Photography - Scarsdale Public Schools / Overview

(1894–1895). A new generation of literate children wereready to make these works their own.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

Baker, A. R. Lowell Daily Citizen and News (Lowell,MA), January 1, 1864.

Bingham, Jane, and Grayce Scholt. Fifteen Centuries ofChildren’s Literature: An Annotated Chronology ofBritish and American Works in Historical Context.Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1980.

Boston Daily Advertiser (Boston), October 26, 1864,col. H.

Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper (New York),December 17, 1864.

Meigs, Cornelia, et al. A Critical History of Children’sLiterature: A Survey of Children’s Books in English,rev. ed. London: Macmillan, 1969.

Quayle, Eric. The Collector’s Book of Children’s Books.London: Clarkson N. Potter, 1971.

Jeanne M. Lesinski

n PhotographyPHOTOGRAPHY: AN OVERVIEW

Richard C. Keenan

WAR PHOTOGRAPHY

Christina Adkins

CIVILIAN PHOTOGRAPHY

Christina Adkins

PHOTOGRAPHY: AN OVERVIEW

The American Civil War was the first war to be extensivelydocumented by photography. The photographic processwas still in its infancy in the first quarter of the nineteenthcentury; by modern standards it was a cumbersome andprimitive process. With the advent of the war, photogra-phy, which had been largely limited to portraiture and thevisual recording of landmarks, both natural and humanlyconstructed, took a new direction and discovered a newpurpose. It recorded history with a graphic reality un-realized in any written description; it largely dispelledthe romantic imagery of equestrian prowess, flashingsabers, and desperate but heroic stands by larger-than-life figures—images derived from paintings and illustra-tions that had been the more commonly depicted viewsof war before the photograph. Photography presented tothe public the devastation of war and its destructive after-math in all their grim reality. Although the Civil War wasnot definitively documented on film, there were approx-imately one million photographs taken between 1860and 1865, and there were more than 3,000 photogra-phers actively practicing their profession in the UnitedStates (Schwarz 2000, p. 1515).

Among these photographers was a relatively smallgroup who worked as the first photographers of the devas-tations of war. The most notable members of the groupwereAlexanderGardner (1821–1882), TimothyH.O’Sul-livan (c. 1840–1882), and James F. Gibson (b. 1828), all ofwhom began their careers working for Mathew Brady(1823–1896), an enterprising producer of daguerreotypeswhose name became all but synonymous with Civil Warphotography.

Popular American photography began in the 1840swith the daguerreotype, a process for reproducing imageson a light-sensitive, silver-coated metal sheet. The process,patented in 1839, had been developed by Louis Daguerre(1787–1851), a French artist and chemist. There was oneimage produced with each sitting, and the subject wasrequired to hold completely still for a period of time thatcould last up to a full sixty seconds in order to effect theproper exposure. These proto-photographs were generallykept in decorative boxes designed to protect the product.Daguerreotype studios flourished in New York City in the1840s, and one of the more successful of these studios wasowned by the enterprising Mathew Brady.

Brady’s Early WorkBrady, the son of Irish immigrants, began as an art studentwho also made watch and instrument cases, includingcases for daguerreotypes, which awakened his interest inthis new technology. He took lessons in the daguerreotypemethod from Samuel F. B. Morse (1791–1872), an artinstructor and portrait painter who learned the processfrom its inventor, Louis Daguerre (Morse is better knownto posterity as the inventor of the single-wire telegraph andthe Morse code).

Brady enjoyed great success with daguerreotypes, andin 1842 opened his own studio and portrait gallery in NewYork. In 1849 he opened a second gallery in Washington,DC In 1854 he opened an additional gallery in New York.He became world-renowned, winning prizes for his workat the 1851 World Exposition in London and the 1853World’s Fair in New York. Brady photographed everypresident of the United States from John Quincy AdamstoWilliamMcKinley, with the exception ofWilliamHenryHarrison, who died in 1841 after a little more than amonth in office. Brady’s best-known presidential photo-graphs are those of Abraham Lincoln, most notably theone that for many years appeared on the American five-dollar bill.

In the 1850s Brady began to turn his attention fromthe daguerreotype to a newmethod of photography knownas the wet plate process, developed by an Englishmannamed Frederick Scott Archer. This process used a mixtureof nitrocellulose dissolved in acetone called collodion. Thecollodion was mixed with additional chemicals, applied to acarefully cleaned glass plate, and allowed to stand until itformed a glutinous, jelly-like consistency. The plate wasthen immersed in liquid silver nitrate in a darkroom,

GALE LIBRARY OF DAILY L IFE : AMERICAN CIVIL WAR 275

Photography: An Overview

creating sensitivity to light in the gelatinous collodion thatwould last only as long as the plate remained wet. The wetplate was then placed in an opaque holder and subsequentlytransferred to the focused and positioned camera, with thesubject already in place for the exposure. After exposure,the collodion plate was removed from the camera, again inits opaque holder, and returned to the darkroom, where itwas placed in a bath of chemical developer followed by abath of fixer, usually potassium cyanide. The plate was thenwashed in water, dried, and given a protective coat of lightvarnish. The wet plate process was less expensive and gave asharper image with a greater contrast on the gray scale,unlike the darker quality of the daguerreotype. Moreover,the wet plate process produced a negative from which thephotographer could make additional positive photographsin the darkroom.

With the addition of the wet plate process, Brady’sstudios went on to even greater success. Brady placedparticular emphasis on large portraits, some as large as17 by 21 inches, which were called ‘‘Brady Imperials.’’An Imperial could be carefully retouched with paint orink to create an impressive lifelike portrait that would sellfor fifty to a hundred dollars on average. Brady favored

the Imperials, both for the money they brought to thestudio and, in particular, for their artistic prestige.

Cartes de visite and the Civil War

Brady’s assistant, later themanager of hisWashington, DC,studio, AlexanderGardner, wanted to place greater empha-sis on the carte de visite, a smaller photograph (2 ½ x 4inches) printed on thin cardboard. This process had firstbeen developed by a Frenchman, Andre Disderi, whopatented his concept in 1854. His process allowed eightnegatives to be taken on an 8 x 10 glass plate. The carte devisite, a descendant of the Victorian calling card, fromwhich it derives its name, was extremely popular with thepublic. The paper print photograph could also bemountedon a slightly larger and heavier piece of card stock with asentiment (usually a poem or quotation) printed below.The photograph might be a famous landmark or person,or a family member. During the Civil War, thousandsof proud young soldiers in new uniforms, on duty andfar from home, would stand in line at the photographer’swagon found at almost every encampment to have a cartede visite taken. It would then be mailed home, where itwould be placed in the family album for posterity.

