Photo Fakery

[trice]

Originally Posted by Battalion

Of course I deny it caused the war...there's no try about it.

Then just look in the mirror to see the problem: you are the perfect example of someone who is trying desperately to find something -- anything -- aside from slavery to be the cause of the war. You are like a man in a room with an elephant and a mouse who insists the big pile of poop came from the mouse and the little one from the elephant. It's all poop, but you are wrong about what caused what.

Tim

[unionblue]

Originally Posted by Battalion

There were slaves and slave issues but it had very little to do with the motivations for war.

Sorry, Battalion, but your above sentence tends to reduce the historical controversy over slavery that was THE quesion from 1830 on. Frankly, it had very much to do with the motivations for the war.

For the war to be about slavery requires the North to actually care about the slave.
They didn't. Period.
The North propped it up as a 'cause' to justify their onslaught of the South.

I can never understand why you cannot see the one from the other, even though I and others on this forum have done so repeatedly. The North did not go to war with the South over the issue of slavery. The vast majority of the North did not care about the slave. The North did not "prop" it up as a 'cause' to "justify their onslaught of the South."

But you always fail to see the other side of the coin. You will come this far and no further. The South seceded in order to protect slavery, to preserve it, and to expand it. It is here where you fall short everytime and it is here where you brand the Southern leadership liars even though they have spoken plainly to history through their speeches and writings.

Really haven't seen this at all. What Southerner has tried to hide or ignore the subject?
You have started several threads on slave issues. Have Southerners ignored these threads?

You're being a bit simplistic. You and others who support a Southern viewpoint of the war have not ignored my present-day threads on the topic of slavery being the primary cause of the war. But the fact of the matter is you continue to deny slavery had anything to do with the cause of the war, but I am sure you knew what I meant by my previous post.

There is a great effort by some, and by some organizations, to expunge slavery from Civil War history, to move it off-stage and to claim that the war was about ANYTHING else but over the issue of slavery.

...because it wasn't. The secession of some of the Southern states had to do with issues involving slavery...but not preserving it.

It all depends how much one is willing to ignore when reading about the debate this country went through before the Civil War concerning slavery. It all depends on how much history you want to ignore or pretend didn't happen, in spite of what the men of the time wrote and said. The historical evidence is simply too massive and too exposed to ignore, unless one tries very, VERY hard to do so.

The North was more than ready to do that...right on the eve of the Civil War- http://civilwartalk.com/forums/civil...ch-1861-a.html

No, it's not about UFOs...but it's sure nuff about the Northern pocketbook.

You continue to claim this, but never have satisfactorly proved it. We both know that without secession, business would have continued as normal, that most Northern businessmen dreded the prospect of a war as it would be bad for that business. Again, you also fail to see the other side of the coin, that protecting 2 to 4 billion dollars in slave property may have had something to do with Southern pocketbooks.

This view is straight out of the Northern propaganda journals of the 1860s.
War-time propaganda is not history.

And simply dismissing historical fact because it does not fit with a personal point-of-view doesn't give such any historical authority.

And the debate continues...

Unionblue

[M E Wolf]

Dear List Members;

I would like to add some thoughts to this original thought of photographic fakery.

I would also like to submit for consideration, that there may have been a fake diary to support the fake photograph.

Further consideration should be given; is that some photographic exposures from original plates have often yielded faded and or shadowed images; either by the subject moving (a lot of shadows happened with horses who just couldn't stay put in a pose); and or double exposure and the like.

In addition, coloring of photographs were done by hand. An artist could easily render any sort of manipulation to said photograph; to include uniform changes and or skin color.

Further consideration is offered; that not all "Negro" individuals appeared 'Black.' Some were as white as an Anglo-Saxon however, the law still states that if there is but one drop of African-American blood--the person is a Negro/Black. So, this has been the case but, hard to validate the authentic roots; as to impersonate a white person certainly would cause their death.

It has been documented, that the Confederate army as a whole and in general; often relieved Union soldiers; dead or alive; of their possessions to include the 'Great Coats.' Further consideration should be made about the intensity of the blue of the great-coats; as enlisted and NCO coats were sky blue not dark blue, like the officers. Percentage wise; these coats would be most likely taken off the Union prisoner and or dead soul.
With exposure to sun and weather; would have faded into what could be considered grey and or pale blue and--may have transposed itself as such in the photograph itself.

But, in all cases -- a uniform does not make a soldier. It makes a soldier uniformed in appearance. Anybody can be 'made up' and posed as to appear as something they are not. Who is to say, that a Confederate with a manservant didn't dress him up in his own attire as a means of a 'giggle and grin?' It circulated and has taken a life of its own. In some cases, uniforms were put on manservants/maidservants as to permit the tailor/seamstress to hem and or correct the fit; permitting the owner/master/officer/mistress--time to do other things of importance. Body form if matching; could be a bonus as far as having them 'tied up' in a fitting for the tailor/seamstress. House servants were often wearing their own tailored uniforms; e.g. Butler's coat/frock, Maid unforms.

Further consideration should be made; that the individual may have been a Native American Indian. Certain tribes as pure as they were; had features that would support the assumption they were 'Black' and or 'Negro.' They were assigned to the 'Home Guard' units but; in most cases they had more freedoms to fight; having a tad bit more freedom to do so; as they were not African-American and or slaves. So, this photograph could be an Indian and because little has been known about the Indians fighting for both sides; the assumption of the individual being Black can be easily made.

Possible explainations can also be made; IF the Confederacy was considering as a last resort to enlist Blacks; this may have been the future publicity picture. However, beyond consideration--I have not really found evidence to support there were but a few Blacks who fought for the Confederacy 'officially' as soldiers. I am sure they did fight when the need was there however; with the records of the Confederacy so spotty due to the massive destruction of them by the nervous Richmond governmental authorities; this has posed difficulties in reconstructing any proof one way or the other. Even General Robert E. Lee was victim of destroyed records; to which halted progress in writing his memories of the Civil War.

Further thought should be submitted; to which post-war; there were many 'wanted-to-be' heros; to which often told stories and had bits of old uniforms that were disguarded and or sold/bought; as money was so needed to exist. Traveling after the war; many Confederates went North and Northerners went South; as to tour these battlegrounds for many reasons--perhaps most of all; to find their loved ones.

There are always explainations to fake photographs and fake diaries. With the assistance of computers to make fakes so authentic looking; it must be viewed as a possibility that it is a wonderful fake. Without official records, supporting documents and or witnesses; we (in general) are subjected to our own reasoning and judgment.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

[trice]

Originally Posted by M E Wolf

Dear List Members;

I would like to add some thoughts to this original thought of photographic fakery....

All of these might be true, and in fact might be in many cases. However, if you go back and check the first post in this thread, you'll find a link to the original article being discussed. There you will find that:

• the origin of the photograph being presented as the Louisiana Native Guard of the Confederate side was taken at a studio in Philadelphia, apparently in early 1864
• the Confederate version of the regiment dissolved in early 1862
• the original version of the photograph clearly includes a Union officer in a dark uniform (i.e., blue showing as black in a black-and-white photo)

While the exact Union unit this was is not known, there is simply no way it was taken in New Orleans in 1861 or 1862. It is a cropped version of a known photo of a Union unit, deliberately mis-portrayed. Look further at the link, and you'll see the authors of the article pin down the timing of the crop of the photo as subsequent to its' publication in one of two magazines where it was clearly identified as a Union unit.

Such things are not uncommon, whether deliberate or accidental. My Dad is in one of the most famous photos of the Okinawa campaign in WWII -- yet I have repeatedly seen it mis-identified, and even his own divisional history has it wrong. He was in the 96th Division; I have seen it used with captions proclaiming it was the 77th Division or the 7th, and even as a Marine unit. Simple mistake, or someone deciding that stock photo will look good in the book, probably.

Tim