BTW, no newspapers published these photos during the Civil War. They didn't have the technology to reprint them. Instead, newspapers and magazines used illustrations.
All Civil War era photos are lumped together as "Brady". Not right. There were a lot of pioneer photographers pushing the envelope of the new medium. They deserve their due credit.
yes, and the very first war that was actually photographed was the American-Mexican war of 1846-1848, though we have very few pictures of that. And again there are also a few photos from the siege of Rome by the French army in 1849. So in fact the American Civil War was only the FOURTH war to be recorder in photos!
Yes, I have heard of Matthew Brady. In 1965 (100 years after the Lincoln assassination, on April 14, 1865), I entered Kindergarten, my teacher was Miss Brady, a spinster. A dedicated lady to children (skipping marriage and teaching). Just like her grandpa, she was dedicated......it was her last year teaching, she was 65 (she was sweet and darling to us).....22 years later my son was born on the exact day Lincoln was shot,122 years later on April 14, also the exact day that the Titanic hit a iceberg, and his mother was born on the exact day the Titanic was christened (March 31'st).
Capturing a moment in time and sending it into the future. This was a first. Newspapers couldn't reprint them; halftones weren't invented until 1882. And it would be a long time before any were seen by the public. We only have a fraction of Brady's and other pioneer photographer's work.
most of his pictures ended up in greenhouses and as windows/skylights, as no one wanted to be reminded of the horrors of the war where 600,000 soldiers died. Most such pictures gradually faded away... One-third more soldiers died than in WW2, and several times larger a percent of the population.
Not one shot of a battle ongoing, not one soldier lying on the ground or dead. All shots seemed staged as the troops were clean and well-dressed and well-equipped. He isn't the only one who photographed this dubious war; others didn't record a battle or a field of dead soldiers. Not one shot of a field hospital filled to over-flowing with the injured/wounded. Not one picture of a wounded soldier. Not one battlefield during or after a conflict. Tell me again; what the heck did he document? A War? He missed his mark with these shots.
You need to go search for the photos of the war that were taken of the dead soldiers, horses, mules and the battlefields of bones and rotting corpses of the dead that were being removed by black men for burial
You think they had the shutter speeds to capture action? For photographs at that time the subjects had to be very still or there would be incredible motion blur, to the point of subjects disappearing all together.
@@sharonraizor2839 Not all photos would have been action shots. Many befores and afters just aren't available for our viewing. Everything is pristine and staged; uniforms and back drops and foregrounds are too perfect. No piles of dead horses or dead humans. All the tents are in perfect rows, new.
It was not a Civil War, a Civil War is when people band together to overthrow the existing legitimate government and establish another government by force. The southern states simply wanted to succeed from the Union and establish an independent government the C.S.A. the Confederate States Of America. Most importantly they tried to do it legally and peaceful. It was a War Between the States or a War of Rebellion, not a Civil War. Check out the definition of the term Civil War before you start bashing me.
The Civil War began when Beauregard ordered his batteries in Charleston Harbor to reduce Fort Sumpter. Not one country recognized southern independence and the Federal government had every right by natural and civil law to put down a rebellion started by South Carolina. That state illegally left the Union. It's ordinance of seccesion was not authorized by Congress, and no treaty was agreed upon defining the terms of seccesion. Same for all states declaring their independence and subsequent joining of a confederate union.
What is missing here is how Matthew got his start. As in most cases, it came from "contacts". He met among others, Samuel F.B. Morse ( yes, the telegraph guy, who was into a lot of things and good at all it seems). Morse taught him photography and helped him open his own studios in NYC and DC,. Also, Morse and others financed photography expeditions. Helps to have rich contacts when you are trying to "market" yourself, right ? Note: I'm a subscriber to this very good channel and several other "old-timey" channels. I'm not criticizing , just embellishing I hope.
Thank you for adding that important detail! You're absolutely right about the significance of Mathew Brady's early contacts in shaping his career. His connection with Samuel F.B. Morse was indeed a pivotal factor. Morse not only taught him photography but also played a crucial role in establishing his studios and supporting his endeavors. This kind of backing, especially from well-connected and financially capable individuals like Morse, was invaluable in an era where photography was still a burgeoning art and business. Your insight into the importance of these relationships in Brady's success adds a lot to the story. Appreciate your contribution and your support for the channel!
