Historic issues of the Portland Morning Oregonian and The Sunday Oregonian, from the late 19th century through the end of January 1922, are available for keyword-searching and browsing through Historic Oregon Newspapers online! Learn about the early history of the Oregonian newspaper and other titles online by clicking on the History tab at the top of the Historic Oregon Newspapers website. Browsing through the historic pages of the Oregonian alone can turn up countless interesting clips, advertisements, and images, like these for example:

1) What kind of music would be considered “toe-tickling dance music” today?

2) Medical masks may not be very fashionable, but they have survived over the years for their usefulness in preventing the spread of illness as well as showing off “civic patriotism!”

3) The changes we have made with cars in less than 100 years will always be fascinating…

4) Women’s fashion: will 1920s style (especially these hats) make a comeback in the 21st century?

5) Although some ailments had different names back then (for example, “catarrh” was used to refer to nasal congestion, and “rheumatism” refers to arthritis symptoms), it appears that alternative medicine might have been just as popular back then as it is today:

6) Men’s fashion: the clothes may not have changed much, but the prices sure have! (Note the use of the 1920s Candlestick Telephone!)

7) In politics, government, and economics, many of the same issues still plague our society today, judging from this political cartoon:

8) There are just some things that will probably never change:

What kinds of interesting clips will you find? Happy Searching!

Attention all historic Oregon newspaper lovers! The Library of Congress and National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) have added hundreds of new Oregon newspaper issues to Chronicling America, the nation’s free, online, keyword-searchable historic newspaper database!

New content includes:

• Ashland, OR. Ashland Tidings (May 30, 1912-June 6, 1917)
• Salem, OR. Daily Capital Journal (now available from Nov. 25, 1903-Dec. 8, 1916)
• Enterprise, OR. The News=Record (Aug. 31, 1907-Dec. 28, 1910)
• Enterprise, OR. Enterprise News-Record (Dec. 31, 1910-June 7, 1911)
• Toledo, OR. Lincoln County Leader (March 9, 1893-Dec. 28, 1922)
• Grants Pass, OR. Rogue River Courier – weekly (Sept. 27, 1900-Dec. 26, 1913)
• Grants Pass, OR. Rogue River Courier – daily (May 9, 1913-Dec. 31, 1918)
• St. Helens, OR. St. Helens Mist (June 19, 1914-April 22, 1921)
• Joseph, OR. Wallowa Chieftain (Jan. 2, 1902-Jan. 7, 1909)
• Enterprise, OR. Wallowa County Chieftain (Jan. 14, 1909-Dec. 29, 1910)

In addition to these Oregon titles, Chronicling America now has an additional 800,000 new newspaper pages from more than 130 new titles from across the country, including all new content from Indiana and North Dakota, as well as new content in French and Spanish from Arizona, Louisiana and New Mexico.
For more info, please see the NEH Announcement of New Release of Chronicling America.

On May 25, 1861, James O’Meara, a veteran of the newspaper business, decided to abandon the Oregon Sentinel, a small Democratic paper that he had published in Jacksonville since his arrival there two years earlier.^[i]  Many papers in 19^th century Oregon went through several owners throughout their existence – the business seems to have attracted a class of itinerant newspapermen and women, making O’Meara’s short run at the Sentinel unsurprising.  However, the choice to leave his work as an editor and writer is embedded in the larger context of the Civil War and the federal government’s effort to suppress Democratic newspapers, making the circumstances in which he left more intriguing.  O’Meara is one among countless others who were intimidated and, against the threat of financial loss, violence, or arrest, were forced to quit the newspaper business during the Civil War.

Government sanctioned suppression of the press in the United States is often associated with the Comstock Laws, World War I and the Espionage Act, and the subsequent “red scares” of the 1910s and 1950s.  It may seem counter-intuitive, but during the Civil War, newspaper suppression occurred on a scale that would be unparalleled at any other point in American history.  At least 300 papers were suppressed and 14,000 dissenters were arrested during Lincoln’s presidency.^[ii]  Suppression occurred in various forms, ranging from public pressure and mob violence to midnight arrests, extralegal detentions, telegraph censorship, and military action.  In most cases, federal suppression was simply achieved by denying mailing privileges to newspapers, most of which were dependent on the postal service for circulation.  Some states were affected more than others, as was the case with Missouri where 55 of its 148 papers were forced to cease publication.^[iii]

The scale of suppression during this time was the result of a number of factors.  Lincoln won the presidency in a four-way election in which he carried no southern states and faced resistance from northern and southern Democrats as well as radical abolitionists.  This level of opposition was reflected in the press, especially during an age where newspapers functioned primarily as political mouthpieces, founded solely for the purpose of supporting one candidate over another in local elections.  Lincoln took seriously the ability of the press in crafting a politician’s public image, leading some historians to consider him the first “media president,” a politician who was “adroitly manipulating the press and public opinion.”^[iv]  In the early years of the Civil War, he allowed commanders to censor telegraph lines, ensuring that reporters could not share news of Union losses in the beginning of the conflict.  While there was an existing legal framework and some precedent that provided for the abridgment of 1^st amendment rights, as a result of the Alien and Sedition Acts, Lincoln was successful in further stretching the meaning of the “public safety” clause in Article One of the Constitution – a clause which allowed the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus during an open rebellion or an invasion.^[v]

Against this background, O’Meara’s experience is particularly helpful in explaining how Civil War suppression of the press unfolded in territories far removed from the conflict.  While official revocation of mailing service, mob violence, and sabotage were frequent on the east coast, suppression in the Pacific Northwest took a less intense form.  Although O’Meara certainly employed his paper as an active voice for the Democratic Party, his publication never reached the fervent anti-Republican pitch of papers such as John Hodgson’s Jeffersonian, of Pennsylvania, which had fallen victim to both sabotage and federal suppression.  Even in Oregon there existed far more abrasive papers during the time O’Meara was publishing.  The Occidental Messenger, a fervent pro-slavery publication, took a very bitter tone in its numerous denunciations of Lincoln, “black republicanism,” and free-soil Democrats (see Image 1)

A total of five papers were suppressed in Oregon during the Civil War.  Each paper ranged in content from responsible political commentary of a partisan nature to outright secessionism – as a result, each met different forms of suppression.  O’Meara’s experience sheds light on the process of informal suppression, where intimidation from members of the immediate community, not federal marshals, was more detrimental in forced cessation of a periodical.  While suppression was legitimized by the federal government, it was often left to local officials to determine which papers to target and how to enforce restrictions on freedom of speech.  In Oregon’s case, authority ultimately resided in General George Wright, commander of the Department of the Pacific, but suppression was often rooted in more parochial disputes, as was the case with O’Meara.^[vi]

Before taking over the Sentinel in 1859, O’Meara worked on Portland’s Democratic Standard for about a year.  While there, he quickly became engaged in a debate among Oregon Democrats over the future direction of the party.  National Democrats, also known as “softs” for their association with free-soil advocates, contested the results of the state convention held in Salem in March of 1858.  Evidently, the convention exposed the existence of a “centralizing” tendency in the party – the participants in the Salem convention, editors like O’Meara suggested, acted behind closed doors and without the interests of their constituents in mind.  State Democrats, who defended the platform that was produced by the Salem clique, were known as “hards” for their staunch, if not violent support of slavery.  O’Meara quickly aligned with the moderate side (see Image 2), condemning the Salem convention and supporting efforts to organize another convention for national Democrats in Eugene.[vi]

O’Meara’s alignment with the national Democrats put him in an interesting ideological position.  Unlike the Occidental Messenger, which considered abolitionism a “disease” and slavery a Biblically ordained institution that should exist in Oregon (see Image 3), the Standard did not conflate the debate over national abolitionism with a state’s right to outlaw slavery — some newspapers argued that admitting any new territory as a free state to the Union served the abolitionist agenda.  The terms of the debate for O’Meara were not about combating abolitionism, but rather were steeped in the language of state sovereignty.  This ideological split was reflected in the larger conflict between national and state democrats, but not always with clean, predictable results.  For example, while national Democrats tended to be more ambivalent about, if not resistant to slavery, they still supported Joseph Lane’s record as a pro-slavery Democrat, revealing inconsistencies in their strategic goals.

