How Photographs of War Impact Public Opinion

We stare at old black-and-white photos as though we yearned to step inside them, to smile at the sky and listen to the rustle of leaves long since gone to earth. Perhaps all of us sometimes wish we could climb back into the past this way. ~Michael Kernan

Photographs are a way of capturing a moment, a piece of history, that can be preserved forever. Most photographs depict people, places, events and things that the photographer deemed important enough to be captured for all of time. Photographs are believable. Cameras don't lie. But what the camera captures isn't always the whole story. There is always something else just beyond the edges of the picture. Photographs have their own sense of mystery, because there is no way to find out more than what is being shown. Black-and-white photographs are perhaps the most mysterious, eerie pictures. Images seem haunting and have a way of ingraining themselves in the viewer's mind.

Photographs shot from the Civil War up the Vietnam War were mostly in black-and-white and because of that, mixed with the mystery and the actual scene depicted in the photo, there have been a select few photographs that will never be forgotten. The photos presented in this paper are photographs that have become icons and symbols from two major conflicts: the American Civil War and the Vietnam War. They depict the horrors of war that many didn't get to see. When they were presented to the public, reactions ranged from utter disbelief to the urgency to do something. These photos all helped transfix the public's opinion of the conflicts at the time, as well as for generations after. As time has gone by, the photos have become more popular and controversy has even erupted about some. This paper will present the photographs and discuss how they influenced public opinion then and now.

The American Civil War split the young United States in half in an attempt to bring slavery to an end and resolve the issue of national versus state control. During the conflict, families were split, women were widowed and children orphaned as the majority of men and boys went off to fight for their homes and country. It was a romanticized war, thought to only last a month and be over with. But it dragged on for four long, bloody years and when the end did finally arrive, more men were left behind on the battlefields than went home to their families. Many living in the South got to see and experience war firsthand, as the majority of the war was fought in the southern states. For those living in the North, photographs were the only way for them to see how their men were living.

The photos of Mathew Brady, Alexander Gardner, James F. Gibson, Timothy O'Sullivan and George Barnard brought home the grim face of battle. The highly romanticized war that had almost seemed fictional suddenly became very real as the sprawled bodies in rumpled, blood stained clothes were displayed for all to see. The images were startling to a nation that before had only seen woodcuts and illustrations of battles portrayed in their newspapers and journals.
In October 1862, Mathew Brady, one of the Civil War's most renowned photographers, opened his grand gallery in New York City. Over 1000 pictures and portraits were displayed in glass display cases. Long lines of people came to view the postcard-sized pictures to see for the first time what a battlefield really looked like (Kernan). The battle of Antietam was the battle primarily depicted in the gallery showing and people got to see the blood still on the grass and the myriads of unburied bodies. A reporter for the New York Times who wrote about the grand gallery at the time said,

Crowds of people are constantly going up the stairs. Follow them, and you find them bending over photographic views of that fearful battlefield, taken immediately after the action...there is a terrible fascination about it that draws one near these pictures and makes him loath to leave them (Kernan). One of the most disturbing images displayed was titled "Dead: Horse of Confederate Colonel, both killed at Battle of Antietam." The photo shows the dead mount of Confederate Colonel Henry B. Strong of the 6^th Louisiana Infantry. The horse looks as if it could still be alive, just lying down resting, in the photo. The haunting image disturbed people as they knew the horse was dead, as was the rider, but because the horse still looked alive, it was bothersome. The war at this point had gone on for much longer than originally anticipated and already people were starting to grow weary. This image just bothered them that much more that it could possibly be their husband or son or brother that had previously rode that horse.

The photograph today does very much the same thing it did then. It has a creepy element about it because the horse almost looks as if it is posing for the camera, but this isn't the case. The horse is very much dead, as the bullet holes along the body and head reveal, as well as the way the back leg is crumpled up. This is a perfect example of how what the photo initially shows may not be the case. Anyone who didn't know the history behind the photo might just think it's a random photo of a horse.

