GRAPHIC Dead Confederate after Antietam

[Andersonh1]

Warning: Graphic and possibly disturbing image. I found it hard to look at sometimes. Mr. Banks posts enlargements of the photo and examines the details to see what we can learn about this young man who died so far from home. The scrap of paper near his hand with the writing that cannot be read is the most fascinating thing to me. Did he know he was dying, and was he trying to leave some last thoughts to be found and read?

http://john-banks.blogspot.com/2016/02/antietam-another-look-at-dead-rebel-in.html

You may have seen this Alexander Gardner photograph of the body of Rebel soldier at Antietam scores of times in books, magazines and elsewhere. According to Civil War photo expert William Frassanito, who explored the photo's secrets in his ground-breaking 1978 book,Antietam: The Photographic Legacy of America's Bloodiest Day, it probably was taken on Samuel Mumma's farm days after the Sept. 17, 1862 battle. Frassanito partly based his determination of the location on the row of Confederate bodies gathered for burial in the upper right background of the image, which may be seen in more detail in the cropped enlargement above.

Students comment on the photo.

http://john-banks.blogspot.com/2016/03/what-hs-students-wrote-about-gardners.html

+ After seeing and reading the information under the photos, it's very hard to see something so clear from so long ago. It's amazing how it is possible, but in this case, gruesome. I personally did not want to look at or analyze into the photos.... but they were an eye opener that bodies were just left on the battlefields as is. I couldn't imagine what was going through the soldier's mind as he laid there dying."

+"Those pictures provide a reality to the Civil War. The fallen soldier shows how brutal battles are and how costly each battle is. We see evidence of a life outside the war and know the young man probably had a family he was never able to return to. These pictures are the sad truth behind the stories."

+ "I found the image very shocking... To anyone else this picture shows either a dead brother, father, or family member. I can only see the death of war which has changed our thinking. We have experienced so much death that we won't all feel sympathy for the soldier. We would acknowledge just like the title 'another one' out of so many fallen here's one more. It's the reaction we now have to shootings when on the news 'another one', we have grown used to them too much now."

+ "I thought that this is a very good perspective of the Confederates and their losses. It really humanizes the war because it puts a face to match up with the massive amounts of dead from the Civil War. While it may be hard to look at, photos like this one could potentially serve as a deterrent for future wars and educate people as to why war is a monstrous creation of man."

 

[Burning Billy]

The close up of the man's face also made it appear that he was missing some of his front teeth. While it is always possible of course that missing teeth had nothing to do with the war, I wonder if that, along with the blood around his nostrils, also points towards a head wound.

If he was shot in the head I would think it would be unlikely (though by no means certain) that he was able to write any last words. I'm sure they would have been read by Gardner as well, and if he had written something I would think it would be mentioned in Gardner's photo description.

Either way, one of the sadder photos of the war.

 

[fredneck]

The close up of the man's face also made it appear that he was missing some of his front teeth. While it is always possible of course that missing teeth had nothing to do with the war, I wonder if that, along with the blood around his nostrils, also points towards a head wound.

If he was shot in the head I would think it would be unlikely (though by no means certain) that he was able to write any last words. I'm sure they would have been read by Gardner as well, and if he had written something I would think it would be mentioned in Gardner's photo description.

Either way, one of the sadder photos of the war.

I have been told by a local historian and reenactor that infantry required the soldier to have at least 2 sets of front teeth available to qualify for combat. This was due to the ripping of the cartridge with one's teeth, I believe. The damage to his mouth and teeth are most likely combat related.

Edit to clarify the amount of front teeth.

 

[Mr. King]

I was thinking that his wound may well be in his mouth. General Pat Cleburne was shot in the mouth at Richmond, KY and survived. General Arnold Elzey was shot in the mouth at Gaines Mill (i think) and he also survived, but with a bad speech problem.
I think it is entirely feasible that this poor young man was hit in the mouth and helped to this hiding spot by some friendlies and left to await help or death, whichever would come first. I can imagine someone assisting him in putting a blanket over his body, and perhaps reading an old letter to him from his pocket.

Very sad. Struck down in his prime....

 

[fredneck]

If anyone is interested, the two sets of front teeth required for infantry seems to have originated in the Civil War. The term 4-F for unfit for service may have originated in part by this requirement. I understand that the photograph in question is of a Confederate soldier and not a Union one but I would see similar dental requirements in the Confederate Army. At the moment however, I cannot find data referencing regulation of Confederate dental health for the Infantry soldier.

http://directionsindentistry.net/4f-unfit-for-service-because-of-teeth/

 

[civilwarincolor]

I have been told by a local historian and reenactor that infantry required the soldier to have at least 2 sets of front teeth available to qualify for combat. This was due to the ripping of the cartridge with one's teeth, I believe. The damage to his mouth and teeth are most likely combat related.

Edit to clarify the amount of front teeth.

If anyone is interested, the two sets of front teeth required for infantry seems to have originated in the Civil War. The term 4-F for unfit for service may have originated in part by this requirement. I understand that the photograph in question is of a Confederate soldier and not a Union one but I would see similar dental requirements in the Confederate Army. At the moment however, I cannot find data referencing regulation of Confederate dental health for the Infantry soldier.

http://directionsindentistry.net/4f-unfit-for-service-because-of-teeth/

I don't know if it is true or not, but remember hearing this had been a CW requirement when I was in the military in the 80's. Again, don't have any evidence one way or the other. To clarify though about teeth, I think saying "2 sets of front teeth" sounds odd, I have all of my teeth, but I only have one set. I think a better definition would be "2 pair of opposing teeth (i.e. two top and two bottom)"

The information about 4F being linked to dentistry. It would make sense, but not sure if that is true or just something passed along. This site (among others) seems to disagree.

 

[civilwarincolor]

BTW, the image that is referenced in the first link was one that I colorized for the show "Blood and Glory - The Civil War In Color" last year for the History Channel. I have a large number of images that I did for that show, including many dead that I have not posted yet.

Here is the one that is mentioned in the first post:

 

[fredneck]

I must admit, the statement "two sets of front teeth" does sound strange! I should say upper two front teeth and opposing two bottom teeth to tear open the cartridge!

It's bitter sweet that we can see those boys from a war that happened so long ago. Allows me to reflect solemnly at each battlefield I visit. Thank goodness here in the Old Dominion people really do respect the battlefields and resting places.