History of Journalism in the United States/Chapter 19
CHAPTER XIX
JAMES GORDON BENNETT AND THE HERALD
In a democracy, all popular institutions should tend to identify the interest of the government with that of the people, and the newspaper has been the greatest means to that end. Throughout the fast-developing country, however, large numbers of people had, until the introduction of cheap newspapers, only that share in government that came from representatives of other people's selection.
The period of Andrew Jackson's presidency, during which the modern newspaper was first sold at a price within the reach of the laboring man's purse, was one of the most remarkable in the history of the world, and " nowhere more remarkable than in the United States," says John Fiske.
It was an industrial Periclean age, during which the railroads were introduced and developed, and agricultural machines invented; it was signalized by the introduction of anthracite coal and friction matches, and of the modern type of daily newspaper; by the beginning of such cities as Chicago, by the steady immigration from Europe, the rise of the Abolitionists and other reformers, the rapid expansion of the country and the consequent extensive changes in ideas and modes of living. The New York Herald was the first successful attempt to provide a paper that dealt with the doings of the people aside from their activities as political communities; it was also the first newspaper to introduce what have since been described as "counting-room "methods. It was the first to sell news as news and not for the effect it would have on its readers. The founder's experiences in politics had been bitter enough to make him sympathize with the great mass of people who had very little more to do with government than to vote. Out of his own personal disappointments there had come the realization that there was a vast majority of the public for whom what usually passed for news could have but little interest, except as it stirred their imagination. For the average men on the street, news as printed in the current journals had the same interest that the cheap love story of a later generation had for the maid-of-all-work, who found therein an opportunity to throb over the misfortunes and adventures of titled persons, a belief in whose existence constituted one of the joys and opiates of her existence.
Bennett had in mind a paper for those who were unimportant, an entirely novel idea at that time—that it should be politically independent was not absolutely necessary, but this was a quicker way of achieving his goal. He was the first to aspire to build an institution that would be responsive to him and that would propagate the principles he believed in. Twenty years earlier this would not have been possible, for, twenty years earlier, the people to whom he was to appeal had not the vote, nor was there the interest in general education that made possible, among the great unknown mass, a large circulation.
The New York Herald was in the direct line of the development of American journalism, and its founder is, for the student of modern journalism, a most interest figure, for he paved the way for things that were revolutionary in their day, though commonplace now. Furthermore, it came at a time when, on account of inventions and the great opening up of material opportunities, the introduction of the railroads, etc., there was every opportunity for his fertile genius.
It is easy enough now to see this and to appreciate how much he was indebted to the journalists and journalism that had come before him, and to understand that, if he had not done what he did, some one else would have worked out about the same time, and along nearly the same lines, the growing problems of journalism. But in his own time he was considered a daring innovator—and in some ways he was; though from much of what has been written about him one might assume that there was no journalism before him. It is true that his personal eccentricities gave his enterprise an individual flavor that caused the conservative element of society to view him with horror, though the same conservative element came later to regard the New York Herald as its special organ, and to look to it for the proper reports of its "social" doings.
It was the perusal of an edition of Franklin's autobiography, published in Scotland in 1817, that led young Bennett to come to America. In May, 1819, being then about twenty years of age, he landed in Halifax without a friend in the western continent and with less than twenty-five dollars in his purse.[1]
Between the day of that landing and the starting of the New York Herald sixteen years elapsed, during which time he worked in many parts of the country and obtained at first hand an accurate understanding of American politics. He made his way to Boston and there saw, for the first time, the curious tendency of the American reader to court what he most dreads. Joseph T. Buckingham's New England Galaxy, which violated all the traditions and decorous rules of the day, was the most abused paper in Boston, and the one that was most read. What most impressed Bennett on his first insight into American journalism was that, despite all the abuse, Buckingham possessed power, and that he achieved his distinction by his extravagant and severe style.
Going to New York, Bennett saw what he considered a justification for Buckingham. With the exception of Mordecai M. Noah of the New York Advocate, William L. Stone of the Commercial Advertiser and William Coleman of the Evening Post, the papers were unimportant and the editors too much given to personal and futile abuse.
After a short experience in Charleston as ship news reporter, Bennett returned to New York, and was soon made the Washington correspondent of the Enquirer. During the presidential election of 1828, he was in the thick of the fight and ardently supported Andrew Jackson, showing considerable aptitude as a politician for a man who had been only a" few years in the country.
