If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   The 50 most powerful images from the Civil War   (theatlantic.com) divider line 130
    More: Interesting, Frederick Douglass  
•       •       •

21374 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Feb 2012 at 9:37 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



130 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-07 02:33:17 PM

DreamSnipers: chuckufarlie: DreamSnipers: chuckufarlie: DreamSnipers: The photo 'Black Troops' showing two black soldiers supposedly fighting at Dutch Gap was almost certainly staged. The equipment needed to take photos then and the time it took to take a shot meant actual combat photos are just about nonexistent.

of course it was staged. What is your point?

My point was this labeling of the photo "Soldiers fighting for the Union in November 1864 in Dutch Gap, Virginia" is misleading.

How so??? The people of that time certainly knew that it was not possibly a real photo of combat. People today should know that it was not possible. Who is it misleading?? The people who are completely uninformed??

The photo was certainly staged and actual combat photos from that period are not just about nonexistent - they ARE non-existent.

Why label it 'fighting' then? The same label could by that standard be applied to any photo of a Union soldier. I think you assume a lot if you think "People today should know that it was not possible."
I have seen one action photo from the Civil War that I can recall. It was a artillery battery in action. There may be a couple of others, certainly rare to the extreme.


You know that it was not possible so does that mean that you are more intelligent than the average person?

As for that shot or the artillery battery in action - rest assured that it was not taken during actual combat.
 
2012-02-07 02:37:49 PM
I think that I need to lay off of the video games for a while. I read the headline as "50 most powerful *mages*"
 
jvl
2012-02-07 02:38:34 PM

Claude Ballse: Although politically Northern newspapers were pushing the Abolition/Religious aspect pretty hard, Slavery was never a determining issue with the Civil War.


You're either a moron or an awesome troll, and I'm leaning towards "awesome."
 
2012-02-07 02:45:20 PM

Kraftwerk Orange: chuckufarlie: Kraftwerk Orange: chuckufarlie: Broom: chuckufarlie: The people who initiated this should have been hanged.

1865 Republican Congress, is that you? Welcome back.

/But vengeance only begets vengeance. Reconciliation historically is the path to overcoming civil turmoil.

Vengeance has nothing to do with it AND that Congress wanted to hang Jeff Davis, R. E. Lee and other political leaders. They are not the people who initiated the attempt to secede. I am talking about the imbeciles that were mostly in South Carolina. The people who stirred up the trouble in the first place.

That would be the 1860 Democratic National Convention. Douglas didn't do very well trying to moderate his party's views regarding slavery.

[www.wisconsinhistory.org image 600x413]

Interestingly, Charlestonians have never voted for a Republican Mayor - ever.

No, that would not be the 1860 Democratic Convention. The decision was made prior to that.

Tell me when Succession happened then? I thought it happened *after* the Dems lost the 1860 election, and Southern States were unhappy with Lincoln's Election. If the Democrats had fielded a more viable candidate than Douglas (who was splintering his own party), then there might have been a political solution other than succession on the table. The Republicans elected a man who was determined to hold the Union together.


My comments have nothing to do with WHEN SECESSION HAPPENED. I was talking about the decision to Secede, when that was made and by who. Maybe decision is the wrong word but there was a group of people in the south, mostly in South Carolina that had been pushing for secession for years. They started their "push" to agitate the south prior to the Democratic convention. The fact that many southerners went to that convention already pushing the idea of secession shows that the work had started before the convention.
 
2012-02-07 02:47:53 PM

jvl: Claude Ballse: Although politically Northern newspapers were pushing the Abolition/Religious aspect pretty hard, Slavery was never a determining issue with the Civil War.

You're either a moron or an awesome troll, and I'm leaning towards "awesome."


Never under estimate the stupidity of a southerner (especial a Texan) when it comes to the origins of the Civil War. There are groups in the south that are dedicated to twisting the story into something easier to swallow for the average southerner.
 
2012-02-07 03:08:47 PM
I'm surprised they don't have the one picture Shelby Foote mentioned on Ken Burns' Civil War. Its after the battle of Gettysburg and shows 3 Confederate POWs posing for the picture.
 
