Journalism in Colonial America

Celebrated journalists Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel define the purpose of journalism in their combined work The Elements of Journalism as the need to "provide citizens with the information they need to be free and self-governing," further stating that the "news media serve as a watchdog, push people beyond complacency, and offer a voice to the forgotten." [1] They explain that in the modern day journalists are supposed to serve as a check and balance to government actions by informing the public of government activity. Only in the modern era of journalism however did journalists acquire this duty. Journalists during the late 1700's and early 1800's had quite a different agenda for their publications, sacrificing an objective view for one of a political press. Newspapers served more as a voice for political parties, with each newspaper having a bias toward whatever political party (either the Federalist or Jeffersonian-Republican) the owner or editor of the paper supported. According to historian Jeffrey Pasley, newspapers became "primary delivery vehicles for both literature and politics in the Early Republic," and were "the arenas or environments in which political debates took place."[2] The use of newspapers as a medium for political agendas certainly influenced the evolution of American politics, as seen in the articles in The Republican Spy and the United States' Gazette.

A monumental event in American political history is the duel between then Vice President Aaron Burr and former Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton (proving to be fatal for Hamilton), an event which further fostered a partisan divide in newspapers across the country. The response to Hamilton's death varied between newspapers based on which party they were partial to, with Federalist newspapers praising Hamilton's character and Jeffersonian-Republican newspapers condemning his actions and casting the blame on him for accepting Burr's challenge in the first place. The personal conflict between Hamilton and Burr stemmed far back, symbolizing the political differences and ideals between the Jeffersonian-Republicans and Federalists (Hamilton being Federalist and Burr being Republican). Conflict between them can be seen as early as 1792, when after Burr beat Hamilton's father-in-law in a race for the New York Senate Hamilton publically said that Burr was "unprincipled, both as a public and private man." [3] It culminated in the challenge of a duel by Burr to Hamilton, who accepted despite the fact that dueling was in the process of being outlawed and that the practice of dueling went against his religion. The actual duel took place on July 11^th, 1804, in a dueling ground in New Jersey. The two loaded their pistols; each took ten paces and fired, with first-hand accounts (Hamilton's second being Nathaniel Pendleton and Burr's being William Van Ness) saying that Hamilton fired into the air and Burr hitting Hamilton in the chest, a shot which resulted in his death the next day. Through letters found later written by Hamilton, it was discovered that he actually had no intention of harming Burr in the duel, making his true intentions inconspicuous.

Reactions to the duel varied by the political affiliation of the newspaper reporting on it. While both parties were saddened over the news of Hamilton's death, discrepancies rose over who was at blame. The Republican Spy, a Jeffersonian-Republican newspaper based out of Springfield, Massachusetts reposted an opinion made in response to hearing the result of the duel (originally submitted to the Christian Observer) which calls into question not only Hamilton's reasoning for accepting the duel but is quick to condemn him for leading by a poor example. The article states: "What respect can the people, in general, be supposed to entertain for the laws, when they are deliberately violated by those whose paramount duty it is to cause them to be respected, and to punish those who disobey them."[4] While it is certainly a valid point that political leaders should not break the laws which they support and even help create, Federalist newspapers on the other side of the spectrum chose to ignore this substantial detail and sought out to put Hamilton in a positive light. An article in the United States' Gazette (originally posted in the Albany Registers) only mentions Hamilton's nicer qualities and generally takes a much lighter tone in mourning his death, never raising any questions which clouded the entire situation. After saying that his death was "to the deep regret of all who admire genius, respect talents, or revere a dignified spirit of honour and integrity," the author states that "as a politician we did not regard him, but as an exalted genius, as an eloquent, brave, generous, frank and honourable man, we shall ever lament his loss, and revere his memory."[5] Instead of addressing the many points and questions still left unanswered through the duel, such as why Hamilton accepted in the first place, the role of Burr in it and why no one tried to stop the duel from occurring, the Gazette only praised Hamilton's character and stated that he will be missed. Other Federalist newspapers also tarnished Burr, such as the Evening Post which according to historian Nancy Isenberg "sketched a cold and selfish assassin... Burr's capacity to challenge and then kill Hamilton, tearing him from a loving family, evidenced 'systematic selfishness' and 'unprincipled ambition."[6]

The Gazette was a historically Federalist newspaper ever since its foundation by Editor John Fenno, so it is only natural that it would be supportive of the prominent Federalist Hamilton (although Fenno originally did not want to use "his paper for partisan combat, and kept it away from elections and candidates"[7]). Also not alarming is the negative image The Republican Spy tried to cast upon Hamilton as it is obviously a Republican newspaper. Each newspaper only published information which either made members of their own party look better or made members of the opposite party look worse in an attempt to sway public opinion about the person in question, fueling the idea that these partisan newspapers solely became devices for political parties to submit their agenda to the public. The target audience of these newspapers was whoever already supported the party they represented, with hopes of possibly converting more of the public to their side of the spectrum. The success of this goal cannot be measured accurately as it would be impossible to find exact figures stating how many people switched their political affiliation due to what they read in newspapers, but it can be assumed that due to the sheer size of the readership of the United States at around 1804 each paper had some success in converting people to their respective political party. The success of these newspapers in achieving their goals had a great impact on the evolution of American politics, as political parties were able to get their messages out more easily and effectively.

