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?
After fighting had ceased, a few different types of people were attracted to Civil War battlefields. These people consisted of embalmers, as well as fallen soldiers’ family members. Embalmers were drawn to battlefields by the potential business that would be provided by families desperately seeking “to contemplate one’s husband, father, or son in a state of seemingly sleeplike repose.” Embalmers offered a service “to combat at least some of the threats the war posed on the principles of the Good Death.” Once the fighting had concluded, dead soldiers’ family members also made frequent battlefield appearances. Many of these family members were simply seeking the body of their loved one, clinging to the hope that they could provide them an ever elusive “Good Death”.
My thoughts about these kinds of people are relatively similar. I am not opposed to either of their actions. To me, it makes perfect sense that a family would rather retrieve the body of a fallen loved one than let it decompose without recognition. Also, while many people were openly against embalming during the war, I feel that embalmers represent one of the aspects that makes this country great. Embalmers could all be considered entrepreneurs. They saw a demand for a service rise, so they made that service more readily available. Embalmers were not responsible in any way for the deaths that took place during the Civil War. They just found the means to benefit from them.
“A focus of wonder and horror, battle sites in fact became crowded with civilians immediately after the cessation of hostilities” (85). Almost immediately after battle, civilians would visit for many different reasons. “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 disgusted soldier put it, ‘gratifying their morbid curiosity.’” (85). I can understand why family would want to be there, but the others didn’t belong. Going to a bloody battlefield as a tourist attraction is sick and disrespectful, and trying to make money from the dead soldiers is even worse. Fortunately “most civilians appeared out of earnest desperation to locate and care for loved ones.”(85). Although there were people who came in search of wealth or for “gratifying their morbid curiosity”, the majority of visitors were family, only trying to locate and remember their loved one, which in my opinion isn’t disrespectful.
There were many people drawn to the battlefield after the fighting had diminished. Civilians volunteered to come recover the bodies, they also took possesions from the dead as their own. Even family members of a fallen solider helped to clear the battlefield. There were also embalmers that came to the field, these people made money off family members desperatly seeking their loved ones body. I had thought that these people had done a good cause but were thieves. They pickpocketed the dead which in my opinion, the family of the solider should have possesion of his belongings. That is the only thing the family has to remember their husband, son, etc.
Numerous types of people where drawn to the battlefield after the fighting had ceased. Civilians swamped the fields searching for fallen loved ones, retrieving inherited property and usually the body of the soldier. Finding their loved ones ensured that they could give them a proper burial and also ended the suspense of not knowing what became of the soldier. Unfortunately, scavengers came to battlegrounds. These people made an appearance only for the sole purpose of looting the dead of their possessions. Without said possessions, some men could not be identified and were lost to their families. Embalmers also became common on the battlefields, finding the bodies of fallen soldiers who's family had paid the embalmer to embalm, or preserve, so that they could bid farewell to a loved one who didn’t look decayed. Unfortunately, not all embalmers where kind and only looked for the profit, as with "Huttons and Williams, "Embalmers of the dead" in Washington", as they allegedly embalmed the bodies of fallen soldiers without the families consent, then only to demand pay for their deed with the threat that they would disinter or not return the body if their conditions remained unmet.
I believe that family members and paid embalmers had every right to make an appearance after a battle had concluded. The families of fallen soldiers are entitled to the body and possessions of their loved one. Paid embalmers are also acceptable as they are only carrying out their trade. Scavengers, or thieves if you will, and dirty embalmers should not have disturbed the battlefields. Both only came for the thought of getting rich off the deads’ possessions or the body itself. Of all who came to the aftermaths of battles, most were welcome to do so.
After battle mostly vultar like people appeared. they would feed off of the sorrow of family memebers who had come to retrieve fallen family memebers. The embalmers were the worst of these "vultars". They would embalm boidies without permission or consent from the family and then try and charge for this embalming.There were also those who wanted to transport the dead. They had many ways of doin this. i believe these men could have done more good my not charging for this but they did more good by makin coffins to transport the dead in. Since this was a rare comodity it was a steep price for it.
I personally do not like these people because makin a profit out of death is wrong. also they di many things without consent of family or the military.
Many types of people came to battlefields after the battle had passed. The main one being family. They wanted to keep their family members company if they were injured or in a hospital. "Determined that their loved ones not suffer and die among strangers."(85) Or else these family members wanted to get the bodies and bring them home to have a nice burial. Unfortunately, there were others there too. Scavengers who wanted to take and sell things off dead soldiers bodies. Coffin makers out trying to promote business and make some sales. Embalmers who would like to charge the mourning family to preserve their loved ones. I do not think that these types should be there. And just ordinary people wanting to experience and "gratify their morbid curiosity."(85) To try and make money off grieving family members at their loved ones death scene is wrong. Also to just want to see and look at many dead people with no purpose out there is disrespectful to the dead. The only civilians that should be out there is the dead or injured's family.
I agree with you. Embalmers and coffin makers could be good and help greatly. But they charge for their services. To embalm a body and demand payment when maybe a family can't pay for it is wrong. They go out and only think of the money that the gruesome war and the dead's family members are getting them. Taking advantage of mourning and grieving family is selfish and cruel thing to do.
Many people appeared on the battlefield after the fighting was over for different reasons. “Many families of moderate means flocked to battlefields in order to reclaim bodies, place them in coffins, and escort them home.” The majority of those that appeared were family members searching for their lost family member. Since the means of reporting deaths to families was sometimes “inadequate,” families went to search the fields to find closure and assurance of the death. “Scavengers” also appeared at the battlefield to “rob the dead.” Embalmers, coffin makers, and civilians with “morbid curiosity” could be found in the aftermath of a battle. Embalmers were trying to offer their services by embalming the body which helped “blur the boundary between life and death.” This let the family view the body in a “sleeplike repose.” Coffin makers also would offer their services by advertising their way of getting the body back to the family in relatively good shape. Most were there to offer what they could to the family and also make an honest dollar from it, but some robbed the dead or some embalmers demanded money from the family if they ever wanted the body of their loved one back.
I do not think it was wrong for the embalmers and coffin makers and any of the people that could offer their services to be at the battlefield. Like Nick stated “they saw a demand for a service rise, so they made that service more readily available.” I think it was fine that the families were there as well. They just wanted closure to the death of their loved one. I do not like the idea of civilians being at the aftermath just to watch though. It was in a way disrespectful and sick to the families, fallen soldiers, and current soldiers that their sacrifice was entertainment to them. It was also not the place for those that wanted to make a quick buck by robbing the bodies or ransoming them to the families.
Nick, I agree that embalmers were not wrong for offering their services in the war. Like you said, they were not responsible for the deaths at all, they saw a need arise and they met it. I think you made a great point in saying that they were entrepreneurs. They were able to benefit from something that so many were losing from by making their service more available.
At the end of a battle, many people flocked to the site; some for sincere reasons, others for self-gain. Thieves often were attracted to battlefields to rob the last earthly possessions remaining on the newly-deceased soldiers. Men who made a profit off of making coffins and embalming the dead swarmed the site along with curious spectators who were hoping to experience the "sublimity of a battle scene." These people simply wanted to see what war was all about. Another group was family members looking for their lost kin. They wanted to reclaim bodies and ship them home to be able to provide a proper burial. Families couldn't bear to let their soldiers die and not have some sort to "decent burial."
I find most these "gawkers" incredibly disrespectful and dishonoring to those who died. I especially think those visiting the battlefields to simply see what was going on had no business being there. I have sympathy for family looking for their fallen soldiers. It is difficult to accept the death of a family member, much less have to physically search for their kin and know the corpse they may recover could be mangled.
I agree with what you said. Having the embalmers and coffin makers on the battlefield made it easier for families to employ the services they needed. They knew the importance of preserving bodies for the families and did what they could to ensure the dead were taken care of. Although they occasionally took advantage of other's grief, I believe it was right of them to provide their services.
Very well said. I agree with you- those searching for their family are ultimately the only ones who deserve to be on the battlefield. Those seeking to make a profit off of suffering family members and dead soldiers lack morals. It is only right that those with a need for closure and a sincere purpose should be amongst the fallen, not people whose only purpose is to dishonor and degrade what is left of the soldiers.
After the fighting of a battle ceased, many types of people were attracted to the field. Family members and civilians helped to clear the fields and recover bodies. Family members also looked for soldiers from their own relatives that might have died. Thieves would come to the battlefield and steal possessions of the fallen soldiers. People known as embalmers would offer their services and help “blur the boundary between life and death." Coffin makers earned their share of riches by making coffins for the deceased.
I have mixed feelings about these people. In a way I think that it was worthy for coffin makers and embalmers to offer their services, however, taking advantage of the dead and their families to make a profit is highly shameful. Thieves steeling from the dead, grave robbing in my opinion, is extremely despicable as well. It also shows disrespect for the deceased soldiers who died protecting these scumbags. I agree with Tanner "the only civilians that should be out there are the dead or injurer’s families."
You made some very good points. Especially your comment how "those visiting the battlefields to simply see what was going on had no business being there." The battlefields were already crowded enough with thieves and grieving family members, who I too have sympathy for. There was no need for busy-bodies and it is true that they had no business being there. Excellent points!
Once the fighting was over, people were attractedd to the battle feilds. There were many different people; family members, Theives, embalmers, and coffin makers were some of these people.
I have different feelings about these people. Firstly I believe that the family memebers had the right to look for their lost loved ones. They werent looking for money or trying to take advantage of others, but grieving. Coffin makers were okay, but they also were taking advantage of people sometimes. Yes, they helped families by making coffins for their loved ones but they also took advantage of them. Embalmers were different. They provided the family to veiw the body. The body would then look like it was sleeping. But sometimes it didnt work. Theives were some of they lowliest people on the feild. They had absolutley no right to be out there. I believe that only family really had the right to be out there.
I agree with your post in many ways. People who wanted to see what it looked like simply didn't belong. It wasn't all the glory that it was said to be. They were in the way of those looking for family. Even though the coffin makers and embalmers were mildly helpful they weren't always that way.
I completly agree with what Sarah had posted. The famlies were the only people that should have been out on the battlefield, because they wanted to know where their loved ones were. If the family member had died, they wanted to take the body back and have it buried in his hometown.
hank hammond There are a few different types of people that were said to arrive after the scene of battle. Embalmers, family members, and also looters were said to arrive. The embalmers were to take the bodies and help family members to find their sons, fathers, and husbands. The family members themselves came to find and care for loved ones. Embalmers help that. The looters were thieves that came for clothes and personal items.
