Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

<i>Antietam: The Photographic Legacy of America's Bloodiest Day</i> (review)

1979; Kent State University Press; Volume: 25; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1353/cwh.1979.0044

1533-6271

Frank L. Byrne,

Photography and Visual Culture

92CIVIL WAR HISTORY conducted the battle, particularly the attack plan, with a little more skill and if they had relied a little more on finesse, a little less on muscle." He emphasizes this view again in saying, "The Rebels were in fact so close to victory on April 6 that one marvels that the Union army was able to escape disaster." At the same time he disagrees with many commentators when stating the arrival of Nelson's reinforcements "probably did not affect the outcome of the fight on April 6." He feels Grant alreadyhad a defensive line established that the weakened and disorganized Confederates could not have taken. Following a somewhat current trend, the author is severely critical of Albert Sidney Johnston and in fact finds fault with most of the generalship. But, it is well to remember the state of the art of generalship when handling armies en masse at this point in the Civil War. Of considerable interest, in regard to one of the controversies, is that McDonough exonerates Lew Wallace for allegedly getting lost or being slow to react. He blames the delay of Wallace's reinforcements on the garbling of Grant's intended order. McDonough feels "There is something special about Shiloh," and perhaps there is, but other authors feel the same way about their special battles. This possible over-emphasis does not prevent the author from integratingShiloh into the war as a whole, and McDonough is perceptive in speculating on what did not happen, emphasizing these aspects almost more than what did happen. The author is wise in understanding that the numerous controversies, dear to the heart of Civil War students have "partly obscured the vast significance of the campaign itself." There is in the volume nothing particularly new except as to nuance of viewpoint, nor probably could there be. There is some doubt that this book is really needed, but on the other hand it provides useful fuel for argument and for continuing interest in Civil War military history. This, or any other volume, will not settle the controversies of Shiloh, but at least Civil Warriors have an opportunity to compare their views and studies with those of Wiley Sword and James Lee McDonough and this is undoubtedly healthy. E. B. Long University of Wyoming Antietam: The Photographic Legacy of America's Bloodiest Day. By William A. Frassanito. (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1978. Pp. 304. $15.95.) As in his earlier Gettysburg: A Journey in Time, Frassanito studies carefully the photographs taken immediately after a Civil War battle. BOOK REVIEWS93 He documents the photographers—Alexander Gardner and James F. Gibson, employees of entrepreneur Matthew Brady. He reproduces the wartime photographs, including some seldom or never previously published. Because of the use of glossier paper and black instead of brown ink, they are even clearer than those in his Gettysburg. While the author analyzes the content of each photograph, nonspecialists may wish additional information about the weapons and other objects shown. With the assistance of maps and modern photographs of the same scenes, Franssanito demonstrates the exact locations of most of the pictures. In the process he corrects errors and omissions in traditional captioning of the wartime photographs—though less often than he was able to do in his Gettysburg book. His frequentreferences to theprivate ownership of many of the sites are a reminder that his modern photographs record views subject to drastic alteration. There is also a good concise narrative on the course of the battle. Not content with thus generally duplicating the achievement of his Gettysburg, Frassanito has given a deeper significance and a different focus to his work on Antietam. Through a brief survey of earlier attempts atwar photography, he shows that theAmerican CivilWar was the first in which technology—the development of the glass-plate negative—and commerce—the market for stereoscopic views and album cards—both allowed and encouraged the mass reproduction of such photographs. And Antietam was the first American battlefield on which cameramen were able to photograph a number of corpses, revealing to civilians horrors hidden by usually romanticized drawings. The author indicates the fascinated response of journalists, visitors to photo galleries and, most important, purchasers...