Portrait of a female Union cavalry trooper?

Is this a female Union soldier?

  • Yes.

  • No.

  • Not sure.


Results are only viewable after voting.

chubachus

First Sergeant
Joined
Nov 27, 2014
Location
Virginia
ambrotype union cavalryman.jpg


Hand-colored ambrotype, identity unknown. Source.
 
I voted no ......but the more I study the image, the more I think it might be possible.

As @Karen Lips noted there is no indication of characteristic female breast development but it is possible that the chest was bound to disguise this feature. Although the facial features are quite refined for a male - specifically the nose, brows, and lips - I based my "no" vote mainly on the hands. The thickness of the fingers and the breadth of the nails and knuckles looks characteristically masculine to me.

Then I look at the thighs and think.....those are pretty big thighs for a man of this torso size? I think Ill change my vote to "Not sure." :bounce: Since I am a female, its my perogative to change my mind. :giggle:
EDIT: Ok @LoriAnn @7th Mississippi Infantry you clicked "like" on my answer so its your turn! :bounce: What say you?
 
Last edited:
I voted no ......but the more I study the image, the more I think it might be possible.

As @Karen Lips noted there is no indication of characteristic female breast development but it is possible that the chest was bound to disguise this feature. Although the facial features are quite refined for a male - specifically the nose, brows, and lips - I based my "no" vote mainly on the hands. The thickness of the fingers and the breadth of the nails and knuckles looks characteristically masculine to me.

Then I look at the thighs and think.....those are pretty big thighs for a man of this torso size? I think Ill change my vote to "Not sure." :bounce: Since I am a female, its my perogative to change my mind. :giggle:
EDIT: Ok @LoriAnn @7th Mississippi Infantry you clicked "like" on my answer so its your turn! :bounce: What say you?
I voted not sure.
But my gut feeling is that it's probably a guy.

Then you start mentioning "thighs". :help:

Now I'm really not sure! :D
 
Last edited:
Although the facial features are quite refined for a male - specifically the nose, brows, and lips - I based my "no" vote mainly on the hands. The thickness of the fingers and the breadth of the nails and knuckles looks characteristically masculine to me.

The seller didn't seem to think the hands were very feminine either:

Everything about this soldier seems feminine to me: Take a close look at the hair, the jawline, eyes and eyebrows, and mouth, thighs... all very feminine physical features.
 
This image is somewhere else, too so drove me batty when seeing it again as ' female trooper '. It isn't coming up on image search, rats. Wish the stupid memory would kick in. I could have sworn it came up here before so when seeing it ( Ebay? ) spent some time trying to track it down again.

This might be an awfully pretty man, he's still a guy? A woman this pretty would have far less jaw for one thing. The only things making us think ' Oh look, a girl ' is how ' pretty ' some features are- imagine this face surrounded by an era, female hairstyle, all curls and poof. It's less convincing.
 
Looking further into Martha Lindley's story ( 6th US Cavalry ). Poking around ( again ) in the topic of female soldiers makes me convinced there are images of a few somewhere.

Still unsure over this one. Remember the fairly well known story of two teamsters drunk and brawling who fell into the river? Unassuming specimens of humanity, it wasn't until they were hauled out dripping anyone had the vaguest clue both were women. It's been awhile, seem to remember the word ' brawny ' used to describe them.
 
I wonder what the photographer thought about this person?? Or better still, the other soldiers this "subject" served with??
 
Back
Top