Jump to content
Shiloh Discussion Group
geminijk

Shiloh dead, artifacts, etc

Recommended Posts

I'm sure some of the bones and skulls did wash into the river in five years between the battle and reburial. actually the unit that was in charge of the reburial was co F of the 25th inf.regt. which was a colored unit that had been transferred from ship island mississippi to rebury the dead at shiloh, the 34th inf. had been sent to corinth for the same purpose. the 34th had three companies as their area covered all of northern mississippi and north alabama. back to shiloh, the 25th was excavating grave sites that had been marked in 1866, they also had one group that policed the battlefield and surrounding area looking for signs of graves and especially in the ravines collecting bones. some of the reburials started in 1866 but as was common for the time this effort concentrated in the east, virginia,penna.,georgia, north and south carolina. this is a subject that has bothered me for several years and I did some research on it several years ago but the material that was available was very limited and if you had told me all this information would have been available on line I would have received quite a chuckle out of it. as far as to why the U.D.C. turned down the offer to move the confederates I can only guess, but it would have been a chore to seperate the bones of so many men, and it may have been that they had some information from the local doctor who was working with the burial party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This brings up the question if some of the bodies or bones in the National Cemetery are from Confederates soldiers and conversely some of the bones in the trenches from Union soldiers. Where ever they are may they all rest in peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there are some pretty graphic photos of one of the reburial parties in cold harbor recovering bodies and loading the bones on a wheelbarrow. it's an image that sticks with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suggested reading for anyone interested in this subject: In another discussion, Idaho Native recommended this book, "A Strange and Blighted Land: Gettysburg the Aftermath of the Battle." It showed up among my Father's Day presents, but I haven't worked up the nerve to read it yet. It includes a huge section on burials and reburials at Gettysburg, but I imagine it speaks to some universal principles that would have applied to any Civil War battle, Shiloh included. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been following this thread with a lot of interest.. It is a very good discussion.. For the record you can still see the location of many of the mass union graves in the park..  There is a marker identifying the location of the 9th Illinois (for example)..  Nearby you can see an sunken spot in the ground where the grave was.. I always found that a little disconcerting..

Now, I need a point of clarification..  The way I am reading all of this is that the CSA burial trenches were dug several years after the battle??  Is that correct??   It was my understanding that these trenches were dug within the next couple of days after the battle.. and were several feet deep before the bodies were placed in it..  In fact, the ground penetrating radar that was used on one of the trenches several years ago showed the bodies starting about three feet down..  Am I mistaken in all of this??

Your Confused Servant

Rebel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rebel: I thought the same thing you did about the burials that both federal and union soldiers were buried after the battle in mass graves, some right next to each other as you point out and as various markers indicate & it was later that they disinterred the federal soldiers and moved them to the National Cemetery. Guess we are both confused. Sharon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it was my thought that the current rebel mass graves were dug right after the battle..  There are as many as 6 more that may be out there that cannot be found..

I knew the federals were buried in mass graves and moved after the war..  I thought the Rebels were put in the mass graves on the 8th, 9th and 10th and left where they were..

Rebel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't have to be all or nothing, one way or the other.

Maybe it is a combination, of some CSA mass graves done immediately by Union soldiers, and also other mass graves of dead removed later from the ravines.

Since there are some mass graves that aren't known, and some known but not disclosed publicly, there is much that is off the record to the public. Not all CSA burials were in the ravines of course, so clearly trenches were dug in some places.  Maybe those ravine reburials are on private property and kept undisclosed to prevent pilaging.

We do know from Union descriptions that many men were buried shallowly in the ravines. I think though, that CDRickman is probably correct about believing few if any bodies remained in these ravines for very long and that for the most part they most likely were reburied in a mass grave, not just washed away. Whether the location of that later mass grave from ravine reburials is known today or not is a different question. But the mass graves are probably a combination of immediate burials by Union soldiers, and later ones by other soldiers and / or civilians.

