How the media helped cause the American Civil War

Congressmen used to beat on each other, like a lot

Thanks for reading America Explained! Paid subscriptions are what keeps this newsletter a going concern, so please upgrade if you’re able to spare a few dollars or euros or whatever (I’m not picky!) a month to support independent journalism and to access all of our posts.

Also, a reminder that soon I’m posting the answers to my Ask Me Anything. Leave a question in the comments about any topic, historical or contemporary, and I’ll include it.

While on vacation I’ve been reading The Field of Blood: Violence in Congress and the Road to Civil War by Joanne B. Freeman (yes, that is my idea of a vacation). It’s a fascinating look at how the political polarization of the pre-Civil War era led to physical violence between congressmen. This violence sometimes took place in the streets of Washington, D.C., but also frequently on the floor of the Congress itself. The most famous instance of this was the near-fatal caning of abolitionist Senator Charles Sumner by pro-slavery Rep. Preston Brooks, but Freeman also explores dozens of other examples, almost all of them in some way tied to the issue of slavery.

Brooks lays into Sumner

One of the most interesting aspects of Freeman’s book is how she illustrates that the threat of violence was just as important - perhaps more important - than the violence itself. One of the ways that the Slave Power retained its tight grip on U.S. institutions before the Civil War was through threats of violence against opponents of slavery. Congressmen who made speeches opposing the South would find themselves inundated with threats of personal violence or outright attacked (by other Congressmen!) with guns, knives, and canes. In the face of these threats, not a few opponents of slavery decided to stay quiet.

Part of the reason that the South was so successful at cowing its Northern critics was because its representatives were more accustomed to violence. Duelling remained commonplace in the South, as did other forms of political violence. In 1837, the Speaker of the Arkansas legislature killed one of its members on the floor of the chamber with a bowie knife. At his trial, the jury agreed that the victim had it coming - and the voters subsequently sent the murderer back to the legislature, where he promptly pulled his knife on someone else.

Northern Congressmen mostly considered such displays barbaric, and for a long time they were punished by their voters if they got tangled in a duel. This created a weird asymmetry in which Southerners could bully and threaten while Northerners had few ways to respond, however shame-faced they might feel about backing down.

But perhaps the most interesting part of the story to me was the role that the media played in this dynamic. As Freeman explains, for much of the pre-Civil War period, the nation mostly got its coverage of Congressional proceedings from a couple of Washington, D.C. papers which were all heavily reliant on government funding. Reporters for these papers were only too eager to spin their coverage to protect the reputation of Congress as a whole and its individual members, who would sometimes physically attack reporters if they felt they had been made to look bad in the press. These papers hence protected Congress’s reputation by mostly erasing the role that violence and threats played in legislative proceedings.

But in the 1850s, with the rise of the telegraph and a more consolidated national media, things started to change. Outside outlets like The New York Times started to have the money to open bureaus in the capital full time, and their reporters were not as dependent on keeping congressmen happy. The telegraph meant that news now leapt across the continent at a moment’s notice, creating a thirst for quick, sensational information. As the truth of Congressional proceedings started to be reported, the scales fell away from the nation’s eyes.

The result, as might be expected, was to turbo-charge political polarization. Now that every threat, punch, and honor dispute was reported across the nation, the stakes of backing down became much higher. Even shy Northerners started to believe they had to punch back now that the whole world knew how they were degraded and insulted every day.

Faster and more extensive media coverage also made it harder for congressmen to say one thing in their home district and another in Washington. Many Northerners who shied away from offending the South in Congress for fear of a beating had nevertheless cursed the Slave Power to the fullest of their ability back home in their districts. Now, everyone knew the words that they said everywhere, forcing them to choose one stance or the other. Many Northerners were pushed reluctantly to a full-blown anti-slavery stance, which only led to more physical confrontations in Congress.

This story is, of course, only one of the many which preceded and in some way brought about the Civil War. But I find it interesting because the relationship between media, polarization, and political norms is also one of the central themes of our own time.

Over the past few decades, there has been a tremendous democratization of political discourse and news distribution in the United States, and indeed elsewhere in the world. Many people now get their news primarily from social media apps like TikTok or YouTube, and even traditional news publishers warp their coverage in order to get the most clicks from the same places. The rise of hyper-partisan silos has contributed to the rise of polarized politics, with many politicians now trying to go viral on highly partisan networks rather than appeal to the average voter.

Republicans especially have figured out that one way to do this is to break norms - to be shocking and confrontational in an attempt to get clicks. Today’s media landscape rewards extremity and often penalizes someone for trying to do things the regular, boring, norm-compliant way. It would be foolish to blame all of today’s polarization on this changing media landscape, but it would be foolish to completely ignore the relationship as well. The way that voters get their news about politics clearly influences the types of politics which will do well. The medium is the message.

In the 1850s and ‘60s, the result of this dynamic of polarization was Civil War - something that many Americans saw coming for years in advance. Many see it coming now as well, and once again an act of violence in Congress was one of the surest hints that they may be right. It is worth remembering that the United States has been here before, and it eventually emerged, but only after horrific violence. The Civil War was one end point of these dynamics, but also a new beginning. Let us hope that the next new beginning comes around more easily.

Thanks for reading America Explained! Paid subscriptions are what keeps this newsletter a going concern, so please upgrade if you’re able to spare a few dollars or euros or whatever (I’m not picky!) a month to support independent journalism and to access all of our posts.

Also, a reminder that soon I’m posting the answers to my Ask Me Anything. Leave a question in the comments about any topic, historical or contemporary, and I’ll include it.

More from America Explained: