#antebellum and civil war

[mistressheroine]

This is my number one Christmas comfort movie ❤️

PERIOD DRAMA APPRECIATION WEEK 2023 [July 3rd to July 9th] Day 5: Favorite period drama film

[pamietniko]

Bonaventure Cemetery

Savannah, Georgia

[dustzvacuumcleaner]

New York Whigs

Seward and Weed and Greeley back in 1838

They got a Brutus!Greeley/Caesar!Seward for the election of 1860 so I drew heheh

Then a non-relevant Vidal Lincoln scene bc I dunno when to post this fheidhwhcgd

[altosynthesis]

???????????

[anteabbie]

Deeply unserious app

[uwmspeccoll]

Scarlett's Scandalous Saga

This 1968 edition of Margaret Mitchell’s American Civil War-era novel Gone with the Wind was created for the Limited Editions Club and published in New York in a limited edition of 1500 copies. The two-volume work is signed by John Groth, an American illustrator and teacher best known for his depictions of combat, and Henry Steele Commager, an American historian who “helped define modern liberalism in the United States,” introduces the book.

John August Groth (1908-1988) produced more than one hundred fifty black-and-white drawings and twenty-one color illustrations, which were then turned into plates by Rainbows, Incorporated of Hazardville, Connecticut, and printed by The Holyoke Lithographing Company of Holyoke, Massachusetts. The text was set and printed at The Sign of the Stone Book in Bloomfield, Connecticut. 

Book designer Ted Gensamer chose the font for the text, set in 10 pt. Janson and Jaguar script in various sizes for the display lines.

Margaret Mitchell (1900-1949), an American novelist and journalist, completed only one novel published during her lifetime. Her classic, sweeping epic Gone with the Wind was released in 1936. It won her the National Book Award for Most Distinguished Novel in 1936 and the Pulitzer Prize in 1937. This was after she spent ten years of her life writing the story out of boredom at home, recovering from a recurring ankle injury.

The book is not without its share of controversy. It has been the subject of intense debate, with its racist rhetoric and idealized portrayals of slavery coming under fire. Critics argue that it romanticizes the antebellum South and glosses over the horrors of slavery, depicting the Lost Cause as something heroic. While these criticisms are significant and should not be ignored, they do not detract from the novel's literary value. Instead, they spark critical reflection and discussion, inviting readers to engage with the text in a more nuanced way.

At its core, the story is a classic historical romance filled with love and heartbreak. It is a coming-of-age story about southern belle Scarlett O'Hara, a strong-willed, determined young woman who refused to bow to the patriarchy and societal standards of the time. The tale is set during the American Civil War and Reconstruction in Georgia, a period of substantial social and political upheaval. This context is central to understanding the characters' lives and their resilience and determination to survive and thrive in the face of adversity.

View more posts from the Limited Editions Club.

-Melissa, Special Collections Graduate Intern

[deadpresidents]

Random: what is your theory on why America went through a series of one-term Presidents in the 19th century? Some of them look pretty lame.

It was a combination of reasons. First of all, some of them were pretty lame. But, to be fair, the 19th Century was pretty difficult time to be President of the United States with the nation spiraling towards Civil War and then trying to put itself back together during Reconstruction. All of those guys faced pretty long odds, no matter how qualified some of them were.

But if you just look at the 52 years between the 1836 election of Martin Van Buren and the 1888 election of Benjamin Harrison, there were SIXTEEN different Presidents, and none of those Presidents served two full terms other than Ulysses S. Grant (Cleveland won the 1884 election, lost the 1888 election, and was elected to a non-consecutive second term in 1892). So there were more Presidents in those 52 years than there have been since World War II. Part of that reason was because a quarter of them died in office. Those who assumed the Presidency from the Vice Presidency weren't in a strong enough position to claim the nomination for terms in their own right. And several of the Presidents during that time period either pledged to serve only one term, decided against making a serious bid for a second term, or simply couldn't win either the nomination or their re-election campaigns •Martin Van Buren: Elected in 1836, lost re-election bid in 1840 •William Henry Harrison: Elected in 1840, died in office •John Tyler: Succeeded from VP, basically kicked out his political party and denied a path to nomination •James K. Polk: Elected in 1844, pledged to serve only one term •Zachary Taylor: Elected in 1848, died in office •Millard Fillmore: Succeeded from VP, lost bid for nomination in 1852 •Franklin Pierce: Elected in 1852, not renominated by party •James Buchanan: Elected in 1856, not a candidate for re-election •Abraham Lincoln: Elected in 1860 & 1864, assassinated one month into second term •Andrew Johnson: Succeeded from VP, denied renomination •Ulysses S. Grant: Served two full terms •Rutherford B. Hayes: Elected in 1876, pledged to serve only one term •James A. Garfield: Elected in 1880, assassinated •Chester A. Arthur: Succeeded from VP, not a serious candidate for nomination in 1884 because of failing health •Grover Cleveland: Elected in 1884, lost re-election bid in 1888, elected to non-consecutive second term in 1892 •Benjamin Harrison: Elected in 1888, lost re-election bid in 1892

[marzipanandminutiae]

Do you think they'd call this period in English history the Charles era or would it be more like the Post Second Elizbethian era?

Unclear. It didn't always go by monarch's name, in the past- sure, you had the Victorian era and the Georgian era before it, but you also have what we now call the Restoration era, and the sub-era of the Regency within Georgian, and the Tudor era named for a royal family rather than a specific monarch- though I have heard the term "Henrician" batted around for Henry VIII's reign. I still have to keep looking up what "Jacobean" comes from, because I always forget the exact explanation (James in Latin is Jacobeus, and the king was James I). I've also heard terms like "Thatcher-era," and of course after Edwardian you get periods named for historical events or attitudes on both sides of the pond: WWI, the Roaring Twenties, the Depression, WWII, etc.

(Shoutout to Regency for being extra-confusing: the literal English Regency was in the middle of stylistic/social period we use the term for. It was 1811-1820, but the aesthetics, media, and manners we think of as "Regency" span roughly the 1790s through 1830.)

Charles I's reign was called the Caroline or Carolean era, also from the Latin version of his name. So maybe, going by monarch's names, this is the second Caroline era?

[rmstitanics]

ROBERT TODD LINCOLN at the Dedication Ceremony for the LINCOLN MEMORIAL, 1922, Colorized by Yours Truly.

[dustzvacuumcleaner]

Got some baby salmon and daddy salmon

[mysticalbitches]

i'm so obsessed w how nutty this dude was

john c calhoun rlly said imma b raciest until the end

[altosynthesis]

Canine

Abraham Lincoln and Mary Todd Lincoln, represented by dogs.

Abraham -> Great Dane Mary -> West Highland White Terrier (Inspired by this: https://www.tumblr.com/antebellumite/719903118836563968?source=share)

[anteabbie]

As requested by @lil-als, trolling presidents 11-20 on character ai by telling them I’m pregnant and they’re the father

[antebellumite]

In I863, Union troops blockaded the Atlantic coastline during the Civil War, making food and supplies scarce in the Confederate South. One Virginia slaveholder offered his scarce in the advice about how to survive the trying times and, at the same time, showcase his support and loyalty to the Confederacy.

He suggested that his brother "put [his] wife and mother on the smallest amount of food, [ and] kill dogs and old negroes if necessary to keep our army alive. " The sheer brutality of these remarks underscores the callousness with which some slaveholders viewed elderly slaves, who they perceived as costly and disposable.

-- The Mark of Slavery: Disability, Race, and Gender in Antebellum America

[deadpresidents]

James K. Polk was rare among Presidents in that he didn't just inherit slaves. Polk, like [Andrew] Jackson, actively -- but secretly -- bought slaves while President. Unlike Jackson, however, Polk didn't buy them in Washington, D.C., but secretly back down south. Why the secrecy? Because during his career, Polk straddled the lines between slaveholders and abolitionists, never completely joining either side. Polk was already a major slave owner when he became President but was very cautious about letting people know about his ownership of other people. Perhaps he was afraid of the American people -- especially abolitionists -- finding out that he was buying children. "Of the nineteen slaves Polk bought during his Presidency, one was ten years old, two were eleven, two were twelve, two were thirteen, two were fifteen, two were sixteen, and two were seventeen," said William Dusinberre, author of the great Slavemaster President: The Double Career of James Polk (BOOK | KINDLE). "Each of these children was bought apart from his or her parents and from every sibling. One or two of these children may possibly have been orphans, but it would strain credulity to suggest many of them were." So Polk, who needed more labor for his plantation, did what most rich politicians would do in his situation: he found a way to increase his personal wealth without his constituents finding out about it. He set up agents to buy the slaves in their names and then transferred them to his possession at home... ...He even made sure he had plausible deniability. Dusinberre noted that Polk -- living in a pre-Civil War America -- made sure that while he bought slaves in the White House, he never used his Presidential salary. "He used his savings from his salary to pay campaign debts, to buy and refurbish a mansion in Nashville, and to buy U.S. Treasury certificates, but never to buy slaves," Dusinberre said. "Evidently he distinguished (between) his private income -- from the plantation --(and) the public salary he received from government revenues. Thus, if the public had ever learned of his buying young slaves, he could always have truthfully denied that he had spent his Presidential salary for that purpose. Polk may have been careful about how he bought his slaves because he knew slavery was an evil institution. But Polk kept his slaves throughout his life and didn't even free them upon death, leaving that for his wife.

-- A closer look at the extent of President James K. Polk's record as a slave owner while he was in the White House, including a troubling tendency towards buying children and separating them from their families.

This excerpt is from Jesse J. Holland's excellent and very revealing book, The Invisibles: The Untold Story of African American Slaves in the White House (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO).