how national events, readers, and politicians influenced newspaper editors.  A broader perspective would give more credit to Reynolds’s argument that Southern newspapers display the reasons for secession because his findings that newspapers editors shifted their opinions is not a shocking outcome. 

Two intriguing elements of the author’s research are references to newspapers that lost readers because editors published articles that expressed unpopular opinions.  Also, he reveals that many political campaigns donated money to newspapers in exchange for preferential treatment.  These two facts should be explored in more depth because they can disclose cultural, social, and political relationships that influenced popular thought and opinions.  Furthermore, the newspapers that Reynolds used gave a predominately male perspective.  An investigation into Southern women’s responses to the newspapers could provide readers with a better understanding of how newspapers influenced readers.  If Southern or Northern women read newspapers, did the editorials change their perspective on the secession crisis? Did women write to the editors and express their thoughts?  Reynolds’s research and narrative is important because it emphasizes popular thought and cultural elements of the secession crisis that historians can build upon.  His contribution to the historiography of the Civil War is through his unique approach and his extensive bibliography. 

Texas Christian University                                                                              Brooke A. Wibracht

 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Editors Make War: Southern Newspapers in the Secession Crisis. By Donald E. Reynolds. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1966.

Presenting a thoroughly researched and entertaining monograph on southern newspapers, Donald E. Reynolds, Professor emeritus of history at Texas A&M University, examines the changing attitudes of southern editors towards the secession movement from 1860-1861. He argues that prior to the Democratic Convention in Charleston, SC, the press held separate views regarding the possibility of secession, some taking a moderate opinion, while others preferred a more dramatic viewpoint.  After the convention and the subsequent election of Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln, the southern sheets unanimously congealed together to support withdrawing from the Union.  Focusing his attention on editorials that contained these debates, Reynolds analyzed over 200 newspapers from library archives at the University of Texas, Tulane, and Duke University to determine geographical and political patterns concerning the movement. 

Reynolds divides these newspapers into four categories that represent the varying opinions held by these southern writers – the secessionist newspapers, radical southern-rights newspapers, moderate southern-rights and Unionist papers.  The author admits that generalizing the editorials into different areas of opinion can be risky, but finds the separate categories necessary as many papers constantly shifted their viewpoints.  After defining his subjects, the author traces the individual categories as they all evolve from a unionist position to a secessionist standpoint.  Prior to the Democratic convention, most sheets did not advocate leaving the union, particularly the northern section of the South.  Secessionist and southern-rights, however, did support a split in the event a Republican president entered the White House in the 1860 election.  Moreover, these two particular groups continued to carry these sentiments throughout the author’s investigation. 

Regarding opinions held by moderate southern-rights and the unionist newspapers, the author reveals a clear shift.  Prior to the Democratic Convention, these moderate papers wavered on a possible Southern withdraw, but after the split at the convention, along with a developing animosity towards Stephen Douglas, these moderate papers began to sympathize with the conservative viewpoint.  As the election neared, tension continued to mount as the southern Democratic Party displayed their resentment to both Douglas and John Bell, of the Constitutionalist Union party.  Certainly various newspapers would back one of these candidates based on their particular political leanings.  At first, Bell and Douglas retained a decent amount of press support, but as Southern fears continued to increase in response to losing one’s property or inherent rights, individuals shifted their opinions to the right.  Once an individual, counties, or towns shifted their support, various papers began to lose support, money and their existence, in the event they did not alter their editorial stance.  Tension between editors and proprietors regarding opposing viewpoints often led to a spilt and eventual failure, too.  If, for example, a paper’s editor leaned towards unionist sentiments and the partners favored secessionist views, the partners continually won out, thus, allowing for this transition towards the Southern sentiment.  Events such as the abolitionist conspiracy in Texas, the election of Lincoln and South Carolina’s decision to secede, cemented the opinions of almost all Southern newspapers – unconditional support for the South. 

These events, the author claims, led to the destruction of unionist newspapers within the South.  He finds that their dwindling subscriptions, lack of monetary support, appeal to logic and reason, and a lack of editors willing to defend the Northern position, led to their final decline.  Despite their loss, the author applauds these journalists for their brave defense of the union and resistance to Southern pressure and ideas.  

Editors Make War provides an important, intimate glance into the opinions and actions of the press, individuals, counties and states in the South.  In addition, the author’s clear prose and ability to weave these various opinions in to a sleek narrative present the monograph with a high level of readability that scholars and the general population might appreciate.  Of course, while the book does offer an interesting read, the author does assume that one has previous knowledge of particular Southern politicians; perhaps adding the first name when introducing a character would prove helpful for the reader.  Also, it would be interesting to see the press’s viewpoints in a large scope.  Alas though, Reynolds’s book remains an important contribution to Civil War historiography as it reveals a transition in thought prior to the sectional dispute.

Amber Surmiller                                                                                 Texas Christian University

 

Editors Make War: Southern Newspapers in the Secession Crisis.  By Donald E. Reynolds.  Nashville, Tennessee:  Vanderbilt University Press, 1966.

            Touted as the first systematic study of Southern newspapers during the secession crisis, Donald E. Reynolds’ study lives up to its billing thanks to an impressive footprint in archives throughout the South. Indeed, Reynolds requires ten double-columned pages to list his archival sources. From this impressively thorough base, he argues that “Southern newspapers were particularly influential in altering Southern attitudes toward the Union. Newspapers unquestionably provide one of the most important sources for a clear understanding of why the South seceded” (vii-viii).

            Reynolds begins with an important discussion of the growth of the Southern newspaper industry on the eve of the secession crisis. In a predominantly rural society, newspapers possessed a “virtual monopoly” (5) on communication of important events and ideas. The editors of these newspapers, thus, possessed great power to make and influence opinions by the ways they covered stories – including decisions not to cover certain stories. Reynolds identifies four basic schools of newspaper opinion during the era. Secessionist papers and Unionist papers represented polar opposites, the former urging for immediate secession long before Lincoln’s election and the latter campaigning for the Union regardless of any past or future transgressions on Southern rights. Two larger and perhaps more influential groups occupied the middle-ground: radical Southern-rights and moderate Southern-rights papers. Reynolds divides this group on their quickness to countenance secession, and finds that a plurality of Southern newspapers during this era could be identified in the radical Southern-rights category (with the moderate category running a close second).

            The Democratic nominating convention of 1860 provided the first testing ground for the role of newspapers in public opinion. With the exception of staunch Secessionists, Southern papers hoped for unity at the convention, recognizing that only a strong Democratic candidate stood a reasonable chance of upsetting a Republican nominee. Yet, Douglas’ articulation of the popular sovereignty doctrine eventually made him unsatisfactory to extreme Southern-rights rags, whose editors turned on him with a vicious fury. In something of a foreshadowing of national secession, many of these papers pushed for division at the Democratic convention as “preferable to dishonor” (45).

            Here Reynolds reiterates an important consideration – many Southern journals of the era maintained ties to political parties in exchange for operating expenses. Thus, Breckenridge’s splinter candidacy offered many editors an acceptable alternative to supporting the original Democratic candidate, Douglas. Still, this important fact raises some questions as to editors’ freedom to generate, rather than merely reflect, popular attitudes. Nevertheless, Reynolds boldly credits “Breckinridge’s hegemony over Southern newspapers” with his victories across the South in the November 1860 election. Perhaps more importantly, however, this coalition of journals became the base for secessionist propaganda following Lincoln’s victory and, especially, his inauguration.

            As this rhetorical debate continued among editors urging immediate secession and those urging calm patience and loyalty to the Union, violence within the newspaper world reflected Southern tensions. Reynolds describes several personal vendettas between editors, conflict generated as often by ideological opposition as market competition. Texas newspapers propagated rumors of a Unionist conspiracy to explain near-simultaneous fires in parts of Dallas on 8 July. The resultant paranoia and fear led to the creation of numerous “vigilance committees” operating outside the bounds of law. This is Reynolds’ most convincing argument of editorial power, yet it is rather unique in its expanse.