Elaine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had always believed that the confederatee trenches had been dug immediately after the battle. but nowhere in the eyewitness accounts following the battle do you find any clue to anyone digging pits for the confederates.bodies were recovered from 156 locations across the park and moved. union dead for the most part were buried in unit sites. all eyewitness accounts just after the battle and for the ensuing war years tells of seeing arms and legs sticking from the ground and later of bones and skulls lying around. the burial trenches that are there today would have had to have been 15 or 20 feet deep to even accomadate 200 bodies and by 1900 there would have been no tissue left on the bones. the trenches would have sank 10 feet. the results of the ground penetrating radar bears out the fact of reburial as the remains (bones, pieces of uniform.shoes and boots) were a standard 3 feet from the surface. eyewitness accounts also tell of the stench that was associated with the battle field for several years after. one report from the 70th ohio states that their commander pleaded with the staff to allow him to move his troops from the battlefield to a campsite beyond the stench and disease. and remember this was before the water buffalo so any water they used came from the springs and branches, no spring on the battlefield was not polluted. back to the trenches, on sunday night several reports tell of confederates buring their dead in graves on the battlefield in individual graves when they were excavated in 1867 they were moved to the trenches. according to all the reports I can find all of the bodies that could be located in 1866 and 1867 both confederate and union were moved either to the national cemetery or to the trenches, and basically the identification was made by  what was found with the body or by headboards put up by friends at the time of burial. one report tells of a lady coming by train from north carolina to the battlefield looking for her son who was killed, she employed a couple of locals to assist and after two days of looking she found her son and had a coffin made and shipped his body to north carolina. this would have to have been after the union army had moved from the battlefield. will get back to this later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Eyewitnesses at the Battle of Shiloh compiled and edited by David R. Logsdon there are several pages that refer to the dead.pg 100-103

Chaplain Garner 18th Missouri mentioned "At the landing the dead were so numerous it was impossible to distinguish them Trenches were cut in the southeast part of the little field at the landing and were filled with men placed x-wise only 1 deep." "the aim was to group the dead by regiment if possible but many isolated ones were buried alone and unmarked. Little red mounds rose rapidly all about the woods, some covered 1 man others several men each."

Private Y, 8th Ohio noted ' Heavy details began burying dead Tuesday afternoon the rebels were generally buried 1st. Our own dead were buried with more care."

Wilbur Crummer, 45th Illinois Tues I was detailed with others to bury dead within our camp & a distance of 200 yd in advance. I was in charge of digging the grave 60 ft long x 4 ft wide. Soldiers gathered up bodies, placed them in wagons hauled them to the trench and piled them up like cord wood. All the monument reared to these brave men was a board aniled to a tree at the head of the trench upon which I cut with my pocket knife 125 rebels. We buried our union boys in a separate trench and on another board were these words 35 union. Many men had been taken away and buried separately by their comrades. "

Bell 2nd Iowa - Details of soldiers were scattered through the woods gathering the dead in one instance i saw 230 bodies buried in 1 grave."

Capt H, 18th Wisconsin "I saw 1 grave containing 137 dead rebels and one side of it another grave containing 41 union soldiers several other trenches were in view from that spot."

Boyd, 15th Iowa "When the retreat commenced Monday afternoon wounded rebels had fallen in heaps and the woods had taken fire and burned them On the hillside near a deep hollow our men were hauling them down and throwing them into the deep gully. 180 had been thrown in when I was there?

Here is an interesting comment re Grants remark that all the dead were buried by the 9th.

Private Y, 6th Ohio It was Thursday noon before the last of the dead were buried." He does not specify confederate or rebel though.

I also remember reading somewhere but right now I cannot place where that 721 rebel bodies were placed in 1 trench & as I reflect on it I was assuming at the time I was reading about it that that might be the trench at Tour Stop 5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C.D., let's go back a few posts to your mention of a grave containing the body of a "female with a minie ball in her ribcage." Do you know anything more about her? Were any other female remains found? As you know, my main interest is in the civilian population around Pittsburg Landing in those days. Could that have been a local resident? I've seen nothing that talks about civilian casualties in the battle, but there's a lot that I haven't seen. Yet.

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John here is a news report from the time when her body was found. I think they believed at the time that since she was buried with soldiers that she was a woman dressed as a man and fighting as a man.

" An unexpected discovery was made in 1934 near Shiloh National Military Park. Digging in his garden, Mancil Milligan found a quantity of human bones. He eventually learned that he had stumbled upon the unmarked grave of nine Federal soldiers killed in the battle.

While Milligan's find evoked wide interest in the region, it was not until pathologists examined them that a more interesting discovery was made. One set of bones belonged to a female, probably killed or fatally wounded by the minie ball that lay close to her ribs.

