Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Perryville article

Expand Messages
  • carlw4514
    http://www.washtimes.com/civilwar/20030829-100944-6149r.htm repeating that http://www.washtimes.com/civilwar/20030829-100944-6149r.htm
    Message 1 of 12 , Aug 31 2:26 PM
    • 0 Attachment
    • hartshje
      Carl, Very good article. Sounds like Mr. H. Bottom wasn t much impressed by the glory of war. I m amazed at the detail in this account, given that it
      Message 2 of 12 , Aug 31 8:49 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Carl,

        Very good article. Sounds like Mr. H. Bottom wasn't much impressed
        by the "glory" of war. I'm amazed at the detail in this account,
        given that it appeared in a modern newspaper. What prompted this
        article to be published in a Washington paper?

        Joe

        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "carlw4514" <carlw4514@y...>
        wrote:
        > http://www.washtimes.com/civilwar/20030829-100944-6149r.htm
        >
      • carlw4514
        Joe, the Washington Times has a civil war article or two every saturday. Pretty remarkable, eh? It s worth checking out, sometimes they are so-so, sometimes
        Message 3 of 12 , Sep 1, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Joe, the Washington Times has a civil war article or two every
          saturday. Pretty remarkable, eh? It's worth checking out, sometimes
          they are so-so, sometimes pretty good. The author of this one might
          have been surprised that they would do western theater, but I think
          they are ready to print anything that's reasonably well written. The
          URL to check out anytime is


          http://www.washtimes.com/civilwar/



          repeat



          http://www.washtimes.com/civilwar/

          --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "hartshje" <Hartshje@a...> wrote:
          > Carl,
          >
          > Very good article. Sounds like Mr. H. Bottom wasn't much impressed
          > by the "glory" of war. I'm amazed at the detail in this account,
          > given that it appeared in a modern newspaper. What prompted this
          > article to be published in a Washington paper?
          >
          > Joe
          >
        • GnrlJEJohnston@aol.com
          I would like to announce to the forum that a chat will be held with Sam Elliott (SDE80) on his new book that just has been published about Chaplin Quintard of
          Message 4 of 12 , Sep 1, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            I would like  to announce to the forum that a chat will be held with Sam Elliott (SDE80) on his new book that just has been published about Chaplin Quintard of the AOT.   This chat would be available to AOL members in the Mason Dixon Chat Room  (   Mason Dixon Line  ) at 9:00 PM Wednesday, September 3, 2003.   Sam is also the author of Soldier of Tennessee:  Alexander P. Stewart  

            JEJ


          • Dave Smith
            ... The guy who wrote the article, Stuart Sanders, is head of the Perryville Battlefield Preservation Association (PBPA). Tradition holds that Bottom, as a
            Message 5 of 12 , Sep 1, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "hartshje" <Hartshje@a...> wrote:
              > Carl,
              >
              > Very good article. Sounds like Mr. H. Bottom wasn't much
              > impressed by the "glory" of war. I'm amazed at the detail in this
              > account, given that it appeared in a modern newspaper. What
              > prompted this article to be published in a Washington paper?

              The guy who wrote the article, Stuart Sanders, is head of the
              Perryville Battlefield Preservation Association (PBPA).

              Tradition holds that Bottom, as a slaveowner, buried the Confederate
              dead as something of a duty. Local lore, however, suggests that it
              was more a matter of made to do it by the Federals.

              Dave
            • Mark Peters
              ... I hope that local lore is correct, in this case. I ll try not to be too judgemental, but it seems somewhat repugnant to only bury one s own dead, and
              Message 6 of 12 , Sep 1, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Smith" <dmsmith001@y...>
                >Tradition holds that Bottom, as a slaveowner, buried the Confederate
                >dead as something of a duty. Local lore, however, suggests that it
                >was more a matter of made to do it by the Federals.
                >
                > Dave

                I hope that local lore is correct, in this case. I'll try not to be
                too judgemental, but it seems somewhat repugnant to only bury one's
                own dead, and leave the bodies of the opposition to the elements,
                when not in any danger from attack.

