Gen. Grant's Cavalry Escort - what's wrong with this picture?

Do you have primary sources* on those?
***Edited***
And again you show that you know nothing about historical work.
What other historians have written are secondary sources.

Also I accept plenty of secondary sources... when it is a historical period or simply a topic I dont know much about.

--------------------

Series 1 - Volume 45 (Part I) page 984

"WAR DEPARTMENT,
ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE
WASHINGTON DC, Nov. 22, 1864.

Officers serving in the field are permitted to dispense with shoulder-straps and the prescribed insignia of rank on their horse equipements. The marks of rank prescribed to be worn on the shoulder-straps will be worn on the shoulder in place of the strap. Officers are also permitted to wear overcoats of the same color and shape as those of the enlisted men of their command. No ornaments will be required on the overcoats, hats, or forage caps; nor will sashes or epaulettes be required.

By order of the Secretary of War;
E. D. TOWNSEND
Assistant Adjutant General"

2f435772616e6b36307468496e6650686f746f436f7572744d61727469616c4d696c6c65725649495f3138312e6a7067.jpg




Expired Image Removed
Don't have time atm to dig up one of sergeants...

and for the earlier wars, I suggest reading the book by Johann Ewald "Diary of the american war"
(Again, don't have the time to look true it for a quote)


(EDIT - Trying to fix the picture - hope it work now?)
 
Last edited:
foreshortening is the visual arts term. (foreshadowing is a literary term meaning to make predictions)

Visual artists, moviemakers included, employ something called aerial perspective -- where objects in the background appear more faded in intensity compared to objects in the foreground (See the tree line in this photo). It can be used to dramatize distance or increase attention to a foreground subject. I suppose this could be called shadowing the background. Anyway the technique is used in war movies a lot.
Doh! I knew that! I don't suppose I can claim it's a pun, can I?:bounce:
 
foreshortening is the visual arts term. (foreshadowing is a literary term meaning to make predictions)

Visual artists, moviemakers included, employ something called aerial perspective -- where objects in the background appear more faded in intensity compared to objects in the foreground (See the tree line in this photo). It can be used to dramatize distance or increase attention to a foreground subject. I suppose this could be called shadowing the background. Anyway the technique is used in war movies a lot.

I don't have that much faith in the accuracy of ancient photography--I've been photographed a number of times with period cameras with varying results. Once, my son and I, who are both about 6ft. tall, were standing side by side, and because of the way the camera was positioned, we came out looking like we were about 4 ft. tall and had stumpy little legs. After making some adjustments, the photographer did it over and the picture came out fine. Someone else reported something similar above. I think either explanation for this picture is plausible--they are just short or it's an optical illusion or distortion. Regardless, a lot of people think there's something weird about that photograph.
 
Last edited:
What other historians have written are secondary sources.
Also I accept plenty of secondary sources... when it is a historical period or simply a topic I dont know much about.

Me too. So it's quite ok, after all.

Series 1 - Volume 45 (Part I) page 984"WAR DEPARTMENT, ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE WASHINGTON DC, Nov. 22, 1864. Officers serving in the field are permitted...By order of the Secretary of War; E. D. TOWNSEND Assistant Adjutant General"

This is a primary account of a written order, thanks. This is not a primary account of how (or even if) such an order was carried out in the field, if read or cared much about. From a serious historian's point of view such orders, or drill manuals, should not be considered as evidence that should override all other context. Many officers in the CW certainly had figured out the thing about rank insignia on their own by the time of the order.I appreciate how an off-shore researcher might miss or downplay the factor of the American character, personna or setting in context.

Particularly true for the American Civil War, most soldiers and their commanders at that time had a thoroughly independent pioneer spirit, having themselves -- or within a mere generation or two -- left the old country for a reason, and having been risk-takers in doing it. Read de Tocqueville.

From a serious historian's viewpoint, drill manuals and written orders are just not the slam-dunk they're made out to be. Amateur historians (some reenactors, some published authors) are often more anxious to prove a point than in letting the evidence lead the search. It's context, context, context, and in the case of this forum an understanding of the American psyche.

