Thursday, October 10, 2024

How a Newspaper Revolution Sparked Protesters and Influencers, Disinformation and the Civil War  

BEFORE 'WOKE' THERE WERE THE 'WIDE AWAKE' OPPOSITION TO THE 'KNOW NOTHINGS'


  October 10, 2024
FacebookTwitter
An image from Harper’s Weekly depicts the ‘Grand procession of Wide-Awakes at New York on the evening of October 3, 1860.’ Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division

There’s one question I get every time I give a talk. I’m a curator of political history at the Smithsonian Institution, and when I discuss the deep history of political division in our country, someone in the audience always asserts that we can’t possibly compare past divisions to the present, because our media landscape is doing unprecedented harm, unlike anything seen in the past.

I’m always struck by people’s belief in a placid media landscape in the past, a time of calm before the internet blew everything up.

In fact, the most divided period in the history of U.S. democracy – the mid-1800s – coincided with a sudden boom in new communications technologies, confrontational political influencers, widespread disinformation and nasty fights over free speech. This media landscape helped bring the Civil War.

The point is not that 21st century media is like the 19th century’s, but that the past was hardly full of the upstanding, rational, nonpartisan journalists many like to believe it was.

And at this era’s center, in the campaign that actually led to the war, was a huge, strange, forgotten movement – the Wide Awakes – born from this media landscape and fought out in the newspapers, polling places and, ultimately, battlefields of the nation.

An illustrated document in black and white that says 'WIDE AWAKE CLUB' and whose central image shows crowds and troops before the U.S. Capitol.
A Wide Awake membership form from 1860, printed in New York and showing crowds and troops before the U.S. Capitol. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division

From snark to high-minded abolitionism

Newspapers had been around for centuries, but as American rates of literacy rose, millions of ordinary citizens became daily news junkies.

The number of papers jumped from a few publications in 1800 to 4,000 brawling rags by 1860, printing hundreds of millions of pages each year. They ranged from the snarky, immensely popular New York Herald and the blood-drenched true crime reports in the National Police Gazette to the high-minded abolitionism of The Liberator.

A story from the Worcester Daily Spy in Massachusetts, Nov. 5, 1860, reprinted from a New York newspaper, about the work of the Wide Awakes.
A clipping from an article in the Worcester Daily Spy in Massachusetts, Nov. 5, 1860, reprinted from a New York newspaper, about the work of the Wide Awakes. Boston Public Library Collection

Nearly everyone devoured them – from wealthy elites to schoolgirls to enslaved people technically banned from reading. Newspapers published scandals and rumors, riling mobs and sparking frequent attacks on editors – often by other editors.

Well into the 20th century, communities were still pulling newspaper presses out of local rivers, hurled there by angry mobs.

Ninety-five percent of newspapers had explicit political affiliations. Many were bankrolled by the parties directly. There was no concept of journalistic independence and nonpartisanship until the turn of the 20th century.

These partisan presses, not the government, even printed the election ballots. Readers voted by cutting ballots from their pages and bringing them to the polls. Imagine if TikTok influencers or podcasters were responsible for administering elections.

The telegraph may seem old-timey today, but after its introduction in the 1840s, Americans could disseminate breaking news across huge territories along electrical wires. It allowed people to argue the issues nationwide – before the internet, television or radio.

Digesting slavery’s evils daily

Americans became a people by arguing politics in the press.

When politics was local, the major parties had avoided discussing slavery, taking what Abraham Lincoln mocked as a “don’t care” attitude. But now that Maine could debate with Texas, the topic shot to the forefront. By the 1850s, Northerners digested its evils daily.

The National Era – an abolitionist press in Washington – first printed Harriet Beecher Stowe’s hair-raising “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” by far the most influential antislavery novel in history.

Meanwhile, the radical pro-slavery magazine “De Bow’s Review” spread a maximalist vision of expanding slavery far and wide. Americans living thousands of miles from each other could argue the issue, and the only gatekeepers were editors who profited from spreading often legitimate outrage.

