The Civil War News & Views Open Discussion Forum - Archive

Re: One way or the other, not both

Bryon, you said:

"Finally, it was David Upton, I think, who made the point that the burial of soldiers on the field of battle, even when done in haste and en masse, does not dishonor those soldiers. If they were to purposely leave the bodies where they lay, to decay and be subjected to the tender mercies of wild hogs and other animals, that could be considered as dishonoring the dead. Certainly soldiers would not dishonor their own dead, yet there are photographs and written descriptions of Union soldiers buried at Cold Harbor who were interred in expedient graves so shallow that a year later their remains were exposed. So one should not automatically assume that Confederate dead buried in a like manner were somehow being dishonored."

What is so interesting to me is that this paragraph of yours, which I do very much agree with, is EXACTLY, and in some phrases almost word for word, what I stated last week in my post on the Tennessee board, in answer to someone who believed the mass graves at Shiloh were an insult and a dishonor to the dead buried there. My post was met with, let's say, a certain degree of "scepticism".

When the statement was made that the Shiloh graves were a dishonor to "our boys", it was left completely unchallenged for several days, until I spoke up giving the same points you just gave above. When the matter of Fort Wagner was brought up, wondering if any disrepect was intended there, it was immediately challenged by many, and the question was considered "inflammatory". A statement that Shiloh graves of Confederate dead were a dishonor goes unchallenged. A speculation that similar Union graves at Fort Wagner might have been a dishonor raises an immediate hue and cry.

It seems to me there is a very very interesting dynamic going on in these forums. Oh well, so be it.

I have another question that touches on this subject matter though. How is it under southern law, that a kidnap victim can be condsidered a "traitor" to the very government that gives him no rights, and a "criminal" if he attempts to escape his kidnapping?

Why are the kidnappers considered the ones in the right, and the victims, the ones who are called under such law offenders? Leave race out of the equation completely. This to me is the most outrageous offensive and indefensible position any governemt claiming to be fighting for their "rights" could ever make. Yet make it they did. How did a society founded upon such outrageous and open legal hypocricy ever expect to survive?

It is completely and totally absurd and cannot in any way shape or form be logically defended by anyone not totally bereft of logic. To me it is the very heart of the matter of the attempt by folks who still today try to defend such nonsense. Since it is impossible to defend, the defenders must go to very extravagant lengths, take tortured stands and defy all logic and common sense, doomed to forever try to make a sows ear into a silk purse. The argument therefore can never end, because, when stripped to its core, defenders of this absurd principle, having nothing supporting them but endless justification, continue to attempt to justify that which cannot ever be justified.

Does that answer your question, Cump?

Messages In This Thread

One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Thank You Bryan *NM*
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
AMEN *NM*
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: to Phil
GO LINDA !!! *NM*
Amen Linda Amen!!!! *NM*
Re: Amen Linda Amen!!!!
Re: Amen Linda Amen!!!!
Re: to Phil
Re: to Phil
Re: to Phil
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both
Re: One way or the other, not both