Although O’Meara charted a careful course between Democratic “freestateism” and Republicanism, making his political views less of a direct threat to Oregon Republicans, he would eventually face significant backlash as the beginning of the Civil War approached.  He moved on from the Standard in 1859, relocating to Jacksonville to publish the Sentinel.  Working on a Democratic paper in Jacksonville was less risky, as the Democratic Party tended to have strongholds in smaller towns in the state.  The Sentinel originally appeared as the Table Rock Sentinel with William G. T’Vault, a prominent newspaperman and Democrat, as editor.  T’Vault had established the paper with the intent of providing a voice for the Democratic Party in Oregon.  The July 30, 1859 issue announced:  “We contributed our mite to the admission of Oregon as a slave State. Advocating the adoption of the proslavery clause in the constitution, with the belief that the constitution of the United States secures to all citizens the right expressed in the popular sovereignty principles… when they form a State constitution preparatory to their admission into the confederacy as a sovereign State.”  While there would be some continuity in the paper’s tone as it shifted from T’Vault to O’Meara, the latter would offer a more moderate publication during his tenure as editor.

O’Meara’s “salutary” appeared in September 1859.  In a standard introduction, he stated that the paper would be Democratic, but independent – not heeding the proscriptions of any particular faction within the party.  He immediately took a conciliatory stance toward his former adversaries, the state Democrats, in following issues.  Anticipating the split in the Democratic Party that would later help Lincoln win the presidency, he called for greater solidarity, suggesting that past disagreements were not over principle and were merely personal.  Along these lines, he lamented the arrival of independent candidates in elections for county representatives, believing they would draw votes away from the Democratic Party.  Departing from this calm discourse, however, the Sentinel intensified criticism of Republicans as local elections drew close.

O’Meara came out strongly against David Logan, a former Whig who was running against Lansing Stout, a Democrat, for the state’s seat in the House of Representatives.  In a May 18, 1860 issue, he charged that Whigs lacked a sincere commitment to the principles they espoused. According to O’Meara, Whigs had originally represented a “national” party, one that was founded on a larger consensus among citizens throughout the Union.  By supporting the Republicans, he contended, they were betraying their original sentiments and endorsing an opportunistic party that encouraged sectional strife.    He wrote, “You show them [Whigs] that by opposing the Democratic party in this crisis, they give aid and power to the Black Republican Sectional party… All to no purpose; they hate the name of Democrat, and are resolved to oppose whosoever wears it.”

The Sentinel extended this line of criticism to the Republican Party after Lincoln’s nomination.  In a June 30, 1860 issue, O’Meara expressed some astonishment at the results of the Chicago convention, writing, “Lincoln’s name was scarcely broached in the high political circles, and we are not aware that a single Republican paper of any distinction spoke favorably of him in connection with the position.”  In fact, O’Meara argued, Lincoln’s success was not evidence of any remarkable quality he possessed as a politician, but was ultimately the result of tensions within the Republican Party:  “It seems… that bitter antagonism upon the part of a few leading men in Republican ranks to Mr. Seward and Mr. Bates, but especially Mr. Seward, more than any popularity in himself, which resulted in securing to Mr. Lincoln the nomination.”  Without Seward, the editorial suggested, “[Republicans] would be divided into… every phase of anti-slavery, from tender-footed Free-soilism all the way to the most fanatical of treason-plotting Abolitionism, each as hostile to the other as all… are to Democracy.”  In O’Meara’s view, the Republican Party, like the Whig Party, was not defined by principled approaches to political issues – it was reactionary.

