Iconic Civil War photograph sparks controversy - GRAPHIC

CMWinkler

Colonel
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Location
Middle Tennessee
Iconic Civil War photograph sparks controversy




By CHUCK MYERS

McClatchy/Tribune News Service

GETTYSBURG, Pa. - Photographer Alexander Gardner and his two colleagues, Timothy O'Sullivan and James Gibson, came upon a frightful landscape late on July 5, 1863.
Soldiers of the Blue and Gray lay dead virtually everywhere, still littering a battlefield nearly two days after the Civil War Battle of Gettysburg.
The trio set about recording the aftermath of the battle, photographing the dead at locations that have long since become synonymous with the Gettysburg lore - the Slaughter Pen, the Wheatfield, the Valley of Death and Little Round Top.
One picture they captured, of a lone Confederate soldier lying dead in Devil's Den within the Slaughter Pen area, has become an indelible symbol of intimate combat and death - and possibly even the war itself.
The dead Confederate in the photograph, "Home of a Rebel Sharpshooter, Gettysburg," shows a young soldier lying prone behind a stonewall, situated at the confluence of two large stone outcroppings in Devil's Den.
The scene has a compelling quality, almost as if the viewer has happened upon a sacred roofless tomb.
But despite the sense of deadly immediacy the image possesses, all is not as it seems in the photograph.
Each year, the Gettysburg National Military Park attracts more than one million visitors, many of which call on Devil's Den, and make it among the most popular stops on the battlefield.
Historically, Devil's Den and its surrounding outcropping of huge boulders hosted some of the fiercest combat during the second day of the three-day battle.
"I would describe it as certainly as some of the most intense fighting of the day," said Ronald S. Coddington, author of three books profiling rank-and-file Union and Confederate soldiers. His latest effort, "African American Faces of the Civil War; An Album" (The Johns Hopkins University Press), details the life experiences of black Union soldiers. "The Union infantry and artillery here courageously defended their position against an overwhelming number of Confederate attackers late in the afternoon."
The battle began on July 1, 1863, when Confederate troops clashed with Union forces on the north side of Gettysburg. Forced to draw back, the Union Army of the Potomac established a strong line south of town along Cemetery Ridge, with Gen. George G. Meade in overall command. Across from Meade's army on Seminary Ridge sat the Army of Northern Virginia, led by Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee.
On the second day of battle, a Union corps commanded by Gen. Daniel Sickles made an ill-advised advance that exposed the army's left flank. Sickles' force soon faced a serious threat from a late-day assault by a Confederate corps led by Gen. James Longstreet.
The Confederates pushed back Sickles' men from positions in the Wheatfield, Slaughter Pen and Peach Orchard, and pressed on toward the strategically important but lightly defended Union site on Little Round Top. In the process, Rebel soldiers, including sharpshooters - snipers, - occupied Devil's Den.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/24/3467411/iconic-civil-war-photograph-sparks.html#storylink=cpy
 
Interesting. I had no idea that Frassanito's (and others') conclusion that the body had been moved from another location nearby was "controversial." Is this argument seriously challenged? It sure as heck isn't new. Or does the editor's headline reflect a "surprising" claim that only surprises people who've never looked at it at all??
 
Lt. Hall: Thank you. I had understood many of the dead photographed at Gettysburg were treated as props by Gardner, who moved bodies to compose good pictures. Nothing wrong with that IMHO, dead is dead. But some folks treat these pictures as if they were "true" history.
 
Interesting. I had no idea that Frassanito's (and others') conclusion that the body had been moved from another location nearby was "controversial." Is this argument seriously challenged? It sure as heck isn't new. Or does the editor's headline reflect a "surprising" claim that only surprises people who've never looked at it at all??


The contoversy isn't over if the body was moved - it's over which way it was moved. Here is a link to an article from an artist's perspective and why the body was moved from the wall to where the other pictures were taken. I think he uses very good reasoning and has me mostly convinced. The upshot is that Gardner found the body behind the wall and knew that he had a great photo. The problem was that Alfred Waud was drawing nearby and Gardner didn't want to be scooped, so he moved the body. There is a great deal more than that and it deserves consideration, imo.

http://www.jamescgroves.com/henry/hcp1a.htm
 
Lt. Hall: Thank you. I had understood many of the dead photographed at Gettysburg were treated as props by Gardner, who moved bodies to compose good pictures. Nothing wrong with that IMHO, dead is dead. But some folks treat these pictures as if they were "true" history.
I don't think many were. This is the only specific case I know of. (Props were a different matter.)
 