This purported "gory bloody" war; yet not a single drop of blood ? If anyone has actually seen any "gory bloody" photographs please let me know. Thank You.
Thanks for your comment. It's true that Mathew Brady and his team captured many aspects of the Civil War, but the technology and cultural norms of the time often limited the depiction of graphic content. Photography in the 1860s wasn't able to capture the battlefield scenes with the immediacy or detail we might expect today. Additionally, Brady himself aimed to document the war more than its most violent aspects. While some photos hint at the grim realities of war, explicit images are rare from this era. If you're interested in the visual history of the Civil War, there are archives and collections that offer a broad view, though they may not align with modern expectations of 'gory' imagery. It's an important reminder of how historical documentation and technology have evolved. Thanks for raising this point. Happy Searching!
It's too bad most of the photos of people doing things are of military activity. It makes it hard to see what life was actually like back then. Imagine if there were as many photos of people indoors, in carraiges, going into the bakers off main st., riding trains, of people in their gardens etc. Instead from the 1860's it's a bunch of corpses rotting in fields, cannons and people standing in front of field tents. What a missed opportunity to take a bit of a time machine back to the 1860's.
The cameras at the time had shutter speeds that allowed for no movement of subjects! That is why everything was staged and posed. In some scenarios they even practiced before the actual shot was taken.
MANY OF THESE GLASS PLATES LANGUISHED AFTER THE CIVIL WAR. SOME USED LIKE IN GREENHOUSES THAT RUINED THEM. LUCKILY SOMEONE TRIED TO SAVE THEM, BUT THAT IS WHY MANY APPEAR BROKEN!!!1
Asking from the UK, I was wondering if soldiers were conscripted or "press ganged" by either side during the Civil War? If so, was there a risk that the photographers might end up in uniform if they were too close to the action, or was their work tolerated/appreciated by the higher command so they were allowed to work without being signed up?
There was a draft in the North, but you could hire a substitute for $300. The South initiated universal conscription and almost one million were called up, but at least a third failed to show up. Some southern "draft dodgers" were lynched by posses called wild cats, irregulars who patrolled back roads looking for escaped slaves, criminals, and deserters.
Great question from the UK! During the American Civil War, both the Union and Confederate armies used conscription at different times. The Union enacted the first federal conscription law in 1863, while the Confederacy started earlier in 1862. However, 'press-ganging' was not a common practice. As for photographers like Mathew Brady, they were generally not at risk of being conscripted while working on the battlefield. Their work was indeed appreciated, and they often had the tolerance, if not outright support, of the military command. This allowed them to capture those pivotal moments of the war without being enlisted. Their photographs played a crucial role in documenting the realities of the war for posterity.
You need to get your facts strait: 1. he was was an busnessman 2 . he spent most of his time in NYC an DC 3. he never gave credit to the men who actuly took the photos. but claimed they were his.
Thank you so much for commenting and watching the video, Debbie. This is why I enjoy TH-cam! If there's a picture or something that I want to look at in more detail, I click the "pause" button. Then you can take your time and look at the photo and examine all the details.
Thank you for listening to the podcast and subscribing... I really appreciate it.
No live battle photos because it would have been a blur. The dead hold still for the photos.
Thank you. People don't get it.
BTW, no newspapers published these photos during the Civil War. They didn't have the technology to reprint them. Instead, newspapers and magazines used illustrations.
Not one photograph of any actual battle in progress. That's odd.
A little dangerous, don't you think?
The first war to have photographs published in newspapers was the Crimean War, which took place a decade earlier.
Many of the best were taken by OSullivan but credited to Brady. Gardner also did super work
All Civil War era photos are lumped together as "Brady". Not right. There were a lot of pioneer photographers pushing the envelope of the new medium. They deserve their due credit.
@@DerBingle1 I think Gardner even followed the railroads west. Fly in tombstone took great pictures of Geronimo.
The Civil War is not the first war to be photographed. The Crimean war was, ten years earlier.
Greetings from the Netherlands 🇳🇱.
Agree, this narrator speaks as if this was the first war ever to be photographed. Big oversight.
Hamlet's uncle poured poison into his father's ear, which resulted in death. It was an ear crime but did not take place in Crimea.
In America, pay attention instead of trying to be a smart ass
yes, and the very first war that was actually photographed was the American-Mexican war of 1846-1848, though we have very few pictures of that. And again there are also a few photos from the siege of Rome by the French army in 1849. So in fact the American Civil War was only the FOURTH war to be recorder in photos!