The Sentinel continued to run articles that chastised Republicans and celebrated the Democratic Party, eventually leading to a backlash from members of the community.  In January of 1861, O’Meara expressed a degree of anxiety about his paper’s reception.  In the first issue of volume six he attempted to allay tension by acknowledging the potentially inflammatory content of his paper.  In an article titled, “The New Volume,” he admitted “that in the late heated political contest words were spoken and sentiments expressed by many, that under less aggravated circumstances, would never have found creation in the brains nor emanated from the lips that gave them.”  O’Meara suggested the Sentinel served the community by reporting important, local news and attracting businesses and new settlers to Jacksonville.  However, the paper did have a political identity, something he was not necessarily apologetic about.  Instead, he thanked subscribers who bought his paper regardless of their disagreement with his political positions.  While he called for greater understanding and patience, he also lamented the unusual plight of the editor (see Image 4).

While someone may claim to respect “liberty of speech” and “independence of the press,” once they are confronted with an opinion they disagree with, O’Meara states, it is “the unfortunate offending editor… he seeks to injure pecuniarily, for simply giving expression to sentiments honestly and religiously entertained, and which were expressed under an impulse of duty alike to readers and himself.”  As is evident in the editorial, this phenomenon was not uncommon – it was something he experienced more than once while at the Sentinel.  Unfortunately for O’Meara, this last effort to calm the atmosphere was fruitless.  He was forced to leave his post when local Republicans successfully boycotted the paper.  The next issue appeared with Denlinger and Hand, new arrivals, listed as editors.

In a “Salutory,” Denlinger and Hand attempted to soften the abrupt transition between owners, probably anticipating O’Meara’s depiction of events as a hostile take-over (O’Meara published a final article, which is discussed below, that suggested he was forced out).  The new editors suggested they were apolitical, having a general incapacity for publishing long articles with a partisan slant.  They also disclaimed “emphatically and unequivocally any sympathy with the leading articles of the Sentinel under its previous management” (see Image 5).

An article on the Civil War immediately followed the salutary.  Denlinger and Hand revealed their political orientation and also offered a backhanded assault on O’Meara, directly contradicting their earlier claims.  Of secessionists they wrote, “[W]e say, emphatically, such men are not to be trusted, and their treason should be crushed to the earth with all the speed and force available.”  Reminiscent of Lincoln’s use of the public safety clause, they argued that “the good, quiet, orderly citizens have been overcome by the few plotting, reckless and ambitious demagogues.”  Secessionism was a doctrine advanced by a small minority of agitators like O’Meara who needed to be silenced in order to preserve the Union.

According to O’Meara’s final article, “Parting Words,” he faced an “open attack and withstood the effects of a sapping approach to his stronghold… and had finally to choose whether to accept a good bargain or hazard bankruptcy.”^[viii]  He regretted having to leave, but felt that the paper was a success while he served as editor.  He used his ouster as a warning to Democrats.  Due to a lack of support, the Sentinel had fallen into “politically unfriendly hands.”  For a Democratic paper to have any hope of surviving, “Democrats will have to sustain it, and until they are ready to do so, let them abandon all idea or hope of having an organ.”

Given the circumstances surrounding newspaper suppression, O’Meara was optimistic in his belief that a Democratic paper could survive even with generous financial support from like-minded subscribers. According to “Bud” Thompson, a noted Oregon newspaperman of the time, some papers would be suppressed more than once. Of the Democratic Herald (previously the Albany Democrat) and its editors he remarked:  “Publication would be suspended for a week or so and then come out under another name… Thus Miller and Noltner [the editors] struggled along, issuing their publication under three or four different names.  There was talk of providing Mr. Miller a residence at Fort Alcatraz… at the expense of the United States government.”^[ix]  The threat of imprisonment at Alcatraz was not hollow; General George Wright arrested a California editor for similar provocations.^[x]  While arrest did not appear to be a concern for O’Meara, he would be confronted with the difficulty of having multiple papers suppressed.  His later project, the Southern Oregon Gazette, was banned from the mails for treasonous content in 1862.