It’s fitting, then, that the Northern pushback to expanding slavery came from the 19th century equivalent of “very online” young newspaper readers. Early in the 1860 election, a core of young clerks in Connecticut formed a club to help campaign for the antislavery Republican Party. They happened to live in the state with the highest literacy rates and huge newspaper circulations. So when a local editor wrote that the Republicans seemed “Wide Awake” in the campaign, the boys named their club “the Wide Awakes.”

Adding militaristic uniforms, torch-lit midnight rallies and an open eye as their all-seeing symbol, a new movement was born, which I chronicle in my recent book, “Wide Awake: The Forgotten Force that Elected Lincoln and Spurred the Civil War.” Often, their chief issue was not the knotty specifics of what to do about slavery, but the fight for a “Free Press” – unsuppressed by supporters of slavery, South or North.

The Wide Awakes exploded across the national newspaper network. Within months of their founding, young Republicans were forming clubs from Connecticut to California.

A newspaper clipping from 1860 about a parade by the Wide Awakes in Cleveland, Ohio.

An article about the Wide Awakes from the Cleveland Morning Leader of Nov. 6, 1860. Library of Congress.

Most learned how to organize their companies through the papers. They built a reciprocal relationship with America’s press: cheering friendly newspaper offices and harassing pro-slavery Democratic papers’ headquarters. Friendly editors returned the favor, marching with the Wide Awakes and pushing their readers to form more clubs, like the Indiana newspaperman who nudged: “Cannot such an organization be gotten up in this town?”

None of this could be admired as independent journalism, but it sure spread a movement. It only took a few months to turn the Wide Awakes into one of the largest partisan movements America had ever seen, believed to have 500,000 members – proportionally the equivalent of 5 million today.

‘From Maine to Oregon let the earth shake’

The same newspaper network spread fear as well. Readers in much of the South saw the clubs as a partisan paramilitary organization. Wild accounts shared accidental misinformation and deliberate disinformation, pushing the false notion that the Wide Awakes were preparing for a war, not an election.

The presence of a few hundred African American Wide Awakes in Boston morphed into claims in Mississippi that “the Wide Awakes are composed mainly of Negroes,” who were plotting a race war. A dispersed, partisan media exaggerated such falsehoods like a national game of telephone.

By the time Lincoln won election in November 1860, hysterical editors predicted a Wide Awake attack on the South. Secessionist newspapers used fears of Wide Awakes to help push states out of the Union. The Weekly Mississippian reported “WIDE-AWAKE INVASION ANTICIPATED,” the very day that state seceded.

Meanwhile, Wide Awake editors began to push back against the widening secession conspiracy. German newspapermen in St. Louis helped arm Wide Awake clubs for combat.

In Pennsylvania, the editor James Sanks Brisbin ordered Republicans to “organize yourselves into military companies. … Take muskets in your hands, and from Maine to Oregon let the earth shake to the tread of three millions of armed Wide-Awakes.”

What began in ink was spiraling into lead and steel. It took 16 years to develop from the introduction of the telegraph to the Civil War. Undoubtedly, the fight over slavery caused that conflict, but the newspapers fed it, amplified it, exaggerated it.

Mid-19th century Americans lived with an odd combination: an unprecedented ability to spread information, but also a siloed and partisan system of interpreting it. It helped the nation finally reckon with the crimes of slavery, but also spread bad faith, irrational panic and outright lies.

This history can add a needed perspective to today’s political conflicts, so often magnified by social media. In both eras, new technologies supercharged existing political tensions.

Yet we can see from this heated history that political media is less like an unstoppable, unreformable force that will consume democracy, and more like another in a succession of breathtaking, catastrophic, wild new landscapes that must be tamed.The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Jon Grinspan is Political History Curator at the Smithsonian Institution


Kris Kristofferson: the Anti-War Veteran


 October 10, 2024
Facebook

Image, Wikipedia.

