For each question, answer the question completely using proper English and make sure to proofread! You must also respond to at least one other student post to receive full credit.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Chapter 1-Dying "To Lay Down My Life"
In chapter one, the author states that Civil War soldiers were better prepared to die than kill. Based upon what you have read, do you agree with the author? Why or why not?
I agree that Civil War soldiers were better prepared to die than kill. Dying the proper way, in accordance with their Christian beliefs was very important to them. On the other hand, murder went against everything they believed in. Despite the fact that they were fighting in a war and people today would not consider killing an enemy soldier murder, Civil War participants thought of any killing as sinful. Therefore to abide by their Christian ways it would be better to give their own life than to take the life of another.
I agree that the Civil War soldiers where better prepared to die than to kill. The Christians believed that when someone dies it is very important that they die the proper way. Murder went against all the morals of the Christianity believes they felt that killing was very sinful. There was absolutely no exception to murder another human being. Even if it was war. To follow their morals, they felt it was best to give their life instead of taking someone else's.
The men in the civil war were better prepared to die than to kill the other men. The first chapter of the book states that many of the men in the war were Christians, Christians believe that killing is a sin, no matter the reason. So, for a Christian to take another’s life world be the worst thing they could bring themselves to do. The men in the civil war were prepared to die for what they believed in but I don't think they were prepared for the reality of what they were doing. However I do not believe they were really prepared to kill for this belief. They merely thought it became the best way to protect these beliefs in the end. Still, I find that they were better prepared to die than to commit murder. In those days, death was much more common, more intimate. With lack of antibiotics and advanced surgery methods, little or no available medical care, and a much shorter average life span, the men of the Civil War period would have been more comfortable with and familiar with the concept and process of death than we are today.
I disagree. Men had to be more prepared to kill than to die. Although this chapter makes it very clear that death in battle was not just anticipated, but rather expected, I believe that it was also expected for them to go into the war to kill, for men would not carry rifles on their backs if they were not meant to be used. Yes, death in battle was very righteous and, as the chapter implies, it was not something to be avoided. However, if one enters battle anticipating his own death to occur before the enemies’, success will never come.
"Civil War soldiers were, in fact, better prepared to die than to kill, for they lived in a culture that offered many lessons in how life should end."(pg.6) I agree Civil War soldiers were better prepared to die rather than to kill. The author explains how soldiers would even write letters to their loved ones before battles in case they did not survive. They did not write about how many people they planned on killing. Instead they would write following the guideline of ars moriendi, a Good Death. This may include how the soldier is prepared for death and messages for the loved ones to follow. By writing letters the soldiers showed they were better prepared to die rather than go and kill their fellow man.
I agree the men were better prepered to die. the men that fought in the war wanted to die the proper way, according to christian belief. Even the men that were not christian wanted to die properly. Also the men didnt go into war to murder so that means they weren't prepared to kill.
Nice start for the first six posts! I hope you all enjoy reading this book. I really like this first question because it brings to light the issue of taking another's life which is forbidden according to the Ten Commandments that so many Americans followed. The Civil War was a war where killing was especially difficult because the enemy was so similar to one's self. There are accounts of brothers eating dinner together before the war and then choosing opposite sides of the conflict and fighting against one another.
I agree with you Alfredo, the men in the war went in knowing they might not return. But the men knew that by dieing for what they believed they would be dieing with respect from their families and the people around them. I do not believed they went in to the war prepared to kill, but they understood that people would die.
Jonah Duerst I agree with author that the soldier s were better prepared to die than to kill but I think they were better mentally and physically prepared to die which I believe the author shows very well at the beginning of this novel. Through the traditions of the Good Death they prepared mentally for death. This tradition was accepted and shared by nearly all the religions in American at this time. Much popular literature of Civil War time included the Good Death which helped the ideas spread to all people quickly. These soldiers had no such knowledge of how to properly kill. Killing another man is not an everyday task and takes a certain mindset even in war conditions. Many of the soldiers simply were not able to kill another.
The soldiers were also physically well prepared for death but not for killing. Death was very easy to come by. Soldiers had no protection against disease and infection. Simple wounds in today’s prospective could and would kill many soldiers as well many soldiers died with no wounds at all. The author shows this very well but from other background knowledge I know that the equipment the soldiers used in battle was inaccurate, inefficient, and unreliable. Most soldiers were equipped with single shot rifles and limited ammunition sometimes both solely to limit the cost of ammunition used by the soldiers. It was simply easy for a soldier to die and hard for the individual to kill whether mentally prepared for either or not.
Military training and technology in the modern age has changed war. Today’s soldiers are taught how to kill and to avoid death as a possibility. Advanced equipment allows soldiers to kill the enemy with ease with little risk to the soldier. Also advancements in medical treatment have almost eliminated the possibility of dieing from a wound, disease, and infaction.
In response to Cameron W.: You are correct that the soldiers were expected to kill and that to win a war one side must be more prepared to kill than the other side. You must keep in mind this book was not written from the prospective of the North it is a neutral approach at the facts of the war and one side had to lose for one side to win. The author doesn’t try to say that the soldiers didn’t kill each other but that they were not prepared to do so as they were prepared to die. Their society told them how to die through traditions such as the Good Death but not how to kill. Three additional facts for your information: 1. Rifles are often carried as intimidation factors that prevent violence rather than being used for killing 2. The way an individually soldier enters a battle thinking may not be the end result of the battle seeing as an army is made up of many individually soldiers 3. The soldiers of the Civil War would most likely be carrying their guns over their shoulders seeing as the strap for a gun to be held on ones back was ether not invented at that time of in very little use.
Response to Jonah, hey dude, you make a great point about how humans today have essentially turned war into a science. During the Civil War era, it was more difficult to kill an enemy soldier and you had to be almost face to face to accomplish the task. In today's tactical warfare, a fighter pilot for instance may kill hundreds via a carpet bombing and it is as easy as playing a video game and he will not see one drop of blood. Also, to add to your point, my example pilot would have an extremely low possibility of dying as he is thousands of feet in the air! Heck, some bombing are conducted by unmaned jets where the mission is simply downloaded!!! Pretty scary if you think about it Mr. Duerst! Mr. S
good point, in the Civil War Era armies foolishly marched toward eachother in waves. Because of this everyone on the battlefield was extremely vulnerable to gun fire (death). Living and Dying was simply a matter of luck. Tactics are very different in today's wars.
I agree with the author that men were better prepared to die then to kill. Dying to the soldiers was honorable and greatly influenced by their Christian beliefs. They were told with preparation a Good Death was possible, down to the last words and actions in their life on Earth. During the war a Good Death was made available to all not to be influenced by any one religion. Every last moment on Earth held importance to them from a religious, spiritually and honorable point. To continue, killing was against their beliefs in God and went against themselves. It was an act of sin to kill, making it easier to die than to take another person’s life.
When a soldier goes into battle he is going to cling to what he believes/faith. But when it comes time for that soldier to die, I think that he might lose his faith and try to live. If all the soldiers on both sides of the war were ready to die and not kill, not one person should have fallen. Not one shot should have been fired. When a soldier looks down his sight, aims, and pulls the trigger he is proving that he is ready to kill. That he is not going to roll over and let others just take his life. He is going to kill to live. Its fight or flight.
I agree that some but not all Civil War soldiers were better prepared to die than kill. After all, dying is involuntary while killing is voluntary. Also, a dead soldier feels nothing but pain and suffering while a killing soldier might feel remorse, anxiety, and extreme guilt for the rest of his life. Even though the soldier is fighting for his nation and life, religion and morals go against the act of war. Depending on the soldier's beliefs, a killing soldier would have a greater chance of going to hell than a non-killing soldier. However, the will to kill would definitly vary from soldier from soldier. After all, hundreds of thousands of men were killied in the Civil War so some soldiers obviously had been ready to kill. A soldier fueled by revenge would be much more willing to kill than a cowardly soldier. Experience would also affect the soldier's will to kill. A veteran soldier from another war such as the Mexican War would be much more familiar with the art of killing. So I think the final point is that the will to kill ultimately depends on the soldiers background and bravery.
Based upon what I have read I agree with the author’s statement that soldiers were better prepared to die than kill. In battle there is only one-way to kill an opposing soldier – attack, but in this war there are many more ways to die. Not only did the soldiers face new long-range rifles, but diseases and illnesses alike, which proved to be far deadlier. “Twice as many Civil War soldiers died of disease as of battle wounds,”(pg.4) and, “By 1865 the sick rate for diarrhea and dysentery was 995 per thousand.” That information alone showed lots of deaths occurred outside the battlefield proving death was more common than kills.
I also agree with the author that soldiers were better prepared to die than kill. To the soldiers of that time, it was honor to him and his family to die serving his country. Soldiers would have rather been shot in battle than die of disease. An Iowa soldier of that time observed that death from illness had "all of the evils of the battlefield with none of its honors."(pg.4) Having said that, most of the deaths that occurred during the Civil War were of disease and not from combat. So, they were mostly better prepared to die because there was more death than there was killing.
