Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Chapter 1-Dying "To Lay Down My Life"
During the civil war, the ars moriendi or proper way for a person to die was threatened because of the high death tolls that the war inflicted in a short amount of time. Why were soldiers honest about their fallen comrades when notifying family members even though the facts may have threatened ars moriendi? Do you believe that soldiers should be honest about their fallen comrades regardless of circumstances(when aswering this question, feel free to think about more modern wars as well)? Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"What you are when you die, the same will you reappear in the great day of eternity."(pg.8). Soldiers and families wanted to construct Good Death amid the chaos of war. The letters sent home about fallen comrades were meant to make absent loved ones virtual witnesses to the last moments of the soldier's life. Soldiers were honest about their fallen comrades even when it could threaten ars moriendi but they were also gentle. The soldiers tried to give details of how their comrade died, his wounds, his last words, and how he looked. Families deserved to know the truth and have a final memory of their soldier. I do believe soldiers should be honest about their fallen comrades. If my brother fought in the war in Iraq and he died I would want to know everything. It would not matter to me if ars moriendi was threatened. All that would matter would be my brother. Keep in mind that my belief system is not the same as the people during the Civil War. I think the people still had the same morals though. Therefore, we would have nearly the same feelings about family members dying. Being truthful regardless of the circumstances would be the right thing to do, family members would be grateful.
ReplyDeleteAs soldiers wanted families of fallen comrades to believe that their loved ones all died a Good Death. As many letters were sent home from soldiers they all stated that the fallen comrade had died a Good death because they wanted the family to believe that they witnessed their loved ones final moments and their last words. Many soldiers knew death was imminent so they repented and asked God for forgiveness of their sins as John L. Mason did on pg. 18. So soldiers would let families know this whether it was true or not so families would feel that their soldier died in good faith even though it could threaten ars moriendi. But coming from a military family were both of my parents have fought in war I believe that honesty is the only way to be. Being honest even, if it is the military about a soldiers death is always the best thing as families deserve the truth.
ReplyDeleteAt the time of the Civil War families were more intimate then we are today. The people didn't have as many distractions like TV, video games or cell phones. These people grew up sharing everything with their family. They witnessed their loved ones growing up and dying and they were involved in every aspect of each other's lives. If a family member became sick or injured, most of the time only other family members would be present to help, even to help them die. "The hors mori, the hour of death, had therefore to be witnessed, scrutinized, interpreted, narrated-- not to mention carefully prepared for by any sinner who sought to be worthy of salvation." [page 8] Today, we have doctors and other people that look after our family when they become very ill, we are often insulated from the more unpleasant details of death. Having witnessed death up close themselves, these soldiers would understand how important the final days and hours of a man were to his family. They would understand that a family would want to know everything about the final moments, even if the last minutes didn't follow the traditions of ars moriendi. The soldiers believed that the family would prefer an honest account, knowing that death didn't always follow a script. "Perhaps the most distressing aspect of death for many Civil War Americans was that thousands of young men were dying away from home."[page 9] A friend or comrade's account would be the only link a family had to the end of their young man's life. The people who witnessed these deaths would know how important those details would be to their own family if the worst should happen. They would try to honor the wishes of the dying as they would hope their wishes would be honored. I completely agree with this practice; if a brother, father, uncle, or grandfather of mine were to go to war and to die while fighting I would want to know everything about his last moments even if it didn't follow my culture's traditional concept of a "good death".
ReplyDeleteOverall, I think parents/children/grandparents want a sense that their son/father/grandson has achieved some level of greatness. Whether that sense is bona fide is of lesser importance, assuming the family feels the story of their loved one is genuine. Soldiers were honest only because of the social contract they were morally obligated to follow. They acted in accordance with their personal religious beliefs, and, if that’s what let them sleep at night, so be it. Personally, I think that honesty shouldn’t necessarily have been top priority when reporting the deaths back to families. These people have lived in constant fear of their loved one never coming back. Now that their fears have become reality, why hit them smack on the head with the truth? These families are already suffering enough, so why can’t people just tell them what they want to hear? Doesn’t a great death in a bloody battle, falling with the thoughts of family and acceptance of fate in mind sound so much more magnificent than “calmly eating dinner in a tent ,” (page 18) only to get shot in the back when you forget to keep an eye on the neighbors like the two soldiers in South Carolina? I certainly think so, and I’m pretty sure the families of those two soldiers would agree: picnic shootings aren’t worth the life of a loved one. Ultimately, I think that honesty should be valued to a point. Yes, soldiers should inform the families of the death of their kin, but the details aren’t so important. What you don’t know can’t hurt you… or however the saying goes. You get my point.
ReplyDeleteDeath is a scary unknown thing. When a loved one dies people feel comforted knowing how they died and if they are prepared for the afterlife, whatever it may be. This is especially true for the families of deceased during the Civil War. Since this war was filled with causalities and the separation of families the letters of condolences were important. The honesty within these letters is especially important to the family members that are thousands of miles away. The family members want to feel like their loved one was in a sense prepared to die and follow the guidelines of ars moriendi. Although following these guidelines may seem impossible during war, soldiers writing the condolence letters did their best to reassure the family. Even though the facts within these letters may not follow the guidelines it was better to be honest so the family was able to feel as if they were there to witness the casualty. "Family was central to the ars moriendi tradition, for kin performed its essential rituals."(pg.10). How are family members supposed to feel comforted if they do not know the full truth of their loved one's death? I believe soldiers should have been honest about how their fellow soldier died when writing the condolence letters. If my brother was fighting during war and died, I would want to know every single thing that happened. Yes, the truth may hurt but my family would want to know how he died when fighting for his country. Family members deserve the truth in how a loved one died, especially during the time of war.