I feel gratitude towards the family members and embalmers. I believe that the are doing work for the common good. The looters on the other hand have earned a great disrespect by me. This is not doing a good in my eyes, yet to ones selves in their shoes, my perspective can not be compared to theirs.
I agree with what Larissa said that the people who just came to watch didn't belong. She is correct; they did get in the way of the family members. I also agree that the embalmers to could get in the way sometimes and get a little carried away with their job and lose respect for the dead. But all in all, they were doing a pretty good deed.
There were a couple types of people that were attracted to the battlefield after the fighting had ceased. The big group was citizens entering the battlefield searching for fallen family members and if found to collect their bodies. They would collect the bodies to find out what happened to their loved one and to give them a proper burial. These loved ones wanted to give their fallen loved ones a “Good Death”. Embalmers were also people to come on the field they would embalm (to preserve) the fallen soldiers that were beloved family member to the family that would pay him to. They would pay him to do this so they could pay their respect to the loved ones. The last ones were the worst these were the scavengers. They came to take stuff from the dead.
My thoughts are similar on two and opposed to one. The family members and the Embalmers I do not have a problem with. They would just come for one good reason, to give fallen soldiers a “Good Death”. They just want to see how these soldiers and die and to pay their respect to their loved ones. I am opposed to the “scavengers” because they would steal from the dead. That is an immoral thing to do especially for soldiers that are fighting for their country.
I agree with every thing you say. The Three types of people you said came onto battlefields after the battle had ceased (fallen soldiers family, Embalmers, and scavengers) was exactly right. I also believe that the families of fallen soldiers had the right to appear on the battlefield. I also agree with that the scavengers should not appear on the battlefield. Good job
Many different people came to the battlefields after the fighting. Embalmers, civilians, and scavengers would go to the battlefields once the fighting stopped. Embalmers came in order to find buisness. The civilians came to the battlefields to find their loved ones in order to give them the good death and a peoper burial. This is where the embalmers came in, to find people with lost loved ones and offer their services to the families. The scavengers came for the worst reason, to steal from the dead. They would come to the battle fields to steal jewlery and many more items they could get use out of.
I believe that it was good for the families of lost soldiers to get the bodies of their loved ones, in order to give them a proper burial and to also give them closure on the situation. I also believe that the embalmers were there for good reaons. Many people were in need of money during the war because it was a hard time to keep buisness and anyway that people could support their families was good even if that meant searching batttlefiels for hurting families of the fallen. I do not agree with the scavengers for being there because even though they were in need of money also, they need to respect the dead.
I agree with Golight when he said that stealing from the dead was immoral and a good reason for the scavengers to not have been on the battlefields. Even in need of money they shouldn't have been there out of respect.
After a battle many kinds of people showed up. There were family members, fellow soldiers, embalmers, and looters. The families and soldiers would be their to find fallen brothers, sons, and friends so that they could give them a proper burial. The embalmers would be there to find work. They would hope that the families would want their services to mak their loved ones look more life like for their funeral. The looters were there for one purpose and that was to steel the fallen soldiers belongings so they could make a quick buck. The families and friends have a right to be at the battle field to find their loved ones and there was nothing wrong with them being there. The embalmers were looking for work. You cant be mad at that although I dont think they belonged their because they were not there formorning of the dead they were there to make money from the dead through their morning loved ones. The looters discust me. They had no reason or right to be there. Steeling from the dead in a new kind of low.
As the battle was ceasing family members, embalmers, and people who stole from the dead showed up. The family members were attracted there to look for their lost brother, father, son, or husband in the midst of all the dead bodies on the ground. The embalmers on the other hand were attracted there to make money off the dead. The embalmer would convince the family with a dead soldier that they needed to embalm them so their lost family member could have a "Good Death." Many families bought into it and forked over a couple hundred dollars to make sure their lost soldier was embalmed and buried correctly. Although embalmers took these people's money, they also "offered a way of blurring the boundary between life and death." (93). If the dead soldier looked more life like as they were being buried, it made the family more comfortable knowing that their loss died happy, and not on the scary battlefields. Sadly, some people were attracted to the battlefields to steal from the dead.
Obviously, it is right for a family member to want to give their soldier a proper burial and so the body is not left unrecognized. I think if anyone was put in that situation they would do the same thing, so I do not have a problem with those people on the battlefield. The embalmers were simply trying to earn money off the poor people mourning. I believe it was wrong of them to mooch of the people who just lost their son, father, or husband, but it was a way of making the best of the situation, so I appreciate those people trying to help out with the sad situation of so many deaths. As for the people who thought it was okay to steal the belongings of the dead, I have a big problem with that. It is politically incorrect to steal from someone who is no longer spiritually there. I think it was very disrespectful to steal from the brave men that fought in the war for our country.
There were four main groups of people that came to the battlefields after the fighting ceased. Families of fallen soldiers "flocked to battlefields in order to reclaim the bodies, encase them in coffins, and escort them home," There were scavengers "seeking to rob the dead," Also, "entrepreneurial coffin makers and embalmers," came in search of bodies to embalm and send home to families. The last group was tourist hoping to "experience the sublimity of a battle scene."
In my opinion, the families of soldiers had every right to go to the place where their son, husbands, and brothers died. I have no problem with most embalmers visiting the battlefields. It allowed families who could not visit the battlefields to hire an embalmer to preserve the soldier. However, embalmers who "embalmed soldiers without permission and then demanded payment from grieving families" had no business at the battlefields. The scavengers participated in a morally disturbing activity, and should not have been at the battlefields. Also, tourists should not have been their because they were being disrespectful to the brave soldiers by "staring at (the soldiers) but do not find time to do anything,"
There were many different types of people attracted to battlefields after fighting ceased. There were family and friends “in search of kin”, but that is to be expected. Besides them, there were coffin makers and embalmers most likely searching for business. Unfortunately, not all of the people attracted were good. There were often scavengers that were trying to rob the dead. The battlefields also attracted tourists. One disgusted soldier described their business as “gratifying their morbid curiosity”. These are people that had no reason to be on the battlefields.
I think that it was okay for family and friends of soldiers to be on the battlefields. Even the coffin makers and embalmers had a reasonable purpose for being there. However, I am very disappointed in the tourists and grave robbers. I feel that for the tourists it was much too soon after the battle to visit the fields, especially if there were still dead soldiers on the ground. Even worse than that, there were people robbing the deceased of their belongings. I have no idea how these people could live with themselves.
Chris, I agree that tourists should not have been at the battlefieds. They have no right to stare at the fallen soldiers that have been protecting their country. They disrepected the brave soldiers without even helping. The Civil War was a very hard time for everybody, and after the war should be a mourning time. Not a time to visit the battlefields as if the war was an animal at the zoo.
Like you, I believe that certain people had a right to be on the battlefields after the war. These people included family, embalmers and coffin makers only. Nobody else had a good enough reason to be there. I never thought about “dirty embalmers” however. You make a good point that there are people that seem professional but really have bad motives. Those are also the types of people that have no business being present in the battlefields.
After a battle, many types of people came onto the body-strewn field. These people included civilians from nearby towns, embalmers, friends and families of soldiers, medics, and some of the soldiers who fought along side their fallen comrades. Primarily, friends and families arrived first on the battlefield in hopes of finding their loved ones before they were carelessly buried or devoured by wild animals. Despite the horrible stench and sight of the battlefield, volunteers from neighboring towns came to help carry bodies of the deceased into graves and retrieve any valuable or personal effects. Sometimes, however civilians pick-pocketed the dead or dying soldiers of their valuable possessions which, from my point of view, is very wrong. Medics covered the battlefield in order to try and find the soldiers that were still alive and were able to be saved, but most of the time, their attempts were fruitless. Embalmers took advantage of the dead by charging high prices in order for them to work on the body. By the end of the war, embalmers became very wealthy due to the high price and large demand for embalming. Personally, I dislike the embalmers and thieves. They manipulated death for their own personal gain.
I understand what you are saying. It is wrong for someone to use the death of others for their own advantage. You are right about looters being disgusting and selfish. All they wanted to do was to make some fast money by plundering the dead soldiers of money or valuable personal items on the battlefield. Embalmers, on the other hand, had a right to be there, but they charged so much for the embalmment of a dead soldier that by the end of the war, they were very wealthy. “Public discomfort with embalmers appeared most often in regard to the issue of money and the unsettling commodification of the dead that their business represented.” (96) Some people had the right to be on the battlefield; others did not.
Death is an attractant whether you are a chronicler of history wishing for the lives lost to be recorded or a thief with no respect for anyone but your own greed. The photographers and historians walked the battlefields to document the carnage as is their work. They needed to be there so that the lessons of the war could be learned for as we all know those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it embalmers while overcharging still used their profession to assist the newly made mourners. At least the embalmers showed respect for the dead. These tasks were necessary and right. Only the grave robbers were evil but they disgust me and I find their blatant disregard for soldiers barbaric. Let us hope that their kind is never going to be commonplace.
There were several types of people attracted to battlefields after the “cessation of hostilities”. Families came to the battlefields “out of earnest desperation to locate and care for loved ones.” Sadly, they were also scavengers “seeking to rob the dead.” Also, “entrepreneurial coffin makers and embalmers” came to the battlefield in search of wealth as a result of all the carnage. The last were, “swarms of tourists attracted by the hope of… gratifying their morbid curiosity.”
I think that friends and family of soldiers definitely had the right to find loved ones that were lost so they could be buried properly and so soldiers weren’t left on the battlefield unrecognized. Additionally, embalmers were acceptable unless they tried to swindle grieving families like Hutton & Williams. I find the practices of Hutton & Williams just as distasteful and morally wrong as scavengers who robbed the dead so obviously they should have been forbidden. Tourists shouldn’t have been allowed either, because they did not assist in the aftermath of the battle.
After a battlefield had been deserted, civilians, family, and embalmers were drawn to the battlefield. Civilians were there to help remove bodies and also rob the dead of worthy possesions. Family was there to retrieve their loved one's body; while embalmers were there looking for business. Families had every right to be on the battlefield looking for a loved one. I would do the same for my family. However, I do not think that it was the embalmer's or the civilian's place to be there. To be perfectly honest, I believe it is terrible=y rude of the embalmers to be there looking for business. With the civilians, I am tied. I think it is great that they helped to remove the bodies, but I also think it is very wrong to rob the bodies, especially if their family has not had a chance to remove the body themselves.