War dead at Gettysburg. Images captured by Civil War photographers delivered the brutality of the conflict to the American public in away never before seen. Photograph by Alexander Gardner. The Library of Congress.

276 GALE LIBRARY OF DAILY LIFE : AMERICAN CIVIL WAR


The carte de visite also went the other way, andmany asoldier carriedwith him a small likeness of his wife, children,mother or sweetheart. Brady was initially resistant to mak-ing these mementos and wanted to concentrate more ofthe studio’s time on the Imperial portrait, with its greaterimmediate profit and prestige. Gardner, an astute business-man as well as a talented photographer, saw greater profit inthe volume that cartes de visite, which sold individually forbetween ten and twenty cents, would bring. Using existentequipment, Gardner improvised a four-lens camera thatcould make four images on one glass plate, quadrup-ling the studio’s volume of production of the small pho-tographs. At Gardner’s urging, Brady entered into anagreement with the Anthony Brothers, who operated thelargest photographic supply company in the country, toproduce and distribute the small photographs. The Bradystudios would supply the negatives and in return wouldreceive a substantial royalty from the sales (Sullivan 2004,pp. 26–27).

Perhaps the most poignant story concerning the cartede visite is that of an unknown soldier, a sergeant whoserved with the 154th New York Volunteer Regiment.On July 1, the first day of the battle of Gettysburg, thesergeantwasmortally wounded anddied before hewas ableto reach the safety of the Union lines on Cemetery Ridge.After the battle, his body was found, but without identi-fication. In his handwas an ambrotype photograph of threesmall children. The young woman who found the bodygave the photograph to her father, the owner of a localtavern. The tavern keeper displayed the photograph, and itbecame a curiosity and conversation piece.

Some months later, in November 1863, Dr. JohnFrancis Bourns, a Philadelphia physician who had cometo the battlefield hospital to lend assistance to the sick andwounded, saw the photograph and became intrigued withthe case of this unknown soldier. After first locating andmarking the grave where the sergeant was buried, he setout to identify and locate the children. Bourns had thephotograph of the children duplicated as a carte de visite.Because the format was not expensive, he made multiplecopies and circulated them widely. On October 19, 1863,the Philadelphia Inquirer carried the story, and othernewspapers throughout the Northeast gave it widespreaddistribution. Finally, in Portville, New York, Mrs. PhilindaHumiston responded to the story. She was the wife of Sgt.AmosHumiston and themother of eight-year old Franklin,six-year-old Alice, and four-year-old Frederick. She hadsent the photograph to her husband months before buthad not heard from him since the conclusion of the Gettys-burg battle. Sgt.Humistonwas thus conclusively identified.The public was greatly moved by the story, and Dr. Bournssold hundreds of copies of the carte de visite with thepoignant image of the orphan children. He donated theproceeds of the sales to Mrs. Humiston and her family(Dunkleman 1999, pp. 12–17).

StereographsAnother photographic innovation that became extremelypopular in the 1850s was the stereograph. The stereo-graph was a set of photographs (paper prints from glassnegatives) printed side by side, with one print havinga slightly different, all but indiscernible depth of field,taken by a double-lens specially designed camera. Thesedual photographs, placed side by side on cardboard, wereviewed through a handheld binocular frame with a slightmagnification. The view for the spectator was a singlethree-dimensional image. The stereograph remained apopular entertainment device in American homes intothe early twentieth century. It brought to quiet domesticparlors not only the visual pleasures of faraway places withstrange-sounding names never before seen, but also thedestruction and devastation of the American Civil War.

The continuing demand for cartes de visite and stereo-graphs greatly increased Brady’s profits and reputation. In1864 he opened a new and highly luxurious studio atBroadway and Tenth Street in New York City. FrankLeslie’s Illustrated Newspaper, one of the most popularperiodicals of the time, waxed eloquent about the studio’s‘‘costly carpet . . . elegant and luxurious couches . . . andartistic gas fixtures.’’ There was also a private entrance forladies arriving in evening dress ‘‘to obviate the unpleasantnecessity of passing, so attired, through the public gallery.’’The greatest experience of Brady’s career came with thevisit of the Prince of Wales, Albert Edward, son of QueenVictoria, and heir to the British throne. The prince, laterKing Edward VII (1841–1910), was on a diplomatic visitto Canada and North America, the first member of theBritish royal family to visit the United States. Brady invitedthe prince and his entourage to visit the studio, and theprince readily accepted. He and others sat for individualand group portraits, and spent several hours touring thestudio and viewing Brady’s prized collection of photo-graphs of prominent Americans. The New York Timesreported that the royals ‘‘complimented Brady highly uponhis proficiency and art’’ (Sullivan 2004, 28–29).

Brady at the peak of his career enjoyed his artisticrecognition and high social standing, but he was not aman with a sound fiscal sense. He lived a life of luxury,traveled often, made some bad investments, and sparedlittle or no expense for the equipment and interior dec-oration of his studios. In later years he lost everything,including a large collection of negatives held by theAnthony Brothers as security for the purchase of photo-graphic supplies.

Battlefield PhotographyThe relatively new technology of photography and theAmericanCivilWar came together on July 21, 1861. Brady,among a handful of Washington photographers, followedthe Federal Army to Manassas, Virginia, just south of thecapital, where Union troops engaged the new ConfederateArmy near Bull RunCreek in the first land battle of the war.



Initially Brady was motivated by the opportunity for busi-ness profit, but gradually he developed the idea of photo-graphing the war as an important contribution to the newvisual dimension of history presented by photography. Thisfirst experience, however, produced no known photo-graphs whatever. The newly formed Confederate Armyoverwhelmed the Federal troops, and the engagementturned into a rout. Brady and other photographers hadto hastily pack up their equipment (delicate and easilydamaged in the great urgency) and toss it into darkroomwagons as they joined the hasty retreat of soldiers andcivilian spectators back to Washington.

Brady’s studios continued to be in the forefrontof efforts to document the war in photographs, althoughBrady, afflicted with deteriorating eyesight, gradually tooka less active part in on-site photography. Others, particu-larly Gardner and O’Sullivan, along with James Gibson,took many of the photographs that came to the public’sattention as the work of ‘‘Mathew Brady Studios.’’ Thisidentification became a point of contention, particularly

with Gardner, who resented not receiving credit for hiswork. Sometime in 1862 or 1863, he left Brady andopened his own studio in Washington with his brotherJames. Timothy O’Sullivan and others also left Brady andwent to work for Gardner. Both Gardner and O’Sullivanwent on to distinguish themselves in the annals of photog-raphy, receiving due recognition for their compositions.Gardner photographed the meeting between McClellanand President Lincoln, formally posed with military staffoutside McClellan’s tent, which is perhaps his best-knownphotograph, as well as much of the destruction of thecity of Richmond. At the end of the war Gardner photo-graphed the conspirators convicted in Lincoln’s assassina-tion and their subsequent execution. Another associate ofGardner’s, George Barnard, followed General Sherman’sArmy on its march through Georgia and madememorablephotographs of the stark devastation of the countrysideand the destruction of Atlanta.