The following year he became an associate editor of the Courier and Enquirer, under James Watson Webb, and that journal was soon distinguished for its advocacy of many of the popular reforms. It was a strong Jackson organ, with Bennett enthusiastically leading the fight for the extension of democracy. The period was rough, with little regard for the refinement of editorial debate, but the young Scotchman seemed to enjoy it. Editors openly accused one another of the most disgusting acts,[2] and the pistol was an editorial accessory not infrequently used. So violent was the party spirit that one editor—in Columbia, South Carolina—sold his paper and announced that he retired from journalism with disgust.
The time, 1831-1832, was one in which political conventions first came to the fore, and became not only popular, but almost a fashion. It was at a convention of the National Republicans, held in Baltimore in December, 183 1, that the first platform, in the form of an address, was adopted. One of the planks in this platform related to the corruption of the press by the Jackson administration. It was asserted that Jackson had cried out against the misuse of the press by the previous administration, but that under him "partisan editors were now the most favored class of pretenders to office."[3]
It was as the defender of the President, and incidentally of northern office-seeking editors, that Bennett first tested his ability to develop a discussion of national importance. Jackson had sent fo the Senate the names of four editors for public office. Calhoun's differences with the President led him to oppose those whom he considered unfriendly, with the result that two southern editors were confirmed by the Senate, two northern editors being rejected. This led Bennett to attack the Senate. The papers throughout the country took this attack up and much debate ensued over the question—" Are editors eligible for office? "The question was an interesting one for that time, and most of the lawyers—who saw good offices going, from their point of view, astray—answered vigorously in the negative. All this was inspiring material for Bennett; the discussion was given another lively twist, with the press vigorously depicted by him as the " living jury of the nation."
From that time on Bennett became a political force, as sisting in the nomination of Marcy as Governor and of Van Buren as Vice-president. This was a little too much for Webb, the proprietor of the Courier and Enquirer, and he and Bennett parted, Webb preferring to be the shining hght of his own paper. The ill-feeling between the two began when Webb heard that Bennett was to start his own paper. This he did in 1832, establishing the New York Globe as a two-cent paper, but it received neither popular support nor that financial assistance that he believed would be forthcoming from his political associates.
When the first number was printed, November 29, 1832, he declared that for eight years he had labored in the cause of democracy,—he omitted no year that could possibly be counted, not even his year as a ship news reporter—that he had assisted in the election of Jackson and the advancement of Van Buren and that now he was through with politics. His next venture was in Philadelphia, where he invested, in a paper called the Pennsylvanian, the small sum of money which he had saved.
If his experience with politics and politicians had been disappointing in New York, it was bitter in Philadelphia. After he had sunk his own money, he needed a further sum of two thousand five hundred dollars, and applied to Van Buren and another political associate for it. After some correspondence, it was refused. From that time on, James Gordon Bennett was through with politics.
We have seen that the penny press, as it was called, originated in Philadelphia. Bennett, while there, gained some knowledge of Dr. Conwell's experiment with The Cent. When he came back to New York the Sun was the talk of the town, or at least, of the profession. The following year a paper called the New York Transcript was published as a rival of the Sun. Both papers had the same printers; to these printers Bennett went in 1834 and had them get him out a small sheet which appeared May 6, 1835, and which was called the New York Herald. A fire put him out of business for a short time, but he was not to be downed. He arose early and sat up late, did all his own reporting, collected all his own news, wrote the entire paper himself, posted his own books and made out his own bills. Thus began the New York Herald, famous on two continents.
It has been said of Bennett that he was one of the greatest news men this country has produced. What is more interesting to us is not what he did after he was successful but the manner of man he was in adversity. We can understand why the public would turn to him, despite all the abuse, when we see what he did in Wall Street. He knew, as others knew, that some of the editors of the six-cent "respectable" dailies were heavy speculators, and that articles were printed intended to affect the price of stocks. Bennett began boldly by asserting that these editors were "truly unfit by nature and want of capacity to come to a right conclusion upon any subject. They are still more unfit to give correct opinions on French affairs in consequences of their speculating mania, and deep interest in stock jobbing. They pervert every public event from its proper hue and coloring, to raise one stock and depress another. There is no truth in them."
