Description
Discussion Topic 1
Slavery in the Antebellum South began to be justified on various grounds. During the same period, the abolition movement began to grow in the North. For this topic we will examine a couple of primary source documents. Please read through the following:
George Fitzhugh – Cannibals All! or Slaves Without Masters (1857)
William Lloyd Garrison – No Compromise with the Evil of Slavery (1854)
New link: https://www.utahwomenshistory.org/wp-content/uploa…
Compare and contrast the arguments of both Fitzhugh and Garrison, for and against slavery.
Readings
Read chapter 15 in your textbook.
Description of a Washington, D. C., slave pen (be sure and click through to the document)
A Slave Experience Being Sold South (be sure and click through to the document)
George Fitzhugh Advocates Slavery (be sure and click through to the document)
Butler Island
Hammond’s Mudsill Thoery
Slave quarters
What Became of the slaves on a Georgian Plantation
The Case of Mrs. Douglass (be sure and click through to the document)
Background
Slavery in the Antebellum South
By 1830 slavery was primarily located in the South, where it existed in many different forms. African Americans were enslaved on small farms, large plantations, in cities and towns, inside homes, out in the fields, and in industry and transportation.
Though slavery had such a wide variety of faces, the underlying concepts were always the same. Slaves were considered property, and they were property because they were purchased to be part of a work force. People, black and white, lived together within these parameters, and their lives together took many forms.
Enslaved African Americans could never forget their status as property, no matter how well their owners treated them. But it would be too simplistic to say that all masters and slaves hated each other. Human beings who live and work together are bound to form relationships of some kind, and some masters and slaves genuinely cared for each other. But the caring was tempered and limited by the power imbalance under which it grew. Within the narrow confines of slavery, human relationships ran the gamut from compassionate to contemptuous. But the masters and slaves never approached equality.
The standard image of Southern slavery is that of a large plantation with hundreds of slaves. In fact, such situations were rare. Fully 3/4 of Southern whites did not even own slaves; of those who did, 88% owned twenty or fewer. Whites who did not own slaves were primarily yeoman farmers. Practically speaking, the institution of slavery did not help these people. And yet most non-slaveholdingwhite Southerners identified with and defended the institution of slavery. Though many resented the wealth and power of the large slaveholders, they aspired to own slaves themselves and to join the privileged ranks. In addition, slavery gave the farmers a group of people to feel superior to. They may have been poor, but they were not slaves.
This strong identification with slavery in the South extended to some free blacks as well. In fact, there are cases of blacks who owned property and slaves. One example is that of William Ellison.
In the lower South the majority of slaves lived and worked on cotton plantations. Most of these plantations had fifty or fewer slaves, although the largest plantations have several hundred. Cotton was by far the leading cash crop, but slaves also raised rice, corn, sugarcane, and tobacco. Many plantations raised several different kinds of crops.
Besides planting and harvesting, there were numerous other types of labor required on plantations and farms. Enslaved people had to clear new land, dig ditches, cut and haul wood, slaughter livestock, and make repairs to buildings and tools. In many instances, they worked as mechanics, blacksmiths, drivers, carpenters, and in other skilled trades. Black women carried the additional burden of caring for their families by cooking and taking care of the children, as well as spinning, weaving, and sewing.
Some slaves worked as domestics, providing services for the masters’ or overseers’ families. These people were designated as “house servants,” and though their work appeared to be easier than that of the “field slaves,” in some ways it was not. They were constantly under the scrutiny of their masters and mistresses, and could be called on for service at any time. They had far less privacy than those who worked the fields.
Because they lived and worked in such close proximity, house servants and their owners tended to form more complex relationships. Black and white children were especially in a position to form bonds with each other. In most situations, young children of both races played together on farms and plantations. Black children might also become attached to white caretakers, such as the mistress, and white children to their black nannies. Because they were so young, they would have no understanding of the system they were born into. But as they grew older they would learn to adjust to it in whatever ways they could.
The diets of enslaved people were inadequate or barely adequate to meet the demands of their heavy workload. They lived in crude quarters that left them vulnerable to bad weather and disease. Their clothing and bedding were minimal as well. Slaves who worked as domestics sometimes fared better, getting the castoff clothing of their masters or having easier access to food stores.
