Armed Confederates in Frederick

[billywebb]

This is one of my favorite images taken during the Civil War. According to the Historical Society of Frederick County, Maryland, the image is of armed Confederate troops marching west on Patrick Street in Frederick, Maryland on September 12, 1862 to the Battle of Antietam.

Can anyone determine the type(s) of weapons these soldiers are carrying in the photo? Are they 42 Springfields? Enfields?

[OleMissRebel]

ya man,

that's one of my favorite pictures, if not my all time favorite.

[Vuhginyuh]

Not many knapsacks. I can spot three easily, even fewer kepis.

The longarms look robust but it is probably from glare and movement.

I have been told that this could be Cooke's men from Walker's brigade (46 NC, 48 NC, 27 NC, 3 AK, and 30 VA) but I have nothing to back this up.
If that is true then a heavier bored rifled musket with slightly larger dimensions than a Richmond/Fayetteville/Enfield would fit.
North Carolina entered Maryland shouldering quite a few of these ''common rifles''.

But again, it is just a guess.

[huntdaw]

Yeah, this photo is phenomenal. This would be an ideal one to use that Photoshop program on to bring out all the details (hint, hint).

[GeraldTodd]

Hey, don't those farbs know you come to the shoulder when you halt!? :)

[markj]

Greetings,

This all goes to reinforce my belief that so-called "farb" behavior and commands can be sometimes uncomfortably close to wartime reality.

I remember reading an Orphan Brigade diary entry by John S. Jackman (9th KY) mentioning his company "playing a joke" on an officer during drill by refusing to right-face until being ordered to shoulder arms. The problem with Jackman's account is that, as can be readily noted, the joke was actually on Jackman and his comrades. Per Hardee, they were wrong and the commander was right since, of course, troops not commanded to shoulder arms automatically go to the "trail" when facing.

I ought to do an article about "theory vs. reality" when it came to delivering actual commands in the field. That would really get some folks riled....

Regards,

Mark Jaeger

[Minieball577]

Is there a higher resolution scan of this photo available? This seems to be a medium resolution jpeg, that is difficult to zoom in on without all manner of distortion and pixelation.

[marlin teat]

I've been told that the original plate is in private hands and that there have only been a couple of "contact prints" made. Most of the prints that are available are copies of copies. I know of one of the contact prints locally and will try to get it scanned and posted.

[georgewunderlich]

The National Museum of Civil War Medicine has a 3' X 4' enlargement of this remarkable image. I just pulled it into my office for a closer look. Most of the weapons are quite blurred. There are three that appear to have very robust barrel bands with slings that appear to terminate at the 2nd band. There is also one fairly clear hammer ( on a musket in the fore ground) that looks more curvered than the post 1842 hammers of the 1855, 1861, etc. It is so hard to tell but these look like they have more characteristics of smooth bore muskets than anything else. That said I am basing this on only three or four muskets.

It is interesting to see the lack of kepi style hats. I can really only be sure of about three. I do love the very wide brimmed light color hat on the man on the camera side of the street just above the sign. I wonder how many of us would call the wearer something less than polite if he showed up at an event?

[Vuhginyuh]

The National Museum of Civil War Medicine has a 3' X 4' enlargement of this remarkable image. I just pulled it into my office for a closer look. Most of the weapons are quite blurred. There are three that appear to have very robust barrel bands with slings that appear to terminate at the 2nd band. There is also one fairly clear hammer ( on a musket in the fore ground) that looks more curvered than the post 1842 hammers of the 1855, 1861, etc. It is so hard to tell but these look like they have more characteristics of smooth bore muskets than anything else. That said I am basing this on only three or four muskets.

It is interesting to see the lack of kepi style hats. I can really only be sure of about three. I do love the very wide brimmed light color hat on the man on the camera side of the street just above the sign. I wonder how many of us would call the wearer something less than polite if he showed up at an event?

See post # 3 above. We are thinking the same things.

A couple of hats are pinned up with a device.
What always gets me is the droopy appearance of many of the brims. Rain storm that morning?

Two men at the right of the column, above the ''O'' on the sign, look like they are drinking from their canteens. I see a bent elbow there and a canteen shape at he terminal.

And the pards who have seen the photographer.

