Search
History of Newspapers Video (see more)
Email Subscription
Sign up to receive our latest blog updates!Buy Historic Newspapers
They put it in print… George Washington called a quack…
February 10, 2015 by TimHughes · Leave a Comment
Newspaper reports from the “other side” always provide some fascinating reading, such as Confederate vs. Yankee accounts of Civil War battles, or Allied vs. Nazi reports of World War II battles.
The same is true of the Revolutionary War. The “Pennsylvania Ledger” was a Loyalist newspaper and they spared little in criticizing the American, or “rebel”cause as they called it, for freedom. The January 21, 1778 issue has a fascinating letter which heavily criticizes Washington’s letter to Congress of October 5, 1777 (see below or go to this issue for full details). In the letter Washington puts an admittedly positive spin on his tragic loss at the battle of Germantown, which gives this writer a cause to respond.
He begins: “Mr. Washington’s letter to Congress…is perhaps the most extravagant piece of Jesuitical quackery that has been exhibited during the present rebellion. This heroic epistle abounds in deception, and incongruous contradiction in the extremely; it is calculated to mislead…”. His treatment of Washington doesn’t get any nicer. “This military quack…” is his next reference to the American leader, and he takes on one of the more famous quotes from Washington’s letter: ” ‘Upon the whole, it may be said the day was rather unfortunate than injurious.’ what a delicate and nice distinction here is held forth!…Who can help laughing at such an heterogeneous jumble of inconsistencies. Mr. Washington & his confederates have gained immortal honour by being suddenly put to flight by his Majesty’s troops…”.
Reading from the Loyalist side offers a perspective not to be found in newspapers supporting of the cause of Independence. What a fascinating hobby!
Government in action… yet another proud moment…
September 19, 2014 by GuyHeilenman · Leave a Comment
At first blush, this issue appears to be exactly what one might expect from a Government sponsored publication. However, upon closer inspection of the lower right corner, we soon realize… this is exactly what one might expect from a government sponsored publication. Somewhere, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg are smiling. Please enjoy the cover of the April, 1944 issue of the U.S. Army-Navy Journal:
The editor shows his bias…
July 26, 2013 by TimHughes · Leave a Comment
Editorials from the 19th century were often quite frank and not afraid to mince words, and perhaps the most scathing comments were found in newspapers during the Civil War years. The “Daily Examiner” newspaper from Richmond, Virginia, January 20, 1865, has an editorial which begins with some very biased words about Andrew Johnson:
News worthy of the headline… Which would you choose?
February 8, 2013 by GuyHeilenman · 1 Comment
Selecting the news for a newspaper’s headline must be quite challenging at times, especially when there are multiple significant events clamoring for top billing. We recently came across a Leominster Daily Enterprise, MA, April 16, 1947, which had 5 noteworthy events to choose from:
* Execution of Rudolf Hoess, Nazi commandant of Auschwitz… oversaw massacre of 2,000,000 Jews
* Milton Reynolds breaks Howard Hughes around-the-world aviation record in his “Bombshell”
* Jackie Robinson breaks racial barrier… 1st regular season MLB game played by an African American
* Texas City disaster (350 killed)
* Princess Elizabeth and Philip Mountbatten (from Greece) become engaged, with photo
Which do you think grabbed the headline back in 1947?To find out if you made the right choice, go to:
1947 Headline
(see the 4th image)
What if the same events occurred today? Would the editors make the same choice for tomorrow’s headline? We’d love to know your thoughts… and reasons.
Davy Crockett survived the Alamo?
May 16, 2009 by TimHughes · 1 Comment
The report shown appeared in the “Staunton Spectator” newspaper of Virginia, May 5, 1836. Accuracy in reporting the news certainly wasn’t any better back in 1836. Have you ever found similar inaccurate reporting?