The partisanship of newspapers can be seen in more events in American history than just the Burr vs. Hamilton duel. Another event in American history which promoted this partisan split between newspapers was the "Mammoth Cheese" event, as described by Pasley in his article "The Cheese and the Words - Popular Political Culture and Participatory Democracy in the Early American Republic." A 1200 pound slab of cheese was made by the town of Cheshire, Massachusetts and given to President Thomas Jefferson as a gift in late 1802. The cheese instantly became "an American icon," and represented the continual connection between politics and everyday life.[8] Republican newspapers were first to break the story and saw this connection in the Providence based newspaper Impartial Observer, while Federalist newspapers immediately saw it as a childish ploy and used the opportunity to ridicule Jefferson through a "seemingly endless stream of reports, comments, and satirical poetry that continued long after the [cheese] was delivered and consumed." Further in his essay, Pasley says: "It soon became apparent that the mammoth joke was really on the Federalists, as both the word 'mammoth' and the mammoth tribute caught on with the populace."[9] The country liked the idea behind the cheese, and soon the American trait of loving all things "mammoth" was born. While this political dispute ended with an overwhelming response in favor of the Republican party (unlike the Burr vs. Hamilton duel which was somewhat split), it still shows how differently newspapers acted to the "Mammoth" cheese based on which political party the paper favored: Federalist newspapers and Federalist supporters saw the cheese as a mere political stunt while Republican newspapers and supporters found meaning and appreciation behind it.

Several historians have discovered the partisan biases in early American newspapers and have written about it in great detail. Moving away from the "Mammoth" cheese, Pasley describes the use of newspapers as "partisan political weapons." He explains that "newspapers were so central that... we might well consider the parties of this period to be newspaper-based," continuing with "After 1800, no serious political activist thought that anything could be accomplished without newspaper support in as many places as possible." He cements this idea by finally stating "Newspapers not only communicated party ideas, they represented and embodied these loosely organized parties in quite literal ways. Only in the pages of a partisan newspaper was a particular set of ideas, attitudes, policies, and candidates packaged together under the party label."[10] The articles seen during the Burr vs. Hamilton duel and the "Mammoth" cheese event all reflect these ideas, since the newspapers reporting on these events effectively "communicated" the ideas expressed by whatever party they supported about the event at hand (be it how the nation should react to Hamilton's death and how Burr should be seen after the duel or whether or not the "Mammoth" cheese was a good idea), and these events soon garnered national attention, facilitating the need for "newspaper support in as many places as possible."

Newspapers became such an integral tool for political parties in the late 1700's and early 1800's that it changed the way parties communicated their ideas to the general public for decades to come. By having a political press, Federalists and Jeffersonian-Republicans were easily able to convey their thoughts to a wide audience, therefore becoming more successful in achieving the goals of their party by garnering more support more effectively. The usage of these newspapers completely changed the way politics were handled in the Early American Republic, and their use had a substantial impact on the evolution of the American political culture.

[1] Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel. The Elements of Journalism (New York: Random House Inc., 2001), 12.

[2] Jeffrey Pasley. "THE TWO NATIONAL GAZETTES: Newspapers and the Embodiment of American Political Parties," Early American Literature 35, 1. (2000): 51.

[3] Nancy Isenberg, The "Little Emperor" - Aaron Burr, Dandyism, and the Sexual Politics of Treason in Beyond the Founders: New Approaches to the Political History of the Early American Republic. (North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 2004), 129-158.

[4]The Republican Spy, page 3, vol. III, iss. 124. November 5^th, 1804.

[5]United States' Gazette, page 2, vol. XXVI, iss. 3673. July 25^th, 1804.

[6] Isenberg, The "Little Emperor," 136.

[7] Pasley, Two National Gazettes, 59.

[8] Jeffrey Pasley, The Cheese and the Words - Popular Political Culture and Participatory Democracy in the Early American Republic in Beyond the Founders: New Approaches to the Political History of the Early American Republic. (North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 2004), 31-56.

[9] Pasley, Cheese and the Words, 33.

[10] Pasley, Cheese and the Words, 41.