                In fear of being too morbid, I trust respect was generally shown to
                the dead and treatment was accorded to the injured of both sides,
                during the length of the conflict. Other than the odd (much written
                about events), atrocities seem to have been the exception, rather
                than the rule.

                Mark
              • carlw4514
                Mark, you will find out in the course of your study of the ACW, that the behavior of the Yankees was, well, quite odious in general. I just wouldn t want to go
                Message 7 of 12 , Sep 1, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Mark, you will find out in the course of your study of the ACW, that
                  the behavior of the Yankees was, well, quite odious in general. I just
                  wouldn't want to go into it any further [g].
                  Carl

                  --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Peters" <mark-peters@m...>
                  wrote:

                  > I hope that local lore is correct, in this case. I'll try not to be
                  > too judgemental, but it seems somewhat repugnant to only bury one's
                  > own dead, and leave the bodies of the opposition to the elements,
                  > when not in any danger from attack.
                  >
                  [...]
                • slippymississippi
                  ... Washington Times:Newspapers::FoxNews:Network News In other words, the Washington Times (owned and operated by the Moonie church, BTW) is more of a neo-con
                  Message 8 of 12 , Sep 2, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "hartshje" <Hartshje@a...> wrote:
                    > Carl,
                    >
                    > Very good article. Sounds like Mr. H. Bottom wasn't much
                    > impressed by the "glory" of war. I'm amazed at the detail
                    > in this account, given that it appeared in a modern newspaper.
                    > What prompted this article to be published in a Washington paper?

                    Washington Times:Newspapers::FoxNews:Network News

                    In other words, the Washington Times (owned and operated by the
                    Moonie church, BTW) is more of a neo-con propaganda rag than a
                    newspaper. I've seen some pretty wacky stuff there, and if some
                    glassy-eyed acolyte starts a sentence with "Well, I read in the
                    Washington Times..." I usually ignore everything that follows.

                    That being said, they usually work a lot of good ACW material into
                    their special interests section, and I'm not sure what the connection
                    is... although I'm a little bit worried by the association.
                  • carlw4514
                    I don t know if you can conclude much from these things... the wall street journal is conservative in its op-ed and liberal in its news section, they say. And
                    Message 9 of 12 , Sep 2, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I don't know if you can conclude much from these things... the wall
                      street journal is conservative in its op-ed and liberal in its
                      news section, they say. And not the only newspaper that is
                      inconsistent this way... the civil war page in the W.T. seems
                      ideologically neutral, so you can tread fearlessly there.
                      Carl

                      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "slippymississippi"
                      <slippymississippi@y...> wrote:

                      >
                      > Washington Times:Newspapers::FoxNews:Network News
                      >
                      > In other words, the Washington Times (owned and operated by the
                      > Moonie church, BTW) is more of a neo-con propaganda rag than a
                      > newspaper. I've seen some pretty wacky stuff there, and if some
                      > glassy-eyed acolyte starts a sentence with "Well, I read in the
                      > Washington Times..." I usually ignore everything that follows.
                      >
                      > That being said, they usually work a lot of good ACW material into
                      > their special interests section, and I'm not sure what the
                      connection
                      > is... although I'm a little bit worried by the association.
                    • hartshje
                      ... Mark, I m sure someone in the group is quite knowledgeable concerning the aftermath of battles, and taking care of the dead and wounded. My own knowledge
                      Message 10 of 12 , Sep 2, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Peters" <mark-peters@m...>
                        wrote:
                        > I hope that local lore is correct, in this case. I'll try not to
                        > be too judgemental, but it seems somewhat repugnant to only bury
                        > one's own dead, and leave the bodies of the opposition to the
                        > elements, when not in any danger from attack.
                        >
                        > In fear of being too morbid, I trust respect was generally shown to
                        > the dead and treatment was accorded to the injured of both sides,
                        > during the length of the conflict. Other than the odd (much
                        > written about events), atrocities seem to have been the exception,
                        > rather than the rule.

