The Civil War News & Views Open Discussion Forum - Archive

Re: Sorry to step on your thread Cump

Ok I agree this will be the last word from me and it's just for clarification of false claims:

This is Phil's first post last week in response to someone who thought Shiloh's mass graves were an insult.

-------------

By:Phil Hoffman
Date: Monday, 29 December 2008, 11:00 am
In Response To: Re: Donelson Union dead, another comment (Linda Temple Acrey)

You said:
"My mother and I went to Shiloh a long time ago, and I will never forget her looking
at the burial pits saying, "Just look how they treated our boys."
My message was that these men were better than the the way they were treated
whether they got the burial pit or the swamps, it was a terrible disgrace in my
opinion."

I wonder:

Who was left behind to identify these dead men? What other option was there? Leave their bodies to rot in the air, carried away by wild animals, to feed local hogs? That certainly would have been a deep insulting disgrace. A common burial pit resting with their companions was never intended as a disgrace, it was a mercy, and a matter of great urgency as the bodies quickly decomposed, and so it was about the best that could be done under the circumstances. With the Union dead there was at least some chance of identification, therefore some effort was made to do so, and they were then buried as individuals. Individual identification of the southern men was simply impossible.

When victorious rebel forces held the field in battles like at Pleasant Hill the situation was reversed of course, and Union dead, with no one available to name them, were buried unidentified, often in one large grave. The secessionists were more apt to be identified by their friends, it may not always be possible, but the chance was there, and because of this effort were buried with individual honors by their comrades.

--------------

I see no need in starting this parade all over re-posting posts that all can read whenever they want. But Phil's position from the start that mass graves on BOTH sides were not insults, although because of the existing statues and statements (now quoted here in depth by other posters) concerning Fort Wagner, Phil though that might be one place were disrespect possibly may have intended. He then came here and posted both sides of the issue and asked folks for their opinion. He did not push an agenda one way or the other, and then said many times to posters here that he agreed with all those who said expediency was the overriding factor at Wagner. His posts speak for themselves. One or two even complimented him on his civility.

He didn't deserve the disrespect handed him by other folks who deiberately changed his words for their own ends. That's all.

Out of respect for you I will now stop. I think the point has been proved.

Messages In This Thread

Bona Fides
Re: Bona Fides
Re: Bona Fides
Re: Bona Fides
Re: Bona Fides
Re: Bona Fides
Re: Bona Fides
Re: Bona Fides
Correction to me
Re: Correction to me
Re: Bona Fides
Re: Bona Fides
Sorry to step on your thread Cump
Re: Sorry to step on your thread Cump
Re: Sorry to step on your thread Cump
Re: Sorry to step on your thread Cump
Re: Bona Fides