ReplyDeleteWhen a loved one is killed that persons family should know and a soilder should be honest about his fallen comrade. During any war people are affraid death, never coming home, and never seeing the people they love ever again and their families are scared of never seiing them again too, but when a loved one dies all people morne their loss but some people are sad but relieved for they have reached a better place. When a person dies it is never right to just tell their family what they want to hear especially if the person that dies has last words."People believed final words to be the truth, both because they thought that a dying person could no longer have any earthly motivation to lie, and because those about to meet their maker would not want to expire bearing false witness."(pg 10).
ReplyDeleteResponse to Cameron's post. Hey Cameron, while reading your post, I could not help but think about Pat Tillman who played in the NFL and then lost his life in Afghanistan. Initially, the military reported that he had died in a fire fight and later it was revealed that he was killed by friendly fire. I wonder if the military was thinking along the same lines as you about this issue and then either had a change of heart or was "called out" about false reportings and then came clean with the truth. Any thoughts?
ReplyDeleteResponse to camerons post. While you presented some very good point I can't help but disagree with you. If a man is killed in a battle I believe that the family needs to know what actually happened. Telling the family that their son died in a way that he didn't is disrespectful. You do not have to tell every single detail, but its not necessary to lie about how the man died. If a man is killed by a bomb the family deserves to hear that he died fighting but also about the bom. If you tell the family that he didnt die right a way and that he was fully concious when he died you are behaving disrespectfully towards both the man and his family. The book mentions that people commonly believed it was more honorable to die concious but a family would appreciate the truth about his quik death more than they might a fictional story designed to offer false comfort.
ReplyDeleteThe people of the time of the Civil War were very religious. Due to their religious background they believed a persons last words and how they looked would determine where they would go in the afterlife. The reason I see for the soldiers being honest is because of their beliefs and fear. They feared that by lying to the family about the end of the family’s loved one life they would have sinned greatly. Also the author mentions that they believed the last words of a dying person could only be truth and thusly were very important in summary of the dying individual’s life. I extremely question the actually honesty about the dying soldier. It would often be a struggle between being honest and saving yourself from eternal consequences and lying and bringing peace to the family. Paul, the main character in the book All Quiet on the Western Front, was forced to confront the mother of a deceased comrade in WWI. She insisted on knowing the exact details of her son’s death, but Paul lied to her about the circumstances to make her son’s death more honorable. I believe situations such as this occurred during the Civil War, although potentially less because of the strong religiousness of their society. I always believe in being honest no matter who is hurt by the truth. Thusly I would expect the soldiers to be honest about how their comrades fell. But when honor and ars moriendi are involved I can see the need to lie although I never fully understand the need to tell a family member about the circumstances of the death. If a soldier is died he is died no matter how and I fail to see how the family will benefit from know how.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Alfredo: I agree with your statement but what I want to know is why you believe it is important for the family to know how thier loved one died especially in modern times, because the right way to die or ars moriendi is a much less domant idea in today's world? would it not simply be more ideal to notify the family of the death but give no explanation how especially when the how would dishonor the deceased in question? This question is not only addressed to Alfredo anyone who would like to comment on this secondary question feel free.
ReplyDeleteIn respons to jpduerst. There are many ways a person could die fighting for thier country and sometimes a family would like to know how thier loved one died. I believe if your are asked then you should not lie or refuse to tell the fallen soilder's family, it's all about respecting the fallen soilder and their family.
ReplyDeleteDuring the Civil War a good death was of great importance to a soldier and his family. It held great value in their religious beliefs and the difference between a good or bad afterlife. In response to their deaths the soldiers wished that their family’s known their fate and every detail. Unlike the 1860’s, the use of better communications and technology enable us to stay together and in contact. Back in the Civil War the only way of communicating over long distances was a long journey on foot or horseback. These conditions made it harder for families to stay together. It the chaos of war if a soldier witnessed the death of another it became his duty to tell the family of his fate. The final moments of one’s life are moments that hold great value to family members no matter how they died. They wish the best for their family members and seek the truth. Back then families were closer together and always shared their experiences. From this I believe that the family members deserve to hear the whole true of their soldier’s death. The final memories of their death are all that they will have. However, the pain of their death in addition to the pain the family has already gone through should be taken in mind in the details of their family member’s deaths.
ReplyDeleteThe issue of ars moriendi was in no doubt an important one to families as Faust states, “The Good Death proved to be a concern shared by almost all Americans of every religious background.”(pg.7) As a result the knowledge of death a family received was very important, which is why every soldier should be honest about their fallen comrade’s death regardless of the circumstances. “How one died epitomized a life already led,”(pg.9) so according to the author one’s death was a prefect example of one’s life. So if soldiers failed to be honest about a comrade’s death they in effect would be lying about their comrade’s life. In addition many doctors, nurses, and soldiers attempted to create proper ars moriendi for many soldiers, which unfortunately is all a family can expect with such high death tolls. In the end a fallen soldier’s family is at least owed an honest explanation about their son’s death.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that soldiers should always honor their fallen comrades under any circumstances. After all, honoring a fallen soldier could be as simple as saying a prayer for them. Ars moriendi is something each fallen soldier should have no matter what army he fought for because he was a human being. However, many soldiers may not receive any honor after dying because of the terrible chaos of war. Soldiers should especially be honored after death because they died in the glorious way of protecting there nation. The government should go above and beyond in honoring each fallen soldier because they owe that soldier's family for the sacrifice made for their nation. So even though every soldier might not receive ars moriendi, they should be honored as much as possible.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Ben,
ReplyDeleteI don't ars moriendi is really telling the family how the soldier died. For example, what if Bob got his head blown off and then got his limbs cut off by crazy rebels. An explanation would just make the family feel worse about Bob's death. I think the family really wants a letter justifying the cause of the war and honoring Bob's death, not explaining it.