I agree with you when you say that embalmers and coffin makers to be on the battlefield, but I do not think that it was respectful to the families and friends of the fallen. Also, when you say that tourists should not have been on the battlefield so soon after, I disagree with you. I will admit that it was wrong, but people have a curious nature. It was almost the same thing with 9/11/2001- people went to the site of the attack as soon as they could to see, but that does not necessarily make it right.
The main types of people were attracted to battlefields after the fighting ceased were families, embalmers, scavengers ,and ordinary people.Families would look for thier loved ones either among the dead or wounded. They just wanted to know what had happen to them either if they were dead, wounded, or just fine. They were their for the soldier's comfort.Embalmers knew that they could make a profit and also help mostly profit.They would embalm fallen soldiers with or without the family's consent of it. Worst of all were scavengers they resembled vultures. They would sneak around and take any valuables off of the dead and sell them to make a profit which was just wrong. Last were just ordinary people who were curious of what had happend on that day of battle.
My thoughts were mostly on the scavengers. I really did not like what they were doing. I mean taking personal belongings from soldiers who just gave their lives to defend their nations. If i was a union soldier back than so to speak, and i saw a scavenger taking personal items of a fallen Union or Confederate soldier i would either somehow arrest them or shoot them because of what they were doing is just unhuman.
I also agree that the Family members and embalmers were doing no harm. They were just trying to find thier loved ones and embalmers were trying to help families who needed their help and were trying to do a good thing. I also disliked what the scavengers or looters were doing. It was just a horrible thing to hear but there were people who did that and thats sad to hear.
After the fighting of the Civil War ceased, many types of people were attracted to the battlefields. These people included fallen soldier's families, embalmers, coffin makers, tourists, and even robbers."Many families...flocked to battlefields in order to reclaim bodies, encase them in coffins, and escort them home." Embalmers and coffin makers were there looking for business from the families. Tourists went to see what the battlefields were like and to "gratify their morbid curiosity." Also, volunteer civilians went to help families find loved ones, and take care of fallen soldier's bodies.
I believe the families and volunteer civilians had the right to go to the battlefields. Relating to now, when the war is over, if Iraq wasn't so far away, I bet there would be families running to those battlefields too. It is just common, they don't want to leave their kin among strangers. I am unsure with how I feel about embalmers and coffin makers on the battlefields. It may have made it easier for the families, but I hope they were respectful of them at the same time. The tourists going to the battlefields were somewhat out of line. I completely understand they wanted to see what it was like, but it was a private place and should have been left for the families and helpers actually doing something.
You bring up a good point about photographers and historians. I didn't even think about them going to battlefields. They supplied newspapers and the photos in our book. I agree with you when you say "They needed to be there so that the lessons of the war could be learned," but I hope they were considerate to the people finding loved ones.
Your post was very well written and I agree with your statement about the tourists who went to battle fields just to gawk at it. That was out of line, and you made a good point when you said that you understand they want to see what it's like but that it was a private place for families and people who were actually doing something.
After the fighting ceased, a variety of different people would come to the battlefield. The author states that, "battle sites in fact became crowded with civilians" and that "besides relatives in search of kin, there were scavengers seeking to rob the dead, entrepreneurial coffin makers and embalmers, and swarms of tourists." (page 85).
I think that it was okay for civilians who wanted to help and families looking for kin to be at the battlefield afterwards, because they don't want to leave their loved ones to die alone or among strangers. It was completely dishonorable for the grave robbers to be there, they should let the dead lay in peace instead of robbing them of their personal belongings after death. Embalmers and coffin makers were there to help, and as long as they treated the bodies with respect, I think that is okay. However, I think that the civilians who came just to gawk had no right to be there. I understand they want to know what it's like but that is almost disgusting- coming to a bloody battlefield to look at the dead and wounded is just not right, I don't know why anybody would want to do that. If they really needed to see a battlefield, there are pictures in the newspapers they can look at.
The parade of people traipsing off to battlefields consisted of family members searching for brothers, husbands, sons, fathers; “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’” (85). In that quote, three specific words make me sick: scavengers, entrepreneurial, and tourists. In my mind, ripping off the dead is just about the worst thing someone can do. Soldiers “robbed the dead with little feeling of propriety or remorse, and thieves and scavengers appeared on battlefields immediately after the end of hostilities.” (74) In the beginning of the war, an act such as this would be outright unheard of. The universal wish of soldiers was to be “honorably buried with one’s comrades and preserved from the desecrations of enemies, human and otherwise . . .” A great effort was put forth from both North and South until “the needs of the living increasingly trumped the dignity of the departed.” (70) Soldiers were not only robbed of their things, but their actual person as well. Some soldiers “arrived in ambulances ‘with their pockets cut off and all records gone.’ They had been robbed of both their possessions and their identities while they lay on the field.” (88) The Civil War was not a scavenger hunt and for that reason, the thought of Civil War scavengers should not be boiling in my blood at the moment.
The word entrepreneurial is just about as ghastly as the previous. The thought of making a profit on the death of over six hundred thousand soldiers during the Civil War absolutely devastates me. It troubled the nineteenth century public as well. There was “great uneasiness about the practice and widespread hostility toward its practitioners.” (98) On top of the apprehension that went along with embalming, imagine a surgeon schlepping on up toward the kinfolk of a late family member. What an appalling thought that is. The last word that curdles my blood is tourist. When I think of tourism I think of Paris, France or the Greek Isles, not a pasture of lifeless bodies. The fact that people actually went to go see such a gloomy sight is immensely depressing itself.
The people who were attracted to battlefields after the fighting ceased went there for all of the wrong reasons. I commend the nurses who in fact made an effort to save some lives or at least the dead bodies from being mugged. If I was there with them I would help them ward off the malicious, cruel, uncaring monsters that did nothing to help those in greater need than themselves.
RE: Baker One thing that you said stood out to me when I was reading your comment. You wrote, “Making a profit out of death is wrong.” Short, simple, what I failed to accomplish in my lengthy reply. You had an opinion about something and you just came right out and said it. I really admire that you took the initiative to say what you thought need to be said.
I agree that stealing from the dead is morally wrong. However, I feel the only circumstance in which this behavior is somewhat acceptable is in times of war. I do not have a problem with soldiers removing useful equipment from the bodies of their fallen comrades. Yet, when it comes to a soldier’s personal effects, I believe they should be left alone.
After the battles of the Civil War had ceased fighting there were several different groups of people to come to the battlefields. These groups included fallen soldier's families, embalmers, coffin makers, tourists, and robbers. Their motives were all different. The families of fallen soldiers came to find and mourn the death of a loved one. Embalmers and coffin makers came in search of business and the opportunity to make money. Tourists came knowing that where they were standing was now a piece of American history, and were there to answer the call of their morbid curiosity. Finally robbers were there of course to steal from the dead and salvage what was good of the dead bodies’ belongings.
My individual opinion is that there was really only one just group of people going to these battlefields, and that was the families of soldiers lost at battle. Embalmers and coffin makers looking to make money off of the death of fallen soldiers is wrong. This was too sensitive of a time to be thinking of one’s wallet, and for those men to advance on that opportunity shows a lack of moral stability. Tourists had no business being there either directly after battle. This is an intimate time that should be reserved for the families of the fallen and for them to be there was not fair to those families looking to pay respects to their lost loved ones. Above all people robbers are the worst. For anyone to have this lack of morals is an embarrassment to this country, these final belongings should be left alone in respect of those that lost their lives fighting for their country.
I have to disagree with your opinions on the embalmers and the coffin makers having just reason to be at those battlefields. While I understand that there was a fantastic opportunity to meet a need and charge big to do it I have to say that this just isn’t right to do at that time. To embalm the body after the family has time to mourn is perfectly fine, but to offer your craft on the battlefield while families are just beginning their mourning process is wrong. This was to sensitive of a time to be searching for business, and to act upon it was sick and wrong.
The types of people that arrived on the battle field after the battle were civilians, embalmers, and scavengers. Most of the civilians were family looking for their husbands, sons, or brothers. The others civilians were there to help clean up from the battle. The embalmers were there to help preserve the bodies of the soldiers, and the scavengers were there to steal the fallen soldier’s possessions. I think that everyone had the right to be on the battlefield except the scavengers. I believe it is very wrong to steal from someone who died for their country, and the soldier’s possessions should have been given to his family.
In response to Hank Hammond I think that Hank brings upa very good point. We dont know what kind of situation the scavendures were in when they sstole the soldiers possesions. They could have been stealing them for a very good reason,such as to sell so that they would be able to feed their families.
After all of the killing came to an end, a few different types of people traveled to battlefields for several reasons. The relatives of the soldiers fallen in action arrived searching for the bodies of their loved ones, wanting nothing but to give their special hero a decent service and a Christian final goodbye. At these locations other people with contrasting reasons for being at these battlefields could also be seen. There were many tourists who decided to visit these places and personally witness the outcomes of the costly Civil War which had been fought by the men they were watching. Scavengers were also spotted robbing the fallen heroes and plenty coffin makers who had come to sell their product here.
I feel that it was okay for the embalmers and coffin makers to be here because this made it easier to honor the men who lay dead a proper burial, and ofcourse the families had all the right to be at these battlefields looking for their friends and family but when it comes to the tourists I believe that they should have waited more time to come and visit these sites, for their presence made many wounded soldiers and others just assisting their comrades very uncomfortable. When it comes to the scavengers I can not even imagine why people would steal from men who were not only dead but died fighting for the beliefs of their people. Their actions were just appalling.
I agree with you because the thieves which came to steal what belonged to the death and take their personal belongings had no right to do this and showed much disrespect with their actions. I also believe that the embalmers and coffin makers did do good in being present at these battlefields, as long as they did treat the bodies with dignity and respect and kept their prices at only a "moderate profit" and not just a complete rip-off.