The heat and humidity of the South created health problems for everyone living there. However, the health of plantation slaves was far worse than that of whites. Unsanitary conditions, inadequate nutrition and unrelenting hard labor made slaves highly susceptible to disease. Illnesses were generally not treated adequately, and slaves were often forced to work even when sick. The rice plantations were the most deadly. Black people had to stand in water for hours at a time in the sweltering sun. Malaria was rampant. Child mortality was extremely high on these plantations, generally around 66% — on one rice plantation it was as high as 90%.
One of the worst conditions that enslaved people had to live under was the constant threat of sale. Even if their master was “benevolent,” slaves knew that a financial loss or another personal crisis could lead them to the auction block. Also, slaves were sometimes sold as a form of punishment. And although popular sentiment (as well as the economic self-interest on the part of the owners) encouraged keeping mothers and children and sometimes fathers together, these norms were not always followed. Immediate families were often separated. If they were kept together, they were almost always sold away from their extended families. Grandparents, sisters, brothers, and cousins could all find themselves forcibly scattered, never to see each other again. Even if they or their loved ones were never sold, slaves had to live with the constant threat that they could be.
African American women had to endure the threat and the practice of sexual exploitation. There were no safeguards to protect them from being sexually stalked, harassed, or raped, or to be used as long-term concubines by masters and overseers. The abuse was widespread, as the men with authority took advantage of their situation. Even if a woman seemed agreeable to the situation, in reality she had no choice. Slave men, for their part, were often powerless to protect the women they loved.
The drivers, overseers, and masters were responsible for plantation discipline. Slaves were punished for not working fast enough, for being late getting to the fields, for defying authority, for running away, and for a number of other reasons. The punishments took many forms, including whippings, torture, mutilation, imprisonment, and being sold away from the plantation. Slaves were even sometimes murdered. Some masters were more “benevolent” than others, and punished less often or severely. But with rare exceptions, the authoritarian relationship remained firm even in those circumstances.
In addition to the authority practiced on individual plantations, slaves throughout the South had to live under a set of laws called the Slave Codes. The codes varied slightly from state to state, but the basic idea was the same: the slaves were considered property, not people, and were treated as such. Slaves could not testify in court against a white, make contracts, leave the plantation without permission, strike a white (even in self-defense), buy and sell goods, own firearms, gather without a white present, possess any anti-slavery literature, or visit the homes of whites or free blacks. The killing of a slave was almost never regarded as murder, and the rape of slave women was treated as a form of trespassing.
Whenever there was a slave insurrection, or even the rumor of one, the laws became even tighter. At all times, patrols were set up to enforce the codes. These patrols were similar to militias and were made up of white men who were obligated to serve for a set period. The patrols apprehended slaves outside of plantations, and they raided homes and any type of gathering, searching for anything that might lead to insurrection. During times of insurrection — either real or rumored — enraged whites formed vigilance committees that terrorized, tortured, and killed blacks.
While most slaves were concentrated on the plantations, there were many slaves living in urban areas or working in rural industry. Although over 90% of American slaves lived in rural areas, slaves made up at least 20% of the populations of most Southern cities. In Charleston, South Carolina, slaves and free blacks outnumbered whites. Many slaves living in cities worked as domestics, but others worked as blacksmiths, carpenters, shoemakers, bakers, or other trades people. Often, slaves were hired out by their masters, for a day or up to several years. Sometimes slaves were allowed to hire themselves out. Urban slaves had more freedom of movement than plantation slaves and generally had greater opportunities for learning. They also had increased contact with free black people, who often expanded their ways of thinking about slavery.
Slaves resisted their treatment in innumerable ways. They slowed down their work pace, disabled machinery, feigned sickness, destroyed crops. They argued and fought with their masters and overseers. Many stole livestock, other food, or valuables. Some learned to read and write, a practice forbidden by law. Some burned forests and buildings. Others killed their masters outright — some by using weapons, others by putting poison in their food. Some slaves committed suicide or mutilated themselves to ruin their property value. Subtly or overtly, enslaved African Americans found ways to sabotage the system in which they lived.