The Sentinel was unique for a few reasons.  Although the early Oregon historian, Harvey W. Scott, characterized O’Meara as a “fire eating secessionist,” his connection to the anti-slavery wing of the Democratic Party suggests he was a member of a moderate minority among his contemporaries.  He did support the secession movement, but his defense of a state’s right to secede was not couched in overtly racist or violent terminology as was the case with other Oregon papers.  For these reasons, the Sentinel fell in a gray area – it was never officially banned by Wright as a danger to public safety, but was suppressed by the community through a boycott and intimidation.  In the following year, 1862, five papers would be denied access to the mails.

Suppression was somewhat short-lived, however.  Wright grew frustrated as it became evident that suppression cases had little to do with public safety and were largely the result of partisan bickering.  He suggested Democratic papers had no significant “influence tending to the injury of the Union cause.”[xi]  Mirroring the national trend, early attempts to stifle the press declined as the war progressed.  It became evident to members of the Lincoln administration that Democratic papers posed little threat to the war effort or the Union.  In Oregon, suppression only lasted a few months and most editors affected returned to their lives with little change.

Written by Daniel Rinn

^[i] For a brief historical sketch of the Sentinel, see Jason Stone’s essay on the ODNP website.

^[ii] Bulla, David W. 2009. “Abraham Lincoln and Press Suppression Reconsidered”. American Journalism: the Publication of the American Journalism Historians Association. 26 (4): 11-33.

^[iii] Missouri is an interesting example, its level of newspaper suppression closely related to the fact that it was a slave state that joined the Union.  The governor, Claiborne Jackson, was a pro-slavery Democrat who wanted the state to join the Confederacy.  This coupled with the fact that a significant portion of the population was pro-southern explains why federal suppression occurred here with greater frequency.

^[iv] Manber, Jeffrey, and Neil Dahlstrom. 2005. Lincoln’s wrath: fierce mobs, brilliant scoundrels and a president’s mission to destroy the press. Naperville, Ill: Sourcebooks. The description of Lincoln as a media president is taken from the introduction.

^[v] Jeffery Alan. 1999. War & press freedom: the problem of prerogative power. New York: Oxford University Press. 103.

[vi] Carey, Charles Henry. 1971. General history of Oregon through early statehood. Portland: Published by Binfords & Mort for the Peter Binford Foundation. 515-516.

^[vii] Chandler, Robert J. “Crushing Dissent: The Pacific Coast Tests Lincoln’s Policy of Suppression, 1862.” Civil War History 30 (September 1984): 235-54.

^[viii] Taken from the May 25, 1861 issue of the Sentinel.

^[ix] Taken from Turnbull, George Stanley. 1939. History of Oregon newspapers. Portland, Or: Binfords & Mort. 275-276.

^[x] Taken from Chandler.  Interestingly, some of the first civilian prisoners at Alcatraz were arrested for voicing dissenting opinions during the Civil War.

[xi] Ibid.

It’s officially 2013, and what better way to celebrate the dawn of a new year than with the addition of more newspaper content from Portland’s Morning Oregonian and The Sunday Oregonian, now freely available through February 1916 for keyword searching online! Visit our Historic Oregon Newspapers online database to search and browse these and more Oregon titles; see how much things have changed (and stayed the same) from 1916 to 2013:

Happy New Year from the ODNP!

Excellent news for Oregon historic newspaper enthusiasts: 54,601 additional pages of the Morning Oregonian and The Sunday Oregonian have just been added to the Historic Oregon Newspapers keyword-searchable online database!

Content from the Morning Oregonian is now available from September 1878 through March 1914, and The Sunday Oregonian can now be searched from January 1895 through March 1914.

Happy searching, and stay tuned for more new historic content to be added soon!

As the November 2012 Presidential election draws near, American voters are faced with many issues to deliberate and decisions to be made. Precisely 100 years ago, only American men were allowed to cast their votes for the next president. While women across the country would have to wait until 1921 to be considered eligible voters in national elections, women in Oregon were granted equal suffrage in state elections in November 1912, making this year’s election the Oregon women’s suffrage centennial.

The campaign for women’s suffrage in Oregon began as early as 1870, and the issue was raised on the Oregon ballot six times (1884, 1900, 1906, 1908, 1910, and 1912), more than any other state (Jensen). The most prominent leader of the Oregon suffrage movement  was Abigail Scott Duniway (1834-1915), best known for her suffragist newspaper, The New Northwest, published in Portland, Oregon from 1871-1887.

Duniway was born in Illinois and came to Oregon via the Oregon Trail with her family in 1852. After the long journey, she and her husband settled on a farm in Albany where she opened a millinery shop. As a female business owner, Duniway was frustrated that she was required to pay taxes, yet she was not allowed to vote. Additionally, she heard stories of abuse and disenfranchisement from many other women, and she decided to start campaigning for equal suffrage. Duniway moved her family to Portland in 1871, where she began to publish The New Northwest, advocating for women’s rights, human and workers’ rights, and equal suffrage.

Duniway’s brother, Harvey Scott, was also in the newspaper industry, although he did no favors for his sister. Scott was the editor of the Portland Oregonian from 1866 to 1872, and he generally opposed Duniway’s stance on political, economic, and social issues. The siblings would argue back and forth through their respective newspapers, thus influencing their subscribers either for or against equal suffrage. If it had not been for Scott’s far-reaching editorials in the Oregonian, the issue of women’s suffrage in Oregon might have passed long before 1912.

After years of persistent lobbying and rallying support for equal suffrage across the state and all over the Pacific Northwest, Duniway finally saw her dream become reality. On November 5, 1912, the men of Oregon voted 52% in favor of granting Oregon women the right to vote. At the age of 78, Duniway authored and signed Oregon’s Equal Suffrage Proclamation on November 30, 1912, and she has since been known as “Oregon’s Mother of Equal Suffrage.”

As we cast our votes this year, let us remember that Duniway  and countless women in Oregon, the Pacific Northwest, and across the United States campaigned tirelessly to achieve the equal voting rights that we enjoy today.

Works cited:

Jensen, Kimberly. “Woman Suffrage in Oregon.” The Oregon Encyclopedia. Oregon History and Culture. Portland State University. 2008-2012.

As part of the Library of Congress’ and National Endowment for the Humanities’ National Digital Newspaper Program (NDNP), the ODNP is pleased to announce that Chronicling America, the NDNP’s online collection of searchable, historic newspapers from across the United States, has reached a total of 5 million newspaper pages! Chronicling America currently hosts content from 16 of Oregon’s historic newspaper titles, which can also be found on our Historic Oregon Newspapers website.

The following announcement from the Library of Congress and the National Endowment for the Humanities was released yesterday:

October 22, 2012

Chronicling America Posts 5 Millionth Page

Popular Online Resource Provides Access to Nation’s Historic Newspapers

The Chronicling America website, chroniclingamerica.loc.gov, a free, searchable database of historic U.S. newspapers, has posted its 5 millionth page.

Launched by the Library of Congress and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) in 2007, Chronicling America provides enhanced and permanent access to historically significant newspapers published in the United States between 1836 and 1922. It is a part of the National Digital Newspaper Program (NDNP), a joint effort between the two agencies and 32 state partners.

“This magnificent resource captures the warp and weft of life as it was lived in grassroots America,” said NEH Chairman Jim Leach. “Metropolitan newspapers were early targets for digitization, but Chronicling America allows the journalism of the smaller cities and the rural countryside to become accessible in all its variety—and sometimes, quirkiness.”

“Chronicling America is one of the great historical reference services on the web,” said Roberta Shaffer, associate librarian for Library Services at the Library of Congress. “It is a treasure trove of information about communities, personalities, key events and culture in the United States, and it is all free and available to the public.”

The site now features 5 million pages from more than 800 newspapers from 25 states. The site averaged more than 2.5 million page views per month last year and is being used by students, researchers, congressional staff, journalists and others for all kinds of projects, from daily podcasts to history contests. The news, narratives and entertainment encapsulated in the papers transport readers in time.

