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

Re: Perryville article

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 12 , Sep 1 7:00 AM
      --- 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 2 of 12 , Sep 1 7:23 PM
        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 3 of 12 , Sep 2 11:12 AM
          --- 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 4 of 12 , Sep 2 1:55 PM
            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 5 of 12 , Sep 2 8:49 PM
              --- 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 6 of 12 , Sep 3 6:41 AM
                                                    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 7 of 12 , Sep 3 7:42 AM
                  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.