Thousands of slaves ran away. Some left the plantation for days or weeks at a time and lived in hiding. Others formed maroon communities in mountains, forests or swamps. Many escaped to the North. There were also numerous instances of slave revolts throughout the history of the institution. (For one white interpretation of slave resistance, see Diseases and Peculiarities of the Negro Race) Even when slaves acted in a subservient manner, they were often practicing a type of resistance. By fooling the master or overseer with their behavior, they resisted additional ill treatment.
Enslaved African Americans also resisted by forming community within the plantation setting. This was a tremendous undertaking for people whose lives were ruled by domination and forced labor. Slaves married, had children, and worked hard to keep their families together. In their quarters they were able to let down the masks they had to wear for whites. There, black men, women, and children developed an underground culture through which they affirmed their humanity. They gathered in the evenings to tell stories, sing, and make secret plans. House servants would come down from the “big house” and give news of the master and mistress, or keep people laughing with their imitations of the whites.
It was in their quarters that many enslaved people developed and passed down skills which allowed them to supplement their poor diet and inadequate medical care with hunting, fishing, gathering wild food, and herbal medicines. There, the adults taught their children how to hide their feelings to escape punishment and to be skeptical of anything a white person said. Many slave parents told their children that blacks were superior to white people, who were lazy and incapable of running things properly.
Many slaves turned to religion for inspiration and solace. Some practiced African religions, including Islam, others practiced Christianity. Many practiced a brand of Christianity which included strong African elements. Most rejected the Christianity of their masters, which justified slavery. The slaves held their own meetings in secret, where they spoke of the New Testament promises of the day of reckoning and of justice and a better life after death, as well as the Old Testament story of Moses leading his people out of slavery in Egypt. The religion of enslaved African Americans helped them resist the degradation of bondage.
(The above is adapted from: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2956.html)
Discussion 2
List 2 or 3 of the major crisis events of the 1850s, and briefly explain how each of them contributed to the advent of the Civil War. Cite your sources!
Readings
Read the assigned textbook chapters, along with:
The Dred Scott decision (all appeals, etc.)
Missouri’s Dred Scott Case
Historian David Blight on the Dred Scott Decision
Backgrounnd
For Americans everywhere, the institution of slavery was increasingly becoming a problem. As early as 1820, political leaders were beginning to spar off regarding slavery, although a war was averted for several decades, tensions were mounting. This information will give you a stepping path to war, a means of marking the national advancement of war from the 1820s until the first shots were fired at Sumter.
The Missouri Compromise of 1820
In 1787, the nation’s first session of Congress passed legislation that included a ban on slavery in territories North of the Ohio River. This legislation was named the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and was original written under the Articles of Confederation. Through the year 1819, all of the states who were granted statehood adhered to the guidelines of the ordinance. With the admission of Alabama in this same year, the North and South were each comprised of eleven states.
Until Missouri’s request for statehood, there had been no challenges to the status quo and there were few debates on the issue of slavery. Missouri’s request, however, challenged the Northwest Ordinance’s guidelines as well as the congressional balance of power.
Several Northern congressmen, who were vehemently opposed to slavery, saw Missouri’s request for admittance as an opportunity for change. Missouri’s territory stretched beyond the Ohio River, and their request was to be admitted as a slave state. New York congressman James Talmadge proposed an amendment to Missouri’s request. The amendment would very simply ban slavery for the entire state of Missouri. This amendment infuriated the Southern representatives and inflamed passions not seen since the framing of the Constitution.
Talmadge’s amendment passed in the House of Representatives. The Senate, however, passed its own version of Missouri’s statehood request with no restrictions on slavery. The task then turned to a compromise between the House and Senate versions of the bill, but there would be no compromise in this session of Congress. The legislative session ended with no resolution and the issue was tabled for this session of Congress.
When the 1820 congressional session met again, it was clear that no agreement would be made between Talmadge’s amendment and the senate version of Missouri’s request. While legislators bickered over the issue at hand, an opportunity arose with a new request for statehood from the Northern territory of Maine. With this request, two states, one free and one with slavery, could be admitted without changing the balance of power. The problem remained with Missouri’s territory that was North of the Ohio River.
Senator Jesse Thomas offered a compromised bill that would include the provisions of the Northwest Ordinance. This compromised legislation was named the Thomas Proviso, and is primarily referred to as the Compromise of 1820. The provisions were as follows:
Admit Missouri as a slave state in accordance with the initial request for statehood.
