Art's Role in the Election of 1860

Throughout the process of writing the script and making the EduCreations video, our group was able to have a new appreciation for art's formative qualities in shaping the Election of 1860 and southern secession.  Gathering our notes from "The Civil War in Art" website was key in being able to put together the pieces of art's relation to the different events taking place at the time causing such intense rifts between the country and different political parties.  The Election of 1860 was the boiling point for people who had strong views on slavery, because the future president of the U.S. who was going to be chosen would only divide the rift between the north and south further than it already was after events such as the Dred Scott vs. Stanford Case and John Brown's Raid at Harper's Ferry.  Lincoln's winning of the presidential election was extremely controversial, because only the majority of republicans were in support of his desire to abolish slavery completely in the west, while most democrats and southerners were opposed to it, still supporting the belief of popular sovereignty and the system of slavery.  This choice of Lincoln as president pushed the south further towards secession, and their eventual secession became the cause of the Civil War, in which art played a huge role in the people's understanding of the war.  Art representing the war or events of the war became extremely popular at the time because it was a way for the people to be able to understand all of the events going on around them.  These artistic depictions of the war became a crucial part of the way the people felt about the events of the war, and may have even changed popular opinions on certain battles and issues.

https://www.educreations.com/lesson/view/civil-war-in-art/30171152/?s=y2DuYz&ref=appemail

Citations:
Abraham Lincoln:
Painting a national treasure: https://www.jeremypenn.com/2014/08/painting-abraham-lincoln/
Abraham Lincoln 2:
Stufffromthelab.com: https://stufffromthelab.wordpress.com/category/uncategorized-stuff/page/46/
All other pictures:  http://www.civilwarinart.org/exhibits/show/causes/introduction/the-election-of-1860-and-seces
Jefferson Davis:
History.com: http://cdn.history.com/sites/2/2013/12/jefferson-davis-portrait-AB.jpeg

Union and Confederacy Advantages and Disadvantages

Northern and southern strategy in the civil war | Create infographics

The north (Union) and south (Confederacy) both had extremely different advantages regarding agriculture, geography, labor, and population, which all put them at an advantage or disadvantage during the Civil War.  Agriculturally, the north and south differed greatly because of the weather and conditions that certain crops require to grow and thrive; the north possessed far more corn than the south did, but the south possessed all of the cotton in the United States.  This put the north at an advantage food-wise because they could provide more soldiers with more food, considering the versatility of corn and possible uses in many kinds of food.  Basic foods made with corn also would have been cheap to produce in large numbers, so the military could be fed in large numbers for a cheaper cost.  But, the south had the advantage over the north clothing-wise.  The south created all of the cotton in the U.S., and therefore was able to have direct access to it to use for military uniforms, and could  make nicer uniforms because they had the option of making them themselves with their own cotton, rather than having to rely on hand-me-downs or less high quality material.  

The north had far more industrial workers than the south did (1,300,000 versus 110,000), which put them at an advantage and a disadvantage.  Having more industrial workers allowed for the north to be able to have more materials for the war effort like weapons, produced in less time.  But, it also put them at a disadvantage because the more industrial workers they had who had jobs that they loved and spent their whole lives working to perfect the craft that they specialized in, the less people would want to leave their jobs to fight in the war, and risk their lives for a cause that would not change their way of life because slavery was already outlawed in the north.  The south had a far higher number of slaves, 3,500,000 versus 430,000 in the northern border states, which gave them an advantage because the slaves were considered property and could be forced into fighting in the war for the confederacy in a way that the north could not force free industrial workers to fight in the war for the union.  Finally, the north had an advantage over the south in a purely numerical way, considering that the population was far higher in the north (23,000,000 versus 8,700,000), which meant that they simply had more people who were able to fight in the war.

Finally, regarding geography, the north had an advantage or a disadvantage depending on how the situation is perceived.  The north had 22,000 miles of railroad while the south only had 9,000 miles, so the north would have been able to ship more supplies or soldiers across more land faster.  The north also had more factories than the south, 110,100 factories versus 20,600, which meant that they could produce more materials for the military in a shorter amount of time.  But considering the more industrialized nature of the north, the south had far more open land which could have been used to make camp for the confederate army, or could have been used to hide in during war or an attack.

Although the north seemed to have many advantages over the south, southern morale was much higher than that of the north.  Southerners were fighting for their way of life, whereas most northerners lives would not change much whether they won or lost the war.  Seven of the nation's eight military colleges at the time were located in the south and they were intensely training their soldiers, ready to fight for their years-old traditions. 

Addressing the Elephant in the Room

The debate over slavery was clearly the “elephant in the room” for American politics in the early 19th century.  It was such a big issue because it was so volatile and controversial, and because of the controversy regarding it, the government wanted to avoid it and stay out of it as much as it possibly could.  The government’s lack of a want to tackle the slavery debate is very apparent in the Dred Scott Case in March of 1857.  In this case, an enslaved black man living in Missouri filed a suit against the state, saying that he and his wife should be free because they had once lived in states and territories where slavery was illegal.  The Supreme Court ruled against Scott 7 to 2 because they were slaves and therefore did not have a right to sue in court.  Antislavery supporters were disgusted with the decision, but President Buchanan supported the court's ruling.  President Buchanan's actions in supporting the court's ruling in an effort to try and avoid governmental involvement with the slavery issue shows just how much people wanted to tip toe around the issue, for fear of people becoming explosive over the topic.  Slavery was clearly a huge part of American society and culture at the time, but people didn't want to address its existence.  

Even the most civilized of people had extreme emotions attached to their positions on slavery; the ignoring of slavery in politics led to a lot of the extreme reactions regarding it, because constantly trying to put it off and ignore it made emotions build even higher.  This idea is evident in D.C.'s reaction to the separation of parts of Kansas into proslavery, antislavery, and free-soiler, and all the violence that occurred as a result, known as "Bleeding Kansas." In response to the events of Bleeding Kansas, Republican senator from Massachusetts, Charles Sumner, gave a fiery speech titled "The Crime Against Kansas", in which he claimed that southerners were trying to force slavery on the western territories.  South Carolina senator Preston Brooks took great offense to the speech, and in an effort to defend southern honor, went to Sumner's senate desk and beat him with his cane.

When people actually did address the issue of slavery and debate it, most did what was more popular with the people, and did not challenge the people or the system of slavery at all.  Ignoring the issues behind slavery only continued the system and made it stronger.  This is apparent in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858, a series of 7 debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas over slavery during their run for the a spot in the senate of Illinois.  Douglas supported popular sovereignty, believing that the majority of people in a state should vote over the legality of slavery.  However, Lincoln believed that the majority did not have the right to take away people's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  The problem with this is that Lincoln did not agree with slavery, but even he did not want to address the issue, saying, ""I am not nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and blacks."  

Finally, the ignoring of the issue of slavery not only made emotions hit their boiling point, but in some cases, that emotion led to extreme actions and violence.  John Brown's Raid on October 16, 1859 at Harper's Ferry, Virginia was one of those extreme situations.  Brown, along with 21 other men, raided the federal arsenal in an attempt to arm the slaves and assist them in starting an uprising.  But, Colonel Robert E. Lee was there with his troops surrounding the arsenal, and killed almost half of Brown's men before the rest of them surrendered.  John Brown was then hanged on account of treason, but was seen as a martyr by northerners, and was revered by them as a leader and a hero.

Slavery not only was avoided by the government and American society as a whole, but also led to intense violence and extreme measures being taken by people because there was no way for them to talk their issues and opinions on the matter through successfully.