The picture of the artillery unit is yet to be identified with complete accuracy. There were numerous Confederate artillery units from S.C. at the beginning of the war that used the word "palmetto" in their names. The site may have been Ft. Pemberton, but it could also have been taken at another of the Confederate fortifications on the Stono River just south of Charleston. What IS known is that the picture was taken by photographer George Smith Cook who identified it simply as "Palmetto Battalion, Stono Inlet." What concerns me more is the complete inaccuracy behind the split image. The modern "park" picture is of Charleston's White Point Gardens at the tip of the city's peninsula, also known as "the battery" today, which was heavily fortified during the war as Fort Ramsay. This is not where the image was taken and totally inappropriate.

You are correct in that I don't read your publication on a regular bases.

If you have some past articles that I should read, please forward them to me or let me know where I can go to download them.

Thank you,

Bo

I'm just curious about how the artillery company can be identified as the Palmetto Guards (Co. A). Since the caption says "probably," does that mean the i.d. is simply an educated guess? What is the basis for the conclusion? I've seen the photograph identified as being a different company. Thanks...

I think you could have done a much better job with the photographs. If you're going to have a split-screen tool to view "before and after" images, you at least need to capture the same angle of whatever your photographing.

I could not access the pictures!!

Sir, I was a resident of Charleston from 1967 until 1980. 1. The soldiers were photographed on James Island at Fort Pemberton. As recently as 1981, this was accessible by car and very close to Fort Sumter. This would have made mortar fire much more damaging on the Federal position. That was the point I believe. 2. The Circular Church did survive the Civil War and still stands. 3. The Mills House was rebuilt from the ground up in the late 1960's. I hope this was made clear for your readers.

"This schism led to their being two presidential candidates" -- really?

I would have hoped that the writers and editors of so illustrious a magazine as Smithsonian would know the difference between "there", "their", and "they're."

I also agree with many of the responces; the new views should have mirrored the old. This point of view would have had more impact.

The 1860s view of the first picture shows the ruins of the Circular Church and the Steeple of St. Michaels as well as the battered side of the Mills House Hotel (also viewed in the 4th picture). The direction of the modern view in the first picture is completely wrong as both the Circular Church and the Mills House are standing and visible to this day but cannot be seen in the modern picture!?

As I pointed out earlier, the second image of the artillery group is not correctly identified as to their group designation nor is the location correct. Surprisingly, the battery appeared at the end of the war much as it does today minus the earthworks constructed along the east wall. You can clearly tell they are not in the battery due to the absence of the sea wall and how close the land behind them is. This is no harbor, that is the Stono River and Johns Island in the distance, taken from Fort Pemberton on James Island. I have 1860 era photographs and current photographs that clearly confirm this.

I love Smithsonian Magazine but these first two photos could have used a bit more on site research.

The second picture of the artillery men has been identified incorrectly.

The picture shows the Charleston Light Artillery Co. 1 Palmetto Battery taken at Fort Pemberton on James Island, SC. In the background is the Stono River and the marsh of Johns Island on the other side. This is not in Charleston Harbor and these men were not standing in what is known today as the battery.

I understand what the magazine was trying to emphasize with these pictures. However, I agree with the others. The pictures from today's time should have been taking from similar angles/locations as the original photographs. As they are now it is hard to get a clear representation of the damage done.

For example, the Circular Church modern picture: Did they move the church? Is the location with all the trees where it originally stood? I just feel like the Smithsonian could have done a better job. It looks like images were just Googled and then placed in the story.

Sorry.

I find it interesting, if not a bit unsettling the effort here to legitamize the South's position regarding slavery (3/5s or no). Regardless of the politics and labels we like to use, the blacks of the south were slaves and their owners had no intention of changing that; they had no problem with poor southern whites going to war to defend their "property."

I believe the war was fought by the North to preserve the union, to keep the our nation from foreign invasion, and to end slavery. Lincoln held back from making slavery the main issue for political reasons, but his Emancipation Proclamation reinvigorated the North's efforts--giving the troops a moral cause to fight for--and probably help to win the war.

Though 'states rigths' seems to be a common rallying cry (as in, the South was legitimate then as the Tea Pary is now), I believe this was secondary to rich and powerful southerners maintaining the status quo; they claimed it was about "state's rights" in order to get a bunch of poor white southerners to fight for their right to keep slaves.

The common white in the south (who fought the war, and a vast majority of whom did not own slaves) at first believed they were defending their homes from foreign invaders, but certainly grew tired of the war and most wanted only to return to their homes and families. The poor response to the south's draft efforts later in the war certainly speaks to that.

In his effor to save the Union and defend the constitution, Lincoln probably had to side-step or ignore the law of the land. Whether this was justified or no, I can't really say.

Everyone gets all upset at the slavery. Hey, it happened everywhere, not just the South, and not just the USA

I find it amazing that people remark so often that a black slave was worth 3/5 of a person. Meaning male. Females were worth zero. zero.

Any race, anywhere. zero. count that.

@ 'Bo Canning'.
Sir, nothing could be further from the truth. My guess is that you are not a regular reader of Smithsonian. If you were, you would know that especially with American history, the magazine takes a thorough, total and honest approach.
Nowhere is this probably more true than with the Civil War.
You must have missed the slide with the observation (made at the time) of the terrible bombardment of Charleston, and the great human suffering which resulted.
This website has become a great resource for those interested in 'physical history', ie the archeological evidence that remains. In this case (though a better term should be used), 'cool' refers to the fact that despite the horrific destruction of the city, much of what had once stood that year still remains, or has been carefull rebuilt/restored.
'Cool' in this case unquestionably means 'positive'.