After the fighting ceased, many civilians were drawn to the battlefields. These people consisted of “relatives searching for their kin, there were scavengers seeking to rob the dead, entrepreneurial coffin makers and embalmers, and swarms of tourists,” (85). From my perspective, people seeking family members who were lost in battle and those attempting to provide a proper burial for the scores of soldiers who were lost are in the right place. Neither the scavengers that were looking for objects of value nor the many tourists trying to experience the aftermath and death have a place in this setting. It is disrespectful to the fallen soldiers and their kin for them to be present here for their own selfish reasons and to be “gratifying their morbid curiosity” (85). As an injured soldier declared “People come form all parts of the country. Stare at us but do not find the time to do anything.” (85) Sure, it is understandable for people to be searching for their loved ones to assure a good burial and for people to assist in the burial, but those with their own inconsiderate reasons are not welcome in such an environment.
In response to Jacob A: After reading your statement "Embalmers and coffin makers looking to make money off of the death of fallen soldiers is wrong.” I questioned the reasoning of why the embalmers and coffin makers were present at the time that they were. It is very true that if their sole purpose of being at the battlefield was to make money off of those grieving for their lost loved ones, then that would be absolutely appalling and inconsiderate. Although this is true, I have to wonder if the embalmers and coffin makers were there to truly help provide the fallen soldier with a respectful burial. If that were to be true, then yes, I believe they would have a reason to be present after battle has ceased.
After the fighting ceased, many types of people were attracted to the battlefields. There were relatives, scavengers, coffin makers/embalmers, and tourists. Relatives would visit battlefields in search of family members (i.e. sons, fathers, etc.) Scavengers would visit the battlefields to exploit the dead. Scavengers consisted of both soldiers and civilians. Coffin makers and embalmers would visit the battlefield for entrepreneurial purposes. They would find mourning relatives and take advantage of them. Tourists would visit the battlefield to get a "taste" for what war was like.
My thoughts of these people are for the most part, not good. The scavengers, coffin makers and embalmers make me sick. These people took advantage of the dead and mourning families for their own profit. On the other hand I do understand why relatives would flock to battlefields, they want to bring their deceased family members home for proper burial.
The people who were attracted to the battlefields the most were the family members of lost one and embalmers. Some civilians did go as well. Many family members came to these battlefields to reflect on the war the their loved ones they lost. Where embalmers went to make a profit off of all that was going on.
I think that all it was okay for the family members and civilians to seek the battlefields. But I don't think it is right for the embalmers to do the same. You shouldn't make money off of other's depression.
I disagree with Erick. I don't think it is okay for embalmers and coffin makers to seek these battlefields. I think family members should have first serve. Wait half a year or so and then let all of the business men do there thing. I also disagree when Erick says embalmers and coffin makers make it easy to honor the dead. I don't understand how you reach that conclusion.
Many people were attracted to the battlefields after the war including family membersof fallen soldiers, embalmers, and coffin makers.
In my opinion, family members had every right to go to the battlefields in search of loved ones or to reflect on the war. On the other hand, embalmers and anyone seeking money had absolutely no right to be there. No matter how great the need for money, I feel it is absolutely uncalled for to seek profit from other's pain and sorrrow. War is not a matter that you can simply take into your own hands.
Many people came upon the cemeteries after the war, with many different purposes. Some, friends and families of soldiers came to search for loved ones and their possessions. Some came for the opportunity to make money off of people's griefs and needs such as the embalmers who often used families' grief as well as extortion to make profits. And some came just for the loot of the many dead soldiers who were powerless to stop them. I believe that the cemeteries should have been closed off to friends and family and should have been guarded to give families additional peace of mind when it came to remembering their loved ones.
Katie, I liked how you expressed your opinion. Those who sought profit from other peoples grief should have been kept out of the graves of the soldiers. Unfortunately it was not the case and many people's last memories about their loved loved ones were hurt just because of the selfishness of others.
While I agree that it is completely acceptable for family and friends to be on the fields, I disagree that embalmers and coffin makers should be allowed. If they were merely trying to honor the dead, I’d be all for it, however these people were not there to honor the dead, they were trying capitalize profits by exploiting the desperate citizens who felt compelled to give their loved ones respectable burials. Embalmers and coffin makers knew that citizens would give nearly anything to provide kin with an admiral burial, and thus took advantage of them.
Many different kind of people came to the cemeteries after the war, such as families and friends of the fallen soldiers. Also embalmers came to make a profit of the fallen soldiers.
I feel that families and friends had every right to be there to honor the fallen soldiers. However I don't feel that anyone trying to make money off the soldiers had any right to be there at all. Friends and families are mourning the loss of loved ones and some people are there just to make money off it.
I agree with what you said about the families having the right to be there. However I completely disagree with what you said about embalmers and coffin makers being allowed there.
Many types of people were drawn to the battlefields of the war after the fighting ceased. “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). Families would search through the bodies, searching for a family member. Embalmers would go through the battlefields searching for work, as would coffin makers. Also, some people would be drawn just to see the chaos.
After the fighting had ceased , many types of people had been drawn towards the battlefield. Such people were civilans who came to recover the bodies and some who came to take the possesions of the dead to claim as their own. Also, family members of the fallen soldiers put forth the effort to help clear what had remained on the battlefield. Also there were Embalmers who would like to charge mourning families to preserve their loved ones. I believe the Embalmers should not have been out there and that the only ones to be out there should have been thefamily members of dead or injured soldiers.
I partially agree with your statement, "No matter how great the need for money, I feel it is absolutely uncalled for to seek profit from others pain and sorrow," I agree with you that it is wrong, but some of the embalmers were helping families get through losing a solider.
I totally agree with you that citizens that came to witness the gruesomeness of the battlefield had no right to be there. They should have tried to assist soldiers and families.
In response to Golight- I believe likewise that two out of the three were acceptable on the aftermath of the battle. Family members because they were searching for their fallen and hoping desperately to provide them with a good death,and elbalmers because their profession required them to retrieve the body. Without aquairring the body, they would be as bad as the scavengers, stealing from the good.
The types of people who were attracted to the battlefeilds after the fighting ceased were relatives in search of kin, scavengers seeking to rob the dead, entrepreneurial coffin makers and embalmers, and tourists hoping to experience the "sublimity of a battle scene." I think most of these people shouldn't have gone to the battlefields. Relatives in search of kin, coffin makers, and embalmers are the only people who had the right to travel to the battlefields, in my opinion, because they had a reason better than robbery or curiosity.
Stephanie- I completely agree with your statement, "I feel that families and friends had every right to be there to honor the fallen soldiers. However I don't feel that anyone trying to make money off the soldiers had any right to be there at all." Making business off of mourning families is just wrong.
Erick- I dont agree that anyone seeking profit had a right to be there at all. Others are suffering, and they are making a profit off of their pain and loss
After the fighting of the battles ceased, many people came to visit the scene of battle, all with different reasons. Families with loved ones in the war came to search for lost family members, embalmers/coffin makers came to search for business, scavengers came to search for anything they could find of value on fallen soldiers, and other people came simply in search of satisfying morbid curiosities.
My thoughts about these people vary depending on the situation with which came their decision to visit the battlefield. I can understand why the mourning families came to find their lost family members, and although I know it would personally bring me more pain to see a dead family member of mine, I know that it was very important to them to have their fallen family members close to home while being buried. But as for the rest of the visitors to the battlefield, I cannot agree with the decisions they made to go in the first place. As for the embalmers and coffin makers, I do understand that it is their business and the scene of a battlefield may cause their business to be quite successful. But still, I think that going there is wrong. When so many people are in mourning for their lost loves, I think it is low to try and make money off of such serious emotional situations. As for the scavengers and tourists, I can't understand how anyone could do such a thing. I think that visiting the scene of a battle to tend your curiosities, is sick. Battle was something real, something that shattered so many lives, it is not something to look upon like a museum. And as for scavengers, I don't see how they could ever do such a thing to living people, let alone to people who have no possible way to defend themselves. I don't understand how anyone could justify doing such a thing in their heads, it's just wrong.
I fully agree with what you stated in your post, and I think that you put it very well when you said, "War is not a matter that you can simply take into your own hands" and also that "No matter how great the need for money, I feel it is absolutely uncalled for to seek profit from other's pain and sorrrow".
In response to Larissa I agree with what you said about how disrespectful the spectators, if you will, were. With, however, the exception of families looking for their lost loved ones. I really like the way you presented your ideas.
After the fighting of the battles ceased there were three different types of people that visited the battlefields. The embalmers, coffin makers, and the families of the soliders. The embalmers were looking for work service. They were looking for families in which wanted to help and preserve the bodies of their loved one/s. The coffin makers were also looking for the same benifit of the embalmers and seeking families in which wanted to give their loved ones a "good death," and a proper burial. The families of the loved ones were looking for any they have heard that have fallen in war, such as a father, son, grandfather, or close friend.
My thoughts on this subject is very nutral. I am hesitate on of the embalmers and coffin makers because it may have been to early for the families to be near the hard subject. Then again I am not against them seeking business because they still had to make some amount of money to servive during the time. The families had every right to visit the battlefields even if it was to get away and think of all their heartachs and problems, or to search for the loved ones that have fallen.
I do agree with you that it was somewhat low to go and seek business in such a heartfelt and serious time. You would think that they would know that the families loved one would be a heavy subject to talk about with a stranger. Then again I still understand their situtation were they to needed money and if that was the way to retrieve customers then I guess it was necessary. The thing about the tourist is that I really do think it was to ease their couriosity but most people were not tourists.
After fighting ceased there were two types of people attracted to the battlefields. One kind was thieves, the other was the families of fallen soldiers. Families came to locate loved ones and take them so they could bury them and give them a good burial. But thieves came to rob a dead man of his clothes. I think it is immorally wrong for a man to steal clothes from a dead body, but if a poor man needs clothes for warmth he will do anything for it.
CJ I agree that it is morally wrong and disgusting for citizens to arrive at the end a battle and to steal from the dead but imagine yourself in there situation, poor, starving and out in the cold with out decent cloths. These people are just doing what it takes to survive
After fighting had ceased, a few different types of people were attracted to Civil War battlefields. These people consisted of embalmers, as well as fallen soldiers’ family members. Embalmers were drawn to battlefields by the potential business that would be provided by families desperately seeking “to contemplate one’s husband, father, or son in a state of seemingly sleeplike repose.” Embalmers offered a service “to combat at least some of the threats the war posed on the principles of the Good Death.” Once the fighting had concluded, dead soldiers’ family members also made frequent battlefield appearances. Many of these family members were simply seeking the body of their loved one, clinging to the hope that they could provide them an ever elusive “Good Death”.