@@gabrielmendella Interesting!
Greetings 🖖.
Yes, I have heard of Matthew Brady. In 1965 (100 years after the Lincoln assassination, on April 14, 1865), I entered Kindergarten, my teacher was Miss Brady, a spinster. A dedicated lady to children (skipping marriage and teaching).
Just like her grandpa, she was dedicated......it was her last year teaching, she was 65 (she was sweet and darling to us).....22 years later my son was born on the exact day Lincoln was shot,122 years later on April 14, also the exact day that the Titanic hit a iceberg, and his mother was born on the exact day the Titanic was christened (March 31'st).
Capturing a moment in time and sending it into the future. This was a first. Newspapers couldn't reprint them; halftones weren't invented until 1882. And it would be a long time before any were seen by the public. We only have a fraction of Brady's and other pioneer photographer's work.
The Crimean War was the first war documented using photography
most of his pictures ended up in greenhouses and as windows/skylights, as no one wanted to be reminded of the horrors of the war where 600,000 soldiers died. Most such pictures gradually faded away... One-third more soldiers died than in WW2, and several times larger a percent of the population.
I AM FASCINATED BY PHOTOGRAPHY AS A PIECE OF HISTORY. JUST IMAGINE IF PHOTOGRAPHY WASA NEVER INVENTED, HO WE WOULD NOT KNOW HISTORY!!!!
Not one shot of a battle ongoing, not one soldier lying on the ground or dead. All shots seemed staged as the troops were clean and well-dressed and well-equipped. He isn't the only one who photographed this dubious war; others didn't record a battle or a field of dead soldiers. Not one shot of a field hospital filled to over-flowing with the injured/wounded. Not one picture of a wounded soldier. Not one battlefield during or after a conflict. Tell me again; what the heck did he document? A War? He missed his mark with these shots.
Well said. A lot of photos of men standing around in uniforms that did not fit.
You need to go search for the photos of the war that were taken of the dead soldiers, horses, mules and the battlefields of bones and rotting corpses of the dead that were being removed by black men for burial
You think they had the shutter speeds to capture action? For photographs at that time the subjects had to be very still or there would be incredible motion blur, to the point of subjects disappearing all together.
@@sharonraizor2839 EXACTLY! Thank you!
@@sharonraizor2839 Not all photos would have been action shots. Many befores and afters just aren't available for our viewing. Everything is pristine and staged; uniforms and back drops and foregrounds are too perfect. No piles of dead horses or dead humans. All the tents are in perfect rows, new.
It was not a Civil War, a Civil War is when people band together to overthrow the existing legitimate government and establish another government by force.
The southern states simply wanted to succeed from the Union and establish an independent government the C.S.A. the Confederate States Of America.
Most importantly they tried to do it legally and peaceful.
It was a War Between the States or a War of Rebellion, not a Civil War.
Check out the definition of the term Civil War before you start bashing me.
Thank you very little, you must be highly educated. I grew up around people like U . Picky but we'll intentioned.
The Civil War began when Beauregard ordered his batteries in Charleston Harbor to reduce Fort Sumpter. Not one country recognized southern independence and the Federal government had every right by natural and civil law to put down a rebellion started by South Carolina. That state illegally left the Union. It's ordinance of seccesion was not authorized by Congress, and no treaty was agreed upon defining the terms of seccesion. Same for all states declaring their independence and subsequent joining of a confederate union.
Lipstick on a pig try defining everything till it serves your purpose. War between. The state's seems appropriate.
What is missing here is how Matthew got his start. As in most cases, it came from "contacts". He met among others, Samuel F.B. Morse ( yes, the telegraph guy, who was into a lot of things and good at all it seems). Morse taught him photography and helped him open his own studios in NYC and DC,. Also, Morse and others financed photography expeditions. Helps to have rich contacts when you are trying to "market" yourself, right ?
Note: I'm a subscriber to this very good channel and several other "old-timey" channels. I'm not criticizing , just embellishing I hope.
Thank you for adding that important detail! You're absolutely right about the significance of Mathew Brady's early contacts in shaping his career. His connection with Samuel F.B. Morse was indeed a pivotal factor. Morse not only taught him photography but also played a crucial role in establishing his studios and supporting his endeavors. This kind of backing, especially from well-connected and financially capable individuals like Morse, was invaluable in an era where photography was still a burgeoning art and business. Your insight into the importance of these relationships in Brady's success adds a lot to the story. Appreciate your contribution and your support for the channel!