2012-02-07 03:11:40 PM

chuckufarlie: Kraftwerk Orange: chuckufarlie: Kraftwerk Orange: chuckufarlie: Broom: chuckufarlie: The people who initiated this should have been hanged.

1865 Republican Congress, is that you? Welcome back.

/But vengeance only begets vengeance. Reconciliation historically is the path to overcoming civil turmoil.

Vengeance has nothing to do with it AND that Congress wanted to hang Jeff Davis, R. E. Lee and other political leaders. They are not the people who initiated the attempt to secede. I am talking about the imbeciles that were mostly in South Carolina. The people who stirred up the trouble in the first place.

That would be the 1860 Democratic National Convention. Douglas didn't do very well trying to moderate his party's views regarding slavery.

[www.wisconsinhistory.org image 600x413]

Interestingly, Charlestonians have never voted for a Republican Mayor - ever.

No, that would not be the 1860 Democratic Convention. The decision was made prior to that.

Tell me when Succession happened then? I thought it happened *after* the Dems lost the 1860 election, and Southern States were unhappy with Lincoln's Election. If the Democrats had fielded a more viable candidate than Douglas (who was splintering his own party), then there might have been a political solution other than succession on the table. The Republicans elected a man who was determined to hold the Union together.

My comments have nothing to do with WHEN SECESSION HAPPENED. I was talking about the decision to Secede, when that was made and by who. Maybe decision is the wrong word but there was a group of people in the south, mostly in South Carolina that had been pushing for secession for years. They started their "push" to agitate the south prior to the Democratic convention. The fact that many southerners went to that convention already pushing the idea of secession shows that the work had started before the convention.


You do know that succession had been brought up many times as a solution to national issues.

Specifically, New England considered sucession over slavery, in the 1840's. If you're going to blame successionists, I think it's only fair to refer to those who actually did something - like actually succede. Not those who talked about it, because EVERYBODY talked about it at some point or another.
 
2012-02-07 03:19:12 PM
i succeeded in seceding from reality

g-g-gramps helped burn atlanta. burn baby burn.
 
2012-02-07 03:28:15 PM

Kraftwerk Orange: Specifically, New England considered sucession over slavery, in the 1840's. If you're going to blame successionists, I think it's only fair to refer to those who actually did something - like actually succede. Not those who talked about it, because EVERYBODY talked about it at some point or another.


1840's? I thought their secession crisis occurred during the War of 1812.
 
2012-02-07 03:33:16 PM

UNC_Samurai: Kraftwerk Orange: Specifically, New England considered sucession over slavery, in the 1840's. If you're going to blame successionists, I think it's only fair to refer to those who actually did something - like actually succede. Not those who talked about it, because EVERYBODY talked about it at some point or another.

1840's? I thought their secession crisis occurred during the War of 1812.


That was the Hartford Convention, another time when succession was threatened by New England. Abolitionists were agitating for secession during the 1830's.
 
2012-02-07 04:27:58 PM

chuckufarlie: DreamSnipers: chuckufarlie: DreamSnipers: chuckufarlie: DreamSnipers: The photo 'Black Troops' showing two black soldiers supposedly fighting at Dutch Gap was almost certainly staged. The equipment needed to take photos then and the time it took to take a shot meant actual combat photos are just about nonexistent.

of course it was staged. What is your point?

My point was this labeling of the photo "Soldiers fighting for the Union in November 1864 in Dutch Gap, Virginia" is misleading.

How so??? The people of that time certainly knew that it was not possibly a real photo of combat. People today should know that it was not possible. Who is it misleading?? The people who are completely uninformed??

The photo was certainly staged and actual combat photos from that period are not just about nonexistent - they ARE non-existent.

Why label it 'fighting' then? The same label could by that standard be applied to any photo of a Union soldier. I think you assume a lot if you think "People today should know that it was not possible."
I have seen one action photo from the Civil War that I can recall. It was a artillery battery in action. There may be a couple of others, certainly rare to the extreme.

You know that it was not possible so does that mean that you are more intelligent than the average person?

As for that shot or the artillery battery in action - rest assured that it was not taken during actual combat.


