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.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Chapter Three:Burying "New Lessons Caring for the Dead"
What types of people were attracted to battlefields after the fighting ceased? What are your thoughts about these people?
Civilians were the main people attracted to battlefields. These civilians included “besides relatives in search of kin, there were scavengers seeking to rob the dead, entrepreneurial coffin makers and embalmers, and a swarm of tourists attracted by the hope of experiencing the ‘sublimity of a battle scene’ or simply, as one disgusted soldier put it, ‘gratifying their morbid curiosity.” (p.85) I completely understand why the relatives would be there: to find their loved ones to take back to their home. However, the scavengers, whether in search of mere keepsakes, or items to sell for money, I believe it is wrong. They are robbing soldiers who laid down their lives for what they believed in. For some of the coffin makers and embalmers, they were simply trying to honor the dead, and help allow them to be taken back to their homes, because some trains wouldn’t let dead soldiers on. Nevertheless, there were others simply trying to make or swindle money, such as with Hutton who was imprisoned. He allegedly “recovered and embalmed soldiers without permission and then demanded payment from grieving families, threatening to disinter or refuse to return the bodies if their conditions were not met.” (p.97) Finally, for the tourists, I honestly think it’s kind of disgusting, wanting to see dead, dying, and decaying soldiers, laying on a bloody field. A place of tragedy and carnage should not be a tourist attraction that people flock to see. It should be more of a somber memorial, a place to remember, not gape at.
"Battle sites in fact became crowded with with civilians immediately after the cessation of hostilities."(pg.85) After the fighting on the battle fields ended, the civilians near and far away would go and search for loved ones. Because of the poor records kept, family members did not want their soldiers to end up being buried nameless and alone. The other people who were attracted to the battle fields after the fighting were embalmers. "Families sought to see their lost loved ones in as lifelike a state as possible..."(pg.93) Embalming a body was quite costly back then. However, so many civilians wanted this that the embalmers became very rich quickly. I don't think any civilians or embalmers should have come to the battle fields. After the fighting, those grounds became a place where soldiers should be remembered. Unless the civilians were there to help bury all those soldiers, it was not a place to be.
All kinds of people were attracted to battlefields after the fighting ceased: families coming to collect their dead, volunteers, "scavengers seeking to rob the dead" (85), embalmers and coffin makers, tourists, and other civilians. While there are many ways to justify the actions and motives of the masses of people who came to the battlefields, I personally agree with the sentiment of one soldier who described the people as "gratifying their morbid curiosity" (85). I understand the people who came in search of loved ones and the volunteers who came to bury the dead, but the others had no right to be there. A soldier in a field hospital at Antietam said, “People come from all parts of the country. Stare at us but do not find time to do anything” (85). Anyone who came to the battlefields should have been assisting in the effort to clean up the carnage and deliver bodies to families, not gawking at the devastation. At a place where so many men lost their lives, a certain amount of respect should have been displayed; be it by cleaning up the mess or staying away from the battlefield altogether. There should not have been so much disturbance in what served as many soldiers' final resting place.
“Battle sites in fact became crowded with civilians immediately after the cessation of hostilities: besides relatives in search of kin, there were scavengers seeking to rob the dead, entrepreneurial coffin makers and embalmers, and swarms of tourists attracted by the hope of experiencing the sublimity of a battle scene.”(pg.85) Based on that information relatives, thieves, coffin makers, embalmers, and tourists were attracted to battlefields after fighting ceased, my thought is none of them belonged there. After all the fighting and death that occurred on those fields a hallowed area is created where civilians should not enter out of respect for all the soldiers. Every one of those civilians could have been somewhere other then the revered battlefield. Relatives, coffin makers, and embalmers belonged in nearby towns where relatives could inquire about the condition of their kin, and coffin makers and embalmers could still make money from grieving relatives. The thieves and tourists should be at home instead of disrespecting soldiers, and treating a horrible war as entertainment. Every one of those civilians had a place to be other than a battlefield where they only disrespected all the soldiers who died there.
Battlefields were swarmed with families in search of their kin, scavengers seeking to rob the deceased, entrepreneurial coffin makers and embalmers. Tourists were attracted to the battlefield in hope of the experience of war. Many wanted to seek their morbid curiosity.MAny families wanted to repossess the body of their loved one in order to be certain they were truly dead and not just been misidentified. I believe that out of the the respect of our fallen soldiers a secure area should of been made and regular citizens should not be allowed on the battlefield because it is very disrespectful to fallen soldier, as their are other ways for families to claim the deceased.
In response to Ben I agree with Ben that the battlefield was not a place for civilians or any one. There was other places for embalmers and coffin makers for them to still make money. I believe that the battlefield is sacred for the soldiers. The fallen soldiers could be delivered to a designed place for families to claim, therefore nothing could be disturbed and the property of the soldier could be returned to the family.
Every type of civilian visited the battlefields after fighting ceased. There was almost an industry based around dead bodies at the time. Whether people were there to steal them or to look at them or to cry over them or to study them or to put them in a casket and shovel dirt onto them, these bodies were the center of attention upon many occasions. I think people were fascinated by the mysteries of war, and dead bodies left behind in battles were a way for people to connect with the war without actually holding a gun themselves. Contrary to what the people before me have said and sort of to what Faust said, I’m not sure how much families really expected to reconnect with the body of their loved ones. I know that visiting the battlefield would terminate a very undesired sense of discomfort, but I also think that expecting to die comes along with expecting to not be found; the records and level of communication just weren’t of sufficient quality. I would think that the percentage of visitors to the aftermaths of battles wouldn’t be as high in friends and family as the earlier posts imply.
After fighting ceased battlefields were swarmed by many different types of people. The main “group” consisted of family members looking for loved ones that may have died during the fight. “Besides relatives in search of kin, there were scavengers seeking to rob the dead, entrepreneurial coffin makers and embalmers, and swarms of tourists attracted by the hope of experiencing the ‘sublimity of a battle scene’ or simply, as one soldier put it, ‘gratifying their morbid curiosity.’”(85). The most logical, in my opinion, were the family members searching for their loved ones. With the lack of both governments keeping accurate records of who died, it is logical that family members wanted to go and look for themselves. However, I am not sure it was smart for relatives to crowd the battlefields especially, if they weren’t sure if their loved one was fighting. All the other people, with the exception of relatives, had no right to be there. War is a scary, depressing time, and to rob from soldiers, or to rob from their families by setting outrageously high prices on coffins, is unacceptable. I understand the curiosity everyone had about war but the armies needed their space especially after a particularly gruesome battle.
In response to Blake: I agree with your post. I like how you mentioned how embalmers would steal from the dead. I also agree with your idea of how tourists’ swarming the battle field just to see dead bodies is disgusting. Overall, I really liked your post and agree with all your different aspects as to who should, and should not, be at battlefields.
The types of people that were attracted to battlefields after fighting ceased were families, robbers, and fellow soldiers. The families went to the battlefields to collect the corpse of a loved one. Robbers came to the war zone to take money or personal items belonging to the carcass of the soldier. Also, comrades in regiments would come to keep a promise to the deceased. I think the families and friends made during the war had a good reason for going to the battlefields, but robbers had no place there. The men were already robbed of life they didn't need to be robbed of anything else.
In response to Kinsey: You said that "I believe that out of the the respect of our fallen soldiers a secure area should of been made and regular citizens should not be allowed on the battlefield because it is very disrespectful to fallen soldier, as their are other ways for families to claim the deceased". Were you saying that families of fallen soldiers should not have been allowed to visit the battlefields? I think that it would be disrespectful to the families not to let them come and collect their dead because it would be denying them the closure they may have been looking for in performing this act.
Many civilians were attracted to battlefields after the killing for different reasons. "Most civilians appeared out of earnest desperation to locate and care for loved ones." These family members came to ensure the proper burial of there loved ones. Therefore, they had a purpose of coming to the battlefield. Other civilians came to the battlefields out of curiosity. They came as tourists to experience the historic setting. Some civilians came to the battlefield for profitable reasons such as coffin selling and robbing the dead. These people had little if any respect for the fallen soldiers. They should have not disrespected the battlefield and stayed home.
Response to Rachel, I agree with the family members being the most logical. They had a morally good purpose to go to the battlefield unlike the tourists and robbers.
Response to Kinsey When you said there are other ways to claim the deceased, what other ways are you talking about? If you were part of that family with the fallen soldier, wouldn't you want to see what happened as soon as possible? Of course the grounds where those soldiers had fallen should be memorials but those families also need some relief. Also, what tourists were attracted to the fields? As far as I know, people from all over the world did not come to see the battlefields after the fighting. You did make some good points though.
the main type of people atracted to battlefeilds were family members to search for there relitives dead bodies so they can burry them. The secon type of people that would show up at battlefeilds to "rob the dead"(pg 85). The third and final type of people that showed up at battlefeilds were tourists "gratifying their curiosity" said one soilder. My thoughts on the family comming to collect tthier dead is completely ok, but the grave robbers and tourist shouldn't even be around the battlefields and they are completely disreaspectful.
People of all sorts were attracted to the battlefields and came with a range of intentions such as: claiming bodies, robbing soldiers and making money off those who had lost a loved one. In my opinion a battlefield is a sacred place, like a cemetery or memorial, and should not be disturbed. There were families trying to collect the bodies of their family members. They believed burying them was a respectful thing to do, but what if their young soldier’s comrades weren’t fortunate enough to have a family to take them home? Should they be buried separately, unequally? When they died together in the same way? I think not. The soldiers were treated equally before death and should remain treated equally after. I also believe the families caused unwanted mayhem on the battlefield where nurses and doctors were tending to the wounded. Perhaps two different families both thought one dead soldier was their son, this would cause quite an upheaval in the final moments of a dying soldier. Another kind of person attracted to the battlefield was, “scavengers seeking to rob the dead”(p.85). I found this particularly disrespectful towards the heroes whom had just died protecting the rights of their country. The scavengers were robbing the very people protecting them, which I found incredibly insensitive.
Battlefields were filled with all kinds of people, "relatives in search of kin, there were scavengers seeking to rob the dead, enterpreneurial coffin makers and embalmers, and swarms of tourists attracted by the hope of experiencing the "sublimity of a battle scene" or simply, as one disgusted soldier put it, "gratifying their morbid curiosity." (pg.85) Many people came to the battle fields after the war. Some came to search hoplessly for thier family members, others searched the bodies for anything of calue they could take from them. Whatever their reason was I'm sure they sight of all the slaughtered bodies changed them in some way. My thoughts on these people are that they are trying to find some kind of reason for all these casualties, and I'm sure they didnt find one. Some had justification for going through the battlefields and others did not.