Response to Orion:
ReplyDeleteThere definitely is no doubt that a letter home to Bob's parents explaining his horrible death would make them feel worse about it, but the tradition of the Good Death mattered to majority of American families at the time which probably included Bob's parents. The manner in which one died is the key factor in the tradition of ars moriendi. So, if Bob's parents just received a letter honoring their son's death, they would know nothing of how he died, and in effect know nothing about Bob's Good Death.
Response to Ben,
ReplyDeleteWho cares about how Bob died. It would make no difference and it wouldn't honor him or give him ars moriendi. What now.
In response to Tanner:
ReplyDeleteYou said that because families were perhaps closer during the Civil War era, they deserved to hear the whole truth about how their soldier died. On the contrary, I think that because families were so close, it may have been in the best interest of everyone involved that a soldier would "sugarcoat" the death of another soldier. Knowing that their soldier died the "Good Death" could make the grieving process a little easier for a fallen soldier's family, and knowing the truth would not change the fact that the soldier had died.
"Striving to fit his brother's life and words into the model of the Good Death, Frank Perry consoled his family with a report of Walter's expressed hope to 'meet us all in Heaven'" (23). Frank Perry tried to protect Walter's family from the knowledge that Walter had not, in fact, died the Good Death and while he laid dying, had "failed to mention any of the family by name in his last hours" (23). I think Frank Perry did this because there was no reason to make the death of Walter more difficult for his family by telling them the potentially devastating truth. In such sensitive situations like these, I think soldiers were justified in not telling the entire truth about the death of another soldier.
Soldiers were honest about fallen comrades (in letters) because, during that time, people were “supposed” to die on their deathbed with family surrounding them. However, this was clearly impossible during the Civil War. However, being truthful in the letters allowed the dead soldier’s family to virtually witness the dying soldier’s last moments. The family would want to know whether the fallen soldier could be reunited with his family in the afterlife, which could be determined by the dying soldier’s countenance, last words, and the level of calmness. Even if the soldier’s didn’t die a good death, I think the families deserved to know how their family member died. Suppose a comrade of a fallen soldier lied to the family about how their son, husband, etc. died. What would happen if the family later learned exactly how the death came about? I am sure they would be fairly angry to say the least. However, my one possible exception would be if the soldier was executed for desertion, murder, rape, or other crimes. I don’t think the family would be very proud if the soldier had died from an execution, rather than from fighting courageously for his country. If I was faced with the task of writing to the executed soldier’s family, I think I might simply say he died, but not go into more detail.
ReplyDeleteHaving to write a letter about a loss to the family may be one of the most important priorities to a soldier. With him being depended on to pass on the news, it is only right to do it with honesty. Releasing a family member to go to war is depressing enough as it is. With them being clueless about what is going on with the soldier, they should at least be notified if anything happens, such as death. Therefore, soldiers, doctors, and nurses feel that it is their responsibility to report the news truthfully, regardless of the situation. With only a letter as proof of death, the family has nothing else to depend on. Even if the description was a lie, they would still believe what they were informed because that was all the evidence they had.
ReplyDeleteRachel, I agree with you. Knowing every detail of a death is important in knowing the family member was either struggling in death or died peacefully. In the book it states that when you died peacefully it "indicated the departure of, one at peace with God."(pg.21) Meaning in the opposite state that someone struggling in death did not make peace with God. Knowing wether your loved one died at peace with God or not was something included in letters letting widow's know the state of the solider's death. In response to the main question if my father or brother died in a war, I would rather have the complete truth about how they died. I would do the same if I was in the war, or any war. I would tell everything I know about them. I would rather be close to the person who has died, even though loosing a friend is painful. In being close to the deceased, I would be able to share memories, tell the family what their loved one was like away from them, and give them hope(Also telling them how their family member has died).
ReplyDeleteIn response to jpduerst:
ReplyDeleteI really liked your response. However, I don't understand when you say they were honest because of fear. Why would the soldiers be afraid of sinning when the family would probably never know if they lied or not?
Response to Tanner
ReplyDeleteYou are right when you say the pain of the death should be kept in mind. The family should know the details but if the details are not the great things a family would want to hear, the soldier could leave a few things out. If the family gets the idea of how the soldier died and whether or not it was a good death, don't you think that would be enough after all that family has been through?
As a whole, I really like all the responses to this question and like to read the dialogue between some students. It amazes me how humans have always been deeply concerned with death throughout many different cultures. While reading this blog, the Egyptians came to mind. They were extremely interested in how one died and the afterlife. I find it interesting how pyramids were merely tombs for pharohs that required slave labor and the loss of human life on an enormous scale to complete. As you continue reading the book, you will see that men higher up in the ranks of the military were taken better care of posthumously as well. As much as things change throughout history, they mostly end up remaining the same! Mr. S
ReplyDeleteIn response to Tanner Hudson:
ReplyDeleteI agree with your response. Death to the families back in the 1800's during the Civil War was very important. Knowing that the families where very close then, it would hurt the loved ones family if a soldier responsible for telling the family told them a lie of the way their loved one died in war. Just like if one of my family members was in war, i would want to know exactly how they died and not be told a lie of the way they died.