I agree with the author that the soldiers in the Civil War were in fact better prepared to die than to kill. In the culture at the time there was beleived to be a good death. The soldiers all wanted to die honorably at war to fight for what they believed in. Also, the soldiers were dying of disease and therefore not in battle, not killing. Along with the good death beliefs they obtained from there Christian backgrounds they also held the belief that taking another mans life was wrong, leaving the soldiers more prepared to die than to kill.
I believe that soldiers were more prepared to die than kill. As the author states, “… a Confederate chaplain reminded his troops in 1863, ‘Your business is to die,’” (p. 4) and, “’I came into this war,’ he wrote, ‘to lay down my life.’” (p. 5) Obviously, a war can only be won through death and killing – these things cannot be avoided, especially in the time of the Civil War. However, disease accounted for a large amount of deaths, “Twice as many Civil War soldiers died of disease as of battle wounds.” (p.4). As Surgeon General William A. Hammond stated, “[The Civil War] was fought at the end of the medical middle ages.” (p. 4) Nearly 75% of Union soldiers suffered from serious bowel complaints in every year of the war. Also, “ … physicians routinely spread infection with unclean instruments and dressings.” (p.4 )
Nearly every soldier wanted to die a “good death.” To do so, they must be prepared to face death; some soldiers seemed to know that they would die in a specific battle ahead of time, such as with Willie Bacon and L. L. Jones. Some common literature at the time included how to die a “good death.” Many soldiers understood what was “required” to do so, which shows their preparation and expectation of death during the war. The preparation included creating wills, having a (Christian) resignation to death, and being calm. Finally, soldiers were also prepared to die because some of them gave personal belongings and a letter to fellow soldiers to deliver to their families. To die, for the soldiers, was honorable, having perished for their country.
I agree AND disagree with the author in both the preparedness of killing and dying. First, I agree that the soldiers were better prepared to die because before entering the Civil War, they knew what was to come ahead, which was death. There is no stop to loss during a war, especially during this one, because both the North and South had their different strong opinions, and neither one of them would surrender without a good fight. Even if they did not expect the war to result in such a bloodbath, they were constantly warned by the military executions. In order to believe that the soldiers themselves were ready for battle, they had to have the willingness to die. Before the soldiers actually died, they prepared themselves by writing letters back to their families and performed prayers in order to die well, as in the concept of Good Death.
Soldiers entered the war for the purpose of fighting. Starting out strong, both sides thought little of the enemy. The North and South were so confident with themselves that they expected the Civil War to be a brief duration due to how weak they thought the enemy was. No one would've predicted before the war that death would be a big factor to this "short and easy game". They instead entered with confidence of killing and making it back home alive, with their respect of the opponent. Only after when the war had begun was when the soldiers thought more to dying than killing.
I agree with your idea that soldiers entered the war with the confidence to kill their opponent, but I disagree on how that ideology better prepared them to kill than die. Death was far more common than kills in this war not only because of the brutal battles, but also diseases, and I don't think the mindset of killing your opponent would help one escape death of some sort.
I do not believe that anyone can be "prepared" to die. Even though these soldiers expected to die, and had perhaps contemplated exactly how they would die and what might happen afterward, they could not have been truly prepared to die. Death is something one experiences first hand only once, and so a person cannot be completely ready for it. One cannot know exactly what to expect, and so one cannot be prepared for death. In this instance, it does not matter how common deaths were; death is experienced individually, not with the masses as a statistic.
In response to Cameron: You make a good point that battles are not won by people who enter them expecting to die before their enemies. This is why soldiers had to be prepared to kill - they could not win unless they did. "'Soldier,' a confederate chaplain reminded his troops in 1863, 'your business is to die'" (5). On the contrary, the business of a soldier is to kill. The simple, universal goal of war is to kill; death is a side effect.
I disagree with the statement that soldiers were better prepared to die than to kill. Although death was common throughout the Civil War, it was witnessed many times but experienced only once. Soldiers were exposed to many killings both by themselves and by their comrades, but they only died once, if at all. Commanders did not tell their troops to die but rather to kill. Soldiers witnessed so many enemy deaths that it was quickly dismissed as their duty and they soon became accustomed to it. But when they were on their own deathbed, they were scared and they felt unprepared. Moreover, when soldiers first left for war, they did not tell their families that they were not planning to come home. Instead they told their families that they would be alright and left it implied that they would be killing while at war. The troops tried to remain optomistic, knowing that they could easily become depressed. Killing was mandatory; death, however was avoided at all costs. A soldier's first killing could be intimidating, but their first death would also be their last.
Civil War solider's were not prepared to die. They may have heard or seen people or friends die, but that does not tell them how excurtiatingly painful the death might be. Again areeing with Abbey, these soliders didn't know what to expect. They could believe they were going to die a painless and simple death when actually they die a horribly painful death. I believe that they would have been better prepared to kill than die. The soliders would have tried to kill more men for the things they believed, and to go see their left loved ones. Killing more would have given them a better chance at doing these things and staying alive.
I agree that Civil War soldiers left there home and were prepared to kill their enemies. They hoped they would come home and survive all the battles they faced. However, I believe they were more prepared to die. The author tells of Gettysburg where some dead soldiers were found with guns ready but unused. I believe most soldiers were prepared to kill but when push came to shove, they were unable to kill another human being. How would they be more prepared to kill when we all know we are going to die anyway?
Response to Cameron W I can understand what you are saying. If someone wants to win the battle, they have to be prepared to kill. I think the soldiers knew they would have to kill but they were not necessarily prepared to do it. The men were preparing to die. They knew it would happen and they were ready for it.
Respone to jpduerst: You argue that “Today’s soldiers are taught how to kill and to avoid death as a possibility,” compared to those during the Civil War who “had no such knowledge of how to properly kill.” I’m not sure that soldiers back then were taught to die and not kill, which is what is implied by your response. Obviously, ars moriendi isn’t held to quite the same standards today as it was back then, but I don’t think any of the commanders were telling their troops “I want to make sure that every one of you soldiers go out there and give your best to get your face blown off by the enemy.” People we’re definitely prepared to die, but they weren’t instructed to die. They do not carry a rifle on their back (or shoulder or however they did it back then, the whole thing is sort of irrelevant), to die. They do not leave their families for years at a time to die. They do not stand in front of enemy soldiers to die. They come to fight, and they are expected to fight; they are not expected to die. If a soldier could not kill, he would be a waste of space. Soldiers had to have some idea of how to kill: not everybody dies of disease.
I believe that the author was right in saying how soldiers were better prepaired to die than kill. In christian belief it is sinful to take anothers life in place of your own. In the letters the soldiers had written to their loved ones, they did not mention how many people they would kill in battle. Instead they wrote, fallowing ars moriendi, a good death. The soldiers would talk about how much they loved their familly in case they would die in battle. By writting letters the soldiers showed how they are better prepared to die than to kill.
Im responding to Jamie Baumgarten, I completely agree to what your answer was to this question. The Christianity believes where completely against any kinds of killing, even if it was for our country. They felt it was more appropriate to take their own lives than to take the life of others.
I completely agree they were better prepared to die than kill. But, most of them would rather die than kill because they don't want to "hold the terrible responsibility for the slaughter of other" as the author states. Their moral system was so much against killing they couldn't bring themselves to kill for what they were willing to die for. Death, in their minds, was the best escape from killing. Also, all of the unsanitary medical procedures and diseases didn't help their odds.
i agree that men in the civil war were better prepared to die than they were to kill. i believe this because the author stated that in the letters the soldiers wrote home to their families they said that they would always die with dignity and die "the good death" which was dieing in a deathbed with last words to their friends and family. in their letters they never mentioned killing other men or regretting dieing the way they did, also the men were so against killing that they would rather die than kill another human being therefore they were happy if they got to die "the good death" for what they believed in.
I can see your points on why you believe soldiers were more prepared to kill than to die. However, the soldiers knew that death was an evident outcome of the battles therefore they had to prepare themselves with the fact that they were most likely going to die. Technically, they were mentally preparing themselves to fight and kill the enemy, but at the same time they were knowing that death was ahead.
Although the soldiers witnessed a lot of killings, they alsso witnessed a lot of dying. And not just during battle. Most of the soldiers were dying of disease. Everyone in fact was basically dying of disease. And when going of to war they knew they would probably die, but they were willing to do so.
I agree that a soldier will hold on to his faith/ belief, and when faced with dieing he might challenge it and try to live. I believe that is what alot of people would do. By a soldier fireing a single shot he has shown he can kill. Thiis then means the soldier is turnning on his/ her own beliefs hoping to survive.
I agree that the civil war soldiers were better prepared to die than kill because it was against a man's morals to kill another man. Murder is a sin in The Bible and the soldiers on both sides believed they would go to hell for committing it. The soldiers were against Killing other men of which they believed to be citizens of their own country, they thought of them as brothers and in some cases they were, and killing a brother was wrong.