In Response to Brenna, I completly agree with your post. And you bring up a good question. What would happen if two families both believed that one of the bodies was that of their son? Maybe the battle fields shouldn't have been quite as open as they were. I also agree that the battlefield was sacred and for people to just be going through there searching around for their family members is kind of wrong. Also it's really sad that people would actually rob these men after all they did for them.
I could be wrong with this answer to your quesiton, What would happen if two amilies both believed taht one of the bodies was that of their son, but I believe that through all of their uniforms and such clothing that something visible might say there name. This was some 150 years ago so I could be wrong but now I believe they have something so they can be ID'd. Also the soldiers fellow commrades could identify who the dead soldier when they explain to the families how their son had died if they come quick enough. Just some ideas on how that problem could have been prevented.
There were many different type of people that fled to the battlefield after the fighting had ceased. Some belonged, some did not. Families went to reclaim bodies, tourists, scavengers,"seeking to rob the dead," embalmers, volunteers, and coffin makers. Of all of these different civilians only the families of the fallen and volunteers to bury the unclaimed bodies should be allowed to be there. Unfortunelty there was no way to keep tourists, embalmers, volunteers, scavengers, and coffin makers out of the battlefields therefore making the battlefield overly crowded. Volunteers had a right to be there because they were helping. All the others were just trying to benifit themselves which is wrong at this time. Many of the families were happy they came to see there ded son. Bodwitch stated when he was able to reunite with his dead son that," There he was able to gain some comfor by hearing from Nat's fellow officers "beautiful things" about his courage and his profession of faith and hope as he died."(pg 89) These are the only two types of civilians that should be allowed on the battlefield.
Civilians were the main people that came to a battlefield after the fighting. “battle sites in fact became crowded with civilians.” [85] These people came with multiple purposes. Some were there to scavenge for expensive articles that could be found on a dead soldiers person, others were there for the more noble cause of finding their kinsmen. “there were scavengers seeking to rob the dead” [85] These people had no respect for what had just happened. They probably either had had a relative die that they could not find and therefore were taking it out on others, or they had no connections with anyone in the army, and did not know what the people there to find their relatives felt like.
I agree with many of your points including that battle fields should be treated with respect, however, in this time when death was so important, shouldn’t the family have given the fallen soldier a proper burial? What about the wounded. Though many of their comrades, may not have received their ars moriendi, if the family could have provided it, why should they have been denied that right. In this world, no matter how hard we try, people are not equal. Because one man was hurt, that does not mean that all of the rest should have to suffer.
Many people were attracted to battlefields after the fighting ended. Civilians were the people who came flocking to the areas. The majority of the people were looking for bodies of family or friends to reclaim and bring home to bury. Others were scavengers, thieves, looking to rob the bodies of the dead before the were buried or left to rot. "Entrepreneurial coffin makers and embalmers" made their way to battlefields to offer their services to the soldiers and families left surviving the dead. Tourists came, "attracted by the hope of experiencing the 'sublimity of a battle scene'" or simply to gratify their "morbid curiosity" of war and death. I can completely understand the reasoning families had, going to battlefields to look for loved ones. That is natural, to want to find the person who died and bring them home to give them the proper respect and burial. But I don't understand why anyone would want to go to a battlefield after the fighting is over just to see it, rob the dead or dying, or to take advantage of the people who have traveled from far away who have come to find their dead loved ones. How could anyone think that that would be respectful. Yes, there is a bit of morbid curiosity around battles and what happens afterward, but the surviving soldiers and the families of the deceased probably didn't appreciate all the people just watching them, getting a kick out of being on a battlefield. The dead are dead, and should have been left with their families and comrades, not out in the open as a tourist attraction.
These people were changed. How could anyone not be changed after seeing the horrible aftermath of Gettysburg or Bull Run; it just isn't possible to see that kind of thing and not be changed. I agree, not everyone had a good justification for being on the battlefields. The families and comrades, yes; scavengers and tourists, no.
After the fighting ceased, civilians of all kinds flooded the battlefields for their individual purposes. Many came to volunteer to help with the work of death. Many families also arrived in search of their loved ones. These are the people that had an actual purpose, reason, and right to be on the fields. They came to care and aid for the suffering soldiers and also to reclaim bodies to escort home. In addition, "there were scavengers seeking to rob the dead, entrepreneurial coffin makers and embalmers, and swarms of tourists attracted by the hope of experiencing the "sublimity of a battle scene" or simply, as one disgusted soldier put it, "gratifying their morbid curiosity"" (pg. 85). These civilians, however, roamed the areas in hope of a gain for themselves. Whether it was money, clothes, of even a scene, they obviously did not come to assist the soldiers. None of these people needed to be there because they had no purpose on the field. Without them, locating handicapped soldiers would've been much easier to ones who did have a purpose.
In chapter 3 Drew Gilpin Faust talked about who after the war the people most attracted to the battle fields were the entrepreneurs. The people most attracted to the battle fields were the "embalmers" these men made lots of their money from being near the mayhem. These men were horrible for the way they did their work. They were like vultures traveling and acting like the dead were animals that had fell in the desert.They weren't very kind men and shouldn't have been allowed near the fallen men. The people that had hired them to find loved ones bodies were cheated out of their money. I felt like these me were incredible for how they could act in this kind of manner and not care at all.
In response to leepan. You are right the families did go to the battle sights. But most were there to retrieve the bodies of the dead. More of the help that I felt was needed not on the old battle sights but where the new battles were being fought. I really liked when you mentioned how the people there to claim bodies and help out had a real reason to be there it was a great thing to mention. The part of the people that also came to rob the dead was a part i felt strongly about, the people that made the mistake of treating the dead with such dis honor was an issue in the book i thought happened way to much. You made some very good points I really liked that you brought these points up.
The scene after a recent battle was filled with all kinds of people. Civilians arrived looking for the bodies of their loved ones and to help with cleaning up. Grave robbers were there looking to take advantage of the large number of dead. Doctors and nurses tended to the wounded in army hospitals, as well as commission workers looking for the dead and tending to the living. This picture is sad and filled with the dead, the greiving, the greedy, and those attempting to help ease the pain of others. It was busy with the great amount of people there and many of them were just getting in the way. There was no easy way to clean up after battle, and most of the people on the battlefield were just trying to help with this task. I think that everyone with the exception of the grave robbers were good people who were just trying to help and had a right to be there.
Civilians were attracted to battlefields after fighting ceased. Just average, everyday people went to the sites of the battles, but some were there for different reasons. Many people were the families of soldiers. They were searching for lost loved ones, hoping to take their bodies home with them, or to care for them if they were injured. People robbing the dead bodies also went to the battlefields, as well as tourists. They were curious to find out what was going on, and went to take in the battle scene and feel like they were a part of the war. Agents helping families were there. Embalmers were also at battlefields, and for wrong reasons. I feel bad for the families coming to collect their dead kin (or sent their agents). It would be horrible to see the masses of dead and dying bodies knowing one of them may be your loved one. As for the tourists, it is horrible that they came just to gawk at the horrific aftermath of battle. Shame on them! I feel the same way about the embalmers who were trying to rip people off and scam them. A battlefield should be seen with respect and as a memorial to fallen heroes.
Response to Kinsey I don't think a secure area would have been practical after a battle. People "in charge" of the battlefields were too busy caring for the living to think about scavengers or tourists and their bad reasons to be at the battlefields. They had to keep the living alive and not worry too much about the ones already dead.
During the aftermath of battle many different groups of people gathered on the battle field. These groups of people included citizens, relatives of soldiers, thieves, coffin makers and embalmers. The citizens searching for lost family members and soldiers have reason to be on a battlefield and I understand their cause to find someone they loved, however others have no right to be walking among the dead and dying. I believe thieves and robbers that come to scavenge off the dead soldiers are wrong and are disrespecting their country. These soldiers sacrificed their lives for their faith and country. Tourists also have no place on the battlefield. “A Massachusetts soldier who lay suffering in an Antietam field hospital after the amputation of his leg clearly resented these gawkers. People come from all parts of the country. Stare at us but do not find time to do anything, he complained” (85). The embalmers and coffin makers may also have good intentions but making a business off of dead soldiers is disrespectful and wrong. The battle field is a sacred place where great sacrifices and tragedy took place. It should be honored for all the fallen and treated as a final resting place for hundreds of lives.
I agree with Cameron about discomfort from family members on the battlefield. Finding a lost family member in the middle of a battlefield would be a horrible sight. The aftermath of the battle and the environment would have affected the corpse. Also the probably that the family could find the body out of hundreds is small. I beleive many would refrain from coming at all. It would be an awful sight to see the remains of a lost family member. However, they have more right to be on the battlefield than anyone else.
At the battlefields after the war, families and civilians came to find their loved ones or return bodies to friends who lost someone also. However, there were also "scavengers seeking to rob the dead, entreprenuerial coffin makers and embalmers, and swarms of tourists attracted by the hope of experiencing the 'sublimity of a battle scene.'" (pg. 85) I obviously believe that the loved ones of fallen soldiers were welcome to those battlefield sites because they were just trying to bring their soldiers home and bury them. The coffin makers were also welcome there because they were trying to help families have a way to carry their loved ones home and providing them with a coffin for the burial. On the other hand, the body robbers should not have ever gone to the battle scene and more importantly taken the bodies. The tourists that were there were not welcome either because that was a sacred place where families came to mourn, not be speculated like caged animals. As one soldier put it, the tourists were just there "gratifying their morbid curiosity." (pg. 85) Battlefields were a place of great historical meaning and mourning, not for people who were only there to experience a battle scene. If they wanted to get the actual feeling they should have joined the war themselves.
The types of people attracted to battlefields after fighting ceased included civilians, tourists, scavengers, and entrepreneurs. “most civilians appeared out of earnest desperation to locate and care for loved ones.” (pg. 85). I think that out of all these types of people, the civilians I understand them most for being at the battlefield. They wanted to be there for the death of their loved one and they wanted to send the body back home instead of the soldier being unknown. The tourists wanted the, “sublimity of a battle scene.” (pg. 85). I find this odd and sad because this is where people had died. Families are dealing with loss while tourists are curious about the battle scene. The scavengers wanted to rob the dead while the entrepreneurs wanted to rob the living. Both are horrible. The scavengers were completely disrespecting the dead and their families. The entrepreneurs were disrespecting the family during mourning. They were trying to take money away from people dealing with loss and I find it horrible. As one soldier complained, “People come from all parts of the country. Stare at us but do not find time to do anything.” (pg. 85).
In response to Nina: I agree with you that the loved ones of fallen soldier’s were welcome. I also agree that the tourists and scavengers should not have been at the battlefields. However, I partly disagree with you about the coffin makers and embalmers. I feel that mostly they were entrepreneurs that were trying to rip families off. They were charging families a lot to have the body embalmed or for the coffin. I think that they would be more welcome if their prices would have been more reasonable instead of taking advantage of mourners.
