Our interpretation of the Civil War would probably not be different without the photographs but it might not have been as strong.
You did not include the photographs in question so I will have to given a general answer.
Photographs have the effect of showing us what an event was really like and allows us to properly imagine what the conditions we read about happened. This means that photographs help us to interpret an event better than if we only had texts.
However, photographs do not have to be used because they only serve as further proof to something and not primary proof. This means that in this context, the Civil War would still be interpreted in a certain way based on the textual evidence we have. Photographs would not change this interpretation but might serve to make it stronger and more emotive.
Find out more on photographs as evidence at https://brainly.com/question/14327977
#SPJ1