Response to Mr. Santaniello's Comment Regarding Pat Tillman:
ReplyDeleteI think what the army did in the Pat Tillman case was immoral and unnecessary. My post may have been unclear. The bottom line is that I would want what is best for the family and friends of whether it be a truth or a lie, regardless of what the person that has to deliver the story thinks. I brought up a more extreme example in my earlier post mostly to make my point clear. So, back to the Tillman case. I think that the army didn't want to tarnish the American view of the army's strength, intelligence, etc. Their lies were in no way beneficial to the Pat's relatives (as made very clear in interviews with the Tillman family), just as a lie wouldn’t be beneficial to the majority of people on this blog.
When notifying family members of their fallen loved ones, soldiers were honest of their death mainly to respect the family. The ars moriendi was obviously extremely important and “The Good Death proved to be a concern shared by almost all Americans of every religious background.” (pg.7) However, even though being honest went against the ars moriendi, it gave most families comfort knowing how their loved one had died. Death is an unknown thing, and even if the person died an unfortunate and strange death, at least the family was notified. I personally would feel much happier if I was told honestly how someone died, even if it was a shameful death. My family is extremely important to me and I feel that the truth honors them more than something made up and extravagant does. If I were one of the two soldiers from South Carolina (pg.18), I would have been fine with my family hearing the truth because then they would at least have had an idea of how I had died and would have been more close to me.
ReplyDeleteThe soldiers were honest about the deaths of their fellow comrades in writing the letters to their friends and family based on their respect for that soldier and their family. It was their responsibility to tell the family what events caused the soldiers death and not to worry about what would've been what they called a good death. Sure, if the death wasn't like that and they hadn't achieved any type of greatness before their death the family may be upset. But i'm sure they would rather that then to be lied to and told something about the death that was completly untrue. The family wants to know what happened so it is as if they understand it and were with their loved one as he passed. If the soldiers were to lie to the families in these letters, that would not give them full closure.
ReplyDeleteThe Soldiers that died in the civil war did not live a long and holy life and therefore were not given enough time to die properly according to the ars moriendi. So dying in honor for their country took the place of the ars moriendi if you will. Te words "hero" and "honor" helped ease the minds of those who had lost a loved one in the fight. I believe that soldiers should put the death of their fellow comerades in to the best light possible. And in response to Mr. Sataniello I believe that for the sake of their loved ones the army was just trying to set Pat Tillman's family's minds at ease. From my point of view they did the right thing to shed his death in the most positive and heroic way possible.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Brenna:
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement that "soldiers should put the death of their fellow comarades into the best light possible". This is what the Civil War soldiers were trying to do. They weren't trying to lie to or deceive the families of dead soldiers; they were trying to make the loss of a loved one a little less difficult.
I also agree that "dying in honor for their country took the place of the ars moriendi". If you're dying for something you believe in, isn't that honor enough? Even if you're wrong, or other people don't agree, if you fought and died for a cause you believed in, I think there is more honor in that than would be brought about by a death ritual.
Many soldiers died an ugly death that they were unprepared for, and as a result I think that other soldiers were doing relatives and friends a favor by sparing them the details of their loved one's death. I do not, however believe that the army should directly lie about their death. Instead, they should simply leave out the details and perhaps stretch the truth a bit without actually lying. Saying that a soldier died with honor in battle for a cause that he believed in sounds a lot better than saying that he lead an ungodly life and died a bloody death in complete agony while his comrades retreated and left him for dead, even though both might be true. I think that by focusing on the soldier's life and the positive points of his death, they could portray his death as the Good Death and provide comfort to his family and friends without actually lying. If I were a family member, I would want the comfort of knowing the positives of my brother's life without the negatives, and if I were a soldier, I would want them to hear the same.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Brenna:
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that a soldier's death should be put in the best light and that the words "hero" and "honor" help ease the pain and suffering of their relatives back home. But I don't understand why you think that the army did the right thing with regards to Pat Tillman. They could have used such key words as "honor" and "hero" but i don't think that telling a blatent lie should be considered putting his death "in the best light possibe." Putting myself in the family's shoes, I would want the truth about how he died along with the comfort that he died with honor and lived a good life.
The soldiers were honest because that was how they were taught to be. Most of the men in the Civil War had, at one time, been to church. Most had been raised in Christian homes, where it was taught that lying was unacceptable. Those from the Jewish community who participated in the war had similar, if not identical teachings, since that part of the Bible is also included in the Torah. So how could they benefit from lying to the family of one of their comrades? They couldn't. The family probably wouldn't find out even if they had lied, but such a thing went against their beliefs so strongly, especially since they were so concerned about the "Good Death", that most wouldn't want to take the risk in lying about the death. While they probably informed the family about when and where the soldier died, they might not have included all the gory, unnecessary details. The family would want to know that the soldier died gallantly, but not that he died because, say, he was slit across the stomach and his entrails spilled out as he pulled a man to safety. They would just want to know that he died saving a fellow soldier. The soldier's comrades most likely would have toned it down so that the family could bear the news without be horrified. While death is death, and in this war, it didn't really matter how a person died, because so many others also died, it was honorable to be truthful, but to an extent that the family could handle. This way, the family could believe that their relative, be it a father, brother, cousin, nephew, etc, died an honorable death on the battlefield, surrounded by his friends and comrades. Whether or not a soldier told the truth because he thought it would affect his final outcome or not, it was a kind thing to be honest to a deceased soldier's family. Even in modern times, a fallen soldier's comrades should be honest to his family about what happened to him. Mr. Santinello, I think you're right. It was wrong of the military to report so incorrectly Mr. Tillman's death. That goes against all of what we as a society are taught at a young age, that it is wrong to lie. While I agree that it could have been hard for his family to understand his being shot down by friendly fire, I do think that they made the wrong decision in blatantly lying to his family. It was probably an accident, but how can we know for sure if the military didn't tell us the truth in the first place? Honesty is a characteristic that is sometimes taken for granted - this is a case where honesty is always the best choice; even if the whole truth must be held back because it is to hard to comprehend; the truth of when, where, and to an extent, how a soldier died is important for the family to know, and for the comrades to tell them.