Investigation failed to identify the woman who died at Shiloh. According to some authorities, however, she was the only female positively known to have been killed in combat.  "

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mancil milligan land was on the southeast portion of the park on the bark road adjoining the j.d. spain property. It couldn't have happened to a better qualified person as he was a school teacher and had an interest in the battle of shiloh, in 1940 he published a book entitled shiloh then and now. it was published in Indianapolis, I've been unable to get a copy but am still looking. his wife Ivy who was my first grade teacher and distant cousin through the wood family once told me of the excitement caused by the discovery of these bodies. as far as the trenches go I'm sure there were some trenches dug for the confederates , but a trench 60 feet x4 feet with a 125 men in it would have had to have been 7 feet deep to get them below ground level, so you bury them pile dirt on top and then some brush to discourage the critters. can you imagine the sight when these sites were excavated for reburial. I believe it was boyd when he was writing about the 180 in the ravine that he states the burial party was walking on the bodies to compact them in order to get more in and to get limbs inside the ravine. a trench for 721 bodies would contain approx 5100 cubic feet or a 100 feet long,5feet wide and 10 feet deep just to get the bodies to ground level and this would have been with no air space between them. I also remember the 721 bodies being mentioned but like you I can't remember where, it wasn't in anything I have read recently. when was the first reburial at shiloh? read the 70th ohio history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a very interesting conversation...  What is being presented here totally goes against the grain of what I had always thought.. That was that the burial trenches dated back to the first few days after the battle..

Now, I need someone to help me out here.. If I remember correctly are not the park historians using the presence or absence of rebel burial trenches to determine the ferocity of the fighting in that area??  For example, three trenches are within rock throwing distance of the Shiloh Church..  Well, actually four if you count the one on the back side of Rhea Field..  According to the theory this proves there was fierce fighting in that area...  Part of the argument against the Hornet's Nest fighting being the most severe on the field was the absence of known rebel  burial trenches in the vicinity of the nest..  Now, the way I understand this thread is that these trenches were not dug until after the war and populated with bones and and other items found in the original graves..  If this is the case does this not blow the theory regarding the presence of burial trenches=Fierce fighting out of the water??  Seems to me like it does not only do that but blows it completely up on the bank.. As morbid as it sounds if you are simply riding around throwing bones in a wagon and when you get a load haul it to a burial trench somewhere you could be gathering up bones all over the field.. The nearest trench where you decide to deposit the load could be determined by where the nearest bale of hay is to feed the horses.. The location of the burial trenches means absolutely nothing in the historical context of the battle..

Have I got the gist of this thread or am I missing something here??

Your Servant

Rebel

PS..  I have read and always thought that the rebel burial trench just north of the Crossroads was the largest trench and the one that contained about 700 bodies.. There are two almost side by side in this area.. I am talking about the one closest to the church.. This is also the one that is interpreted..  The sign shows a drawing of  large ditch with bodies piled in it..  If this thread is correct that drawing is not correct..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my research on this subject has completely turned everything I thought I knew upside down, and as I read more the more confused I become. in the book on the church at shiloh there is a sermon that was given at the dedication of the new church in the 1870's where he states that bones are still lying on the hillsides bleaching in the sun, the way he states this it is not a figure of speech but a reality. I had never really done much perusing of the subject on reburials until recently. I had pretty much assumed that when the eyewitness's spoke of arms and legs sticking from the ground they were talking about immediately after the battle and before reburial. and I had always thought that reburial took place in 1866 and the park has always taken the position that was when it occured. but all the records of the 25th inf. do not bear this out.will be  out for a couple of days manning our scout fireworks tent. HAVE A HAPPY 4TH. AND GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An extract from Chapter V, 48th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry History.

We then proceeded to take possession of our old camp, which we found in utter confusion, owing to the two days' battle over the same ground, and the occupation of our tents Sunday night by the enemy. In our absence our private property, including clothing, had been carried away. Our camp and the battle-field was a heart-sickening sight. The bodies of dead horses and wrecks of wagons, caissons, guns, and all kinds of war implements, were strewn over the battle-field. The dead were lying in every conceivable shape. - Some had fallen with their guns fast in their hands; others had received the messenger of death, and with their life-blood ebbing away, had sought the shelter of logs and trees, and laid down to die.

At one place, five rebels had found shelter behind a small tree, one behind the other in a row, when a cannon-ball struck a root in front of them, and glancing upward, passed diagonally through each one-the first at the hips, and the last at the head, severing it from the body! But why dwell longer on the horrid sights that met the gaze all around?