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts about these kinds of people are relatively similar. I am not opposed to either of their actions. To me, it makes perfect sense that a family would rather retrieve the body of a fallen loved one than let it decompose without recognition. Also, while many people were openly against embalming during the war, I feel that embalmers represent one of the aspects that makes this country great. Embalmers could all be considered entrepreneurs. They saw a demand for a service rise, so they made that service more readily available. Embalmers were not responsible in any way for the deaths that took place during the Civil War. They just found the means to benefit from them.
“A focus of wonder and horror, battle sites in fact became crowded with civilians immediately after the cessation of hostilities” (85). Almost immediately after battle, civilians would visit for many different reasons. “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 disgusted soldier put it, ‘gratifying their morbid curiosity.’” (85). I can understand why family would want to be there, but the others didn’t belong. Going to a bloody battlefield as a tourist attraction is sick and disrespectful, and trying to make money from the dead soldiers is even worse. Fortunately “most civilians appeared out of earnest desperation to locate and care for loved ones.”(85). Although there were people who came in search of wealth or for “gratifying their morbid curiosity”, the majority of visitors were family, only trying to locate and remember their loved one, which in my opinion isn’t disrespectful.
ReplyDeleteThere were many people drawn to the battlefield after the fighting had diminished. Civilians volunteered to come recover the bodies, they also took possesions from the dead as their own. Even family members of a fallen solider helped to clear the battlefield. There were also embalmers that came to the field, these people made money off family members desperatly seeking their loved ones body. I had thought that these people had done a good cause but were thieves. They pickpocketed the dead which in my opinion, the family of the solider should have possesion of his belongings. That is the only thing the family has to remember their husband, son, etc.
ReplyDeleteNumerous types of people where drawn to the battlefield after the fighting had ceased. Civilians swamped the fields searching for fallen loved ones, retrieving inherited property and usually the body of the soldier. Finding their loved ones ensured that they could give them a proper burial and also ended the suspense of not knowing what became of the soldier. Unfortunately, scavengers came to battlegrounds. These people made an appearance only for the sole purpose of looting the dead of their possessions. Without said possessions, some men could not be identified and were lost to their families. Embalmers also became common on the battlefields, finding the bodies of fallen soldiers who's family had paid the embalmer to embalm, or preserve, so that they could bid farewell to a loved one who didn’t look decayed. Unfortunately, not all embalmers where kind and only looked for the profit, as with "Huttons and Williams, "Embalmers of the dead" in Washington", as they allegedly embalmed the bodies of fallen soldiers without the families consent, then only to demand pay for their deed with the threat that they would disinter or not return the body if their conditions remained unmet.
ReplyDeleteI believe that family members and paid embalmers had every right to make an appearance after a battle had concluded. The families of fallen soldiers are entitled to the body and possessions of their loved one. Paid embalmers are also acceptable as they are only carrying out their trade. Scavengers, or thieves if you will, and dirty embalmers should not have disturbed the battlefields. Both only came for the thought of getting rich off the deads’ possessions or the body itself. Of all who came to the aftermaths of battles, most were welcome to do so.
After battle mostly vultar like people appeared. they would feed off of the sorrow of family memebers who had come to retrieve fallen family memebers. The embalmers were the worst of these "vultars". They would embalm boidies without permission or consent from the family and then try and charge for this embalming.There were also those who wanted to transport the dead. They had many ways of doin this. i believe these men could have done more good my not charging for this but they did more good by makin coffins to transport the dead in. Since this was a rare comodity it was a steep price for it.
ReplyDeleteI personally do not like these people because makin a profit out of death is wrong. also they di many things without consent of family or the military.
Many types of people came to battlefields after the battle had passed. The main one being family. They wanted to keep their family members company if they were injured or in a hospital. "Determined that their loved ones not suffer and die among strangers."(85) Or else these family members wanted to get the bodies and bring them home to have a nice burial. Unfortunately, there were others there too. Scavengers who wanted to take and sell things off dead soldiers bodies. Coffin makers out trying to promote business and make some sales. Embalmers who would like to charge the mourning family to preserve their loved ones. I do not think that these types should be there. And just ordinary people wanting to experience and "gratify their morbid curiosity."(85) To try and make money off grieving family members at their loved ones death scene is wrong. Also to just want to see and look at many dead people with no purpose out there is disrespectful to the dead. The only civilians that should be out there is the dead or injured's family.
ReplyDeleteBaker,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. Embalmers and coffin makers could be good and help greatly. But they charge for their services. To embalm a body and demand payment when maybe a family can't pay for it is wrong. They go out and only think of the money that the gruesome war and the dead's family members are getting them. Taking advantage of mourning and grieving family is selfish and cruel thing to do.
Many people appeared on the battlefield after the fighting was over for different reasons. “Many families of moderate means flocked to battlefields in order to reclaim bodies, place them in coffins, and escort them home.” The majority of those that appeared were family members searching for their lost family member. Since the means of reporting deaths to families was sometimes “inadequate,” families went to search the fields to find closure and assurance of the death. “Scavengers” also appeared at the battlefield to “rob the dead.” Embalmers, coffin makers, and civilians with “morbid curiosity” could be found in the aftermath of a battle. Embalmers were trying to offer their services by embalming the body which helped “blur the boundary between life and death.” This let the family view the body in a “sleeplike repose.” Coffin makers also would offer their services by advertising their way of getting the body back to the family in relatively good shape. Most were there to offer what they could to the family and also make an honest dollar from it, but some robbed the dead or some embalmers demanded money from the family if they ever wanted the body of their loved one back.
ReplyDeleteI do not think it was wrong for the embalmers and coffin makers and any of the people that could offer their services to be at the battlefield. Like Nick stated “they saw a demand for a service rise, so they made that service more readily available.” I think it was fine that the families were there as well. They just wanted closure to the death of their loved one. I do not like the idea of civilians being at the aftermath just to watch though. It was in a way disrespectful and sick to the families, fallen soldiers, and current soldiers that their sacrifice was entertainment to them. It was also not the place for those that wanted to make a quick buck by robbing the bodies or ransoming them to the families.
Nick,
ReplyDeleteI agree that embalmers were not wrong for offering their services in the war. Like you said, they were not responsible for the deaths at all, they saw a need arise and they met it. I think you made a great point in saying that they were entrepreneurs. They were able to benefit from something that so many were losing from by making their service more available.
At the end of a battle, many people flocked to the site; some for sincere reasons, others for self-gain. Thieves often were attracted to battlefields to rob the last earthly possessions remaining on the newly-deceased soldiers. Men who made a profit off of making coffins and embalming the dead swarmed the site along with curious spectators who were hoping to experience the "sublimity of a battle scene." These people simply wanted to see what war was all about. Another group was family members looking for their lost kin. They wanted to reclaim bodies and ship them home to be able to provide a proper burial. Families couldn't bear to let their soldiers die and not have some sort to "decent burial."
ReplyDeleteI find most these "gawkers" incredibly disrespectful and dishonoring to those who died. I especially think those visiting the battlefields to simply see what was going on had no business being there. I have sympathy for family looking for their fallen soldiers. It is difficult to accept the death of a family member, much less have to physically search for their kin and know the corpse they may recover could be mangled.
Mikayla-
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said. Having the embalmers and coffin makers on the battlefield made it easier for families to employ the services they needed. They knew the importance of preserving bodies for the families and did what they could to ensure the dead were taken care of. Although they occasionally took advantage of other's grief, I believe it was right of them to provide their services.
Tanner-
ReplyDeleteVery well said. I agree with you- those searching for their family are ultimately the only ones who deserve to be on the battlefield. Those seeking to make a profit off of suffering family members and dead soldiers lack morals. It is only right that those with a need for closure and a sincere purpose should be amongst the fallen, not people whose only purpose is to dishonor and degrade what is left of the soldiers.
After the fighting of a battle ceased, many types of people were attracted to the field. Family members and civilians helped to clear the fields and recover bodies. Family members also looked for soldiers from their own relatives that might have died. Thieves would come to the battlefield and steal possessions of the fallen soldiers. People known as embalmers would offer their services and help “blur the boundary between life and death." Coffin makers earned their share of riches by making coffins for the deceased.
ReplyDeleteI have mixed feelings about these people. In a way I think that it was worthy for coffin makers and embalmers to offer their services, however, taking advantage of the dead and their families to make a profit is highly shameful. Thieves steeling from the dead, grave robbing in my opinion, is extremely despicable as well. It also shows disrespect for the deceased soldiers who died protecting these scumbags. I agree with Tanner "the only civilians that should be out there are the dead or injurer’s families."
Larissa-
ReplyDeleteYou made some very good points. Especially your comment how "those visiting the battlefields to simply see what was going on had no business being there." The battlefields were already crowded enough with thieves and grieving family members, who I too have sympathy for. There was no need for busy-bodies and it is true that they had no business being there. Excellent points!
Once the fighting was over, people were attractedd to the battle feilds. There were many different people; family members, Theives, embalmers, and coffin makers were some of these people.
ReplyDeleteI have different feelings about these people. Firstly I believe that the family memebers had the right to look for their lost loved ones. They werent looking for money or trying to take advantage of others, but grieving. Coffin makers were okay, but they also were taking advantage of people sometimes. Yes, they helped families by making coffins for their loved ones but they also took advantage of them. Embalmers were different. They provided the family to veiw the body. The body would then look like it was sleeping. But sometimes it didnt work. Theives were some of they lowliest people on the feild. They had absolutley no right to be out there. I believe that only family really had the right to be out there.
Larissa
ReplyDeleteI agree with your post in many ways. People who wanted to see what it looked like simply didn't belong. It wasn't all the glory that it was said to be. They were in the way of those looking for family. Even though the coffin makers and embalmers were mildly helpful they weren't always that way.
I completly agree with what Sarah had posted. The famlies were the only people that should have been out on the battlefield, because they wanted to know where their loved ones were. If the family member had died, they wanted to take the body back and have it buried in his hometown.
ReplyDeletehank hammond
ReplyDeleteThere are a few different types of people that were said to arrive after the scene of battle. Embalmers, family members, and also looters were said to arrive. The embalmers were to take the bodies and help family members to find their sons, fathers, and husbands. The family members themselves came to find and care for loved ones. Embalmers help that. The looters were thieves that came for clothes and personal items.