            More typical of his evidence is the role of editors in spurring Southern secession. He suggests that Secessionist rags “heaped unrestrained praise” (162) on South Carolina’s quick secession, and that Southern-rights journals served to adhere public opinion to this political movement. Ultimately, even Unionist papers proved more Southern than Unionist, as Lincoln’s call for troops provoked even these once stalwart editors toward secession. Where editors had once debated the legality and wisdom of secession, the desirability of Douglas, Bell, or Breckinridge, and any number of other mini-crises, Southern newspapers were by this point virtually united in inflammatory anti-Northern rhetoric and “Republicanophobia” (215).

            Ultimately, Reynolds succeeds in proving the latter half of his thesis, that newspapers are a critical source for understanding Southern views on secession. In order to prove the first claim – that newspapers influenced southern attitudes – one must demonstrate that these articles provoked attitudes rather than merely reflected them. Instead, the author relies on an assumption – a reasonable one, but an assumption nonetheless – that newspaper editorials both reflected and drove prevailing opinion. By largely limiting his analysis to newspapers, Reynolds perhaps misses other opportunities to illustrate how editorial attitudes trickled down into Southern society in the form of personal letters, political speeches, or actual events. Nevertheless, Reynolds quite clearly demonstrates the vital importance of newspapers to this era of Southern history and historiography.

Matthew A. McNiece

 

 

Editors Make War: Southern Newspapers in the Secession Crisis.  By Donald E. Reynolds.  Nashville, Tennessee:  Vanderbilt University Press, 1966.   

In Editors Make War: Southern Newspapers in the Secession Crisis, author Donald E. Reynolds investigates the influence of editors in the Confederate states in the years preceding the Civil War.  The most prevalent form of literature of the period, newspapers provided readers with their primary source of information regarding national and local issues.  The financial stability of newspapers rested with the acquisition of sponsors and subscribers.  As a result, the tone of articles and the opinions of newspaper editors both influenced and reflected Southern attitudes. The author utilizes editorials from approximately two hundred newspapers to analyze “the evolution of editorial opinions from a generally unionist position in early 1860 to a predominately secessionist viewpoint a year later.”  (ix)  According to Reynolds, a study of pre-Civil War newspapers provides readers with a clear understanding of why the South seceded from the Union.  The author concludes that “without the press, the task of those who divided the nation would have been infinitely more difficult.”  (217)

Reynolds examines editorial reactions to major political events from 1860 to 1861.  These events include nominating conventions, the split of the Democratic party at Charleston and Baltimore, the alleged arson conspiracy in Texas, Lincoln’s victory in the Presidential election, the secession of the South, the fall of Fort Sumter and Lincoln’s mobilization of troops in April of 1861.   The author argues that these events allowed secessionist editorialists to gain the initiative in the South.  In the Spring of 1860, most newspaper editorialists in the South supported the preservation of the Union, as long as Southern rights remained protected.  After the fall of Fort Sumter, the few surviving Unionist papers in the South overwhelmingly shifted positions or folded.  Reynolds reveals that after Fort Sumter, Southern supporters of the Union courted physical and financial disaster. 

The author demonstrates that contemporary editors and their publications unabashedly engaged in partisan politics.  Reynolds argues that Southern editors published exaggerated and distorted interpretations of Northern views in an attempt to push the Southern public toward secession.  Editorials exploited Southern fears that the North harbored plans to abolish slavery and promote not only political equality, but also amalgamation of the races.  Politically, editors supporting  secession and Southern rights tended to endorse the Democratic party, supporting John C. Breckinridge or Stephen A. Douglas.  Unionist papers supported the Constitutional Union party and its candidate, John Bell. Reynolds devotes considerable attention to the political campaigns of Breckinridge, Bell and Douglas.  According to the author, Southern papers devoted little attention to Lincoln prior to his victory in the Republican primary.  Thereafter, Southern editors began a campaign designed to underscore Lincoln’s position as an abolitionist.  Reynolds’ analysis concludes that no Republican candidate running for President could hope for support from the South. 

Reynolds provides the readers with well-documented endnotes and a comprehensive bibliography.  In addition, he provides an appendix listing Southern newspapers in alphabetical order.   

Melanie Kirkland