Rosenstock photo mystery solved (again)

Joined
Jan 8, 2012
Messages
488
#1
Yawn. Yet another article--this time from Frederick Magazine--purporting to have determined the location of the famous Rosenstock photo. “History’s always open to interpretation” said a Frederick Tourism official. No kidding. Seemingly endless interpretation, apparently.

The next time I refer to this photo, I'm calling it:

"The only known photograph of a Confederate Army on the move, taken somewhere in downtown Frederick, MD during the Civil War."

See the latest article on this photo in Frederick Magazine and the evidence regarding its location: https://www.fredmag.com/history-mystery/

Lifestyles_0319.jpg
 
Last edited:

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Joined
Apr 8, 2018
Messages
935
Location
Coffeeville, TX
#3
Yawn. Yet another article--this time from Frederick Magazine--purporting to have determined the location of the famous Rosenstock photo. “History’s always open to interpretation” said a Frederick Tourism official. No kidding. Seemingly endless interpretation, apparently.

The next time I refer to this photo, I'm calling it:

"The only known photograph of a Confederate Army on the move, taken somewhere in downtown Frederick, MD during the Civil War."

See the latest article on this photo in Frederick Magazine and the evidence regarding its location: https://www.fredmag.com/history-mystery/

View attachment 306878
Interesting, but like the last new revelation article on the photo, their evidence for it 1864 instead of 1862 is sketchy at best. It may have been on the other street, but to say it was 1864 "because they look like they've been fighting for years" is laughable at best. One just needs to take a good look at their uniforms, and gear and take a look at how the ANV looked in 1862 versus 1864 and it looks plainly like this is 1862.

Heck by 1864 English blue-gray kersey uniforms from the Richmond Depot had filled up the ranks of the ANV to a large degree, and I can't see the evidence of those uniforms here. It isn't clear enough to make an exact determination, but it looks to me to be lacking. One could maybe even spot a British Army style knapsack or two if it were 1864, and I don't see it.

Are these the same guys who said it was 1864 based solely on they couldn't see bayonets? Cause if so I can't help but wonder why anyone would take them seriously at this point.
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2012
Messages
488
#4
Interesting, but like the last new revelation article on the photo, their evidence for it 1864 instead of 1862 is sketchy at best. It may have been on the other street, but to say it was 1864 "because they look like they've been fighting for years" is laughable at best. One just needs to take a good look at their uniforms, and gear and take a look at how the ANV looked in 1862 versus 1864 and it looks plainly like this is 1862.

Heck by 1864 English blue-gray kersey uniforms from the Richmond Depot had filled up the ranks of the ANV to a large degree, and I can't see the evidence of those uniforms here. It isn't clear enough to make an exact determination, but it looks to me to be lacking. One could maybe even spot a British Army style knapsack or two if it were 1864, and I don't see it.

Are these the same guys who said it was 1864 based solely on they couldn't see bayonets? Cause if so I can't help but wonder why anyone would take them seriously at this point.
Can't determine if it's the same two who made the previous claims because I can't access the Washington Post article without a subscription, but I agree that "they look like they've been fighting for years" is a weak observation and certainly not grounds for dating anything.

In fact, the Confederate army was already in pretty bad shape when they came through Frederick--its condition is most often characterized by the well-known description: "A most ragged, lean and hungry set of wolves." The war was only in its second year, but they already looked like they had been fighting for years.

This article gives a good description on the destitute state of the Confederate army at the time:
(https://goneforsoldiers.wordpress.c...ederate-soldier-during-the-maryland-campaign/)

"A dirtier, filthier, more unsavory set of human beings never strolled through a town..."

I recall reading elsewhere that a shopkeeper complained that when inside his store, the stench coming off them was almost unbearable. It's also been noted that once potential recruits in Maryland got a close look at Lee's army, many recoiled in disgust and few rallied to the cause after seeing what they had to look forward to.
 
Last edited:

gary

Captain
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
6,410
#6
As I thought, old city directories or business related things (advertisements or licenses). That's how I found Truman Head/California Joe of the 1 USSS.
 
Joined
Apr 8, 2018
Messages
935
Location
Coffeeville, TX
#7
Can't determine if it's the same two who made the previous claims because I can't access the Washington Post article without a subscription, but I agree that "they look like they've been fighting for years" is a weak observation and certainly not grounds for dating anything.

In fact, the Confederate army was already in pretty bad shape when they came through Frederick--its condition is most often characterized by the well-known description: "A most ragged, lean and hungry set of wolves." The war was only in its second year, but they already looked like they had been fighting for years.

This article gives a good description on the destitute state of the Confederate army at the time:
(https://goneforsoldiers.wordpress.c...ederate-soldier-during-the-maryland-campaign/)

"A dirtier, filthier, more unsavory set of human beings never strolled through a town..."

I recall reading elsewhere that a shopkeeper complained that when inside his store, the stench coming off them was almost unbearable. It's also been noted that once potential recruits in Maryland got a close look at Lee's army, many recoiled in disgust and few rallied to the cause after seeing what they had to look forward to.

Heck the ANV was dirty, stinking, lice ridden, and veterans when it was formed in the Peninsula Campaign. I just don't know why so many are eager to re-write the history of this photo when its pretty clear from looking at it it's more than likely 1862, and the provenance from that year is pretty solid.

First it was because they couldn't see bayonets, laughably weak argument, and now its because "they look like they've been fighting for years" which is an even more laughably weak argument. Someone better not quit their day job lol.
 

Similar threads




(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top