Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
A House Divided by jasonjuta A House Divided by jasonjuta
Cover for A House Divided game, Mayfair Games.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconarvanas:
Arvanas Featured By Owner Apr 29, 2015
Everyone gets this wrong....Missouri was Part of the Union, they owned slaves but Sided with the Union.
Reply
:iconthekrouton:
TheKrouton Featured By Owner May 28, 2015
This image is not wrong. All the red states in this image are "border states" (aka slave states that never left the union), including Missouri. The yellow states are confederate states, while the blue states are free states that never seceded.
Reply
:iconmatthew-123:
matthew-123 Featured By Owner Nov 7, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
We need more people like Abraham Lincoln in office.
Reply
:iconblackhat6:
BlackHat6 Featured By Owner Oct 19, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
"If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand" -Mark 3:25.

"Independence WITHOUT unanimity, means nothing" -Ben Franklin.

"United we stand, DIVIDED we fall" -G. Washington.

"The Union must, and SHALL be preserved." -Andrew Jackson.

"A House divided CAN NOT stand, I believe this government can not endure living Half Slave, and Half Free" -A Lincoln, 1858.
Reply
:iconlord-beric:
Lord-Beric Featured By Owner Oct 10, 2014
It would have been nice to have at least one black man among the union soldiers.  Just saying, they did do their fair share of the fighting and the dying to preserve the union.  A line of exclusively white faces might be more historically accurate when it comes to showing that brigades were segregated and that whites and blacks just about never fought shoulder-to-shoulder, but omitting them entirely kind of helps us forget they were even there.
Reply
:iconmskm2001:
MSKM2001 Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2012
This is epic.
Nice work.
Reply
:iconbecky123190:
Becky123190 Featured By Owner Apr 17, 2012
this is so cool go union soldiers
God Bless Abe

i hope Robert E. Lee is enjoying his time in hell lol
Reply
:icongeneralobiwankenobi7:
Generalobiwankenobi7 Featured By Owner Aug 2, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Robert E Lee wasn't the cause of the war. Granted it would have been better if he had stayed loyal to the Union and the war would have ended a lot quicker.

Really Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephans are to blame, along with all the supporters of the succession. Also the South Carolina regiment that fired the first shots in the first place. However I don't wish anyone to go to hell(heck I don't believe in hell).
Reply
:iconthekrouton:
TheKrouton Featured By Owner May 28, 2015
You are correct, it was a handful of individuals like Jefferson Davis and Stephens that pushed for succession. Lee was against succession and had nothing to do with it. However I don't believe he did the wrong thing when he resigned from the US army, or even when he sided with the confederates after Virginia seceded.

The South was not the "cause" of the war. There was no jurisdictive legislation that bound states to the Union. Prior to the civil war, the US was something of a confederation of smaller states. When Lincoln invaded the South he violated the individual rights of these states, including the right to secede. Lincoln did not have to invade the Confederacy, and I would like to believe most presidents prior to him would have let them go. However, Lincoln abused his executive powers by launching an invasion on the South to preserve his idealized notion of a union.

Yes, South Carolina did fire the first shots on Fort Sumter. However, if you understand the scenario, Lincoln clearly provoked the South to attack. Regardless, Lincoln openly pushed for a war with the South because he believed a forceful reinstatement was the only way to preserve the power of the federal state. For example, the north took a significant financial hit upon Southern succession because nearly all trading ports were in the South. In all honestly the entire US economy was backed by slavery, so losing the South was ultimately detrimental to US stability.

And by the way, Lee's home state, Virginia, didn't secede until Lincoln called for volunteers and invaded the Confederacy. Lee of course committed to the Confederacy at this point. I find it clear that Lincoln escalated this crisis to an
unprecedented scale. I understand it wasn't necessarily his fault a handful of Southern states succeeded, but getting hundreds of thousands of his own citizens killed to strenghten federal power is appalling.
Reply
:icongeneralobiwankenobi7:
Generalobiwankenobi7 Featured By Owner May 28, 2015  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I beg to differ. If he had stayed loyal to the Union, the war would have been much shorter and would have saved the United States four years of discord. If he truly did not believe in succession, he shouldn't have resigned his commission. He helped the cost of lives.