ReplyDeleteKaylie: I agree with you. The military, or in the case of the Civil War, the soldier's comrades, should not lie outright to the soldier's family. What a horrible thing to be told that your son or brother died honorably while exchanging fire with the enemy, only to find out later that he was killed by an outburst of friendly fire. In the case of reporting deaths in war, honesty goes a long way, and is honorable besides. Good comment... I totally agree!
ReplyDeleteSoldiers in the Civil war were surrounded with death. They knew that their lives were going to end, and the war would most likely be the cause of death; it was all just a matter of time. When a person has death shoved in their face day after day for years on end, it takes the life out of them. When they are at their fallen comrade's side, for the last few moments, they are usually recording their fallen comrade's "final chapter". It was then the soldier's job to relay the information back to the family. That soldier that had to tell the family the fallen soldier's life story has no idea how much longer he is going to live. Inspite of the ars moriendi, he told the truth. The family may be hurt even more at the truth then some cookie cutter "life story", but at least they know what acctually happened. The soldier could have lied, waited for the family's sorrow to settle down, then come back to tell them the truth; but the soldier might not live long enough to come back and tell them what really happened. Also, almost every family with a boy sent them off to war, and maybe only a few came back. If all of the mothers and wives had the same story of their boy or husband dying in honor with a fruitful life, they might get a little suspicious, especially if that boy or husband just wasn't the kind of man to lead a righteous life. Then, if the messenger had passed away with the war too, the family would never quite be sure what really happened to their son or husband. I believe these soldiers that told the truth also wanted the same done for them when the day came, so they respected their families enough to tell the truth and not leave them in murky water. Telling the truth to families instead of telling a comforting lie was the right thing to do.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the soldiers should be honest to the families of their fallen soldier. If a close one died I wouldn't want to know just half of the story. How would you feel if the police or hospital called and just said that your loved one has been shot and has passed away? You would want to know where did this happen, by who, and why did this happen. This would be very important to the family how their soldier had died. This was even more important to the family because of ars moriendi. It was important to see if they died a good death and such and how people around the fallen soldier acted. To say a bit of the truth would certaintly anger me and the families of the lost loved one.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Brenna:
ReplyDeleteIf you read my previous post you will understand that I feel the army should report all of the truth to the families not just the good parts. In life, there are good parts and there are bad parts. Many times the bad parts are the most important parts to learn from and make the whole world better. In response to Pat Tillman, if they explained the whole story every single soldier that fights for their country is a hero no matter how they died. All soldiers are heroes of the country they fight for.
The soldiers were honest to the families about their fallen comrades because I think those facts were what ars moriendi was all about. They wanted to tell the family what had happened in the last minutes of the soldier's life, and they needed the family to know that the soldier died a Good Death. The traditions of ars moriendi were all about the Good Death. So the families wanted to know if their loved one died a Good Death because that is how they would have wanted it to be, and it was a very strond tradition.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Lee:
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you that the letter about the loss of a family member was very important and I believe that it should have be written in total honesty. The families deserved to know what happened, and all they got was a letter. That little piece of paper was very big news, and honest would have been all that I wanted.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn respose to Evan Lanz,
ReplyDeleteAll I am saying is that if one of my fellow soldiers shot and killed me accidentally, a.k.a. "Friendly Fire", I wouldn't want my family to think any less of that soldier or the military in general. If i wasn't killed by the enemy I don't want my family to know how i died. It doesn't matter how a person dies, the important thing is how thay lived.
soldiers were honest about how fallen comrades died when writing to their families because part of ars moriendi was that the family of the deceased was to know exactly what happened to their fallen family member and how they died. soldiers should be honest about the last moments of their comrades because if the family and friends do not know of the soldiers true fate then it is violating the ars moriendi or the good death. also the soldier who is writing the letter to his fallen comrades family should be honest about his last words even if thy are something that the family would not necessarily want to hear, because another part of the good death is to have your family and friends hear a deathbed statement from the dieing, and since the dieing soldiers had no deathbed they were forced to tell other soldiers their dieing wishes and trusted them to retell these wishes to their families.
ReplyDeleteI believe that soldiers were honest about the deaths of their comrades when telling family members, although the truth could have threatened ars moriendi, the family was able to know the truth of how their family member had died. The soldiers had told the families the truth of their comrades death not only because the family had a right to know, but also because it was respectful to the soldier. I also believe that "soldiers should be honest about their fallen comrades regardless of circumstances". This is because if a lie were told about the death it would be shamming for the family, comrades, and the soldier that had died. It is also part of ars moriendi that the family was to know exactly what happened to their fallen family member including how they died. So for the soldiers to lye about their fallen comrades death would be going against ars moriendi.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Evan:
ReplyDeleteI agree about how the families should know the details about their loved ones deaths. It would certainly make me mad if I found out a loved one had died, but didn't know how, when, or where the death had happened. By the families knowing the details, I believe it would give them some Peace of mind and help them with the loss. Instead of guessing what had happened and hoping it wasn't to painful, or if what had happened was to save many others lives. It is best to know the truth.