I feel gratitude towards the family members and embalmers. I believe that the are doing work for the common good. The looters on the other hand have earned a great disrespect by me. This is not doing a good in my eyes, yet to ones selves in their shoes, my perspective can not be compared to theirs.
hank hammond
ReplyDeleteIn response to Larissa
I agree with what Larissa said that the people who just came to watch didn't belong. She is correct; they did get in the way of the family members. I also agree that the embalmers to could get in the way sometimes and get a little carried away with their job and lose respect for the dead. But all in all, they were doing a pretty good deed.
There were a couple types of people that were attracted to the battlefield after the fighting had ceased. The big group was citizens entering the battlefield searching for fallen family members and if found to collect their bodies. They would collect the bodies to find out what happened to their loved one and to give them a proper burial. These loved ones wanted to give their fallen loved ones a “Good Death”. Embalmers were also people to come on the field they would embalm (to preserve) the fallen soldiers that were beloved family member to the family that would pay him to. They would pay him to do this so they could pay their respect to the loved ones. The last ones were the worst these were the scavengers. They came to take stuff from the dead.
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts are similar on two and opposed to one. The family members and the Embalmers I do not have a problem with. They would just come for one good reason, to give fallen soldiers a “Good Death”. They just want to see how these soldiers and die and to pay their respect to their loved ones. I am opposed to the “scavengers” because they would steal from the dead. That is an immoral thing to do especially for soldiers that are fighting for their country.
Jordan,
ReplyDeleteI agree with every thing you say. The Three types of people you said came onto battlefields after the battle had ceased (fallen soldiers family, Embalmers, and scavengers) was exactly right. I also believe that the families of fallen soldiers had the right to appear on the battlefield. I also agree with that the scavengers should not appear on the battlefield. Good job
Many different people came to the battlefields after the fighting. Embalmers, civilians, and scavengers would go to the battlefields once the fighting stopped. Embalmers came in order to find buisness. The civilians came to the battlefields to find their loved ones in order to give them the good death and a peoper burial. This is where the embalmers came in, to find people with lost loved ones and offer their services to the families. The scavengers came for the worst reason, to steal from the dead. They would come to the battle fields to steal jewlery and many more items they could get use out of.
ReplyDeleteI believe that it was good for the families of lost soldiers to get the bodies of their loved ones, in order to give them a proper burial and to also give them closure on the situation. I also believe that the embalmers were there for good reaons. Many people were in need of money during the war because it was a hard time to keep buisness and anyway that people could support their families was good even if that meant searching batttlefiels for hurting families of the fallen. I do not agree with the scavengers for being there because even though they were in need of money also, they need to respect the dead.
I agree with Golight when he said that stealing from the dead was immoral and a good reason for the scavengers to not have been on the battlefields. Even in need of money they shouldn't have been there out of respect.
ReplyDeleteAfter a battle many kinds of people showed up. There were family members, fellow soldiers, embalmers, and looters. The families and soldiers would be their to find fallen brothers, sons, and friends so that they could give them a proper burial. The embalmers would be there to find work. They would hope that the families would want their services to mak their loved ones look more life like for their funeral. The looters were there for one purpose and that was to steel the fallen soldiers belongings so they could make a quick buck. The families and friends have a right to be at the battle field to find their loved ones and there was nothing wrong with them being there. The embalmers were looking for work. You cant be mad at that although I dont think they belonged their because they were not there formorning of the dead they were there to make money from the dead through their morning loved ones. The looters discust me. They had no reason or right to be there. Steeling from the dead in a new kind of low.
ReplyDeleteAs the battle was ceasing family members, embalmers, and people who stole from the dead showed up. The family members were attracted there to look for their lost brother, father, son, or husband in the midst of all the dead bodies on the ground. The embalmers on the other hand were attracted there to make money off the dead. The embalmer would convince the family with a dead soldier that they needed to embalm them so their lost family member could have a "Good Death." Many families bought into it and forked over a couple hundred dollars to make sure their lost soldier was embalmed and buried correctly. Although embalmers took these people's money, they also "offered a way of blurring the boundary between life and death." (93). If the dead soldier looked more life like as they were being buried, it made the family more comfortable knowing that their loss died happy, and not on the scary battlefields. Sadly, some people were attracted to the battlefields to steal from the dead.
ReplyDeleteObviously, it is right for a family member to want to give their soldier a proper burial and so the body is not left unrecognized. I think if anyone was put in that situation they would do the same thing, so I do not have a problem with those people on the battlefield. The embalmers were simply trying to earn money off the poor people mourning. I believe it was wrong of them to mooch of the people who just lost their son, father, or husband, but it was a way of making the best of the situation, so I appreciate those people trying to help out with the sad situation of so many deaths. As for the people who thought it was okay to steal the belongings of the dead, I have a big problem with that. It is politically incorrect to steal from someone who is no longer spiritually there. I think it was very disrespectful to steal from the brave men that fought in the war for our country.
There were four main groups of people that came to the battlefields after the fighting ceased. Families of fallen soldiers "flocked to battlefields in order to reclaim the bodies, encase them in coffins, and escort them home," There were scavengers "seeking to rob the dead," Also, "entrepreneurial coffin makers and embalmers," came in search of bodies to embalm and send home to families. The last group was tourist hoping to "experience the sublimity of a battle scene."
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the families of soldiers had every right to go to the place where their son, husbands, and brothers died. I have no problem with most embalmers visiting the battlefields. It allowed families who could not visit the battlefields to hire an embalmer to preserve the soldier. However, embalmers who "embalmed soldiers without permission and then demanded payment from grieving families" had no business at the battlefields. The scavengers participated in a morally disturbing activity, and should not have been at the battlefields. Also, tourists should not have been their because they were being disrespectful to the brave soldiers by "staring at (the soldiers) but do not find time to do anything,"
There were many different types of people attracted to battlefields after fighting ceased. There were family and friends “in search of kin”, but that is to be expected. Besides them, there were coffin makers and embalmers most likely searching for business. Unfortunately, not all of the people attracted were good. There were often scavengers that were trying to rob the dead. The battlefields also attracted tourists. One disgusted soldier described their business as “gratifying their morbid curiosity”. These are people that had no reason to be on the battlefields.
ReplyDeleteI think that it was okay for family and friends of soldiers to be on the battlefields. Even the coffin makers and embalmers had a reasonable purpose for being there. However, I am very disappointed in the tourists and grave robbers. I feel that for the tourists it was much too soon after the battle to visit the fields, especially if there were still dead soldiers on the ground. Even worse than that, there were people robbing the deceased of their belongings. I have no idea how these people could live with themselves.
Chris, I agree that tourists should not have been at the battlefieds. They have no right to stare at the fallen soldiers that have been protecting their country. They disrepected the brave soldiers without even helping. The Civil War was a very hard time for everybody, and after the war should be a mourning time. Not a time to visit the battlefields as if the war was an animal at the zoo.
ReplyDeleteJordan,
ReplyDeleteLike you, I believe that certain people had a right to be on the battlefields after the war. These people included family, embalmers and coffin makers only. Nobody else had a good enough reason to be there. I never thought about “dirty embalmers” however. You make a good point that there are people that seem professional but really have bad motives. Those are also the types of people that have no business being present in the battlefields.
After a battle, many types of people came onto the body-strewn field. These people included civilians from nearby towns, embalmers, friends and families of soldiers, medics, and some of the soldiers who fought along side their fallen comrades. Primarily, friends and families arrived first on the battlefield in hopes of finding their loved ones before they were carelessly buried or devoured by wild animals. Despite the horrible stench and sight of the battlefield, volunteers from neighboring towns came to help carry bodies of the deceased into graves and retrieve any valuable or personal effects. Sometimes, however civilians pick-pocketed the dead or dying soldiers of their valuable possessions which, from my point of view, is very wrong. Medics covered the battlefield in order to try and find the soldiers that were still alive and were able to be saved, but most of the time, their attempts were fruitless. Embalmers took advantage of the dead by charging high prices in order for them to work on the body. By the end of the war, embalmers became very wealthy due to the high price and large demand for embalming. Personally, I dislike the embalmers and thieves. They manipulated death for their own personal gain.
ReplyDeleteRe: jeremiah mulloy
ReplyDeleteI understand what you are saying. It is wrong for someone to use the death of others for their own advantage. You are right about looters being disgusting and selfish. All they wanted to do was to make some fast money by plundering the dead soldiers of money or valuable personal items on the battlefield. Embalmers, on the other hand, had a right to be there, but they charged so much for the embalmment of a dead soldier that by the end of the war, they were very wealthy. “Public discomfort with embalmers appeared most often in regard to the issue of money and the unsettling commodification of the dead that their business represented.” (96) Some people had the right to be on the battlefield; others did not.
Death is an attractant whether you are a chronicler of history wishing for the lives lost to be recorded or a thief with no respect for anyone but your own greed. The photographers and historians walked the battlefields to document the carnage as is their work. They needed to be there so that the lessons of the war could be learned for as we all know those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it embalmers while overcharging still used their profession to assist the newly made mourners. At least the embalmers showed respect for the dead. These tasks were necessary and right. Only the grave robbers were evil but they disgust me and I find their blatant disregard for soldiers barbaric. Let us hope that their kind is never going to be commonplace.
ReplyDeleteThere were several types of people attracted to battlefields after the “cessation of hostilities”. Families came to the battlefields “out of earnest desperation to locate and care for loved ones.” Sadly, they were also scavengers “seeking to rob the dead.”
ReplyDeleteAlso, “entrepreneurial coffin makers and embalmers” came to the battlefield in search of wealth as a result of all the carnage. The last were, “swarms of tourists attracted by the hope of… gratifying their morbid curiosity.”
I think that friends and family of soldiers definitely had the right to find loved ones that were lost so they could be buried properly and so soldiers weren’t left on the battlefield unrecognized. Additionally, embalmers were acceptable unless they tried to swindle grieving families like Hutton & Williams. I find the practices of Hutton & Williams just as distasteful and morally wrong as scavengers who robbed the dead so obviously they should have been forbidden. Tourists shouldn’t have been allowed either, because they did not assist in the aftermath of the battle.
After a battlefield had been deserted, civilians, family, and embalmers were drawn to the battlefield. Civilians were there to help remove bodies and also rob the dead of worthy possesions. Family was there to retrieve their loved one's body; while embalmers were there looking for business.
ReplyDeleteFamilies had every right to be on the battlefield looking for a loved one. I would do the same for my family. However, I do not think that it was the embalmer's or the civilian's place to be there. To be perfectly honest, I believe it is terrible=y rude of the embalmers to be there looking for business. With the civilians, I am tied. I think it is great that they helped to remove the bodies, but I also think it is very wrong to rob the bodies, especially if their family has not had a chance to remove the body themselves.