That night, hungry and weary, we slept once more in our old camp. Early next morning, the 8th, we buried the dead in front of the position we held on Sunday morning. Twenty graves were dug, where we buried the dead of our Regiment, and seventy dead rebels were buried in one long trench.

http://www.48ovvi.org/oh48hist.html

The 48th Ohio was part of Buckland's Brigade of Sherman's 5th Division.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The continuing Saga of Digging up stuff on burials:

On page 201-202, Nothing But Victory, I found the following: The work of burying the dead could not wait Usually, though not always, the soldiers buried their comrades in individual graves, marked so their bodies could be exhumed and brought home if desired. Sometimes they laid both Union and Confederate in trenches, though separate trenches. We buried the rebels in long trenches laying them cross wise until the trench was full, putting 150 to 200 in each trench, wade recorded in his diary. it is reported that 4000 were buried in this way. That is what the burial parties reported to Army of the Tennessee headquarters but official Confederate casualty figures listed 1,728 killed. Grant claimed that the Army of Tennessee buried by actual count more of the enemy's dead im front of the division of McClernand and Sherman alone that was reflected in the Confederate report. Total Union killed and wounded was officially 10,162; Confederate casualties were 9,740.

On page 45, History 31st Regiment Illinois Volunteers it reads : Long trenches filled with the dead told where the storm of conflict had raged during the dreadful hours of battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I do think this is a subject that's worth looking into more, but as Sharon has suggested, I think there are just too many first-hand accounts pointing to Confederate soldiers being buried in trenches immediately after the battle to ignore. I'm convinced that the trenches date to April 1862.

Based on what C.D. has told us though, it appears there are references in the record of the 25th Infantry to moving Confederate dead from individual graves and/or ravines into burial trenches. But I suspect that Elaine is correct in that it's not necessarily an either/or question. I'd guess that if these bodies were indeed removed and reburied in such a manner, they were moved into some of the trenches that already existed, or perhaps some new ones were dug for the discovered remains that were not originally placed in trenches.

I don't think the trenches were really all that deep. If I remember right from what I've read they were about three to four feet deep on average. The largest of these, over by Woolf Field, is the one that was long identified as containing some 700 bodies, but somewhere along the line this was discounted as being far too high, at least in part, I think, for the reasons that C.D. states about how deep it would have to be.

Somewhere in one of the books on the battle is a brief discussion about that issue, where the author says that the 700 figure was apparently based on the estimate of one Union soldier. That's about all I remember about it without trying to track down the reference, but the gist of it was that this soldier simply took a guess, and guessed way too high.

I absolutely do not question that local residents came across human remains even many years after the battle. Especially considering the vast area of the battlefield combined with some of the remote locations where fighting occurred. I'm sure that C.D. is right about many graves having yet to be found, and perhaps never will be. It's my totally uneducated guess that when you are just about anywhere out in the park, you are probably within 50 yards of where someone was or is buried.

But, most of the locals also sensibly left the area prior to the battle, and were not around to see the burials after the fact. That they unquestionably found remains scattered across the field even years later is a clear indication that not all the bodies were discovered during the reburial process; but it also does not constitute proof that no bodies were interred rather than simply rolled into a ravine. I don't question that many were, and in fact I'm sure a number must have been. But to borrow from Elaine again, I don't think it has to be an either/or question. You could have had some placed in a ravine, others in individual graves, and still others in mass graves. Which is what I firmly believe happened.

Please understand, I'm not questioning that C.D. has come across some information that may indicate a second look needs to be taken at how the reburial process was conducted. I think he may have done exactly that. And I'm glad he's sharing it here, because it's fascinating stuff. My belief is that you have to go where the evidence points you, even if it goes against what you previously believed. And assuming it does indeed point in a certain direction, which isn't always the case. But that's why I have to believe the trenches date to 1862, because we have clear evidence suggesting exactly that. But based on what C.D. has told us here, the process of the reburials may have been somewhat different than what we've been told before.

Just by way of reference, for anyone who would like to check, Larry Daniel talks about the burial of the bodies after the battle on pages 299 - 300 of his book on Shiloh; Wiley Sword does so on pages 432 - 434 of his book on the battle; and Edward Cunningham discusses it on pages 379 - 380 of his book. Stacy Allen also covers the subject in his 1997 Blue & Gray article. I only have the two-part version, so I'm not sure what page it would be on in the newer combined version. But, all four of these historians indicate that the burial trenches date to immediately after the battle.

