Eight Historical American Figureheads From The 1800's

[Jopa79]

Lately I've been attracted by the historical events in the US during the 1800's - watching documents, tv-series, listening the music. On my spare time I decided to create some portraits considering the era. The project is still on-going, but I wished to share some of the development here.

Are the above portraits identifiable? Or does someone like to share a story inspired by the exact figures or the era?

 

[Dlin369]

I'm not that familiar with the American Civil war Generals' portraits, but Sherman, Grant and Lincoln are fairly recognizable on the top row. The first one on the top row I believe I've seen before but I can't put my finger on it

I don't recognize the first guy on the bottom, I think the second one is Stonewall Jackson (partially because I've heard him described as having pale blue eyes), and Robert E Lee I can definitely recognize. The last one I do not recognize

edit: for some reason Irving McDowel comes to mind for the first guy - I can’t justify it other than him not having side burns (like Burnside) or being clean shaven (like McClellan and Hooker).

 

[Ming]

edit: for some reason Irving McDowel comes to mind for the first guy - I can’t justify it other than him not having side burns (like Burnside) or being clean shaven (like McClellan and Hooker).

It's Meade. Pretty good for someone not so famous from the war.

The last guy on the bottom I'm drawing a blank on. I would have guessed a younger Lee if he wasn't already there.

 

[Jorlaan]

I can identify all but the two on the bottom sides. I am somewhat an American Civil War guy though even though I'm Canadian.

 

[Director]

Meade, Sherman, Grant, Lincoln
Breckenridge, Jackson, Lee... the last one rings no bell

Lighthouse engineer, first chancellor of Louisiana State University, failed farmer and store-clerk, provincial lawyer who won a case for McClellan and Seward
Vice-president under Buchanan, poor teacher at VMI, son of spendthrift Harry Lee and... whoever that is

 

[Jopa79]

Meade, Sherman, Grant, Lincoln
Breckenridge, Jackson, Lee

These are all correct...perhaps a small hint could give little help considering the last picture...he had already retired the office while being portrayed. Also the post has been abolished.

Thank you for claryfying the other occupations.

 

[CV10]

These are all correct...perhaps a small hint could give little help considering the last picture...he had already retired the office while being portrayed. Also the post has been abolished.

An older Jefferson Davis? The Secretary of War who established a camel corps of the United States Army, one of several projects in his life which eventually fell apart?

 

[Jopa79]

An older Jefferson Davis? The Secretary of War who established a camel corps of the United States Army, one of several projects in his life which eventually fell apart?

That’s correct.

 

[Jopa79]

Refreshed this project a bit.

 

[Director]

Meade, Burnside, Sherman, Grant, Lincoln
Johnston, Breckenridge, Jackson, Lee, Davis

Burnside was an inventor of a carbine that was widely praised and used during the Civil War. His amphibious campaign in North Carolina was well-planned and was an unqualified success. His operations afterwards seemed doomed by the failures of others... unlucky, in the Napoleonic sense.
Joe Johnston was reportedly so vain about being a crack shot that he would not shoot, lest he miss. A good manager and a tough defensive mind but prone to stab people in the back in the press. Served as a pallbearer at Sherman's funeral and refused to wear a hat in the cold as it would dishonor his friend's memory... died of pneumonia 10 days later.
Davis had opposed secession right up until it happened, after which he hoped for a field command in the army, or to be secretary of war. His health issues had soured his personality... the only general he ever got on with was Lee, who deferred and handled him courteously.

 

[Jopa79]

Served as a pallbearer at Sherman's funeral and refused to wear a hat in the cold as it would dishonor his friend's memory... died of pneumonia 10 days later.

This is interesting... the Finnish Wikipedia only suggests Johnston refusing to wear a hat at Sherman's funeral was due to his respect towards the glorious enemy general to whom he had surrendered some 25 years earlier at Durham, North Carolina. If they actually were friends, perhaps a true-life example about a friendship, like between Main&Hazard?

Continuing, Johnston's efficiency during the American Civil War was decreased by the disputes with Jefferson Davies...the Finnish Wikipedia also notes Johnston's incapability in being an aggressive attacker.

A follow-up question, do you happen to know the origins about the tragic Civil War song, 'No Longer Grey Or Blue'?

 

[Director]

Many Civil War officers were friends or at least acquaintances - the West Point classes were small and the pre-war Army was tiny. Johnston commanded the last tiny rag-tag Confederate force in the East, fought briefly with Sherman in North Carolina (as he had in Georgia) and, post-Appomattox, surrendered to him. Johnston was evidently deeply touched by Sherman's mild terms and compassion, and the two remained friends thereafter and corresponded regularly. Johnston had come out of West Point in 1829 and Sherman in 1840, so they had no Academy time in common and were widely different in rank pre-war.

My opinions here. Johnston's commands were hampered, frankly, by Johnston... despite his being a capable, highly competent manager and organizer, a good strategist and a better than fair tactician. Johnston 'knew' that a successful attack required a significant superiority of force, and he declined to fully commit to an attack unless he was assured of success. His attacks at Seven Pines were disjointed and uncoordinated (so were Lee's first efforts, to be fair) and his great maneuver of the Atlanta campaign (Cassville) was undone partly by his own commanders and partly by Sherman... Other commanders, like Lee, got on with doing what they could with what they were given. Johnston demanded more than the Confederacy could give and used the shortfall as an excuse for complaint and inaction - as during the Vicksburg campaign. I believe Davis would have tolerated his pique and sniping if he had produced some success and, in fact, every time there was a disaster, Davis plugged Johnston in to fix it. There is no evidence that Davis ever withheld men or supplies from Johnston.

I have no information on that song other than to note it may be of recent composition. My sources list Lisa Godino and Chuck Winch as composers. If so it joins tunes like 'Ashokan Farewell' (used in Ken Burns' Civil War documentary) as being of but not from the period.

 

[Jopa79]

Many Civil War officers were friends or at least acquaintances - the West Point classes were small and the pre-war Army was tiny. Johnston commanded the last tiny rag-tag Confederate force in the East, fought briefly with Sherman in North Carolina (as he had in Georgia) and, post-Appomattox, surrendered to him. Johnston was evidently deeply touched by Sherman's mild terms and compassion, and the two remained friends thereafter and corresponded regularly. Johnston had come out of West Point in 1829 and Sherman in 1840, so they had no Academy time in common and were widely different in rank pre-war.

Yes, my best guess still is - and only a guess - that the future Civil War Army commanders and generals formed relations and bonds during the Mexican-American War, or at West Point, or in both combined. I've heard, in some contexts, they claim, the US being still weak in militarily at the early 1800's or during the war with Mexico in 1846-1848. Does these claims have any bottom?

My opinions here. Johnston's commands were hampered, frankly, by Johnston... despite his being a capable, highly competent manager and organizer, a good strategist and a better than fair tactician. Johnston 'knew' that a successful attack required a significant superiority of force, and he declined to fully commit to an attack unless he was assured of success. His attacks at Seven Pines were disjointed and uncoordinated (so were Lee's first efforts, to be fair) and his great maneuver of the Atlanta campaign (Cassville) was undone partly by his own commanders and partly by Sherman... Other commanders, like Lee, got on with doing what they could with what they were given. Johnston demanded more than the Confederacy could give and used the shortfall as an excuse for complaint and inaction - as during the Vicksburg campaign. I believe Davis would have tolerated his pique and sniping if he had produced some success and, in fact, every time there was a disaster, Davis plugged Johnston in to fix it. There is no evidence that Davis ever withheld men or supplies from Johnston.

I find it hard to adapt, the Johnston view, if he supported the Southern cause, the secession of the Southern States from the Union, supporting forming of the Confederate States of America as being an independent nation, he thought it was achievable. But how? If he didn't want to attack. No foreign states had recognized the CSA as an independent nation and how to achieve something that does not exist - at least not by defending a non-existent.

Finland has the same traumas of the Civil War, but the decades before and after the Civil War slightly differs about the US. Some details about the American&Finnish Civil Wars:

• As a single, united nation the US fought for its claims and rights during the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848.
• Disputes in politics and in using instruments of economy quickly separated the American people in the years to come
• The American Civil War 1861-1865
• The dreadful conflict led to the era of Reconstruction
• After decades of recovering the US was considered as one of the Great Powers while entering to the 1900's

• During the two eras of Russification at the late 1800's to the early 1900's the Finnish people joined as united against the tyranny
• Due to the collapse of the Tsarist power and the Russian downfall in the WWI Finland declared its independence
• The Russian collapse left a power vacuum in Finland which led to serious disputes between the Finnish burghers and the Finnish working class
• The Finnish Civil War of 1918
• After winning the Civil War, the burghers side - the Whites executed an ethnic purge inflicting and deepening the traumas of the Civil War
• While the global tension rose, the Finnish people united itself facing the WWII as an united nation

One interesting difference between these internal conflicts is, that the US fought a war as an united nation against Mexico and after then the opinions quarreled. In the Finnish case, there was first the Civil War and after that the people united to face a greater threat.

I have no information on that song other than to note it may be of recent composition. My sources list Lisa Godino and Chuck Winch as composers. If so it joins tunes like 'Ashokan Farewell' (used in Ken Burns' Civil War documentary) as being of but not from the period.

When it sometimes happens, empathizing with music, while listening to it and while in trying hard to understand the conditions which prevailed...our own worries seem so little and insignificant. We only have to deal with the sick feeling at Monday morning. Perhaps it's one of the best things in music and history.

Thank you for replying.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

• After decades of recovering the US was considered as one of the Great Powers while entering to the 1900's

The United States was untouched by the war, they did not have to recover and were in a high gear. As soon as the war ended they almost immediately began expanding West to clear the path for the Rails.

At the war's end, Leland Stanford begins pushing out of California and the Union Pacific begins pushing out of Council Bluffs, Iowa. Two Union generals who had made their bones laying track to follow the Union Army were pushing the crews among many other very high powered personalities.

By 1869, Stanford drives the Golden Spike, signifying the completion of the first Transatlantic Railroad that was the foundation for the powerful United States economy that would dominate the coming century. Grant is elected president and the Railroad Interests he supports create the most corrupt US Presidency until Ronald Reagan's while rail lines proliferate and grow. And when Grant goes to the White House, Bill Sherman goes West and makes Total War upon anything that moved or crawled that got in the way of the rails and the ever growing expansion that allowed good God Fearing White Folk to travel West in peace and enjoy the American Dream that creates nightmares for others.

That is not decades of recovering, that is a swift bounce up.

Now, the Confederacy on the other hand, they were an occupied country essentially until the Depression and World War II and did not recover until the post-war boom - which directly ties into the racial disputes that occurred simultaneously.

 

[Jopa79]

The United States was untouched by the war, they did not have to recover and were in a high gear. As soon as the war ended they almost immediately began expanding West to clear the path for the Rails.

Now, the Confederacy on the other hand, they were an occupied country essentially until the Depression and World War II and did not recover until the post-war boom - which directly ties into the racial disputes that occurred simultaneously.

Thank you.

I'm quite well familiar about the North - the United States - being capable to avoid the disaster - which the South - the Confederate States was confronted due to the Sherman's March through Georgia and the other things occurring the same time, affecting the South's downfall.

Still, I admit, I'm not an expert in history in this era of the America. I just like to think with my own human mind, and by the lessons about right and wrong given to me by my mother and father, the standards which were given to me by our education system, which is quite well balanced with the European standards, I think.

In my opinion, the nation cannot be united if some of its parts is/are occupied by the citizens of the same country. By forcing under the rule one cannot say, it was done uniformly and under the same will.

I'm a great admirer of the rise about the American limelight, which in my knowledge happened after the Civil War and was completed while entering the WWI. I sure hope, we could see some days of that during the days to come. I like driving in a high gear, but maybe more, I like driving safely.

By 1869, Stanford drives the Golden Spike, signifying the completion of the first Transatlantic Railroad that was the foundation for the powerful United States economy that would dominate the coming century. Grant is elected president and the Railroad Interests he supports create the most corrupt US Presidency until Ronald Reagan's while rail lines proliferate and grow. And when Grant goes to the White House, Bill Sherman goes West and makes Total War upon anything that moved or crawled that got in the way of the rails and the ever growing expansion that allowed good God Fearing White Folk to travel West in peace and enjoy the American Dream that creates nightmares for others.

Yes, the Railroads, is it 5 tracks through your country, from the East Coast to California, Oregon and Washington. Perhaps its much more nowadays, but 5 tracks, they said to me while I was in school in the 1990's. Well, anyway, it's the foundation of infrastructure today.

During my schooldays we all sat quietly and we stood and spoke while asked so.

That is not decades of recovering, that is a swift bounce up.

Yes, I love swift bounce-ups. But shouldn't it come by consensus?

Between the American Civil War and the World War I, the United States practiced aggressive expansionism. Continuous wars against Mexico, at least skirmishing all the time at the Mexican border and the Spanish Wars, still your president was granted by the Nobel Peace Prize?