I am thankful for all the photography of this war
Lovely post. But as to the first photographed war? Have you never heard of Roger Fenton in the Crimea?
In 1853 during Crimea War was photographed.
Check out more photos from Mathew Brady here: www.archives.gov/education/lessons/brady-photos
Over Half of These Photo's are Backwards - If you Look at the Numbers Written on Them...Just Saying...
Brady was genius at staging the fallen. Made the shots more interesting I suppose.
This purported "gory bloody" war; yet not a single drop of blood ? If anyone has actually seen any "gory bloody" photographs please let me know. Thank You.
Thanks for your comment. It's true that Mathew Brady and his team captured many aspects of the Civil War, but the technology and cultural norms of the time often limited the depiction of graphic content. Photography in the 1860s wasn't able to capture the battlefield scenes with the immediacy or detail we might expect today. Additionally, Brady himself aimed to document the war more than its most violent aspects. While some photos hint at the grim realities of war, explicit images are rare from this era. If you're interested in the visual history of the Civil War, there are archives and collections that offer a broad view, though they may not align with modern expectations of 'gory' imagery. It's an important reminder of how historical documentation and technology have evolved. Thanks for raising this point. Happy Searching!
Thank you.
@@Ancestralfindings
It's too bad most of the photos of people doing things are of military activity. It makes it hard to see what life was actually like back then. Imagine if there were as many photos of people indoors, in carraiges, going into the bakers off main st., riding trains, of people in their gardens etc. Instead from the 1860's it's a bunch of corpses rotting in fields, cannons and people standing in front of field tents. What a missed opportunity to take a bit of a time machine back to the 1860's.
The cameras at the time had shutter speeds that allowed for no movement of subjects! That is why everything was staged and posed. In some scenarios they even practiced before the actual shot was taken.
@@sharonraizor2839 thanks.
MANY OF THESE GLASS PLATES LANGUISHED AFTER THE CIVIL WAR. SOME USED LIKE IN GREENHOUSES THAT RUINED THEM. LUCKILY SOMEONE TRIED TO SAVE THEM, BUT THAT IS WHY MANY APPEAR BROKEN!!!1
Asking from the UK, I was wondering if soldiers were conscripted or "press ganged" by either side during the Civil War? If so, was there a risk that the photographers might end up in uniform if they were too close to the action, or was their work tolerated/appreciated by the higher command so they were allowed to work without being signed up?
There was a draft in the North, but you could hire a substitute for $300. The South initiated universal conscription and almost one million were called up, but at least a third failed to show up. Some southern "draft dodgers" were lynched by posses called wild cats, irregulars who patrolled back roads looking for escaped slaves, criminals, and deserters.
Great question from the UK! During the American Civil War, both the Union and Confederate armies used conscription at different times. The Union enacted the first federal conscription law in 1863, while the Confederacy started earlier in 1862. However, 'press-ganging' was not a common practice.
As for photographers like Mathew Brady, they were generally not at risk of being conscripted while working on the battlefield. Their work was indeed appreciated, and they often had the tolerance, if not outright support, of the military command. This allowed them to capture those pivotal moments of the war without being enlisted. Their photographs played a crucial role in documenting the realities of the war for posterity.
Watch the movie, Gangs of New York. Near to the end they show how men were being conscripted in New York City, at the time. Good flick.
The film stock was so bad that the skies always looked overcast in every shot.
Thank You
Didn’t see any battle screens
No movement in photos of that era. Shutter speeds too slow.
You need to get your facts strait: 1. he was was an busnessman 2 . he spent most of his time in NYC an DC 3. he never gave credit to the men who actuly took the photos. but claimed they were his.
Muy interesante
Your two title pages stay up long but you move the pictures way too fast. People want to look at the entire picture!
Thank you so much for commenting and watching the video, Debbie. This is why I enjoy TH-cam! If there's a picture or something that I want to look at in more detail, I click the "pause" button. Then you can take your time and look at the photo and examine all the details.
Really. I kept pausing all through this.
This video deserve more views.
Well my view is that it's a very interesting video.
correction- Roger Fenton photographed the Crimean War some ten years before the US civil war.
I would have been much happier if you described each photo and went a little slower.