There is one part I cannot figure. Look at the left post of the sign and up to the center of the line. There is an eliptical blob of thing/person at a 45 degree angle up and away from the viewer. What is that? Looks like a surf board with a hat sized object on it. And yes, I know, there are no waves in Frederick.

There is another image taken that day at street level that shows that life goes on. A man in a hat similar to the bright colored one in this shot is window shopping with a woman.

[marlin teat]

I don't know about rain but here is a possible explanation for the damp appearance. (Different unit but same time period).

"We marched through several towns in Maryland and through fine farms and stopped at Frederick City, Md., on the Monocacy river, remained there one day and washed our clothes in the river and put them on wet. We were trying to drown some of the lice of which we had plenty. We had not washed our clothes in about a month, and the bugs were getting unbearable."

William Judkins
Co. G, 22nd Ga.
Wright's Brigade

[Vuhginyuh]

I don't know about rain but here is a possible explanation for the damp appearance. (Different unit but same time period).

"We marched through several towns in Maryland and through fine farms and stopped at Frederick City, Md., on the Monocacy river, remained there one day and washed our clothes in the river and put them on wet. We were trying to drown some of the lice of which we had plenty. We had not washed our clothes in about a month, and the bugs were getting unbearable."

William Judkins
Co. G, 22nd Ga.
Wright's Brigade

ARE THEY NOT MUDDY FOOTPRINTS ALL OVER THE FOREGROUND?

[Minieball577]

Maybe they are carrying British 1842 type arms? It seems to me that the barrel bands are invisible. The British 1842 barrel was held in with Pins, like the Brown Bess etc, rather than with Bands. Also, the .75 calibre bore would explain the "robust" look. Also, it seems the stock comb profile is very similar to that of the British 1842, on the visible arms. In addition, one of them appears to have along range sight of sorts located part the way up the barrel, leading to the possibility that these are 1842 British Rifled-muskets.

Consequently, this type of arm is carried on the list of small arms in the Confederate Ordnance manual of 1863, as arms "currently in service" noting that it is entirely possible then that the arms were in service a year earlier.

Of course the photo is pretty hard to see.

[marlin teat]

ARE THEY NOT MUDDY FOOTPRINTS ALL OVER THE FOREGROUND?

I have examined a very clear copy and I honestly don't see any muddy footprints. Also, there don't seem to be any puddles in the obvious places (gutters). Judging from the fact that there is not as much movement blurring as would be expected, a small lens apeture and quick exposure was probably used which could have only have been accomplished in bright sunlight. Also note the relative absence of shadows. Bright light and small shadows indicate the time to be mid-day. Perhaps this could narrow down the identity to units that passed through town around noon.

[billywebb]

I've been told that the original plate is in private hands and that there have only been a couple of "contact prints" made. Most of the prints that are available are copies of copies. I know of one of the contact prints locally and will try to get it scanned and posted.

Marlin Teat - I'm very interested in seeing your post if you are able to do this.

[hireddutchcutthroat]

I have examined a very clear copy and I honestly don't see any muddy footprints. Also, there don't seem to be any puddles in the obvious places (gutters). Judging from the fact that there is not as much movement blurring as would be expected, a small lens apeture and quick exposure was probably used which could have only have been accomplished in bright sunlight. Also note the relative absence of shadows. Bright light and small shadows indicate the time to be mid-day. Perhaps this could narrow down the identity to units that passed through town around noon.

The street looks like it may be cobblestoned to me.

[Skeet]

Pards, I grew up in Frederick and know Patrick street very well. As a matter of fact, my Dad and I are going to visit that same place. I was wondering if the museum sells that picture? I guess I could go there and find out. Just wondering if anyone knew? I would love to have that picture covering one whole wall in my house. Dan Morgan, 10th Va

[billywebb]

Skeet - I bought my copy (8 x 10) from the Historical Society of Frederick County, Maryland (#P0241). Cost was $25.

Historical Society of Frederick County (http://www.hsfcinfo.org/)

[Vuhginyuh]

Some good folks on AC have provided good primary source material for the weather at this time. There was a twenty degree drop in temperature in the days the Confederates were moving through Frederick. Cold fronts commonly have a rain wall preceding the drop. I have written NOAA for the actual precipitation records for the days preceeding the battle. It did rain in DC and Baltimore on three of the days from the 12th to the 16th.