I do not agree with the author on the fact that Civil War soldiers were better prepared to die than to kill. The natural response to a situation with killing and being killed is to kill, whether it is a consious or a subconcious decision. It states in this chapter on page 18, "The suddenness, the lack of preparation, made these deaths [two soldiers unexpectedly bombed and killed while eating dinner] a particularly 'awful sight.'" Nobody wants to die. People can try to become spiritually accuainted with God for the Good Death, but the survival mode in a person kicks in when faced with a life or death situation. Even if the bast person in the world is faced with death and their only way out is to kill, that person's natural reaction is to live, which means to kill. I do not believe Civil War soldiers wanted to kill, but they were lesser prepared to die than to kill.
I agree that there was more honor in death than there was in killing. However, I disagree with you when you say that they were more prepared for death because it was more common. Just because death happened often does not mean that soldiers could be more prepared for it. Throughout the war, soldiers were trained on how to kill, but not on how to be killed, and they used this knowledge. Just because soldiers did die does not mean that they wanted to or were prepared. Their death came whether they were prepared or not and they did not have a choice either way. Killing, however, was a conscious action that the soldiers chose to take part in. By enlisting in the military, soldiers had already given their consent to kill and stated that they were prepared to do so.
I disagree with the author on this topic because soldiers were trained to kill. They were taught how to operate, clean, and manage a gun. The soldiers practically held death in their hands. However, no one can be taught how to handle death, no one knows when death will come for them, therefore no soldier in the Civil War could have been more ready to die than to kill because of their mental position. Soldiers in the Civil War were fighting for something they loved and believed in. That is also what Jesus, the focus of christianity, the main religion amongst the soldiers, did. Jesus died on the cross to save humanity and soldiers die to fight for and try to save their countries. Also, if it came down to the choice for anyone to kill or be killed, the majority of the answers would be to kill. Therefore, i believe that soldiers are more prepared to kill than to die.
Yes, I ageree with the author's statement that they were more prepared to die than to kill. As it states in the book, they had all these religious ed books all about dying. It was a big deal for someone to die in that era - they were a society that would gather around someone's deathbed just to hear their last words and to determine from those words if the persons family would reunite in heaven. So for these men to go off to war, most of them farmers or merchants, and not trained soldiers, they had no idea of what they were getting into. They basically went through a course of "How to Be a Soldier 101" and the class was pass-fail. They had no choice but to kill, but that doesn't mean that they were prepared to. Most of them knew that to die in war was honorable, but the killing wasn't the honorable part, it was just what they had to do in order to survive. They knew that they would most likely die, so they did all that they could to make themselves ready for it.
In response to Kinsey Gonzales's comment: I think that even though they knew that killing, or as you said "murdering", was wrong, they also knew that that was the only way they could fight for what they believed in. They may not have liked the fact that they were killing other people to obtain their goals, but at the time, their priority was living through the week, the day, or just that hour. They wanted to die honorably, but sometimes it just wasn't going to happen that way. They were well prepared to die, but not to kill, yet it was a fact of life at the time: kill or be killed.
You make a good point about how soldiers only have one life to spend and would rather kill then dye. However, I disagree and believe the soldiers would still rather dye then take another’s life. Not only was it against their beliefs to kill but death was almost inevitable. Death by a rifle was just a small portion of the possible outcomes. Diseases wasted thousands of lives and the living conditions weren’t even comparable to todays. Furthermore, their beliefs were much stronger in their time period. Killing interfered with their Good Death and to many afterlife in Heaven was more important than any action.
I strongly agree that soldiers were better prepared to die, than kill due to the state-of-mind most of the soldiers were in. Even during our time now, we still have the saying, "Die for our country". That saying/quote just proves how people can become brain-washed to believe in a certain thing, belief, etc. For instance, it is said in the book: "your business is to die" (pg. 5). That quote is stated from a Confederate chaplain, to his troops. I agree with Jessi's last input, "They were well prepared to die, but not to kill, yet it was a fact of life at the time: kill or be killed".
I agree that soldiers were better prepared to die than kill because it was against their morals to kill another human being. Their beliefs portray murder as being a sinful act. In contrast, death seemed to be almost a honorable time in their life as opposed to the devilish act of murder. In their mind they would have good death if they died rather than kill someone and die twenty years later. For non-christians statistically you had a better chance to die than to kill, therefore you should expect to die than to kill during your time serving in the Civil War. The Civil War is a completely different time than the time we are here.
You make a good point about the soldiers being trained a taught to kill the enemy. I am certain that is a true statement, but I think we have two different opinions on what the author means by, " Being better prepared to die than to kill." I interpret the statement as saying that you should expect to die therefore prepare yourself to die rather than to kill. I think you think of it by saying that they are doing their job and are trained to kill. Also they feel guilty about killing someone because in the ten commandments God says, "Thou shall not kill."
I do agree with the author that the Civil War soldiers were better prepared to die than kill. Because they knew how they were supposed to die (from the idea of the Good Death), they did so with dignity and readiness. It was also against their Christian beliefs to kill another man, so therefore they were very reluctant to do so. However, they were not reluctant to die in service for their country because most of the soldiers were very loyal and patriotic.
In response to Abbey: I agree with you that no one can really be "prepared" to die even when expecting it and thinking about it. But, based on their morals and values, I think the soldiers were less prepared to kill another person than to die. The author frequently writes about religion because that's what it was all about back then for those men. They died as a duty for their country and willingly to go to God.
I do agree with the author’s statement on page 6: “Civil war soldiers were, in fact, better prepared to die than to kill”. Because of the ars morendi, civil war soldiers were I believe more worried about how they were going to get their final rights performed, than how they were going to bring themselves to make it so that another person needed them. These men knew what they were going to die for and though it varied for both sides, they all believed that they were right. Dying was an honor. Killing on the other hand, was a whole different matter. In the predominantly Christian society that these men had grown up in, killing was unforgivable. To be thrown into the entirely different culture of the battle field where killing is not only expected, but celebrated, was scary. Therefore, the soldiers focused on the more noble subject of death, and the less acceptable cause of killing. This however changed with time, and each soldier was soon integrated into the killing and many learned to relish it.
I completely agree with you on the fact that the soldiers knew how they were supposed to die from Good Death. They planned that they would die without regrets, only happiness. Although they were hesitant and unwilling to kill due to their Christian beliefs, they were not afraid to die in favor of their country.
I have to disagree with Abbey on the fact that these men were not prepared for death. I believe that in those times when life was shorter, people began to think about death at a much earlier age. Though the men were probably scared to die, I believe that they were for the most part ready for it. Because of the Christianity of the country at this time, it must be taken into consideration that these men were not really preparing to die, but to go and meet their maker. Preparation to them meant that they had all of their affairs in order and that they had repented of their sins. They were not preparing for an end, but what they believed would be a new beginning. The spirituality of these men is proven in the quote: “Peaceful acceptance of God’s will, even when it brought death, was an important sign of one’s spiritual condition”. [22] The men took comfort in knowing that God knew what he was doing.
I agree with you that one of the ten commandments is "Thou shall not commit murder", but as you said in your first post, a soldier should be prepared to die. Therefore, if a soldier killed a man, they most likely would not have to live with it the rest of their lives. Also, you said that death was an "honorable time" so if they killed another man to help their side's cause, it would be worth it and it would be looked upon as even more honorable in their name.
In response to Rachel Anderson's comment: I agree with you about the letters. When the soldiers wrote their letters to their loved ones on their death bed, they were preparing to die because they put more thought into their letters than in killing.
I agree with the author becaue the soldiers were barely trained enough before they went to war. And when they went to war they prepared themselves for the worst and the worst was dying. Before the men signed themselves up to become soldiers, they had to consider the fact that they might not be coming home to their families. And if they didn't want that to happen then they wouldn't sign up. Men fought because they stood up for what they believed in, enough to die for it. They hoped that they would be remembered by their families and future generations because of how and what they died for. The easiest part of the war was killing and the hardest part was prearing yourself to die in between.
I agree with your (indirect) statement that men were more prepared to die because there were many raw recruits, thus increasing the chance of death. Seasoned veterans were more likely to understand fighting better and would be likely be more disciplined than less experienced soldiers. I also agree that death is an obvious part of war, especially in those times. One could not sign up without expecting to die. However, I partially disagree with your statement “The easiest part of the war was killing and the hardest part was preparing yourself to die in between.” I think this statement could vary greatly between different people. Some people might have thought they could handle fighting well, but perhaps when the time came to fire, or once a person had killed another, they might have found killing a lot harder than previously thought. The veterans on the other hand, are used to killing and would find it fairly easy. Still, I do agree that preparing for death is a daunting task.
I agree with the author that Civil War soldiers were better prepared to die than to kill. During the Civil War, over 600,000 soldiers died. Soldiers did not only have a fear of dying in battle but as stated on page four, they "dreaded dying of a disease even more." Soldiers had to face the fear of dying in battle but they also had to face the fear of dying of something else such as a disease. Being that they had many other ways of dying besides in battle, they had more reasons to be better prepared to die than to kill.