There were a lot of people that were attracted to the battle field after the fighting ceased. Some of these people included friends and family of soldiers, and embalmers. Families came to the battle field after the war ended for different reasons. They wanted to ensure the indentity of the soldiers like is stated on page 93- "Families sought to see their lost loved ones in as lifelike a state as possible, not just to be certain of their identity but also to bid them farewell." Families also came to the battle field to bury their loved ones. Embalmers came to the battle field to collect unknown dead bodies, preserve them, and then put them on display. I feel that families had the right to visit the battlefield after the war to see if their loved ones were dead and if they were to bury them and say good bye. I do not feel that the embalmers had the right to visit the battle field after the war because they were just disrespecting the dead soldiers.
I agree with you. I do not think that the battle field should have been a sort of tourist attraction. I think it would have been disrespectful to be a family member who just lost a loved one and see all these unknown people either trying to sell their way into people (like embalmers and coffin makers) or see the battle field for no apparent reason.
After most battles during the Civil War, many different people, for all different reasons, flocked to tour battlefields. Many of these people were ordinary civilians desperate to find their lost kin. Some succeeded, but many didn’t. In my opinion, the people looking for their dead had every right to be there. The other people that came to battlefields after the battle was over were civilians that were trying to make a quick and easy buck. These people included embalmers that were trying to make money off of the civilians that succeeded in finding bodies, [pg. 97] coffin makers, entrepreneurs that helped civilians locate bodies, and worst of all, robbers that took dead soldiers’ possessions also flocked to the sites of battle. I have nothing wrong with any of these people, except for the pushy embalmers, and the body robbers. First of all, the embalmers didn’t have to be pushy at all, if a body needed to be embalmed, the customers would come to them. There was no need to make the civilians looking for their fallen soldiers any more uncomfortable than they already were. And the thing that really makes me dislike the embalmers was the fact that they would go and take dead bodies right out of the field for “practice.” This was awful because some people could not find their dead kin because of these horrible acts committed by the embalmers. And then there are the robbers. Why would they even think of robbing the very soldiers that were trying to protect the robber’s nation’s cause? Families looking for kin might not have even been able to identify the fallen because of these people. A soldier could have had his entire head blown off, and the only way to identify him was through his possessions. The thieves practically stole the identity of some of the fallen during the Civil War.
In response to Blake Naito: I agree with many of Blake’s points. The first being his thought on the grave robbers. He says that the robbers are terrible because they were stealing from the men who were killed trying to defend what they believed in. I completely agree. These thieves were robbing from their nation’s soldiers that were fighting for the robbers’ freedom. Blake also explains about the civilians that came to simply tour the battlefield. He puts it well when he says that this is “disgusting” and that the dead bodies should be remembered and honored, and not looked at like someone was looking in a museum. I agree with Blake, these soldiers’ bodies should be respected because they gave their lives for these tourists, and in my opinion, coming to see them in their mangled condition, is a disgrace to the nation and all of its fallen.
Response to Austin: I agree with the points in your post about how embalmer’s businesses caused discomfort for civilians, and how thieves in addition to robbing soldier’s possessions also took their identities. There’s no doubt that you have to be pretty low in society to rob a dead soldier’s body, as those thieves did. However though I don’t agree with all of your post, and disagree with your idea of allowing citizens in search of a body into a battlefield. It’s hard for me to imagine that after a battle is fought citizens would swarm the battlefield inspecting and turning over soldier’s bodies just in order to find a particular one. To me after a battle is fought I think the battlefield becomes almost untouchable to citizens, and only those who fought there should be allowed in. By entering these battlefields shortly after they had been fought in citizens just disturbed the soldiers who now lay there, even if they were just searching for a body. My opinion is every citizen should stay out of these battlefields out of respect to the soldiers who died there, until they have been cleaned up.
In your last post you said that citizens shouldn't go on to the battlefield afterward. I strongly agree with you. I believe that going out and searching bodies is wrong. Minutes after death the body is being tossed over and carelessly handled because its not the right person. I too believe that citizens should not go on to the battlefield.
After fighting ceased, the battlefields still had many people on them. Most of these people were family members there to "reclaim bodies, encase them in coffins, and escort them home." (pg. 85) But not everyone that came to the battlefields were there for that reason. Scavengers, coffin makers, and embalmers were all there to make personal profit. They made their money by taking from the living and the dead. Tourists from all over the country cam to see the aftermath of the battle. They came to "gratify their morbid curiosity." Some soldiers complained about how they stood and watched the dead and the dying. In my opinion, no one except for soldiers and doctors should be on the battlefield. It should be the military's job to sort bodies for family. And people should not be able to make their living off of soldiers that gave their lives for their countries. The tourist should go to a memorial to respect the soldiers rather than standing an watching the horrors of battle.
Civilians and robbers were the main one's who were attracted to battlefiel's after the fighting has stopped. Families went throught the fields, searching for loved one's and determined to bring them home for a proper burial. Others went out to collect bodies, put them in coffins, then send them home to families to be buried properly. Robbers sometimes went to the battlefields to rob the dead. Even tourists would show up in hope of experiencing the "sublimity of a battle scene" "or as one disgusted soldier put it, "gratifying their morbid curiousity". (pg 85)
Response to Nina: You argued that “tourists that were there were not welcome...because that was a sacred place where families came to mourn, not be speculated like caged animals,” and if tourists wanted to embrace the experience, they should’ve “joined the war themselves.” I agree and disagree. I think that while tourists scavenged the dead bodies, they focused on the battlefield and the bodies as a whole, and the mob mentality of the dead and their kin lessened the negative effect that tourists had on the sacredness of the whole battlefield. Also, when a soldier fights for such a public cause, I don’t think they should be recognized in such a private way. I think that they should not be speculated “like caged animals,” but rather have their lives and efforts be appreciated by all. Do get me wrong, I still think that anybody who comes to just enjoy the scene has some serious problems and should not be at the battlefields.
Many people came to the battlefields after the battle was over. Most civilians that were looking for loved ones not wanting them to die alone. A lot of them liked to be there to identify the bodies. It was a better ending for the family seeing their loved one gone instead of just hearing about it. I’m sure it made them feel better actually knowing the body was identified correctly. In some cases the body could have been misidentified and the family could have thought the person was dead when they actually weren’t. This is totally understandable. It makes perfect sense that the family would want to know what occurred. However, another type of person that was drawn to the battlefield was scavengers that searched to rob the dead. Many might have come to steal the guns or any of the supplies on the soldier’s person. In my opinion these people were extremely disrespectful. Any personal items with the soldier should try to get back to the family. Many different people made their way to the battlefields for many different reasons.
After battle there were many people that came to the battlefields that included, tourists, civilians, robbers, and embalmers. Most of the people who came were friends and family who were desperate to find their loved ones. Tourists were "attracted by the hope of experiencing the 'sublimity of a battle scene.'" (pg. 85) Robbers came to steal from the dead soldiers and embalmers came to make business from the mourning families. Out of all of these people, I feel that the civilians had the right to be there because they had come to find their sons, husbands, and brothers. They had come in hope of finding them alive or injured, rather than dead. The other people that came, did not do so out of love, but came because of curiosity and greed. Clearly, I believe that the friends and family of the soldiers had more of right to be on the battlefield after a battle.
In response to Ben Grote (his response to Austin):
You made a really interesting point about how you feel that, "every citizen should stay out of these battlefields out of respect to the soldiers who died there, until they have been cleaned up." At first when I read your post I disagreed completely, only because if I were a soldier's family, I would want to find the ones that I loved. However, I liked how you mentioned that, "after a battle is fought I think the battlefield becomes almost untouchable to citizens, and only those who fought there should be allowed in." I completely agree, it's almost as if the battlefield after a fight is a sanctuary for the soldiers, or they're resting place. It almost feels as if the soldiers should have been properly buried in the battlefield because that's where they made their mark. Once again Ben I think you made a great point and it totally switched my opinion.
I agree with you that the only people that should have been able to come to the battlefield are civilians that were destined to find their loved ones. In my opinion, I also favor tourists coming to the battlefields. (Tourists were "attracted by the hope of experiencing the 'sublimity of a battle scene.'" (pg. 85) The tourists are eye witnesses of battlefields, therefore historians can collect information based upon what the visitors/tourists seen which help gives better detail on the events. Now that I am looking back, I also agree with what Cameron Whiteside stated about "tourists scavenged the dead bodies, they focused on the battlefield and the bodies as a whole.."
Civilians were the main people attracted to battlefields. "Besides relatives in search of kin, there were scavengers seeking to rob the dead, entrepreneurial coffin makers and embalmers, and swarms of tourists" (p.85) Relatives did not want their loved ones, who had died, to be buried and unmarked in a grave. They then went to search for their fallen kin. I understand why people would do this, although I do not understand why thieves, coffin makers, and embalmers would go. Sure it is so they can steel keepsakes then sell them for money, and to just make a profit. That is just wrong. To rob the dead of their possessions and to bury them unmarked. After the soldiers had fought and died for what they believe in, this is their fate? Although some of the embalmers and coffin makers were trying to let the soldiers be honored and sent back home, but not all. The battlefields should be a place to remember for the many soldiers giving up their lives for what they believe, not a place to make money. The Fields should be commemorated.
I fully agree with what you are saying. I like how you said " for the tourists, I honestly think it’s kind of disgusting, wanting to see dead, dying, and decaying soldiers, laying on a bloody field." It is disgusting, and I like how you put that in your post. I hadn't thought about that. I overall really liked your post.
When you say that “tourists are eye witnesses of battlefields,” are soldiers and their families and doctors not sufficient eye witnesses? In my opinion, historians would be more likely to ask soldiers, families, and other people who had to clean up/were present at the battlefield (like doctors, embalmers, etc.) about the events. You also say that you agree with Cameron when he said “tourists scavenged the dead bodies,” but you still favor tourists coming to the battlefield? When they scavenge the dead, the slain could now me unidentifiable forever: possessions that may have contained their names could be stolen by the tourists. I think it is weird that people would want to see death and that they would steal things from the soldiers as souvenirs. I believe that the only people who should be allowed at a battlefield should be families of the deceased and other people on official business (i.e. soldiers, people such as Whitman and Moore and their crew, etc.).