Please, help me to understand your development.

-Jopa79-

 

[Director]

Yes, my best guess still is - and only a guess - that the future Civil War Army commanders and generals formed relations and bonds during the Mexican-American War, or at West Point, or in both combined. I've heard, in some contexts, they claim, the US being still weak in militarily at the early 1800's or during the war with Mexico in 1846-1848. Does these claims have any bottom?

West Point classes were small- fewer than 50 officers per year attended and many of those bailed afterward to make careers in the public sector. West Point was one of a very few (or perhaps the only) engineering school in the US. So yes, they knew each other very well - were best friends in some cases, and worst enemies in others.

The US Army was tiny because there was no military power (other than perhaps Britain) that could immediately threaten it. In the even of war - as with Mexico - the regular army was expanded by volunteers (militia) and West Pointers (or former West Pointers who had left the Army) were put in command. In this way the US avoided the expense of a standing army and also the threat of a military-backed coup at a cost of having to learn how to fight all over again every time.

The US Army before and after the Mexican War had less than 20,000 men - during that war it had maybe 60,000. In the Civil War the North had about 600,000 under arms for most of the war and the South about 400,000 - but that is just a really rough guess.

I find it hard to adapt, the Johnston view, if he supported the Southern cause, the secession of the Southern States from the Union, supporting forming of the Confederate States of America as being an independent nation, he thought it was achievable. But how? If he didn't want to attack. No foreign states had recognized the CSA as an independent nation and how to achieve something that does not exist - at least not by defending a non-existent.

A lot of people on both sides thought there would be a lot of posturing, a battle or two and then either there would be a compromise or the North would give it up as a bad job and let the South go. It was just like World War One - home by the time the leaves fall, right? Or like Stalin thinking he would just roll over Finland in an afternoon. Wars are fought between groups that both think their side can win. Sometimes one of them is right.

As Jefferson Davis said, "All we want is to be left alone." By forming a government and an army the South would show its determination, and its sheer size (as big as Europe from Spain through Germany) would prevent conquest. All they had to do was defend and wait out the North... or wait for Britain to need cotton and intervene. Only it turned out the North had its own holy cause, preservation of the Union, and - surprising both North and South alike - would not quit.

• As a single, united nation the US fought for its claims and rights during the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848.
• Disputes in politics and in using instruments of economy quickly separated the American people in the years to come
• The American Civil War 1861-1865
• The dreadful conflict led to the era of Reconstruction
• After decades of recovering the US was considered as one of the Great Powers while entering to the 1900's

• The US was not then and is not now a single united nation but rather a collection of nations. Then it was maybe four - NorthEast, Atlantic, Mid-West and South, with gradations at the borders. The Mexican War was deeply, divisively hated by at least two of those sections but they didn't have the political power to stop it. Grant said, "Mexico will poison us," and as usual he was right, but it got the South at least one more slave state and secured US territory to the Pacific.
• It led to an amazing industrial and commercial boom as Federal outlays exploded. ("In 1861, the federal budget of $80.2 million devoted $36.4 million to defense: in 1865, the comparable figures were $1.33 billion and $1.17 billion." That's in dollars of the time - at least 10 times that in today's money.)
• That money went to shoemakers, steelmakers and so on and so forth and a lot of it went to expand production. In 1861 the US was an industrial power but the internal market was so large it imported enormous amounts of machinery and steel (to mention two products). By the 1876 Centennial it had passed Germany and Britain to be the world's greatest industrial power and was still growing faster than anyone else. Trillions of dollars in today's money was pumped into the economy to win the war and for the economy it was like mainlining methamphetamine.
• Lack of armed forces meant the US was not respected abroad despite its industrial power. Nobody in Europe seems to have noticed - or at least mentioned - that the US had just driven armies over an area the size of Europe, had a sky-rocketing industrial output and GDP, highest per-capita income and a population growing faster than any in the world.
• The South crashed post-war, as @Andre Bolkonsky has said. No free labor, billions in investment gone, cash crops not as valuable on the world market, infrastructure smashed, cities burned down, soil wearing out... One in four of males between 16 and 45 was dead or seriously wounded. And then the US insisted that five years of taxes had to paid, in cash, and NOW. Railroads and industry were built with Northern money and owned by Northerners. The North wanted an end to the expansion of slavery, an end to little wars (like Mexico) for the expansion of slavery. So when the South pushed, the North pushed back and kept pushing until the South went down.