I agree with the author that Civil War soldiers were better prepared to die than to kill for a few reasons. First, every soldier knew what they were getting into when they enlisted. War is a risk and every soldier faced death when they went into battle. In addition, soldiers already had wills ready. They were ready to die at any moment. Also, soldiers wanted the Good Death. Some, like Williamson D. Ward, had already talked to other soldiers about helping each other if they were to die. Most soldiers knew what to write to families if a friend had died as if there was a checklist involved. In war, everyone tried their best for themself and friends to have the Good Death. On the other hand, most soldiers did not want to kill since it was against religion. Many soldiers were Christian. It was a big deal to have the Good Death, but felt that it was not right to kill. They cared more about dying than killing.
In response to Ashley: I agree that they were prepared for worst. They knew that they possibly would not come home after the War and they were prepared for it. I also agree that they were all joining the war and having the huge risk of dying to stand up for what they believed in. They wanted to be courageous and they were. However, I disagree with the statement, "The easiest part of the war was killing and the hardest part was prearing yourself to die in between." For many soldiers it was hard to kill others. Many were Christian and some thought of killing as sinful and did not want to take part in it. They were all ready to die, but not all of them were ready to kill. By joining the Army they knew that they could die, but many of them were not quite ready to kill.
I agree the soldiers did not want to kill any one and would rather be die a "good death" while fighting for what they believe. But how hard were they fighting if they wanted to avoid killing the enemy?
I agree with you when you said that "every soldier knew what they were getting into when they enlisted." It is true even with today's war, soldiers have to be prepared to die and they have to know that death might be something they face. When a soldier enlists in the war I agree that death is something they have to be prepared to realize. I also agree with you that they were better prepared to die than to kill because killing disregarded their religious beliefs. I feel that the soldiers as you said would have rather died than killed so therefore they were more prepared to die.
I agree with you. No one can prepare for death. Someone can be willing or expecting to die, but cannot be prepared. How can one prepare for death when one doesn't know what is going to happen. You can try to prepare, by giving ones self to God, but who knows if that is what one should do.
Based on what I have read, my opinion is that the soldiers fighting in the Civil War were in fact better prepared to die than kill. But only just. Faust states that some soldiers wrote last letters to family before some battles even started. They were certain that that there was no chance of living their life any further, and it would be a good idea to write to their family. Other soldiers confided in their comrades to write to their families and tell them how they died. Civil War soldiers were constantly thinking about what their last words would be and if they could say it to their families. The author goes on and on about how soldiers were always thinking about when they would die, and preparing for when it would happen. Even though soldiers were spending much of their time worrying about death, there was another side of things, killing. I think that soldiers were nearly as prepared to kill, as they were prepared for death. The weapons that fought the Civil War were very advanced for the time. The addition of rifled barrels, and some repeating breach loading weapons toward the end of the war, soldiers were equipped to kill like no other time in history to that point. Even though I think that dying and killing were close, I think that soldiers were better prepared to die is because dying was largely involuntary, where as if a soldier did not want to pull the trigger, they did not have to. But if they did pull the trigger, then they were likely to cause a casualty.
In a lot of cases I think the soldiers were more prepared to die than to kill. It did go against most of their religions to kill so they were more expecting to die. However at the same time if a soldier was prepared to die it would make more sense if he had already written a letter home. In the book the author tells many stories where the soldier is writing home on his death bed, on the battle field or they were never able to send their last moments to their family. It doesn’t really make sense if the soldier was prepared to die he would be writing home on his death bed. For the soldiers that had already prepared a letter it makes more sense that they were more prepared to die. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they were more prepared to kill either. It was considered a sin for them so it seems better to die than to kill another. So whether the soldier was prepared to die or prepared to kill depended on the soldier.
I agree with the author, the soldiers were more willing to die on the battle field than to kill another soldier. As one family traidition/belief, the family was around a family members bed when they are dying so that they can hear the last words of the person. Soldiers took it upon themselves to write letters to their families explaining the death of their family member and writing what he/she said before dying.
I agree that the soldiers were more prepared to die than to kill. Although they were going in to fight and win the war, it said in the book that they accepted death, often times before they went in to war. Some of the men even wrote letters to their families before they left, which shows that they knew that they were going to die, they accepted that fact, and they went to fight anyway. They also took care to die a death that they would be okay with, and often prepared that before the time came, because they were just prepared to die.
I agree that the soldiers knew what they were getting into when they enlisted. The fact that they enlisted is alone enough to show that they were prepared to die, because if you weren't prepared, or at least willing, to die, why would you join a war where you knew many people were dying? However, I am not quite sure that the soldiers were 'ready' to die. They were 'prepared' in the sense that, if they were to die, they had already decided what they wanted to say to their families and friends, and they accepted the fact that they could die at any moment, but I dont know if they were "ready to die at any moment", as you said. I think that death is something that everyone is afraid of, and I think that would still be the case, even if you had accepted the fact that you could die at any moment.
I agree with what you said about how they knew what they were getting into when they enlisted in the army. There is no guarantee in war that you would come out alive. If a soldier signed up for war they had to expect it could be a possibility. I also like how you talked about how soldiers had talked about how they wanted to die with others. It was a good point to make about the subject. It really proves that most of them were expecting to die. You made really good points and I completely agree with your opinion.
Well yes, the soldiers have been around and exposed to death so frequently that death had become less and less frightening because it seemed, to the soldiers, a constant presence and it will (more the likely) happen to them. Not to mention, the widespread influence of Christianity throughout the Civil War soldiers fostered a comfort in death because they knew that if and when they died they would finally be free of the torments of war and death. So many soldiers turned to faith to prepare themselves for death. Granted, death still held a certain amount of fear for the soldiers, but they were far more prepared for death than taking another American and human life.
I believe the author is very correct in the statement that soldiers were better prepared to die than to kill. A war is fought through killing, but it would seem that many soldiers did not realize the guilt and resistance they would feel toward taking another's life. Moral guidelines, though not impassible, create a barrier that a man must overcome to kill. This barrier proved much to daughting to many civil war soldiers. To die held honor. To kill, however, no doubt inspired shame in many.
Chapter One speaks of "The Good Death"; something honorable and noteworthy. A "Good Death" could make the loss of a man his gain. But one was never to know whether he could gain such redemption after taking another's life. Men were even known to walk across the field of battle rather than shoot others. All of this information can only lead to the conclusion that soldiers indeed were readier to die than kill one another.
I respectfully disagree. The intentions of a man and the readiness to enact those intentions are two entirely different things. Yes, one may enter a war, and, rightfully, expect to kill his fellow man. However, when the time comes to do so, the courage or moral structure of the said man may not be proper to kill. It is one thing to claim the ability to do something, but it takes certain qualities to do that thing. Many soldiers seem to have been in this exact situation. When the time came to kill, they made a decision to die instead of kill, despite the decision to enlist.
I agree with Faust that the soldiers were more prepared to die than to kill. Often times the soldiers would accept death before they even went out on to the battlefield. This state of mind is terrible for the soldiers because then they do not fight as hard. This was also true because many of the men fighting on the south were only young boys who mentally were not able to kill another human being.
I disagree with you entirely on your first post. You said that when a soldier enlists then they know full well what they are getting into, which is true, but in many cases in the Civil War these men didn't enlist. They had to fight. Still, it was a war and death is a part of war but just because they were fighting in it, doesn't mean that they wanted to.
In response to Justine Renfro: I agree and disagree with Justine. Justine does have a solid point in saying “Soldiers had to face the fear of dying in battle but they also had to face the fear of dying of something else such as a disease. Being that they had many other ways of dying besides in battle, they had more reasons to be better prepared to die than to kill.” Yes, there is no doubt in my mind that soldiers were prepared to die, but she says nothing about the deadly weapons that the Civil War soldiers were equipped with. They had cannons and explosives that could wipe a man completely off the face of this earth, and all infantry was equipped with rifles that were capable of killing a man at three hundred plus yards. Even though soldiers were prepared with last letters, wills ect., they also had the power to wipe whole regiments of men off this planet.
I agree with the author because going into battle there is always a chance of death and most men in the armed forces join(ed) willingly, which is a representation of those soldiers’ preparedness to die… And obviously going into any war requires killing the opponent. Now whether or not certain men are ready to do so is a different story because boot camps and training further prepare those men to kill, besides who ever said that every soldier is totally ready to kill another human right off the bat..?
In response to tori shoun I agree with your post. It’s true that even before the battle soldiers are ready to die because they know it’s coming and are better prepared However, I think that for some soldiers this knowlage of death would make them want to fight harder to live.
I believe that the soldiers were better prepared to die than to kill for two reasons. One, because of many of the soldiers were Christian and it is against their religion to kill. But the soldiers were also prepared to die because survival odds weren’t very good when you stand two armies only a couple hundred feet away from each other, but that’s all those soldiers knew.
I agree that Civil War soldiers were better prepared to die than kill. Dying the proper way, in accordance with their Christian beliefs was very important to them. On the other hand, murder went against everything they believed in. Despite the fact that they were fighting in a war and people today would not consider killing an enemy soldier murder, Civil War participants thought of any killing as sinful. Therefore to abide by their Christian ways it would be better to give their own life than to take the life of another.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the Civil War soldiers where better prepared to die than to kill. The Christians believed that when someone dies it is very important that they die the proper way. Murder went against all the morals of the Christianity believes they felt that killing was very sinful. There was absolutely no exception to murder another human being. Even if it was war. To follow their morals, they felt it was best to give their life instead of taking someone else's.
