A Picture Says a Thousand Words: Photos as Memory during the Civil War

Union soldier, Library of Congress

In a previous post early last year I wrote about revenue stamps which were introduced in the US in 1862 to pay for what was likely to be a protracted war. Many items such as bank checks, mortgage documents, deeds, and even playing cards were taxed, for the most part, for one or two cents. Bear in mind that at that time one cent was the equivalent to today's 20 cents. For this purpose the Internal Revenue Department printed stamps in varying denominations. See my post here: https://ccowing.blogspot.com/2024/01/taxes-taxes.html

Photographs were becoming more common and less expensive. The first commercially viable type of photograph, the daguerreotype, was introduced in 1839 in France and after its introduction to the US by Samuel Francis Morse that winter daguerreotype studios were popping up in all major cities on the East Coast by very early 1840. Daguerreotypes were expensive and cumbersome to make. The sitter had to sit still for some minutes although with that time was reduced to a few seconds. The photographer had to go through a number of complex steps that needed to be done precisely in order to produce a good image. Daguerreotypes can be difficult to view as well. They were produced on a silver plated copper plate, so they have a mirror finish. They often have to be held at a particular angle to be viewed.

 

An important thing to remember is that at this time there was no digital, only analog. Images did not pixilate when enlarged. They could get blurry, but did not pixilate. Daguerreotypes are astonishing images for the intricate detail they record. Ambrotypes and tintypes, described below, are also remarkable for their fine detail. The image of a woman to the right is an enlargement of an ambrotype below. The fine resolution is remarkable for a picture that is only 2 x 2.5" in total. The wrinkles in her face, the pattern of her lace collar and even the details on the lace on her widow's cap are visible. If this were a daguerreotype the resolution would be even more crisp.

All the types of photography described here were available on both sides of the conflict. It is possible sometimes to make an educated guess that a tintype comes from the South depending on the style if it's a man. Oddly, the pictures of Southerners during the war tend to look more gaunt and angry--that's not something that  can be quantified. It's just an impression. In collecting these images I pass no judgment on the sitters, even though, if you have read my last few blog posts, you know that my gr. gr. grandfather died in the war on the Union side. At these level these soldiers and their families were just people trying to get through the day. They didn't have much time to sit and think about politics at leisure.

In the mid 1850's two new methods of taking photographs were developed. The ambrotype was an image produced on a piece of glass and encased for protection. It involved some work but was easier to make. Ambrotypes are easy to date because they were popular for only a decade, from the mid 1850's to just after the war in 1865. Even easier was the tintype, an image produced on a piece of sheet iron lacquered in black, generally, although dark brown was sometime used. A tintype could be produced in about 20 minutes start to finish so this became the preferred way to have a picture made. By the mid 1860's the tintype was king, the ambrotype was fading from use, and the daguerreotype was rarely made. It may be surprising that the technology changed that quickly, at a speed we wouldn't associate with the past. Think of it as what happens today when digital technology in phones, computers, and larger systems becomes outdated and is rapidly replaced with whatever is new.

When soldiers enlisted in either the Confederate or Union armies it was common for them to have their picture made as a tintype and either sent home if done in the field, or done at home before they left. Compared to today's money they only cost a few dollars and were durable images.

By 1864 the war debt on the Union side was growing rapidly. By the end of the war it was 2.7 billion dollars in contemporary money, almost 41 billion today. Revenue stamps helped pay this off by 1883.  In mid-1864 the tax was expanded to include photographs, including tintypes and CDVs (carte de visite--a small photograph on a card). This tax on photographs was in effect from 1864-1866.  It was a good source of revenue because so many people took advantage of this inexpensive way to have a photograph of their loved one.

I do not own any tintypes of Civil War soldiers in uniform in my collection because they are very expensive and desirable, although I hope to some day. However, one picture below may be of a soldier who returned to his family in the South. Notice that he is wearing light colored pants with a dark stripe down the side. That style of pants was never a fashion in the US. It was only military. It is known that former Confederate soldiers returned to a countryside and home that was a wasteland, and they had little money. Former Confederate soldiers sometimes wore parts of their uniforms years after the war, which I believe may be the case here.

A soldier returned from the war

I  have a collection of tintypes, ambrotypes, cartes de visites (CDVs), and a couple of daguerreotypes of average people from before and during the war, however. A few have revenue stamps, three in particular have revenue stamps that were cancelled by the photographer when the customer paid for the picture. Many times the stamp intended for playing cards were used, but quite often stamps were used for any tax regardless of the wording on the stamp as long as the amount was correct. In the example above, this tiny tintype (this size is called a "gem,") is mounted into a card, a very common way to mount the picture. On the back the tax was paid with a 2 cent bank check stamp. It was cancelled by the photographer, which was done by hand often with the date. It is notoriously difficult to date pictures from this period, in which hair styles and clothing are the only clues as to when the picture was made. Here, I know the exact date, December 26, 1864. The big question is whether he was off to war. It's impossible to tell. 

The production of tintypes expanded rapidly as more soldiers were drafted or enlisted, and after the war it remained common. Glass plate negatives were coming into use during the war, and they eventually dominated the market because unlimited prints of the photograph could be made from one negative, whereas all the previous methods produced unique images. On early CDVs will often appear the phrase "negatives preserved" meaning the customer could come back and have more copies made. Copying the tintype was different. The typical tintype was 2.5" x 3" and the tiny "gem" size pictures were made with cameras with multiple lenses, sometimes with as many as twelve lenses, so multiple images could be made at once because of their small size.