I offered some documentation in my following post:
To add to the image of the Connecticut battery. I recently saw it in a book titled 'Brady's Civil War' (a compilation of his images, etc.), and it captions the image with the following:
"This is believed to be the first actual photograph of the US army in combat. It was made under fire by Matthew Brady at the battle of Frdericksburg, Virginia, in 1863. Toward the end of the four second exposure time, the cannon roared. causing Brady's camera stand to shake, such that blurring of the image occured, especially of the mounted officer on the right."
Link (new window) The post I cited is at the bottom.

I don't have a copy of that book and have not located the photo in question. But I suspect it is out there on line somewhere. If you would care to show something besides your own expertise that the photo in question was staged or fake I would be interested. But for now I am going to accept that there is at least one genuine action photo.
 
2012-02-07 04:30:05 PM

Kraftwerk Orange: chuckufarlie: Kraftwerk Orange: chuckufarlie: Kraftwerk Orange: chuckufarlie: Broom: chuckufarlie: The people who initiated this should have been hanged.

1865 Republican Congress, is that you? Welcome back.

/But vengeance only begets vengeance. Reconciliation historically is the path to overcoming civil turmoil.

Vengeance has nothing to do with it AND that Congress wanted to hang Jeff Davis, R. E. Lee and other political leaders. They are not the people who initiated the attempt to secede. I am talking about the imbeciles that were mostly in South Carolina. The people who stirred up the trouble in the first place.

That would be the 1860 Democratic National Convention. Douglas didn't do very well trying to moderate his party's views regarding slavery.

[www.wisconsinhistory.org image 600x413]

Interestingly, Charlestonians have never voted for a Republican Mayor - ever.

No, that would not be the 1860 Democratic Convention. The decision was made prior to that.

Tell me when Succession happened then? I thought it happened *after* the Dems lost the 1860 election, and Southern States were unhappy with Lincoln's Election. If the Democrats had fielded a more viable candidate than Douglas (who was splintering his own party), then there might have been a political solution other than succession on the table. The Republicans elected a man who was determined to hold the Union together.

My comments have nothing to do with WHEN SECESSION HAPPENED. I was talking about the decision to Secede, when that was made and by who. Maybe decision is the wrong word but there was a group of people in the south, mostly in South Carolina that had been pushing for secession for years. They started their "push" to agitate the south prior to the Democratic convention. The fact that many southerners went to that convention already pushing the idea of secession shows that the work had started before the convention.

You do know that succession had been brought up many times as a s ...


SECESSION - if you want to talk about it, at least learn to spell it.

And yes, it had been brought up many times, but I am referring to the time when a bunch of dumbasses in South Carolina actually got people to take action. Those are the people that should have been hanged because their actions led directly to the Civil War.
 
2012-02-07 04:32:09 PM

DreamSnipers: chuckufarlie: DreamSnipers: chuckufarlie: DreamSnipers: chuckufarlie: DreamSnipers: The photo 'Black Troops' showing two black soldiers supposedly fighting at Dutch Gap was almost certainly staged. The equipment needed to take photos then and the time it took to take a shot meant actual combat photos are just about nonexistent.

of course it was staged. What is your point?

My point was this labeling of the photo "Soldiers fighting for the Union in November 1864 in Dutch Gap, Virginia" is misleading.

How so??? The people of that time certainly knew that it was not possibly a real photo of combat. People today should know that it was not possible. Who is it misleading?? The people who are completely uninformed??

The photo was certainly staged and actual combat photos from that period are not just about nonexistent - they ARE non-existent.

Why label it 'fighting' then? The same label could by that standard be applied to any photo of a Union soldier. I think you assume a lot if you think "People today should know that it was not possible."
I have seen one action photo from the Civil War that I can recall. It was a artillery battery in action. There may be a couple of others, certainly rare to the extreme.

You know that it was not possible so does that mean that you are more intelligent than the average person?

As for that shot or the artillery battery in action - rest assured that it was not taken during actual combat.