ReplyDeleteThe men in the civil war were better prepared to die than to kill the other men. The first chapter of the book states that many of the men in the war were Christians, Christians believe that killing is a sin, no matter the reason. So, for a Christian to take another’s life world be the worst thing they could bring themselves to do. The men in the civil war were prepared to die for what they believed in but I don't think they were prepared for the reality of what they were doing. However I do not believe they were really prepared to kill for this belief. They merely thought it became the best way to protect these beliefs in the end. Still, I find that they were better prepared to die than to commit murder. In those days, death was much more common, more intimate. With lack of antibiotics and advanced surgery methods, little or no available medical care, and a much shorter average life span, the men of the Civil War period would have been more comfortable with and familiar with the concept and process of death than we are today.
ReplyDeleteI disagree. Men had to be more prepared to kill than to die. Although this chapter makes it very clear that death in battle was not just anticipated, but rather expected, I believe that it was also expected for them to go into the war to kill, for men would not carry rifles on their backs if they were not meant to be used. Yes, death in battle was very righteous and, as the chapter implies, it was not something to be avoided. However, if one enters battle anticipating his own death to occur before the enemies’, success will never come.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Civil War soldiers were, in fact, better prepared to die than to kill, for they lived in a culture that offered many lessons in how life should end."(pg.6) I agree Civil War soldiers were better prepared to die rather than to kill. The author explains how soldiers would even write letters to their loved ones before battles in case they did not survive. They did not write about how many people they planned on killing. Instead they would write following the guideline of ars moriendi, a Good Death. This may include how the soldier is prepared for death and messages for the loved ones to follow. By writing letters the soldiers showed they were better prepared to die rather than go and kill their fellow man.
ReplyDeleteI agree the men were better prepered to die. the men that fought in the war wanted to die the proper way, according to christian belief. Even the men that were not christian wanted to die properly. Also the men didnt go into war to murder so that means they weren't prepared to kill.
ReplyDeleteNice start for the first six posts! I hope you all enjoy reading this book. I really like this first question because it brings to light the issue of taking another's life which is forbidden according to the Ten Commandments that so many Americans followed. The Civil War was a war where killing was especially difficult because the enemy was so similar to one's self. There are accounts of brothers eating dinner together before the war and then choosing opposite sides of the conflict and fighting against one another.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Alfredo, the men in the war went in knowing they might not return. But the men knew that by dieing for what they believed they would be dieing with respect from their families and the people around them. I do not believed they went in to the war prepared to kill, but they understood that people would die.
ReplyDeleteJonah Duerst
ReplyDeleteI agree with author that the soldier s were better prepared to die than to kill but I think they were better mentally and physically prepared to die which I believe the author shows very well at the beginning of this novel. Through the traditions of the Good Death they prepared mentally for death. This tradition was accepted and shared by nearly all the religions in American at this time. Much popular literature of Civil War time included the Good Death which helped the ideas spread to all people quickly. These soldiers had no such knowledge of how to properly kill. Killing another man is not an everyday task and takes a certain mindset even in war conditions. Many of the soldiers simply were not able to kill another.
The soldiers were also physically well prepared for death but not for killing. Death was very easy to come by. Soldiers had no protection against disease and infection. Simple wounds in today’s prospective could and would kill many soldiers as well many soldiers died with no wounds at all. The author shows this very well but from other background knowledge I know that the equipment the soldiers used in battle was inaccurate, inefficient, and unreliable. Most soldiers were equipped with single shot rifles and limited ammunition sometimes both solely to limit the cost of ammunition used by the soldiers. It was simply easy for a soldier to die and hard for the individual to kill whether mentally prepared for either or not.
Military training and technology in the modern age has changed war. Today’s soldiers are taught how to kill and to avoid death as a possibility. Advanced equipment allows soldiers to kill the enemy with ease with little risk to the soldier. Also advancements in medical treatment have almost eliminated the possibility of dieing from a wound, disease, and infaction.
In response to Cameron W.:
ReplyDeleteYou are correct that the soldiers were expected to kill and that to win a war one side must be more prepared to kill than the other side. You must keep in mind this book was not written from the prospective of the North it is a neutral approach at the facts of the war and one side had to lose for one side to win. The author doesn’t try to say that the soldiers didn’t kill each other but that they were not prepared to do so as they were prepared to die. Their society told them how to die through traditions such as the Good Death but not how to kill.
Three additional facts for your information: 1. Rifles are often carried as intimidation factors that prevent violence rather than being used for killing
2. The way an individually soldier enters a battle thinking may not be the end result of the battle seeing as an army is made up of many individually soldiers
3. The soldiers of the Civil War would most likely be carrying their guns over their shoulders seeing as the strap for a gun to be held on ones back was ether not invented at that time of in very little use.
Response to Jonah, hey dude, you make a great point about how humans today have essentially turned war into a science. During the Civil War era, it was more difficult to kill an enemy soldier and you had to be almost face to face to accomplish the task. In today's tactical warfare, a fighter pilot for instance may kill hundreds via a carpet bombing and it is as easy as playing a video game and he will not see one drop of blood. Also, to add to your point, my example pilot would have an extremely low possibility of dying as he is thousands of feet in the air! Heck, some bombing are conducted by unmaned jets where the mission is simply downloaded!!! Pretty scary if you think about it Mr. Duerst! Mr. S
ReplyDeletegood point, in the Civil War Era armies foolishly marched toward eachother in waves. Because of this everyone on the battlefield was extremely vulnerable to gun fire (death). Living and Dying was simply a matter of luck. Tactics are very different in today's wars.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the author that men were better prepared to die then to kill. Dying to the soldiers was honorable and greatly influenced by their Christian beliefs. They were told with preparation a Good Death was possible, down to the last words and actions in their life on Earth. During the war a Good Death was made available to all not to be influenced by any one religion. Every last moment on Earth held importance to them from a religious, spiritually and honorable point. To continue, killing was against their beliefs in God and went against themselves. It was an act of sin to kill, making it easier to die than to take another person’s life.
ReplyDeleteWhen a soldier goes into battle he is going to cling to what he believes/faith. But when it comes time for that soldier to die, I think that he might lose his faith and try to live. If all the soldiers on both sides of the war were ready to die and not kill, not one person should have fallen. Not one shot should have been fired. When a soldier looks down his sight, aims, and pulls the trigger he is proving that he is ready to kill. That he is not going to roll over and let others just take his life. He is going to kill to live. Its fight or flight.
ReplyDeleteI agree that some but not all Civil War soldiers were better prepared to die than kill. After all, dying is involuntary while killing is voluntary. Also, a dead soldier feels nothing but pain and suffering while a killing soldier might feel remorse, anxiety, and extreme guilt for the rest of his life. Even though the soldier is fighting for his nation and life, religion and morals go against the act of war. Depending on the soldier's beliefs, a killing soldier would have a greater chance of going to hell than a non-killing soldier. However, the will to kill would definitly vary from soldier from soldier. After all, hundreds of thousands of men were killied in the Civil War so some soldiers obviously had been ready to kill. A soldier fueled by revenge would be much more willing to kill than a cowardly soldier. Experience would also affect the soldier's will to kill. A veteran soldier from another war such as the Mexican War would be much more familiar with the art of killing. So I think the final point is that the will to kill ultimately depends on the soldiers background and bravery.
ReplyDeleteBased upon what I have read I agree with the author’s statement that soldiers were better prepared to die than kill. In battle there is only one-way to kill an opposing soldier – attack, but in this war there are many more ways to die. Not only did the soldiers face new long-range rifles, but diseases and illnesses alike, which proved to be far deadlier. “Twice as many Civil War soldiers died of disease as of battle wounds,”(pg.4) and, “By 1865 the sick rate for diarrhea and dysentery was 995 per thousand.” That information alone showed lots of deaths occurred outside the battlefield proving death was more common than kills.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the author that soldiers were better prepared to die than kill. To the soldiers of that time, it was honor to him and his family to die serving his country. Soldiers would have rather been shot in battle than die of disease. An Iowa soldier of that time observed that death from illness had "all of the evils of the battlefield with none of its honors."(pg.4) Having said that, most of the deaths that occurred during the Civil War were of disease and not from combat. So, they were mostly better prepared to die because there was more death than there was killing.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the author that the soldiers in the Civil War were in fact better prepared to die than to kill. In the culture at the time there was beleived to be a good death. The soldiers all wanted to die honorably at war to fight for what they believed in. Also, the soldiers were dying of disease and therefore not in battle, not killing. Along with the good death beliefs they obtained from there Christian backgrounds they also held the belief that taking another mans life was wrong, leaving the soldiers more prepared to die than to kill.