During the U.S. Civil War most soldiers of the line did not ever consider themselves government issue. Far from it. They were protecting their buddies and were trying to end up back home (check this with more recent combat vets -- talk about your primary sources). Orders came directly from officers so they had no choice but to carry them out, but drill manuals were merely noise (that which might have to be obeyed at times) except maybe to career soldiers, a small minority in the CW.

So the best primary resource is a during-war unofficial account written out by an officer or other soldier, or civilian participant, in the field. Second best is a during-war official account (suspect because no officer wrote to put themselves in a bad light for their superiors). Third best are post-war official unit histories (suspect for the writers wanting to establish a legacy), and fourth best are unofficial post-war individual remembrances (suspect for the writers wanting to establish a legacy, but then even more suspect as a fading memory, at times written to help establish a pension for themselves late in life).
 
Last edited:
This is a primary account of a written order, thanks. This is not a primary account of how (or even if) such an order was carried out in the field, if read or cared much about. From a serious historian's point of view such orders, or drill manuals, should not be considered as evidence that should override all other context. Many officers in the CW certainly had figured out the thing about rank insignia on their own by the time of the order. I appreciate how an off-shore researcher might miss or downplay the factor of the American character, personna or setting in context.

From a serious historian's viewpoint, drill manuals and written orders are just not the slam-dunk they're made out to be. Amateur historians (some reenactors, some published authors) are often more anxious to prove a point than in letting the evidence lead the search. It's context, context, context, and in the case of this forum an understanding of the American psyche.

(...)but drill manuals were merely noise (that which might have to be obeyed at times) except maybe to career soldiers, a small minority in the CW.
1. Drill manuals is a "normative" source. It tell us how it was suppose to be. When we have no other information, that is what we fall back on.
2. I agree that this order very likely just made something already done acceptable.
3. Most the the rest is just personal insults..
4. Are you seriously telling us that the men did not try to learn their drill?
 
1. Drill manuals is a "normative" source. It tell us how it was suppose to be.
Yes, it tells us how it was supposed to be. In complete agreement.

3. Most the the rest is just personal insults.
What? Perhaps a response to some other thread? Mod?

4. Are you seriously telling us that the men did not try to learn their drill?
What? No. I stated the drills "were that which have to be obeyed." There was no option to "not try and learn" the drill. Sergeants provided all the options a man had. But do you suppose the men read Beadles Novels or the Drill Manuals in their tents by candlelight?
 
Last edited:
Back on track then, it occurs to me that this strange looking image could be completely reconciled if one cared enough to. Using Photoshop or similar, separate out each man or at least one each from group left and group right (perhaps the end men) and normalize their heights based on the belt buckle of each man. That is indisputable evidence of the size of the men in relation to each other, aside from any suspected optical illusion.

btw it appears these men have either gathered for parade inspection or have just finished it, given that many of them are still somewhat dressed shoulder to shoulder. Parade formation would also explain why the cameraman had to shoot from a bit off-center: because the commander and direct reports were in the direct center of the formation.
 
Last edited:
What's wrong with this photo? A cavalry escort without.................horses? lol.....lol

Dang those Southern boys, they done stole them yankee's horses, again........lol

Good grief Charlie Brown.............

Just kidding guys................

Respectfully,
William
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why would Grant's cavalry escort have musicians?

I believe buglers were the way cavalry communicated orders on the field. In this special case, the presiding commander in charge was Grant, and such a high officer required some protocols for any VIP (senators etc) that might visit, including performances of martial music, thus, musicians beyond just the buglers or drummers used for field communications.
 
Normalized by belt buckle size, young bugler & young trooper:
upload_2017-8-31_13-51-46.png

Nothing unusual there.

So it's a combinant illusion: slight perspective skew, slight foreshortening skew, slight lens effect, some human body variation and then processed through a filter of perceptural expectation (our minds attempting to resolve it).
 
Back
Top