Gardner’s and Gibson’s photographs of the aftermathof the Antietam battlefield were the first graphic images of

Mathew Brady (1822–1896) and company, Petersburg, Virginia. Developments in photography allowed the Civil War to be the

first conflict to be captured on still media. Mathew Brady, already a well-known professional photographer before the war, and his staff

became famous for images capturing different aspects of Civil War battles. The Library of Congress.



battlefield dead to reach the American public. The photo-graphs could not be directly reproduced in newspapersbecause the half-tone process that enables such reproduc-tion of photographs was not invented until the 1880s.Engravings, however, were made from the photographs,depicting such scenes as the Confederate dead who fell nearthe Burnside Bridge and along the fenced area known asBloody Lane. The engravings were initially reproduced inHarper’sWeekly, and the original photographs, displayed atBrady’s New York studio, both horrified and fascinated thepublic, who came to see them in great numbers (Schwarz2000, p. 1516).

A reporter for the New York Times visited the studioduring the Antietam exhibit, and recognized a deepersignificance and value that transcended the more luridand sensational aspects of the exhibit. In the October 20,1862 edition of the newspaper, the unidentified reporterwrote the following: ‘‘Mr. Brady has done something tobring home to us the terrible reality and earnestness ofwar. If he has not brought bodies and laid them in ourdoor-yards and along streets, he has done something verylike it’’ (Frassanito 1978, p. 16). O’Sullivan’s photographsof the Gettysburg battlefield, appearing in a later exhibit,produced a similar reaction—particularly the photographof the bloated bodies of Federal dead lying in a field nearthe McPherson woods, titled ‘‘A Harvest of Death’’(Schwarz 2000, p. 1446).

In addition to corpses on the battlefield, skeleton-ized buildings, and devastated countryside, photogra-phers of the Civil War period recorded in both quantityand detail soldiers posing on captured breastworks andgun emplacements, regiments on parade or drilling in thefields, army encampments, and the formidable and grow-ing ironclad navy. The only missing element is the actualcombat. There are no photographs of armies moving intoactive combat or the explosions, caught at the moment ofimpact, that are such a distinctive part of war photogra-phy in later generations.

This omission had nothing to do with the courageor initiative of the photographers; it was the primary limi-tation of photography at the time. The exposure time forthe wet plate process took approximately ten to thirtyseconds, depending on the intensity of the light. Officersand enlisted men could hold such poses without difficulty,but horses, mules, and flying flags could be a problem. Anymovement before the exposure was complete would pro-duce a blur in the final image. The photographing of actualbattle or combat action was not possible in the 1860s. Tocompensate for this limitation, photographers would oftenrecreate a particular battlefield scene to enhance its dramaticeffect, moving corpses, equipment and weapons into avariety of poses. A good example of this technique is theoften-reproduced photograph taken by Alexander Gardnerof a dead Confederate sharpshooter in the Devil’s Den areaof the battle of Gettysburg. William Frassanito, after apainstaking analysis of the photograph and of others taken

in the same area, demonstrated conclusively that the bodyof the sharpshooter had been moved and rearranged, and anumber of exposures had been taken of the various posi-tions (Frassanito 1975, pp. 191–192).

Most of the Civil War photographs that have survivedwere taken by Northerners. Southern photographers wereactive in the beginning of the war, and were in fact the firstCivilWar photographers on record. The photographs of theConfederate general staff that appear most often in booksabout the war, along with other high-ranking officers inSouthern uniforms, were taken by photographers in theSouth. Noted Southern photographers include AndrewLytle of Baton Rouge and George S. Cook of Charleston,among others. As the Union blockade gradually but effec-tively reduced all commerce with the world outside theConfederacy only contraband goods were readily obtain-able. Photographic supplies andnecessary chemicals, includ-ing cameras and replacement parts, became increasinglyscarce and were simply unavailable in the South by 1863.

By the end of the four-year conflict, several hundredthousand photographs had been taken; a large percentageof those were portraits. Mathew Brady’s photographiccollection consisted of some 6,000 negatives and photo-graphs taken by his studio and those of other photo-graphers, which he purchased during his lifetime. Thesephotographs were acquired by the War Department in1874 and are now stored in the National Archives. Inaddition, there are major collections in the Library ofCongress and the Connecticut State Library in Hartford.Other substantial collections can be found in the BostonPublic Library, Princeton University’s Firestone Library,and the George Eastman House in Rochester, New York.


Dunkelman, Mark H. Gettysburg’s Unknown Soldier:The Life, Death, and Celebrity of Amos Humiston.Westport, CT: Praeger, 1999.

Frassanito, William A. Antietam: The PhotographicLegacy of America’s Bloodiest Day. New York:Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1978.

Frassanito, William A. Early Photography at Gettysburg.Gettysburg, PA: Thomas Publications, 1995.

Frassanito, William A. Gettysburg: A Journey in Time.Gettysburg, PA: Thomas Publications, 1975.

Schwarz, Angela. ‘‘Photography.’’ In Encyclopedia of theAmerican Civil War: A Political, Social, andMilitary History, ed. David S. and Jeanne T. Heidler.New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2000.

Sullivan, George. In the Wake of Battle: The Civil WarImages of Mathew Brady. Munich and New York:Prestel Verlag, 2004.

Richard C. Keenan



WAR PHOTOGRAPHY

The Civil War was the first conflict to be extensively docu-mented by photographers. Between 1860 and 1865,about one million photographs depicted some aspect of anation at war (Sullivan 2004, p. 6). During this time,military photography radically altered the vision of battleheld in America’s popular imagination. In illustrated week-lies, popular histories, and children’s textbooks, antebel-lum print culture produced scenes that celebrated andromanticized war with little acknowledgment of its attend-ant loss (Frassanito 1978, pp. 27–28). Though images ofbattlefield casualties constituted only a small portion of thephotographs taken during the war, the pictures of the deadcaptured by such Civil War photographers as MathewBrady (1823–1896) and his associates confronted thepublic with drastically different and haunting tableaus.