Perry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent post Perry Admin. I think we have very reliable first person accounts and all of them are valid (without needing to be 100% accurate in every detail), even if they seem to say conflicting things.

Idaho has shown the many eyewitness Union accounts of the trench burials, and I know there are equally valid eyewitness Union accounts of the ravine burials in other areas. Too many witnesses and participants wrote about these early on, and the burial parties did not deny it, they did their job they were assigned as quickly as possible. They used wagons to transport bodies to newly dug trenches and they left bodies already in ravines where they had fallen in battle, and drug other nearby bodies and rolled them into the same ravine, especially in the areas where the bodies had been burned which made handling them extremely unpleasant, and they pushed dirt down into the ravines over them.

I also think CDR's eyewitness accounts from locals are also very valid. The ravine burials and shallow burials individually, and some shallow trench burials, would have become uncovered fairly easily with all the rain, or after the first winter they'd be easily exposed to view. And the rain is important too in thinking about the work of the burial parties. The earth must have been just soaked. They had had downpours, some said the worst they had ever endured, Sunday night. Imagine trying to dig a grave, thousands of them, in heavy wet waterlogged impossible to spread thick soil, or digging a hole that began quickly to fill with ground water. Imagine trying to shovel mud over a body in heavy wet clumps and trying to have it distibute evenly.

Graves in the woods would be hard digging too with tree roots. In some cases wagons might be hard to get into the brush very close. Were the burial parties going to carry decomposing torn up blown up bodies out on their backs through the tangles and the thick saplings? They dug shallow graves among the roots and threw dirt and leaves over the bodies and moved on to the next and the next.

I think I had even read that arms and legs and torsos blown apart by artillery barrages were hanging from trees. Those would have later rained uncovered bones down. I am sorry to be so blunt but a neat complete burial in such numbers that no American had ever witnessed would have been impossible. But at least an effort was made even if it meant mass trenches and use of ravines. I think no disrepect was meant, only expediency and fatigue mattered in the end.

I think all the eyewitnesses including the civilians reported truthfully what they saw, but each saw different aspects of the larger picture, and the civilians remained much longer to see more things over time. They cannot be discounted.

I think even Rebel's point is also correct, and CDR backs it up in part. If it was impossible to have 700 men in one trench, I think then the body counts in most of those trenches are probably all totally unreliable based on simple geometry and volume. (It might be possible if the 700 had already been reduced to bone however, and gathered later like CDR suggests happened, but certainly not if they were fresh bodies).

That is why Rebel's point is probably correct, if counts of 700 dead here and 300 dead there etc are being used to support a new theory of ferocity and deadliness of a particular battle sector, and the body counts in those trenches are provably impossible or way overblown, and if numbers of bodies were gathered and reburied from other locations a long time later,  then the use of those trench statistics is invalid in making any new theories of the battle. So thanks, Rebel for pointing that out.

This is an extremely interest topic, but it sure makes for some difficult reading.

 Elaine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An extract from the History of the 7th Iowa Infantry Regiment regarding conditions at Pittsburg Landing after the battle and burials.

After the physical and mental strain incident to the excitement

and strenuous exertions of the battle, together with the inclement

weather and discomforts of exposure and lack of proper food and

protection from the elements there was a reaction, which the

dreary weather enhanced, so that there was much sickness and suffering, with no proper places to care for the wounded or sick, so they were loaded

on transports and sent north to hospitals and places where there were

buildings to house them. Pittsburg landing was nothing but a

hamlet, with landing without docks, with steep, slippery banks, up which

all supplies for the army, including forage for stock, had to be carried

on the backs of the men, causing heavy details of all the well men,

most of the time for such drudgery and fatiguing duty. These privations and duty produced a serious effect on the health of the troops,

and dysentery and malaria of a threatening type prevailed among the

officers and men. This was enhanced by the unwholesome water and the

impure atmosphere from the gases arising from the decomposition of

the killed men and animals, which were buried among the camps

with such shallow covering that limbs protruded from many pits.

These causes had the effect of depleting the army to an alarming ex

tent, so they laid in wait in camp for rest, recuperation and for the

accumulation of supplies, for a forward movement until the 27th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Rebel, C.D. anybody else who's had their notions about Shiloh turned upside down lately. I've been studying this battle since I was a child. (I don't remember exactly when I first visited the park, but we drove there in my grandmother's '56 Chevy, and it was practically a new car.) Thanks to this discussion group, I think I've learned more in the last 3 months than in 50 years before that. Thanks, everybody!

