Sorry, I don't think I'll ever get over being a hard-core card-carrying History Geek, nor do I want to! (Thanks for the compliment.)
You may take it as a compliment. I was speaking of my own embarrassment.
I spent an absolutely unholy amount of time researching my previous reply. Towards the end of which time, I kept asking myself,
"Why am I doing this, when the question doesn't even interest me all that much?"
BTW, to add yet more to the confusion: field photographers of the time such as Matthew Brady and Alexander Gardner almost always used the "wet plate" collodion process, which was a distinct improvement in exposure times over the earlier daguerrotype and the contemporary early "dry plate" version of the collodion process. But even in the best light, subjects had to remain absolutely still for at least a few seconds, or the photo would be hopelessly blurred. Action shots were out of the question until the 1880s.
...Which fact created a great incentive for "staging" the photo to be eye-catching; to sell well; and in the case of a commissioned portrait photo, which was the chief source of most photographers' incomes, to please the subject.
See also
http://www.jamescgroves.com/henry/hcp1a.htm for a deliciously geeky defense of Gardner's most famous Gettysburg photo... Oh yeah, Gardner definitely staged a bunch of photos using, apparently, the only reasonably well-preserved corpse on the entire battlefield. Question is, did he carry the body uphill
to Devil's Den, or downhill
from it?
...Now, what was that about some generals wearing three stars in some portraits? Do I hear the sound of an entire division of The Forces of Confusion threatening our Little Round Top of historical accuracy?
"I don't deduce, I observe."
reply
share
babel_on_5
11 years ago
Well, to be perfectly honest, my confusion stemmed from both contemporary photos, modern vs CW-era rank designations, and a 30 year old CW game in which there are a number of Union 3-star generals (roughly speaking, those prominent in 1861 and those who were promoted to Army commands over the course of the war) with only Grant and Sherman reaching 3-star rank. Of course, lt. general, though not common wasn't a unique distinction as in the Union army, with perhaps Lee (though not actually promoted) the only CSA general becoming general of the armies.
As for the photos, I've never been able to find them online, and my scanner/printer unfortunately won't copy with enough clarity to show them. Honestly I was really surprised by McPherson's picture, but there's no question he's wearing 3 stars in the photo, which is very clear (and yes I do know about the slowness of CW-era photography. It is in the Sept. '64 issue of Civil War Times Illustrated, an issue devoted to the Battle of Atlanta, on a page with other Union generals titled "Union Leaders During the Battle of Atlanta."
Interestingly though, there's another article about CW ranks that states they're notoriously difficult to understand as a CW officer could carry as many as 4 ranks at a time, including state militia, volunteers, brevet and actual US army rank. One could be a brevet major general while actually a colonel in the US army, as was the case with Custer.
***
Don't aim for the towers. Aim for the trolls! KILL THE TROLLS!!!
reply
share
Petronius Arbiter II
11 years ago
I'm not sure if you got my point or not. It's a bit of an obscure point, but one that I find interesting. It's not about the ranks as such, it's about the epistemology of early photographs. Especially Civil War photos.
Some pertinent questions I see raised:
-- Who's paying for the photo? If I'm the photographer, and General McPherson is paying me to take his picture, I'll let him pose in an Easter Bunny outfit if that's what suits him. So far as I know, none of the photographers of the period were US government employees of any kind.
Similarly, if I'm the photographer and I'm paying production costs myself, in hopes of selling the photos to publishers or some other third party, I'm still going to want the general's full co-operation, and I'll likely not be too picky about what he's wearing.
-- When exactly was the photo taken? McPherson's was obviously no later than 1864, but if I'm McPherson, and it's 1864, and I know Grant is wearing three stars now, whatever vanity I might have, might encourage me I deserve to wear three stars too, at least for the photo.
And of course, Union generals would most likely have know all about all the Confederate generals wearing three stars, and figured, "well, I outrank most of them, so..."
"I don't deduce, I observe."
reply
share
yinduffy
10 years ago
One aspect of American military history that disappeared long ago was the granting of Brevet ranks.
As there were no medals for bravery or gallantry until 1862 ( The Medal of Honor) it was traditional to give someone an honorary promotion - a Brevet commission.
Many famous Civil War personalities had brevets from the Mexican War and during the Civil War they were handed out too.
A recipient could wear the rank of the brevet promotion* at certain functions but was not to be paid or perform the duties.
Just after the war, just about any Colonel who commanded a brigade for any length of time was given a Brevet commission to Brigadier as they were returned to civilian life.
Complicating things, many officers were given rank "in the volunteer forces" which was not their rank in the "regular" army. For example, Custer was a Major General of U.S. Volunteers, but a Lieutenant-Colonel in the U.S. Army. When he ceased to command Volunteer forces and returned to command Regular Army men, he had to perform the duties of and take the pay of a Lt Col. He retained the title of "General" as a courtesy.
*Of course they loved to be photographed with the higher rank.
reply
share