Though a few photographic images of war hadbeen produced during the Crimean War (1853–1856) inEurope and the Mexican-American War (1846–1848)in the Southwest, they were not widely circulated in theUnited States. Rather, the most abundant visual represen-tations of combat were artist illustrations, particularlywoodcut engravings. The technology did not yet exist toreplicate photographs in newspapers or magazines, so dur-ing the Civil War these publications employed graphicartists to redraw photographic images for their readers.But before that, artists worked without photographic re-ferents, and the illustrations they produced, according tohistorian William Frassanito, depicted war as ‘‘a gloriousadventure.’’ Most depicted action scenes of troops in themidst of battle or of individual soldiers in heroic postures.The dead and wounded were pictured, but their presencewas subordinated to the unity of the heroic battle scene.The casualties were almost never shown as mutilated,dismembered, or rotting (Frassanito 1978, p. 28).

The 1862 Antietam Exhibit

That type of representation changed when a series ofbattlefield photographs, titled ‘‘The Dead at Antietam’’went on display in Mathew Brady’s New York studio.The photographs had been made by Alexander Gardner(1821–1882), one of Brady’s associates. Portable photolaboratories in horse-drawn wagons gave photographersthe mobility to perform field work and follow the militaryengagements (Bleiler 1959 [1866]). But as the photoprocess required extended exposure, the technology didnot lend itself to recording action shots of engagements,nor did the obvious hazards of setting up equipment in themiddle of combat zones (Cobb 1962, pp. 128–129). Theprocess was also complicated by possession of the battle-field after the fighting had ended. Thus, the most dramaticbattlefield images taken by photographers were necessarilytaken afterward. If burial details had finished clearing thebattlefield and interring the dead before the photographersarrived, they documented the aftermath by focusing on thescarred landscape. Alexander Gardner and his assistant

made their well-known death studies at Antietam soonafter the battle ended. Many of the dead remained wherethey had fallen on the battlefield in abject posturesand in various stages of decomposition (Frassanito 1978,pp. 51–52). Gardner’s images presented a terrible spectacleto the viewers who studied the images in Brady’s gallery.

A reporter who covered the story for The New YorkTimes acknowledged that though most civilians ‘‘recog-nize the battle-field as a reality . . . it stands as a remoteone.’’ The photos in the exhibit had begun to change thatconception. According to the Times, the photographerhad ‘‘done something to bring home to us the terriblereality and earnestness of war. If he has not brought bodiesand laid them in our dooryards and along the streets, hehas done something very like it’’ (October 20, 1862, p. 5).

Some of the battlefield scenes were so graphic thatwhen they were redrawn as magazine illustrations, artistsand editors had to select the subjects carefully so as not tooffend the sensibilities of their readers. According to thehistorian Donald Keyes, however, ‘‘There was no escapingthe truth of the photograph when the camera dispassion-ately surveyed the carnage and wreckage of humanityand buildings’’ (Keyes 1976–1977, p.121). As the Timesreporter noted, the photos bore a ‘‘terrible distinctiveness’’so that with the use of amagnifying glass, ‘‘the very featuresof the slain may be distinguished’’ (October 20, 1862,p. 5). The reporter also speculated that ‘‘Of all objects ofhorror onewould think the battle-field should stand preemi-nent.’’ But rather than the repulsiveness one would antici-pate, the photographs elicited ‘‘a terrible fascination . . . thatdraws one near these pictures, and makes him loth [sic] toleave them.’’ The article continued, ‘‘You will see hushed,reverend groups standing around these weird copies of carn-age, bending down to look in the pale faces of the dead,chained by the strange spell that dwells in dead men’s eyes’’(October 20, 1862, p. 5 ).

In a study of photography that was published in theJuly 1863 Atlantic Monthly, Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr.(1809–1894), an eminent Boston physician, discussed theAntietam exhibit as evidence that ‘‘the field of photographyis extending itself to embrace subjects of strangeand sometimes fearful interest.’’ Holmes had traveled tothe site in search of his son soon after the battle ended, andthe photographs in ‘‘The Dead at Antietam’’ captured theconsequences that Holmes had witnessed firsthand. Hetestified to the realism of the photographs by declaring,‘‘Let himwhowishes to knowwhat war is look at this seriesof illustrations’’ (Holmes 1863, p. 11). Holmes alsodescribed his own experience of viewing these ‘‘terriblemementos’’ and their capacity to ‘‘thrill or revolt thosewhose soul sickens at such sights’’ (pp. 11–12). Lookingover the prints, Holmes remarked, was ‘‘so nearly like visit-ing the battlefield’’ that ‘‘all the emotions excited by theactual sight of the stained and sordid scene . . . came back tous, andwe hurried them in the recesses of our cabinet as we


War Photography

would have buried the mutilated remains of the dead theytoo vividly represented’’ (Holmes 1863, p. 12).

Stereographs and PortraitsWhat no doubt increased the vividness of the photographsand amplified the viewer’s response was that many of thephotographs were produced as three-dimensional, or ster-eoscopic, images. A camera containing two side-by-sidelenses would capture almost identical images. When viewedsimultaneously under a stereograph viewer—the forerun-ner of children’s 3D View-Master toys—the two distinctimages were combined by the viewer’s brain to create theoptical illusion of a single image with depth (Zeller 1997,pp. 13, 16). Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. was an avid collec-tor of stereographs and had invented the first practicalhandheld viewer in 1859 (Zeller 1997, p. 14). The imagesfrom ‘‘The Dead at Antietam’’ were reproduced and soldwidely—stereographs for fifty cents each, two-dimensionalcartes de visite and album cards for a quarter. The sceneswere also redrawn by artists and printed in the illustratedmagazine Harper’s Weekly (Zeller 1997, p. 38).

While the battlefield photos generated the most reac-tion from viewers, they actually constituted only a smallportion of the photographs taken to document the war.More than three thousand photographers were working inthe United States at the time (Sullivan 2004, p. 6); at leastthree hundred of those photographed some aspect of thewar (Moyes 2001, p. 17). Most worked as portrait artists,taking pictures of individual soldiers (Zeller 2005, p. 88).In his study of the Union soldier, The Life of Billy Yank,the historian Bell Irvin Wiley cites an official from the U.S.Sanitary Commission who commented on the ‘‘immensenumber’’ of soldiers who had their likenesses taken byphotographers (Wiley 1971, p. 367). According to Wiley,‘‘during their first weeks in uniform countless soldiersvisited the ’daguerrean artists’ who set up shop in campor in near-by towns’’ (Wiley 1971, p. 25). In a letter datedFebruary 1862, Warren Hapgood Freeman wrote to hisfather, ‘‘There is a photograph artist about the camp, buthe has such a crowd about his saloon all the time thatI have not been able to get a picture yet’’ (Freeman 1871).