In the deeply religious society that was America during the civil war, honesty was critical. "People believed final words to be the truth both because they thought that the dying person could no longer have no earthly motivation to lie, and because those about to meet their maker would not want to expire bearing false witness". [8] Could it possibly be that the soldiers writing the letters to the family knew that they were so close to dying every day either by disease or wounds, that the words they were sending could be their last witnessed ones? Therefore the living soldier did not want to go before God so soon after bearing a false witness to the death of their comrade. The living soldier did not want to have their ars morendi threatened.
ReplyDeleteTo answer the second question of: “Do you think that soldiers should be honest about their fallen comrades regardless of circumstances?” I do believe that soldiers should have been honest about how comrades had died. "family was central to the ars moriendi tradition". [10] "The members of the family needed to witness a death in order to asses the state of the dying person's soul".[10] Shouldn't the family have been the right to truthfully make an assessment as to where their loved one would be in the afterlife? I feel the same way about today. If a soldier had fallen, no matter how, I think that the family should have the right to know how he or she died, no matter how he or she will be remembered because of it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Kaylie Haynes’ first post
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you have said about how the low points of a soldiers death should not be mentioned. I believe however, that the soldiers in the Civil War did not want this. “Some soldiers tried to establish formal arrangements to ensure the transmission of such information, to make sure that not just the fact, but a description of their death would be communicated to their families”. [14] The soldiers wanted a proper ars morendi to be performed, which included knowing exactly how the soldier died. “One should die among family assembled around the death bed.“ [10] These men wanted their families to feel as though they had been right next to them as they should have been.
In response to Kaylie Haynes (In her response to Brenna):
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your response to Brenna's entry, "I don't understand why you think that the army did the right thing with regards to Pat Tillman. They could have used such key words as "honor" and "hero"." This is a good point because rather than tell a lie about Tillman's death, saying he did more than he really did, his fellow comrades could have told the truth but explained that he died honorably. Once again, if it were my loved one, I would want to know the truth of their death even if it was inspiring or more interesting than others.
In response to Sophia,
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you about how soldiers were honest in order to respect the family. Everyone would, of course with no doubt, like to know how their loved ones died, no matter how harsh the truth may be. Thinking as if I were in the situation, I, as well as my family, would also feel comfort if they knew the truth about how I died. It is also better to be informed of the death, rather than not knowing at all.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that fellow soldiers should be honest about thier comrades' deaths because of mental and emotional struggles that would be wittnessed if this was avoided. First off, a soldier could have a tainted concience if they lied about a comrade's death which would lead to a loss of concentration, therefore leading to more deaths. Also, if a soldier lied about a death, he/she would always remember lying to a family and causing both of them pain, even if the family didn't know it. However, i do understand the opposing view when Drew Gilpin Faust states "Twice as meny Civil War soldiers died of disease as of battle wounds." (pg. 4) As a family member whose loved one(s) died, i would like to know how they died knowing they died serving their country, but i would much rather hear of bravery on the battlefield than an illness. An Iowa soldier states (talking about illnesses), "'all of the evils of the battlefield without any of its honors.'" (pg. 4). This statement is very true because all of the soldiers endured many harsh times during the war but most of them died from diseases. As a family member of a soldier, I would appreciate a comrade's attemp to heal the loss by putting bravery and honor to our loved one's name, but i would also like to know the truth. For these reasons, soldiers should be truthful concerning the deaths of their comrades.
ReplyDeleteI think the soldiers were honest about their fallen comrades when notifying their loved ones because they wanted to ease the pain as much as possible.And I'm sure the soldiers would've wanted the same thing done for them in return. I believe that soldiers should be honest about their fallend comrades regardless of circumstances because of what their loved ones have to deal with everyday. The soldier's family goes through a tremendous amount of time worrying about them and if they make it through the day because the family doesn't know what dangerous tasks the soldier does everyday. Most families hope their soldiers die peacefully and by notifying the family, it relieves them of either good thoughts or bad thoughts.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Leephan:
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you about how the letter to their families may be the most important priority for a soldier. It's already hard enough for the family having a soldier at war and it would be the least a soldier could do for their family, by writing them or having their comrades write them a letter.
In response to Celina:
ReplyDeleteI think you make a good point about tainted consciences. I am sure that most people agree, especially when they tell a huge lie, that you know it’s wrong and it is the only thing you can think about. The lie could also cause much pain to both the soldier and the family because if they family later learned of the fallen’s true fate, both sides would definitely feel pain. However, the family might also understand why the soldier lied after learning the truth (perhaps if it was from illness, or perhaps a crime that resulted in a hanging). I also agree that the truth should always be told, even if the family of the deceased might not necessarily appreciate it. Should a soldier die of disease, I would try to still say good things about the soldier in an attempt to help “cover up” the fact that he did not die (particularly) heroically.
In response to Abby Borchers:
ReplyDeleteI agree with Abby B. statement that a soldier’s death may need to be “sugar coated” when reported to the family. The closeness of a family could create the need for soldiers to advise caution when informing the family of their loved one’s death. However, the strong family values of this time period could have a positive or negative effect on a soldier’s death. First off, on a positive note, sugar coating and manipulating the truth to the family helped them except their family member’s death and reduced the grief and suffering. Letting the family know that they died a good death was relieving and eased their pain. Negatively, though soldiers would be lying to their fallen comrade’s family. Without any other means of communication they would believe this lie and never know the truth. The families deserved to know the truth of their soldier’s death, whether they died a good death or a violent one. The details though could be disregarded for the sake of the pain inflicted on the family.
In response to Blake Naito:
ReplyDeletei do agree with you that the family would understand why the soldier lied, but when the family finds out why he was lying, it would make them feel bad that their loved ones death was so unruly or so out of the ordinary that the soldier had to lie to them about the soldier's death to make him be remembered as a good soldier. Thats just not right.