Approve the application for statehood of Maine as a free state.
Define the territories in the Louisiana Purchase, which henceforth would be free and slave.
Although a compromise was struck between the house and the senate, the bitterness of the battle had a lasting effect on the congressional debate over the issue of slavery. The opponents of slavery were emboldened by the more definitive roll for the Federal government in controlling the activities of individual states. Southern representatives, however, saw it as an encroachment upon the sovereignty of individual states.
There would no longer be a status quo on the matter of slavery. Slavery was allowed in Missouri, but abolitionists succeeded in drawing a line of demarcation were slavery would not be allowed, latitude thirty-six degrees, thirty minutes. This line of demarcation applied to all future requests for statehood.
The Thomas Proviso became the federal governments most far reaching legislation since the first session of congress in 1787. It established its supremacy over states rights in such matters, and laid the foundation that would eventually cause Southern states to succeed from the Union.
Compromise of 1850
Henry Clay, U.S. senator from Kentucky, was determined to find a solution. In 1820 he had resolved a fiery debate over the spread of slavery with his Missouri Compromise. Now, thirty years later, the matter surfaced again within the walls of the Capitol. But this time the stakes were higher — nothing less than keeping the Union together.
There were several points at issue:
The United States had recently acquired a vast territory — the result of its war with Mexico. Should the territory allow slavery, or should it be declared free? Or maybe the inhabitants should be allowed to choose for themselves?
California — a territory that had grown tremendously with the gold rush of 1849, had recently petitioned Congress to enter the Union as a free state. Should this be allowed? Ever since the Missouri Compromise, the balance between slave states and free states had been maintained; any proposal that threatened this balance would almost certainly not win approval.
There was a dispute over land: Texas claimed that its territory extended all the way to Santa Fe.
Finally, there was Washington, D.C. Not only did the nation’s capital allow slavery, it was home to the largest slave market in North America.
On January 29, 1850, the 70-year-old Clay presented a compromise. For eight months members of Congress, led by Clay, Daniel Webster, Senator from Massachusetts, and John C. Calhoun, senator from South Carolina, debated the compromise. With the help of Stephen Douglas, a young Democrat from Illinois, a series of bills that would make up the compromise were ushered through Congress.
According to the compromise, Texas would relinquish the land in dispute but, in compensation, be given ten million dollars — money it would use to pay off its debt to Mexico. Also, the territories of New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah would be organized without mention of slavery. (The decision would be made by the territories’ inhabitants later, when they applied for statehood.) Regarding Washington, the slave trade would be abolished in the District of Columbia, although slavery would still be permitted. Finally, California would be admitted as a free state. To pacify slave-state politicians, who would have objected to the imbalance created by adding another free state, the Fugitive Slave Act was passed.
Of all the bills that made up the Compromise of 1850, the Fugitive Slave Act was the most controversial. It required citizens to assist in the recovery of fugitive slaves. It denied a fugitive’s right to a jury trial. (Cases would instead be handled by special commissioners — commissioners who would be paid $5 if an alleged fugitive were released and $10 if he or she were sent away with the claimant.) The act called for changes in filing for a claim, making the process easier for slave-owners. Also, according to the act, there would be more federal officials responsible for enforcing the law.
For slaves attempting to build lives in the North, the new law was disaster. Many left their homes and fled to Canada. During the next ten years, an estimated 20,000 blacks moved to the neighboring country. For Harriet Jacobs, a fugitive living in New York, passage of the law was “the beginning of a reign of terror to the colored population.” She stayed put, even after learning that slave catchers were hired to track her down. Anthony Burns, a fugitive living in Boston, was one of many who were captured and returned to slavery. Free blacks, too, were captured and sent to the South. With no legal right to plead their cases, they were completely defenseless.
Passage of the Fugitive Slave Act made abolitionists all the more resolved to put an end to slavery. The Underground Railroad became more active, reaching its peak between 1850 and 1860. The act also brought the subject of slavery before the nation. Many who had previously been ambivalent about slavery now took a definitive stance against the institution.
The Compromise of 1850 accomplished what it set out to do — it kept the nation united — but the solution was only temporary. Over the following decade the country’s citizens became further divided over the issue of slavery. The rift would continue to grow until the nation itself divided.
Bleeding Kansas
The years of 1854-1861 were a turbulent time in Kansas territory. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 established the territorial boundaries of Kansas and Nebraska and opened the land to legal settlement. It allowed the residents of these territories to decide by popular vote whether their state would be free or slave. This concept of self-determination was called popular sovereignty’. In Kansas, people on all sides of this controversial issue flooded the territory, trying to influence the vote in their favor.
Rival territorial governments, election fraud, and squabbles over land claims all contributed to the violence of this era.
Three distinct political groups occupied Kansas: pro-slavers, free-staters and abolitionists. Violence broke out immediately between these opposing factions and continued until 1861 when Kansas entered the Union as a free state on January 29th. This era became forever known as “Bleeding Kansas”.
Murder and Mayhem
During “Bleeding Kansas”, murder, mayhem, destruction and psychological warfare became a code of conduct in Eastern Kansas and Western Missouri. Well-known examples of this violence include the massacre in May 1856 at Pottawatomie Creek where John Brown and his sons killed five pro-slavery advocates.
Locally, trouble began in the summer of 1856 when a group of about 30 pro-slavery settlers from South Carolina arrived in Bourbon County. It was suspected that they were sponsored by the Southern Emigrant Aid Society and were members of the Dark Lantern Societies. These societies terrorized free-state settlers and attempted to drive them from Kansas.
A Town Divided
Fort Scott and the surrounding area were not immune from the violence. The division of the opposing factions was clearly visible at the site of the “old fort”. The military had abandoned Fort Scott in 1853. Two years later, the buildings were sold at a public auction and the former fort immediately became the nucleus of a rapidly growing town. Two of the buildings became hotels.
One, a former officer’s quarters, was opened as the Fort Scott or Free State Hotel. Located right across the parade ground was the Western or Pro-Slavery Hotel, a former infantry barracks. The residents of Fort Scott were predominately pro-slavers, while free-stators and abolitionists dominated the surrounding countryside. Radicals of each faction terrorized the town throughout the “Bleeding Kansas” era.
1858: A Most Violent Year
By 1858, trouble had intensified in southeast Kansas. Radical elements from other theaters of the conflict were now converging on this area. James Montgomery became a leader of free state forces and was involved in several violent incidents.
In April of 1858, Montgomery and his men fought U. S troops stationed at Fort Scott in the battle of Paint Creek. One soldier was killed in this encounter.
In May of 1858, Montgomery and his men drove pro-slavery forces from Linn County. In retaliation, eleven free-stators were pulled out of their homes, taken to a ravine and shot down. This incident, known as the Marais des Cygnes Massacre was rumored to have been plotted in the Western Hotel.
On June 5, 1858, Montgomery and his raiders tried to burn down the Western Hotel. Several shots were fired into the hotel and surrounding homes, but the hotel was saved.
Violence, such as this, caught the governor’s attention. On June 15, 1858, he held a meeting at the Western Hotel in order to settle political unrest. While this meeting nearly broke out into a riot, it was successful. Peace and quiet reigned for a brief five-month period.
Montgomery and his raiders struck again in December of 1858 when he rescued Benjamin Rice, a free-soiler. Rice had been arrested for murder and was imprisoned in the Fort Scott Hotel. Montgomery claimed that he was jailed illegally, so he came to Fort Scott to free him.
In the struggle following Rice’s rescue, former Deputy Marshal John Little, a pro-slavery advocate, fired shots into the ranks of the free-staters. Little peered out of a window of his father’s store (the former post headquarters) to observe the effects of the shooting. His movement was noted by a free stater who shot and killed him. Little’s fiancé, Gene Campbell, wrote Montgomery a letter reprimanding him and saying that he was a “minister of the devil, and a very superior one too…”
A Nation Divided
“Bleeding Kansas” was part of the political storm that occurred throughout the United States before the Civil War. The anti-slavery forces prevailed as Kansas entered into the Union a free state on January 29, 1861. This turbulence illustrated the beginning of the terrifying bloodshed that was to come during the Civil War.