I offered some documentation in my following post:
To add to the image of the Connecticut battery. I recently saw it in a book titled 'Brady's Civil War' (a compilation of his images, etc.), and it captions the image with the following:
"This is believed to be the first actual photograph of the US army in combat. It was made under fire by Matthew Brady at the battle of Frdericksburg, Virginia, in 1863. Toward the end of the four second exposure time, the cannon roared. causing Brady's camera stand to shake, such that blurring of the image occ ...


action photo OR a photo of an artillery unit engaged in actual combat?
 
2012-02-07 04:36:51 PM

chuckufarlie:

Here is a link to the photo. Link (new window) Number five in the list.
If you read the caption from the Brady book I posted it says "This is believed to be the first actual photograph of the US army in combat. It was made under fire by Matthew Brady

Seems clear enough to me.

 
2012-02-07 04:38:09 PM

UNC_Samurai: Nightsweat: Claude Ballse: Ficoce
Can anyone tell the reason for the Civil War?

Difficulty; do not mention slavery.

Sure, I'll give it a whirl. Pretty much it was started over a fight for political power and economic profits. Northern states had more representation in Congress because they refused to recognize blacks when it came to the population census since they were not entitled to the same rights. The South was not happy about this and thus began the political struggles. Later on as a way to punish Northern states, Southern states began to export their textiles overseas to Europeans who were willing to pay more. Hilarity ensued with export tariffs and the like, and thus succession began.

Now if you do mention slavery, it's because you have to in order to debunk the belief that it was a cause of the war...


Well that was revisionist.
You might want to read up on the politics leading to the war. Start here.

I also recommend this book:

[ia600805.us.archive.org image 330x500]

The annexation of Texas really was the catalyst that turned the sectional divide into an irrevocable dispute over how slavery would be handled as newer states were created. The South saw the Senate as their last bastion of political power where they could protect the institution of slavery and thus their economic engine. When it became apparent that free states would begin outnumbering slave states, that political power was threatened and people like Calhoun became impossible to satiate.


That is not at all accurate. Slavery was protected by the Constitution and nothing that the Senate did was going to change that, they could not even decide which states would be slave states and which states would be free states.

What the south really feared was the President's ability to appoint people to Federal Offices like the Post Office or a Federal Judge. The south did not want northerners taking those positions in the south because they could then overturn some standing traditions and laws in the south. For instance, mail was censored in the south to keep anti-slavery documents out of the south.

It goes deeper than that, but they were not worried about control of the Senate. 1860 was the first time in over 30 years when the south did not control the White House.
 
2012-02-07 04:41:09 PM

DreamSnipers: chuckufarlie:

Here is a link to the photo. Link (new window) Number five in the list.
If you read the caption from the Brady book I posted it says "This is believed to be the first actual photograph of the US army in combat. It was made under fire by Matthew Brady

Seems clear enough to me.


"This is believed to be" Who is to say that it was in actual combat conditions? If it is actual combat, why have the guns not fired prior to this photo?
 
2012-02-07 04:47:59 PM
missed one:

jurassicreich.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-02-07 04:48:34 PM
Did I get the wrong pictures? Because 10 pictures of slave and slave life is not really civil war..
 
2012-02-07 05:05:02 PM
The most powerful images that I've seen are the ones of my great-great uncle after he'd had his jaw shot away in Dallas, Georgia in 1864. They document the reconstruction of the lower part of his face over a five month period, all of the surgeries being done with anesthetic. Those photos don't make we long for the "good old days."
 
2012-02-07 05:13:36 PM

chuckufarlie: DreamSnipers: chuckufarlie:

Here is a link to the photo. Link (new window) Number five in the list.
If you read the caption from the Brady book I posted it says "This is believed to be the first actual photograph of the US army in combat. It was made under fire by Matthew Brady

Seems clear enough to me.

"This is believed to be" Who is to say that it was in actual combat conditions? If it is actual combat, why have the guns not fired prior to this photo?


Not much point in talking to you is there?
Just a suggestion: It is OK to be wrong, and OK to say so. And in this case you don't even have to say you were wrong, just say "That is cool, I didn't know anything like that existed." You aren't looking knowledgeable or like an 'expert' just stubbornly trying to say "I am right despite the evidence."
 
