PDA

View Full Version : Civil War - Identity of Two Star General in Photo?



Pages : 1 [2]

c6h6o3
09-28-2009, 09:01 AM
It looks like William Henry Beck of Pennsylvania ..

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/whbeck.htm

Beck was a Brigadier (one star). Besides, nobody born in 1842 could possibly look like the OP's picture before the turn of the century, if even then.

Ed Sukach
09-28-2009, 09:05 AM
*******
Absolutely not. Burnside was never a two-star general at that advanced age.

"Absolutely"??? You've lost me. Burnside was promoted to Major General on March 18th, 1862... he was 38 years old at that time.
Was he demoted, or ...?

As I see it ... (not easy at the present time ... off subject), he retired with the rank of Major General.

I wonder if a determination of the subject's age would be accurate, given the conditon/ quality of the photograph.

jnanian
09-28-2009, 10:33 AM
*******
Absolutely not. Burnside was never a two-star general at that advanced age.

not to mention
his burnsides were connected to his moustache
and the 2 star general in the image just had a moustache
and small side taps ...

jnanian
09-28-2009, 10:41 AM
Beck was a Brigadier (one star). Besides, nobody born in 1842 could possibly look like the OP's picture before the turn of the century, if even then.


he still looks like Beck, even though he's not him :)

jon koss
09-28-2009, 09:28 PM
Hmmm... after looking at every image of Chamberlain I could find, I must say that the ears, earlobes, nose, cleft chin, eye folds and jowls all point to Chamberlain. Looking at the original in my hand the conclusion seems inescapable. If this was taken just before the Penn Ave studio closed, then he could have been 52 or 53 years old in the photo. Not completely impossible but my gut reaction was that the man in the photo was just a bit older - maybe 55 to 60 years of age. In my original he does not look 'elderly' however. Interestingly, the reason that I missed Chamberlain was that I limited my LOC image search to generals born before 1810, since I was assuming the photo was a wartime image.

cowanw, can you flesh out the scenario wherein the Brady name is showing on the back of an image actually made by Antony co.? Did Antony publish absolute facsimiles, or would the reprint actually say Antony?

Thanks everyone for the help. I will sleep a little better now that I feel I have an ID.

Best, Jon




Yes Chamberlain was a young man when first a two star general.
http://www.civil-war.net/cw_images/files/images/298.jpg
But these photos are often made at the reunions of the union army.
Camberlain died in 1914 and this image looks quite elderly; this would not be possible as a real Brady image. Brady's Washington studio closed in 1881, New York in 1875, Putting this image before 1875, but his images were copied by Antony co. and reproduced for many years.

Anscojohn
09-29-2009, 12:02 AM
"Absolutely"??? You've lost me. Burnside was promoted to Major General on March 18th, 1862... he was 38 years old at that time.
Was he demoted, or ...?
*******
That fella was much older than 38, methinks; and, although I do not recall seeing a post-Civil War picture of him, I cannot believe he ever got rid of the famous "Sideburns" that he made famous.

As I see it ... (not easy at the present time ... off subject), he retired with the rank of Major General.
*******
I expect he did, but I would have to check if it was as a MG in the Regular Army, rather than as a volunteer. He started out as a Colonel in a Rhode Island volunteer regiment.

I wonder if a determination of the subject's age would be accurate, given the conditon/ quality of the photograph.
*******
You wonderment is well founded. If I can isolate the URL for that image, I will send it to an old grad school friend who has published widely on uniforms. Perhaps he can provide some information.

Anscojohn
09-29-2009, 12:20 AM
I have been trolling the uncharted recesses of my photo collection and dredged up this photo CDV of what appears to be a two star general. I have never been able to identify him. Does anyone have any ideas on his identity or even possible sources of information about same?

Thanks in advance,

Jon
******
Jon, If you would send the file to my email address, JayKhill@aol.com, I will forward it to an old grad school friend who is an expert on all manner of Civil War-era military uniforms and historical artifacts.
I am going to withhold judgment about the Chamberlain i.d. Chamberlain's nose, in the Bowdoin College portrait, is straight; this nose is slightly humped. Moreover, a dated portrait of JLC taken in 1876 shows a much younger-looking man than this.