A photograph that symbolizes the ruined South at the close of the war is a picture that was taken in 1865. It shows Richmond in ruins. The war was very quickly coming to an end as the South pulled out of all it's fortifications and began to surrender to the Union. Confederate soldiers were actually the ones that burned Richmond as they were fleeing the confederate capitol so it wouldn't fall into Union hands. Although it was the South's own doings that ruined the capitol, the photograph gives a vivid sense of the destruction that the South suffered by both sides of the conflict. The image is another haunting specter as there is the burned out building in the background and two women dressed in mourning garb in the foreground. It brings a very real sense that the war didn't just affect those on the battlefields, but also the civilians left back at home. The images of Richmond were vastly different from other battle scenes the public had seen before, which were largely of landscapes.

Within this aesthetic context, battlefield photographs invited a consideration of their relationship to the pastoral mode of visual representation- partly because they were landscape views and partly because of the prevalent narrative of the war in general as a violation of the American pastoral ideal (Sweet 115).
Controversy surrounds several photographs that were more appalling and graphic in nature concerning their authenticity. The picture above, titled "Dead Confederate Sharpshooter at Gettysburg," portrays a young soldier apparently killed in the Devil's Den during the second day of the battle at Gettysburg. The picture had been credited to Gardner and his associates as being taken within a couple days after that battle ended. Gardner published the photograph in his Photographic Sketchbook of the Civil War. It wasn't until 1975 that historian William Frassanito. He discovered that the scene was posed and that the corpse was placed into position and dressed up with relics of war. Later, the picture was credited to Peter Weaver, instead of Gardner, and it was taken on November 11, 1863, only eight days before the Gettysburg Address. It was apparently taken as a souvenir picture to be sold at the event (McBurney).

The battle of Gettysburg become one of the most photographed places in the world after the battle ended and the picture above has become one of the most popular. It captured the grisliness of war and people could see in the dead young man their own sons and brothers. Whether Weaver or Gardner took the picture, it still reached the audience and spoke to them. Today, it still brings that war that happened over 140 years ago to life and makes it seem a little more real and less romantic.

One of the most touching photographs that was a result of the battle of Gettysburg was the "Three Children of the Battlefield". The ambrotype was discovered in the hands of Orderly Sergeant Amos Humiston of the 154^th New York Infantry (Amico). He was killed during the battle and when the ambrotype was found, Dr. John Francis Bourns decided to figure out the identity of the man and the children. Throughout the Union, he had a description of the children published in newspapers and journals. Finally, Philinda Humiston of Portville, NY came across the description and learned that her husband was dead.

The public reacted to the photograph and the story behind it. Public outcry was enormous and Bourns banked on that raise money to open an orphanage in Gettysburg for children of fallen Union soldiers. The ambrotype found on the fallen man appealed to the nation. It spoke to people on a personal level about what the war was doing to those at home and ruining families. Today, the photograph doesn't reach people so much as the story behind it. Many families today are torn apart due to the various military conflicts around the world and it's been the same for every war previous.

By the time the Vietnam War began in the 1960s, war photography was more advanced than it had been during the Civil War due to new technology, equipment, and techniques. Action shots could be taken. Photographers could march with the soldiers in their units. Two of the most famous war photographers of the time were Robert Capa and Larry Burrows. In their photographs, they captured B-52s dropping bombs and napalm, death, mutilation and massacres. More than 130 photographers and war correspondents were killed or reported missing during the conflict in Vietnam from 1950-1975 (Evans). On an epitaph in the War Remnants Museum in Vietnam, it reads:

Each came for a reason and died taking a chance. All lived for the next picture; it could be the best one of all. It is for their photographs, not their dying that the world remembers them (Evans). "Accidental Napalm" is the certainly one of the most famous and influential photographs from the Vietnam War. The photo speaks volumes about the horrors and atrocities the people of Vietnam endured during the war that ravaged their country. In the photograph taken by Vietnamese photographer Nick Ut in early June 1972, nine-year-old Kim Phuc is seen running along with other children away from the napalm attack at Trang Bang. The photo clearly shows the girl in absolute anguish from being burned by the napalm and how frightened she is, as well as the rest of the children. The photo projects the girl's pain to the world.