American country musician Kris Kristofferson was a military veteran and anti-war activist. He continued his advocacy against the Gulf Wars and benefit concerts for Palestinian children despite the negative impacts that both had on his career. Kristofferson died on September 28 at his home in Hawaii, aged 88.

Kristoffer Kristofferson was born in 1936 in Brownsville, Texas to mother Mary Ann and father Henry Kristofferson. His father served in WWII and the Korean War as a brigadier in the US Army Air Corps.

In 1958, Kris Kristofferson won a prestigious Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University, England. After graduation, he enlisted in the U.S. Army, became a helicopter pilot, and rose to the rank of captain. After his military service, Kristofferson worked as a commercial pilot before his music career took off.

Kristofferson’s musical career included songwriting for others. In 1965, he penned Vietnam Blues. The spoken-word song narrates a veteran’s disappointment with anti-war protesters and became a massive hit for country music star Dave Dudley.

Later in his career, Kristofferson’s politics and music became distinctly anti-war. “They’re killing babies in the name of freedom,” was the opening line of his 1990 song Don’t Let the Bastards (Get You Down). As the fifth track on his album Third World Warrior, it was released just months before the United States launched the Gulf War. Lyrics in the song include, “we’ve been down that sorry road before…It’s too late to fool us anymore,” and, “it’s getting hard to listen to their lies.”

Kristofferson’s disdain for the Gulf War was on clear display during a New Zealand television interview. In May 1991, Kristofferson toured with Johnny Cash, Willie Nelson, and Waylon Jennings who performed as the supergroup The Highwaymen. During the tour, the group appeared on the local current affairs show Holmes. Host Paul Holmes asked the musicians what was ailing the United States. Kristofferson gave a three-part answer. He spoke of “flag waving and choreographed patriotism that we had back in Nazi Germany, a half a century ago.” Kristofferson said that the U.S. had a “one party system, which is in control of all three branches of our government” and described a “lap-dog media that is cranking out propaganda for the Administration that would make a Nazi blush.”

Kristofferson’s critique of U.S. media was not new. One month prior, political scientist and journalist Jim Naureckas had robustly critiqued the US media reporting about Iraq, noting the prevalence of pro-war, anti-peace, and racism in coverage. Naureckas detailed and critiqued the lack of separation of journalists from the U.S. government.

In the Holmes interview, Johnny Cash also spoke about what he saw as troubles in American society. Cash said that “there’s too much money being spent on military and there should be more spent on education and welfare – young people, the children, and the elderly, especially the elderly.” Cash ended his critique with an emphasis on his patriotism, “there’s always been a lot of things wrong with the country, but it’s always been our obligation and opportunity to help straighten it out. I love America. I love this country,” he said.

The Gulf War lasted a little over six months and ended in January 1991. In March 2003, the U.S. launched the Second Gulf War, sometimes called the Iraq War. Three years later, Kristofferson released his first album of new material since 1995. Track five, In the News, leaves listeners with no doubt about Kristofferson’s views. The fifth verse starts: “Not in my name, not on my ground. I want nothing but the ending of the war.”

Kristofferson knew that his politics hindered his career, but he was undeterred. Stephen Miller’s 2009 biography quotes Kristofferson, “I found a considerable lack of work after doing concerts for the Palestinian children and for a couple of gigs with Vanessa Redgrave and if that’s the way it has to be, that’s the way it has to be. If you support human rights, you gotta support them everywhere.”

Chris Houston is the President of the Canadian Peace Museum non-profit organization and a columnist for The Bancroft Times.




 

Is the “Lesser Evil” Really Less than the “Greater Evil?”

2024 presidential candidates: Former President Donald Trump (left) and current Vice President Kamala Harris IMAGE/ABCNews

When faced with two adverse unethical options, a person may try to avoid the more harmful immoral choice. This is ancient strategy people have talked and written about, and applied in various situations. In the US political parlance, the term “lesser of two evils,” is choosing the evil that will be less damaging.

There is talk about voting for the “lesser of two evils.” The rationale behind this thinking is to prevent the greater “evil” from gaining power and thus causing more havoc. This is an intelligent thing to do especially in countries where million of peoples’ future is at stake — but when the United States is involved, the well being of the entire planet is at stake.