Jonah- Most the people who came to the battle field after the fighting were family members of soldiers looking for their kin in the dead of the battle field. They wanted to know the fate of their relatives and felt bad about others relatives being dead without a proper burial. I feel great admiration for these people and their contribution to history and respect for the deceased. Another group of people who scourged the battle field were scavengers and thieves. They would steel items from the dead for personal gain. Now modern thinking and culture would frown on these people, but I can't really because in all honesty I would most likely be right along side them. I wouldn't steel clothes off a dead man's back like it is mentioned some would; however, I adore memorable and exciting items such as the guns, medals, bullets. Simply put I would be a creepy person but true. Embalmers and coffin makers would be near by to help the families of the dead make the burial of their loved ones as comfortable as possible. I am inspired by their ability to do a useful profession and make a profit at the same time. The last group of people was simple there to take in the site of the aftermath of war. I don't particularly understand these people. They just seem like odd silly people if you ask me. Oh well I don't pretend to know how people of the 1860's thought of lived.
Jonah- in response to Gabby Pfeifer: I understand why you think it is wrong for the robbers to steal items that identify the soldiers and then burring them in unmarked graves. What I don't see is what is wrong with taking things like the soldiers’ guns, powder, and ammo. The dead aren't going to be using them and they can serve some use during a war time. Also I don't believe that the robbers would necessarily bury the soldiers in unmarked graves. They could simply leave the body to be identified by the people searching for their kin. Lastly, you left out what you thought about the tourists who just simply went and looked and didn't help the people searching for kin or to clear the field or any such thing.
There were many different types of people that came to the battlefields right after a battle. Families came to either see how their loved one was doing, or to reclaim the body and bring it safely home to a proper burial. I do not disagree with this action, but I also do not fully agree with it. One part of me says it’s ok to go see how loved ones are doing or to reclaim their body, but the other part of me says it's just a mob of people who have no idea where their loved one is, so they are frantically searching and stepping all over the bodies and crowding the place up. Another type of people that were attracted to the battlefield were the robbers and scavengers. I think this is so dishonorable to steal from a soldier who just died to save everyone, and yet, the people still aren’t pleased. Even after the soldier is dead, the scavengers want more. There were businessmen also on the battlefield; coffin makers and embalmers swarmed a battlefield. I’m split with this one too. They were there to help give the dead the most honorable burying, but then again they were asking mourning people who just lost their loved ones for money. This last visitor of the battlefield I almost disagree with as much as I do the scavengers. The tourists come to the battlefield to try to,” experience the ‘sublimity of a battle scene.’ “Well if they were so curious why don’t they do somebody a favor besides themselves for once and join the army? Then they could experience it firsthand instead of looking at the left-overs.
In response to Cameron W I liked how you compared the battlefields to an industry after the fighting had ceased. It’s true that there were tons of civilians that were attracted to it. Since there were people there for different reasons it ended up becoming like a small society. I also liked how you said, “…dead bodies left behind in battles were a way for people to connect with the war without actually holding a gun themselves.” I think many people went to the battlefields looking for answers and a way to better understand the war. It was the way they did it without joining the war themselves.
I completely agree with your thoughts on the tourists. I have the same opinion that the battlefield should have been treated like a memorial, not a tourist attraction. The soldiers there had died for their country and its citizens should not be disrespectful to them in their last moments. For many the battlefield was a final resting place and it should have been treated respectfully as cemeteries are. I personally don’t understand why people wanted to see the battlefields if they didn’t have to. The battlefields were a place of great turmoil and the horrific sights were almost too much to bear for the people who had to be there. There was no reason for tourists to see it too.
Among the first people to arrive on the battle field were civilians. These were the ones who were in search of loved ones or just curious. This is acceptable way to act after the battle. However, the ones who came to make a profit off of the fallen soldiers (i.e. scavengers, looters, coffin makers, and embalmers) are the worst of the worst. Some are there to steal from the dead while others seek to profit off of the grieving families. Battlefields are places of honor and respect and the scavengers and looters defiled the sacred ground that soldiers died for. The aftermath of a battlefield is no place for these types of people to be. The aftermath is a time for mourning and respect, not a time to seek wealth.
I never included the idea that the coffin makers were ripping people off with their prices and I am glad you said something about that. I do agree with you that the coffin makers would have been more welcome to be there if their prices weren't so ridiculous. I do hawever still think the coffin makers were welcome because they helped the families have a way to honorably take their loved one home.
As one soldier explained how he felt about the tourists he said that they were just "gratifying their morbid curiousity." I can understand where the soldier is coming from that he is offended that people would just look at a battlefield with amazement and wonder when actually it was a place of the worst conditions imaginable and the unbelievable numbers of deaths. I understand what you mean when you say that the soldier's deaths should be shown to the world to show how much suffering there was. I also agree that a pulic cause should be recognized publicly also. However, I believe that the recognization and "have their lives and effort appreciated by all" happen maybe a little longer after families get used to mourning for their loved ones. Not as they are just picking them up to take home.
The people who were attracted to battlefields were mostly civilians. They went to look and see if they could find relatives or friends. I think this is acceptable, because there is not really any way for them to find out who died in a battle except word of mouth. Therefore, it is understandable why they would want to go see the remains of a battle. It would be much better for someone to go and identify a body themselves than to have someone tell them a loved one was dead and for them to really be alive, or vice versa. I think it is okay for civilians to go look at a battlefield after a battle.
Civilians and fellow soldiers were drawn to the battle field. The civilains came for two reasons. First to find fallen family and friends and that is also why the soldiers went. But other came to rob the dead. I understand the families and friends coming but robbers, thats wrong. You are going to steal from a person after the sacrificed their life to protect you. I don't know what kind of person would do that.
I agree when you say that only doctors and soldiers should be on the battlefield. As long as they sort through the dead to find family members. There is no need to let strangers there when all they will do is steal. Its also wrong just for people to come to watch the dying die alone that is not right.
I agree with what you said about people who came to make a profit off of fallen soldiers being the worst of the worst. A battlefield is a place where a battle was just fought. A place where people died for what they believed in. I think that deserves a great deal of respect. I think it is very dishonorable and disrespectful for people to take advantage of an area where many people had just died in a huge fight for what they thought was right.
I was just basically saying that it is better to have numerous amounts of facts, and peoples different takes/inputs on the given situation. If I was put in the situation as a Historian, then I would want facts/documentations from more then the circle of "sufficient eye witnesses". Then again, the soldiers did "die for their country".
It seems that the curious, the entreprenuerial, and the mourning were the types of people found to roam the battlefield after a conflict. The curious found a battlefield morbidly exiting. To see what happens during a war was the entertainment for the day, even if it was scarring or tramatizing to witness. People went to battlefields for the experience of doing so; because it was so accessable. A war within a country makes the battles close to home, and thus, the homes close to battles. The use of death and violence for entertainment,in my opinion, was quite disrespectful. However, there were much greater wrongs commited during the war.
Another group that found a reason to search a battlefield of wounded and dead were the entrepreneurs. These men or women found that there was profit in war. One such group included the embalmers. This contraversial business consisted of preserving bodies for funeral or shipment. These men or women were perhaps more corrupt in they're reasoning for examining a battlefield, for through death, ironically, they made a living. These people were the least morally good out of all Civil War spectators.
Lastly, those who cared and mourned for the dead could also be found near battlefields after a struggle. The friends or family of a deceased soldier could be found waiting to take they're loved ones home. These genuinely caring men and women were the only people with a moral right to attend the aftermath of a battle, in my opinion, though they're arrival meant that the horrible had occured, a loved man had died. It would be of little interest to the grieving whether they're actions were moral, though they were.
I agree that a family should be allowed to retrieve they're deceased sons, brothers, or husbands, however, you also said that many who stole from the dead may have been searching for they're loved ones themselves. Is it then appropriate to let family, or those claiming to be family, to roam such battlegrounds? Perhaps it was a necessary evil, for those who did not commit the atrocity of thievery were allowed to retrieve they're family members. And perhaps the loss of the ability to search the field would lead to never finding a loved one. Yet it would also prevent desecration of the dead. I wonder, which is more valuable: a thousand found sons or a thousand undesecrated ones? I can't quite decide. It seems there is no right decision on this matter, only a better or worse one.
In response to ryan lynch I like how you mention how these men gave their lives for you and now there are men stealing from their dead bodies. It’s important to remember that a battlefield is a place of honor. It pretty unimaginable how someone could do that
The kinds of people attracted to the battle field after a battle were family members, robbers, civilians looking for "gratifying their morbid curiosity", fellow soldiers, embalmers, and coffin makers. first of all i think that the family members that went to the battle field had all the right in the world to go in search of their lost kin and to recover their bodies for embalming and burial services. Also i think that the robbers and entrepenouers that came to the battle fields were wrong because I believe that it is not right to use dead soldiers and their grieving families as a way to make money and it is also wrong to scavenge from the bodies of the deceased for clothes and equipment.
"Battle sites in fact became crowded with with civilians immediately after the cessation of hostilities."(pg.85). The battle sites were swarmed with civilians, family members, and even robbers. I think that the robbers are absolutely selfish and greedy. They took advantage of this terrible situation to get guns and other things that the soldiers had on them when they were killed. The civilians came to the battlefield after the fighting ceased so that they could identify the soldiers for friends or themselves. I think that these people were very strong in being able to swarm the fields directly after battle. Seeing all the blood and death would be very hard for anyone, especially the families and friends.
I agree with your statement. I think that it would be 10x easier to be with a family member. It would be extremely hard though to witness their suffering.
Civillians were deffinately a majority of the battlefield visitors after wars/ battles, as well as family and scavangers. Civillians tended to visit the battlefield for various reasons, one of them being the hope to find a fellow soldier or family member. Another would be to steel from the deceased or otherwise incapable of defending themselves do to injury. I believe that it shows great respect to the fallen for their commrades, friends, and family members to visit the scene of their death and to in the end give them a proper burail... However it is completely obsured for others to visit the battlefield with all intent to steel bodies and/ or belongings.
Some of the people that were drawn to the battle fields were people looking for fallen family members or maybe even some soldiers who were still alive and needed to be tended to, which is only natural. But there were also scavengers who came to search the bodies for valuable things that they could sell; which is acceptable because the dead had no use for those things anymore. But in a perfect world, the dead soldier’s belongings should go to the family but there was no possible way for the government to search each body and send all the soldiers things back to his family.
In response to leephan: I agree with you that the families were the only ones who had the right to be looking for fallen soldiers after a battle. And if they didn't get their in time the scavengers would possibly already have taken their beloved one's belongings and it would take away from the family's clearence.
