The Evening Post: A Century of JournalismNevins, Allan
History
The Evening Post: A Century of Journalism
Nevins, Allan
New York post
As one State after another passed out of the Union, therefore, a half
dozen newspapers, the _Herald_, _Daily News_, _Journal of Commerce_,
_Day Book_, _Staats Zeitung_, and _Courrier des États Unis_ were taking
an attitude friendly to the South; one, the _Tribune_, simply wrung
its hands; and the _Evening Post_, _Times_, and _World_ alone urged
severe measures. Jefferson Davis, wrote the _Evening Post_, “knows that
secession is a forcible rupture of an established government; he knows
that it must, if persisted in, lead to war.” “If our Southern brethren
think they can better themselves by going out,” declared Bennett’s
_Herald_ on Jan. 17, “in heaven’s name let them go in peace. We cannot
keep them by force.”
During January nearly all eyes were fastened upon the various plans for
keeping the Union intact by arranging a compromise, and preposterous
some of these plans were. The Crittenden Compromise, which proposed
making the Missouri line of 36′ 30″ the constitutional boundary between
slavery and freedom in the Territories, was brusquely condemned by the
_Evening Post_. “In every respect the ... scheme is objectionable, and
no Republican who understands the principles of his party, or who is
faithful to what he believes the fundamental objects of the Federal
Constitution, can assent to it for one moment,” the journal said
on Jan. 26. The Republican Party had been established and had just
won its great victory upon the principle that slavery should not be
extended into any Territory whatever; how could it give it up without
committing suicide? In the same issue the _Evening Post_ said that
the violent acts of the South, the seizure of forts and arsenals, the
drilling of men to prevent arrests, “are treasonable acts, and amount
to levying war upon the United States,” while it called Senator Toombs
“a blustering and cowardly traitor.” The _Tribune_, which believed that
secession was a mere threatening gesture, and that Northern firmness
might overawe the rebels and bring them back into the Union, was also
against the Crittenden plan. “No compromise, then! No delusive and
deluding concessions! No surrender of principle!” exclaimed Greeley
on Jan. 18. The next day the _Tribune_ evinced its failure to grasp
the situation by remarking that if Major Anderson at Fort Sumter had
fired on the rebels when the _Star of the West_ was turned back from
his relief, “treason would have been stayed. That act alone would have
saved Virginia from plunging into the fatal gulf of rebellion.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account