The photo became a symbol to both its American audience as well as its Vietnamese counterpart. The Vietnamese used the picture to show how barbarous the Americans were while the Vietnamese were the very epitome of bravery and recuperation. Americans saw it differently, but were split on just what their reaction to the photograph was. In general the photo was regarded as "a defining photographic icon; it remains a symbol of the horror of war in general, and of the war in Vietnam in particular" (Buell 102). The photo made U.S. citizens confront themselves with the immorality of their actions in Vietnam unlike the images they were constantly being projected on television (Hariman and Lucaites). Some saw the photo as evidence of Communist atrocity against the Vietnamese civilians and that the U.S. needed to continue its military support. Anti-war protesters saw it in a different light, however. To them, the photo was a serious indictment of U.S. methods of conducting the war.

The photograph today still serves a symbol of the anti-war sentiments during the Vietnam War. It embodies and speaks to a nation 30 years removed from the war the same feelings that many still feel about the war in Vietnam, as well as subsequent military conflicts the United States has been involved in. The pain and anguish shown on the faces of Kim and the other children in the photo speaks of a loss of innocence, of a life that children should never know. There are still millions of children around the world today that are encountering similar experiences and trying to survive in a war-ravaged life.

The image of the execution of a Viet Cong officer was one that brought about a lot of publicity, as it was incredibly shocking. In Regarding the Pain of Others, Susan Sontag writes:

The point of seeing such images is not shock or guilt. They are an invitation to pay attention, to reflect, to learn, to examine the rationalization for mass suffering offered by established power (Columbia Journalism Review). The photographer who captured the image, Eddie Adams, didn't intend the purpose of his picture to be shock value. He just wanted to capture an historical moment that he thought was appropriate for the time.

The photo exhibits South Vietnamese National Police Chief Brig. Gen. Nguyen Ngoc Loan executing Viet Cong Officer Bay Lop in Saigon during the Tet Offensive on February 1, 1968 (Galloway). With a single pistol shot to the head, as the photo displays, Lop's life came to an end that day in the middle of the street. The photograph came to symbolize to Americans the war's highly escalated and often indiscriminate hostility.

But the folks back home didn't witness what Adams witnessed prior to the photo of the execution. He knew that Lop was responsible for the deaths of three American soldiers that had occurred earlier that day. In Time Magazine, he said,

The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera. Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world. People believe them, but
photographs do lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths.

To the unknowing eye, the photo looks as if a Vietnamese military person is shooting a civilian. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to it. But there's more to the photo than meets the eye. That's what Eddie Adams knew when he took the picture, but unfortunately the picture can't convey what else happened. The image went on to become yet another anti-war icon. Today it remains so and few know the actual story behind it.

The photograph above isn't nearly as famous as it's predecessors but remains one of the most haunting, and controversial, from the Vietnam War. The photo depicts a young American soldier crouched in a church, looking utterly dazed and exhausted. Yet, there's also a determined spirit about due to the intensity in his eyes. For many years, the photo was labeled only "Exhausted Marine sitting in a Shattered Vietnam Church" and the identity of the soldier was unknown. UPI photographer Frank Johnston took the picture in the spring of 1967.

After some research, it was thought for quite some time that the photo was of Marine Cpl. Richard Sutter, who had been killed in action in Vietnam not too long after the photo was taken. His family agreed that it looked like Sutter and that it could possibly be him. But there was no proof that Sutter or his unit was ever in An Hoa, where the church is located. With further research, former Marine Cpl. Mike Tripp came forward and claimed to be the man in the picture. The identity seems much more likely to be him, as his aircraft was shot down a few hundred meters from the church on May 14, 1967 and he recalls being photographed (Galloway). Tripp says of the photograph, "that photo isn't a photo of me- it's a photo of Rich Sutter and every marine who ever served in Vietnam. It's all of us" (Galloway).

