Understanding Frederick Douglass

Abstract

Toward a New Synthesis Approach to Birth of Modern American Journalism To discover how much field of journalism history is in need of a fundamental revision, thumb through indices of all usual suspects and look up references to Douglass. It is no exaggeration to say that you will find that nearly all standard journalism histories fail to place him in context of nineteenth century political reality.1 corollary is true, too: mainstream histories can help us understand his politics but fail to explain his journalism. This article argues that a synthesis of journalism and mainstream histories can bring Douglass in particular, and field of antebellum journalism in general, to a more intellectually challenging and historically relevant plane. This is to say that we need to develop a new approach to journalism of Jacksonian age and that this approach must be rooted in strengths of both journalism history and American history. To this end, I have looked at how Douglass in particular and nonpartisanship in general are viewed in synthesis studies of journalism and mainstream history. I have also surveyed many smaller works in article and monograph form, which I refer to in course of this study, but my main focus will be on synthesis histories. first time Douglass was mentioned in a book about American journalism was probably in Frederic Hudson's Journalism in United States, from 1690 to 1872. Hudson's single mention of Douglass was, the New Era . . . is edited by Douglass.2 In 1920, George Payne noted that it was not white man alone who practiced journalism, and mentioned Frederick Douglas [sic].3 Though these early references were scant, Douglass fared worse in later histories: Willard Bleyer (Main Currents in History of American Journalism) and Michael Schudson (Discovering News) did not mention Douglass at all.4 first assessment of Douglass' work in a journalism textbook may have been a brief mention by Mott in 1962: The ablest of all [`Negro publications'] was Douglass' North Star, founded in Rochester, New York, in 1847.5 Four recent journalism history books went further than rest in their coverage of Douglass. eighth edition of Emery, Emery, and Roberts' Press and America cited Douglass as a symbol of black achievement and inspiration and recounted various adversities that he had to overcome.6 Mitchell Stephens, in his second edition of A History of News, took a similar approach. Stephens told how Douglass' house was destroyed and his papers burned by mobs, how he taught himself to read, and how he rose to greatness. Douglass became an eloquent crusader against slavery, wrote Stephens.7 Douglass' life and work were discussed in more detail in latest edition of Folkerts and Teeters Voices ofa Nation and in William Huntzicker's Popular Press: 1833-1865. These two went into greater depth on Douglass' life than any other journalism history synthesis read for this study.8 I will discuss these books again later in this article. broad outline of above historiography suggests that our understanding of Douglass has gone through two stages and may be entering a third. first stage was simply neglect. Douglass was not viewed as important in history of American journalism. We may explain some of earlier sins of omission by placing them in context of their time, as did Arthur Schlesinger Jr. when he looked back at his own Age of published in 1940s: When I wrote Age of Jackson, said Schlesinger, the predicament of women, of blacks, or Indians was shamefully out of mind.9 Douglass was nowhere to be found in Schlesinger's book either. second phase, in which most journalism histories are firmly planted, is that of inclusion and accommodation. If Douglass, as I will argue, is useful in understanding history of his day and is a central figure in nineteenth century journalism, then he should certainly be included in our histories. …