Civilians were the main people attracted to battlefields. These civilians included “besides relatives in search of kin, there were scavengers seeking to rob the dead, entrepreneurial coffin makers and embalmers, and a swarm of tourists attracted by the hope of experiencing the ‘sublimity of a battle scene’ or simply, as one disgusted soldier put it, ‘gratifying their morbid curiosity.” (p.85) I completely understand why the relatives would be there: to find their loved ones to take back to their home. However, the scavengers, whether in search of mere keepsakes, or items to sell for money, I believe it is wrong. They are robbing soldiers who laid down their lives for what they believed in. For some of the coffin makers and embalmers, they were simply trying to honor the dead, and help allow them to be taken back to their homes, because some trains wouldn’t let dead soldiers on. Nevertheless, there were others simply trying to make or swindle money, such as with Hutton who was imprisoned. He allegedly “recovered and embalmed soldiers without permission and then demanded payment from grieving families, threatening to disinter or refuse to return the bodies if their conditions were not met.” (p.97) Finally, for the tourists, I honestly think it’s kind of disgusting, wanting to see dead, dying, and decaying soldiers, laying on a bloody field. A place of tragedy and carnage should not be a tourist attraction that people flock to see. It should be more of a somber memorial, a place to remember, not gape at.
ReplyDelete"Battle sites in fact became crowded with with civilians immediately after the cessation of hostilities."(pg.85) After the fighting on the battle fields ended, the civilians near and far away would go and search for loved ones. Because of the poor records kept, family members did not want their soldiers to end up being buried nameless and alone. The other people who were attracted to the battle fields after the fighting were embalmers. "Families sought to see their lost loved ones in as lifelike a state as possible..."(pg.93) Embalming a body was quite costly back then. However, so many civilians wanted this that the embalmers became very rich quickly. I don't think any civilians or embalmers should have come to the battle fields. After the fighting, those grounds became a place where soldiers should be remembered. Unless the civilians were there to help bury all those soldiers, it was not a place to be.
ReplyDeleteAll kinds of people were attracted to battlefields after the fighting ceased: families coming to collect their dead, volunteers, "scavengers seeking to rob the dead" (85), embalmers and coffin makers, tourists, and other civilians. While there are many ways to justify the actions and motives of the masses of people who came to the battlefields, I personally agree with the sentiment of one soldier who described the people as "gratifying their morbid curiosity" (85). I understand the people who came in search of loved ones and the volunteers who came to bury the dead, but the others had no right to be there. A soldier in a field hospital at Antietam said, “People come from all parts of the country. Stare at us but do not find time to do anything” (85). Anyone who came to the battlefields should have been assisting in the effort to clean up the carnage and deliver bodies to families, not gawking at the devastation. At a place where so many men lost their lives, a certain amount of respect should have been displayed; be it by cleaning up the mess or staying away from the battlefield altogether. There should not have been so much disturbance in what served as many soldiers' final resting place.
ReplyDelete“Battle sites in fact became crowded with civilians immediately after the cessation of hostilities: besides relatives in search of kin, there were scavengers seeking to rob the dead, entrepreneurial coffin makers and embalmers, and swarms of tourists attracted by the hope of experiencing the sublimity of a battle scene.”(pg.85) Based on that information relatives, thieves, coffin makers, embalmers, and tourists were attracted to battlefields after fighting ceased, my thought is none of them belonged there. After all the fighting and death that occurred on those fields a hallowed area is created where civilians should not enter out of respect for all the soldiers. Every one of those civilians could have been somewhere other then the revered battlefield. Relatives, coffin makers, and embalmers belonged in nearby towns where relatives could inquire about the condition of their kin, and coffin makers and embalmers could still make money from grieving relatives. The thieves and tourists should be at home instead of disrespecting soldiers, and treating a horrible war as entertainment. Every one of those civilians had a place to be other than a battlefield where they only disrespected all the soldiers who died there.
ReplyDeleteBattlefields were swarmed with families in search of their kin, scavengers seeking to rob the deceased, entrepreneurial coffin makers and embalmers. Tourists were attracted to the battlefield in hope of the experience of war. Many wanted to seek their morbid curiosity.MAny families wanted to repossess the body of their loved one in order to be certain they were truly dead and not just been misidentified. I believe that out of the the respect of our fallen soldiers a secure area should of been made and regular citizens should not be allowed on the battlefield because it is very disrespectful to fallen soldier, as their are other ways for families to claim the deceased.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Ben
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ben that the battlefield was not a place for civilians or any one. There was other places for embalmers and coffin makers for them to still make money. I believe that the battlefield is sacred for the soldiers. The fallen soldiers could be delivered to a designed place for families to claim, therefore nothing could be disturbed and the property of the soldier could be returned to the family.
Every type of civilian visited the battlefields after fighting ceased. There was almost an industry based around dead bodies at the time. Whether people were there to steal them or to look at them or to cry over them or to study them or to put them in a casket and shovel dirt onto them, these bodies were the center of attention upon many occasions. I think people were fascinated by the mysteries of war, and dead bodies left behind in battles were a way for people to connect with the war without actually holding a gun themselves. Contrary to what the people before me have said and sort of to what Faust said, I’m not sure how much families really expected to reconnect with the body of their loved ones. I know that visiting the battlefield would terminate a very undesired sense of discomfort, but I also think that expecting to die comes along with expecting to not be found; the records and level of communication just weren’t of sufficient quality. I would think that the percentage of visitors to the aftermaths of battles wouldn’t be as high in friends and family as the earlier posts imply.
ReplyDeleteAfter fighting ceased battlefields were swarmed by many different types of people. The main “group” consisted of family members looking for loved ones that may have died during the fight. “Besides relatives in search of kin, there were scavengers seeking to rob the dead, entrepreneurial coffin makers and embalmers, and swarms of tourists attracted by the hope of experiencing the ‘sublimity of a battle scene’ or simply, as one soldier put it, ‘gratifying their morbid curiosity.’”(85). The most logical, in my opinion, were the family members searching for their loved ones. With the lack of both governments keeping accurate records of who died, it is logical that family members wanted to go and look for themselves. However, I am not sure it was smart for relatives to crowd the battlefields especially, if they weren’t sure if their loved one was fighting. All the other people, with the exception of relatives, had no right to be there. War is a scary, depressing time, and to rob from soldiers, or to rob from their families by setting outrageously high prices on coffins, is unacceptable. I understand the curiosity everyone had about war but the armies needed their space especially after a particularly gruesome battle.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Blake:
ReplyDeleteI agree with your post. I like how you mentioned how embalmers would steal from the dead. I also agree with your idea of how tourists’ swarming the battle field just to see dead bodies is disgusting. Overall, I really liked your post and agree with all your different aspects as to who should, and should not, be at battlefields.
The types of people that were attracted to battlefields after fighting ceased were families, robbers, and fellow soldiers. The families went to the battlefields to collect the corpse of a loved one. Robbers came to the war zone to take money or personal items belonging to the carcass of the soldier. Also, comrades in regiments would come to keep a promise to the deceased. I think the families and friends made during the war had a good reason for going to the battlefields, but robbers had no place there. The men were already robbed of life they didn't need to be robbed of anything else.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Kinsey:
ReplyDeleteYou said that "I believe that out of the the respect of our fallen soldiers a secure area should of been made and regular citizens should not be allowed on the battlefield because it is very disrespectful to fallen soldier, as their are other ways for families to claim the deceased". Were you saying that families of fallen soldiers should not have been allowed to visit the battlefields? I think that it would be disrespectful to the families not to let them come and collect their dead because it would be denying them the closure they may have been looking for in performing this act.
Many civilians were attracted to battlefields after the killing for different reasons. "Most civilians appeared out of earnest desperation to locate and care for loved ones." These family members came to ensure the proper burial of there loved ones. Therefore, they had a purpose of coming to the battlefield. Other civilians came to the battlefields out of curiosity. They came as tourists to experience the historic setting. Some civilians came to the battlefield for profitable reasons such as coffin selling and robbing the dead. These people had little if any respect for the fallen soldiers. They should have not disrespected the battlefield and stayed home.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Rachel,
ReplyDeleteI agree with the family members being the most logical. They had a morally good purpose to go to the battlefield unlike the tourists and robbers.
Response to Kinsey
ReplyDeleteWhen you said there are other ways to claim the deceased, what other ways are you talking about? If you were part of that family with the fallen soldier, wouldn't you want to see what happened as soon as possible? Of course the grounds where those soldiers had fallen should be memorials but those families also need some relief. Also, what tourists were attracted to the fields? As far as I know, people from all over the world did not come to see the battlefields after the fighting. You did make some good points though.
the main type of people atracted to battlefeilds were family members to search for there relitives dead bodies so they can burry them. The secon type of people that would show up at battlefeilds to "rob the dead"(pg 85). The third and final type of people that showed up at battlefeilds were tourists "gratifying their curiosity" said one soilder. My thoughts on the family comming to collect tthier dead is completely ok, but the grave robbers and tourist shouldn't even be around the battlefields and they are completely disreaspectful.
ReplyDeletePeople of all sorts were attracted to the battlefields and came with a range of intentions such as: claiming bodies, robbing soldiers and making money off those who had lost a loved one. In my opinion a battlefield is a sacred place, like a cemetery or memorial, and should not be disturbed. There were families trying to collect the bodies of their family members. They believed burying them was a respectful thing to do, but what if their young soldier’s comrades weren’t fortunate enough to have a family to take them home? Should they be buried separately, unequally? When they died together in the same way? I think not. The soldiers were treated equally before death and should remain treated equally after. I also believe the families caused unwanted mayhem on the battlefield where nurses and doctors were tending to the wounded. Perhaps two different families both thought one dead soldier was their son, this would cause quite an upheaval in the final moments of a dying soldier.
ReplyDeleteAnother kind of person attracted to the battlefield was, “scavengers seeking to rob the dead”(p.85). I found this particularly disrespectful towards the heroes whom had just died protecting the rights of their country. The scavengers were robbing the very people protecting them, which I found incredibly insensitive.
Battlefields were filled with all kinds of people, "relatives in search of kin, there were scavengers seeking to rob the dead, enterpreneurial coffin makers and embalmers, and swarms of tourists attracted by the hope of experiencing the "sublimity of a battle scene" or simply, as one disgusted soldier put it, "gratifying their morbid curiosity." (pg.85) Many people came to the battle fields after the war. Some came to search hoplessly for thier family members, others searched the bodies for anything of calue they could take from them. Whatever their reason was I'm sure they sight of all the slaughtered bodies changed them in some way. My thoughts on these people are that they are trying to find some kind of reason for all these casualties, and I'm sure they didnt find one. Some had justification for going through the battlefields and others did not.
ReplyDeleteIn Response to Brenna,
ReplyDeleteI completly agree with your post. And you bring up a good question. What would happen if two families both believed that one of the bodies was that of their son? Maybe the battle fields shouldn't have been quite as open as they were. I also agree that the battlefield was sacred and for people to just be going through there searching around for their family members is kind of wrong. Also it's really sad that people would actually rob these men after all they did for them.