John

P.S. I plan to visit Shiloh this Saturday. If any of you happen to be there, I'd like to meet up with you and say, "Hi."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just occured to me John that these guys handwriting and spelling wasn't the best and their writing tools in the field weren't very good either. They often wrote on logs or on their leg as a desk. Anyone who has ever looked at original copies of diaries written in the little books (like those in archives at MHI Carlisle PA) that they carried in their pockets in all kinds of weather and conditions can attest to how hard it is to read them sometimes.  They often are like brief short hand notes and are sometimes written in margins sideways and upside down between other lines with lots and lots of abbreviations. It would be so easy to have jotted down the number 200 in a diary and later read the 2 as a 7 thirty years later trying to reconstruct a shorhand diary entry into a full blown description, Accuracy would be mighty "iffy", especially as to numbers.

I wonder if the originals of this diary claiming 700 are available today. My guess? It was originally meant to be a 2 or even a 1. Either numeral would be very very easy to mistake later as a 7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think with most studies of the battle the burials have been mostly overlooked and most authors have only mentioned them in passing. And I think the park has relegated them to a position of very little importance and have put very little resources into studing them. as is evidenced by most footnotes in books on shiloh where they reference a letter that was written by someone in the dept of the interior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this in the History of the 51 Indiana Infantry Regiment. Keep thinking I might find more info on specific burial sites.

THE colonel's LETTERS.

Colonel Streight wrote home, April 10 :

" Three days after the battle, and 2,000 dead traitors un buried. We

are in an oak forest, seven miles long and two wide. On our reeonnoi-

sanee, we saw 85 wounded, still living, who had had nothing to eat nor

drink since the battle. Our baggage train is 14 miles from here; we

have no tents nor blankets, and sleep as best we can."

On the 17th he wrote "Men who were killed a week ago, are yet un buried; many wounded still uncared for. Doctors are scarce, and numbers of wounded great; perhaps 10,000. We have lost several with smallpox. Mumps

and jaundice give us most trouble. Over 50 cases now in camp."

And on the 22d

:

"Just returned from picket, where we had to remain 36 hours, in a

drenching rain, without sleep or shelter. Lieutenants Fox and Williams

have resigned and gone home, on account of ill health. Lieut. Slavens

died of typhoid fever, at Nasliville, and Lieut. Light died at Lebanon.

Capt. Denny is also dead, and Lieut. Trent resigned."

Again, before Corinth, May 3 :

" We are preparing for battle. The roar of cannon and rattle of mus-

ketry is the music to our march. I have every confidence in my regi-

ment. They will fight bravely, and acquit themselves honorably in

whatever circumstances they may be placed. About 500 able for duty."

Great details of men were made to bury the dead ; and

it was indeed a sad duty, to take up the bodies of those

who had fallen, many of whom had lingered during the

long weary nights of neglect, in the pelting rain, and suf-

fering all the pangs of thirst and hunger, and lay them in

trenches like poles in a corduroy road, without covering,

save a few old blankets, that were made to go as far as pos-

sible, and dirt, that filled eyes and mouths, and through

which the water soaked from the surface. Yet it was all

that could be done. A little board, with pencil marks, at

the head of each poor body, was all the monument erected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[user=81]Wordpix John[/user] wrote:

I'm with Rebel, C.D. anybody else who's had their notions about Shiloh turned upside down lately. I've been studying this battle since I was a child. (I don't remember exactly when I first visited the park, but we drove there in my grandmother's '56 Chevy, and it was practically a new car.) Thanks to this discussion group, I think I've learned more in the last 3 months than in 50 years before that. Thanks, everybody!

John

P.S. I plan to visit Shiloh this Saturday. If any of you happen to be there, I'd like to meet up with you and say, "Hi."

 

John,

I'm with you. This board has been a tremendous help for me in many more ways than one.

On a side note, if you happen to take any pictures while you're at the park, we'd love it if you could share some of them. I know, I'm constantly pestering folks about pictures of the park. But I love seeing them.

C.D. and Sharon - I appreciate very much the information you're sharing with us on this. It might be a little bit controversial, but that's fine. A little controversy never hurt anyone. Well, not much. ;) And it's a subject that deserves attention. Sure seems to be a common theme where Shiloh is concerned, doesn't it. Thanks again.

Perry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...