Civil War Photographers Question

Northern Light

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Jul 21, 2014
I have read often about Brady, Gardner, and other photographers from the Union and was wondering if there were photographers from the Confederate States who were doing similar work on the battlefields. Obviously there were photographers taking portraits of soldiers and civilians, but did they go to the battlefields as well? Has anyone studied the topic?
 
Great picture! Thanks for the information. Do you know if he did any field photos?

I know that he took pictures of Anderson and crew at Fort Sumter. Also, photographs of Fort Sumter itself and other military installations and forts in the Charleston area. He concentrated much work on portraits of soldiers during the first few years of the war. Once supplies became limited so did his scope of photographic work. Confederate Artillery unit taken by Cook.

confederate-artillery.jpg
 
I know that he took pictures of Anderson and crew at Fort Sumter. Also, photographs of Fort Sumter itself and other military installations and forts in the Charleston area. He concentrated much work on portraits of soldiers during the first few years of the war. Once supplies became limited so did his scope of photographic work. Confederate Artillery unit taken by Cook.

confederate-artillery.jpg
Again, thank you. What do you think of his work in comparison with Brady?
 
There were far less Southern photographers during the war because the chemicals used for the wet plate method were scarce in the South at the time. Even fewer photographers actually took their equipment out onto the field; most photographers of the era worked in a studio. The wet plate method required a sheet of glass as the negative, which was treated with a mixture of chemicals known as "collodion." The chemicals had to be mixed by hand, so the process was very difficult to do in the field.
 
There were far less Southern photographers during the war because the chemicals used for the wet plate method were scarce in the South at the time. Even fewer photographers actually took their equipment out onto the field; most photographers of the era worked in a studio. The wet plate method required a sheet of glass as the negative, which was treated with a mixture of chemicals known as "collodion." The chemicals had to be mixed by hand, so the process was very difficult to do in the field.
Of course, I guess I hadn't thought about the logistical part of the procedure.
The battlefield pictures that Brady et al. took shocked the citizens of the Union. Do you think that, given the same opportunities, Southern photographers would have taken and published similar pictures?
 
I know that he took pictures of Anderson and crew at Fort Sumter. Also, photographs of Fort Sumter itself and other military installations and forts in the Charleston area. He concentrated much work on portraits of soldiers during the first few years of the war. Once supplies became limited so did his scope of photographic work. Confederate Artillery unit taken by Cook.

confederate-artillery.jpg
I see Cook was the one that took that great photo of J.E.B. Stuart. He seems to take more care in making sure his subjects are properly groomed, but maybe that was Stuart and not Cook.
 
Of course, I guess I hadn't thought about the logistical part of the procedure.
The battlefield pictures that Brady et al. took shocked the citizens of the Union. Do you think that, given the same opportunities, Southern photographers would have taken and published similar pictures?
I would guess so, if there were more materials available, which means more photographers.

There was one photographer, Jay Dearborn Edwards, who did take a series of photographs of Confederate troops encamped at the Warrington Navy Yard, in Pensacola, FL in 1861. Edwards was originally born in Andover, Massachusetts. He later moved to New Orleans and was one of the first to document New Orleans with photography.

A good link on Edwards here
http://www.knowla.org/entry/1160/

I posted a few of his photos from Pensacola in this thread
http://civilwartalk.com/threads/the-9th-mississippi-infantry.94555/
 
I have read often about Brady, Gardner, and other photographers from the Union and was wondering if there were photographers from the Confederate States who were doing similar work on the battlefields. Obviously there were photographers taking portraits of soldiers and civilians, but did they go to the battlefields as well? Has anyone studied the topic?
Now I've always thought that was a mystery, as there are as many studio portrats of Confederates as there are Union, but shots in field are rare in comparison..I imagine many were destroyed or just stashed away in peoples attics just waiting to make an appearence..I'm hoping for the latter :smile:
 
Of course, I guess I hadn't thought about the logistical part of the procedure.
The battlefield pictures that Brady et al. took shocked the citizens of the Union. Do you think that, given the same opportunities, Southern photographers would have taken and published similar pictures?

Due to George Cook's location in Charlestown it probably wasn't worth his effort. In the first month after Fort Sumter fell he took close to 40 portraits of soldiers. I believe I read that the cost was around ten dollars a photograph, so at that rate he would have been a wealthy man, why travel away from that kind of business? Brady, Gardner, O'Sullivan on the other hand made a lucrative business traveling around and following the Union armies, later to record the aftermath of the fighting near by.
 
Last edited:
Due to George Cook's location in Charlestown it probably wasn't worth his effort. In the first month after Fort Sumter fell he took close to 40 portraits of soldiers. I believe I read that the cost was around ten dollars a photograph, so at that rate he would have been a wealthy man, why travel away from that kind of business? Brady, Gardner, O'Sullivan on the other hand made a lucrative business traveling around and following the Union armies, later to record the aftermath of the fighting near by.