                        Mark,

                        I'm sure someone in the group is quite knowledgeable concerning the
                        aftermath of battles, and taking care of the dead and wounded. My
                        own knowledge is somewhat limited, but I think that what usually
                        occurred with burial was that the victorious army would try to
                        indentify its own dead and give them individual burials, but most of
                        the enemy's dead usually ended up in mass graves. Since the battles
                        occurred in the South (with a few exceptions), a lot of the
                        Confederate dead were claimed by their families and transported back
                        home. The sheer number of dead meant that many times overworked
                        burial parties didn't always do the best job at digging graves, as I
                        have read accounts of remains being rooted up by wild animals, or
                        exposed by heavy rainstorms. Further, I believe that after the war,
                        most of the dead ended up being re-interred in formal cemeteries.

                        Joe
                      • Daniel F. Giallombardo
                        Morning all, I m away from my books, but if memory serves, Joe s summary is correct. Generally speaking, and I stress generally speaking, the enemy dead were
                        Message 11 of 12 , Sep 3, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                                                              Morning all,
                              I'm away from my books, but if memory serves, Joe's summary is correct. Generally speaking, and I stress generally speaking, the enemy dead were given a mass burial. Long and wide trenches were dug and with less ceremony than practicality and celerity [most of the time] the dead were tossed into it.
                              Wounded were treated by medical staff, but after the wounded on one's own side. Hope this is helpful---Dan

                          hartshje wrote:

                          --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Peters" <mark-peters@m...>
                          wrote:
                          > I hope that local lore is correct, in this case.  I'll try not to
                          > be too judgemental, but it seems somewhat repugnant to only bury
                          > one's own dead, and leave the bodies of the opposition to the
                          > elements, when not in any danger from attack.
                          >
                          > In fear of being too morbid, I trust respect was generally shown to
                          > the dead and treatment was accorded to the injured of both sides,
                          > during the length of the conflict.  Other than the odd (much
                          > written about events), atrocities seem to have been the exception,
                          > rather than the rule.

                          Mark,

                           I'm sure someone in the group is quite knowledgeable concerning the
                          aftermath of battles, and taking care of the dead and wounded.  My
                          own knowledge is somewhat limited, but I think that what usually
                          occurred with burial was that the victorious army would try to
                          indentify its own dead and give them individual burials, but most of
                          the enemy's dead usually ended up in mass graves.  Since the battles
                          occurred in the South (with a few exceptions), a lot of the
                          Confederate dead were claimed by their families and transported back
                          home.  The sheer number of dead meant that many times overworked
                          burial parties didn't always do the best job at digging graves, as I
                          have read accounts of remains being rooted up by wild animals, or
                          exposed by heavy rainstorms.  Further, I believe that after the war,
                          most of the dead ended up being re-interred in formal cemeteries.

                          Joe

                          ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
                          Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
                          Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
                          http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LIdGAA/qnsNAA/GmiolB/TM
                          ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
                           
                           

                          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

                        • GnrlJEJohnston@aol.com
                          In a message dated 9/3/2003 10:14:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ... At times, a truce was requested to pick up the dead and wounded from a battlefield. The
                          Message 12 of 12 , Sep 3, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            In a message dated 9/3/2003 10:14:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ParrotheadDan@... writes:

                            Generally speaking, and I stress generally speaking, the enemy dead were given a mass burial. Long and wide trenches were dug and with less ceremony than practicality and celerity [most of the time] the dead were tossed into it.
                               Wounded were treated by medical staff, but after the wounded on one's own side. Hope this is helpful---Dan

                            At times, a truce was requested to pick up the dead and wounded from a battlefield.  The request may be honored or rejected according to the Commanders.  For example:  Beauregard requested a truce in order to retrieve the dead and wounded from Shiloh battlefield, but the request was denied and was told that burial procedures were already being taken care of.  Yeah - thrown in trench.  Other times, the truce was honored and the wounded and dead were able to be retrieved.  Yet again, at Resaca, many Confederates were buried in a very shallow grave where they fell, only to be reinterred later on shortly after the battle by a daughter of a plantation owner and reburied properly at the Confederate Cemetery that can be seen today.

                            JEJ
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.