Much of the Civil War was documented in photographs. .. 10 points best answerer!

Question: Much of the Civil War was documented in photographs!. !.!. 10 points best answerer!! :)!?

Much of the Civil War was documented in photographs!.

True
FalseWww@QuestionHome@Com

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

True, it was one of the first American wars to be documented in photos!. The main photographer of it was Mathew Brady!. More information about him can be found here:
http://en!.wikipedia!.org/wiki/Mathew_Brad!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

A rather 'weird' question - - -The Civil War was well documented by Photos but still the majority of images were sketches so I would say False!. There were no 'combat' photos and even a few of the leading Generals had but two or at most five 'photos' floating around!. And the process for capturing images were on tin plates not 'photos' as is now understood by that term!.!.!.

Peace///////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\///////!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

False!. The Civil War was the first war that saw the use of photography!. Photographs of dead bodies, of wounded, of troops at the front--all notable stuff!.

That said!.!.!.!.there were lots of things that photography did not document and could not--there was no technology!.
--couldn't handle movement (so no documentation of any fighting or charges)
--no zoom lenses so couldn't handle distance
--couldn't work in bad weather (like the rain at Spotsylvania Court House or Shiloh)

Additionally, people assume even today that just because we have cameras and can look at film of something that therefore we've captured it or people see what is going on and know what it's like!. Watching film or looking at a picture doesn't adequately capture the boredom, terror and deprivation that is a part of military life during a war!. Additionally, people tend to use particular media in ways it's appropriate for!. Thus, we use film when something works visually!. How many pictures or movies have you ever seen of jungle warfare in the Pacific--places like New Guinea (where soldiers could only see 5-10 feet in front of them)!? You don't--because the pictures wouldn't show anything!. So you don't see Alexander Gardner or Matthew Brady pictures of civil war "sinks" (ie: toilets), you don't see pictures of the cloud of gunpowder that covers an engagement and reduces visibility to almost zero, you don't see pictures of columns moving in the rain, or the terror of fighting in the Wilderness!.

I would also argue that it's not true that pen & ink or wood sketches documented more of the war!. While true that they were used, my position is that much of the war was not visually documented adequately at the time!. That is why research of letters, diaries, unit records, metal detectors which pick up clumps of bullets--continue to educate us to this day about civil war life and fighting!. For instance, most pictures of troops (and certainly paintings or drawings) show bayonet charges!. Yet a review of wounds treated during battles shows remarkably few bayonet wounds!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

True
a lot was and we would have many more but they were used as glass for green houses the glass that the pictures were transfered from was used in fact that is where the three confderate prisoners agaisnt the fence at gettysburg came from!.Www@QuestionHome@Com