I think that soldiers were honest about their fallen comrades when notifying family members because they wanted to be the most respectful to the family that they could be. Although not every death was a Good Death, the soldier writing would often say other good things. In 1864, when John L. Mason died and a comrade wrote to John’s Mother he wrote, “died almost instantly without speaking or uttering a word after being struck,” and went on to say, “willing and ready to meet his saviour.” (pg.18). This shows that even when there wasn’t the exact Good Death, the comrade could still be honest and put in something that could help the family out with not having ars moriendi. Many families wanted the Good Death, so their family member would have a good after life and such, but many understood that in war you couldn’t always have the Good Death. Therefore, comrades would be honest to be respectful and they would put in a bit of comfort to the families as John L. Mason’s comrade did. All soldiers should be completely honest about fallen comrades because it is first of all disrespectful to families if they lie about the death. Although in the Civil War families wouldn’t know the truth since they were no where near close to the death, there is press and many witnesses that can tell the truth about deaths today in war. I think many comrades in the Civil War wanted to be honest and not tell lies, but today I think that it is a bigger deal to tell the truth because if someone were to lie, the truth would eventually get out.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Gabby:
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you. All families of fallen soldiers should have known the truth. It is respectful to the soldier and the soldier’s family, and the family had a right to know. Although not every soldier had the Good Death, it was right for comrades to help add a little bit of ars moriendi by telling the truth to families. Many comrades knew that they would be shaming families, themselves, and their fallen soldiers if they were to lie in the letter to the family. They did not want to do that and therefore told the truth.
Even though the ars moriendi was threatened I think the families were grateful to know how their loved one died. If you consider now it would make more sense if the family knew how the soldier died instead of hearing a lie that they died according to the ars moriendi. In most cases the soldier died fighting for his country and in the civil war it seems like it would be even nobler to die on the battle field. The family has the right to know how the soldier died fighting for his country. Even if the soldier dies of illness or infection the family still has the right to know how the soldier spent his last moments. It’s also in respect for the dead that people know the reason they are grieving over a dead body. I think knowing the truth about their family member’s death probably eased the pain for the family rather than not knowing. No one really expected the death rate to be so high during the civil war. So to some families it might have come as a shock to hear the soldier of the family had passed. I think it was easier for them just to know how they died.
ReplyDeleteI believe that soldiers should be completely and always honest about the fallen.It shows respect to the dead and to their family. Even if it is not one of the ways stated by ars moriendi. And in war how likely is it to die in a proper way. But the family would rather know the truth about their sons last moments then something made up to appease them. In modern wars this concept doesn't apply because the art of ars moriendi has become outdated.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jordyn,
ReplyDeleteI agree it would be more for filling to know the truth than a lie to make it sound like a love one died a proper death in societies eyes. I believe it is better to die a death in combat rather than one that is considered proper.
One part of the ars moriendi was the last minutes of life. The last minutes of life determined what the state of the person for the rest of eternity. If soldiers lied about how a comrade died, they would be taking away that those last minutes of the ars moriendi.
ReplyDeleteI believe that soldiers should tell the truth about how a comrade died. Even if he died from friendly fire, his family should still hear how he really died. It shouldn't be another soldiers decision on if the family knows the truth or not.
In response to Brenna:
ReplyDeleteIn our response to Evan, you said, "All I am saying is that if one of my fellow soldiers shot and killed me accidentally, a.k.a. "Friendly Fire", I wouldn't want my family to think any less of that soldier or the military in general."
I disagree with you. If some one on my own side, shot and killed me, I would want my family to know. Sure, someone shouldn't be looked down upon because of an accident, but I would want my family to know what really happened. I think they would do more than look down upon the soldier and the military for lying. And I believe that the family has the right to know the thruth no matter what.
In my opinion I think that the soldiers of the civil war were very honest when writing to a fallen comrades’ “kin.” Faust explains in the first chapter how soldiers would tell one another to explain exactly what happened to them in battle to their families if they would indeed die. On the other side of things, the families of the fallen soldier would want to know exactly what happened to their soldier. It provided closure to the death. If the soldiers did not tell the truth it could make the family hurt for a long time if they didn’t know what exactly happened. Also, writing honest letters about what exactly happened was the fallen heroes’ last wish, and I think that most of the fallen soldier’s comrades honored this last wish. I think that most of the fallen soldier’s comrades were very honest when writing to the dead soldier’s kin. In my opinion, I think that being honest when writing to families was the right thing to do, and in all, I believe that this is what happened.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Ryan Lynch:
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree with Ryan Lynch and his following comment. “I believe that soldiers should be completely and always honest about the fallen. It shows respect to the dead and to their family. The family would rather know the truth about their sons last moments then something made up to appease them.” I completely agree with all of his points. It is a strong point when he talks about the family wanting the truth. I go back to what Mr. Santaniello said in response to Cameron’s comment. In this case, you could think about Pat Tillman. After he was killed in Afghanistan, the initial report was that he was killed by the enemy, but then a few months later, a report came out to his family that he was killed by friendly fire. You could imagine how his family was emotionally killed by this news. By the time that the friendly fire news came in, they likely had started to move on in their lives, but the news that he was killed by his own men had to be devastating. This one incident shows, that no matter the circumstances, the Civil War soldiers always needed to be honest when writing to dead soldier’s families.
I do think that it is fair for soldiers to be honest about the circumstances of a death when writing to the dead persons family. The family would probably rather be told more than just that their family member died on the field, battling the north or the south. It might give the family a piece of mind to know exactly what happened during that time and how their family member died.