In response to Samantha:
ReplyDeleteI could be wrong with this answer to your quesiton, What would happen if two amilies both believed taht one of the bodies was that of their son, but I believe that through all of their uniforms and such clothing that something visible might say there name. This was some 150 years ago so I could be wrong but now I believe they have something so they can be ID'd. Also the soldiers fellow commrades could identify who the dead soldier when they explain to the families how their son had died if they come quick enough. Just some ideas on how that problem could have been prevented.
There were many different type of people that fled to the battlefield after the fighting had ceased. Some belonged, some did not. Families went to reclaim bodies, tourists, scavengers,"seeking to rob the dead," embalmers, volunteers, and coffin makers. Of all of these different civilians only the families of the fallen and volunteers to bury the unclaimed bodies should be allowed to be there. Unfortunelty there was no way to keep tourists, embalmers, volunteers, scavengers, and coffin makers out of the battlefields therefore making the battlefield overly crowded. Volunteers had a right to be there because they were helping. All the others were just trying to benifit themselves which is wrong at this time. Many of the families were happy they came to see there ded son. Bodwitch stated when he was able to reunite with his dead son that," There he was able to gain some comfor by hearing from Nat's fellow officers "beautiful things" about his courage and his profession of faith and hope as he died."(pg 89) These are the only two types of civilians that should be allowed on the battlefield.
ReplyDeleteCivilians were the main people that came to a battlefield after the fighting. “battle sites in fact became crowded with civilians.” [85] These people came with multiple purposes. Some were there to scavenge for expensive articles that could be found on a dead soldiers person, others were there for the more noble cause of finding their kinsmen. “there were scavengers seeking to rob the dead” [85] These people had no respect for what had just happened. They probably either had had a relative die that they could not find and therefore were taking it out on others, or they had no connections with anyone in the army, and did not know what the people there to find their relatives felt like.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Brenna Hjelle
ReplyDeleteI agree with many of your points including that battle fields should be treated with respect, however, in this time when death was so important, shouldn’t the family have given the fallen soldier a proper burial? What about the wounded. Though many of their comrades, may not have received their ars moriendi, if the family could have provided it, why should they have been denied that right. In this world, no matter how hard we try, people are not equal. Because one man was hurt, that does not mean that all of the rest should have to suffer.
Many people were attracted to battlefields after the fighting ended. Civilians were the people who came flocking to the areas. The majority of the people were looking for bodies of family or friends to reclaim and bring home to bury. Others were scavengers, thieves, looking to rob the bodies of the dead before the were buried or left to rot. "Entrepreneurial coffin makers and embalmers" made their way to battlefields to offer their services to the soldiers and families left surviving the dead. Tourists came, "attracted by the hope of experiencing the 'sublimity of a battle scene'" or simply to gratify their "morbid curiosity" of war and death. I can completely understand the reasoning families had, going to battlefields to look for loved ones. That is natural, to want to find the person who died and bring them home to give them the proper respect and burial. But I don't understand why anyone would want to go to a battlefield after the fighting is over just to see it, rob the dead or dying, or to take advantage of the people who have traveled from far away who have come to find their dead loved ones. How could anyone think that that would be respectful. Yes, there is a bit of morbid curiosity around battles and what happens afterward, but the surviving soldiers and the families of the deceased probably didn't appreciate all the people just watching them, getting a kick out of being on a battlefield. The dead are dead, and should have been left with their families and comrades, not out in the open as a tourist attraction.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Sam Cook:
ReplyDeleteThese people were changed. How could anyone not be changed after seeing the horrible aftermath of Gettysburg or Bull Run; it just isn't possible to see that kind of thing and not be changed. I agree, not everyone had a good justification for being on the battlefields. The families and comrades, yes; scavengers and tourists, no.
After the fighting ceased, civilians of all kinds flooded the battlefields for their individual purposes. Many came to volunteer to help with the work of death. Many families also arrived in search of their loved ones. These are the people that had an actual purpose, reason, and right to be on the fields. They came to care and aid for the suffering soldiers and also to reclaim bodies to escort home. In addition, "there were scavengers seeking to rob the dead, entrepreneurial coffin makers and embalmers, and swarms of tourists attracted by the hope of experiencing the "sublimity of a battle scene" or simply, as one disgusted soldier put it, "gratifying their morbid curiosity"" (pg. 85). These civilians, however, roamed the areas in hope of a gain for themselves. Whether it was money, clothes, of even a scene, they obviously did not come to assist the soldiers. None of these people needed to be there because they had no purpose on the field. Without them, locating handicapped soldiers would've been much easier to ones who did have a purpose.
ReplyDeleteIn chapter 3 Drew Gilpin Faust talked about who after the war the people most attracted to the battle fields were the entrepreneurs. The people most attracted to the battle fields were the "embalmers" these men made lots of their money from being near the mayhem. These men were horrible for the way they did their work. They were like vultures traveling and acting like the dead were animals that had fell in the desert.They weren't very kind men and shouldn't have been allowed near the fallen men. The people that had hired them to find loved ones bodies were cheated out of their money. I felt like these me were incredible for how they could act in this kind of manner and not care at all.
ReplyDeleteIn response to leepan. You are right the families did go to the battle sights. But most were there to retrieve the bodies of the dead. More of the help that I felt was needed not on the old battle sights but where the new battles were being fought. I really liked when you mentioned how the people there to claim bodies and help out had a real reason to be there it was a great thing to mention. The part of the people that also came to rob the dead was a part i felt strongly about, the people that made the mistake of treating the dead with such dis honor was an issue in the book i thought happened way to much. You made some very good points I really liked that you brought these points up.
ReplyDeleteThe scene after a recent battle was filled with all kinds of people. Civilians arrived looking for the bodies of their loved ones and to help with cleaning up. Grave robbers were there looking to take advantage of the large number of dead. Doctors and nurses tended to the wounded in army hospitals, as well as commission workers looking for the dead and tending to the living. This picture is sad and filled with the dead, the greiving, the greedy, and those attempting to help ease the pain of others. It was busy with the great amount of people there and many of them were just getting in the way. There was no easy way to clean up after battle, and most of the people on the battlefield were just trying to help with this task. I think that everyone with the exception of the grave robbers were good people who were just trying to help and had a right to be there.
ReplyDeleteCivilians were attracted to battlefields after fighting ceased. Just average, everyday people went to the sites of the battles, but some were there for different reasons. Many people were the families of soldiers. They were searching for lost loved ones, hoping to take their bodies home with them, or to care for them if they were injured. People robbing the dead bodies also went to the battlefields, as well as tourists. They were curious to find out what was going on, and went to take in the battle scene and feel like they were a part of the war. Agents helping families were there. Embalmers were also at battlefields, and for wrong reasons. I feel bad for the families coming to collect their dead kin (or sent their agents). It would be horrible to see the masses of dead and dying bodies knowing one of them may be your loved one. As for the tourists, it is horrible that they came just to gawk at the horrific aftermath of battle. Shame on them! I feel the same way about the embalmers who were trying to rip people off and scam them. A battlefield should be seen with respect and as a memorial to fallen heroes.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Kinsey
ReplyDeleteI don't think a secure area would have been practical after a battle. People "in charge" of the battlefields were too busy caring for the living to think about scavengers or tourists and their bad reasons to be at the battlefields. They had to keep the living alive and not worry too much about the ones already dead.
During the aftermath of battle many different groups of people gathered on the battle field. These groups of people included citizens, relatives of soldiers, thieves, coffin makers and embalmers. The citizens searching for lost family members and soldiers have reason to be on a battlefield and I understand their cause to find someone they loved, however others have no right to be walking among the dead and dying. I believe thieves and robbers that come to scavenge off the dead soldiers are wrong and are disrespecting their country. These soldiers sacrificed their lives for their faith and country. Tourists also have no place on the battlefield. “A Massachusetts soldier who lay suffering in an Antietam field hospital after the amputation of his leg clearly resented these gawkers. People come from all parts of the country. Stare at us but do not find time to do anything, he complained” (85). The embalmers and coffin makers may also have good intentions but making a business off of dead soldiers is disrespectful and wrong. The battle field is a sacred place where great sacrifices and tragedy took place. It should be honored for all the fallen and treated as a final resting place for hundreds of lives.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Cameron W:
ReplyDeleteI agree with Cameron about discomfort from family members on the battlefield. Finding a lost family member in the middle of a battlefield would be a horrible sight. The aftermath of the battle and the environment would have affected the corpse. Also the probably that the family could find the body out of hundreds is small. I beleive many would refrain from coming at all. It would be an awful sight to see the remains of a lost family member. However, they have more right to be on the battlefield than anyone else.
At the battlefields after the war, families and civilians came to find their loved ones or return bodies to friends who lost someone also. However, there were also "scavengers seeking to rob the dead, entreprenuerial coffin makers and embalmers, and swarms of tourists attracted by the hope of experiencing the 'sublimity of a battle scene.'" (pg. 85) I obviously believe that the loved ones of fallen soldiers were welcome to those battlefield sites because they were just trying to bring their soldiers home and bury them. The coffin makers were also welcome there because they were trying to help families have a way to carry their loved ones home and providing them with a coffin for the burial. On the other hand, the body robbers should not have ever gone to the battle scene and more importantly taken the bodies. The tourists that were there were not welcome either because that was a sacred place where families came to mourn, not be speculated like caged animals. As one soldier put it, the tourists were just there "gratifying their morbid curiosity." (pg. 85) Battlefields were a place of great historical meaning and mourning, not for people who were only there to experience a battle scene. If they wanted to get the actual feeling they should have joined the war themselves.
ReplyDeleteThe types of people attracted to battlefields after fighting ceased included civilians, tourists, scavengers, and entrepreneurs. “most civilians appeared out of earnest desperation to locate and care for loved ones.” (pg. 85). I think that out of all these types of people, the civilians I understand them most for being at the battlefield. They wanted to be there for the death of their loved one and they wanted to send the body back home instead of the soldier being unknown. The tourists wanted the, “sublimity of a battle scene.” (pg. 85). I find this odd and sad because this is where people had died. Families are dealing with loss while tourists are curious about the battle scene. The scavengers wanted to rob the dead while the entrepreneurs wanted to rob the living. Both are horrible. The scavengers were completely disrespecting the dead and their families. The entrepreneurs were disrespecting the family during mourning. They were trying to take money away from people dealing with loss and I find it horrible. As one soldier complained, “People come from all parts of the country. Stare at us but do not find time to do anything.” (pg. 85).
ReplyDeleteIn response to Nina:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the loved ones of fallen soldier’s were welcome. I also agree that the tourists and scavengers should not have been at the battlefields. However, I partly disagree with you about the coffin makers and embalmers. I feel that mostly they were entrepreneurs that were trying to rip families off. They were charging families a lot to have the body embalmed or for the coffin. I think that they would be more welcome if their prices would have been more reasonable instead of taking advantage of mourners.