The photograph showed American citizens how taxing and grueling the war was on their men. This one man represented an entire nation of men that had been sent abroad to fight another country's war. They weren't living the high life; instead they were crouching in fear for their lives but with a determined spirit to do their duty and make it out alive. The photograph shows every soldier that has fought in any war throughout history and speaks just as much today as it did then.

War photography is a very sensitive area, as it's difficult to say what should be shown and what should be kept from the public's eyes. The public depends on photos for a sense of identity and comprehension. Images of war have the potential to affect the public's perception and opinion in ways that words alone cannot do (Penrod). A description of an event doesn't have nearly as much impact as an actual visual aid. Every minute detail can be seen in a photograph- the blood, the expressions, the emotions, the fear, the hate, etc.- while a description only covers the most crucial parts. During wartime, the public's opinion is of huge importance because ultimately they are the ones fighting the war. If they don't support the cause, then troop morale will most like reflect that. Jerry Lanson, chair of the department of journalism at Emerson College, remarked,

Images define wars. If war looks like a Fourth of July fireworks display over Baghdad, Americans are a lot more likely to feel an energizing, if uneasy excitement at the 'shock and awe' of U.S. military might than if war looks, for example, like a frightened American captive (Penrod). In a recent poll by the Associated Press, readers were shown three photos from the current war in Iraq and asked where they would have placed the photos, if they'd have them published at all. The photos included a wounded soldier in Iraq on a stretcher, a room of American flag-draped coffins, and Nick Berg moments before he was beheaded. The majority of the readers said they wouldn't have published any of the photos (Strupp).

It seems that even in the world of Internet and television, still photographs still have an enormous presence and power of influence. Many people believe that photographs, for the most part, tell the truth. They believe in photographs to give them a sense of reality and to tell a story. But they don't want to be made to feel uncomfortable by a photograph. However, it is these photographs that leave the most lasting impressions, and perhaps should be shown because of that. They can wield the most influence over swaying public opinion. The photos from the Civil War of dead bodies and battle-scarred fields left men and women in the North stunned, as they'd never witnessed war before. And here it was, right before their eyes. The photos from the Vietnam War showed people in America what the troops were encountering half way around the world, as well as all the grim realities of the war on not just the soldiers, but the civilian population there as well. These photographs all caused a sensation upon publication that did change or affirm opinions and sentiments about what the issue at hand was. The public came to identify themselves and as a nation from these photographs.

When the event shown is itself a part of national life, the public seems to see itself, and to see itself in terms of a particular conception of civic identity (Hariman).

Amico, Jason. Capturing War's Grisley Face.America's Civil War. Nov 2001: 46-54.

Evans, George. Vietnam: Remnants of War. Contemporary Review. Jan 2003: 24-27.

Galloway, Joseph L. The Picture that Didn't Tell the Whole Story. U.S. News & World Report. 9 Nov 1998: 31.

Hariman, Robert and John Louis Lucaites. Public Identity and Collective Memory in the U.S. Iconic Photography: The Image of "Accidental Napalm." Critical
Studies in Media Communication. Mar 2003: 35-66.

Kernan, Michael. The Pictures that Stunned the North. Civilization. Mar/Apr 1995: 56-71.

McBurney, Shawn. Staging War. American Heritage. Sept 1999: 102-103.

Penrod, Grant. Letting Loose the images of War. News Media & the Law. Summer 2004: 7-9.

Seeing the Real War. Columbia Journalism Review. Jan/Feb 2004: 3.

Strupp, Joe. AP Polls Journos, Readers on Sensitive Shots. Editor and Publisher. Mar 2005: 14-16.

Sweet, Timothy. Traces of War. The John Hopkins University Press, 1990.