The other side of memory is just as poignant. Soldiers on both sides very commonly had small tintypes or ambrotypes of loved ones. Many stories are told of a dead soldier being found on a battlefield with a tiny picture of a loved one in his hand, presumably looking on their image in his last moments of life. The three photographs below, one tintype and two ambrotypes, are all small. The tiniest is that of the young girl, which is less than two inches square. The other two are 2 by 2.5 inches. Any and all of these could have been cherished by a soldier who may or may not have come home.

Young girl, tintype, ca. 1857-1862

Widow, ambrotype, ca. 1857-1862

Young woman, ambrotype, ca. 1857-1862

Southern couple, ca. 1860's

Occasionally couples would have their photograph taken together. The picture above of a couple in the 1860's is an excellent example. It could be one that the husband had taken before he left for the war. I believe it to be from the Confederacy because of the style of the husband's beard, which wasn't nearly as common in the North as it was in the South. It's likely their sober expressions are a result of having to wait a few seconds for the exposure. I have to wonder, though, if the wife's expression of steely determination is in anticipation of her husband going away to war, perhaps never to return. Or, perhaps he had just returned home to a region that had been devastated by war and they knew their prospects were bleak.

George Lewis, my gr. gr. grandfather, was able to have an albumen print made from a glass plate negative, often referred to as a "dry plate" because the chemicals on the plate's surface were not wet. It is possible that his uncle I.C. Lewis paid for it. We'll never know.

The Empty Chair, the Next Generation: Disease in the Civil War

Soldier's graveyard, winter camp, Falmouth. Forbes, Edwin, 1839-1895, Library of Congress

 Disease was a persistent problem during the Civil War for several reasons. Camps were completely unsanitary and periodic long periods of encampment, especially during the winter, led to the spread of a wide assortment of illnesses.

The main factor in disease at this time was the state of medicine. The “germ theory,” as some older physicians called it, was still not widely accepted and older, established physicians rejected it as the cause of infection and disease. In general, physicians knew that certain conditions could and would result in illness, but they couldn’t identify what was present in those conditions that would cause illness.

Medical care was available from the beginning on both sides, but sanitation was not. Once the Sanitary Commission was created in 1861 the deaths from infection in hospitals went down dramatically. This did not apply to camps, however.

The Union’s Falmouth camp, across the Rappahannock River from Fredericksburg, Virginia, was notorious for illness. Some of the soldiers in Burnside’s army, including the 15th Connecticut, had spent months guarding the bridges that crossed the Potomac into Virginia. The Potomac was, as it is now, a swampy river, and at the time it was rife with malaria and dysentery. A mosquito bite was often a one way ticket to a casket.

 Respiratory illness, intestinal illnesses causing diarrhea, fever such as that caused by malaria, and infections were the most common illnesses.  In his Outlines of the Chief Camp Diseases of the Present War (1863)  Joseph J. Woodward, M.D., a regimental surgeon, writes: "Diarrhoea and dysentery have been the most frequent of all damp diseases, and although not nearly so fatal as fevers, have caused a very large mortality" (p. 206). He observes that diarrhea probably caused more deaths that were listed as caused by the condition, possibly because the soldier may have died of something else but was weakened by chronic diarrhea, or, if the soldier was discharged because of the condition, he might have died later at home. Discharging a soldier on disability was an option if a soldier became so sick, and was one that George Lewis was offered. He declined, however, fearing that he would be seen as a coward.

Diarrhea could have been seasonal, caused by contaminated water or unripe fruits and vegetables. With intestinal diseases diet was a huge factor. The diet of soldiers in camp was horrendous by modern standards, including bacon, which meant lots of grease; hard tack, which one soldier famously observed was so hard that it could stop a lead bullet; and whatever could be gathered from the countryside. Fresh fruit was intermittent, and vegetables were boiled so long as to leach any and all nutrients from them. In short, their dismal diet set up soldiers for intestinal problems that potentially could be fatal.

Occasional diarrhea was very common, but common enough was acute diarrhea such as George Lewis had. The symptoms that George's sergeant describes fit with the description of this condition. It included abdominal pain, fever, and weakness:

Occasionally, however, the disease . . . may persist, and pass into a chronic form, eventually terminating in one or another of the varieties of chronic diarrhoea  hereafter to be described; or, instead, it may run rapidly on to a fatal issue. In the latter case, the abdominal pain and tenderness increase, the febrile action assumes an adynamic character, the pulse becomes frequent and feeble, the mind wanders, delrium sets in, the tongue becomes dry and red, the evacuations from the bowels exceedingly frequent, and death terminates the scene (pp. 219-220).

In short, the person dies from dehydration, although oddly, that term did not exist at the time.

There were treatments including the use of opiates, which in sufficient strength can cause constipation and relieve pain. George's sergeant suggested taking some medicine which was probably some sort of opiate, and he felt better for awhile. Improvements in diet were also prescribed. Good luck with that in winter camp.

What physicians could not have understood at the time was that replacing the fluids lost in diarrhea would help significantly. Anyone who has had a sick child with diarrhea knows to keep Pedialite or something similar at hand. They also did not have antibiotics. If something as simple as penicillin had been available at that time the death rate would have been much lower.

A Union Hospital (source: www.thechaplainkit.com)

In general, disease killed twice as many soldiers as battlefield wounds. This was true up to and including the First World War. Soldiers were routinely exposed to dismal conditions and forced to eat bad food which either led to infection and illness or predisposed them to it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Medical and Surgical History of the War of the Rebellion