How informed was the average citizen in 1860...?

[Viper21]

A quote I've always liked .....
"If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed." Mark Twain

Today, we have a ridiculous amount of information available to us in seconds, to minutes. Smart phones have pretty much rendered libraries almost obsolete. There hasn't been any encyclopedia salesman at the door in decades

Granted, a lot of the information available in seconds isn't always factually correct. According to Twain, this has been the case for a long time.

I realize that this forum is full of scholars, & plenty of people who spend a tremendous amount of time researching, studying, reading, etc.. Although, I would assume most would agree, that is NOT the average citizens devotion to history, or even current events. If you've ever read the comments on news articles, FB posts, blogs, etc... you are very much aware at what a large % of the population is very ignorant to most issues of the day, let alone history. This is of course with 24/7 news channels (multiple), & the internet available to most anyone with cell phone service.

What about 1850 - 1860 America..?? Many people today, do not watch the news, & do not even attempt to inform themselves, or really even care about the political issues of the day at all. Many are more concerned about making rent, or posting another great photo of themselves on Instagram.

Plenty would say, life is difficult (today), & a constant struggle to better themselves, & their situation. Most couldn't comprehend the struggles of daily life in 1860 America. From fetching water, to cutting firewood, to using the outhouse on a cold winter night. I know when I look at census forms of the era, most of my male ancestors are listed as farmers for occupation. Most females as "keeps house". Were they well informed of the political situation about to set the country on fire..?

How difficult was it to aquire information in that time ? How did one verify information ? Was it easier or harder to propagate mis-information ? Could an informed population have avoided war..? Or would more information have made it worse ?

 

[GS]

I believe an informed population of the truth could have prevented the War. Like today, the truth was surely hard to come by, and while the cities had news broadsides, and telegraph send word from distant regions, all were subject to translation, and personal bias. Grandstanding politicians came to town, orators who swept the people off their feet with fear-mongering lies.

Think about it... nearly a million lives could have been spared, if the truth had been told.

Note how this recruitment flyer from Alabama promoted terror of an imminent invasion by German soldiers.

 

[wausaubob]

Well, the 1st Amendment is supposed to help create an informed electorate. How did that work out, in the Southern States?

 

[Viper21]

View attachment 169525

Note how this recruitment flyer from Alabama promoted terror of an imminent invasion by German soldiers.

Not sure it's any "worse" than this one....

"..... you may wake to find your homes desolated, and your children wandering naked through the world, begging for food, and seeking where to lay their heads"



There's lots of mis-information out there, & on BOTH sides. I was just pondering what the information trail was BEFORE bloodshed.

 

[JOHN42768]

The only forms of current info were word of mouth or newspaper. Figuring the percentage of the population that could not read , that left only the spoken word. We all know what happens when a story gets passed from person to person. Newspapers were bias even back then and lacked the means to spread info in a timely manner. I'm thinking for the most part people in general were uninformed or misinformed. Especially in rural settings.

 

[Viper21]

The only forms of current info were word of mouth or newspaper. Figuring the percentage of the population that could not read , that left only the spoken word. We all know what happens when a story gets passed from person to person. Newspapers were bias even back then and lacked the means to spread info in a timely manner. I'm thinking for the most part people in general were uninformed or misinformed. Especially in rural settings.

Which is my assumption as well.

I would also assume, this affected southerners more than northerners. Specifically because of the more common rural settings...

 

[thomas aagaard]

Well the turnout in the 1860 election was 81%... So I would argue that citizens back then was better informed and more interested in politics than today...
(obviously talking about the US... a 81% rate would be horrible low for Denmark)

Also there where newspapers all over the place. Even small cities would often have more than one. And in larger cities they where published more than time each day.
So I would argue that most citizens had plenty of access to information about what was happening.
(not counting the slaves obviously.. and it was often delayed with a few days)

Back in winter I looked in some local Danish news papers. Even the the papers from what would be the "backwater"of Denmark, there was articles about the civil war... And it was actually pretty well covered.
(one reason is that the news was often taken from international sources. Similar to how much news today come from Reuters)
And just for comparison I looked at newspapers from other period (mid 1850teis) and then other international events was similar well covered.
So if a random dane could be well informed about the war, I am sure the same can be said for most people in north america.

 

[wausaubob]

It was the era of publishing. The United States was awash in books, magazines and newspapers. Of course it was illegal to have some of those books and magazines which criticized slavery.
The rights of slave owners to have slaves was the right to which all other rights were subject to a duty to respect.
In addition, literacy rates varied from region to region. Any of our good researchers could point out the difference.
German immigrants tended to be literate and bi-lingual, in my opinion.

 

[thomas aagaard]

yep. Most German states had some sort of mandatory public schooling since the early 19th century. (Prussia started it in the 18th century)
The same was the situation in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. So immigrants from this part of Europe would generally be able to read/write in their native language. And news papers in other languages was common.

 

[JOHN42768]

One must remember that of that 81% most were in the northeastern USA as that is where the largest population centers were located. Also where more schools to provide education and railroads tying major cities to spread the newspapers. I don't doubt international events might be covered, but with much time delayed. When one compared the geographical area of Denmark to the US, even back then, is a very large difference. International news was much quicker as countries were situated close together as opposed to across the oceans. Granted if one wanted info and searched , that it could be found. Also factor in the level of education .