101combatvet,

I believe you are mistaken about how much individual soldier portraits might have cost.

From the on-line article, Civil War Soldiers' Portraits: The Liljenquist Family Collection, Historical Background, page 1:

"Personal Portraits in a Time of War

From 1861-65, more than three million Americans took up arms in the bloodiest conflict of the nineteenth century. Hailing from every state and territory, these men were real people who loved, feared, and often died in the service of their country. The century and a half separating us from our Civil War counterparts can accentuate our differences, but in many ways these soldiers were just like contemporary Americans.

There is one fact that makes Civil War soldiers seem much more modern than soldiers of the nation's earlier wars: many of them had their pictures taken. The onset of war consided with a boom in photography in the United States. By the start of the Civil War, photographs were much less expensive and much easier to produce than ever before. New technologies brought the price of the new ambrotype (glass-backed) and tintype (metal-backed) emulsion plates down to between 25 cents to $2.50 in the Union states. The average Civil War soldier, who might make between $11 - 16 per month, could finally afford his own personal photograph."

Read the rest of the article here:

http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classro...nquist-civil-war-photos/pdf/teacher_guide.pdf

You might also want to check out the following website which shows the various costs of many photograph formats of the period and what the tax rates on each.

Photograph Formats and Tax Rates.

http://www.pipeline.com/~ciociola/baryla/formats!.htm

You will note they seem to cost between .25 cents to $5.

Unionblue
 
Last edited:
From the on-line article, Civil War Soldiers' Portraits: The Liljenquist Family Collection, Historical Background, page 1:

"Personal Portraits in a Time of War

From 1861-65, more than three million Americans took up arms in the bloodiest conflict of the nineteenth century. Hailing from every state and territory, these men were real people who loved, feared, and often died in the service of their country. The century and a half separating us from our Civil War counterparts can accentuate our differences, but in many ways these soldiers were just like contemporary Americans.

There is one fact that makes Civil War soldiers seem much more modern than soldiers of the nation's earlier wars: many of them had their pictures taken. The onset of war consided with a boom in photography in the United States. By the start of the Civil War, photographs were much less expensive and much easier to produce than ever before. New technologies brought the price of the new ambrotype (glass-backed) and tintype (metal-backed) emulsion plates down to between 25 cents to $2.50 in the Union states. The average Civil War soldier, who might make between $11 - 16 per month, could finally afford his own personal photograph."

Read the rest of the article here:

http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classro...nquist-civil-war-photos/pdf/teacher_guide.pdf

Unionblue
The very next paragraph-
With so many Americans off fighting and only too aware of the possibility that they might not be returning home, the number of portrait photographs soared. The naval blockade against the Confederacy led to much higher prices—up to $20—for photographs in the South. This cost difference is one reason for the disproportionately higher production of Union portraits, yet the Liljenquist Family Collection still serves as a visual record of Civil War soldiers on both sides.

http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classro...nquist-civil-war-photos/pdf/teacher_guide.pdf

Mike
 
The very next paragraph-
With so many Americans off fighting and only too aware of the possibility that they might not be returning home, the number of portrait photographs soared. The naval blockade against the Confederacy led to much higher prices—up to $20—for photographs in the South. This cost difference is one reason for the disproportionately higher production of Union portraits, yet the Liljenquist Family Collection still serves as a visual record of Civil War soldiers on both sides.

http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classro...nquist-civil-war-photos/pdf/teacher_guide.pdf

Mike

Mike,

Good catch. :smile:

But check out the other website I added to the same post concerning tax rates and the cost of different types of photo formats during the Civil War.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 
Mike,

Good catch. :smile:

But check out the other website I added to the same post concerning tax rates and the cost of different types of photo formats during the Civil War.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
This shows prices of photos up to $5 and taxes up to .25¢. The pictures are very small but it looks like George Washington on the tax stamps. This would lead to a conclusion that the prices are for photos from the USA.

Mike
 
This shows prices of photos up to $5 and taxes up to .25¢. The pictures are very small but it looks like George Washington on the tax stamps. This would lead to a conclusion that the prices are for photos from the USA.

Mike

Mike,

I concur, as the site states these are tax rates by the federal government, not that of the Confederacy.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 
Mike,

I concur, as the site states these are tax rates by the federal government, not that of the Confederacy.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
I did some sleuthing and found this about dating Civil War photos by the tax stamp on the reverse-

One creative miscreant even used Confederate States stamps, even though the Confederate States had no such tax.... As mentioned earlier, the Confederate States had no photograph sales tax, so images from areas under their control would not have stamps. Large orders might have stamps on one photo for the complete order, leaving the rest without stamps.
http://www.classyarts.com/howto.htm?part=tax-stamp

Always good for me to learn something new!
 
Back
Top