YXY2wgs.jpg


baOhba1.jpg
 
There was a photo in "Civil War Times" a few yrs. ago that demonstrated a photographer using one of his assistants to lay on the ground to appear as a battle casualty next to an artillery "sponge" used as a prop. The proof was the body, appearing in a series of photos, actually showed-up in another photo unloading one of the photographer's wagons. I found this to be a particularly fraudulent misrepresentation as opposed to the above mentioned rearrangement of a corpse.
 
You can obviously tell some of Alexander Gardner's photographs from Antietam were of actual dead soldiers, but I am not sure about some of his photos from Gettysburg. Some of the bodies, like the one in that particular photograph, don't appear to be dead. There are no apparent blood stains or gunshot wounds and the bodies aren't bloated like they are in other photos. It wouldn't surprise me if the man in the photo wasn't even dead, just someone laying on the ground. A few other fake "dead soldier" photographs were taken around devil's den by another photographer.
 
There was a photo in "Civil War Times" a few yrs. ago that demonstrated a photographer using one of his assistants to lay on the ground to appear as a battle casualty next to an artillery "sponge" used as a prop. The proof was the body, appearing in a series of photos, actually showed-up in another photo unloading one of the photographer's wagons. I found this to be a particularly fraudulent misrepresentation as opposed to the above mentioned rearrangement of a corpse.


there was a series of photographs taken on the Round Tops where the photographer posed live soldiers as casualties.......anything for a front page scoop I guess.
 
Interesting. I had no idea that Frassanito's (and others') conclusion that the body had been moved from another location nearby was "controversial." Is this argument seriously challenged? It sure as heck isn't new. Or does the editor's headline reflect a "surprising" claim that only surprises people who've never looked at it at all??

My thoughts exactly.
Gasp, a journalist using a trick to get out attention, that's never happened before.
 
There was a photo in "Civil War Times" a few yrs. ago that demonstrated a photographer using one of his assistants to lay on the ground to appear as a battle casualty next to an artillery "sponge" used as a prop. The proof was the body, appearing in a series of photos, actually showed-up in another photo unloading one of the photographer's wagons. I found this to be a particularly fraudulent misrepresentation as opposed to the above mentioned rearrangement of a corpse.
You're probably thinking of this one (GRAPHIC), in which the "dead" African American in the background appears on other photographs very much alive (and in the same clothes).

[Edited to remove embedded image, which was graphic.]
 
I've never fully enjoyed these "staged" photos. The reality of dead, mangled bodies on a battlefield is newsworthy and emotional enough. There would be no need to add props, move/manipulate bodies or fake deaths.
 
The contoversy isn't over if the body was moved - it's over which way it was moved. Here is a link to an article from an artist's perspective and why the body was moved from the wall to where the other pictures were taken. I think he uses very good reasoning and has me mostly convinced. The upshot is that Gardner found the body behind the wall and knew that he had a great photo. The problem was that Alfred Waud was drawing nearby and Gardner didn't want to be scooped, so he moved the body. There is a great deal more than that and it deserves consideration, imo.

http://www.jamescgroves.com/henry/hcp1a.htm

He has me mostly convinced too. Thanks for the link it is absolutely worth a read. As an archivist trying to get every bit of story out of an old photo is my favorite part of the job.
 
Interesting. I had no idea that Frassanito's (and others') conclusion that the body had been moved from another location nearby was "controversial." Is this argument seriously challenged? It sure as heck isn't new. Or does the editor's headline reflect a "surprising" claim that only surprises people who've never looked at it at all??

I had always been under the impression that the photo in questions was a staged photograph. I do like the fact that they did not publish the photo because that would certainly be too graphic for readers yet they can publish pictures and make television shows of service members currently overseas all shot up....
 
The contoversy isn't over if the body was moved - it's over which way it was moved. Here is a link to an article from an artist's perspective and why the body was moved from the wall to where the other pictures were taken. I think he uses very good reasoning and has me mostly convinced. The upshot is that Gardner found the body behind the wall and knew that he had a great photo. The problem was that Alfred Waud was drawing nearby and Gardner didn't want to be scooped, so he moved the body. There is a great deal more than that and it deserves consideration, imo.

http://www.jamescgroves.com/henry/hcp1a.htm

Thank you Alaskazimm, I have been trying several times to get some folks to read this exact article. I'm not only mostly convinced, I am totally convinced that Mr. Groves is correct.
 
Yeah he does make a good argument. The one thing that keeps me from 100% is that I can see Frasantio's assessment as being plausable. So when I say mostly convinced I mean 95% Groves/5% Frasanito.
 
Back
Top