This he followed up by printing an article that reflected on his former associate, the editor of the Courier and Enquirer. Webb waited for him in Wall Street and knocked him down with a stick. Bennett's next move had the advantage of distinct novelty. He printed an account of the assault.
"I have to apologize to my kind readers," he wrote, "for the want of my usual life to-day." Referring to his assailant, he stated that Webb had, "by going up behind me, cut a slash in my head about one and one-half inches in length and through the integuments of the skull. The fellow, no doubt, wanted to let out the never-failing supply of good humor and wit, which has created such a reputation for the Herald, and appropriate the contents to supply the emptiness of his own thick skull. He did not succeed, however, in rifling me of my ideas, … He has not injured the skull. My ideas, in a few days, will flow as freely as ever, and he will find it so, to his cost."
Street fights between editors were not rare in these days; Philip Hone recorded in his diary that while shaving "this morning at eight o'clock I witnessed from the front window an encounter in the street nearly opposite, between William Cullen Bryant and William L. Stone; the former one of the editors of the Evening Post and the latter the editor of the Commercial Advertiser."[4] Bryant, the poet, began this particular fight by hitting Stone, the historian, over the head with a cane, but judging from Hone's calm statement, the distinguished and urbane mayor of the city was so little disturbed that the argument did not even interfere with his shaving.
Bennett's method of treating his assault was an innovation, and a success—the circulation of the Herald containing this recital went up to 9,000 copies.
He was now a public character; something equally novel was expected from him with sufficient frequency to keep people buying his paper. He kept his promise as to Webb, with the result that a few months later he was able to report another assault by Webb.
"As I was leisurely pursuing my business yesterday in Wall Street, collecting the information which is daily disseminated in the Herald, James Watson Webb came up to me on the northern side of the street, said something which I could not hear distinctly, then pushed me down the stone steps leading to one of the brokers' offices, and commenced fighting with a species of brutal and demoniacal desperation characteristic of a fury. … My damage is a scratch about three quarters of an inch in length, on the third finger of the left hand, which I received from the iron railing I was forced against, and three buttons torn from my vest, which any tailor will reinstate for a sixpence. His loss is a rent from top to bottom of a very beautiful black coat, which cost the ruffian $40, and a blow in the face, which may have knocked down his throat some of his infernal teeth, for anything I know. Balance in my favor, $39.94. … As to intimidating me or changing my course, the thing cannot be done. Neither Webb nor any other man shall or can intimidate me. I tell the honest truth in my paper, and I leave the consequences to God. Could I leave them in better hands? I may be attacked—I may be assailed—I may be killed—I may be murdered—but I will never succumb—I will never abandon the cause of truth, morals and virtue."[5]
Webb's example was infectious, for in the same year Bennett was again assaulted, this time by a theatrical manager, Thomas H. Hamblin. "To me," was the editorial comment, "all these attacks, falsehoods, lies, fabrications are but as the idle winds. They do not ruffle my temper in the least. Conscious of virtue, integrity, and the purest principles, I can easily smile at the assassins, and defy their daggers.
"My life has been one invariable series of efforts, useful to the world and honorable to myself—efforts to create an honorable reputation during life, and to leave something after my death for which posterity will honor my memory. I am building up a newspaper establishment that will take the lead of all others that ever appeared in the world, in virtue, in morals, in science, in knowledge, in industry, in taste, in power, in influence. No public reputation can be lasting unless it is built on private character and virtue. My whole private life has been one of virtue, integrity and honorable effort, in every relation of society. Dissipation, extravagance, and fashionable follies never had any charms for me. . . . This has been the cause of the success attending the Herald."[6]
The sophisticated reader will feel that there is a great deal of the ridiculous in this, but—viewing Bennett as an instrument, as one affecting thousands,—it must be remembered that it was better than shooting those who resented his attacks. It must not be supposed for a moment that he was the exponent of non-resistance—on the contrary, he made those who injured him suffer—but he was just Scotch enough to select his own weapons, and fortunately they are the weapons of which civilization has approved.
Of the personal tributes to himself, perhaps the most individual was that contained in his announcement of his forthcoming marriage. With proper headlines, it appeared as follows:[7] "I am going to be married in a few days. The weather is so beautiful; times are getting so good; the prospects of political and moral reforms so auspicious, that I cannot resist the divine instinct of honest nature any longer; so I am going to be married to one of the most splendid women in intellect, in heart, in soul, in property, in person, in manner, that I have yet seen in the course of my interesting pilgrimage through human life.
"... I cannot stop in my career. I must fulfill that awful destiny which the Almighty Father has written against my name, in the broad letters of life, against the wall of heaven. I must give the world a pattern of happy wedded life, with all the charities that spring from a nuptial love. In a few days I shall be married according to the holy rites of the most holy Christian church, to one of the most remarkable, accomplished, and beautiful young women of the age. She possesses a fortune. I sought and found a fortune—a large fortune. She has no Stonington shares or Manhattan stock, but in purity and uprightness she is worth half a million of pure coin. Can any swindling bank show as much? In good sense and elegance another half a million; in soul, mind, and beauty, millions on millions, equal to the whole specie of all the rotten banks in the world. Happily the patronage of the public to the Herald is nearly twenty-five thousand dollars per annum, almost equal to a President's salary. But property in the world's goods was never my object. Fame, public good, usefulness in my day and generation; the religious associations of female excellence; the progress of true industry,—these have been my dreams by night and my desires by day.
"In the new and holy condition into which I am about to enter, and to enter with the same reverential feelings as I would enter heaven itself, I anticipate some signal changes in my feelings, in my views, in my purposes, in my pursuits. What they may be I know not—time alone can tell. My ardent desire has been through life, to reach the highest order of human intelligence, by the shortest possible cut. Associated, night and day, in sickness and in health, in war and in peace, with a woman of this highest order of excellence, must produce some curious results in my heart and feelings, and these results the future will develop in due time in the columns of the Herald.
"Meantime, I return my heartfelt thanks for the enthusiastic patronage of the public, both of Europe and of America. The holy estate of wedlock will only increase my desire to be still more useful. God Almighty bless you all."
A distinguished journalist, Oswald Garrison Villard, in his criticism of the Bennetts,[8] speaking from the vantage ground of social superiority and of impeccable morality, sees in the elder Bennett only a lack of moral fiber. He admits that the Bennetts, father and son, were the most remarkable news men this country has ever produced. "The father revolutionized the whole science of news-getting, and the son outdid him by creating exclusive news." Even this adverse critic finds that in the Herald for 1858-1859, "printed on splendid rag paper which is white and strong to this hour," the news is treated in a manner very mild compared to the conservative dailies of to-day, and what is more, the accounts are accurate. Yet Bennett, to his contemporaries, was a blackguard and all that was horrible, and Mr. Villard, who fails to see Bennett as an instrument and whose attention is concentrated on him as an individual and a sensationalist, can only see by the reflected light of the past. .
This seeing the past in the light of present-day developments—developments which our ancestors could not foretell—must be studiously avoided in making ^historical judgments. Mr. Villard's horror over the elder Bennett is no greater than the disgust with which the good people of Boston viewed his own distinguished grandfather, William Lloyd Garrison, and it must be remembered that, a century ago, the editors of even the conservative papers were men who did things that the editors of the radical papers of to-day would consider barbarous and vulgar.
The elder Bennett was pro-slavery and pro-Tammany, and it was said that not until a mob had gathered in front of his office did he become a loyal supporter of the Union. And yet Count Gurowski wrote in his diary, in August, 1861, that it was "generally believed that Lincoln read only the Herald."
In the study of the history of journalism the personal characteristics of the editor are not of vital importance, unless those personal characteristics are obtruded in such a way as to corrupt the public mind. There is great danger that, in writing history and in making historical judgments, we may use the phraseology and assume the moral tone of those who would arrogate to themselves the exclusive control of moral standards.
It was said that the elder Bennett "horrified" and "shocked" New York by his disregard of the conventions. This is a loose way of speaking and a looser way of thinking. Instead of New York, with its 300,000 inhabitants, being "shocked "or "horrified," it is probable that not more than five hundred people—which would include the socially elect and the conservative editors—were at all seriously disturbed by his peculiar and, as we view it now, rather amusing style of journalism. It is hard to imagine the draymen and laborers being "shocked" or "horrified" at Bennett's writings, but we can readily understand how his dynamic outbursts attracted them, where the old conservative sheets would have sent them to sleep, had they had either the money or the inclination to purchase them.