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'.

The incessant semantical ping pong matches concerning the causes of the Civil War are just that. Detractors of the north's mission to hold the union together love to cite "States Rights" as a clarion call to their own particular brand of justice. But it's nonsensical at best. The very states' rights that the Confederacy sought to protect were part and parcel the 'right' to own slaves. Yes, I know there was some slavery in the north, and yes even certain generals of the union had slaves, especially if they hailed from states near the Mason-Dixon line, but by and large, the divisive issue was slavery due solely to the argument of states' rights...again, the right to maintain an economy that allowed planters of vast expanses of plantations to work those plantations by the benefit of unpaid laborer----SLAVES. The true argument that southerners would love to put forth is whether the northerners truly had an altruistic mission in mind in terms of fighting the idea of slavery. Well, on that notion I will concede that most certainly did not. Nonetheless, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did order the freeing of slaves, thus making the freeing of slaves a mission of a sort. So I ask...is it really important whether the cause of the Civil War was directly attributable to slavery? I think not, since the root of those states' rights that the south sought to maintain was essentially "hey...leave our plantations alone so we can work them with slaves." In that sense, and in all simplicity, slavery was the cause of the Civil War.

have just read the latest edition of Smithsonian's article on "the Civil War Begins". I feel insulted that the author, Mr. Bordewich, claims to know all there is to know about the Civil War & all of the causes for the conflict. I am not so blessed. He claims:"Make no mistake, the war was about slavery". I must say I am not so much of an elitist or intellectual to assume I know what the cause(causes) of the Civil War were. I am certain the cause(causes) have been & will be debated for quite awhile I am aware the Civil War began & continued due to a wide & varied reasons. I do know there are a multitude of ideas & thoughts on why the Civil War began & I am certain "Slavery" was just one of those reasons. I was hoping to get a more balanced view, but I was sorely disappointed. I hope, in the future, you will seek to publish a more balanced view of issues. While I do continue to read further issues of Smithsonian, but I may choose not to renew my subscription.
Michael W.McShan, M.D., Ph.D., FAAFP
Diplomate of American Board of Emergency Medicine

mwm

@ Rick Osmon

"Blacks" were not allowed in the confederate army until March 13 when the confederate congress finally allowed for their recruitment. Charleston was abandoned February 15 - the person is most likely a slave. I seriously doubt you can provide evidence of "thousands" of slaves enlisting in the four weeks between March 13 and mid-April when virtually all the major armies of the south surrendered. You can find evidence though of at least 16 African-American Medal of Honor Recipients who fought for the Union Army during the Civil War.

@ Rick Osman

The 3/5 clause was the Norths first attempt at doing away with slavery, it was not a bad thing as you are trying to make it out to be. The South did not count blacks as a whole person out of the goodness of their hearts.

Southern slave owners and politicians wanted blacks to count as a full vote so that the South would have more representation in Washington DC. More representation for the South would mean more support of slavery in Congress. This is the same reason the North counted them as 3/5. That way the South would not have as much representation of pro-slavery politicians in DC.

While it paints a nice picture to say the South was good enough to blacks to count them as a whole person, their reason for doing so was not with good intentions. It was to ensure the Souths grip on slavery and nothing else.

Note how fast "Is you(r) hatered (hatred) of the South showing" come up. "The Civil War was about States rights first and Slavery second" so they sell now. In my reading I found the South's newspapers and war hawk polls never said a thing about States rights. Except for the right of the state to let its people own and abuse humans.

Slaves were three fifths of a person so their master could use that vote to run the union for years. Only the South wanted it and they held out joining the union till they got it. SLAVES WHO JOINED WERE THEN FREED IF THEY WERE FIGHTERS. The older the south was. the more it feared blacks and the fewer free there were.

In the caption for photo 2,"Note the black slave working with the gun crew."

Why would anyone automatically assume that a black man was a slave? Thousands of free blacks volunteered to serve with the Confederacy and served with honor. In the Confederacy, at least they were whole persons, in the North, they were only three fifths of a person, and even that met great resistance.

I have lived thru a lot of history and I have seen it changed, I think Bordewich is on the wrong track. The Civil War was about States rights first and Slavery second

I must second or third the previous comments concerning the current photos. There is apparently no reason to not have taken these photos from the same perspective as the Civil War photos and even less reason to not retake them now, assuming we understand where the old War photos were taken. A grand but incomplete effort which anyone who lives there can produce and perhaps publish on the Smithsonian website for all, with the Smithsonian's cooperation.

Regarding both comments:

The attempt was not necessarily meant to show a 'then & now' comparison. The emphasis is placed on the destruction that Charleston underwent like so many cities during the Civil War.It is also reminder that what was lost has now been found and another American city has risen from its own ashes caused by other Americans, certainly a rarity in history. I don't believe it was meant to show an exact clapboard by clapboard comparison.

As for the comment regarding "hatred for the South": It still flourishes on both sides, North and South. A strong indication that one civil strife on our own soil tore into the hearts of all Americans and has really never left a single generation. It still survives today much the same as racism. Both hidden, but by no means buried.

an interesting set of period pictures but I have to admit I found the piece somewhat lacking as a comparison set. A few of the pictures actually captured same point of view shots but then others weren't even from the same direction. Hard to believe you couldn't attempt to gain similar point of view shots.

How can you title this and say "cool pics" When so many women and children died or lost thier homes.

Is you hatered of the South showing???