-
29th July 09, 04:59 PM
#1
Battlefield graves
Having visited many Civil War battlefields, I was familiar with the fact that many, but not all, have cemeteries associated with them (eg. Stones River, Gettysburg, Shiloh) while others (Manassas) had removed the bodies to local cemeteries. Then when I visited the Revolutionary War battlefield of Saratoga (1777), I asked where the casualties were buried, and I was told "All around--in that day, soldiers were buried where they fell." All were unmarked, except for General Simon Fraser. Although some local casualties might have been retrieved by families, most would not have been. Thus, the Concord (1775)cemetery has local American kia, but at the foot of Old North Bridge there are several British soldiers' graves. And they keep finding new bodies on battlefields of all wars--Little Big Horn (1876), Civil War, WWI-II, Vietnam, etc.
Get to the point, Dave.
OK. All these battlefields are war graves--even if picked clean of bones, they are where the soldiers fought, died, and left their blood. They should be respected as such.
"...the Code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules."
Captain Hector Barbossa
-
-
29th July 09, 05:11 PM
#2
 Originally Posted by kiltimabar
OK. All these battlefields are war graves--even if picked clean of bones, they are where the soldiers fought, died, and left their blood. They should be respected as such.
I agree.
"...the brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract..." Lincoln's Gettysburg address
These places will always be hallowed ground.
-
-
29th July 09, 07:11 PM
#3
 Originally Posted by kiltimabar
Get to the point, Dave.
OK. All these battlefields are war graves--even if picked clean of bones, they are where the soldiers fought, died, and left their blood. They should be respected as such.
Well said, Dave. 
Todd
-
-
30th July 09, 03:28 AM
#4
 Originally Posted by kiltimabar
All these battlefields are war graves--even if picked clean of bones, they are where the soldiers fought, died, and left their blood. They should be respected as such.
I disagree. If there isn't anyone buried there, they aren't graves. We shouldn't have to say, "This is a war grave; therefore, be respectful." They should be respected because they are places where men fought and died in a war. But are they all "war graves?" No. "Grave" has a meaning, and if we just say any battle field is a grave, that word has lost its meaning.
-
-
30th July 09, 05:53 AM
#5
 Originally Posted by Scotus
I disagree. If there isn't anyone buried there, they aren't graves. We shouldn't have to say, "This is a war grave; therefore, be respectful." They should be respected because they are places where men fought and died in a war. But are they all "war graves?" No. "Grave" has a meaning, and if we just say any battle field is a grave, that word has lost its meaning.
And I respectfully disagree -- the I way I interepreted the OP was that battlefields should be respected in the same way as war graves (or any other grave, for matter) should be. And while no one may be buried there, men did lose their lives there, which is worthy of our respect alone.
T.
-
-
30th July 09, 07:23 AM
#6
 Originally Posted by cajunscot
And I respectfully disagree -- the I way I interepreted the OP was that battlefields should be respected in the same way as war graves (or any other grave, for matter) should be. And while no one may be buried there, men did lose their lives there, which is worthy of our respect alone.
T.
But that's not what was written. It was stated that, "All these battlefields are war graves." If there are no bodies buried, then it isn't a "war grave," which is what was stated. In your statement, you say that "battlefields should be respected in the same way as war graves." That's different than saying they are war graves.
-
-
30th July 09, 07:30 AM
#7
 Originally Posted by Scotus
But that's not what was written. It was stated that, "All these battlefields are war graves." If there are no bodies buried, then it isn't a "war grave," which is what was stated. In your statement, you say that "battlefields should be respected in the same way as war graves." That's different than saying they are war graves.
On "my" battlefield, we have a sinkhole that contained the bodies of 34 Union soldiers hastily buried after the battle. The remains were later exhumed and removed to the National Cemetery in Springfied. While not technically a grave, I always asked visitors to treat it as such, because soldiers killed at Wilson's Creek had been buried there at one time, and therefore had "hallowed" the ground in a sense.
T.
-
Similar Threads
-
By sirdaniel1975 in forum Kilts in the Media
Replies: 4
Last Post: 21st April 09, 08:55 AM
-
By 12stones in forum Kilts in the Media
Replies: 3
Last Post: 21st July 08, 05:45 AM
-
By timber in forum Kilts in the Media
Replies: 2
Last Post: 1st January 07, 08:57 AM
-
By Mr. Kilt in forum Kilts in the Media
Replies: 3
Last Post: 21st March 06, 08:54 PM
-
By Riverkilt in forum Kilts in the Media
Replies: 3
Last Post: 2nd October 05, 10:26 PM
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks