Antietam Revisited

breakdown · September 9, 2012 3:47AM

After reading Rick Snow's great post on the anniversary of Antietam, I was spinning around on Wikipedia and came across a photograph of Lincoln visiting the Antietam site to speak with McClellan and other officers. One thing that jumped out at me immediately from the description of the photo was that the figure farthest to the right in the photo is none other than George Armstrong Custer. Here is a link to the photo (maybe someone with more computer skills could reproduce the photo):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Lincoln_and_generals_at_Antietam.jpg

Upon closer examination of the photo, I have to wonder what is going on with Custer's legs and even better, what is going on with the remnants of a figure to the right of Custer? I assume this has something to do with photography in the 1860s but really have no idea. Any thoughts from the historically-inclined collectors out there? I know I am a little OT here but I'm in the ballpark and suspect there's some folks here with some good answers. Thanks!

lcoopie · September 9, 2012 3:50AM

Text

I believed they needed very long exposures, therefore anything in motion would tend to disappear depending on how fast they were moving

BillJones · September 9, 2012 4:29AM

The exposure times were very long in those days. The cover photo on the Ken Burns DVD Civil War CD set has a headless horse because of that.

Back in 1966 I was taking a nighttime photo of main street of my home town when a car drove across the middle of the shot. I was using 75 speed Polaroid color film. When I peeled the picture from Polaroid developer strip, the car was nothing but thin steam light. I thought that was cool.

yellowkid · September 9, 2012 5:29AM

<< The exposure times were very long in those days. The cover photo on the Ken Burns DVD Civil War CD set has a headless horse because of that.

Back in 1966 I was taking a nighttime photo of main street of my home town when a car drove across the middle of the shot. I was using 75 speed Polaroid color film. When I peeled the picture from Polaroid developer strip, the car was nothing but thin steam light. I thought that was cool.

>>

In '66 I would have really grooved on it!!

Read Stephen Sears book for a great narrative about Antietam.

breakdown · September 9, 2012 7:52AM

Thanks for the answers guys. The phantom to Custer's left is therefore likely Custer himself. Given his penchant for publicity, it's easy to imagine that he decided to move closer to Lincoln and the central focus of the photo. I have read a biography of Custer and I don't think he ever once shied away from a chance at glory.
Given the actors involved, it truly is an amazing photo.

ambro51 · September 9, 2012 8:40AM

Having done (seriously) about ten thousand wet plate images... I'm qualified to give exposure times. When the light is bright and you are working with an F3,6 portrait lens, average exposure wide open is less than one second. As fast as you take the lens cap off and put it back on. Still not quick enough to capture motion. An arm in motion will look like a blurred contrast patch with a stump shoulder. So... No matter what image you look at up to the 1880s with the coming of fast dry plates...no motion. Using a slower lens like a stereo at F11 or a wide angle at F16 can give working exposure times up to 45 seconds given the light and condition of the photographers chemistry. Most stereos were shot as negatives rather than tintypes and required longer exposures. Movement is the enemy of the wet plate photographer

lordmarcovan · September 9, 2012 9:00AM

I LOVE old CW photos, and the earlier daguerreotypes and such.

Could get dragged into collecting them without too much kicking and screaming, too, if the really interesting ones weren't so bloody expensive.

krueger · September 9, 2012 9:44AM

I will stand corrected, but as a long time civil war buff and holding a book of photos/ portraits from the civil war
I believe that is not Gen. Custer, but Major General Hugh Judson Kilpatrick also a Calvalry general .

I have to correct myself the beard threw me, it isn't Kirpatrick but a Colonel, it appears Captain Custer (promoted to brevet general june 1863) is in the October 3 1862 photo though.
He was on McClellans staff at the time. I think he may be the one with the white hat on ? See the photo link with the names I found

http://www.flickr.com/photos/usnationalarchives/4100754309/

Krueger

Link to Photo with names

ambro51 · September 9, 2012 10:49AM

Lord M I have seen one of the rarest of all civil war images it is known as "soldier standing at attention" in certain circles. .....this soldier is standing for his portrait with his musket leathers shoes hat.....uhh and nothing else...and he is fully " standing at attention". An amazing image the purpose of which we can only imagine.....

ambro51 · September 9, 2012 10:59AM

Custer was a piece of wildfire and went from captain to general in the blink of an eye leaping over hundreds of more senior officers. He was a true hard Azz and would have had the same stellar military career in any army in any time in history. One time McClellan and staff sat on horseback pondering the depth of a river they needed to cross. Suggestions to bring up some of the Engineers were interrupted as Custer took action and got to mid river on his horse and yelled back "This is how deep it is General"

lordmarcovan · September 9, 2012 11:04AM

<< Lord M I have seen one of the rarest of all civil war images it is known as "soldier standing at attention" in certain circles. .....this soldier is standing for his portrait with his musket leathers shoes hat.....uhh and nothing else...and he is fully " standing at attention". An amazing image the purpose of which we can only imagine..... >>

Wow. I'll bet that IS truly rare and exceptional.

Not so sure it would be something I'd want in my collection, though, haha. Eeeew!

Old tintypes and daguerreotypes and such are something I would collect in a heartbeat, but I don't know very much about them. I do know enough to have discovered quickly that my tastes far outpace my budget. So I'll not be going there anytime soon.

I remember back in 2004 or 2005 or so when Tim Buck, aka "phut", (who dug those Massachusetts silvers recently) was just starting out as a relic hunter, and he dug a small cache of early photographs, which emerged from the ground quite nice. I can't remember if they were still behind glass or not. Think there was a baby picture and one of a married couple. Maybe even a third piece. I forget. Guess they must have been silvered plates? Wouldn't a lot of metal plates have rusted away otherwise? Wish I could find the pictures he posted on the MD Forum, but the Advanced Search feature is dead, and they might not still be working anyway. It was really neat. At the time he was lamenting how he always seemed to find relics but not too many good coins. He's made up for that considerably, since! Used to call himself "the reluctant relic hunter".

Me, I like all sorts of groovy old stuff. Not just coins.

TURBO · September 9, 2012 12:23PM

This country needs more fighters like Custer !!

pocketpiececommems · September 9, 2012 12:24PM

Was Lincoln just a little bit taller than his officers

breakdown · September 9, 2012 12:35PM

<< I will stand corrected, but as a long time civil war buff and holding a book of photos/ portraits from the civil war
I believe that is not Gen. Custer, but Major General Hugh Judson Kilpatrick also a Calvalry general .

I have to correct myself the beard threw me, it isn't Kirpatrick but a Colonel, it appears Captain Custer (promoted to brevet general june 1863) is in the October 3 1862 photo though.
He was on McClellans staff at the time. I think he may be the one with the white hat on ? See the photo link with the names I found

http://www.flickr.com/photos/usnationalarchives/4100754309/

Krueger

Link to Photo with names >>

Thanks for even more information -- this stuff is pretty incredible. I agree that the person to the far right that Wikipedia identifies as Custer doesn't bear much likeness to him. The guy in the light hat might just be him.

ThePennyLady · September 9, 2012 1:39PM

That is a very cool photo, just amazing!

EagleEye · September 9, 2012 2:58PM

Uncropped image made from the plate after it was broken.

Cropped image with names

EagleEye · September 9, 2012 3:00PM

Here is a colorized version:

ColonelJessup · September 10, 2012 3:48AM

<< This country needs more fighters like Custer !! >>

Sorry, as others have noted, he was a glory hunter who only had one speed, forward, and this was not always a good tactical or strategic paradigm to follow.

krueger · September 10, 2012 4:42AM

WOW! just love that colorized version!! Thanks for sharing.

I still think Custer is the one in the white hat. I have never seen any picture of him (except his west point photo) wearing any other style of hat.
He was 22 years old at the time, and the fellow in that white hat looks very very young, certainly the youngest in the group.

Excellent bio write up on Custer. Worth a read. .Great short Bio of Custer.

Also see the movie "They died with there boots on" Staring Errol Flynn. A very good movie about Custer's life

Krueger

krueger · September 17, 2012 3:49AM

Historic day.

Antietam is a great place to visit, the battlefield and the town there I found had and erie feel to it .
Felt like going back in time, just like it was.

Krueger

WillieBoyd2 · September 17, 2012 4:23AM

Wearing a top hat makes one look taller.

johnny9434 · September 17, 2012 5:42AM

<< That is a very cool photo, just amazing! >>

EagleEye · September 17, 2012 9:16AM

150th anniversary

RYK · September 25, 2012 3:15AM

There is an excellent ongoing Civil War series in the NYT Opinion pages. Today's installment, along with several recent ones, is about Antietam.

Link to article

If you are interested in Civil War history and not reading this series, you are missing a lot of good stuff!

EagleEye · September 25, 2012 4:00AM

Shortly after the battle, on September 22, Lincoln announced the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing the slaves in the states in rebellion. It would take effect on January 1, 1863.

Lincoln needed the victory (although it's hard to call the carnage of Antietam a victory) to change the nature of the war from one of union (War of Southern secession or Northern aggression) to a war to end slavery. The timing was also a political move to advance the Republican's in Congress in the mid-term elections just a few weeks away and to thwart any European recognition of the Confederacy. Oh, and a few million slaves would now be free when the war ended.

Also, 150 years ago, patriotic and merchant cent tokens were starting to be sold in Cincinnati by John Stanton. Cents were being hoarded even though the copper and nickel in them were not worth more than a cent.

pakasmom · September 25, 2012 4:51AM

Outstanding post/topic!

Catbert · September 25, 2012 4:55AM

<< Also, 150 years ago, patriotic and merchant cent tokens were starting to be sold in Cincinnati by John Stanton. Cents were being hoarded even though the copper and nickel in them were not worth more than a cent. >>

Just adding a picture for fun regarding a 1863 token from Cinci

1863 Cinci Token

Edited: Well, the pic tab didn't work for me today, so a hyperlink will have to do!

EagleEye · September 25, 2012 5:31AM

Antietam Revisited

Comments

Leave a Comment