TheFlyingCamera
09-29-2009, 05:40 AM
I'm not entirely certain those are stars - they could be oak leaf clusters, at which point he would be either a Major or a Lieutenant Colonel, not a 2-star General. Given his overall age in the photo, I'd go with Lieutenant Colonel.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/unionofficerrank.htm

Take a look at the above for comparison.

cowanw
09-29-2009, 04:38 PM
cowanw, can you flesh out the scenario wherein the Brady name is showing on the back of an image actually made by Antony co.? Did Antony publish absolute facsimiles, or would the reprint actually say Antony?Best, Jon

According to my information on the Meserve collection, Brady and Gardner supplied E. and H.T. Anthony & Co of New York with Brady negatives after they had been used for the custom trade.
Brady was given credit on the back of Anthony cards (cartes de visites).
In 1861 Brady made $4000 dollars on this arrangement.
The back reads
Published by E. & H. T. Anthony & Co.from the photographic Negatives in Brady's National Portrait Gallery
Frederick Meserve bought 15000 to 18000 glass negatives from Anthony's in 1902.
All I know

eclarke
09-30-2009, 07:47 AM
How about General Buell at an older age? His hair was already starting to grey during the war...EC

TheFlyingCamera
09-30-2009, 08:17 AM
Again, the more I look at the insignia, the more I'm convinced he's a Lieutenant Colonel - those aren't stars, they're oak leaves. The rank insignia haven't changed much in 150 years, and we still use the same oak leaf design for Majors (in gold) and Lieutenant Colonels (in silver). The rank insignia on his shoulders are too blob-ish to be stars, and too close to the ends of the epaulets.

Anscojohn
09-30-2009, 08:27 AM
[QUOTE=jon koss;867810]I have been trolling the uncharted recesses of my photo collection and dredged up this photo CDV of what appears to be a two star general. I have never been able to identify him. Does anyone have any ideas on his identity or even possible sources of information about same?

Thanks in advance,

******
Jon, Flying Crane has a point worth pursuing. If you will send the file you uploaded to APUG to me as a PM at JayKhill@aol.com I will send it on to a grad school friend who is a museum curator specializing in such uniforms. He is also interested in historical photographs. Please send the original file; not one schrunched down to be uploadable to APUG.

jnanian
09-30-2009, 09:51 AM
Again, the more I look at the insignia, the more I'm convinced he's a Lieutenant Colonel - those aren't stars, they're oak leaves. The rank insignia haven't changed much in 150 years, and we still use the same oak leaf design for Majors (in gold) and Lieutenant Colonels (in silver). The rank insignia on his shoulders are too blob-ish to be stars, and too close to the ends of the epaulets.

i think you are right,
if you look at them carefully they are leaves, not stars ...

John Koehrer
09-30-2009, 11:56 AM
I must politely suggest that there are five visible points on the items in question.
The spacing between the edge of the star(leaf) to the edge may be slightly different but at that time I don't think these guys just buzzed down to the PX to get their insignia. I don't know if these were machine made or hand made to a pattern but without the consistency of programed technology I could understand some variation in spacing or size.
The illustration in the civil war site indicates a much smaller star than in the picture and the leaf tapers from a rounded base to a rounded point away from the ends.

eclarke
09-30-2009, 12:07 PM
This is an excellent mystery!!...EC

RobertP
09-30-2009, 03:40 PM
Brady closed his New York Gallery in 1872. In 1890 he opened his last Washington gallery (his fifth). In 1895 he broke his leg in a traffic accident and never fully recovered. He died in 1896 so I'd say he closed his Washington Gallery sometime in between 1895 and 1896. Robert

jon koss
09-30-2009, 06:15 PM
Thanks for the nudge TFC. You really had my curiosity up! So I looked at the original under a 4x loupe and it is pretty clear to my eyes that they are stars, as opposed to oak leaves as shown below. Are the oak leaves shown what you had in mind? They are from the uniform of a Lt. Colonel.

Thanks,
J






Again, the more I look at the insignia, the more I'm convinced he's a Lieutenant Colonel - those aren't stars, they're oak leaves. The rank insignia haven't changed much in 150 years, and we still use the same oak leaf design for Majors (in gold) and Lieutenant Colonels (in silver). The rank insignia on his shoulders are too blob-ish to be stars, and too close to the ends of the epaulets.

photomc
09-30-2009, 07:57 PM
jon, check with the Center for Military History (http://www.history.army.mil/) they may be able to help. For one they have extensive research that has already been completed and more important to you and them (and all of us) they have an ongoing project to scan and identify photographs of all soldiers. It is the considered opinion that every member of the military has been photographed (in uniform) since the Civil War. Good Luck, let us know what you find.

Photo Engineer
09-30-2009, 08:18 PM
They are stars IMHO.

I'm adding this as a reasoning. The current mess dress shoulderboards for officers use a similar layout to the normal shoulderboards of the Civil War era up until about WWI for normal wear. These resemble the shoulderboards of a General, and not a Lt. Colonel.

Besides, in the photo, you can see the points on the stars. There are not enough for oak leaves.

PE