There were a lot of people that were attracted to the battle field after the fighting ceased. Some of these people included friends and family of soldiers, and embalmers. Families came to the battle field after the war ended for different reasons. They wanted to ensure the indentity of the soldiers like is stated on page 93- "Families sought to see their lost loved ones in as lifelike a state as possible, not just to be certain of their identity but also to bid them farewell." Families also came to the battle field to bury their loved ones. Embalmers came to the battle field to collect unknown dead bodies, preserve them, and then put them on display. I feel that families had the right to visit the battlefield after the war to see if their loved ones were dead and if they were to bury them and say good bye. I do not feel that the embalmers had the right to visit the battle field after the war because they were just disrespecting the dead soldiers.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jessi:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. I do not think that the battle field should have been a sort of tourist attraction. I think it would have been disrespectful to be a family member who just lost a loved one and see all these unknown people either trying to sell their way into people (like embalmers and coffin makers) or see the battle field for no apparent reason.
After most battles during the Civil War, many different people, for all different reasons, flocked to tour battlefields. Many of these people were ordinary civilians desperate to find their lost kin. Some succeeded, but many didn’t. In my opinion, the people looking for their dead had every right to be there. The other people that came to battlefields after the battle was over were civilians that were trying to make a quick and easy buck. These people included embalmers that were trying to make money off of the civilians that succeeded in finding bodies, [pg. 97] coffin makers, entrepreneurs that helped civilians locate bodies, and worst of all, robbers that took dead soldiers’ possessions also flocked to the sites of battle. I have nothing wrong with any of these people, except for the pushy embalmers, and the body robbers. First of all, the embalmers didn’t have to be pushy at all, if a body needed to be embalmed, the customers would come to them. There was no need to make the civilians looking for their fallen soldiers any more uncomfortable than they already were. And the thing that really makes me dislike the embalmers was the fact that they would go and take dead bodies right out of the field for “practice.” This was awful because some people could not find their dead kin because of these horrible acts committed by the embalmers. And then there are the robbers. Why would they even think of robbing the very soldiers that were trying to protect the robber’s nation’s cause? Families looking for kin might not have even been able to identify the fallen because of these people. A soldier could have had his entire head blown off, and the only way to identify him was through his possessions. The thieves practically stole the identity of some of the fallen during the Civil War.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Blake Naito:
ReplyDeleteI agree with many of Blake’s points. The first being his thought on the grave robbers. He says that the robbers are terrible because they were stealing from the men who were killed trying to defend what they believed in. I completely agree. These thieves were robbing from their nation’s soldiers that were fighting for the robbers’ freedom. Blake also explains about the civilians that came to simply tour the battlefield. He puts it well when he says that this is “disgusting” and that the dead bodies should be remembered and honored, and not looked at like someone was looking in a museum. I agree with Blake, these soldiers’ bodies should be respected because they gave their lives for these tourists, and in my opinion, coming to see them in their mangled condition, is a disgrace to the nation and all of its fallen.
Response to Austin:
ReplyDeleteI agree with the points in your post about how embalmer’s businesses caused discomfort for civilians, and how thieves in addition to robbing soldier’s possessions also took their identities. There’s no doubt that you have to be pretty low in society to rob a dead soldier’s body, as those thieves did. However though I don’t agree with all of your post, and disagree with your idea of allowing citizens in search of a body into a battlefield. It’s hard for me to imagine that after a battle is fought citizens would swarm the battlefield inspecting and turning over soldier’s bodies just in order to find a particular one. To me after a battle is fought I think the battlefield becomes almost untouchable to citizens, and only those who fought there should be allowed in. By entering these battlefields shortly after they had been fought in citizens just disturbed the soldiers who now lay there, even if they were just searching for a body. My opinion is every citizen should stay out of these battlefields out of respect to the soldiers who died there, until they have been cleaned up.
In response to Ben:
ReplyDeleteIn your last post you said that citizens shouldn't go on to the battlefield afterward. I strongly agree with you. I believe that going out and searching bodies is wrong. Minutes after death the body is being tossed over and carelessly handled because its not the right person. I too believe that citizens should not go on to the battlefield.
After fighting ceased, the battlefields still had many people on them. Most of these people were family members there to "reclaim bodies, encase them in coffins, and escort them home." (pg. 85) But not everyone that came to the battlefields were there for that reason. Scavengers, coffin makers, and embalmers were all there to make personal profit. They made their money by taking from the living and the dead. Tourists from all over the country cam to see the aftermath of the battle. They came to "gratify their morbid curiosity." Some soldiers complained about how they stood and watched the dead and the dying. In my opinion, no one except for soldiers and doctors should be on the battlefield. It should be the military's job to sort bodies for family. And people should not be able to make their living off of soldiers that gave their lives for their countries. The tourist should go to a memorial to respect the soldiers rather than standing an watching the horrors of battle.
ReplyDeleteCivilians and robbers were the main one's who were attracted to battlefiel's after the fighting has stopped. Families went throught the fields, searching for loved one's and determined to bring them home for a proper burial. Others went out to collect bodies, put them in coffins, then send them home to families to be buried properly. Robbers sometimes went to the battlefields to rob the dead. Even tourists would show up in hope of experiencing the "sublimity of a battle scene" "or as one disgusted soldier put it, "gratifying their morbid curiousity". (pg 85)
ReplyDeleteResponse to Nina:
ReplyDeleteYou argued that “tourists that were there were not welcome...because that was a sacred place where families came to mourn, not be speculated like caged animals,” and if tourists wanted to embrace the experience, they should’ve “joined the war themselves.” I agree and disagree. I think that while tourists scavenged the dead bodies, they focused on the battlefield and the bodies as a whole, and the mob mentality of the dead and their kin lessened the negative effect that tourists had on the sacredness of the whole battlefield. Also, when a soldier fights for such a public cause, I don’t think they should be recognized in such a private way. I think that they should not be speculated “like caged animals,” but rather have their lives and efforts be appreciated by all. Do get me wrong, I still think that anybody who comes to just enjoy the scene has some serious problems and should not be at the battlefields.
Many people came to the battlefields after the battle was over. Most civilians that were looking for loved ones not wanting them to die alone. A lot of them liked to be there to identify the bodies. It was a better ending for the family seeing their loved one gone instead of just hearing about it. I’m sure it made them feel better actually knowing the body was identified correctly. In some cases the body could have been misidentified and the family could have thought the person was dead when they actually weren’t. This is totally understandable. It makes perfect sense that the family would want to know what occurred. However, another type of person that was drawn to the battlefield was scavengers that searched to rob the dead. Many might have come to steal the guns or any of the supplies on the soldier’s person. In my opinion these people were extremely disrespectful. Any personal items with the soldier should try to get back to the family. Many different people made their way to the battlefields for many different reasons.
ReplyDeleteAfter battle there were many people that came to the battlefields that included, tourists, civilians, robbers, and embalmers. Most of the people who came were friends and family who were desperate to find their loved ones. Tourists were "attracted by the hope of experiencing the 'sublimity of a battle scene.'" (pg. 85) Robbers came to steal from the dead soldiers and embalmers came to make business from the mourning families. Out of all of these people, I feel that the civilians had the right to be there because they had come to find their sons, husbands, and brothers. They had come in hope of finding them alive or injured, rather than dead. The other people that came, did not do so out of love, but came because of curiosity and greed. Clearly, I believe that the friends and family of the soldiers had more of right to be on the battlefield after a battle.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Ben Grote (his response to Austin):
ReplyDeleteYou made a really interesting point about how you feel that, "every citizen should stay out of these battlefields out of respect to the soldiers who died there, until they have been cleaned up." At first when I read your post I disagreed completely, only because if I were a soldier's family, I would want to find the ones that I loved. However, I liked how you mentioned that, "after a battle is fought I think the battlefield becomes almost untouchable to citizens, and only those who fought there should be allowed in." I completely agree, it's almost as if the battlefield after a fight is a sanctuary for the soldiers, or they're resting place. It almost feels as if the soldiers should have been properly buried in the battlefield because that's where they made their mark. Once again Ben I think you made a great point and it totally switched my opinion.
Shetterly,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the only people that should have been able to come to the battlefield are civilians that were destined to find their loved ones. In my opinion, I also favor tourists coming to the battlefields. (Tourists were "attracted by the hope of experiencing the 'sublimity of a battle scene.'" (pg. 85) The tourists are eye witnesses of battlefields, therefore historians can collect information based upon what the visitors/tourists seen which help gives better detail on the events. Now that I am looking back, I also agree with what Cameron Whiteside stated about "tourists scavenged the dead bodies, they focused on the battlefield and the bodies as a whole.."
Civilians were the main people attracted to battlefields. "Besides relatives in search of kin, there were scavengers seeking to rob the dead, entrepreneurial coffin makers and embalmers, and swarms of tourists" (p.85) Relatives did not want their loved ones, who had died, to be buried and unmarked in a grave. They then went to search for their fallen kin. I understand why people would do this, although I do not understand why thieves, coffin makers, and embalmers would go. Sure it is so they can steel keepsakes then sell them for money, and to just make a profit. That is just wrong. To rob the dead of their possessions and to bury them unmarked. After the soldiers had fought and died for what they believe in, this is their fate? Although some of the embalmers and coffin makers were trying to let the soldiers be honored and sent back home, but not all. The battlefields should be a place to remember for the many soldiers giving up their lives for what they believe, not a place to make money. The Fields should be commemorated.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Blake:
ReplyDeleteI fully agree with what you are saying. I like how you said " for the tourists, I honestly think it’s kind of disgusting, wanting to see dead, dying, and decaying soldiers, laying on a bloody field." It is disgusting, and I like how you put that in your post. I hadn't thought about that. I overall really liked your post.
In response to Rajaee’s response to Sophia:
ReplyDeleteWhen you say that “tourists are eye witnesses of battlefields,” are soldiers and their families and doctors not sufficient eye witnesses? In my opinion, historians would be more likely to ask soldiers, families, and other people who had to clean up/were present at the battlefield (like doctors, embalmers, etc.) about the events. You also say that you agree with Cameron when he said “tourists scavenged the dead bodies,” but you still favor tourists coming to the battlefield? When they scavenge the dead, the slain could now me unidentifiable forever: possessions that may have contained their names could be stolen by the tourists. I think it is weird that people would want to see death and that they would steal things from the soldiers as souvenirs. I believe that the only people who should be allowed at a battlefield should be families of the deceased and other people on official business (i.e. soldiers, people such as Whitman and Moore and their crew, etc.).
