Female Yankee cavalry ?

Along those lines, the funniest one I heard was the old lady who had a friend in the art business. She was at a yard sale in Woodside, CA and bought a paint splattered tarp for $5 to play a joke on her artsy friend. The friend was surprised, then went and got another pal - turned out the paint tarp was an original Jackson Pollard. Back in the beatnik days he'd rented a room in the house, couldn't pay and left the painting instead. The painting was stuck up in an attic - who knew that ratty broke artist fella was going to be worth anything? The kids sold the place when the people died - never knew the painting existed, and so it went. It was unsigned but his thumbprint was accidentally on the back! Can't get too much more authenticated than that. So, the would-be jokester then had a painting worth over $7 million.

p s

Oops - that's Pollock!
 
What about this person being Jennie Hodgers aka Albert J.D. Cashier?
jen1.jpg

http://www.civilwarwomenblog.com/2007/08/jennie-hodgers.html
jennie.jpg

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104452266
 
Sorry to resurrect a rather old thread, but I think I may have an idea as to where the original photo was taken. Back in June, I went to the Metropolitan Museum of Art to check out their Civil War photography exhibition. In the exhibition were a ton of tintypes that typical soldiers had had struck, including several that had the exact same backdrop as our friend in the initial photograph. Those photos were taken in Connecticut- Hartford, if I remember right. I actually wrote down the unit information for the soldiers in the exhibit's photos, but I can't find the note I made to myself, and I can't remember the unit name for the life of me.

There was a photography book being sold at the exhibit that contained all of the exhibited photos; if someone has a copy of that, they may be able to provide the unit information. I would bet money that the photo that started off this thread was taken by the same studio that took the others- the backdrop was virtually identical, with the Sibleys, the flagpole, et cetera.
 
Hah! I actually thought that when I first saw the photo. But in all seriousness, I think that's a woman. If it was just the eyebrows or the hips or the possible, um, assets under the jacket (although I agree that that is probably stuff stuck in the jacket or in its pockets), I'd be more inclined to write it off, but that's one heck of a perfect storm of femininity, IMHO. I actually think the hips are the biggest giveaway. I know a few guys who have that kind of weight distribution, but none that skinny. At first I thought it might be a case of overly muscular legs from being in the saddle a lot, but looking again, I don't think that explains it.
 
There was supposed to be a married couple in the 6th US Cavalry- my grgrgrandfather was in the 6th. I've always wondered if the other troopers knew, kind of suspect they had to, right? If so, must have been kind of an open secret which was ignored and/or protected by the other men. I haven't had time to look into it very much, just think well, heck, the way they all had to live on top of each other- how could at least some of their contemporaries not know?
 
I bet she sougn't draw that sword from it's scabbard. it is almost as tall as she is.
Most swords were pretty long. Unless you're thinking of a parrying dagger. They're just lucky they didn't have to carry around pole arms anymore in battle.
 
Anyone think this Yankee is a female ?View attachment 4008
No, just a teenage boy foot-soldier. Infantry tended to march long distances on short rations, which can have that effect-- especially on younger persons, i.e. small body, with big legs; in fact, studies showed that foot-soldiers who grew up in training, tended to have legs that were 2" longer than average as a result of the extended marching. Meanwhile the face is just normal for that age and routine.
Also the hat and haircut give the impression, since normally teen-boys have more hair, and this tends to obscure the forehead; however a close-up excluding the forehead shows the illusion.
 
Last edited:
Am I the only one noticing the bulge in her blouse? I mean, yes of course I'm a pig, but, surely somebody else sees it too. Her shirt bulges out above her belt, it's too high to be her stomach. The cross strap, as it runs from her left shoulder down towards her right hip, it plainly crosses over the bulge. I don't know, maybe I'm just imagining things...


Yes, 1st thing I noticed. I was going to comment the same but you beat me to it.
 
Most swords were pretty long. Unless you're thinking of a parrying dagger. They're just lucky they didn't have to carry around pole arms anymore in battle.
Depends on the country and sword. Across the board for 19th C; Infantry Officers Swords rarely exceeded 34 inches, and were usually 29-32. Cavalry sabres average out around 36 - 38, and clutlasses around 25-29. M1860 length is at about 35 inches for instance, with the m1850 foot being around 30 inches with the exception of Sauerbier and non reg outfitters who got his up to a little over 31 sometimes.
 
Back
Top