ReplyDeleteIn response to leephan
ReplyDeleteI liked how you thought it was important that people were honest about how someone died because it was hard for them to let the soldier go off to war anyway. I think when a family sends a soldier off they all wish he would come back alive. But in many cases they didn’t. The family did deserve to know how the soldier spent their last moments. You were right when you said “…it was the only evidence they had.” Without someone telling them they might never had known that their loved one had died. I really enjoyed your entry and everything that you said in it.
Most of these soldiers tended to be honest when telling of how their comrades died because it was out of respect for the fallen and their kin. Whether or not the death was considered to be a ‘good death’ is beside the point. Many of the soldiers felt and still feel an obligation to inform the family of the deceased about the circumstances of their fellow soldiers’ death. Also, with the extreme lack of circulated information regarding Civil War casualties it brought a certain amount of peace and comfort to the family. So yes soldiers should be honest when it comes to how another soilders dies, because it may be brutal but it is someone’s father/son/husband/cousin/friend and they deserve to know how their loved one perished
ReplyDeleteSoldiers were honest about the way someone died because that is such an important thing to know. If they DIA they wouldnt want their fellow comrades telling their family something that wasnt true. They had respect for each other and each other's families. This was a brutal time in history but there was still respect. Knowing details about your fallen child is important but sometimes its better not to know. Especially every single little detail about their death.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Tanner H,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your post about the beliefs about the afterlife and weather it be good or bad based on your death. But most families i would assume would not want to know every single detail of their child's death. It would break them to know of the pain their child endured. But i agree, if you witnessed a death then it was your duty to inform the family.
Death is quite a humbling thing. When a man dies, his last moments are of truth and significance. This having been said, it is understandable that a soldier would find it hard to lie about another's death. Even if the last moments of life were not quite satisfactory, the purity of death warrents absolute truth. But, perhaps out of guilt or pity, many, no doubt, convinced themselves that a word had deeper meaning or that a phrase muttered meant a man had a drive for redemption.
ReplyDeleteArs Moriendi was of a great significance. It meant honor, courage, and worth. It made dying a reward for a life of devotion and faith. And the ability to make a loved one's death a reward was a relief to families during the civil war. Thus, it was a necessity for fellow soliers to put a "possitive spin" on death. To give a family that shread of hope that a son had earned a ticket to a better place.
This practice, though a bit shady, was entirely necessary, as families were reasured that death had an upside. And this reasurance dissapated the horror and regret war caused.
In response to Brenna Hjelle,
ReplyDeleteWell said Brenna. It is very noble to put a positive spin on death. Though I would hope the United States Military would be apposed to completely lying for the sake of "The Good Death". Though reporting occurrences in a positive light is kind, I believe it somewhat demeans the man or woman that has been lost. For instance, were a man to die from a bomb the United States had set off, I would feel it would be the military's duty to alert the family of the man to the mistake. Though perhaps politically inefficient, owning up to ones mistakes is especially important when it has resulted in a consequence as significant as a death.
In response to Ryan Lynch,
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your stance on this subject because to lie about how the fallen fell to his family is improper, but it does show respect to the decaesed and his family to write every word of the truth, they have every right to know what actually happened over a "cherry coated" made up story.
Soldiers were honest about their fallen comrades when notifying family members even though the facts may have threatened the ars moriendi for different reasons. They wanted the families of soldiers to know what actually happened. "We promised each other" "we would see that they were assisted off the field if wounded and if dead to inform the family of the circumstances of death" William D. Ward stated on page 14. Also on page 14, it talks about how the confederate soldiers were to report the same circumstances of death to the families and friends as well. I agree that it is important that the families know what actually happened. I think they have the right to know. I think the same applies in today's war as well. If someone I knew died, I would want to know the circumstances of death no matter how bad they might be.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Tori:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you say that sometimes it is better not to know about the circumstances of death especially every little detail. Yet I also kind of disagree. I think that the soldier's families had a right to know what really happened no matter how threatening it might have been. I also feel that they wanted to know exactly what happened to those close to them even if the circumstances of death were hard to bear. I do see your point though.
People were honest about the deaths of fellow soldiers for several reasons. First, they wanted the families of the dead soldiers to know what really happened, and not just to have false hope. Also, death is a very serious thing, and that could make it so that a soldier wouldn'd dare lie about the circumstances in which a fellow soldier died.
ReplyDeleteI think it is very important for a soldier to be honest about the death of a fallen comrade. For one reason, if you say eveyone died an honorable death, regardless of if they did or not, than it removes some of the honor from those who actually did. Also, it is important because sometimes, although the truth may not be exactly what someone wants to hear, it is important for them to hear it, so they know exactly what is going on with a loved one.
In response to Jenna:
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said about it being important to tell the truth about someone's death simply out of respect for their family and friends. I think that a family deserves to know what really happened to a loved one. And, as you also said, it was important during the Civil War, however, generally speaking, it is more important in wars today. This is because through the media and other soldiers, the truth will eventually get out.
In response to Samantha Cook
ReplyDeleteI agree with your post, I just have some thoughts. I have never lost someone in war, but I wonder if maybe ignorance would be bliss? But because I have never lost someone in war it’s hard for me to say, but I would think that most families would prefer the truth…
Family members wanted to know that their person that had died, died for a good cause, and that their death contributed to the greater good. But, yes, I believe that soldiers should be very honest about how their comrade died. Even though it may be hard sometimes for the family member because maybe their family member that died didn’t die in a way that would benefit that cause, but they still shouldn’t be lied to.
ReplyDelete