Wrong. It most certainly was. Lincoln didn't "invade" the south at all. The South held onto it's outdated economy, which relied heavily on slave labor, and feared the Federal government abolishing it in the future, which was certainly going to happen now that the Republicans held the office. And as such, started a war which cost thousands of lives out of that fear. Don't be an apologist for the South's actions, or try to blame it on Lincoln and the North. The States that succeeded did so against the law, the federal government ultimately has the final say and the South didn't want to accept that fact, especially if it would mean the end of slavery.

Except Lincoln did in the end, because they attacked first. Why don't you actually start reviewing your history because yours is pretty biased. Lincoln was doing his job, the states had no legal right to succeed, and they launched an unprovoked attack. The South was the ones really in economic trouble, the northern industry was far more advanced and they controlled the railroads which were currently expanding to the west.

Now your making excuses for slavery as well as the South's warmongering? Slavery was not practiced in the north at that time and the north had no need for it. The rest of the country did not rely on slavery, their industry had grown beyond that. Only the south kept slaves.

Jefferson and South Carolina escalated the crisis my friend, by firing on a government fort that was already established. You are really biased on this topic and ignoring the south's push for war and blaming it all on Lincoln and the federal government.

What's really appalling is the Confederacy starting a war to protect their right to own people as property. And even more appalling is the south's treatment of African Americans after the war, which the federal government had to step in to stop time and time again. So don't try to blame it all on Lincoln, it's really clear which sides at fault.
Reply
:iconthekrouton:
TheKrouton Featured By Owner May 30, 2015
You are correct I find, a misunderstanding on my part; Section 10: Clause 1 of the US constitution does imply that it was within the federal governments responsibility to suppress a confederation of states. Albeit the constitution is vague as always so in my opinion the president could of pulled it either way. My point is Lincoln could have kept the North out of the war, and I think that would have been the best case scenario. I didn't really mean to bash him so much, but I do believe I presented fair criticism against Lincoln's decisions.

If the South did have the backwards economy as you say it did (which I completely agree with you on), it would have imploded on itself economically without going through a pointless war. And even if they did industrialize their economy the CSA as a modern country wouldn't have a need for slaves anyways. The way I see it any scenario would have been better with a peaceful secession rather than a forceful reinstitution. Practically all of Europe abolished slavery peacefully, the US could have done the same.

And stop arguing that Lee caused heavier causalities in the war. Lee was one of the few people that knew the civil war would be a long and bloody conflict, and he pulled out only when he was convinced victory was impossible. You don't know how the war would have played out if Lee sided with the Union. Even if the casualties were minimal a complete avoidance of the conflict would have been optimal. Lincoln not Lee had the power to make this difference. There was no "right" decision supporting either side. Lee stuck to his ideals and defended his home state. That is what I respect.

On I final note I admit that I do over-romanticize Southern chivalry. In reality their whole system was backwards. Industry was the way of the future. However, you seem to have the misconception that the North was an industrial superpower at this time, but that's an exaggeration. All countries at this point were still primarily agriculturally based. Even in the most industrialized countries the majority of the world population was rural. Yes, the North by no means needed slavery to support itself, but neither did the South. It was really just a handful of powerful people abusing and maintaining the economical system of the South that kept slavery running for so long.

(By the way, I'm not denying that the North had proportionally more industry and infrastructure then the South, I'm implying that the South was not a lost cause).
Reply
:icongeneralobiwankenobi7:
Generalobiwankenobi7 Featured By Owner May 30, 2015  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
A little hard to keep out of a war after you've just been attacked. Does Pearl Harbor ring a bell? The South was gunning for war, Fort Sumter was legit cause for declaring war on the Confederacy.

Again, the states that made up the Confederacy were gunning for war against the North. For some reason in their heads they believed they could intimidate the Federal government and continue as a separate nation. They did not do the math, for both the war and the economy. And then there was their fear that if they abolished slavery they'd be letting an entire population of African Americans, whom they've always regarded as inferior, free and living as citizens in their state. Even to this day southerners irrational fear of African Americans has ruled them, that blacks will try and take their revenge so they must keep them down. That was their entire policy after the war, and showed the depths of that hatred.

It could not have been done otherwise, the southern landowners who controlled the states were determined to hold on to slavery. And you're missing the fact the south provoked that forceful solution.

He did, his tactics for one helped that. Lee was a better man than most, and was doing what he thought was right. But he was short-sighted in not seeing that if he helped the side with the most legitimate claim in the war(the Union) which was much better equipped than the South for winning, he could have helped prevent a lot of bloodshed. Thankfully he realized that at the end and surrendered peacefully. If Lee and the other officers stayed loyal to the Union it would have gone a lot smoother and quicker; the main reason for the South's success was that it had better generalship, the North didn't get their best commanders in until the middle of the war. The North also was fighting the war with one hand behind it's back; at the same time they were fighting the war it was expanding out west, building the railroads and fighting the Native Americans.

No, Jefferson not Lincoln would have made the difference. As well as the South Carolina regiment. You refuse to see that it was the South that started the war. What was Lincoln supposed to do? Hostilities had been declared. It's the same argument idiot isolationists during the Second World War had, even after Pearl Harbor was attacked. And Lee still had a part to play in continuing the war.

Compared to the South it was, and was one of the main reasons it won the war. The South could not keep up. Breaking away from the Union was a terrible mistake in numerous respects; economically, politically, etc. The Union had the real means for the United States economic growth. Primarily agricultural? You are aware of the time period right? Yeah, maybe in Russia and the small bit of produce coming from the countryside of some countries. However England, France, Germany, all had begun expanding their economy overseas and their money was mainly found in trade and mass produced industry. Farmers were beginning to lose their jobs at this time in Great Britain and France. The world had seriously moved past farms being the basis of their wealth.

Wrong, the South still used slavery. It was still the major source of the workforce there. Farms and plantations were primarily slave run. Don't deny it. And the majority of the southerners supported it.

It became a lost cause after it split away, and then brought it upon itself when the war destroyed it's infrastructure and remaining economy. It relied on slavery and feared it being taken away.
Reply
:iconthekrouton:
TheKrouton Featured By Owner Edited Jun 4, 2015
What I meant by "primarily agricultural" is that most of the population, both in the North and South, still lived in the rural setting. You've probably heard the population of factory workers in the Union was over a million during the civil war, compared to the Confederacy's of roughly 100,000. This sounds like a huge industrial advantage on paper, but it's only 6% and 1-2% of the North and South's populations respectively. The US was not a superpower by industrial standard, at least not yet. Yes, there was a shift toward urban centers at this time, but it's not until the early 1900s that the urban population actually surpassed the rural populace.

The point in all this is that the Union did not have a ludicrous advantage. The war was going to be long and bloody regardless of which side Lee joined. In fact if the Confederates had given Lee more control earlier in the war it may have ended much sooner. As you may know, Lee was reassigned as commander of Virgina's forces due to an indecisive initial engagement, and remained inactive for the majority of the first year of the war. Despite this "setback" there was no definitive victor on either side throughout this time. Lee didn't side with the Confederates to draw out the war. The South needed to win a quick and decisive war, and Lee believed it could be done. I personally believe him too. If Lee had won a handful of decisive battles in Union territory at the beginning of the war, the North would have been forced to capitulate. Keep in mind, although the US issued a draft during the war, only 2% of the soldier in the Union were draftees. A fast majority of soldier were still volunteers. War enthusiasm was extremely important for both sides of the war. A crushing defeat in Union territory would have been immensely demoralizing. This is the war Lee wanted. I'm sure the South did do the math; Lee especially knew the Confederacy could not afford an extended conflict. It's not all in the numbers however; If the population of the North lost interest in the war, the Union would have followed.

It is for this same reason that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus; It gave him the power to silence Confederate sympathizers. Literally thousands of Union civilians were arrested and/or imprisoned without the due process of law. You may have a different opinion on this than me, but I don't believe a nation should have to disregard its humanity in times of war. Tyrannical exploitation of power such as silencing the opposing populace in order to extend the war effort is what dragged out the war. At least more so than what Lee did.

I'll get to Fort Sumter soon, but for the record BOTH sides WANTED a war after secession. This can not be compared to the US's involvement in WWII. The North took a significant financial hit losing a majority of its trade ports (which were in the South), and the North and South's cultural, economical, and governmental system were fundamentally different. They were evolving into two different countries. In my opinion it would have been mutually beneficial for the North and South to separate in the long term. The North however resisted this "natural" separation due to an immediate loss of consolidated power. This is all important because if either side wanted to avoid a war the crisis at Fort Sumter could have been avoided. Firstly, the Confederacy considered the fort within their territory, after all it was on South Carolina's coast. However, the US never recognized the Confederacy as an independent entity, because as I said, the Union was resisting secession. South Carolina did demand the US army to abandon the facility because it was technically in Confederate territory. However, Lincoln not only refused to abandon Fort Sumter but reinforced it. This was clearly an aggressive move on the Unions part. So in all practicality the Union made the first move at Fort Sumter. Regardless of who made the first move, I will admit the Confederacy also wanted a war and the Union's stubbornness in the end coerced South Carolina into taking the Fort.

The way I see it, neither side had a "more legitimate" claim to the war. However, the Union should have backed off much sooner then they did. The entire bloody conflict would have been avoided and both the Union and Confederacy could have prospered as independent entities. The war was a huge waste of resources and as you said the US had better things to do; "Expanding out west, building the railroads and... fighting the Native Americans"? That last one's not really a priority but you should get my point. The main reason the North resisted seccesion was to consolidate federal power, which in my opinion Lincoln played a significant role in.

"Wrong, the South still used slavery. It was still the major source of the workforce there. Farms and plantations were primarily slave run. Don't deny it. And the majority of the southerners supported it."

I never said the South wasn't heavily reliant on slavery. I was implying that in the theoretical scenario were the South did "permanently" brake off from the Union and not collapse it would have been forced to industrialize in order to keep up with the modern world. In that SPECIFIC scenario the South would have been forced to drop slavery eventually. Similar to how most European countries dealt with slavery. It wouldn't of taken an aggressive takeover at least.
Reply
:icongeneralobiwankenobi7:
Generalobiwankenobi7 Featured By Owner Jun 4, 2015  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Can you not do the math? That is a significant advantage over the south, both off paper and in practice. Also, the fact that the North had a significantly larger population means they have more men to hire for the factories, as well as replace soldiers.

You're really making Lee sound like an idiot here. If he really thought that he could win a decisive victory over the North then like most southerners at the time he could not do the math. The south would have been immediately the ones on the defensive, which is what happened, and in a war of attrition as the war quickly became they did not have the numbers nor the industrial capability to keep up. If you believe the war could have been won like that it's a fantasy at best. The North had the statistical advantage; numbers, industry, economy, railroads, the south was not going to win no matter how hard they fought. The best they did was drag it out and mainly because at the beginning the South had superior generalship. But once the North employed commanders like Grant and Sherman who exploited the North's overwhelming numbers and attacked the South's remaining industry/economy it was clear who had the upper hand. The North wouldn't have capitulated, they would have just swept in to crush the remaining Southern forces, which would have happened at Gettysburg had the Union troops not waited. Both of Lee's attempts to invade the North and win a decisive victory ended in failure.

Had the Union put everything into the war it would have crushed the South much quicker. At the same time it was fighting the war it was also expanding out west, constructing the rail lines, and fighting another series of wars against the local Native American tribes. Imagine if you will they decided they would push a total war. And then there was the fact General McClellan did not commit the whole army.

You seem to think the South would have been able to get up into Union territory that easily. The larger numbers of the Union forces meant they could have a large number of troops in any number of areas. Which is why the South was forced on the defensive, despite winning many of the early battles of the war. You need to pay more attention to logistics than strategy here, the North would not have been demoralized that easily even if the South had managed to start an early invasion. The Confederates did not do the math at all.

Oh you want to talk who had the worst policies now? Well how about we talk about the little fact that the South's treatment of prisoners of war was appalling. Especially their treatment of African American prisoners whom they executed. Not to mention sending free African American citizens back to the south as slaves during their two invasions of the North. Who was in the wrong again? And who disregarded humanity here?

You're exaggerating. If confederate sympathizers as you say were arrested in the thousands then half of congress would have been arrested. Yeah, he did. I wonder why that was?

You're missing the point the South started the war. Did you really think the North would lie over for that? And the North didn't take as hard a hit as the South did, and could actually recover from that. Mutually beneficial? That's a laugh. The South would not have survived that long, and it would have kept slavery for another several years. All of this is nice but unrealistic. The longer the separation, the weaker the nation. Waiting around for the problem to fix itself would have led to worse results.

The shots fired at Fort Sumter were by a group of radical soldiers from the South who wanted to start the war, there was no avoiding that. It was Union held and garrisoned, and however the confederacy wanted the justify it it was Union territory. They disregarded that. You can make excuses for them but in the end it was they who pushed for war. It was a Union fort way before the South Carolina government made their demands. The North was not going to just abandon it. It's not stubbornness, it's a legit claim. More so than the South who were not a recognized state.

Really the North had the legal claim, the South illegally broke away and no matter what excuse you want to make they were in the wrong. The Union did not have to "back off", it was defending its sovereignty. You're one of these people that believes the country would be better off separated. I hate to tell you but neither now nor then was that a good idea. Especially given the expanding of the frontier and the fact the United States was open to the war. The whole reason Great Britain supported the Confederacy was to keep the United States weak. The Federal Government had far greater authority than the States here, and the main reason the South separated was to avoid future Federal policies, most particularly an end to Slavery which they knew a Republican controlled Congress would have resulted in.

Except for several reasons. One, the South was heavily insistent on keeping slavery. As both a tradition and a means of keeping blacks in line than just a form of profit. Two, it was clear slavery had become the South's method of keeping blacks underfoot for fear of a large number of former slaves who had lived in the states for a long time getting freedom. Unlike in European countries the South did not have any overseas enterprises or means of industrializing as quickly to have no use for slavery. Especially as slavery had become a cultural thing. Again, it was not just going to get better over time.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconspleespree:
SpleeSpree Featured By Owner Apr 5, 2014  Student Traditional Artist
Don't be so ignorant. Grant and Lee had ENOURMOUS respect for each other. Lee, in fact, did not want to secede, but recognized that it would be hypocritical to keep them from doing so at gunpoint. In fact, you can thank Lee for calling off a guerrilla war that would have caused devastation for years or decades after the war. 

The problem with people like you is that you think really life is like a hollywood movie. Everything is black and white to you. Guess what, history is written by the victor. But if you go look for yourself, you might find there are always heroes and villains on both sides of any major conflict. 
Reply
:iconblackhat6:
BlackHat6 Featured By Owner Jun 15, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
An educated comment sir,  As a Union ACW Reenactor I commend you.
Reply
:iconplayer-designer:
Player-Designer Featured By Owner Apr 8, 2012  Professional Interface Designer
Amazing work!
Reply
:icondashinvaine:
dashinvaine Featured By Owner Mar 30, 2012
Great work. Nothing sadder than civil wars.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×
Download JPG 1000 × 703




Details

Submitted on
March 29, 2012
Image Size
308 KB
Resolution
1000×703
Submitted with
Sta.sh
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
5,227 (5 today)
Favourites
110 (who?)
Comments
23
Downloads
151
×