Post by lesterschumacher on Jan 16, 2006 23:18:25 GMT -5
Dear Mr. Hobo, Mr. Todd, Mr. Myrick, and others who posted.
Thanks for the entertainment. Spent the afternoon Looking at some of the finest original uniforms from the Revolutionary period to WW11. While researching the uniforms (including my original SA Musicians MSJ) I provided Jerry with an original Millers Vol. 4 which has a better Pic of the Cavalry photo in question. Additiopnally, took a few of my Western Fed Cavalry CDVs that validate the men in the Miller photo.
In viewing and reading the information posted on this thread, only Mr. Todd posted documentation for consideration.
In the study of history, Nothing is Finite
From THE ARMY AND NAVY POCKET DICTIONARY By WILLIAM G. WEBSTER PHILADELPHIA, J.B. LIPPENCOTT & CO. 1864
Post by AZReenactor on Jan 17, 2006 11:13:00 GMT -5
By the way, this whole issue is pretty much mute since the identity of the picture was decided many years ago when most the veterans were alive and we were'nt even born - the picture also appeared in the Confederate Veteran - and it wasn't an issue then to the men who were actually there and fought.
Hobo?, Do you have the date when this photo appeared in Confederate Veteran? I'd like to explore that avenue of this discussion a little further.
Post by AZReenactor on Jan 17, 2006 11:19:24 GMT -5
After some thought I have decided to give you one chance before I spread this around the world wide web. If you meat my conditions of surrender. will will spare your sites life. 1. Leave this thread in place. 2. Apologize in this thread to all of your members. 3. Take a oath of Allegiance in this thread to never lie to your members again, (maybe some of them will trust you again)and remember in was a confederate that Identified your picture for what it was. A bunch of over weight reenactors and not the real deal, and brought you down.
This is all conditional on my Commanders ruling but I will put this offer up for you to ponder.
Every one should check out Jerry "the Frauds" site. To see how they have lied on their forums in it about this pic...
Mr. Clark, I fear that if any apology is owed it is owed by you. I have read the post's in this and the AC forums and think you over-reacted and misunderstood the purpose in Jerry's posting of the modern photo. In context, i seems quite clear that his point was to illustrate the different way Federal coats might look in photographs.
As regards the original photo in question, I must say that I have questioned its identification for many years. It is a great photo but the soldiers do very much look like Western Theater Federals and I don't much trust Miller's identification of it.
I wonder if your knee jerk reaction might not be a response to the notion that "tho only known photo of Forrest's escort" might turn out to be an actual fraud or an error. While it would be a blow to discover there is no known photo of Forest's escort, how much better it would be to get to the bottom of this question with facts and documentation rather than insults and jibes. Never be afraid of replacing myths with truth.
Post by Jerry Todd on Jan 17, 2006 12:03:12 GMT -5
Mr Hobo said:
"I believe that the photograph that clearly depicts Forrest Cavalry was first printed in Lytle's book, "Forrest's Critter Company" and secondly in the "Photographic History of the Civil War", closely followed in the "Confederate Veteran" editor S.A. Cunningham of Shelbyville, Tennessee"
Miller's came out in 1911, Lytle's book came out in 1931, so it's not possible the photo was publish first in Lytle's work then in Miller's.
The Confederate Veteran Ran from 1893 to 1932. When the image in question was published in it, IF it ever was published in it, I don't know, maybe someone reading this can verify that one way or the other. It's possible the image first appeared there. The only reference to Forrest's Cavalry in the publication's index is in 1893. There's a reference to the 1st TN Cavary in 1922. The 4th TN in 1920 and in 1925. The 5th in 1925. The 7th in 1916. the 16th Battalion in 1936. The 22nd in 1929.
Only one possible reference prior to 1911 (Miller's) That issue is listed here: www.researchonline.net/cvm/menu1893.htm Not conclusive as to whether the image was published then or not, but I've made an inquiery.
The image as it is published in Miller's is not identified as Forrest's escort in any way. The acompanying text says, in fact:
GROUP OF CONFEDERATE CAVALRY IN THE WEST
Old cavalrymen find this photograph absorbing; it brings to life again the varied equipment of the Confederate cavalrymen in the West. The only uniformity is found with respect to carbines, which are carried by all except the officers. Three of the men in the center have pistols thrust in their belts, ready for a fight at close quarters. Some have belts crossed over their chests, some a single belt, still others none at all. One of the single belts acts as a carbine sling, the other as a canteen strap. Horse holders have fallen out with the chargers visible behind the line of men. The Western photographers, Armstead & Carter, were the artists enterprising enough to secure this photograph. The territory their travels covered in Mississippi and Tennessee changed hands so frequently that fortunately for posterity an opportunity at last did come to photo graph a troop of the swift-traveling and little interviewed warriors that composed the Confederate cavalry. They did important service in the West."
Forrest's name isn't even mentioned.
The unknown photographer is cited right in the photo's caption: Armstead & Carter who also took the photos of Corinth.
Miller's is well known for a great many misIDed photos. Basing everything on a single, second hand source with a known reputation for error isn't bad research, it isn't research at all.
A biased, bullheaded, ignorant, and slanderous temper tantrum combined with sterotyped notions of how troops were uniformed and equipped does not prove anything, or convince anyone of anything but the ignorance of the one making the argument.
Post by Dave Myrick on Jan 20, 2006 19:22:08 GMT -5
BTW: The ONLY difference between a 59 Sharps (carbine or rifle) and a 63 Sharps is the 63 has a c. in front of the serial number denoting 100,000. ie: c.650=100,650
There are 59s without patch boxes and 63s with them.
I was looking over my notes the other night and did find anoth difference between the `59 and `63 Sharps. The barrel bands on the `59's are flat and rounded and contoured to fit the inner dimension of the barrel/stock only on the inside. The bands on the `63 are rounded on the outside and the outside shape mimick's the inner countour lines.
Post by lesterschumacher on Jan 20, 2006 22:33:34 GMT -5
Roderick, Dave etal.
The photo of the three Confederates posted above was taken by Matthew Brady on or about July 15, 1863 at Gettysburg, PA. on Seminary Ridge near the Lutheran Theological Seminary. This is Brady stereo photo # 2397. It is in the Library Of Congress. These and about 25,000 other Confederate prisoners were transferred the next day toward Washington and subsequently to prison camps.
William Frassanito Gettysburg-A Journey In Time Scribners.....1975 page 70 and 71.
Mr. Frasinito has done the definitive photographic studies of the known photographs taken after the battles of Gettysburg, Antietam, and The Virginia Campaigns of 1864 and 1865. (known to exist from 1975 through 1983). He has also published a volume of photographs of the impact of the battle on the town of Gettysburg and a volume of the Gettysburg photographers.
5 outstanding volumes of primary source material.
Best to all
Lester (The Elder)
Last Edit: Jan 20, 2006 22:38:58 GMT -5 by lesterschumacher