2012-02-07 05:25:38 PM
www.theoldphotoalbum.com
 
2012-02-07 05:28:21 PM

DreamSnipers: chuckufarlie: DreamSnipers: chuckufarlie:

Here is a link to the photo. Link (new window) Number five in the list.
If you read the caption from the Brady book I posted it says "This is believed to be the first actual photograph of the US army in combat. It was made under fire by Matthew Brady

Seems clear enough to me.

"This is believed to be" Who is to say that it was in actual combat conditions? If it is actual combat, why have the guns not fired prior to this photo?

Not much point in talking to you is there?
Just a suggestion: It is OK to be wrong, and OK to say so. And in this case you don't even have to say you were wrong, just say "That is cool, I didn't know anything like that existed." You aren't looking knowledgeable or like an 'expert' just stubbornly trying to say "I am right despite the evidence."


"Believed to be" is hardly evidence, especially in the case of this photographer who was well known for staging photos, even of the dead. So when you come up with something better than "believed to be" you let me know.
 
2012-02-07 05:29:58 PM

chuckufarlie: but I am referring to the time when a bunch of dumbasses in South Carolina actually got people to take action. Those are the people that should have been hanged because their actions led directly to the Civil War.


Which happened after the 1860 Democratic Convention, based on what happened during the convention.
Which is what I said all along, and then you wanted to say that secession happened before that.

Actual action, when something happens, not just when people say they're going to do something... Specifically, Seccession happened Dec. 20, 1860 - after the results of the Presidential election.
 
2012-02-07 06:00:07 PM

glassbottomboatcaptain: It's better if you think of it as your legs are up in Heaven, holding your place in line.

Although there's no way to hold your pants up, so they're probably just shuffling around up there with a pair of pants around their ankles.


Quit putting silly visuals in my head.
 
2012-02-07 06:00:55 PM

Kraftwerk Orange: chuckufarlie: but I am referring to the time when a bunch of dumbasses in South Carolina actually got people to take action. Those are the people that should have been hanged because their actions led directly to the Civil War.

Which happened after the 1860 Democratic Convention, based on what happened during the convention.
Which is what I said all along, and then you wanted to say that secession happened before that.

Actual action, when something happens, not just when people say they're going to do something... Specifically, Seccession happened Dec. 20, 1860 - after the results of the Presidential election.


My initial comment concerned hanging the people who agitated successfully to get the south to secede. Those men started long before the election unless you think it was a spur of the moment idea???!!!!
 
2012-02-07 06:24:17 PM

Krymson Tyde: I'm somewhat surprised Andersonville (new window) wasn't represented.

I know there are strong opinions regarding how this part of our history is remembered, but at least that constant debate keeps it alive in our thoughts. I would hate to see it forgotten and perhaps repeated.

Count me in with the southerners that are glad the Union beat the confederacy.


I am originally from Michigan and have lived in the south on and off since I was 19(Army vet), and I have lived in Raleigh for almost 12, and I did not know your kind existed. Learn somethingt new everyday, this Damn Yankee is surprised.
 
2012-02-07 07:16:31 PM

Onkel Buck: Krymson Tyde: I'm somewhat surprised Andersonville (new window) wasn't represented.

I know there are strong opinions regarding how this part of our history is remembered, but at least that constant debate keeps it alive in our thoughts. I would hate to see it forgotten and perhaps repeated.

Count me in with the southerners that are glad the Union beat the confederacy.

I am originally from Michigan and have lived in the south on and off since I was 19(Army vet), and I have lived in Raleigh for almost 12, and I did not know your kind existed. Learn somethingt new everyday, this Damn Yankee is surprised.


Onkel Buck
A lot of Southerns seem to have a mixed view. If you want to test this personally find a good red neck bar in the South, maybe even one with a Confederate flag over the bar. Wait until the bar is crowded and pull out an American flag and burn it.
 
2012-02-07 08:12:45 PM
 
2012-02-07 09:30:34 PM
"Just say 'slavery'"
"Slavery is it, sir"

/hot like, you know, the Civil War...
 
2012-02-08 12:23:06 PM
I joined Fark just so I could post this picture in this thread;

i12.photobucket.com

Kanye is also a time traveling vampire.

Real civil war photo from the Civil War Reader, December issue. .
 
Displayed 30 of 130 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report