There was a thread on the Szabo forum that made me think of the above question..

In the thread they were discussing an image of a dead soldier in the trenches of Petersburg.  And based on the photo making some assumptions about issue and such.  

I found it amusing because you hear it said "you can't trust the studio photos" because they were staged and there props that were used.  So the soldier may not have an issue item, but something just for the photo.

In the thread, the implied statement was "you can't trust photos of the dead" because they have been moved or propped or had something done by the photographer looking for the really good image.

Then I have heard "you can't trust some AAR's" because the officers will try to embellish their actions to make their unit look good.

So what does this come back to...  It means you need to read more than 1 book and look at more than 1 photo and read more than 1 set of letters from 1 soldier in 1 theatre of the war.  

Anyways just an observation today.

Greg:

You bring up a good point. Especially in the "Official Reports" by the opposing antagonists...I've sometimes wondered if they were at the same battle.

Greg,

I Agree.....you must look at all the relative data available and come up with a conclusion. I think that is why most of us have  a big library and refernce material.  

Let's not be too hard on some authors of AAR's.  Even generals were only in command of a part of the field, and their attention was directed fully upon that one part of the field.  Just as the individual soldier had his frame of reference, so did officers.

That said, it is painfully obvious that some officers took liberties in making out their reports.  Some also made out those reports months later.

The only way to get a perspective on any event of the war is to use multiple sources, then judge their reliability and draw your own conclusions, which will still be different from anyone else's conclusions.

Quote :

flattop32355 wrote :   Just as the individual soldier had his frame of reference, so did officers.

I get the biggest kick out of comparing General Big Booty's memory of a battle to Private Tentpeg's memory of that same battle. General Big Booty remembers his men retiring in perfect order, in the face of overwhelming odds. Private Tentpeg remembers running away, just as fast as his legs would take him. Given my frame of reference, I tend to believe Private Tentpeg!

Bill,

You bring up a good point. After reading a heck of a lot about the performance of McCall's division of Penna. Reserves at Glendale, I am amazed at how much conflict exists in the various reports, endorsements (Indorsements for you in the old army), and such. What I'd like to find in the dusty files of NARA is the "court proceedings" of the conduct of the war investigation where McCall was trying to clear his name, and a heck of a lot of folks wanted to place the blame on his division. Frankly, I don't know if the records exist, but there is a heck of an article in them if they do.  

I have to think how the troops of June 1864 would have acted differently than those of June 1862 in similar circumstances.  It has made for some good reading.