Jonah-
ReplyDeleteMost the people who came to the battle field after the fighting were family members of soldiers looking for their kin in the dead of the battle field. They wanted to know the fate of their relatives and felt bad about others relatives being dead without a proper burial. I feel great admiration for these people and their contribution to history and respect for the deceased. Another group of people who scourged the battle field were scavengers and thieves. They would steel items from the dead for personal gain. Now modern thinking and culture would frown on these people, but I can't really because in all honesty I would most likely be right along side them. I wouldn't steel clothes off a dead man's back like it is mentioned some would; however, I adore memorable and exciting items such as the guns, medals, bullets. Simply put I would be a creepy person but true. Embalmers and coffin makers would be near by to help the families of the dead make the burial of their loved ones as comfortable as possible. I am inspired by their ability to do a useful profession and make a profit at the same time. The last group of people was simple there to take in the site of the aftermath of war. I don't particularly understand these people. They just seem like odd silly people if you ask me. Oh well I don't pretend to know how people of the 1860's thought of lived.
Jonah- in response to Gabby Pfeifer: I understand why you think it is wrong for the robbers to steal items that identify the soldiers and then burring them in unmarked graves. What I don't see is what is wrong with taking things like the soldiers’ guns, powder, and ammo. The dead aren't going to be using them and they can serve some use during a war time. Also I don't believe that the robbers would necessarily bury the soldiers in unmarked graves. They could simply leave the body to be identified by the people searching for their kin. Lastly, you left out what you thought about the tourists who just simply went and looked and didn't help the people searching for kin or to clear the field or any such thing.
ReplyDeleteThere were many different types of people that came to the battlefields right after a battle. Families came to either see how their loved one was doing, or to reclaim the body and bring it safely home to a proper burial. I do not disagree with this action, but I also do not fully agree with it. One part of me says it’s ok to go see how loved ones are doing or to reclaim their body, but the other part of me says it's just a mob of people who have no idea where their loved one is, so they are frantically searching and stepping all over the bodies and crowding the place up. Another type of people that were attracted to the battlefield were the robbers and scavengers. I think this is so dishonorable to steal from a soldier who just died to save everyone, and yet, the people still aren’t pleased. Even after the soldier is dead, the scavengers want more. There were businessmen also on the battlefield; coffin makers and embalmers swarmed a battlefield. I’m split with this one too. They were there to help give the dead the most honorable burying, but then again they were asking mourning people who just lost their loved ones for money. This last visitor of the battlefield I almost disagree with as much as I do the scavengers. The tourists come to the battlefield to try to,” experience the ‘sublimity of a battle scene.’ “Well if they were so curious why don’t they do somebody a favor besides themselves for once and join the army? Then they could experience it firsthand instead of looking at the left-overs.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Cameron W
ReplyDeleteI liked how you compared the battlefields to an industry after the fighting had ceased. It’s true that there were tons of civilians that were attracted to it. Since there were people there for different reasons it ended up becoming like a small society. I also liked how you said, “…dead bodies left behind in battles were a way for people to connect with the war without actually holding a gun themselves.” I think many people went to the battlefields looking for answers and a way to better understand the war. It was the way they did it without joining the war themselves.
In response to Blake:
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your thoughts on the tourists. I have the same opinion that the battlefield should have been treated like a memorial, not a tourist attraction. The soldiers there had died for their country and its citizens should not be disrespectful to them in their last moments. For many the battlefield was a final resting place and it should have been treated respectfully as cemeteries are. I personally don’t understand why people wanted to see the battlefields if they didn’t have to. The battlefields were a place of great turmoil and the horrific sights were almost too much to bear for the people who had to be there. There was no reason for tourists to see it too.
Among the first people to arrive on the battle field were civilians. These were the ones who were in search of loved ones or just curious. This is acceptable way to act after the battle. However, the ones who came to make a profit off of the fallen soldiers (i.e. scavengers, looters, coffin makers, and embalmers) are the worst of the worst. Some are there to steal from the dead while others seek to profit off of the grieving families. Battlefields are places of honor and respect and the scavengers and looters defiled the sacred ground that soldiers died for. The aftermath of a battlefield is no place for these types of people to be. The aftermath is a time for mourning and respect, not a time to seek wealth.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jenna H.:
ReplyDeleteI never included the idea that the coffin makers were ripping people off with their prices and I am glad you said something about that. I do agree with you that the coffin makers would have been more welcome to be there if their prices weren't so ridiculous. I do hawever still think the coffin makers were welcome because they helped the families have a way to honorably take their loved one home.
In response to Cameron W.:
ReplyDeleteAs one soldier explained how he felt about the tourists he said that they were just "gratifying their morbid curiousity." I can understand where the soldier is coming from that he is offended that people would just look at a battlefield with amazement and wonder when actually it was a place of the worst conditions imaginable and the unbelievable numbers of deaths. I understand what you mean when you say that the soldier's deaths should be shown to the world to show how much suffering there was. I also agree that a pulic cause should be recognized publicly also. However, I believe that the recognization and "have their lives and effort appreciated by all" happen maybe a little longer after families get used to mourning for their loved ones. Not as they are just picking them up to take home.
The people who were attracted to battlefields were mostly civilians. They went to look and see if they could find relatives or friends. I think this is acceptable, because there is not really any way for them to find out who died in a battle except word of mouth. Therefore, it is understandable why they would want to go see the remains of a battle. It would be much better for someone to go and identify a body themselves than to have someone tell them a loved one was dead and for them to really be alive, or vice versa. I think it is okay for civilians to go look at a battlefield after a battle.
ReplyDeleteCivilians and fellow soldiers were drawn to the battle field. The civilains came for two reasons. First to find fallen family and friends and that is also why the soldiers went. But other came to rob the dead. I understand the families and friends coming but robbers, thats wrong. You are going to steal from a person after the sacrificed their life to protect you. I don't know what kind of person would do that.
ReplyDeleteIn response to David,
ReplyDeleteI agree when you say that only doctors and soldiers should be on the battlefield. As long as they sort through the dead to find family members. There is no need to let strangers there when all they will do is steal. Its also wrong just for people to come to watch the dying die alone that is not right.
In response to Steven:
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said about people who came to make a profit off of fallen soldiers being the worst of the worst. A battlefield is a place where a battle was just fought. A place where people died for what they believed in. I think that deserves a great deal of respect. I think it is very dishonorable and disrespectful for people to take advantage of an area where many people had just died in a huge fight for what they thought was right.
Naito & Hjelle,
ReplyDeleteI was just basically saying that it is better to have numerous amounts of facts, and peoples different takes/inputs on the given situation. If I was put in the situation as a Historian, then I would want facts/documentations from more then the circle of "sufficient eye witnesses". Then again, the soldiers did "die for their country".
It seems that the curious, the entreprenuerial, and the mourning were the types of people found to roam the battlefield after a conflict. The curious found a battlefield morbidly exiting. To see what happens during a war was the entertainment for the day, even if it was scarring or tramatizing to witness. People went to battlefields for the experience of doing so; because it was so accessable. A war within a country makes the battles close to home, and thus, the homes close to battles. The use of death and violence for entertainment,in my opinion, was quite disrespectful. However, there were much greater wrongs commited during the war.
ReplyDeleteAnother group that found a reason to search a battlefield of wounded and dead were the entrepreneurs. These men or women found that there was profit in war. One such group included the embalmers. This contraversial business consisted of preserving bodies for funeral or shipment. These men or women were perhaps more corrupt in they're reasoning for examining a battlefield, for through death, ironically, they made a living. These people were the least morally good out of all Civil War spectators.
Lastly, those who cared and mourned for the dead could also be found near battlefields after a struggle. The friends or family of a deceased soldier could be found waiting to take they're loved ones home. These genuinely caring men and women were the only people with a moral right to attend the aftermath of a battle, in my opinion, though they're arrival meant that the horrible had occured, a loved man had died. It would be of little interest to the grieving whether they're actions were moral, though they were.
In Response to McKenzie Hamilton,
ReplyDeleteI agree that a family should be allowed to retrieve they're deceased sons, brothers, or husbands, however, you also said that many who stole from the dead may have been searching for they're loved ones themselves. Is it then appropriate to let family, or those claiming to be family, to roam such battlegrounds? Perhaps it was a necessary evil, for those who did not commit the atrocity of thievery were allowed to retrieve they're family members. And perhaps the loss of the ability to search the field would lead to never finding a loved one. Yet it would also prevent desecration of the dead. I wonder, which is more valuable: a thousand found sons or a thousand undesecrated ones? I can't quite decide. It seems there is no right decision on this matter, only a better or worse one.
In response to ryan lynch
ReplyDeleteI like how you mention how these men gave their lives for you and now there are men stealing from their dead bodies. It’s important to remember that a battlefield is a place of honor. It pretty unimaginable how someone could do that
The kinds of people attracted to the battle field after a battle were family members, robbers, civilians looking for "gratifying their morbid curiosity", fellow soldiers, embalmers, and coffin makers. first of all i think that the family members that went to the battle field had all the right in the world to go in search of their lost kin and to recover their bodies for embalming and burial services. Also i think that the robbers and entrepenouers that came to the battle fields were wrong because I believe that it is not right to use dead soldiers and their grieving families as a way to make money and it is also wrong to scavenge from the bodies of the deceased for clothes and equipment.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Battle sites in fact became crowded with with civilians immediately after the cessation of hostilities."(pg.85). The battle sites were swarmed with civilians, family members, and even robbers. I think that the robbers are absolutely selfish and greedy. They took advantage of this terrible situation to get guns and other things that the soldiers had on them when they were killed. The civilians came to the battlefield after the fighting ceased so that they could identify the soldiers for friends or themselves. I think that these people were very strong in being able to swarm the fields directly after battle. Seeing all the blood and death would be very hard for anyone, especially the families and friends.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jordan V:
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement. I think that it would be 10x easier to be with a family member. It would be extremely hard though to witness their suffering.
Civillians were deffinately a majority of the battlefield visitors after wars/ battles, as well as family and scavangers. Civillians tended to visit the battlefield for various reasons, one of them being the hope to find a fellow soldier or family member. Another would be to steel from the deceased or otherwise incapable of defending themselves do to injury. I believe that it shows great respect to the fallen for their commrades, friends, and family members to visit the scene of their death and to in the end give them a proper burail... However it is completely obsured for others to visit the battlefield with all intent to steel bodies and/ or belongings.
ReplyDeleteSome of the people that were drawn to the battle fields were people looking for fallen family members or maybe even some soldiers who were still alive and needed to be tended to, which is only natural. But there were also scavengers who came to search the bodies for valuable things that they could sell; which is acceptable because the dead had no use for those things anymore. But in a perfect world, the dead soldier’s belongings should go to the family but there was no possible way for the government to search each body and send all the soldiers things back to his family.
ReplyDeleteIn response to leephan:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the families were the only ones who had the right to be looking for fallen soldiers after a battle. And if they didn't get their in time the scavengers would possibly already have taken their beloved one's belongings and it would take away from the family's clearence.