Kendra LaFonte
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you say that embalmers and coffin makers to be on the battlefield, but I do not think that it was respectful to the families and friends of the fallen. Also, when you say that tourists should not have been on the battlefield so soon after, I disagree with you. I will admit that it was wrong, but people have a curious nature. It was almost the same thing with 9/11/2001- people went to the site of the attack as soon as they could to see, but that does not necessarily make it right.
The main types of people were attracted to battlefields after the fighting ceased were families, embalmers, scavengers ,and ordinary people.Families would look for thier loved ones either among the dead or wounded. They just wanted to know what had happen to them either if they were dead, wounded, or just fine. They were their for the soldier's comfort.Embalmers knew that they could make a profit and also help mostly profit.They would embalm fallen soldiers with or without the family's consent of it. Worst of all were scavengers they resembled vultures. They would sneak around and take any valuables off of the dead and sell them to make a profit which was just wrong. Last were just ordinary people who were curious of what had happend on that day of battle.
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts were mostly on the scavengers. I really did not like what they were doing. I mean taking personal belongings from soldiers who just gave their lives to defend their nations. If i was a union soldier back than so to speak, and i saw a scavenger taking personal items of a fallen Union or Confederate soldier i would either somehow arrest them or shoot them because of what they were doing is just unhuman.
In response to Hank
ReplyDeleteI also agree that the Family members and embalmers were doing no harm. They were just trying to find thier loved ones and embalmers were trying to help families who needed their help and were trying to do a good thing. I also disliked what the scavengers or looters were doing. It was just a horrible thing to hear but there were people who did that and thats sad to hear.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter the fighting of the Civil War ceased, many types of people were attracted to the battlefields. These people included fallen soldier's families, embalmers, coffin makers, tourists, and even robbers."Many families...flocked to battlefields in order to reclaim bodies, encase them in coffins, and escort them home." Embalmers and coffin makers were there looking for business from the families. Tourists went to see what the battlefields were like and to "gratify their morbid curiosity." Also, volunteer civilians went to help families find loved ones, and take care of fallen soldier's bodies.
ReplyDeleteI believe the families and volunteer civilians had the right to go to the battlefields. Relating to now, when the war is over, if Iraq wasn't so far away, I bet there would be families running to those battlefields too. It is just common, they don't want to leave their kin among strangers. I am unsure with how I feel about embalmers and coffin makers on the battlefields. It may have made it easier for the families, but I hope they were respectful of them at the same time. The tourists going to the battlefields were somewhat out of line. I completely understand they wanted to see what it was like, but it was a private place and should have been left for the families and helpers actually doing something.
pstidwell,
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a good point about photographers and historians. I didn't even think about them going to battlefields. They supplied newspapers and the photos in our book. I agree with you when you say "They needed to be there so that the lessons of the war could be learned," but I hope they were considerate to the people finding loved ones.
Kristine Ayre,
ReplyDeleteYour post was very well written and I agree with your statement about the tourists who went to battle fields just to gawk at it. That was out of line, and you made a good point when you said that you understand they want to see what it's like but that it was a private place for families and people who were actually doing something.
After the fighting ceased, a variety of different people would come to the battlefield. The author states that, "battle sites in fact became crowded with civilians" and that "besides relatives in search of kin, there were scavengers seeking to rob the dead, entrepreneurial coffin makers and embalmers, and swarms of tourists." (page 85).
ReplyDeleteI think that it was okay for civilians who wanted to help and families looking for kin to be at the battlefield afterwards, because they don't want to leave their loved ones to die alone or among strangers. It was completely dishonorable for the grave robbers to be there, they should let the dead lay in peace instead of robbing them of their personal belongings after death. Embalmers and coffin makers were there to help, and as long as they treated the bodies with respect, I think that is okay. However, I think that the civilians who came just to gawk had no right to be there. I understand they want to know what it's like but that is almost disgusting- coming to a bloody battlefield to look at the dead and wounded is just not right, I don't know why anybody would want to do that. If they really needed to see a battlefield, there are pictures in the newspapers they can look at.
The parade of people traipsing off to battlefields consisted of family members searching for brothers, husbands, sons, fathers; “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’” (85). In that quote, three specific words make me sick: scavengers, entrepreneurial, and tourists. In my mind, ripping off the dead is just about the worst thing someone can do. Soldiers “robbed the dead with little feeling of propriety or remorse, and thieves and scavengers appeared on battlefields immediately after the end of hostilities.” (74) In the beginning of the war, an act such as this would be outright unheard of. The universal wish of soldiers was to be “honorably buried with one’s comrades and preserved from the desecrations of enemies, human and otherwise . . .” A great effort was put forth from both North and South until “the needs of the living increasingly trumped the dignity of the departed.” (70) Soldiers were not only robbed of their things, but their actual person as well. Some soldiers “arrived in ambulances ‘with their pockets cut off and all records gone.’ They had been robbed of both their possessions and their identities while they lay on the field.” (88) The Civil War was not a scavenger hunt and for that reason, the thought of Civil War scavengers should not be boiling in my blood at the moment.
ReplyDeleteThe word entrepreneurial is just about as ghastly as the previous. The thought of making a profit on the death of over six hundred thousand soldiers during the Civil War absolutely devastates me. It troubled the nineteenth century public as well. There was “great uneasiness about the practice and widespread hostility toward its practitioners.” (98) On top of the apprehension that went along with embalming, imagine a surgeon schlepping on up toward the kinfolk of a late family member. What an appalling thought that is. The last word that curdles my blood is tourist. When I think of tourism I think of Paris, France or the Greek Isles, not a pasture of lifeless bodies. The fact that people actually went to go see such a gloomy sight is immensely depressing itself.
The people who were attracted to battlefields after the fighting ceased went there for all of the wrong reasons. I commend the nurses who in fact made an effort to save some lives or at least the dead bodies from being mugged. If I was there with them I would help them ward off the malicious, cruel, uncaring monsters that did nothing to help those in greater need than themselves.
RE: Baker
ReplyDeleteOne thing that you said stood out to me when I was reading your comment. You wrote, “Making a profit out of death is wrong.” Short, simple, what I failed to accomplish in my lengthy reply. You had an opinion about something and you just came right out and said it. I really admire that you took the initiative to say what you thought need to be said.
Danielle
ReplyDeleteI agree that stealing from the dead is morally wrong. However, I feel the only circumstance in which this behavior is somewhat acceptable is in times of war. I do not have a problem with soldiers removing useful equipment from the bodies of their fallen comrades. Yet, when it comes to a soldier’s personal effects, I believe they should be left alone.
After the battles of the Civil War had ceased fighting there were several different groups of people to come to the battlefields. These groups included fallen soldier's families, embalmers, coffin makers, tourists, and robbers. Their motives were all different. The families of fallen soldiers came to find and mourn the death of a loved one. Embalmers and coffin makers came in search of business and the opportunity to make money. Tourists came knowing that where they were standing was now a piece of American history, and were there to answer the call of their morbid curiosity. Finally robbers were there of course to steal from the dead and salvage what was good of the dead bodies’ belongings.
ReplyDeleteMy individual opinion is that there was really only one just group of people going to these battlefields, and that was the families of soldiers lost at battle. Embalmers and coffin makers looking to make money off of the death of fallen soldiers is wrong. This was too sensitive of a time to be thinking of one’s wallet, and for those men to advance on that opportunity shows a lack of moral stability. Tourists had no business being there either directly after battle. This is an intimate time that should be reserved for the families of the fallen and for them to be there was not fair to those families looking to pay respects to their lost loved ones. Above all people robbers are the worst. For anyone to have this lack of morals is an embarrassment to this country, these final belongings should be left alone in respect of those that lost their lives fighting for their country.
In Response to Nick,
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with your opinions on the embalmers and the coffin makers having just reason to be at those battlefields. While I understand that there was a fantastic opportunity to meet a need and charge big to do it I have to say that this just isn’t right to do at that time. To embalm the body after the family has time to mourn is perfectly fine, but to offer your craft on the battlefield while families are just beginning their mourning process is wrong. This was to sensitive of a time to be searching for business, and to act upon it was sick and wrong.
The types of people that arrived on the battle field after the battle were civilians, embalmers, and scavengers. Most of the civilians were family looking for their husbands, sons, or brothers. The others civilians were there to help clean up from the battle. The embalmers were there to help preserve the bodies of the soldiers, and the scavengers were there to steal the fallen soldier’s possessions.
ReplyDeleteI think that everyone had the right to be on the battlefield except the scavengers. I believe it is very wrong to steal from someone who died for their country, and the soldier’s possessions should have been given to his family.
In response to Hank Hammond
ReplyDeleteI think that Hank brings upa very good point. We dont know what kind of situation the scavendures were in when they sstole the soldiers possesions. They could have been stealing them for a very good reason,such as to sell so that they would be able to feed their families.
After all of the killing came to an end, a few different types of people traveled to battlefields for several reasons. The relatives of the soldiers fallen in action arrived searching for the bodies of their loved ones, wanting nothing but to give their special hero a decent service and a Christian final goodbye. At these locations other people with contrasting reasons for being at these battlefields could also be seen. There were many tourists who decided to visit these places and personally witness the outcomes of the costly Civil War which had been fought by the men they were watching. Scavengers were also spotted robbing the fallen heroes and plenty coffin makers who had come to sell their product here.
ReplyDeleteI feel that it was okay for the embalmers and coffin makers to be here because this made it easier to honor the men who lay dead a proper burial, and ofcourse the families had all the right to be at these battlefields looking for their friends and family but when it comes to the tourists I believe that they should have waited more time to come and visit these sites, for their presence made many wounded soldiers and others just assisting their comrades very uncomfortable. When it comes to the scavengers I can not even imagine why people would steal from men who were not only dead but died fighting for the beliefs of their people. Their actions were just appalling.
Jenni Robinson,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you because the thieves which came to steal what belonged to the death and take their personal belongings had no right to do this and showed much disrespect with their actions. I also believe that the embalmers and coffin makers did do good in being present at these battlefields, as long as they did treat the bodies with dignity and respect and kept their prices at only a "moderate profit" and not just a complete rip-off.