 

[leftyhunter]

A quote I've always liked .....
"If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed." Mark Twain

Today, we have a ridiculous amount of information available to us in seconds, to minutes. Smart phones have pretty much rendered libraries almost obsolete. There hasn't been any encyclopedia salesman at the door in decades

Granted, a lot of the information available in seconds isn't always factually correct. According to Twain, this has been the case for a long time.

I realize that this forum is full of scholars, & plenty of people who spend a tremendous amount of time researching, studying, reading, etc.. Although, I would assume most would agree, that is NOT the average citizens devotion to history, or even current events. If you've ever read the comments on news articles, FB posts, blogs, etc... you are very much aware at what a large % of the population is very ignorant to most issues of the day, let alone history. This is of course with 24/7 news channels (multiple), & the internet available to most anyone with cell phone service.

What about 1850 - 1860 America..?? Many people today, do not watch the news, & do not even attempt to inform themselves, or really even care about the political issues of the day at all. Many are more concerned about making rent, or posting another great photo of themselves on Instagram.

Plenty would say, life is difficult (today), & a constant struggle to better themselves, & their situation. Most couldn't comprehend the struggles of daily life in 1860 America. From fetching water, to cutting firewood, to using the outhouse on a cold winter night. I know when I look at census forms of the era, most of my male ancestors are listed as farmers for occupation. Most females as "keeps house". Were they well informed of the political situation about to set the country on fire..?

How difficult was it to aquire information in that time ? How did one verify information ? Was it easier or harder to propagate mis-information ? Could an informed population have avoided war..? Or would more information have made it worse ?

To complicate matters there was not true freedom of the press in the antebellum South. For example Southeren Post Masters would not allow abolitionist newspapers to be mailed in the South.
Leftyhunter

 

[wausaubob]

People in London, Paris and Hamb

yep. Most German states had some sort of mandatory public schooling since the early 19th century. (Prussia started it in the 18th century)
The same was the situation in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. So immigrants from this part of Europe would generally be able to read/write in their native language. And news papers in other languages was common.

And many Europeans could speak French or English as a second language at least well enough to get where they were going.

 

[Viper21]

To complicate matters there was not true freedom of the press in the antebellum South. For example Southeren Post Masters would not allow abolitionist newspapers to be mailed in the South.
Leftyhunter

There wasn't "true freedom of the press" in Baltimore that's for sure. Ask Francis Scott Key's grandson, Frank Key Howard & his colleagues at The Daily Exchange.

 

[leftyhunter]

There wasn't "true freedom of the press" in Baltimore that's for sure. Ask Francis Scott Key's grandson, Frank Key Howard & his colleagues at The Daily Exchange.

Perhaps but for quite a bit longer there was an effective if informal censoring of opinion in the South. Also in the North from time to time pro slavery mobs would destroy abolitionist newspapers publishing equipment.
Leftyhunter

 

[Viper21]

Perhaps but for quite a bit longer there was an effective if informal censoring of opinion in the South. Also in the North from time to time pro slavery mobs would destroy abolitionist newspapers publishing equipment.
Leftyhunter

My point is, there was censorship on BOTH sides. There was plenty of spin too. I don't believe for a minute that the average person was very informed on either side.

 

[leftyhunter]

My point is, there was censorship on BOTH sides. There was plenty of spin too. I don't believe for a minute that the average person was very informed on either side.

Don't know about that. How many openly abolitionist newspapers in the South vs openly pro slavery newspapers in the North right through the Civil War.
Leftyhunter

 

[Fish]

All newspapers have/had bias, spin, slant, etc.
As well as history books.
Back then, as well as now.

 

[Lost Cause]

Perhaps but for quite a bit longer there was an effective if informal censoring of opinion in the South. Also in the North from time to time pro slavery mobs would destroy abolitionist newspapers publishing equipment.
Leftyhunter

Are you familiar with Ambrose Kimball, editor of the Essex County Democrat?
He was tarred and feathered by a frenzied Massachusetts mob for printing anti-Union stories and editorials.

http://www.newseuminstitute.org/200...ted-lincolns-tolerance-for-free-speech-press/

 

[leftyhunter]

Are you familiar with Ambrose Kimball, editor of the Essex County Democrat?
He was tarred and feathered by a frenzied Massachusetts mob for printing anti-Union stories and editorials.

http://www.newseuminstitute.org/200...ted-lincolns-tolerance-for-free-speech-press/

I was referring specifically about the severity of Southern antebellum censorship vs that of the North. In the South there never was an abolitionist newspaper. Yes the article does mention that a mob burned down an anti-war newspaper but that was not condoned by Lincoln. A pro Copperhead mob also burned a pro war newspaper. The article points out that Lincoln rarely suppressed free speech and only when two newspapers falsely claimed Lincoln was going to draft four hundred thousand men. Yes for a few days General Burnside did shut down a few newspapers. The article does point out that Lincoln was very tolerant of dissent during wartime.
Leftyhunter

 

[Eleanor Rose]

@Viper21, this is an interesting topic and one I have often wondered about myself.