ReplyDeleteI believe that soldiers were more prepared to die than kill. As the author states, “… a Confederate chaplain reminded his troops in 1863, ‘Your business is to die,’” (p. 4) and, “’I came into this war,’ he wrote, ‘to lay down my life.’” (p. 5) Obviously, a war can only be won through death and killing – these things cannot be avoided, especially in the time of the Civil War. However, disease accounted for a large amount of deaths, “Twice as many Civil War soldiers died of disease as of battle wounds.” (p.4). As Surgeon General William A. Hammond stated, “[The Civil War] was fought at the end of the medical middle ages.” (p. 4) Nearly 75% of Union soldiers suffered from serious bowel complaints in every year of the war. Also, “ … physicians routinely spread infection with unclean instruments and dressings.” (p.4 )
ReplyDeleteNearly every soldier wanted to die a “good death.” To do so, they must be prepared to face death; some soldiers seemed to know that they would die in a specific battle ahead of time, such as with Willie Bacon and L. L. Jones. Some common literature at the time included how to die a “good death.” Many soldiers understood what was “required” to do so, which shows their preparation and expectation of death during the war. The preparation included creating wills, having a (Christian) resignation to death, and being calm. Finally, soldiers were also prepared to die because some of them gave personal belongings and a letter to fellow soldiers to deliver to their families. To die, for the soldiers, was honorable, having perished for their country.
I agree AND disagree with the author in both the preparedness of killing and dying. First, I agree that the soldiers were better prepared to die because before entering the Civil War, they knew what was to come ahead, which was death. There is no stop to loss during a war, especially during this one, because both the North and South had their different strong opinions, and neither one of them would surrender without a good fight. Even if they did not expect the war to result in such a bloodbath, they were constantly warned by the military executions. In order to believe that the soldiers themselves were ready for battle, they had to have the willingness to die. Before the soldiers actually died, they prepared themselves by writing letters back to their families and performed prayers in order to die well, as in the concept of Good Death.
ReplyDeleteSoldiers entered the war for the purpose of fighting. Starting out strong, both sides thought little of the enemy. The North and South were so confident with themselves that they expected the Civil War to be a brief duration due to how weak they thought the enemy was. No one would've predicted before the war that death would be a big factor to this "short and easy game". They instead entered with confidence of killing and making it back home alive, with their respect of the opponent. Only after when the war had begun was when the soldiers thought more to dying than killing.
Response to leephan:
ReplyDeleteI agree with your idea that soldiers entered the war with the confidence to kill their opponent, but I disagree on how that ideology better prepared them to kill than die. Death was far more common than kills in this war not only because of the brutal battles, but also diseases, and I don't think the mindset of killing your opponent would help one escape death of some sort.
I do not believe that anyone can be "prepared" to die. Even though these soldiers expected to die, and had perhaps contemplated exactly how they would die and what might happen afterward, they could not have been truly prepared to die. Death is something one experiences first hand only once, and so a person cannot be completely ready for it. One cannot know exactly what to expect, and so one cannot be prepared for death. In this instance, it does not matter how common deaths were; death is experienced individually, not with the masses as a statistic.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Cameron:
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point that battles are not won by people who enter them expecting to die before their enemies. This is why soldiers had to be prepared to kill - they could not win unless they did. "'Soldier,' a confederate chaplain reminded his troops in 1863, 'your business is to die'" (5). On the contrary, the business of a soldier is to kill. The simple, universal goal of war is to kill; death is a side effect.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the statement that soldiers were better prepared to die than to kill. Although death was common throughout the Civil War, it was witnessed many times but experienced only once. Soldiers were exposed to many killings both by themselves and by their comrades, but they only died once, if at all. Commanders did not tell their troops to die but rather to kill. Soldiers witnessed so many enemy deaths that it was quickly dismissed as their duty and they soon became accustomed to it. But when they were on their own deathbed, they were scared and they felt unprepared. Moreover, when soldiers first left for war, they did not tell their families that they were not planning to come home. Instead they told their families that they would be alright and left it implied that they would be killing while at war. The troops tried to remain optomistic, knowing that they could easily become depressed. Killing was mandatory; death, however was avoided at all costs. A soldier's first killing could be intimidating, but their first death would also be their last.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Abbey:
ReplyDeleteCivil War solider's were not prepared to die. They may have heard or seen people or friends die, but that does not tell them how excurtiatingly painful the death might be. Again areeing with Abbey, these soliders didn't know what to expect. They could believe they were going to die a painless and simple death when actually they die a horribly painful death. I believe that they would have been better prepared to kill than die. The soliders would have tried to kill more men for the things they believed, and to go see their left loved ones. Killing more would have given them a better chance at doing these things and staying alive.
In response to Kaylie:
ReplyDeleteI agree that Civil War soldiers left there home and were prepared to kill their enemies. They hoped they would come home and survive all the battles they faced. However, I believe they were more prepared to die. The author tells of Gettysburg where some dead soldiers were found with guns ready but unused. I believe most soldiers were prepared to kill but when push came to shove, they were unable to kill another human being. How would they be more prepared to kill when we all know we are going to die anyway?
Response to Cameron W
ReplyDeleteI can understand what you are saying. If someone wants to win the battle, they have to be prepared to kill. I think the soldiers knew they would have to kill but they were not necessarily prepared to do it. The men were preparing to die. They knew it would happen and they were ready for it.
Respone to jpduerst:
ReplyDeleteYou argue that “Today’s soldiers are taught how to kill and to avoid death as a possibility,” compared to those during the Civil War who “had no such knowledge of how to properly kill.” I’m not sure that soldiers back then were taught to die and not kill, which is what is implied by your response. Obviously, ars moriendi isn’t held to quite the same standards today as it was back then, but I don’t think any of the commanders were telling their troops “I want to make sure that every one of you soldiers go out there and give your best to get your face blown off by the enemy.” People we’re definitely prepared to die, but they weren’t instructed to die. They do not carry a rifle on their back (or shoulder or however they did it back then, the whole thing is sort of irrelevant), to die. They do not leave their families for years at a time to die. They do not stand in front of enemy soldiers to die. They come to fight, and they are expected to fight; they are not expected to die. If a soldier could not kill, he would be a waste of space. Soldiers had to have some idea of how to kill: not everybody dies of disease.
I believe that the author was right in saying how soldiers were better prepaired to die than kill. In christian belief it is sinful to take anothers life in place of your own. In the letters the soldiers had written to their loved ones, they did not mention how many people they would kill in battle. Instead they wrote, fallowing ars moriendi, a good death. The soldiers would talk about how much they loved their familly in case they would die in battle. By writting letters the soldiers showed how they are better prepared to die than to kill.
ReplyDeleteIm responding to Jamie Baumgarten, I completely agree to what your answer was to this question. The Christianity believes where completely against any kinds of killing, even if it was for our country. They felt it was more appropriate to take their own lives than to take the life of others.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree they were better prepared to die than kill. But, most of them would rather die than kill because they don't want to "hold the terrible responsibility for the slaughter of other" as the author states. Their moral system was so much against killing they couldn't bring themselves to kill for what they were willing to die for. Death, in their minds, was the best escape from killing. Also, all of the unsanitary medical procedures and diseases didn't help their odds.
ReplyDeletei agree that men in the civil war were better prepared to die than they were to kill. i believe this because the author stated that in the letters the soldiers wrote home to their families they said that they would always die with dignity and die "the good death" which was dieing in a deathbed with last words to their friends and family. in their letters they never mentioned killing other men or regretting dieing the way they did, also the men were so against killing that they would rather die than kill another human being therefore they were happy if they got to die "the good death" for what they believed in.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Kaylie:
ReplyDeleteI can see your points on why you believe soldiers were more prepared to kill than to die. However, the soldiers knew that death was an evident outcome of the battles therefore they had to prepare themselves with the fact that they were most likely going to die. Technically, they were mentally preparing themselves to fight and kill the enemy, but at the same time they were knowing that death was ahead.
In response to Kaylie,
ReplyDeleteAlthough the soldiers witnessed a lot of killings, they alsso witnessed a lot of dying. And not just during battle. Most of the soldiers were dying of disease. Everyone in fact was basically dying of disease. And when going of to war they knew they would probably die, but they were willing to do so.
In response to David White,
ReplyDeleteI agree that a soldier will hold on to his faith/ belief, and when faced with dieing he might challenge it and try to live. I believe that is what alot of people would do. By a soldier fireing a single shot he has shown he can kill. Thiis then means the soldier is turnning on his/ her own beliefs hoping to survive.
I agree that the civil war soldiers were better prepared to die than kill because it was against a man's morals to kill another man. Murder is a sin in The Bible and the soldiers on both sides believed they would go to hell for committing it. The soldiers were against Killing other men of which they believed to be citizens of their own country, they thought of them as brothers and in some cases they were, and killing a brother was wrong.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Ben Grote:
ReplyDeleteHow are deaths more common than killings?
As Cameron W. said "Not eveyone died of disease."
I do not agree with the author on the fact that Civil War soldiers were better prepared to die than to kill. The natural response to a situation with killing and being killed is to kill, whether it is a consious or a subconcious decision. It states in this chapter on page 18, "The suddenness, the lack of preparation, made these deaths [two soldiers unexpectedly bombed and killed while eating dinner] a particularly 'awful sight.'" Nobody wants to die. People can try to become spiritually accuainted with God for the Good Death, but the survival mode in a person kicks in when faced with a life or death situation. Even if the bast person in the world is faced with death and their only way out is to kill, that person's natural reaction is to live, which means to kill. I do not believe Civil War soldiers wanted to kill, but they were lesser prepared to die than to kill.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Sophia:
ReplyDeleteI agree that there was more honor in death than there was in killing. However, I disagree with you when you say that they were more prepared for death because it was more common. Just because death happened often does not mean that soldiers could be more prepared for it. Throughout the war, soldiers were trained on how to kill, but not on how to be killed, and they used this knowledge. Just because soldiers did die does not mean that they wanted to or were prepared. Their death came whether they were prepared or not and they did not have a choice either way. Killing, however, was a conscious action that the soldiers chose to take part in. By enlisting in the military, soldiers had already given their consent to kill and stated that they were prepared to do so.
I disagree with the author on this topic because soldiers were trained to kill. They were taught how to operate, clean, and manage a gun. The soldiers practically held death in their hands. However, no one can be taught how to handle death, no one knows when death will come for them, therefore no soldier in the Civil War could have been more ready to die than to kill because of their mental position. Soldiers in the Civil War were fighting for something they loved and believed in. That is also what Jesus, the focus of christianity, the main religion amongst the soldiers, did. Jesus died on the cross to save humanity and soldiers die to fight for and try to save their countries. Also, if it came down to the choice for anyone to kill or be killed, the majority of the answers would be to kill. Therefore, i believe that soldiers are more prepared to kill than to die.
ReplyDeleteYes, I ageree with the author's statement that they were more prepared to die than to kill. As it states in the book, they had all these religious ed books all about dying. It was a big deal for someone to die in that era - they were a society that would gather around someone's deathbed just to hear their last words and to determine from those words if the persons family would reunite in heaven. So for these men to go off to war, most of them farmers or merchants, and not trained soldiers, they had no idea of what they were getting into. They basically went through a course of "How to Be a Soldier 101" and the class was pass-fail. They had no choice but to kill, but that doesn't mean that they were prepared to. Most of them knew that to die in war was honorable, but the killing wasn't the honorable part, it was just what they had to do in order to survive. They knew that they would most likely die, so they did all that they could to make themselves ready for it.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Kinsey Gonzales's comment: I think that even though they knew that killing, or as you said "murdering", was wrong, they also knew that that was the only way they could fight for what they believed in. They may not have liked the fact that they were killing other people to obtain their goals, but at the time, their priority was living through the week, the day, or just that hour. They wanted to die honorably, but sometimes it just wasn't going to happen that way. They were well prepared to die, but not to kill, yet it was a fact of life at the time: kill or be killed.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Kaylie:
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point about how soldiers only have one life to spend and would rather kill then dye. However, I disagree and believe the soldiers would still rather dye then take another’s life. Not only was it against their beliefs to kill but death was almost inevitable. Death by a rifle was just a small portion of the possible outcomes. Diseases wasted thousands of lives and the living conditions weren’t even comparable to todays. Furthermore, their beliefs were much stronger in their time period. Killing interfered with their Good Death and to many afterlife in Heaven was more important than any action.
I strongly agree that soldiers were better prepared to die, than kill due to the state-of-mind most of the soldiers were in. Even during our time now, we still have the saying, "Die for our country". That saying/quote just proves how people can become brain-washed to believe in a certain thing, belief, etc. For instance, it is said in the book: "your business is to die" (pg. 5). That quote is stated from a Confederate chaplain, to his troops. I agree with Jessi's last input, "They were well prepared to die, but not to kill, yet it was a fact of life at the time: kill or be killed".
ReplyDeleteI agree that soldiers were better prepared to die than kill because it was against their morals to kill another human being. Their beliefs portray murder as being a sinful act. In contrast, death seemed to be almost a honorable time in their life as opposed to the devilish act of murder. In their mind they would have good death if they died rather than kill someone and die twenty years later. For non-christians statistically you had a better chance to die than to kill, therefore you should expect to die than to kill during your time serving in the Civil War. The Civil War is a completely different time than the time we are here.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Celina:
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point about the soldiers being trained a taught to kill the enemy. I am certain that is a true statement, but I think we have two different opinions on what the author means by, " Being better prepared to die than to kill." I interpret the statement as saying that you should expect to die therefore prepare yourself to die rather than to kill. I think you think of it by saying that they are doing their job and are trained to kill. Also they feel guilty about killing someone because in the ten commandments God says, "Thou shall not kill."
I do agree with the author that the Civil War soldiers were better prepared to die than kill. Because they knew how they were supposed to die (from the idea of the Good Death), they did so with dignity and readiness. It was also against their Christian beliefs to kill another man, so therefore they were very reluctant to do so. However, they were not reluctant to die in service for their country because most of the soldiers were very loyal and patriotic.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Abbey:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that no one can really be "prepared" to die even when expecting it and thinking about it. But, based on their morals and values, I think the soldiers were less prepared to kill another person than to die. The author frequently writes about religion because that's what it was all about back then for those men. They died as a duty for their country and willingly to go to God.
I do agree with the author’s statement on page 6: “Civil war soldiers were, in fact, better prepared to die than to kill”. Because of the ars morendi, civil war soldiers were I believe more worried about how they were going to get their final rights performed, than how they were going to bring themselves to make it so that another person needed them. These men knew what they were going to die for and though it varied for both sides, they all believed that they were right. Dying was an honor. Killing on the other hand, was a whole different matter. In the predominantly Christian society that these men had grown up in, killing was unforgivable. To be thrown into the entirely different culture of the battle field where killing is not only expected, but celebrated, was scary. Therefore, the soldiers focused on the more noble subject of death, and the less acceptable cause of killing. This however changed with time, and each soldier was soon integrated into the killing and many learned to relish it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Nicole Manley,
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you on the fact that the soldiers knew how they were supposed to die from Good Death. They planned that they would die without regrets, only happiness. Although they were hesitant and unwilling to kill due to their Christian beliefs, they were not afraid to die in favor of their country.
In response to Abbey Borcher's first post
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with Abbey on the fact that these men were not prepared for death. I believe that in those times when life was shorter, people began to think about death at a much earlier age. Though the men were probably scared to die, I believe that they were for the most part ready for it. Because of the Christianity of the country at this time, it must be taken into consideration that these men were not really preparing to die, but to go and meet their maker. Preparation to them meant that they had all of their affairs in order and that they had repented of their sins. They were not preparing for an end, but what they believed would be a new beginning. The spirituality of these men is proven in the quote: “Peaceful acceptance of God’s will, even when it brought death, was an important sign of one’s spiritual condition”. [22] The men took comfort in knowing that God knew what he was doing.
In response to Evan:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that one of the ten commandments is "Thou shall not commit murder", but as you said in your first post, a soldier should be prepared to die. Therefore, if a soldier killed a man, they most likely would not have to live with it the rest of their lives. Also, you said that death was an "honorable time" so if they killed another man to help their side's cause, it would be worth it and it would be looked upon as even more honorable in their name.
In response to Rachel Anderson's comment: I agree with you about the letters. When the soldiers wrote their letters to their loved ones on their death bed, they were preparing to die because they put more thought into their letters than in killing.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the author becaue the soldiers were barely trained enough before they went to war. And when they went to war they prepared themselves for the worst and the worst was dying. Before the men signed themselves up to become soldiers, they had to consider the fact that they might not be coming home to their families. And if they didn't want that to happen then they wouldn't sign up. Men fought because they stood up for what they believed in, enough to die for it. They hoped that they would be remembered by their families and future generations because of how and what they died for. The easiest part of the war was killing and the hardest part was prearing yourself to die in between.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Ashley:
ReplyDeleteI agree with your (indirect) statement that men were more prepared to die because there were many raw recruits, thus increasing the chance of death. Seasoned veterans were more likely to understand fighting better and would be likely be more disciplined than less experienced soldiers. I also agree that death is an obvious part of war, especially in those times. One could not sign up without expecting to die. However, I partially disagree with your statement “The easiest part of the war was killing and the hardest part was preparing yourself to die in between.” I think this statement could vary greatly between different people. Some people might have thought they could handle fighting well, but perhaps when the time came to fire, or once a person had killed another, they might have found killing a lot harder than previously thought. The veterans on the other hand, are used to killing and would find it fairly easy. Still, I do agree that preparing for death is a daunting task.
