Interesting Photo

[dusty27]

Re: Interesting Photo

Eric,

Thanks for the insight on the title of the photo. Excuse my ignorance on all things artillery, but why would an artilleryman wear a cartridge box? Also, I like Jason's theory on the possible black man pictured here. Too early for a sun tan.

[ScottMcKay]

Re: Interesting Photo

Did anyone notice the cartridge paper around the dead soldier in the foreground? There is also visible, a dropped minie ball which leads me to believe that these soldiers had been stationary at the position they fell. And the fact that there was a dropped round at his side has me suspecting it could have fumbled out of his hands as he was quickly loading.

I would also suspect that both of those men's rifles were picked up in haste, for I feel if they were collected by detail, the one in the foreground would have had his cartridge box retrieved as well (regardless whether the field was held by friend or foe).

That is all speculation of course.

[justthemiller]

Re: Interesting Photo

Well Actually,

Both corpses in the photo are Confederate. The fellow nearest the camera is wearing a Tait jacket with the straps cut off with Federal accoutrements and Philadelphia corrugated canteen. The fellow farthest from the camera does seem to have his trousers tucked into his boots and it does look like he his perhaps wearing checked trousers. Another interesting note on that fellow is that he is wearing a civilian style vest and has nothing military around him. The subject could be a civilian teamster that was caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Dignann]

Re: Interesting Photo

Ryan,

The quote I posted is not from Frassanito, but is from the original caption that appeared with the photo, as issued by the Anthony brothers. It is presumed that the original caption, as quoted in my first post, was written by Roche. To what extent Roche knew what he was talking about, or to what extent he created an interesting subject, who knows.

Eric

[RyanBWeddle]

Re: Interesting Photo

Ryan,

The quote I posted is not from Frassanito, but is from the original caption that appeared with the photo, as issued by the Anthony brothers. It is presumed that the original caption, as quoted in my first post, was written by Roche. To what extent Roche knew what he was talking about, or to what extent he created an interesting subject, who knows.

Eric

Sorry, I don't have my Frasso in front of me. Didn't catch that, thanks... Then Roche is off! :D

As to the 'black' guy, I doubt that we can make a firm statement on that, it is all conjecture without a clearer photo, although his hair on the tiff looks pretty straight...and he looks more dirty than dark.

[Dignann]

Re: Interesting Photo

There is also yet another varient of this soldier, also taken by Roche, without the sponge rammer. here's a link to that photo:


http://www.mdgorman.com/Anthony/3191.htm




The original caption for this image, again presumed to have been written by Roche, was:

"A Rebel soldier killed in the trenches before Petersburgh. The spots and marks on his face, are blood issuing from his mouth and nose. The wound is in the head, caused by a fragment of shell. This view was taken the morning after the storming of Petersburgh, Va. 1865."

Eric

[markmason]

Re: Interesting Photo

I like the checker pattern trousers. why are they frowned upon with so much disgust in our living history world?

[ThehosGendar]

Re: Interesting Photo

Cartridge and a package without any indentifiable text:


A cartridge at the tip of the sponge:


The minie:


Regarding the fellow in the background - that must be some dirt, because it's much darker than the blood which covers the foreground soldier's face. It's also reflective - compare the glare on the cartridge box and the hand...

[RyanBWeddle]

Re: Interesting Photo

I like the checker pattern trousers. why are they frowned upon with so much disgust in our living history world?

Because Mark, that the reproductions of them worn by mainstreamers look like circus clown pants rather than good civilian trowsers of the era . . .

For all you bullet fans, here is a zoom of the detrius on the ground with the cartridge wrappers, which support that this was an infantry position....

[Greg Renault]

Re: Interesting Photo

It looks like a leather strap on the canteen.

Greg Renault

[markj]

Re: Interesting Photo

Greetings,

Two possibilities arise to explain the missing jacket and trouser buttons:

1. They were souvenired per common custom of the day.

2. The looter(s) simply took a knife and sliced through the threads holding the buttons instead of individually undoing them. Very quick and easy...and it reduced the need to make physical contact with the corpse.

Regards,

Mark Jaeger

[Minieball577]

Re: Interesting Photo

For all you bullet fans, here is a zoom of the detrius on the ground with the cartridge wrappers, which support that this was an infantry position....

We know that towards the end of the conflict artillery units were converted to infantry units, such as with the Second Company of Richmond Howitzer's at Sailor's Creek, etc.

Also, I would not second guess the original notation on the photograph as you have considering that there is some provenance for Tait jackets with Red trim.

In addition, I would not be hasty in ruling out the second remains as those being from a person of color.

[styler]

Re: Interesting Photo

Two possibilities arise to explain the missing jacket and trouser buttons:

1. They were souvenired per common custom of the day.
..........................

I can see the jacket buttons being picked up as souveniers (assuming they had some special stamped pattern decorating them), and there are many accounts of this sort of thing, but what good would simple pants buttons be as souveniers?

Likely then as now men wanted for spare buttons, either for personal use or trade. Anyone ever read any accounts of like activity (I can't recall any)? Would there be any benefit of looking more closely at other well known images of battlefield dead (Antietam, Gettysburg) to see what may be missing?

For $60,000: How does this translate in an interpretive program.

[RyanBWeddle]

Re: Interesting Photo

I don't believe I am being hasty, maybe it's reading that way, we just need to keep our options open, as this is all guesswork.

As to the background fella, look at the close up I posted earlier... The skin tone is light around the face, etc. I believe that is whitey.

We know that towards the end of the conflict artillery units were converted to infantry units, such as with the Second Company of Richmond Howitzer's at Sailor's Creek, etc.

Also, I would not second guess the original notation on the photograph as you have considering that there is some provenance for Tait jackets with Red trim.

In addition, I would not be hasty in ruling out the second remains as those being from a person of color.

[BHoover]

Re: Interesting Photo

FWIW: If you read the Jensen article referenced earlier, he mentioned the red trim caption and doesn't say a thing about doubting it. And the grey level of the collar is certainly in line with the way red looks in period b&w images.

Sponge-head I have to dissagree with Greg... if you look at the tiff it's clear that there is a great deal of wear on sponge. One spot near the top has virtually all the pile worn off the sponge. It's for a large cannon, something the size of a napoleon or 20 pdr parrott for example. But you can see from the right hand image that it's broken off a bit below the head, so who knows where it came from. Since it's missing from the other image it's very likely a "plant" by the photographer.

Ball and cartridge paper don't mean that particular soldier shot a musket there, just that someone did.

So, the question would seem to be either "why did artilleryman have infantry traps?" or "why did infantryman have red trimmed jacket?"