In the US, it is understood by many that the greater evil is the Republican Party or the proverbial Charybdis. Noam Chomsky once said, “Republican Party is the most dangerous organisation in human history.” The lesser evil’s title goes to the Democratic Party or the proverbial Scylla.

In dire situations, one could accept voting for the lesser evil – Democrats. But when the Democrats don’t want to address the root causes then voting for them election after election turns into a futile exercise, while the sick state keeps on deteriorating. This is a serious problem. It’s like a person who has a tumor that in initial stages is ignored due to carelessness. However, a timely realization as to the consequences rushes in emergency for treatment as if he/she had not headed for the doctor, the malignancy would have proved fatal.

The above example is equally applicable to the United States — a Sick Empire — physically, that is, in economic decline and mentally, “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today,” to use Dr Martin Luther King Jr’s words spoken on April 4, 1967. The US has steadfastly held on to the title of “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today” as if it doesn’t want to prove Dr King wrong in his assessment.

The Republican Party openly supports the capitalist class by lowering taxes for the rich, opposing unions, resisting pay raises, waging foreign wars or domestic ones, such as “war against drugs,” etc. In return, they get favors and election campaign contributions.

But there is something to be said about the lesser evil of the two choices.

Democratic Party is not that naked — it uses a fig leaf to cover up its hypocrisy, it pretends to be what it is not; it claims it is working for the common folks, complains about rich not paying taxes (but does not do anything), and so on. In reality, they do very little for the general public because they too get lots of money from the big donors to contest elections. LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman (worth $2.5 billion), in 2024 gave $10 million to Biden-Harris campaign donated another $7 million to Kamala Harris (after Biden quit the presidential bid and nominated Harris as the Democratic candidate, without any intra-party election). Hoffman wants Harris to fire Lina Khan, the FTC chair who is fighting big corporate mergers and monopolistic corporate practices. This is what Hoffman said:

“I do think that Lina Khan is a person who is not helping America in her job in what she’s doing. And so, I would hope that Vice President Harris would replace her.”

Expedia Chairman Barry Diller (worth $4.5 billion) called Khan a “dope,” but then he said he misspoke; he wants her fired. Who knows, may be Harris would listen to her paymasters, as has been the custom.

It is sad that people like Lina Khan, who are honest, incorruptible, and are working for the welfare of the majority, and are rare to find in government, have to face so much opposition from the billionaire class. Lina Khan and people like her are hated by the rich, like Hoffman because they try to enforce laws which assist most people rather than fattening the already obese (financially) like Hoffman and his ilk.

The Young Turks put it rightly: “… we don’t have a democracy. We have an open auction 100%.

Biden, when he was running for president, had told the wealthy donors:

“I mean, we may not want to demonize anybody who has made money.” “The truth of the matter is … nobody has to be punished. No one’s standard of living will change, nothing would fundamentally change.”

One cannot not sympathize with the Democratic presidential candidates who are (or aiming to be) multimillionaires, who hobnob with billionaires, are mostly interviewed by anchors making millions of dollars, who have to feign they are for ordinary people, in order to get their vote.

But the problem with this line of strategy is that it is simply prolonging the onset of the overdue implosion rather than trying to eliminate the rot in the system. If you watch or read the news and various commentaries or watch late night shows in the liberal news media, many a times they are making fun of Donald Trump, his wife and children and portray him as an evil person and thus imply Biden/Harris are virtuous people. (In the mid 1980s, then President Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an “evil empire” hinting that the US is a sanctimonious entity.) These same people never accuse Biden or his cabinet, as bloodthirsty murderers.

So why go for the lesser evil?