For instance, on this day, Oct. 22, 100 years ago, there was a lot of news about Theodore Roosevelt recovering from an assassination attempt several days earlier. A Washington Times headline said “Roosevelt Home Swinging His Hat with Happiness, Finishes Tedious Trip to Oyster Bay in Good Shape.” A crime story in the New York Tribune read, “Girl Runs Down Thief, Pajama-Clad Coed Races over Campus to Save Violin.” International news focused on the First Balkan War. “20,000 Turks Reported Taken by Bulgarians,” according to a story in The Washington Herald.

In 2003, the Library and NEH established a formal agreement that identified goals for the program, institutional responsibilities and overall support. In 2004, the NEH announced guidelines for grants, funded by NEH, awarded to cultural-heritage institutions wishing to join the program and select, digitize and deliver to the Library approximately 100,000 newspaper pages per award. Since 2005, the NEH has awarded more than $22 million to 32 state libraries, historical societies and universities representing states in the national program.

Created in 1965 as an independent federal agency, the National Endowment for the Humanities supports research and learning in history, literature, philosophy and other areas of the humanities by funding selected, peer-reviewed proposals from around the nation. Additional information about NEH and its grant programs is available at www.neh.gov.

The Library of Congress, the nation’s oldest federal cultural institution, is the world’s preeminent reservoir of knowledge, providing unparalleled collections and integrated resources to Congress and the American people. Many of the Library’s rich resources and treasures may also be accessed through the Library’s website, www.loc.gov.

Fall is officially here, and what better way to celebrate than by checking out the Fall 2012 issue of the OLA Quarterly, themed “Libraries, Museums, and Oregon’s Cultural History.” As a program fully geared toward preserving, providing access to, and educating people about Oregon’s cultural history, the ODNP is featured on page 14 with an article by ODNP Project Coordinator S.J. Rabun, titled “Oregon Digital Newspaper Program: Preserving History While Shaping the Future.”

The article outlines the goals and accomplishments of the ODNP, the process that brings newspapers from printed page to computer screen, and highlights from some of the unique newspaper titles that our Historic Oregon Newspapers searchable online database includes. Happy fall, and happy reading!

Over 40,000 pages of new content have just been added to the Historic Oregon Newspapers online database!

New titles include:

• Eugene, Oregon: Broad-axe/Broad-axe Tribune, 1894-1900
• Eugene, Oregon: The State Republican, 1862-1863
• Roseburg, Oregon: The Plaindealer, 1895-1905
• Tillamook, Oregon: Tillamook Herald, 1913-1922

As well as additional content from:

• Pendleton, Oregon: East Oregonian: E.O., 1888-1904
• Portland, Oregon: Morning Oregonian, 1878-1908
• Portland, Oregon: The Sunday Oregonian, 1895-1908
• Portland, Oregon: The New Northwest, 1871-1881
• Salem, Oregon: Daily Capital Journal, 1903-1915

~~~

Stay tuned for future announcements and highlights, and happy searching!

 

 

As most of us likely already know, the U.S. once grappled with the question of whether or not to ban the production, distribution, and sale of alcohol. In fact, a federal ban was instituted for about thirteen years, from 1920 to 1933, known as the “prohibition of alcohol,” or commonly known just as “prohibition.” We’ve likely seen period films that make some reference to the prohibition, or have a general idea of what the whole issue was about, but we probably don’t think much about it since the issue has long since been resolved (although, there are still some “dry” counties in Texas and other states). However, when we do think about prohibition, we might not realize that it was stooped in political debates and propaganda like any other political issue, and just like today’s political debates, everyone and their grandmother had an opinion.

The archives here at the Oregon Digital Newspaper Program are filled with editorials, advertisements, and the opinions of various individuals of alleged authority weighing in on the matter. Historic newspapers give us an idea of the political debate surrounding the issue within the state of Oregon at the time, as well as what types of arguments were made for or against it. It’s striking to see how little political debates have changed over time in terms of the ways in which they are framed and spoken about.

The following piece in The Bend Bulletin from 1910 is a nice example. It’s a call to the men of Oregon to vote against prohibition and, by doing so, retain their “local option” to have alcohol in their own homes and communities (women didn’t gain the right to vote until 1912, hence why the advertisement is directed only at men):

The rhetoric used in this piece is similar to what we see today in that it uses scare tactics, appeal to emotion, the language of government intrusion into the home, alleged threats to the family and personal privacy, and claims that one will be robbed of his or her freedoms and rights if the measure in question were to pass. The idea is to get the reader emotionally worked up and in doing so, side-step or ignore the validity of the argument, or lack thereof. The truthfulness of the claim is not what matters here, or even whether or not the reader agrees with the proposed measure. Rather, the point is to incite outrage and anger over potential consequences, and to encourage the reader to vote a certain way out of fear of those consequences. As we approach the upcoming election this year, regardless of which way you intend to vote, be aware of this tactic, as it’s still heavily used today.

Another ad in the Medford Mail Tribune from 1910 warns businessmen that they can’t afford to allow prohibition to pass, because it would adversely affect them financially through a decrease in property values, stagnation of business, and a “halt in progress.”

Again, similar arguments can be seen today in a wide variety of issues, ranging from same-sex marriage and gun control laws, to measures involving road construction and changes to public transportation. Political issues in the early 1900s, as today, were often framed as being of primary concern to business owners. This is unsurprising considering that business owners tend to have greater financial and social capital, and unfortunately, as a result, tend to also have greater political influence than the average citizen.

However, business owners weren’t the only ones concerned with prohibition. In this clip from The Coos Bay Times, from 1908, clergy from all over the east coast weighed in, strongly opposing prohibition. Regardless of the political or social issue in question, we often turn to religious leaders, and perhaps more commonly today, celebrities, as sources of authority.

Another tactic that can be found in almost any political debate is the use of statistics to argue for or against an issue, illustrated in this next clip from the same edition and page of The Coos Bay Times. The argument made here is that statistics show greater lawlessness and more arrests when Lane County was “dry” (alcohol was prohibited), than when it was “wet” (alcohol was not prohibited).

Lastly, what political debate would be complete without a mix-up in terminology and a looming threat of increased taxes? *gasp* These two clips from the October 29^th and October 15^th, 1914 editions of the Eagle Valley News illustrate these examples, respectively:

There seems to be little argument for prohibition in much of Oregon’s news print of the time. The majority of what was written appears to be in opposition to prohibition. However, this piece in The Coos Bay Times, written by Rev. F. W. Jones on May 11^th, 1908, urged voters to vote for prohibition:

However, when your article is printed next to an advertisement for a sausage company and is framed as a desperate “plea,” it’s likely that you’re not being taken all that seriously. Anyone who has read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair knows that the meat packing industry of the era wasn’t exactly something to be lauded and was probably not the type of advertisement you’d want your op-ed piece to be associated with.

In the end, prohibition came and went, and little thought is given to it today. We have since turned our attention to other issues, many of which are arguably as much of a non-issue as the manufacture, sale, and distribution of alcohol, at least in this blogger’s opinion. However, much of the ways in which political debates are conducted, and many of the tactics that are used, have remained the same. We’re still bombarded with statistics ad nauseum from even more media sources than during the prohibition era. We’re still given arguments based on logical fallacies, and we still turn to religious leaders and celebrities as sources of authority, even when their claims to such authority are questionable. It is important to remember, especially as we approach the upcoming presidential election, to be critical of the information we’re given, the source of that information, and what biases may be present.

Our historic newspapers would suggest that Oregon was never really all that interested in supporting prohibition. Perhaps it should be no surprise to us, then, that Oregon has come to produce some of the best organic beers and wine in the country, and Portland, specifically, is now known for having a unique brand of beer snobbery, possibly as a result. However, whether you drink alcohol or not, Oregon is likely to remain a “wet” state for the foreseeable future, or at least until we decide to engage in collective amnesia, and as a state or nation, feel compelled to revisit a social and political issue that has long since been settled. If we do, though, the Oregon Digital Newspaper Program will be around to provide us with valuable insight into the past.