I agree with the author that Civil War soldiers were better prepared to die than to kill. During the Civil War, over 600,000 soldiers died. Soldiers did not only have a fear of dying in battle but as stated on page four, they "dreaded dying of a disease even more." Soldiers had to face the fear of dying in battle but they also had to face the fear of dying of something else such as a disease. Being that they had many other ways of dying besides in battle, they had more reasons to be better prepared to die than to kill.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the author that Civil War soldiers were better prepared to die than to kill for a few reasons. First, every soldier knew what they were getting into when they enlisted. War is a risk and every soldier faced death when they went into battle. In addition, soldiers already had wills ready. They were ready to die at any moment. Also, soldiers wanted the Good Death. Some, like Williamson D. Ward, had already talked to other soldiers about helping each other if they were to die. Most soldiers knew what to write to families if a friend had died as if there was a checklist involved. In war, everyone tried their best for themself and friends to have the Good Death. On the other hand, most soldiers did not want to kill since it was against religion. Many soldiers were Christian. It was a big deal to have the Good Death, but felt that it was not right to kill. They cared more about dying than killing.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Ashley:
ReplyDeleteI agree that they were prepared for worst. They knew that they possibly would not come home after the War and they were prepared for it. I also agree that they were all joining the war and having the huge risk of dying to stand up for what they believed in. They wanted to be courageous and they were. However, I disagree with the statement, "The easiest part of the war was killing and the hardest part was prearing yourself to die in between." For many soldiers it was hard to kill others. Many were Christian and some thought of killing as sinful and did not want to take part in it. They were all ready to die, but not all of them were ready to kill. By joining the Army they knew that they could die, but many of them were not quite ready to kill.
In response to Nicole,
ReplyDeleteI agree the soldiers did not want to kill any one and would rather be die a "good death" while fighting for what they believe. But how hard were they fighting if they wanted to avoid killing the enemy?
In respsonse to Jenna:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you said that "every soldier knew what they were getting into when they enlisted." It is true even with today's war, soldiers have to be prepared to die and they have to know that death might be something they face. When a soldier enlists in the war I agree that death is something they have to be prepared to realize. I also agree with you that they were better prepared to die than to kill because killing disregarded their religious beliefs. I feel that the soldiers as you said would have rather died than killed so therefore they were more prepared to die.
In response to Abbey:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. No one can prepare for death. Someone can be willing or expecting to die, but cannot be prepared. How can one prepare for death when one doesn't know what is going to happen. You can try to prepare, by giving ones self to God, but who knows if that is what one should do.
Based on what I have read, my opinion is that the soldiers fighting in the Civil War were in fact better prepared to die than kill. But only just. Faust states that some soldiers wrote last letters to family before some battles even started. They were certain that that there was no chance of living their life any further, and it would be a good idea to write to their family. Other soldiers confided in their comrades to write to their families and tell them how they died. Civil War soldiers were constantly thinking about what their last words would be and if they could say it to their families. The author goes on and on about how soldiers were always thinking about when they would die, and preparing for when it would happen. Even though soldiers were spending much of their time worrying about death, there was another side of things, killing. I think that soldiers were nearly as prepared to kill, as they were prepared for death. The weapons that fought the Civil War were very advanced for the time. The addition of rifled barrels, and some repeating breach loading weapons toward the end of the war, soldiers were equipped to kill like no other time in history to that point. Even though I think that dying and killing were close, I think that soldiers were better prepared to die is because dying was largely involuntary, where as if a soldier did not want to pull the trigger, they did not have to. But if they did pull the trigger, then they were likely to cause a casualty.
ReplyDeleteIn a lot of cases I think the soldiers were more prepared to die than to kill. It did go against most of their religions to kill so they were more expecting to die. However at the same time if a soldier was prepared to die it would make more sense if he had already written a letter home. In the book the author tells many stories where the soldier is writing home on his death bed, on the battle field or they were never able to send their last moments to their family. It doesn’t really make sense if the soldier was prepared to die he would be writing home on his death bed. For the soldiers that had already prepared a letter it makes more sense that they were more prepared to die. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they were more prepared to kill either. It was considered a sin for them so it seems better to die than to kill another. So whether the soldier was prepared to die or prepared to kill depended on the soldier.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the author, the soldiers were more willing to die on the battle field than to kill another soldier. As one family traidition/belief, the family was around a family members bed when they are dying so that they can hear the last words of the person. Soldiers took it upon themselves to write letters to their families explaining the death of their family member and writing what he/she said before dying.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the soldiers were more prepared to die than to kill. Although they were going in to fight and win the war, it said in the book that they accepted death, often times before they went in to war. Some of the men even wrote letters to their families before they left, which shows that they knew that they were going to die, they accepted that fact, and they went to fight anyway. They also took care to die a death that they would be okay with, and often prepared that before the time came, because they were just prepared to die.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jenna:
ReplyDeleteI agree that the soldiers knew what they were getting into when they enlisted. The fact that they enlisted is alone enough to show that they were prepared to die, because if you weren't prepared, or at least willing, to die, why would you join a war where you knew many people were dying? However, I am not quite sure that the soldiers were 'ready' to die. They were 'prepared' in the sense that, if they were to die, they had already decided what they wanted to say to their families and friends, and they accepted the fact that they could die at any moment, but I dont know if they were "ready to die at any moment", as you said. I think that death is something that everyone is afraid of, and I think that would still be the case, even if you had accepted the fact that you could die at any moment.
In response to Jenna H
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said about how they knew what they were getting into when they enlisted in the army. There is no guarantee in war that you would come out alive. If a soldier signed up for war they had to expect it could be a possibility. I also like how you talked about how soldiers had talked about how they wanted to die with others. It was a good point to make about the subject. It really proves that most of them were expecting to die. You made really good points and I completely agree with your opinion.
Well yes, the soldiers have been around and exposed to death so frequently that death had become less and less frightening because it seemed, to the soldiers, a constant presence and it will (more the likely) happen to them. Not to mention, the widespread influence of Christianity throughout the Civil War soldiers fostered a comfort in death because they knew that if and when they died they would finally be free of the torments of war and death. So many soldiers turned to faith to prepare themselves for death. Granted, death still held a certain amount of fear for the soldiers, but they were far more prepared for death than taking another American and human life.
ReplyDeleteI believe the author is very correct in the statement that soldiers were better prepared to die than to kill. A war is fought through killing, but it would seem that many soldiers did not realize the guilt and resistance they would feel toward taking another's life. Moral guidelines, though not impassible, create a barrier that a man must overcome to kill. This barrier proved much to daughting to many civil war soldiers. To die held honor. To kill, however, no doubt inspired shame in many.
ReplyDeleteChapter One speaks of "The Good Death"; something honorable and noteworthy. A "Good Death" could make the loss of a man his gain. But one was never to know whether he could gain such redemption after taking another's life. Men were even known to walk across the field of battle rather than shoot others. All of this information can only lead to the conclusion that soldiers indeed were readier to die than kill one another.
In response to Cameron W:
ReplyDeleteI respectfully disagree. The intentions of a man and the readiness to enact those intentions are two entirely different things. Yes, one may enter a war, and, rightfully, expect to kill his fellow man. However, when the time comes to do so, the courage or moral structure of the said man may not be proper to kill. It is one thing to claim the ability to do something, but it takes certain qualities to do that thing. Many soldiers seem to have been in this exact situation. When the time came to kill, they made a decision to die instead of kill, despite the decision to enlist.
I agree with Faust that the soldiers were more prepared to die than to kill. Often times the soldiers would accept death before they even went out on to the battlefield. This state of mind is terrible for the soldiers because then they do not fight as hard. This was also true because many of the men fighting on the south were only young boys who mentally were not able to kill another human being.
ReplyDeletein response to Jenna H,
ReplyDeleteI disagree with you entirely on your first post. You said that when a soldier enlists then they know full well what they are getting into, which is true, but in many cases in the Civil War these men didn't enlist. They had to fight. Still, it was a war and death is a part of war but just because they were fighting in it, doesn't mean that they wanted to.
In response to Justine Renfro:
ReplyDeleteI agree and disagree with Justine. Justine does have a solid point in saying “Soldiers had to face the fear of dying in battle but they also had to face the fear of dying of something else such as a disease. Being that they had many other ways of dying besides in battle, they had more reasons to be better prepared to die than to kill.” Yes, there is no doubt in my mind that soldiers were prepared to die, but she says nothing about the deadly weapons that the Civil War soldiers were equipped with. They had cannons and explosives that could wipe a man completely off the face of this earth, and all infantry was equipped with rifles that were capable of killing a man at three hundred plus yards. Even though soldiers were prepared with last letters, wills ect., they also had the power to wipe whole regiments of men off this planet.
I agree with the author because going into battle there is always a chance of death and most men in the armed forces join(ed) willingly, which is a representation of those soldiers’ preparedness to die… And obviously going into any war requires killing the opponent. Now whether or not certain men are ready to do so is a different story because boot camps and training further prepare those men to kill, besides who ever said that every soldier is totally ready to kill another human right off the bat..?
ReplyDeleteIn response to tori shoun
ReplyDeleteI agree with your post. It’s true that even before the battle soldiers are ready to die because they know it’s coming and are better prepared
However, I think that for some soldiers this knowlage of death would make them want to fight harder to live.
I believe that the soldiers were better prepared to die than to kill for two reasons. One, because of many of the soldiers were Christian and it is against their religion to kill. But the soldiers were also prepared to die because survival odds weren’t very good when you stand two armies only a couple hundred feet away from each other, but that’s all those soldiers knew.
ReplyDelete