A few photographers, such as Alexander Gardner,who left Brady and established his own gallery in 1863,reproduced maps, took images of large landscape views,and documented various aspects and activities of army life.Of the extensive collections of Civil War photographs thatsurvive in the National Archives, ‘‘Soldiers at Rest after aDrill’’ depicts troops seated on the ground reading lettersand playing cards. Other prints include regimental groupportraits, an army blacksmith’s forge, cavalry columns,refugees fleeing a combat zone, religious services, railroadbridges, the construction of telegraph lines, councils ofsenior generals with President Lincoln, people and placesrelated to Lincoln’s assassination, and fugitives who fledslavery as they arrived at Union lines.

Between November 1861 and March 1862, TimothyO’Sullivan (c. 1840–1882) visited the war zone in Beaufort,South Carolina, where defeated planters had abandonedtheir lands but former slaves were not yet recognized as freeby U.S. government policy (Wilson 1999, p. 108). Duringhis time in Beaufort, O’Sullivan photographed the AfricanAmericans of the ‘‘Old Fort Plantation,’’ which became thelargest group photo of enslaved men and women ever

MATHEW BRADY

Mathew Brady was perhaps the preeminent figure of Civil Warphotography, but his role in photographing the war has often

been misunderstood. Brady was the first person to dispatch acorps of photographers to document the war (Trachtenberg

1985, p. 3). While the images that resulted were copyrighted inthe names of individual photographers, the press largely credited

Brady for the work of his employees. Many have speculated thatthis fact ultimately led to Alexander Gardner’s decision to leave

Brady’s employ in 1863 (Zeller 2005, p. 103). Brady’s reputationremains largely unchallenged throughout the postwar nineteenth

century—for example, an 1891 New York World article referredto Brady as ‘‘the grand old man of American photography’’ and as

‘‘a man who has photographed more prominent men than anyother artist in the country’’ (Townsend 1891, p. 26).

Later, however, as scholars began to differentiate the workof several photographers, some questioned whether Brady’s

name was merely the equivalent of a corporate brand (Panzer1997, p. 3). In fact, Brady did personally continue to produce

images consistent with his earlier portraits of famous subjects.But he also devoted much of his effort to compiling as com-

prehensive a collection as he could, through directing the workof his employees and buying negatives of pictures taken by

other photographers (Library of Congress, n.p.). He spent$100,000 to finance his war enterprise, but sold his collection to

the U.S. government for approximately $25,000 to pay his debts

(Townsend 1891, p. 26; Panzer 1997, p. 19). ‘‘No one will everknow what I went through to secure those negatives,’’ Brady

later lamented. ‘‘The world can never appreciate it. It changedthe whole course of my life’’ (Library of Congress, n.p.).

CHRISTINA ADKINS


Library of Congress. ‘‘Mathew B. Brady: Biographical Note.’’ In AmericanMemory: Selected Civil War Photographs. Available from http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/cwphtml/cwbrady.html.

Panzer, Mary. Mathew Brady and the Image of History. Washington, DC:Smithsonian Books, 1997.

Townsend, George Alfred. ‘‘Still Taking Pictures.’’ New York World, April12, 1891, p. 26. Reprinted in Mary Panzer’s Mathew Brady and theImage of History. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books, 1997.

Trachtenberg, Alan. ‘‘Albums of War: On Reading Civil War Photo-graphs.’’ Representations 9 (Winter 1985): 1–32.

Zeller, Bob. The Blue and Gray in Black and White: A History of Civil WarPhotography. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2005.


War Photography

recorded (Wilson 1999, p. 108). Photo collector and authorJackie Napolean Wilson notes the symbolism in the photo-graph as the subjects ‘‘stand in awakeof light emerging fromthe darkness of shadows.’’ As Wilson explains, the men andwomen in the photograph are bewildered survivors of anAmerican tragedy (Wilson 1999, p. 108).

A Military PhotographerMost of the photographers who documented the war,either for their own enterprise or as military contractors,did so as civilians (Zeller 2005, p. 88). A notable exceptionwas a Union officer, Captain Andrew J. Russell (1830–1902), who was uniquely positioned to capture muchmore with his camera. Officially, Russell’s assignment asthe photographer of military railroads required him tophotograph aspects of railroad infrastructure. The photoswere then reproduced and distributed to various militaryand government authorities (Zeller 2005, pp. 89–90).

But Russell also photographed war scenes because hewas often traveling with the troops. Most notably, he tookrare shots of the second battle of Fredericksburg. Russellphotographed soldiers huddled together ready to moveon a moment’s notice. He also set up his camera on theperiphery of the battle and documented the engagementas it progressed. His photos include pictures of what maybe smoke from an artillery battery and images of casualties

taken twenty minutes after the battle (Zeller 2005, pp. 91–99). Russell is credited with raising the bar of Civil Warphotographic achievement in that he was able to follow anarmy in action (Zeller 2005, p. 91).

Other Applications of Civil War PhotographyBut the documentary value of photography was employedfor other purposes as well. The U.S. Congress commis-sioned photographs to record the condition of prisoners atAndersonville, Georgia, the site of a notorious Confeder-ate prison camp (Orvell 2003, p. 65). The images, whichrevealed prisoners near starvation, were used as evidence inthe trial of the jailer in charge of the camp, Henry Wirz,who was ultimately convicted and executed for war crimes.The Daily National Intelligencer reported the testimonyof a U.S. Army surgeon, V. A. Vanderkief, who supervisedthe treatment of reclaimed prisoners at Annapolis, Mary-land. The Intelligencer reported that ‘‘a photograph ofa man . . . reduced to a mere skeleton was exhibited,’’ towhich the witness testified that ‘‘a large number of pri-soners who came from Andersonville were of the appear-ance of that exhibited by the photograph’’ (August 30,1865, col. A).

In addition, a report issued by the Surgeon General’sOffice gauging the material available for a medical historyof the war recounted the early uses of medical photography.

Union artillery unit posed with cannons and horses. More than one million photos are thought to have been taken during the CivilWar, capturing numerous facets of army life. Photograph by Mathew Brady. The Library of Congress.


War Photography

In 1862, the Surgeon General’s Office directed army med-ical officers to forward monthly reports with details of theirsurgical cases and pathological specimens. The plan was toestablish the Army Medical Museum for the advancementof medical study. Eventually a photograph gallery was alsoestablished at the museum. According to George Otis, theauthor of the SurgeonGeneral’s report, ‘‘Typical specimenswere reproduced, and the photographs, accompanied bybrief printed histories, were distributed to medical direc-tors, to be shown to the medical officers serving with them.[ . . . ] Numerous patients in hospitals were photographed,and the Museum now possesses four quarto volumes, with

over a thousand photographic representations of woundedor mutilated men’’ (Otis 1865, p. 7). This early medicalphotography allowed army surgeons to document and dis-seminate knowledge of injuries and treatments that weredeveloped during the war.

After the Civil War, the commercial market for mili-tary photographs rapidly disappeared. In 1865 and 1866,Alexander Gardner published two volumes of Gardner’sPhotographic Sketch Book of theWar.Rather than reproduc-ing the original photographs with artist sketches, the bookwas produced with actual photographic positives pastedinto the pages. The collection was expensive to produce

Ravages of war. Although photographic technology did not yet allow for images of actual fighting, some camera operators would takeimages of the battlefield after the hostilities ended, before dead soldiers were removed. Newspaper editors often sanitized the etchings basedon those pictures, fearing their readership would be too unsettled by the graphic nature of war captured by the photos. The Library of Congress


War Photography

and sold few copies (Bleiler 1959 [1866]). By then, manyAmericans eschewed reminders of the devastating conflict,especially images that so vividly preserved its violence.


Bleiler, E.F. Introduction to Gardner’s PhotographicSketch Book of the Civil War, by Alexander Gardner.New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1959 [1866].

‘‘Brady’s Photographs: Pictures of the Dead atAntietam.’’ New York Times, October 20,1862. p. 5.

Cobb, Josephine. ‘‘Photographers of the Civil War.’’Military Affairs 26, no 3 (1962): 127–135.

Frassanito, William A. Antietam: The PhotographicLegacy of America’s Bloodiest Day. New York:Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1978.

Freeman, Warren Hapgood. ‘‘Letter from WarrenHapgood Freeman to J. D. Freeman.’’ In Lettersfrom Two Brothers Serving in the War for the Unionto Their Family at Home in West Cambridge, Mass.Cambridge, MA: H.O. Houghton and Co., 1871.

Holmes, Oliver Wendell, Sr. ‘‘Doings of the Sunbeam.’’Atlantic Monthly, July 1863, 1–15.

Keyes, Donald. ‘‘The Daguerreotype’s Popularity inAmerica.’’ Art Journal 36, no. 2 (1976–1977):116–122.

Moyes, Norman B. American Combat Photographyfrom the Civil War to the Gulf War. New York:MetroBooks, 2001.

Otis, George Alexander. Reports on the Extent andNature of the Materials Available for thePreparation of a Medical and Surgical Historyof the Rebellion. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott &Co., 1865.

Sullivan, George. In the Wake of Battle: The Civil WarImages of Mathew Brady. New York: PrestelPublishing, 2004.

‘‘Trial of Henry Wirz: The Proceedings of Yesterday.’’Daily National Intelligencer. August 30, 1865,col. A.

Wiley, Bell Irvin. The Life of Billy Yank: The CommonSoldier of the Union. Garden City, NY: Doubleday& Company, Inc., 1971 [1952].

Wilson, Jackie Napolean. Hidden Witness: AfricanAmerican Images from the Dawn of Photographyto the Civil War. New York: St. Martin’s Press,1999.

Zeller, Bob. The Civil War in Depth: History in 3-D. SanFrancisco, CA: Chronicle Books, 1997.

Zeller, Bob. The Blue and Gray in Black and White:A History of Civil War Photography. Westport, CT:Praeger Publishers, 2005.

Christina Adkins

CIVILIAN PHOTOGRAPHY

During the Civil War, photography became an impor-tant medium through which Americans documented theconflict in their own private collections, communicatedsentiment to loved ones, and mourned the losses theyendured.

At the beginning of the Civil War, new army recruitsand civilians on the home front rushed to take portraits forexchange with distant loved ones. By one account, nearlytwenty thousand letters and ‘‘two or three bushels’’ ofphotographs were mailed daily from a single post officeat Nashville (Fitch 1863, p. 313).

Portrait photography was so prevalent that newspaperarticles offered advice on ‘‘How to Photograph PleasingCountenances’’ and ‘‘How to Dress for a Photograph.’’TheWashington (DC)Daily National Intelligencer advisedthat when dressing for a photograph, ‘‘violent contrasts ofcolor should be especially guarded against.’’ It also advo-cated the use of the powder ‘‘puff box,’’ as freckles appeared‘‘most painfully distinct’’ when photographed (February 3,1865). The San Francisco Daily Evening Bulletin reportedthat a photographer in Cleveland, Ohio, had attempted toalleviate the ‘‘stereotyped solemnity’’ of the portrait-sitterby placing a mirror next to the camera. Subjects could thensee their own expressions as they were captured by thecamera. Reportedly, the result was that the ‘‘stern scowl issuddenly changed to a pleasant smile’’ (April 25, 1863).

As a corollary to the small card-mounted portraitsknown as cartes de visite, photo albums became popular,as they allowed people to arrange their own personalphoto archives and place them on display in their homes(Trachtenberg 1985, pp. 6–7).

Newspaper classifieds regularly contained advertise-ments for new types of photo albums. Eastman’s Bookand Stationary Store in Lowell,Massachusetts, for example,claimed to offer the best albums on themarket, purportedlymanifesting ‘‘decided improvements over any heretoforemade’’—though what these innovations might have beenthey did not specify (Lowell Daily Citizen, February 19,1862). An 1865 article in the Daily Cleveland Heraldannounced the introduction of a new type of album,the Photograph Family Record, which was intended topreserve the ‘‘likeness, descriptions, and records’’ of eachfamily member. Each record included spaces for twophotographs taken at different times in a person’s life, ablank marriage certificate, and places to record birth dates,genealogy, education, politics, and various other personalinformation up to the date of death and place of burial. Thearticle concluded that the new album ‘‘affords opportunityfor a complete family history, which cannot but become ahighly-prized memorial’’ (August 3, 1865).

Indeed, these personal photo collections were amongthe valuables saved in times of crisis. For example, one wit-ness to the Confederate raid on Chambersburg, Pennsylva-nia, recalled seeing ‘‘ladies escaping from their houses with


Civilian Photography

nothing but a few photographs or an album’’ (Schneck1864, p. 64). Another resident who lived near the soon-to-be-burned courthouse recalled salvaging a few books,the family Bible, and a photograph album by stowing themin a neighbor’s house (Schneck 1864, p. 47). While the factthat so few things were salvaged was due to the desperationof the situation, the choice of what to save reveals muchabout the importance of photographs.