After the fighting ceased, many civilians were drawn to the battlefields. These people consisted of “relatives searching for their kin, there were scavengers seeking to rob the dead, entrepreneurial coffin makers and embalmers, and swarms of tourists,” (85).
ReplyDeleteFrom my perspective, people seeking family members who were lost in battle and those attempting to provide a proper burial for the scores of soldiers who were lost are in the right place. Neither the scavengers that were looking for objects of value nor the many tourists trying to experience the aftermath and death have a place in this setting. It is disrespectful to the fallen soldiers and their kin for them to be present here for their own selfish reasons and to be “gratifying their morbid curiosity” (85). As an injured soldier declared “People come form all parts of the country. Stare at us but do not find the time to do anything.” (85) Sure, it is understandable for people to be searching for their loved ones to assure a good burial and for people to assist in the burial, but those with their own inconsiderate reasons are not welcome in such an environment.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jacob A:
ReplyDeleteAfter reading your statement "Embalmers and coffin makers looking to make money off of the death of fallen soldiers is wrong.” I questioned the reasoning of why the embalmers and coffin makers were present at the time that they were. It is very true that if their sole purpose of being at the battlefield was to make money off of those grieving for their lost loved ones, then that would be absolutely appalling and inconsiderate. Although this is true, I have to wonder if the embalmers and coffin makers were there to truly help provide the fallen soldier with a respectful burial. If that were to be true, then yes, I believe they would have a reason to be present after battle has ceased.
After the fighting ceased, many types of people were attracted to the battlefields. There were relatives, scavengers, coffin makers/embalmers, and tourists. Relatives would visit battlefields in search of family members (i.e. sons, fathers, etc.) Scavengers would visit the battlefields to exploit the dead. Scavengers consisted of both soldiers and civilians. Coffin makers and embalmers would visit the battlefield for entrepreneurial purposes. They would find mourning relatives and take advantage of them. Tourists would visit the battlefield to get a "taste" for what war was like.
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts of these people are for the most part, not good. The scavengers, coffin makers and embalmers make me sick. These people took advantage of the dead and mourning families for their own profit. On the other hand I do understand why relatives would flock to battlefields, they want to bring their deceased family members home for proper burial.
The people who were attracted to the battlefields the most were the family members of lost one and embalmers. Some civilians did go as well. Many family members came to these battlefields to reflect on the war the their loved ones they lost. Where embalmers went to make a profit off of all that was going on.
ReplyDeleteI think that all it was okay for the family members and civilians to seek the battlefields. But I don't think it is right for the embalmers to do the same. You shouldn't make money off of other's depression.
I disagree with Erick. I don't think it is okay for embalmers and coffin makers to seek these battlefields. I think family members should have first serve. Wait half a year or so and then let all of the business men do there thing. I also disagree when Erick says embalmers and coffin makers make it easy to honor the dead. I don't understand how you reach that conclusion.
ReplyDeleteMany people were attracted to the battlefields after the war including family membersof fallen soldiers, embalmers, and coffin makers.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, family members had every right to go to the battlefields in search of loved ones or to reflect on the war. On the other hand, embalmers and anyone seeking money had absolutely no right to be there. No matter how great the need for money, I feel it is absolutely uncalled for to seek profit from other's pain and sorrrow. War is not a matter that you can simply take into your own hands.
Many people came upon the cemeteries after the war, with many different purposes. Some, friends and families of soldiers came to search for loved ones and their possessions. Some came for the opportunity to make money off of people's griefs and needs such as the embalmers who often used families' grief as well as extortion to make profits. And some came just for the loot of the many dead soldiers who were powerless to stop them. I believe that the cemeteries should have been closed off to friends and family and should have been guarded to give families additional peace of mind when it came to remembering their loved ones.
ReplyDeleteKatie,
ReplyDeleteI liked how you expressed your opinion. Those who sought profit from other peoples grief should have been kept out of the graves of the soldiers. Unfortunately it was not the case and many people's last memories about their loved loved ones were hurt just because of the selfishness of others.
In response to Erick,
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that it is completely acceptable for family and friends to be on the fields, I disagree that embalmers and coffin makers should be allowed. If they were merely trying to honor the dead, I’d be all for it, however these people were not there to honor the dead, they were trying capitalize profits by exploiting the desperate citizens who felt compelled to give their loved ones respectable burials. Embalmers and coffin makers knew that citizens would give nearly anything to provide kin with an admiral burial, and thus took advantage of them.
Many different kind of people came to the cemeteries after the war, such as families and friends of the fallen soldiers. Also embalmers came to make a profit of the fallen soldiers.
ReplyDeleteI feel that families and friends had every right to be there to honor the fallen soldiers. However I don't feel that anyone trying to make money off the soldiers had any right to be there at all. Friends and families are mourning the loss of loved ones and some people are there just to make money off it.
Erick-
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said about the families having the right to be there. However I completely disagree with what you said about embalmers and coffin makers being allowed there.
Many types of people were drawn to the battlefields of the war after the fighting ceased. “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). Families would search through the bodies, searching for a family member. Embalmers would go through the battlefields searching for work, as would coffin makers. Also, some people would be drawn just to see the chaos.
ReplyDeleteAfter the fighting had ceased , many types of people had been drawn towards the battlefield. Such people were civilans who came to recover the bodies and some who came to take the possesions of the dead to claim as their own. Also, family members of the fallen soldiers put forth the effort to help clear what had remained on the battlefield. Also there were Embalmers who would like to charge mourning families to preserve their loved ones. I believe the Embalmers should not have been out there and that the only ones to be out there should have been thefamily members of dead or injured soldiers.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Katie Sorenson
ReplyDeleteI partially agree with your statement, "No matter how great the need for money, I feel it is absolutely uncalled for to seek profit from others pain and sorrow," I agree with you that it is wrong, but some of the embalmers were helping families get through losing a solider.
In response to Jenni Robinson
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you that citizens that came to witness the gruesomeness of the battlefield had no right to be there. They should have tried to assist soldiers and families.
In response to Golight-
ReplyDeleteI believe likewise that two out of the three were acceptable on the aftermath of the battle. Family members because they were searching for their fallen and hoping desperately to provide them with a good death,and elbalmers because their profession required them to retrieve the body. Without aquairring the body, they would be as bad as the scavengers, stealing from the good.
The types of people who were attracted to the battlefeilds after the fighting ceased were relatives in search of kin, scavengers seeking to rob the dead, entrepreneurial coffin makers and embalmers, and tourists hoping to experience the "sublimity of a battle scene." I think most of these people shouldn't have gone to the battlefields. Relatives in search of kin, coffin makers, and embalmers are the only people who had the right to travel to the battlefields, in my opinion, because they had a reason better than robbery or curiosity.
ReplyDeleteStephanie-
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your statement, "I feel that families and friends had every right to be there to honor the fallen soldiers. However I don't feel that anyone trying to make money off the soldiers had any right to be there at all." Making business off of mourning families is just wrong.
Erick-
ReplyDeleteI dont agree that anyone seeking profit had a right to be there at all. Others are suffering, and they are making a profit off of their pain and loss
After the fighting of the battles ceased, many people came to visit the scene of battle, all with different reasons. Families with loved ones in the war came to search for lost family members, embalmers/coffin makers came to search for business, scavengers came to search for anything they could find of value on fallen soldiers, and other people came simply in search of satisfying morbid curiosities.
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts about these people vary depending on the situation with which came their decision to visit the battlefield. I can understand why the mourning families came to find their lost family members, and although I know it would personally bring me more pain to see a dead family member of mine, I know that it was very important to them to have their fallen family members close to home while being buried. But as for the rest of the visitors to the battlefield, I cannot agree with the decisions they made to go in the first place. As for the embalmers and coffin makers, I do understand that it is their business and the scene of a battlefield may cause their business to be quite successful. But still, I think that going there is wrong. When so many people are in mourning for their lost loves, I think it is low to try and make money off of such serious emotional situations. As for the scavengers and tourists, I can't understand how anyone could do such a thing. I think that visiting the scene of a battle to tend your curiosities, is sick. Battle was something real, something that shattered so many lives, it is not something to look upon like a museum. And as for scavengers, I don't see how they could ever do such a thing to living people, let alone to people who have no possible way to defend themselves. I don't understand how anyone could justify doing such a thing in their heads, it's just wrong.
In response to Katie Sorensen-
ReplyDeleteI fully agree with what you stated in your post, and I think that you put it very well when you said, "War is not a matter that you can simply take into your own hands" and also that "No matter how great the need for money, I feel it is absolutely uncalled for to seek profit from other's pain and sorrrow".
In response to Larissa
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said about how disrespectful the spectators, if you will, were. With, however, the exception of families looking for their lost loved ones. I really like the way you presented your ideas.
After the fighting of the battles ceased there were three different types of people that visited the battlefields. The embalmers, coffin makers, and the families of the soliders. The embalmers were looking for work service. They were looking for families in which wanted to help and preserve the bodies of their loved one/s. The coffin makers were also looking for the same benifit of the embalmers and seeking families in which wanted to give their loved ones a "good death," and a proper burial. The families of the loved ones were looking for any they have heard that have fallen in war, such as a father, son, grandfather, or close friend.
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts on this subject is very nutral. I am hesitate on of the embalmers and coffin makers because it may have been to early for the families to be near the hard subject. Then again I am not against them seeking business because they still had to make some amount of money to servive during the time. The families had every right to visit the battlefields even if it was to get away and think of all their heartachs and problems, or to search for the loved ones that have fallen.
In response to Heidi,
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you that it was somewhat low to go and seek business in such a heartfelt and serious time. You would think that they would know that the families loved one would be a heavy subject to talk about with a stranger. Then again I still understand their situtation were they to needed money and if that was the way to retrieve customers then I guess it was necessary. The thing about the tourist is that I really do think it was to ease their couriosity but most people were not tourists.
After fighting ceased there were two types of people attracted to the battlefields. One kind was thieves, the other was the families of fallen soldiers. Families came to locate loved ones and take them so they could bury them and give them a good burial. But thieves came to rob a dead man of his clothes. I think it is immorally wrong for a man to steal clothes from a dead body, but if a poor man needs clothes for warmth he will do anything for it.
ReplyDeleteCJ
ReplyDeleteI agree that it is morally wrong and disgusting for citizens to arrive at the end a battle and to steal from the dead but imagine yourself in there situation, poor, starving and out in the cold with out decent cloths. These people are just doing what it takes to survive