John Brown’s Raid on Harper’s Ferry
John Brown’s plan seemed fairly straightforward: he and his men would establish a base in the Blue Ridge Mountains from which they would assist runaway slaves and launch attacks on slaveholders. At least that was the plan that the militant abolitionist had described to potential funders in 1857. But his plans would change. He had been ready in 1858 to launch his war — he had both the men and the money to proceed. Brown was asked to postpone the launch, though, because one of his followers had threatened to reveal the plan — a threat that the blackmailer did follow through on. So Brown agreed to go into hiding.
The following summer, after a one-year delay, Brown was eager to get underway. He rented a farm in Maryland, across the Potomac River from Harpers Ferry. Here he assembled his arms and waited for his “army” to arrive.
The delay had an adverse effect on Brown’s plan. Many of the men he had recruited the previous year had changed their minds, moved away, or simply didn’t think the plan would work. Even Henry Highland Garnet, the radical abolitionist who advocated insurrection, didn’t have faith in the plan, believing that slaves were unprepared. Brown also met with Frederick Douglass in August of 1859, when Brown told his friend of his intentions of seizing the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry rather than staging guerilla warfare from the mountains. Attacking the arsenal was in effect attacking the federal government and, in Douglass’ estimation, a grave mistake. “You’re walking into a perfect steel-trap,” he said to Brown, “and you will never get out alive.”
On October 16, Brown set out for Harpers Ferry with twenty-one men — five blacks, including Dangerfield Newby, who hoped to rescue his wife who was still a slave, and sixteen whites, two of whom were Brown’s sons. Leaving after sundown, the men crossed the Potomac, then walked all night in heavy rain, reaching the town at 4am. They cut telegraph wires, then made their assault. First they captured the federal armory and arsenal. They then captured Hall’s Rifle Works, a supplier of weapons to the government. Brown and his men rounded up 60 prominent citizens of the town and held them as hostages, hoping that their slaves would join the fight. No slaves came forth.
The local militia pinned Brown and his men down. Under a white flag, one of Brown’s sons was sent out to negotiate with the citizens. He was shot and killed. News of the insurrection, relayed by the conductor of an express train heading to Baltimore, reached President Buchanan. Marines and soldiers went dispatched, under the leadership of then Colonel Robert E. Lee. By the time they arrived, eight of Brown’s 22-man army had already been killed. Lee’s men moved in and quickly ended the insurrection. In the end, ten of Brown’s men were killed (including two blacks and both of his sons), seven were captured (two of these later), and five had escaped.
Brown, who was seriously wounded, was taken to Charlestown, Virginia (now Charles Town, West Virginia), along with the other captives. There they were quickly tried, sentenced, then executed. John Brown’s statements during his trial reached the nation, inspiring many with his righteous indignation toward slavery. The raid ultimately hastened the advent of the Civil War.
(this information is derived from a variety of internet sources including the Africans in America website. All the sources are searchable via the internet under the title).
CASE STUDY 1
Your case study this week explores several battles. Which battle do you think is most significant to the Union’s victory? Explain your rationale and cite evidence from the textbook.
Problem:
There are hundreds of Civil War battles, but some proved more significant than others. You must determine which battle proved the most significant in the Union’s eventual victory and why.
Evidence:
Base your thoughts on your reading of the chapters in the American Pageant textbook for this week .
Solution:
Determine which of the 8 or so battles covered in the textbook was most significant in the Union’s victory and explain why, citing evidence from the textbook.
Readings
Read the assigned textbook chapters, and in addition:
Abraham Lincoln: First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861
Confederate States of America Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
Emancipation Proclamation
Gettysburg Address
Backgrounds
We are looking at several aspects of the Civil War this week, exploring them through primary source documents and photographs.
You should begin your exploration of the Civil War by reading Abraham Lincoln’s Inaugural Address. What were his goals in the address?What were his hopes for the future? Did he want war? Did he want to end slavery?
Next, read the Confederate States of America Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union. What goals did South Carolina have?Was South Carolina justified in seceding from the Union? Did the state want war?
Your case study this week explores several battles.Which battle do you think is most significant to the Union’s victory?
You have read the Emancipation Proclamation and Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. Do you see a change in him since his Inaugural Address? Has he become an abolitionist?
You have also been provided you with a photographic essay of the war in power point. These photos were taken under the instruction of Matthew Brady and constitute the first photographic journalistic record of a war. What impact would Brady’s photographs have on Americans at the time? Later? On the new field of photography? On people’s opinions about war?