For hospital supervisor Elvira Powers, the photoalbum she received from her patients was a token ofmutual esteem. The album had her name engraved on itand was ‘‘of a size to hold one hundred pictures.’’ No gift,she declared, was ‘‘more acceptable than the album, espe-cially . . . [if it contained] the faces of the donors’’ (Powers1866, pp. 201–202).

By the 1860s, though, photo collecting was not exclu-sively a personal matter; photo-reproduction processes hadcreated new commercial possibilities. Whereas the earlierdaguerreotype portrait had allowed for only a single copy ofa photograph, the carte de visite process, developed in1850, allowed for multiple prints from a single negative.Meanwhile, the reproduction and sale of celebrity por-traits meant that in addition to pictures of their nearestand dearest, people could purchase small portrait printsof famous figures. Whereas enthusiasts previously had toattend galleries to view images of the most prominentpublic figures of the time, they could now collect prints ofsuch images in their own album archive.

This became the pastime of Southern diarist MaryChesnut, who in 1861 recorded a peculiar morningencounter with South Carolina Governor John Manning.WhenManning arrived for breakfast in full formal attire as ifdressed to attend a ball, Chesnut ‘‘looked at him in amaze-ment.’’ But Manning assured her, ‘‘I am not mad. . . . I amonly going to the photographer.’’Manning’s wife wanted aportrait taken in his dress attire. Chesnut accompaniedManning to the studio, along with her husband JamesChesnut Jr. and the former governor, John Means. After-ward, the diarist received a gift of a photo album in whichshe was to ‘‘pillory all celebrities’’ (Chesnut 1981, p. 37).Though Chesnut’s social circle comprised a veritable who’swho of famous Confederates, she may have acquired pho-tographs for her album not only from personal acquaintan-ces but also from the portrait copies that were widelyavailable for sale. Chesnut later wrote that her photographbook contained ‘‘one of all the Yankee generals’’ (Chesnut1981, p. 731). To amuse the young son of a Confederatecolonel, Chesnut handed him a photo album; on flippingthrough it, the child exclaimed ‘‘You have Lincoln in yourbook! I am astonished at you’’ (Chesnut 1981, p. 412).

Chesnut also recorded an instance in which a suitorsubmitted his portrait to his intended, a common ritual innineteenth-century courtships. Sally ‘‘Buck’’ Preston wasthe object of a Confederate major’s attentions—thoughonly after her own older sister had rejected him. Theofficer, Chesnut noted, sent Sally his photograph, and in

due time ‘‘cannonaded’’ her with marriage proposals(Chesnut 1981, p. 445).

Photography was so integral a part of the culturalexperience of the war that it became the subject of literarycompositions. For example, an anonymous poem titled‘‘The Carte de Visite’’ appeared in the September 1862issue of Harper’s New Monthly Magazine. It tells the storyof a soldier who stops to rest on a stranger’s front porch.During this respite, he describes a terrible battle to amotherand daughter. An unidentified youth killed in actionbecomes the subject of particular concern, as the daughterbegins to worry that the soldier is referring to her beloved.When the soldier reveals a photograph of the young ensign,the image confirms the daughter’s worst fears. The poemconcludes, ‘‘when we buried our dead that night / I tookfrom his breast this picture—see! / It is as like him as likecan be / . . .One glance, and a look, half sad, half wild, /passed over her face, which grew more pale, / Then apassionate, hopeless, heart-broken wail’’ (pp. 479–480).

While this poem is fictional, during the war it indeedbecame common practice to identify casualties from familyphotographs and other items they carried on their person.‘‘Ordinarily,’’ wrote Edward Parmelee Smith, who minis-tered among the casualties, ‘‘in the inside breast pocket ofthe blouse, there would be a letter from friends, a photo-graph, aChristianCommissionTestament orHymnBook ,with the name and regiment and home address’’ (Smith1869, p. 236).

At Gettysburg, a soldier was found slain on the battle-field with no identification but the ambrotype of his threechildren. In Incidents of the United States Christian Com-mission (1869), Smith reflected that perhaps no other storyof the war ‘‘became so widely known or excited such deepsympathy.’’ According to Smith, the soldier was foundclutching the photograph so that it ‘‘must have met hisdying gaze’’ (pp. 175–176). The case came to the attentionof civilian doctor J. Francis Bourns. To discover the identityof the soldier and notify his family, Bourns had the photo-graph reproduced, then furnished the image and details tothe press. The incident and the search became a nationalstory, and copies of the children’s image were reproducedand sold for the benefit of the family. Eventually, the soldierwas identified as Sergeant Amos Humiston. When theHumiston family was finally located, Bourns arranged tomeet them. According to the Washington Daily NationalIntelligencer, Bourns ‘‘found them living in the same hum-ble house in which the father had left them when he wentforth to the service of his country; and when the childrengathered together and grouped as they are in the ambro-type, it was seen that there could be no mistake in thefamily’’ (February 24, 1864). Bourns returned the originalportrait to Humiston’s widow, along with the money col-lected from the sale of the photo reprints and variouscontributions. Copies of the children’s photograph, thearticle added, were still available for sale at a Seventh Streetbookstore and in the Patent Office at the National Fair. OnJanuary 23, 1866, the Scioto Gazette (Chillicothe, OH)



reported continued fundraising efforts for the support ofFrank, Frederick, and Alice, the children of the patriotmartyr of Gettysburg’’ (The Scioto Gazette, January 23,1866). A musical composition entitled ‘‘The Children ofthe Battle-field’’ was published and sold with a brief narra-tive of the family history and a reproduction of the child-ren’s likenesses. The music sold for fifty cents per copy, andcard-sized photographs for a quarter. According to theGazette, the music would be a welcome addition ‘‘in everycircle where music is a part of home enjoyment, and whereare those who with gratitude remember our country’sbrave defenders.’’ According to Smith, the Humiston fam-ily relocated to the National Orphan Homestead, foundedat Gettysburg, where Mrs. Humiston worked as an under-matron andwhere seventy war orphans then resided. Offer-ing an appropriate conclusion to the sentimental story,Smith reported that the ‘‘morning after the children cameto the institution, it was found that they had gone outquietly and decked their father’s grave with beautiful flow-ers’’ (Smith 1869, p. 176).