The Democrats and the Republicans are almost twins,1 as far as warring against foreign countries or overthrowing their governments is concerned. It’s within the US, where the slight difference comes into play. Democrats would not want to go total fascist at home — they permit some freedom to maintain the facade of the US being “the greatest democracy.” On the other hand, the Republicans want to treat, actually mistreat, most people indiscriminately, within and without the US, in the same fascist manner. Many people in the US don’t mind foreign countries becoming victim of US imperialistic fascist policies, either due to their ignorance or indifference or are misled by Republicans’ and Democrats’ warmongering or news media’s and think tanks’ fear inducing presentation etc. On the other hand, many people are frightened now that, it seems if Trump wins, fascism is going to hit most people in the US. That’s why most people prefer the lesser evil.

Mind you, fascism has never been absent in many people’s life in the US, such as incarcerating a huge segment of population, people who are victims of police violence (injured or killed), PTSD-(Post traumatic stress disorder) traumatized soldiers returning from fabricated bloody wars, homeless people, and so on. Most Democrats haven’t created meaningful improvement in the lives of these people.

The Democrat and Republican led governments have overthrown many governments and are still trying to overthrow many more but Democrats don’t want Trump to do that in the US, such as the purported January 6, 2021 attempt.2 It was an unorganized, clumsily executed foolish attempt. Trump should have consulted the experienced hands from both parties and also the CIA before the January 6 attempt. He would have succeeded, for sure.

Q: Why will there never be a coup d’état in Washington?

A: Because there’s no American embassy there.

Is there a difference between Trump and Harris etc.?

Without a second thought, one has to admit that Trump’s virile oral member is long and ejects idiocies and hate on a non-stop basis. Trump is a very cruel person, indeed. But the question is: are Biden, Harris, Anthony Blinken, Lloyd Austin, Harris’ supporter greater evil Dick Cheney any less cruel?

No.

In fact, they are more cruel and have excessively more blood of innocents on their hands than Trump has, that is, until now. His next term will be full of vengeance and who knows, greater bloodshed. Isn’t Biden too full of hate for Palestinians, Lebanese, and Iranians or anyone fighting for their rights and want to go their separate ways? Biden, a grandfather, who still grieves for his son Beau Biden’s death in 2015 due to glioblastoma has neither shed a tear nor has grieved for the 42,511 Palestinians (including 16,660 children) plus 1974 [A Lancet article from 10 July 2024 reported a much higher estimate: “Applying a conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death to the 37 396 deaths reported, it is not implausible to estimate that up to 186 000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza.” — DV ed.] (which includes 127 children) Lebanese killed by Israel with US encouragement, arms and ammunition, money, personnel, and intelligence –without which Israel could not have caused such incredible loss of lives. The opposition to war within the US is squashed by the Israel Lobby.

At this juncture in human history, who deserves more loathing, Trump or Biden and Harris? Of course, today the answer is the Biden/Harris team.

ENDNOTES:

  • 1
    Just in this century, with the help of the Supreme Court, the greater evil George W. Bush got into White House and gave us Afghanistan and Iraq wars with the help of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and neocons. The lesser evil Barack Obama delivered a speech in Cairo, Egypt, received a Nobel Peace Prize, forgave the wealthy criminals for creating the 2000’s economic turmoil, and then waged war against seven Muslim countries and destroyed Libya. He was followed by the greater evil Donald Trump whose mishandling of Corona Virus killed hundreds of thousand people, enhanced Islamophobia, and created havoc in immigrant families by separating children from parents. Then we got Joe Biden who provoked Russia to fight Ukraine and let the world’s most dangerous man, Israel’s Netanyahu, run amok in Gaza, Palestine, and now in Lebanon. Seems like, very soon, he’ll open another front against Iran.
  • 2
    By the beginning of 2024, 1,240 people had been arrested for the January 6, 2021, incident. Recently, Colorado county clerk Tina Peters was sentenced to nine years. None of the US planners involved, covertly or overtly, has ever been charged, let alone sentenced to prison for a coup and killing of Chile’s Dr. Salvador Allende, ousting Iran’s Mohammad Mosaddegh, and so many others.FacebookTwitterReddit
B.R. Gowani can be reached at brgowani@hotmail.comRead other articles by B.R..