While the case of the Humiston family was excep-tional for the amount of media attention it received, Wil-liam Howell Reed recounted a similar scene of pathos inhis memoir Hospital Life in the Army of the Potomac(1866). Reed recalled conducting a roadside funeral andinterment for a man who had died on an ambulancebivouac. The man had no identification, and Reed foundin the man’s packet ‘‘only a photograph of a little infant,which showed that there was one tie at least to bind him tothis world.’’ After placing the photo ‘‘upon his breast, andcovering it with his blouse,’’ Reed began the burial and theman ‘‘was laid down to rest’’ (pp. 16–17).

Such stories, however fact-based, were influenced by acultural association between mourning and photography.Since the development of the daguerreotype in the 1830s,it had become common to commission memorial pho-tographs of recently deceased loved ones. As the genredeveloped, subjects were commonly posed in lifelike pos-tures. Children, whose memorial photos were sometimestheir only recorded likenesses, were pictured as if sleeping.

Last thought of a dying father. Soldiers on both sides of the Civil War often kept pictures of their loved ones close to their person.

After the Battle of Gettysburg, an unknown fallen soldier clutching a portrait of his children became famous after a doctor reproduced the

image in newspapers, hoping to identify the man. The Library of Congress.



According to historian Miles Orvell (2003), such imageswere consistent with the Victorian view of death as a bodilysleep from which the deceased would awaken in heaven,and thus offered comfort to the bereaved (pp. 24–25).

‘‘Spirit photography,’’ the discovery ofwhich coincidedwith the Civil War, also became a popular form of memorialimage in the nineteenth century. In March 1861, WilliamMumler photographedhimself alone in his studio, butwhenhe developed the plate he found an additional figure in theframe. Several people claimed that this ‘‘spirit extra’’ was theghost of Mumler’s dead cousin, to whom the image bore astrong resemblance (Kaplan 2003, p. 18). Soon, other pho-tographers began to discover their own ‘‘spirit extras.’’Though spirit images were the result of double exposuressuperimposed by these photographers, some photographersmay have actually believed in the authenticity of their appa-rition (‘‘Gone but Not Forgotten,’’ p. 6).

Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr., a photo collector anddoctor by profession, dismissed spirit photographs as theresult of overwrought mourners and unscrupulous pho-tographers. ‘‘The actinic influence of a ghost on a sensi-tive plate is not so strong as might be desired,’’ Holmeswrote sarcastically, ‘‘but considering that spirits are sonearly immaterial . . . the effect is perhaps as good asought to be expected.’’ Holmes elaborated on what heperceived to be the usual scenario: ‘‘Mrs. Brown, forinstance, has lost her infant, and wishes to have itsspirit-portrait taken with her own. A special sitting isgranted, and a special fee is paid. In due time the photo-graph is ready, and, sure enough, there is the mistyimage of an infant in the background. Or, it may be,across the mothers lap.’’ It may be impossible to identifythe child. But, wrote Holmes, ‘‘it is enough for the poormother, whose eyes are blinded with tears, that she sees aprint of drapery like an infant’s dress, and a roundedsomething, like a foggy dumpling, which will stand fora face: she accepts the spirit-portrait as a revelation fromthe world of shadows’’ (Holmes 1862, p. 14). But evenafter belief in the authenticity of spirit photography hadsubsided, the genre maintained its popularity (‘‘Gonebut Not Forgotten,’’ p. 6). According to art historianLouis Kaplan (2003), spirit photography during theCivil War helped mourners to feel connected with deadloved ones and to withstand the daily tragedies andlosses that surrounded them.


Chesnut, Mary. Mary Chesnut’s Civil War, ed. C. VannWoodward. NewHaven: Yale University Press, 1981.

Fitch, John. Annals of the Army of the Cumberland:Comprising Biographies, Descriptions of Departments,Accounts of Expeditions, Skirmishes, and Battles, 5thed. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1864.

‘‘Gone but Not Forgotten.’’ Special online featureprepared in conjunction with the P.O.V.

documentary A Family Undertaking. PBS.org,2004. Available from http://www.pbs.org/.

Holmes, Oliver Wendell, Sr. ‘‘Doings of the Sunbeam.’’Atlantic Monthly, July 1863, pp. 1–15.

‘‘How to Dress for a Photograph.’’ Washington (DC)Daily National Intelligencer, February 3, 1865.

‘‘How to Photograph Pleasing Countenances.’’ SanFrancisco Daily Evening Bulletin, April 25, 1863.

Kaplan, Louis. ‘‘Where the Paranoid Meets theParanormal: Speculations on Spirit Photography.’’Art Journal 62, no. 3 (2003): 18–29.

Orvell, Miles. American Photography. New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 2003.

‘‘Photograph Albums: Just Received a Large and WellSelected Stock Direct from the Manufacturers.’’Advertisement. Lowell (MA) Daily Citizen andNews, February 19, 1862.

‘‘Photograph Family Record.’’ Daily Cleveland (OH)Herald, August 3, 1865.

Powers, Elvira J. Hospital Pencillings: Being a DiaryWhile in Jefferson General Hospital, Jeffersonville,Ind., and Others at Nashville, Tennessee, as Matronand Visitor. Boston: Edward L. Mitchel, 1866.

Reed, William Howell. Hospital Life in the Army of thePotomac. Boston: W. V. Spencer, 1866.

Schneck, B. S. The Burning of Chambersburg,Pennsylvania, 2nd rev. ed. Philadelphia: Lindsay &Blakiston, 1864.

The Scioto Gazette, Tuesday, January 23, 1866, issue 49,col C.

‘‘Sergeant Humiston.’’ Washington (DC) DailyNational Intelligencer, February 24, 1864.

Smith, Edward Parmelee. Incidents of the United StatesChristian Commission. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott,1869.

Trachtenberg, Alan. ‘‘Albums of War: On Reading CivilWar Photographs.’’Representations 9 (Winter 1985):1–32.

Christina Adkins

n Reading and Reading GroupsCivil War soldiers avidly read newspapers to learn aboutnews from home. Newspapers obtained by soldiers weresometimes traded with the enemy in picket exchanges. Alltypes of paper were used for these newspapers, from wall-paper to wrapping paper. The exchange of letters, news-papers, and fiction among soldiers and their familieshelped them tomaintain their emotional connections evenwhile at a physical distance. Soldiers gained access to booksfrom shipments from home, picket exchanges, religiousand charitable sources, and traveling loan libraries. Menalso read while convalescing after battle injuries.

A field nurse, Jane Stuart Woolsey, wrote in her 1870book Hospital Days that ‘‘Soldiers were omnivorous


Reading and Reading Groups

Photography - Scarsdale Public Schools / Overview

Documents

Transcript of Photography - Scarsdale Public Schools / Overview